Reform, Hucksters
 And stop running City Hall like an ad agency
And stop running City Hall like an ad agency
By David Zahniser
    
      The best way to understand some of the bizarre behavior at
      City Hall is to view its politicians not so much as policy
      experts or as community advocates, but as advertising
      executives. How else to explain the name of Councilman
      Dennis Zine's monthly newsletter, the Zine Line? Or his
      annual thank-you to the community, the Z Awards? Or his
      public-safety group, POSSE:  People Organized for a Safe,
      Secure Environment?
      
      Sometimes the marketing pitches are zippy, like council
      President Eric Garcetti's fight against graffiti, known as
      UNTAG. And sometimes they fall flat, like the unfortunately
      titled press release from Councilwoman Wendy Greuel:
      "Greuel questions whether seniors have enough time to cross
      the street safely."
      
      These catchy but frequently cheesy slogans are the sound of
      our city's political elite trying to get an uninterested
      public to turn their attention, even for a few seconds,
      away from Paris Hilton's DUI arrest. And that may explain
      why it was so satisfying to see a judge take the council to
      the woodshed last week, yanking from the November 7 ballot
      a measure that sought to roll back municipal term limits by
      exactly one notch.
      
      Superior Court Judge Robert O'Brien said Proposition R
      improperly combined two unrelated topics: the council's bid
      to weaken term limits, giving them a shot at three terms
      instead of two, and a passel of tangentially connected
      ethics proposals that could complicate life a tiny bit for
      the city's lobbyists.
      
      Yanking Proposition R from the ballot wasn't in itself the
      watershed. After all, a three-judge panel decided a day
      later to put the measure back on the ballot, at least
      temporarily, so it can sort out the legal arguments itself.
      No, the real triumph was seeing someone, anyone, blow the
      whistle on reform, a concept that has been flogged to death
      at City Hall.
      
      You see, the "R" in the term-limits ballot measure stands
      for "reform," as Garcetti pointed out. And in the massive
      advertising agency that is City Hall, reform is the
      catchiest jingle of all, played over and over again
      shamelessly, until political consumers can't get it out of
      their heads.
      
      By choosing the letter "R," the council, directly or
      indirectly, sought to send voters a subtle message: that
      each element of the ballot measure, from term limits to the
      wording used in campaign phone calls, is inherently good
      for city government. Ban lobbyists from fund-raising?
      That's reform! Give the council a chance at a third
      four-year term? Hey, that's also reform! But wait. Wasn't
      the original term-limits measure, passed more than a decade
      ago, reform too?
      
      And that's where the judge came in. O'Brien said
      Proposition R disenfranchises the voters by forcing them to
      choose some parts of the measure but not others. What if,
      for example, voters want to screw lobbyists but screw the
      current council members too, by denying them a third term?
      Under the wording of Proposition R, they can't. In other
      words, voters may have very different views on what reform
      is and isn't.
      
      And who can quibble with reform? In political circles, the
      word signifies the opposite of status quo, which any
      politician wants to get the hell away from. That's why
      Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger tried unsuccessfully last
      year to describe his four ill-fated ballot measures:
      including one to strip unions of their financial power: as
      reform. That's also why Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa, an
      occasional Schwarzenegger ally, billed his plan for gaining
      power at Los Angeles Unified School District as "school
      reform" in e-mail blasts sent by his campaign apparatus,
      one funded by the very symbols of the status quo: business
      leaders, real estate developers and high-level Republican
      contributors.
      
      "It is a time-honored tradition in political campaigning
      that if you call it reform, voters will fall for it," said
      former Councilwoman Ruth Galanter, who was forced out of
      office by term limits: the city's big reform initiative of
      1993: and spent years advising her constituents to run the
      other direction from anything with the word "reform"
      attached to it.
      
      Garcetti, the politician taking the heat for the term-limit
      ballot measure, said an extra four years in office will
      give council members greater success in achieving long-term
      goals, from construction of a regional transportation
      network to costly efforts to clean up the ocean. And he
      argued that Proposition R will indeed bring reform: reform
      of the city's ethics rules, its lobbying system and term
      limits, at least as they apply to the council. Reforms are
      incremental but necessary changes to a system, added
      Garcetti, one of six council members who took office in
      2001 (the year municipal term limits finally kicked in) and
      will lose their posts in 2009.
      
