KO'D PROP. R OUT ON JUDGE'S RULING -- BUT CITY FILES APPEAL ON TERM LIMITS.

Byline: KERRY CAVANAUGH and RICK ORLOV Staff Writers

In a stinging rebuke to the Los Angeles City Council, a judge yanked a measure off the November ballot that would have given council members an extra four-year term, saying it unconstitutionally combined the issue with ethics reform.

But within hours, City Attorney Rocky Delgadillo's office filed an emergency appeal in an effort to keep the measure alive past today's deadline for printing the ballot.

The three-page ruling capped two months of City Council efforts to fast-track Proposition R, which received little input from neighborhood councils, the public or the city's Ethics Commission. Community activists and opponents of giving the City Council a third, four-year term have lambasted the council for packaging the scheme with a slate of campaign finance and lobbyist reforms.

In his ruling, Los Angeles Superior Court Judge Robert O'Brien concurred with those concerns and cited the state Constitution's requirement that a ballot measure address only one subject.

``Each of these subjects are separate from the other and present clearly different public policy questions,'' the judge wrote. ``One does not encompass another. Nor are they together reasonably related, or germane to each other or to a common theme, purpose or subject.''

Opponents of the measure hailed the decision.

``This one was a pretty obvious play. They are doing ethics reform that they don't bother to send by the Ethics Commission, and then connecting it to term limits when the two aren't connected,'' said Paul Jacob with the group U.S. Term Limits, which encouraged the court challenge.

``When you look at the whole package, you see that this is a dirty trick being played on the voters of Los Angeles.''

But Council President Eric Garcetti defended the measure, which he said was designed as a comprehensive program to reduce the influence of lobbyists.

And he complained that the court decision robs voters of an opportunity to decide whether to reform city government.

``I trust the voters themselves, who are intelligent, who are thoughtful and who can vote on these two interrelated issues. People are tired of special interests dictating what happens at City Hall.

``At the end of the day, there is a fundamental question of whether we trust voters or whether they should be babied.''

But the judge's decision reflected a 10-page opinion issued by Delgadillo more than a month ago in which he warned the City Council that Proposition R could leave the city open to a legal challenge.

Delgadillo now finds his office defending the very measure he had questioned on the same grounds that the judge cited.

But spokesman Nick Velasquez said the office believes that O'Brien erred in his ruling.

Velasquez said his office has requested that the court leave Proposition R on the ballot while the issue is being considered by the Second District Court of Appeal. It was unclear Thursday whether that court would act quickly enough to meet today's deadline.

``The city is charged with defending measures the city has put on the ballot,'' Velasquez said. ``That is what we have done and that's what we're going to do.''

Under current city law, City Council members are limited to two, four-year terms in office. Without an extension, seven of the 15 members will be termed out in 2009. Five others, presuming they are re-elected, would be termed out in 2011.

The measure to extend their terms was proposed by the Los Angeles Area Chamber of Commerce and the League of Women Voters, whose members have been considering for several years an initiative to extend term limits.

In addition to the extension, Proposition R would restrict lobbyists from making campaign contributions, prohibit lobbyists from serving on commissions and institute new reporting requirements for independent expenditures.

At one point, the groups considered trying to gather enough signatures to put a term-limit extension on the ballot. But instead, this summer they forwarded their proposal to city leaders -- just about three weeks before a deadline to put measures on the Nov. 7 ballot.

Los Angeles voters approved term limits in 1993 for City Council members, the mayor, city attorney and controller.

While term limits have helped usher in younger, more diverse city leadership, some have complained that it also has resulted in a loss of experience and expertise in city government.

But even supporters of extending term limits have raised concerns about the crafting of Proposition R.

Valley Industry and Commerce Association President Brendan Huffman said there is less financial accountability and less long-term planning in local government because of term limits.

``Nonetheless, it's unfortunate that the term-limits measure was written in this way and it's unfortunate the City Council ignored the city attorney's advice and it's unfortunate that voters won't have an opportunity to vote on term limits by itself,'' he said.

Bob Stern, of the Center for Governmental Studies, said he was not surprised by the judge's decision because of the city attorney's earlier warnings.

``It's too bad the City Council didn't just put the term limits on the ballot,'' Stern said. ``They had a justification for doing it, and voters could have voted yes or no.

``Instead, the City Council played games with the measure, putting in irrelevant ethics measures that have nothing to do with term limits.''

Tom Hogen-Esch, a political science professor at California State University, Northridge, said he was surprised by O'Brien's ruling because city councils usually are given more latitude in placing matters before voters.

``There is the concept of home-rule authority, and cities are usually given some leeway,'' Hogen-Esch said. ``But I can understand the court's reasoning and the council probably could have avoided this by limiting the measure to dealing with term limits only. In that sense, it's kind of their own fault.''

With little public debate, the City Council voted to put Proposition R on the ballot, and many members vowed Thursday to continue to push for a term-limit extension.

``People need to realize how complex it is to get things built and how long it takes to get things done in Los Angeles,'' said Councilwoman Jan Perry. ``People have always had the right to vote someone in and vote someone out. I don't think term limits have worked out as people expected.''

Councilwoman Wendy Greuel said she supports term limits, but she wanted voters to decide which is better -- two terms or three.

Councilman Dennis Zine said he believes that is what the council should do now with the proposals.

``I think we need to review the court's ruling and then go sit down with the neighborhood councils and have a debate on this on its merits,'' Zine said. ``This is an important issue, and we need to be more inclusionary in how we approach this.

``Instead of doing something on our own, I think we should meet with the neighborhood councils, the Ethics Commission and look at all the issues raised here and develop something that has support.''

Councilman Herb Wesson said he was disappointed with the ruling but would not give up efforts to extend term limits.

``We will see what happens with the appeal, but at this point we should look to move forward,'' Wesson said. ``This is an important discussion. and if it is not going to be decided by voters in November, we can look at it for next March or next June'' during the next scheduled municipal elections.

``The route to take now is to deal with only term limits and build the right kind of coalition across the city,'' he said. ``I am optimistic that we will be able to get enough support to put this across the finish line.''

kerry.cavanaugh(at)dailynews.com

[phone]

CAPTION(S):

7 photos, box

Photo:

(1) Eric Garcetti

(2) Janice Hahn 

(3) Alex Padilla 

(4) Jan Perry

(5) Ed Reyes

(6) Jack Weiss

(7) Dennis Zine

Box:

Term limits

SOURCE: Daily News research

Gregg Miller/Staff Artist