THE MAYOR'S RACE: JOEL WACHS.

As the Daily News considers its endorsements, the top candidates in the Los Angeles city mayoral race have sat down with our editors and reporters for interviews. We are providing excerpts from these meetings to help voters make more informed decisions on Election Day, April 10. Today we provide excerpts from our discussions with City Attorney James Hahn and Councilman Joel Wachs. For previously published interviews with other candidates, visit us online at dailynews.com.

Joel Wachs has served on the Los Angeles City Council for 29 years.

Q: What are the benchmarks by which a Joel Wachs mayoral administration could be measured come November 2002, when the Local Agency Formation Committee plans to have the various secession issues on the ballot?

A: Benchmark is probably a good word to use because the answer is also benchmarks. ... I want to benchmark (every city department), and that's what you use as your base. There are standards by which you can judge every single department. That concept is one that I think worked really well. We've pushed now to finally deal with the sewer system. ... We did get some major changes within the operation system, and I think that will be a road map for more.

But every one of the road maps they do requires you to eliminate positions. And then nobody is willing to do it. I'm willing to do it. I don't care if I'm a one-termer. You can't do it alone. But someone's got to push.

(Mayor Richard Riordan) started in that direction and then he just sort of didn't. He backed off, I guess feeling he couldn't get it done, or he wanted people to like him or whatever. Well, I'm not running for king of the senior prom down there.

I think that if you provide meaningful benchmarks and if you provide meaningful standards by which you can judge things and you involve (the community) ... that's where I would involve the neighborhood councils. I would let every neighborhood council start grading people on the delivery of services a year after (the benchmarks) come out. Let them be involved. What services do they want government to provide? What are they willing to pay? How well are they providing it?

I was in London about 10 months ago or so, talking to the people there. They were putting in this system of ``best value,'' and it's really interesting. They had actually involved the boroughs in making the judgments as to what services they want, what they're willing to pay, what their priorities are, how well they're doing and all. It just forces everyone to be more responsible.

Q: What's your analysis of Riordan's tenure?

I think he's done exceptionally well in involving himself with the school district even though that's not our legal jurisdiction. But I think that's an exercise of power in a positive way. He did well finally in bringing about charter reform, although I think he compromised it too much again thinking that the unions would somehow be compromised. ...

But you know my views of how much importance I put in what I think neighborhood councils could be if they are given the resources and the power, and at least that got into the charter. While I think a lot of people are just giving lip service to it now, I think it still has the ability to get going.

I think (Riordan's) attempt to make (the city) more business-friendly and set a tone has been really good. There's weaknesses, but I think he's done some really good things.

Q: Where does that leave the city?

A: It leaves the city today not significantly changed from when he started.

Q: You are aggressive in your approach toward the Los Angeles Police Department and reform. Why?

A. Reform and public safety are not mutually exclusive. I think that it's really imperative that people not feel they somehow have to choose between reform and public safety. In fact, good officers - who are the overwhelming number - know that themselves. They're tainted by the bad, and they're hurt by a lack of the kind of public support they should have for the kind of job they do and the risks they take everyday with their lives. They should be a part of the process of cleaning it up.

I think the department is willing to reform itself. I think that was one of the big problems. I don't think people are able to be objective when they look at themselves. I don't think reform comes as readily from within as it should. Yes, reform should happen from within, but I don't think the management was willing to look at itself. It was willing to look at the rank and file - but who's looking at it and seeing what role they play?

If meaningful reform doesn't take place, then it happens again and we keep paying for it. On the other hand, this is not in any way anti-police. I don't see it as that at all. I see it as part and parcel of making the police more effective. I am a big advocate of the police - as you know I have always been. I have a lot of support from rank-and-file officers. I feel really strong on community-based policing. I feel really strong on public safety being the No. 1 priority, because it just is.

Q: Is the consent decree about reform and public safety?

A: If the mayor and the chief and all had been willing to really bring in an independent, outside local group, we might not have had to have a consent decree. The moment we called for (outside review of the LAPD), they cried, no, no, no - we can do it ourselves; we can do it ourselves.''

