REFORM PANEL TO RELEASE REPORT; SOME ON ELECTED COMMISSION OPPOSE UNIFIED EFFORT.

Byline: Rick Orlov Daily News Staff Writer

The reform movement for the Los Angeles City Charter moves into its next stage today when the elected Charter Reform Commission - evenly divided on the critical issue of mayoral power - releases its draft proposal.

At a series of meetings scheduled for the first full week of January, the elected commission and the separate City Council-appointed commission will consider a package of compromises that would allow them to join forces behind a single plan that combines the work of the two panels.

It will not be an easy sell to the elected Charter Reform Commission.

A Daily News survey of commissioners found that at least seven members oppose or are leaning against the plan developed by a conference committee of the two panels.

And only one, elected Commission Chairman Erwin Chemerinsky, is an outspoken proponent of the conference committee proposal, called the unified charter.

``I think the greatest hope for charter reform is to have one proposal,'' Chemerinsky said. ``I worry about competing plans that could leave voters confused and then they vote no.''

Chemerinsky acknowledged the difficulty he will have in persuading elected commissioners to back the new plan.``A lot of them are playing it very close to the vest and not making a commitment one way or the other,'' he said.

The plan fashioned mainly by Chemerinsky and appointed commission Chairman George Kieffer is to be submitted to the elected panel on Jan. 5 and to the appointed commission on Jan. 6. If the two agree, it will be submitted to the City Council. The plan could be submitted to voters in June.

Chemerinsky said he has received assurances the council would not make any changes in the unified proposal and he received some support from a key council member.

Council President John Ferraro, while noting he didn't agree with the entire compromise proposal, said he would support the package in its entirety.

But for several commissioners, the compromise proposal rankles - particularly after months of meetings and hearings that went late into the night and through weekends.

``I've always come from the feeling that we're the elected Charter Reform Commission and we were elected by the people of Los Angeles to listen to their concerns,'' Commissioner Janice Hahn said.

``We aren't accountable to the appointed commission. We aren't accountable to the council, and we're not accountable to the mayor.

``I believe the voters of Los Angeles are smart and will be educated about this. I don't think the voters in June of 1999 are going to be uninformed.''

Also, other commissioners, such as Nick Pacheco, believe voters would be able to decide among one or two charter plans.

``I don't think it would hurt to have more than one proposal,'' Pacheco said. ``It would give people a choice and also might drive up interest.''

Pacheco said he remains troubled that the conference committee proposal eliminated a number of things that concerned him, including making it easier to recall elected officials and giving power to neighborhoods.``I'm really concerned with the way it was watered down,'' he said.

Another member who is opposed outright to the consensus plan is Commissioner Marcos Castaneda.

``I don't appreciate what's been done,'' Castaneda said. ``The people of the city of Los Angeles elected us for a specific purpose, to objectively change our City Charter to be more responsive. The appointed commission's plan keeps the status quo.

``By us joining forces, it's diluted some of our original positions.''

Other commissioners who indicated they were leaning against the compromise plan include Dennis Zine, Chet Widom, Paula Boland and Bennet Kayser.

Undecided members include Anne Finn, Bill Weinberger and Rob Glushon. Commissioner Ken Lombard refused requests for an interview, and Commissioners Richard Macias and Jackie Dupont-Walker could not be reached for comment.

Many were like Zine in saying they opposed the unified charter's call for advisory neighborhood councils, and prefer to give greater power to neighborhood councils by allowing them to have some say over planning issues.

``You keep hearing about NIMBYism, but there would still be controls,'' Zine said.

He pointed to the commercial development of the former General Motors factory in the San Fernando Valley as evidence that local decision-making councils could work.

``There would still be controls, and it would still involve the City Council. People should have a right to decide if they want a pool hall or a liquor store in their neighborhood. All the councils will do is lead to negotiations so everyone is happy,'' Zine said.

All of the commissioners contacted said they have not received any pressure or lobbying, but they do feel some tension.

``We have more at stake than just what charter we support,'' Weinberger said. ``What we have at stake is, I was elected to represent my district on the commission as well as the whole city. I want to make sure that whatever I stand behind for the ballot is something I feel is best for the city.''