MOMENTUM OF REFORM ON SIDE OF SECESSION.

Byline: H. ERIC SCHOCKMAN Local View

AGAINST all odds, the electorate of Los Angeles voted overwhelmingly to pass a new charter for the governance, entrepreneurial development and civic realignment of the city.

The continued debate about charter reform has created an opening for more radical thinking about urban governance. Indeed, the notion that city government is too remote and that communities have too little control over their fates was an incentive to press on with reform in an effort to do more than just rearrange the ``deck chairs on the Titanic'' to prevent the dismantling of the city. What made charter reform ``real'' this time (it failed in its last five efforts since 1925) and gave impetus to this reformist climate was due in large measure to the secessionist movement - linking such diverse areas as Eagle Rock, Venice, Wilmington/San Pedro and the San Fernando Valley.

Secessionist tendencies are not new to this area, nor to the evolution of our nation generally. Americans like their local governments to be small, even intimate in scale. However, two major local factors have propelled this more blurry Utopianist phenomenon into more pragmatic reality: (1) the thrust of smaller unincorporated areas (like Malibu and West Hollywood) to break away from the county of Los Angeles aided by what is known as the ``Lakewood Plan'' that allows these new municipalities to purchase cheap contract services (like police or fire services); and (2) the demise of the old Mayor Tom Bradley governing coalition that stitched together a 20-year multiethnic, transgeographic regime.

The convergence of these two factors - the idea of smaller municipalities offering cheaper services and the political vacuum resulting in turf identification and fiefdom over the notion of a unified city political coalition transcending borders - have indeed meant that the political momentum is on the side of the secessionists (at least in the short term).

This momentum started when Gov. Pete Wilson signed into law AB 62 back in October 1997, which gave the San Fernando Valley and other California jurisdictions the right to secede with less detachment barriers (i.e., it removed city councils' veto powers over seceding areas). It has taken us to the latest apparent victory: the inevitable attainment of $1.8 million in state funds for the financial study needed to determine if a vote on secession can occur. The state allocation would cover nearly 80 percent of the project costs. Along the way, it has picked up new converts to the cause of a comprehensive analysis underlying secession - like powerful Assembly Speaker Antonio Villaraigosa, D-Los Angeles.

This momentum will continue on the side of the secessionists if the implementation of charter reform ordinance drafting becomes politicized. Remember the charter passed by the voters is but a shell, or commands, that need implementing legislation to come alive. Yes, ``the devil will be in the details,'' and at this juncture all the authorizing parties involved in molding this final product for July 2000 roll-out bring a certain agenda to the table.

Questions immediately come to the surface:

Can a City Council with a majority of members who campaigned against charter reform remain objective and nonobstructionist?

Will City Attorney James Hahn, whose legal staff must draft the technical language (and who is also a declared candidate for mayor), subvert the charter language into self-serving mayoral perks or campaign advantage?

Will Mayor Richard Riordan (and his respected staff) responsibly assist in the drafting and not overplay his hTand to jockey for greater mayoral powers than ascribed to him in the charter proposal?

What we need now is a broad-based citizens watchdog group to oversee charter implementation. Secessionists should also be part of this effort since there is no guarantee of detachment with or without an affirming Local Agency Formation Commission study. Half a loaf is still better than none. A system of finely tuned neighbor councils would, for example, still be better than what we have today.

In the long term then, the political ``tea leaves'' reading the fortunes for secession are still murky. Reformism may calm down, the economy may even get better and the new charter might actually work.