One Los Angeles Questions Secession Election Plan By JACQUELINE FOX Staff Reporter The panel expected to craft a resolution for a ballot initiative on secession in roughly two weeks is being pressured to delay a vote for mayor and city council of a new Valley city until after a breakup vote either passes or fails at the polls Nov. 5. An up-or-down vote on secession and the election of 14 city council and one mayoral seat are now slated to be held concurrently. But anti-secessionists say that process would be costly and confusing for voters, as well as for candidates who would run the risk of campaigning for seats in a city government that may never be created. Pro-secessionists, however, say voters should and likely would want to know who would be running their new city as they ponder whether to break away from Los Angeles. Jeff Daar, co-chair of One Los Angeles, an anti-secession group, submitted a 15-page document to the Local Agency Formation Commission (LAFCO) April 24 as the panel received final recommendations for a split from its top executive, Larry Calemine. LAFCO is expected to recommend a ballot initiative on secession May 15 based on Calemine’s report. Highlighting details in the One Los Angeles report, Daar said LAFCO could be in violation of government code on the issue of elections. He requested that, if a secession vote is successful, separate elections for new Valley seats be held in March 2003 to coincide with elections for the Los Angeles City Council. “I believe there has been a serious error in that LAFCO hasn’t considered holding separate elections,” Daar told the panel. He said Valley VOTE, the group that initially gathered petition signatures to obtain a study on secession, failed to inform voters at that time that they would ultimately be deciding both issues at once. “There was no proper request for a separate election,” Daar said. “The petition signed by the voters is silent on the issue of elections.” LAFCO has said that, because Valley VOTE requested concurrent elections during negotiating secessions, it has no legal choice but to grant them. Daar, on the other hand, said the original petition signed by voters didn’t include that request, so LAFCO has more discretion than it is admitting to. LAFCO Chairman Henri Pellissier hinted that Daar, making his first and only appearance so far before the panel, and One Los Angeles were simply making an 11th-hour attempt to stall the process already six years in the making. “Maybe the petition was silent, but it’s been known that this is how it’s going to work,” said Pellissier. “All of a sudden you come up with the idea that this isn’t right.” Daar told LAFCO members that voters would be “confused” and “inundated” if the races and the issue of secession are held at the same time. With 14 council seats and the mayor’s slot in the offing, political campaigns would overshadow the historical significance of whether to carve up Los Angeles, he said. “The election would eclipse the issue of secession,” Daar said. And, the One Los Angeles report states, “Not only can we avoid the confusion and distraction on the important decision of whether or not to break up the city, we will have candidates who will run for new offices knowing they are not wasting their time and that of the voters. Candidates can spend the millions of dollars needed to be elected mayor of what would be the sixth largest city in the United States knowing that there is, in fact, such an office to be filled.” Valley VOTE President Jeff Brain disagreed. “We believe the voters have a right to know who’s going to lead them as they determine their view on secession,” Brain said. In addition, Daar suggested concurrent elections carry inherent political red flags for sitting L.A. City Council members who now oppose secession, but may want to campaign for Valley offices if they lose their seats when a new city is formed. LAFCO Member Zev Yaroslavsky indicated the panel has no interest in ruminating over the political ramifications for would-be or incumbent elected officials. “Do you think that’s the concern of this commission?” he asked Daar. In a subtle show of support for Daar, however, LAFCO member and City Councilwoman Cindy Miscikowski, a staunch anti-secessionist, pointed out that, because the language in state guidelines on incorporation uses “shall” in the discussion on elections, there is room for interpretation that merits investigating before May 15. Yaroslavsky agreed saying, “We ought to know what our options are.” Finally, Daar pointed out that, under LAFCO’s terms and conditions, the city of Los Angeles would be partially responsible for the costs of the elections. And with the city facing a potential $250-million budget shortfall and further potential cuts at the state level, he suggested separate elections would be the fiscally responsible thing to do. “Resources would be used unnecessarily if secession fails,” he said.
