EDITORIAL : TRUST THE VOTERS COUNCIL SHOULDN'T DEMAND THE RIGHT TO VETO THE WORK OF A CITIZENS' CHARTER COMMISSION.

THE San Fernando Valley-driven movement for a citizens committee to draft a new city charter and restructure Los Angeles government - and put it to a public vote - is absolutely democratic.

But it jeopardizes the status quo. And, predictably, some City Council members are reacting coolly to the idea even while they say - for public consumption - that they trust the people to design a new structure of local government.

That's what Valley leaders proposed June 6 when they called for an overhaul of the outdated city charter in a way that bypasses the mayor and council.

The Valley Economic Alliance proposed the appointment of a 21-member committee - with no elected officials and no city employees. It would have two years to conduct public hearings and study the charter, and another year to rewrite it. After that, the issue would be placed directly on the ballot.

But some council members are pushing the self-serving notion that the council must reserve the right to insert amendments or alterations in the document before it goes to the voters.

Councilman Nate Holden said it would be flatly irresponsible to give an appointed group power to put reforms on the ballot without council approval. ``They could just dismantle city government - destroy it,'' Holden said.

Councilman Richard Alarcon - who endorsed the reform proposal - said, like Holden, that the council should retain final approval authority.

And Councilman Hal Bernson said Wednesday that he would insist on allowing the council to change the commission's product.

Bernson said this is ``too important'' not to be ``reviewed and approved by the council.'' The Valley councilman also said the charter needs to be reviewed but ``I'm not sure a mob-rule type of situation is the way to go with it.''

Huh?

First of all, the majority of the charter commission - 15 of the 21 members - would be the council's hand-picked choices. If that's a mob, it's the council's mob.

Secondly, what on earth could be ``too important'' for voters in a democracy to decide for themselves without interference from politicians? Bernson has it backward; the people should reserve the most important decisions for themselves.

Third, if the council doesn't like the commission's recommendations, the council can put its own rival proposal on the ballot.

That's precisely what the council did in 1993, when a term-limit initiative spearheaded by then-private citizen Richard Riordan won a place on the city ballot. Hoping for more liberal limits for themselves, council members drew up a looser measure and even gave it a better spot on the ballot.

All of that underscores a point made by Valley civic leader and city fire commissioner David W. Fleming last week as he publicly initiated the call for charter reform in a way that bypasses the council and mayor.

``It should come from the people to the people - unfettered by those in power with turf to protect,'' Fleming said. ``The new charter must not nor cannot be viewed as the product of insiders. The underlying public distrust of government must never be forgotten.''

The council shouldn't forget it, either.