Well, you could do it yourselves but you haven't, and there was no indication it would be any different this time than in the past. I think that a willingness to bring in an independent, outside look locally might have relieved the need or the pressure to bring in (the federal government).

The consent decree is a mechanism for making you keep your promises, but it didn't include in it a lot of the things that still need to be included. It didn't include the disciplinary system or civilian oversight. It didn't really include community-based policing. It didn't include some of the really meaningful things needed for the reform and strengthening of the department in the eyes of the public.

Q: What would you prioritize as mayor?

A: The neighborhood councils are really critical to me. I talked about these eight years ago. We have to have a meaningful early-warning ordinance that requires the neighborhood councils be given notice before the council and the commissions act. You have to give them the resources to effectively organize and be able to communicate on an ongoing basis with their communities, so they really can inform people. Although they don't have any legal authority as such, you have to give them responsibilities that make them feel empowered - such as determining some budget priorities and spending priorities. Have them be a real effective voice in determining budget priorities. Then have them reconvene in a few years and see if, based upon their experience, they want more powers. They could become a new constitutional convention on their own. It could be a very forceful and powerful thing based upon three to four years of operation. Here's what we like. Here's what we think needs to bechanged.

If you don't have some meaningful voice or vehicle through which people in an institutional way can really be informed and express themselves and hold some degree of elected officials accountable, nothing will really change. That's almost a necessity for any kind of change. To have something like that, that opens up the system and keeps it in a more open and transparent sort of way. You know, it's like when you drive. If you know the cop is there, you don't speed. If you don't see the cop is there, you might think I'm in a hurry. It's just human nature to have someone looking out over your shoulder and holding you accountable.

I think really building up morale in the police department and really building the strong bonds again and ties between the community and the police are absolutely critical. Most people really want that. Most people are so willing and desirous of being a partner with the police. They really do want it, and they want it in all the neighborhoods. I think that if the chief had one really big failing, it's not looking at that in that way, sort of feeling it's going to be addressed from top down. He is honest and he's hard working, but I don't think he likes the idea of this collaborative thing. I think you have to have it, and most people who should be the first line of defense for the department, who should be the strongest advocates for the department, are the ones who feel left out and not welcome. That really has to change, and I think it easily can change.

It's really critical to build up the paramedic system again.

Schools are important, but we don't really have the authority over them even though I have a strong interest in that. We really have 100 percent authority over police and firefighters and paramedics, and that's really key.

And the benchmarking of all of the services (is a priority) ... to really make them more efficient, to make them more productive, to give people what I call best value for their buck and a better delivery of basic services. The concomitant part of the neighborhood-council thing is to change budget priorities. I just know our budget priorities are out of whack. They always have been - because they're done on a piecemeal basis based upon who has influence and power. ...

I think that the way to change it is not only the powers that the mayor has through the budget, which are strong, but if those changes reflect the priorities of the people in the neighborhoods and they back you up on it. It's the only way to make that happen. If I did that I'd be a happy camper because that would be a big tall order.

Q: Is secession inevitable in various parts of the city?

A: I don't think it's inevitable. I think that there are answers short of secession, but the ball is really in our court to provide them in a relatively short time frame. ... The way to stop it, if you want to stop it, if you want to keep together, is to provide people with an answer. (You need to) recognize people have legitimate concerns and to recognize that those same concerns are all over (the city). They may not sign petitions in Eagle Rock and they may not have signed petitions in Westchester, but they all feel the same thing. Are we getting our fair share? No. Does our voice matter? No. Is our government listening to us? No. So recognize the legitimacy of that and try to respond in a way that people say there is another way - I don't have to break it up to get my fair share. I don't have to break it up to have government respond.

That's my view of it.

I think that if you aggressively try to deal with the underlying symptoms and causes, that's the best approach to it.

CAPTION(S):

photo

Photo: JOEL WACHS