Secessionists Refuse to Sign Application for Breakup

San Fernando Valley secessionists have refused to place their names on a formal application to seek municipal divorce from Los Angeles for fear of being stuck with the bill for the barrage of lawsuits that is expected to follow, leaders of the breakup movement told a panel Wednesday.

Concerned that individual secessionists could lose their homes and other belongings in legal battles, secession group Valley VOTE asked the Local Agency Formation Commission to change the application so that those who sign it are not forced to defend and indemnify the panel.

“Clearly, they [secessionists] are scared,” said Valley VOTE chairman Richard Close, who also serves as alternate on the commission. “Every dollar of their assets is at risk. It would wipe out their life savings.”

LAFCO, a nine-member panel that usually oversees minor municipal boundary shifts but must now preside over the possible breakup of America’s second-largest city, unanimously agreed Wednesday to negotiate with Valley VOTE on a possible compromise. It will revisit the issue April 14.

Before the vote, however, panelist and County Supervisor Yvonne Brathwaite Burke admonished secession leaders for not having considered the potentially costly consequences of their actions. She warned her LAFCO colleagues to move carefully to avoid putting the panel at risk.

“We’re talking about something that involves billions and billions of dollars,” Burke said. “This cannot be done in an ‘Amos ‘n’ Andy’ kind of way. This is not going to be done haphazardly. We are not going out on a limb.”

Now that Valley secession boosters have gathered signatures from one-fourth of Valley voters to pursue the breakup, LAFCO must conduct an unprecedented study of the economic impact of splitting up the city--a process that is expected to generate significant political opposition and legal action. Valley secession would instantly reduce Los Angeles by one-third and create the nation’s sixth-largest city.

If the study finds that a Valley city is economically possible, and a split can occur without hurting either the Valley or the remainder of Los Angeles financially, LAFCO must then put the breakup to a public vote. Secession would require a majority vote of the Valley, as well as the entire city. It would probably not appear on the ballot until 2002 at the earliest.

Before the study can begin, however, a formal secession application must be submitted. Secession leaders have yet to turn one in, and argued Wednesday that on constitutional grounds, they should not be forced to pay for lawsuits against a government panel just because they petitioned the panel to take action. The group has previously raised constitutional arguments over another hot topic regarding the study: who should pay for it.

Attorney Clark Alsop, a LAFCO expert who represented the panel during the incorporation of Malibu earlier this decade, is now working for Valley VOTE. He researched state laws and determined secessionists are not required to indemnify LAFCO, according to a letter submitted to the panel Monday. The three secession backers who filed to petition for the study, Carlos Ferreyra, Marie Harris and John M. Walker, were also planning to sign the application before the legal issue arose.

“No petitioner that brings a petition as an agent of 202,000 people . . . should ever have his personal assets placed at risk,” Walker told the panel, adding that he and the other two petitioners are not wealthy.

Valley VOTE leaders said they were prepared to create a nonprofit corporation, Valley Study Foundation Inc., to minimize the risk of personal liability and increase their ability to raise funds. But County Counsel Lloyd W. Pellman, who serves as LAFCO attorney, told the group that state law would still require individuals to sign the secession application.

LAFCO panelist and City Councilman Hal Bernson, who led a Valley secession movement 20 years ago, said he agreed with Burke that the panel needed to be careful to protect itself. But he said it also needed to be sympathetic to the limitations of citizens petitioning their government for change.

“These are our constituents,” Bernson said. “What are we asking them for, a government-in-exile?”