OFFICIAL TAKES HEAT FOR BUNGLE; PROJECT LIST LEFT OUT OF VOTER PAMPHLETS.

Byline: Beth Barrett Daily News Staff Writer

Los Angeles City Clerk Michael Carey accepted blame Monday for the errors that left the list of proposed police and fire projects out of voter pamphlets for the April 13 election, a bungle that could jeopardize passage of the $744 million bond measure.

``This was my mistake,'' Carey said Monday. ``It was the city clerk's responsibility to get it right. I didn't do that.''

A series of human errors, faulty new procedures, and the absence of checks and balances within the City Clerk's Office contributed to the absence of the list in the mailing to 1.3 million voters last week.

When the omission came to light Friday, Mayor Richard Riordan was infuriated. The list was at the heart of the campaign by Riordan and other top city officials to assure voters the city would spend the bond money as billed - unlike in the past when bond promises to San Fernando Valley voters in particular went unfulfilled.

The bond measure faces a tough battle in that it needs two-thirds voter approval. It would add about $32 to the yearly tax bill of the average $160,000 home.

Slated for construction are a new central police headquarters, four replacement police stations, two new police stations, 17 fire stations and a new fire air operations facility in Van Nuys. The Valley stands to get six of the new fire stations and two of the police stations, among other facilities.

The list is now being reprinted for a special mailing anticipated to cost up to $340,000.

Carey said it appeared Friday that City Attorney James Hahn's office did not forward the list for inclusion in the pamphlet. Upon further review, Carey said it had been received and had been misfiled by his office.

The completed pamphlet was subsequently proofread by three election officials - entry-level, middle and senior managers - none of whom questioned where the attachment, referred to in Proposition 1's narrative, actually was. The city's election supervisor, Kris Heffron, did not proof the document and helped her boss shoulder the blame.

``I didn't read it. I take the blame. It was my responsibility, and I should have read through it,'' Heffron said. ``I made the wrong decision where the support for this election was needed.''

None of the three employees will be disciplined, she said.

``These people feel as badly as I do. They honestly thought they were doing the right thing. We all know there was a mess-up. Frankly, they're disciplining themselves more than I could.''

In deconstructing the problem, Carey said the proofreading gaffes were part of a broader system failure.

The list of projects, or Exhibit 1 as it is referred to on Page 21 of the voter pamphlet, was submitted to election officials and placed in the council file more than six weeks ago.

However, election officials who work out of a different city building misfiled their copy and never went to nearby City Hall East to look at the file.

Election officials put their copy of the projects list with the election ordinance, which is published in newspapers as part of the election-notification process, but did not also file it with the bond resolution, which is what gets printed in the pamphlet.

``In the future, we need to go back through the council file, as the source document on what the council voted on,'' Carey said.

Further, election officials sent an electronic version of the bond language, which they had received from the City Attorney's Office, to the printer without proofreading it. Had they done so, they might have caught the reference to the missing list. The use of electronic versions had been considered more efficient and cheaper, but officials now acknowledge it is flawed.

Assistant City Attorney Colin Chiu, who handled the transmittal, said he was ``flabbergasted'' that no one checked the final language for the pamphlet against what the council had actually approved. He said he sent e-mails to the City Clerk's Office as a courtesy to keep it abreast of developments.

``Why did they do it that way?'' Chiu said. ``There's no assurance that what I sent over was even what the council adopted. You always have to check the council file.''

Election officials said in the future they will proofread hard copies of the final bond language before sending the versions to the printers, in addition to checking them against the council file.

Once this year's pamphlet language was ready for the printers, none of the three people who reviewed it questioned why Exhibit 1 did not appear on Page 22, despite the reference to it.

Carey said proofreaders are instructed to read for content. However, Heffron said none of the three involved in the Proposition 1 miscue had ever worked an election before.

Saying the division has experienced almost a complete turnover, Heffron said, ``This is an extremely . . . hellish election year.''

Carey pledged the city would become ``overly cautious in our proofing'' in the future.

In that vein, he added that election officials will be instructed to take ballot measure language back to the authors - be it the council, or others - to make sure that what gets printed is actually what was intended.