City Council Supports Mayoral Veto by Narrow Margin : City Hall: Members deadlocked on the issue of limited terms and will reconsider both proposals next week, when they may move to place some of O’Connors reform plans on a spring ballot.

Mayor Maureen O’Connor’s crusade to reform the political structure of City Hall, laid out this week in her State of the City speech, got off to a good, but not great, start Friday when the City Council voted to support for now the idea of giving the mayor’s office veto authority.

But that support was by the narrowest of margins--a 5-4 vote--and came only after Councilwoman Linda Bernhardt, who first voted against the idea, changed her mind, saving O’Connor from political embarrassment on one of her highest-profile issues.

On another major item on the mayor’s reform agenda, the proposal to limit council members and the mayor to two terms in office, the council deadlocked 4 to 4, after Councilwoman Abbe Wolfsheimer, who is herself in the midst of a second term, had to leave the meeting.

Both proposals, as well as a host of others dealing with ethical and campaign reforms, will be reviewed again by the council Thursday, when it may vote to put some of the plans before voters on either a May or June ballot.

In yet another vote, the council rejected 6 to 2 O’Connor’s request that future salary increases for the mayor and council be approved by voters, leaving the task to a Salary Setting Commission, whose salary recommendations are voted on by the council.

In her State of the City address Monday, the mayor made the surprise announcement that she will not seek re-election when her term expires in 1992. O’Connor said she decided not to run so she could instead lobby for fundamental reforms--such as strengthening the mayor’s office--which she said are necessary because the council is now elected by districts rather than citywide.

Only by stepping aside, she said, would she have the credibility to push for reforms that would benefit her successors.

“I believe that only a mayor with no intentions of succeeding herself can change the executive office from the figurehead slot of the past to the powerful post needed in the future,” she said in her speech. “Only a mayor leaving the office to another can outline, without a hidden agenda, the honest path the city must follow to meet her destiny head-on.”

But Friday, she revealed that, if voters change the charter to give the mayor veto power, the new authority would be effective immediately, giving her veto power over the current council, subject to an override.

“If this passes, short-term I will be the caretaker that puts it in place,” O’Connor said. “Long-term, I will not be the beneficiary.”

The mayor was responding to criticism by Councilman Bob Filner, who said he interpreted O’Connor’s speech as meaning she wanted veto authority in place after she leaves office, not before.

“I think this goes against what you said on Monday and against good government,” said Filner, who explained that a mayor with veto power who is also a member of the City Council could wreak political havoc by hindering a council driven by district demands.

Instead, he said, a mayor with veto power should not be a member of the council but should be part of a separate executive branch, similar to a governor or president.

“This is a halfway measure,” Filner said. “You can only have a system of checks and balances when you have separate” branches of government.

Agreeing with Filner on broadening mayoral powers beyond simply a veto was Councilman Ron Roberts. But he, along with O’Connor and former appellate Judge Ed Butler, who headed the city’s Charter Review Committee, said such a change would have to take place gradually, with granting of veto power the first step.

Voting for the measure were O’Connor, Roberts, Bernhardt, Wolfsheimer and Councilman Wes Pratt. After the session, Bernhardt explained that she first voted against the veto idea because she had specific questions about expanding mayoral powers that she was unable to ask and thus was “uncomfortable” when votes were cast.

But she said she supports giving the mayor’s office veto authority, and, “after I thought about it” during the meeting, she decided to change her vote.

The veto idea was formally proposed last year by the Charter Review Commission, which made 13 City Charter recommendations after a year and half of deliberations. The council rejected those proposals, reneging on a promise to place them on the ballot.

O’Connor, in her speech Monday, called on the council, which has two new members since last year’s vote, to “keep our word” and place the 13 recommendations on the ballot. In addition, the mayor said she would push for a large package of reforms.

On Friday, the council took up the 13 recommendations made by the review commission, as well as other proposals.

For a time, it appeared as if the council was embarking on a repeat of last year, when it found fault with the recommendations and rejected them.

But this time the council approved nine of them, changed or defeated three others and left alone another calling for expansion of the council from eight to 10 members because it is part of a legal settlement with the Chicano Federation. As part of the settlement, the council has already agreed to put the district expansion issue on the June ballot.

Afterward, O’Connor characterized the votes as “a 75% victory” for her proposals. “By and large, it was a good day. . . . I may get some of it (the reform package) out (in time for a spring ballot), and I’ll have to wait for some others.”

Although the mayor said in Monday’s speech that she wanted to send her proposal to voters in a mail ballot in May, she said Friday that it may take her all year to get her entire package through the council.