Trial May Clarify Laws on City-Issued Credit Cards

On a drizzly day at a Whittier golf course four years ago, former Compton Mayor Omar Bradley bought a hat for his shaved head. The $15.59 bill went to taxpayers.

So did a $21.88 charge for in-room movies. Taxpayers also paid hundreds of dollars for Bradley’s golf rounds, cab rides and cigars.

These and other expenditures that led to Bradley being accused of misusing public funds -- about $7,500 over a two-year period -- represent a sliver of Compton’s annual $132-million budget.

But with jurors expected to begin deliberating this week on whether to convict Bradley and four other current or former Compton officials, more is at stake than the alleged misappropriation of Compton’s budgetary nickels and dimes.

The jury’s decisions could provide legal parameters on how politicians statewide use taxpayer funds when they hit the road, stroll the links or attend conferences, and will be closely watched in local government circles.

The state laws governing such expenses are murky at best, and authorities have rarely pursued such cases.

The jurors’ decisions, therefore, could clarify several legal questions that arise when elected officials pull out their city-issued plastic or cash advances.

Should public funds, for instance, be used for politicians to talk business over a steak dinner? Should taxpayers foot the bill for a mayor to play golf with other officials? Is an in-room movie a proper expenditure of public funds? Are such expenses justified if they bring business to a city?

“It’s an important case,” said Gary Milliman, the former Southern California director of the California League of Cities and the city manager of South Gate. “It shines the light on ethics and also the importance of strict compliance ... on the use of credit cards and expenditures of public funds.”

Credit card policies vary from city to city. Some communities, such as Santa Monica, do not allow elected officials access to credit cards. Others do, but impose restrictions. In Pasadena, for example, city-issued credit cards won’t work to pay greens fees at a golf course.

In Compton, officials in 1999 voted to give themselves city-issued credit cards as a convenience for making travel and hotel reservations. The officials soon started using the cards for meals, hotel bills, in-room movies and other purposes that prosecutors contend were personal in nature.

The officials are also charged with double-billing taxpayers by taking cash advances from the city and then using their credit cards to pay the expenses.

The officials have raised a number of defenses: They say that they reimbursed the city for many expenditures and that many of the expenses resulted from staff and hotel errors.

Another key defense for Bradley and some of the other defendants: The expenses were justified because they incurred them while conducting city business.

Bradley said he discussed charity fundraising with officials during golf games that he charged to taxpayers. Former Councilman Amen Rahh said he picked up the tab for a $200 meal at a San Jose restaurant where diners “brainstormed” on how to bring in businesses to the city.

Rahh also used his credit card to purchase books related to city events and issues, such as Kwanzaa and Latino-black relations. Bradley said he spent city funds on three books about ebonics.

“You never stop being the mayor,” said Bradley when he testified in his defense earlier this month. “You’re mayor 24 hours a day, seven days a week.”

Whether jurors view the spending as appropriate or extravagant will help clarify a law that has rarely been tested in such cases. Though credit card scandals have erupted over the years in several cities, few have reached the trial phase.

A conviction, say some experts, would make some politicians think twice before billing certain expenses to taxpayers. It could also lead to prosecutions in other Los Angeles County cities where investigators are probing credit card receipts.

“We are obviously interested to see how a jury perceives this issue,” said Deputy Dist. Atty. David Demerjian, head of the public integrity unit. He added that “the success or failure of this case will have an impact on other cases.”

Close scrutiny of spending by public officials is not needed in many cities, say some local government experts. Many communities have canceled their credit cards or imposed strict restrictions. And a voter backlash is always a deterrent against reckless spending, they say.

Indeed, Bradley and two of his fellow defendants -- Rahh and former Councilwoman Delores Zurita -- were not reelected after the scandal erupted. The other defendants are former City Manager John Johnson and current Councilwoman Yvonne Arceneaux.

In Pasadena, watchdog groups are all too ready to pounce on politicians for questionable expenses, said Ann Erdman, a city spokeswoman. All expenses require receipts, she said, and council members cannot spend more than $300 per month.

“The culture here is that frivolous expenses are nonexistent,” Erdman said. “There has never been a receipt turned in for golf; it doesn’t happen.”

To some Compton residents, all the legal wrangling over relatively small expenses represents a disproportionate reaction by the district attorney’s office. The lengthy trial, they say, has pulled resources away from more serious examples of questionable spending in the county.

The district attorney’s office, say some, is picking on easy targets like politicians in smaller cities.

“It’s sad to see this pettiness destroying these people’s lives,” said Compton resident John Minor, a Bradley supporter.

But others say such prosecutions are important to stem abuses in some cities and to send a message that no amount of misspending will be tolerated

“The larger issue is one of public trust, and if we allow the petty corruption to be swept under the rug, much deeper corruption will quickly follow,” said Azusa City Manager Rick Cole, a former mayor of Pasadena.

Closing arguments in the trial are scheduled to begin early this week.