SPECIAL REPORT * Whether L.A. and the Valley undergo perhaps the nation’s biggest municipal divorce depends for now on a . . . : Little-Known Commission With a Very Big Responsibility

Nine people stand between San Fernando Valley secessionists and a public vote on what may be the largest municipal divorce in American history--members of a little-known commission whose most controversial actions typically involve enlarging sanitation and lighting districts.

The Local Agency Formation Commission, which has a staff of three and a yearly budget of $472,000, usually meets once a month in the county Hall of Administration before a smattering of lawyers in an otherwise empty chamber.

The panel’s most politically charged decision in years was approving the annexation of Hunter’s Green, a small patch of ritzy homes, by Santa Clarita. In fact, the commission, known by the acronym LAFCO, has not taken up a closely watched issue since it green-lighted the incorporation of Malibu in 1991.

A hodgepodge of prominent elected officials, retirees and obscure government board members make up the appointed panel--from household names such as county Supervisor Zev Yaroslavsky and Los Angeles City Councilman Hal Bernson to horse doctor Larry Connelly of the Littlerock Creek Irrigation District and James DiGiuseppe, a former Municipal Court judge from Van Nuys.

Soon, however, they will all face the most complex and consequential issue in the history of California’s LAFCOs, regional quasi-state agencies created by the Legislature 36 years ago to handle municipal boundary shifts. And much of Los Angeles will be watching with intense scrutiny.

Now that one-fourth of Valley voters have signed petitions to pursue a study of municipal divorce, LAFCO is required to conduct an unprecedented analysis of the economic impact of breaking up Los Angeles. The process is widely expected to become highly politicized, with influential supporters and opponents of secession exerting great pressure on the panelists.

If LAFCO finds that a Valley city could be economically viable and that the breakup could take place without hurting the rest of the city economically, it will place a plan before voters to shrink Los Angeles by one third and instantly turn the Valley into the nation’s sixth-largest city. The split would require a majority vote from the Valley, as well as from the entire city.

Already, some are questioning whether the deck is stacked in favor of secession, noting that numerous LAFCO panelists and the agency’s top bureaucrat have significant Valley connections. LAFCO director Larry Calemine and Bernson played key roles in a previous Valley secession group two decades ago. Alternate LAFCO member Richard Close chairs Valley VOTE, the very group driving the current breakup campaign.

“I feel there are quite a few people with strong Valley ties, and some people’s views may come into play here,” said Supervisor Yvonne Brathwaite Burke, who also serves on the panel. “This is all new, and there will probably be all kinds of lawsuits. I think the approach we have to take is to be as impartial and inclusive as possible.”

Though Burke expressed concerns about the Valley backgrounds of many on LAFCO, she was quick to defend Calemine, saying he has shown no bias so far. Calemine, one of the founders of the 1970s secession group CIVICC, or Committee Investigating Valley Independent City/County, said his record with LAFCO speaks for itself.

“I expect to get criticism for that [past role as secessionist] from people who don’t know me,” Calemine said. “But anyone who knows me knows I am a professional.”

Bernson said he expects political pressure, but believes that he and other LAFCO panelists can be objective. A former CIVICC leader before winning a City Council seat in 1979, Bernson said he plans to remain as quiet as possible on the current secession drive to ensure that he is not viewed as partisan.

“This is a political movement, and it will be political,” he said, “but ultimately the people will make the decision.”

Because he is an alternate member, Close will probably not vote on the study. But he said he sees no ethical conflict arising if he does wind up playing a role in the decision.

“Much like a legislator can have a preset view on issues, we can have views,” Close said. “That has been discussed and is not a problem. We have a San Fernando Valley position on LAFCO, so of course we should have a voice.”

Indeed, the makeup of the county’s LAFCO is intended to give representation to a variety of interests--including Valley residents--and exemplifies the diverse political stakeholders who stand to gain or lose power from its decisions.

Two of the nine panelists come from the Board of Supervisors, where they are nominated by their colleagues. They are currently Yaroslavsky and Burke. One panelist comes from the City Council, nominated by the council’s presiding officer. That LAFCO member is currently Bernson.

The county’s remaining 87 cities get to choose two other elected leaders as their representatives. They are currently Huntington Park Councilman Tom Jackson, who serves as LAFCO chairman, and Pico Rivera Councilwoman Beatrice Proo. And the county’s 94 special districts pick two of their own elected leaders, currently Connelly and William Wentworth of the Walnut Valley Water District.

Rounding out the list are two “public members,” one appointed by the Board of Supervisors, and the other by LAFCO itself. They are currently DiGiuseppe, who was nominated by county leaders as an official “Valley member,” and retired businessman Henri Pellissier, a former Whittier school board member who was appointed by his LAFCO colleagues.

DiGiuseppe, who was asked to serve on LAFCO by Supervisor Mike Antonovich after inquiring about another committee appointment, said he signed the petition to study Valley secession. But he said he will wait to see the results before deciding whether the proposal belongs on the ballot.

Although panelists often serve on LAFCO for more than a decade, they must be reappointed every four years--decisions that have typically taken place with little discussion but that could now make or break Los Angeles.

Conceivably, the face of LAFCO could change while the secession study, which is expected to last up to two years, is still underway.

In fact, the term of one member, Pellissier, expires in May, just as the secession study is set to begin. Several LAFCO members said they expect him to easily win reappointment. The terms of Burke and Wentworth will expire in 2000, while Proo’s will end in 2001. And the panel’s elected members can all lose their LAFCO seats if bounced from office.

“I have my own water board election to worry about next year before I can even think about LAFCO,” Wentworth said.

Because the ruling on Valley secession will be the highest-profile decision ever made by a LAFCO, it will be closely watched by bureaucrats, lawmakers and planning experts around the state--many of whom are predicting that LAFCOs’ shortcomings will come into painful focus. A committee created by Assemblyman Bob Hertzberg (D-Sherman Oaks) is already discussing potential changes to local government laws, including the LAFCO process.

“In general, LAFCOs are run on the fly by people who have other jobs, and other allegiances, that are often in conflict with what they are doing on LAFCO,” said urban planning expert William Fulton, author of “The Reluctant Metropolis.” “LAFCOs are under more pressure than we have seen in a long time. It’s not just Los Angeles County, it’s a problem everywhere.”