Morality of Secession

When Rabbi Mark Diamond sits with Lutherans, Catholics and Baptists to weigh the social and moral ramifications of Valley secession, he keeps in mind an idea from Rabbi Abraham Joshua Heschel: “I am against the word politician. I have great respect for the word statesman…. Statesman is a great word…. The task of a statesman is to be a leader, an educator, and not to cater to what people desire, almost against their own interests. To be a leader.”

“That speaks powerfully to many of the questions we’re asking,” says Diamond, executive vice president of the Board of Rabbis of Southern California. “You can have politicians whose main concern is to be re-elected, and you can have that in a large city or in two medium cities. Or you can have statesmen and women who feel for the needs of the entire citizenry, and you can have that in larger cities or in smaller cities,” Diamond says.

Like others on the panel, including Rabbi Alan Henkin, director of Union of American Hebrew Congregations, Diamond has yet to decide whether smaller means better.

He and a 10-member interfaith group of the Council of Religious Leaders are still listening to what proponents and opponents have to say on the morality of secession by the Valley, Hollywood or San Pedro.

The all-volunteer research and discussion group was formed last spring when Roman Catholic Cardinal Roger M. Mahony brought up the idea at a monthly meeting of the Council of Religious Leaders, an independent interfaith group that discusses issues relevant to the city. Diamond and Henkin sit on the council, along with representatives of other western faith groups, primarily Christian.

“We have this secession movement underway in our area that could very well affect the lives of a lot of folks in our respective churches, and there are a number of issues that could be considered moral or ethical issues that we need to look into,” explains Tod Tamberg, spokesman for the Catholic Archdiocese of Los Angeles and for the group.

The drive to reorganize the city into smaller components is moving ahead full force, with the county’s Local Agency Formation Commission working on the final phases of analysis. The issue of the Valley becoming its own city could be on the ballot by November 2002.

The group — which is not connected to any of the city, state or county organizations researching the viability of restructuring Los Angeles — hopes to have a preliminary report by fall and a final report in spring 2002. The report will be submitted to the Council of Religious Leaders, which will then determine whether to make the findings public and whether to issue any recommendations. Whether officials involved in the process take those recommendations seriously remains to be seen.

One of the first tasks of the group is to figure out exactly what the moral issues are.

The group is gathering information through separate closed-door hearings with proponents and opponents of secession. So far, it has focused on services provided to the poor and disadvantaged, adequate representation and allocation of resources.

While opponents contend that splitting Los Angeles will dilute the city’s grant-winning power in Sacramento and Washington, D.C., advocates say a smaller city can more adequately look out for the needs of its constituents.

“I think what we pointed out and what the committee acknowledged was that Los Angeles is currently failing the poor,” says Jeff Brain, president of Valley Voters Organized Toward Empowerment (Valley VOTE).

To finance services for the poor, Brain says, the city spends 1 percent of its budget — $52 million — whereas a smaller city like Glendale spends 20 percent — $32 million.

Opponents, who in the group’s five meetings have included aides to former Mayor Richard Riordan and other city officials, say that an independent Valley would still face all the urban challenges of the city, and would have fewer resources to deal with them.

“In a divorce, nobody wins, no matter how you divide things up,” Bill Violante, Riordan’s deputy mayor, told the Los Angeles Times after one meeting. “[Mayor Riordan] believes that there is no way breaking up could be of benefit to the haves or the have-nots.”

Brain, on the other hand, says breaking up the city will give fairer representation to poorer communities in the Valley and in the city, which now get lost amid the 250,000 people represented by each L.A. City Council member — the worst ratio in the country.

“When you represent 250,000 people, you have to raise a lot of money to get elected, and so money and influence become a big factor, not people,” Brain says. “But in a small, contiguous district, the feet of elected officials are held to the fire, and they are held accountable.”

Rabbi Steven Jacobs, of Kol Tikvah in Woodland Hills, says he has listened to both sides with an open mind, but he is not convinced that breaking the city up is the answer.

“I’ve always been one who has embraced the idea of a great city working together. I’m not stuck in the mindset that things are not so good here,” he told The Journal.

Jacobs, who gave testimony to the group, says he’d rather wait to see if the neighborhood councils that are called for in the new city charter will provide more responsive local representation.

Jacobs also believes that inequality in the allocation of resources is not a Valley-versus-city problem.

“White people in the Valley do get fairly good services, whereas minorities don’t. So, to me, it’s not a Valley issue, it’s a matter of being fair, particularly to the people at or below the poverty level,” Jacobs says.

The group is also concerned about how common resources such as water, power and emergency services would be allocated.

To make its case, Valley VOTE has called in the president of the NAACP in the Valley; South Central residents who lead CORE, the Coalition on Racial Equality; service providers to the poor; and clergy members from various faiths.

The group is also doing some of its own research, collecting reports and ideas from professors and other experts. In September, group members will meet with theologians and ethicists. Also in the fall, they will spend a day with religious leaders in the Valley and those servicing the poor.

All members of the group agree the process has been fascinating and important.

“To sit around a table with people who come from different faith traditions, who are interested in the welfare and well-being of the entire community — I think it’s good for all of us to do that,” Tamberg says. “It shows what a really healthy ecumenical setting we enjoy here in Southern California.”

Rabbi Mark Diamond welcomes comments and input about this
process. Contact him at the Board of Rabbis of Southern California, (323)
761-8600, or e-mail mdiamond@jewishla.org .