      "'R' is not for 'revolution,'" he explained. "Maybe getting
      rid of term limits is revolution. Maybe clean money, or
      full public financing of campaigns, is revolution. In my
      work in the council, most of what we do is reform. It's
      rare that you do wholesale change of a system 180 degrees
      overnight, and that's probably a good thing."
      
      Backers of Proposition R talk of the word "reform" as if it
      were a verbal life preserver, helping voters grasp
      otherwise impenetrable issues. "I don't know of a better
      word to get the public's attention," said Ron Gastelum, who
      heads the L.A. Area Chamber of Commerce, a group
      bankrolling the term-limit measure.
      
      One of the people not buying Garcetti's argument is Greg
      Nelson, a spokesman for Not Prop R and a onetime aide to
      former Councilman Joel Wachs, who stepped down a year
      before term limits would have ended his three-decade
      political career. Nelson said the very concept of reform
      has been rendered meaningless at City Hall, and that the
      ballot measure's ethics proposals are too minor to be
      considered reform.
      
      Maybe the concept of reform is already beginning to
      crumble. Teachers unions didn't buy Schwarzenegger's pitch
      last year, spending millions to crush his four "reform"
      ballot measures. And many teachers individually voiced
      doubts about Villaraigosa's school-reform bill, which lacks
      any proposals for reducing the dropout rate or addressing
      the achievement gap facing Latino and African-American
      students.
      
      "There's not a thing in it about education or children or
      learning," said high school teacher Warren Fletcher. "It's
      a political bill. You can consider it a good political bill
      or a bad political bill, but it's a political bill."
      
      So imagine what would happen if the city's elected
      officials kicked the reform habit, calling things for what
      they are instead of wrapping them in gauzy verbal tissue.
      Garcetti would describe Business Tax Reform as something
      more straightforward, like lower taxes or even tax breaks.
      Greuel would call campaign-finance reform something more
      precise, like taxpayer-funded candidates. And City
      Controller Laura Chick, who embraces the word "reform" the
      way junkies turn to crack, would explain why reform means a
      municipal audit of L.A. Unified's budget but not the
      district's massive $19 billion school-construction
      program.
      
      The irony is, term limits have only intensified
      politicians' voracious hunger for publicity, which in turn
      causes them to embrace dumbed-down marketing strategies,
      from Councilwoman Janice Hahn's endless press conferences
      on Reggie the Alligator to Villaraigosa's use of confetti
      cannons. With both eyes focused on their next four-year
      term or their next step up, politicians are locked in a
      perpetual campaign.
      
      "They figure that in order to stay in the public eye, they
      have to keep proposing things, as opposed to making the
      stuff that exists work," Galanter said. There's something
      fitting in seeing Galanter and Nelson: fixtures on the
      council floor from the 1980s and 1990s, booted by term
      limits in this decade: pooh-poohing the council's
      over-reliance on reform as a sales strategy. With 40-plus
      years of political experience between them, they are among
      the few who remember how reform has been used to help
      politicians get ahead. Former Mayor Tom Bradley proposed
      the creation of the Ethics Commission to divert attention
      away from his own misdeeds; he had been steering City Hall
      business to a bank where he served on the board of
      directors. The City Council put on the ballot a package of
      ethics reforms once they were able to include a provision
      that put their salaries in line with judges', a move that
      has doubled their pay to $150,000 in 15 years.
      
      Then there's former Mayor Richard Riordan, a political
      neophyte who worked hard in late 1992 to put himself in the
      public eye. With his first campaign for mayor looming,
      Riordan spent nearly $500,000 on a ballot measure limiting
      each of the city's elected officials to two, four-year
      terms: a political campaign that got his name and face into
      newspaper articles and campaign mailers.
      
      Riordan recanted a few months ago, telling the Los Angeles
      Daily News that he was dead wrong about term limits for the
      council. Yet only a day later, the former mayor wrote an
      op-ed for the same newspaper urging Angelenos to back
      Villaraigosa's plan for L.A. Unified. But if he was so
      wrong about the term-limit thing, why should we trust his
      judgment now on the school plan? Oh, right. It's reform.
    
  
See the article on LA Weekly website
