PROP. R GAINING INITIAL SUPPORT.

Byline: KERRY CAVANAUGH Staff Writer

A controversial measure that would give Los Angeles City Council members an extra four years in office was receiving broad support from city voters in partial returns Tuesday night.

Measure R captured the majority of the absentee and early tallies, a strong showing for a proposal that had been blasted by community activists who said it camouflaged an unpopular lengthening of term limits with popular ethics reforms.

The ballot measure was proposed by the League of Women Voter of Los Angeles and the Los Angeles Area Chamber of Commerce.

And having those two recognizable and trustworthy organizations as sponsors helped persuade voters, said John Shallman, consultant for the Yes on Prop R campaign.

``It's a good government initiative,'' Shallman said. ``Everything from the three terms to restrictions on lobbyists seemed like a good package.''

But Jason Lyon with the Not PropR committee said his group's message was overpowered by a wealthy campaign that raised more than $900,000 from developers and companies that do business with the city, and was able to send out mailers that suggested that the measure would enact term limits to ``prevent City Council members from serving for life.''

In fact, City Council members are currently limited to two terms and the measure would allow them to serve three terms.

``If voters approve it, it's really a testament to the power of big money being able to mislead the public on the content of ballot measures,'' said Lyon, co-chairman of the Not PropR campaign, organized by neighborhood council activists to fight the measure.

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

Measure R was proposed by the Los Angeles chamber and the League of Women Voters, who have wanted to roll back term limits for several years.

At one point, the groups considered trying to gather enough signatures to put a term-limit extension on the ballot.

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. The City Council fast-tracked the measure, and bypassed neighborhood councils and the city's Ethics Commission, which was denied an opportunity to vet the ethics-law changes proposed.

League of Women Voters of Los Angeles President Liza White admitted the time crunch may have fueled criticism.

``We were trying to get the details right,'' she said.

However, City Attorney Rocky Delgadillo publicly trashed the measure and warned the City Council that it would be open to legal challenges.

Community activists were troubled that the proposed measure was written by the Sutton Law Firm, which has represented lobbyists before the Ethics Commission.

One ethics commissioner also said publicly that the measure would weaken existing lobbying rules. And opponents argued that the ballot measure was designed to mislead the public by packaging an unpopular term-limits extension with popular ethics reforms.

In August, West Los Angeles resident Neal Donner filed a lawsuit, arguing that it violated the state constitution by combining two issues -- a term-limit lengthening and ethics-law changes -- in one ballot measure.

Los Angeles Superior Court Judge Robert O'Brien agreed and ordered the measure off the ballot.

The next day a panel of appellate court judges put the measure back on the ballot, but postponed a decision on whether the measure is legal until after the election.

Last week, U.S. Term Limits President Paul Jacob said his group did not want to overturn the will of the voters and would drop its legal challenge if the measure passes.

However, neighborhood council activist David Hernandez vowed to continue the legal fight to overturn the measure.

[e-mail]

[phone]