Candor at Any Cost

Seconds before the City Council voted Tuesday not to hold a public debate on the conflicts of interest created by Mayor Tom Bradley’s private business dealings, Councilman Zev Yaroslavsky leaned over and quipped to his colleague Nate Holden that what “the city needs now is a little glasnost. “

Holden, of course, is one of Bradley’s opponents in next Tuesday’s mayoral election. Yaroslavsky himself withdrew from the race only after he decided the mayor could not be beaten. Nevertheless, while the comment was flippant, it also was apt. Openness, which is what glasnost means, is the only thing that can redeem this unseemly incident.

As they have unfolded so far, the facts of the case are as straightforward as they are disturbing: For more than a decade, Bradley has received $24,000 per year for serving as a director of Valley Federal Savings & Loan. Two of that thrift’s subsidiaries have received city approval for zoning changes on properties they own, and the parent firm is involved in a $2.7-million tax dispute with the city.

When asked whether his employment with a private financial institution conflicted with his obligations as mayor, Bradley replied, “I am a very unusual person and I don’t want you comparing me with somebody else in some other city in some other circumstance. I bring something to this equation that you won’t find the run-of-the-mill elected official being able to bring to the table.”

Last month, the mayor announced he was returning $18,000 in fees he had received for serving as a foreign trade adviser to Far East Bank, where some city funds are on deposit. Bradley now says he returned the money after he learned Far East does business with the city. However, his decision coincided with a newspaper investigation into his ties with the bank.

At one point while he was in the bank’s employ, Bradley--after receiving a call from Far East’s president--telephoned the city treasurer and discussed Los Angeles’ policy on bank deposits. Following that conversation, the city doubled the amount of its deposit with Far East to $2 million.

The mayor insists “there was no impropriety” in those calls, just as he defends his employment with Valley Federal. But the conflict between Bradley’s private relationship with these financial institutions and his public responsibilities as mayor is so clear that his assertions to the contrary are simply insupportable.

Nor should this matter be treated like an ordinary campaign issue, which is what Bradley’s supporters on the council did when they voted not to discuss the question in public. What is at issue here is the mayor’s conduct and not what his political opponents may make of it.

The mayor’s business activities already are the object of an investigation by City Atty. James K. Hahn. Holden’s motions have been referred to the Council’s Governmental Operations Committee. The result of both inquiries ought to be not only a full airing of Bradley’s dubious moonlighting, but also reform of the city’s fragmentary and inadequate regulations on the disclosure of public officials’ private business activities.