GARCETTIS TAKE HEAT OVER PLAN PAIR'S ACTIONS ON TERM-LIMIT MEASURE DRAWING CRITICISM.

Byline: BETH BARRETT Staff Writer

City Ethics Commission head Gil Garcetti and his son, City Council President Eric Garcetti, have come under criticism for how they have handled the controversial term-limits/ethics-reform ballot measure.

Amid efforts to fast-track a scheme to give City Council members a third term, an Ethics Commission special meeting was canceled after Gil Garcetti said he had a scheduling conflict. At least one commissioner was prepared to sharply criticize the measure's ethics provisions as ineffective.

At about the same time, Eric Garcetti, as chairman of the Rules Committee, assigned someone to write a pro-measure argument for the November ballot -- but not an opposition one.

Both Eric and Gil Garcetti did not return calls for comment.

Jason Lyon, past co-chairman of the Silver Lake Neighborhood Council, said he called the council president's office Tuesday to ask to write the opposition argument but was told it was too late.

``What I was told was the process was closed,'' said Lyon, who said that while he supports extending term limits he objects to including the issue with ethics reform.

David Gershwin, Garcetti's chief of staff, denied he told Lyon the process had been closed, saying he told him instead, ``The appointments had been made.''

Technically, however, only the ``pro'' argument had been assigned at the Aug. 2 committee meeting led by Garcetti because no one had contacted City Hall to ask to write an opposing view.

``It's not the role of the council to drum up an argument for or against

a measure,'' Gershwin said.

Gershwin said that since Lyon's expression of interest, the Rules Committee will hold a special hearing on the matter today.

City Clerk Frank Martinez said the city election code does not require both pro and con arguments on sample voting ballots, and said it would not be unusual to have just one side represented.

Martinez said next Monday is the deadline for ballot arguments and that his office was notified of the special Rules Committee meeting today just within the 24-hour notice period.

Questions about whether there has been adequate public input on the term-limits measure continues to raise questions.

``We're concerned about the manner it got put on without openness, transparency, and without the Ethics Commission getting a chance to draft it,'' said Jeff Jacobberger, who has joined with Lyon in opposing the measure.

``It really goes against everything I believe in.''

Jacobberger, son of League of Women Voters of California President Jacqueline Jacobberger, said that while much of the current opposition is over the process and whether ethics rules will be weakened, the goal also is to get a number of opposing voices to address the entire measure.

Last Wednesday, Eric Garcetti appointed Liza White, president of the League of Women Voters of Los Angeles, one of the groups that initiated the ballot measure, to write the ballot argument in support of it.

The controversy comes amid questions over why the Ethics Commission never took up the issue.

The commission's executive director, LeeAnn Pelham, initially indicated in an e-mail that Gil Garcetti, the panel's head, would be able to attend a special meeting on the issue July 31, a day before it was scheduled to be heard by the City Council.

In a July 27 e-mail, Pelham wrote to commission Vice President Bill Boyarsky that ``Gil's inclination'' is to meet on the issue July 31.

The e-mail went on to say that Gil Garcetti and Commissioner Sean Treglia could make the meeting, but that Commissioner Robert M. Saltzman was traveling and could not. The commission's fifth seat is open.

Saltzman said he notified the commission in advance that he would be out of town. He said Pelham told him she thought there would be a quorum anyway.

Boyarsky said that evening he talked to Gil Garcetti during an event hosted by former City Councilwoman Cindy Miscikowski, and told Garcetti he was going to vote against recommending the term-limit extension and ethics package to the council.

``I said, `You know I'll vote against this thing. You know how I feel about it.' ... I wanted to make clear, if (we) had the meeting, I wouldn't vote for it.

``If we had had a meeting, and I had voted against it -- if the Ethics Commission failed to endorse the proposal -- it would be bad for the people who favor this scheme.''

Boyarsky said Garcetti responded, ``Oh, OK,'' and noted that he probably had another engagement that would conflict anyway.

Shortly after the conversation with Boyarsky, Gil Garcetti e-mailed Pelham: ``I saw Bill earlier this evening and he told me about the Monday meeting. I don't know if I can make it ... Sorry for the mix-up.''

Gil Garcetti did not return calls for comment.

Pelham said she hadn't been able to schedule the special meeting sooner because she'd been out of town on personal business.

Without Garcetti, the panel did not have a quorum and the meeting was canceled.

Boyarsky said Garcetti had known for some time that he opposed the measure but didn't try to pressure him to change his view.

And Boyarsky also said that while he would have attended the July 31 meeting he felt it probably would have been meaningless.

``This whole thing was a done deal; we were completely bypassed,'' he said.

City Attorney Rocky Delgadillo, who questioned the legality of linking term limits and the ethics package, said it should more properly be the subject of public hearings and the Ethics Commission.

``The public deserves to understand these so-called reforms; that's why the Ethics Commission was created. I'm very disappointed that the Ethics Commission wasn't able to consider these issues, whatever the reason for the meeting's cancellation.

``Certainly the people of Los Angeles have been cheated.''

beth.barrett(at)dailynews.com

[phone]