FOES OF PROP. R TO ASK JUDGE TO CLARIFY WORDING LANGUAGE CALLED TOO VAGUE.

Byline: KERRY CAVANAUGH Staff Writer

Opponents of Los Angeles' term limits/ethics reform measure will ask a judge today to remove ballot language they say exaggerates the proposed lobbyist restrictions and obscures the extra term City Council members would receive if it passes.

The Not PropR campaign filed the petition in Los Angeles Superior Court, arguing that the council rushed Proposition R onto the November ballot with no review by the public or the city's Ethics Commission, and the title and ballot language reflect that obfuscation.

``Together, they're part of an effort to really mislead the voters about the scope of the reform,'' said Jeffrey Jacobberger, an attorney and leader of the Not PropR campaign. ``This soft-pedals and downplays what the measure really does, which is lengthen term limits.''

But supporters defended the title and said they plan their own fight against opponents' ballot language. ``We will file our own petition challenging what we consider to be gross misstatements in their ballot opposition,'' said Ron Gastelum with the Los Angeles Area Chamber of Commerce.

And David Gershwin, chief of staff for council President Eric Garcetti, said the ballot title has already passed review by the council's legal advisers.

Proposition R would allow council members to run for a third four-year term and would enact ethics policies, including limiting campaign contributions from lobbyists.

But the petition filed by opponents charges that the ballot title is deliberately vague, asking voters to amend the city charter to ``change'' council member term limits to three terms. Council members can currently serve only two four-year terms. The Not PropR campaign wants the ballot title to say the measure would ``lengthen'' council member term limits to three terms.

That's the way City Attorney Rocky Delgadillo's staff wrote up the first draft of the ballot measure. But the council voted to amend the ballot title, replacing ``lengthening'' with ``change'' -- an alteration opponents contend was a conscious effort to confuse voters.

``The City Council weakened the language to state merely that the measure would `change' council member term limits without clearly informing voters whether the change would shorten or lengthen the limits,'' according to the Not PropR court filing.

But supporters said the ballot title is not misleading. ``The ballot title is very, very clear we are changing the law on term limits,'' Gastelum said.

The petition also seeks to remove what opponents say is false information in the ballot argument filed by the Los Angeles Area Chamber of Commerce and the League of Women Voters in support of Proposition R.

For example, opponents are critical of a line that says Proposition R would mean ``no more travel junkets.'' Jacobberger said current city laws already prohibit elected officials from accepting more than $25 in gifts from lobbyists in a year.

``Unless you're really in the know about these things, you don't know there's a $25 limitation,'' he said. ``Reducing it from $25 to zero is worthy, but you shouldn't mislead the voters into thinking council members can take golfing trips to Scotland (under current rules).''

Opponents also take issue with statements that Proposition R would prohibit former elected officials, appointed commissioners, board members and high-level employees from lobbying the city for two years after leaving city service. In fact, the opponents say, the measure would bar only elected officials from lobbying for two years.

City Clerk Frank Martinez said the city will ask the judge to rule quickly because the ballot title must get to the county clerk for printing by Aug. 31 and the city must begin printing its sample ballot by Sept. 8.

kerry.cavanaugh(at)dailynews.com

[phone]