Reform or reversal? Two terms for councilmembers isn't enough to deal with complex issues.

PROPOSITION R, the November City of Los Angeles ballot measure was conceived by the League of Women Voters of Los Angeles and the Los Angeles Area Chamber of Commerce to amend the City Charter and Municipal Code to reform City Council term limits, campaign finance disclosure and regulation of lobbyists.

Other measures on the state and city ballot will ask the voters to authorize spending money. These will be important decisions affecting the quality of roads, water, schools and other essentials. Proposition R is not about spending taxpayer money. Proposition R will actually save taxpayer money while reducing the influence of special interest money on our city government.

At the heart of the city's identity and ability to function are the laws that set the rules of conduct for city governance. While we rely on elected officials and appointed commissions such as the Ethics Commission to follow and implement the rules, it is still the right and the obligation of the people to help establish the rules. When it comes to major ethics reform, voters deserve the right to be heard. That is why Proposition R asks the voters to decide, not the mayor, the City Council, the Ethics Commission, the neighborhood councils, or lobbyists. They are welcome to join the debate, but in this instance they should be content to advise and not decide.

Proposition R threatens powerful interests. The ink was barely dry on our proposal to put this measure before the voters when those with something to gain and a well-funded out of state term limits advocacy organization began a furious campaign against it. They filed lawsuits to remove Proposition R from the ballot. They filed another lawsuit attacking our ballot arguments. They have gone to extraordinary lengths to mischaracterize why this measure was drafted and what it will do. In fact, a judge recently ordered opponents to remove false and misleading statements from their ballot argument. Opponents claim that the process is flawed because the measure has been prematurely presented to the voters. They mean, before it could be watered down and pulled apart in the usual grind at City Hall.

Seize the opportunity

We disagree that the status quo is fine, or that City Hall will reform itself. A two-term limit for city council members was not the cure-all that was promised. Furthermore, ethics reform is long overdue. We like the emphasis the city's leadership has put on ethics reform, but as good as these proposed policies may be, they do not have the force of a vote of the people that amends the City Charter and Municipal Code.

In many respects our city government is performing well. We are not in a crisis. On the other hand, it is critical that voters seize the opportunity to assess our term limits, campaign finance rules, and lobbyist regulations, and make needed changes. The voters haven't attended to this critical oversight function since 1990 when they approved Proposition H establishing the Ethics Commission.

It is apparent to many in our community, including former Mayor Richard Riordan, an earlier champion of the current term limits law, that two terms for city council members is not enough to deal with the complex and politically risky issues this city faces and to stand up to the special interests. How do we build the kind of leadership this city needs to maintain relations with surrounding cities to coordinate action on highways, ports, security, electricity, water, and other big issues that can only be dealt with effectively on a regional basis? How do we produce a leader of the caliber and stature of longtime Council President John Ferraro in two short terms? The L.A. River, the Port of Los Angeles, LAX--they all present major challenges that won't be solved overnight or within the span of two city council terms.

Anyone who spends time around City Hall knows that some of the most influential special interests effectively and regularly advance their agenda, yet do not register as lobbyists. The current rules are difficult to enforce. A simpler and cleaner registration requirement is needed. Proposition R does this, and in no uncertain terms, bans campaign contributions by lobbyists, service on city boards and commissions by lobbyists, and gifts from lobbyists to city officials.

Proposition R closes lobbyists' loopholes, fairly presents the question of whether a three-term limit for council members will serve the city better than the current two terms, and mandates tough new public disclosure of campaign payments by independent expenditure committees and their contributors.

Elected officials and city commissioners work for the people. We can and should set the ethical standards and terms of office. Read Proposition R. Don't be fooled by the diversionary tactics of opponents that want to leave this decision to those who will benefit, rather than the voters and Los Angeles as a whole.

Gary Toebben is president and chief executive of the Los Angeles Area Chamber of Commerce. Liza White is president of the League of Women Voters of Los Angeles.

TWO VIEWS

These two opinion columns take opposing sides on Proposition R, the L.A. political reform measure on the Nov. 7 ballot.

Proposition R would amend the Los Angeles City Charter by allowing city councilmembers to serve three terms instead of two. It also would ban lobbyists from making campaign contributions to city councilmembers and from taking seats on city boards or commissions. Former elected city officials could not lobby the city for two years after leaving city service. Also, councilmembers, their staff workers and city commissioners would have to attend ethics training classes.

City Hall