Woo Considering Special Counsel in Bradley Inquiry

Councilman Michael Woo is considering calling for a special counsel to investigate the personal finances of embattled Los Angeles Mayor Tom Bradley, according to City Hall sources.

No decision has yet been made by Woo, who is overseeing the council’s deliberations of the mounting Bradley controversy.

The move reflects growing ambivalence on the part of council members who, despite their widely varying opinions of Bradley, are concerned about the breadth of the current investigation now under way by City Atty. James K. Hahn. But the concerns have yet to ripen into a public call for an independent counsel, in large part because of the intertwined political allegiances at City Hall.

Some council members are unwilling to publicly undermine Hahn by calling for a new probe, while others are reluctant to appear to publicly challenge Bradley in the midst of his troubles.

Nonetheless, several council members, in interviews with The Times, questioned whether Hahn and his aides are too closely tied to the mayor’s lawyers and said they fear Hahn’s report will reflect poorly on both the city attorney and the council, which is overseeing the effort through Woo’s committee. Additionally, some have expressed worry that the cautious Woo will forward a report too narrow to cover the legal and political fallout of the Bradley controversy.

A Los Angeles Police Department source familiar with the city attorney’s investigation, meanwhile, said investigators have found “no obvious criminal stuff so far,” but added that a firm determination had not been reached.

While Woo had last week indicated that the question of involving a special counsel was premature, pending the conclusion of the Hahn probe, a Woo spokeswoman said Monday that the idea was under consideration.

The apparent shift in Woo’s position came over the weekend as the council member fielded calls from City Hall insiders about the city attorney’s investigation.

Spokeswoman Julie Jaskol, however, insisted that Woo’s position is unchanged. “He’s never ruled it out,” Jaskol said. “He’s just said that he is not ready to call for a special counsel.”

Hahn’s probe, which is expected to continue for months, centers on Bradley’s financial relationships with two local institutions. The 71-year-old mayor was paid $18,000 last year for serving as the only paid member of an advisory board at Far East National Bank and he received up to $24,000 yearly since 1978 as a director of Valley Federal Savings & Loan.

Bradley initially denied knowing that the firms were active with the city while they were paying him, but documents released in recent weeks have indicated that Bradley knew Far East held city accounts.

Bradley also faces separate probes by the Securities and Exchange Commission, which is looking into his investments with the firm Drexel Burnham Lambert, and the Fair Political Practices Commission, which has launched two investigations of the mayor.

Woo declined to discuss his consideration of a special prosecutor, who theoretically would be an attorney without the ties to City Hall and local politics that are shared by Hahn and his deputies.

Indeed, even Woo’s support would not guarantee the hiring of an independent counsel to replace Hahn. Councilwoman Joan Milke Flores, whose judgement is typically welcomed by other council members, said she does not see the need for a new investigator.

“I am satisfied that Hahn is doing the investigation in a professional way and that there are no conflicts there, and I don’t see any change in the way we are doing things,” she said Monday after appearing with Bradley at the opening of a refurbished recreation center in the Jordan Downs housing project.

Council concerns about the Hahn investigation were raised publicly last Wednesday at the first meeting of the Governmental Operations Committee--chaired by Woo--that oversees the Hahn investigation.

Much of the nervousness centers on the connections of Hahn and his chief aide, John Emerson, with the law firm Manatt, Phelps, Rothenberg & Phillips, one of the two local firms representing Bradley. Emerson was a partner in the firm until 1986, when he left to join Gary Hart’s failed presidential campaign. And Manatt, Phelps also was retained by Hahn in his recent reelection campaign.

Hahn, at the same hearing, said he would conduct a fully independent investigation. “I am elected to do a job and I am going to do it,” he said.

Officials at Hahn’s office also said the investigators probing the Bradley finances are reporting directly to Hahn, bypassing Emerson. Emerson could not be reached for comment.

But some council members are known to have concerns about the connection nonetheless.

“In a legal office, information can be all you need to strategize a course that will get you the decision you want,” said one council member, whose request for anonymity reflects the sensitivity of the issue at City Hall. “I don’t know where you take (the Bradley investigation) unless you get an independent investigator.”

One former deputy city attorney who is familiar with the office’s organization said Emerson “knows everything in that office, coming and going.

“Emerson may not actually be involved in the gathering of information on Bradley, but he will . . . be involved in the sifting of information once it comes in, and the decision on what to highlight,” the attorney said.

Also problematic for the Hahn investigators is the dual nature of the city attorney’s office, which both advises city employees and, as in the case of Bradley, investigates them. Three times in the last six years that seeming conflict has drawn fire in high-profile cases.

In 1986, for example, Hahn was criticized for passing onto the district attorney’s office an investigation of Councilman Richard Alatorre’s campaign finances. Hahn said at the time that he forwarded the matter because he wished to avoid even the appearance of a conflict of interest that might arise because the city attorney’s office routinely advises council members.

The investigation was sent back to Hahn, who filed a complaint resulting in Alatorre’s payment of more than $141,000 in fines.

Times staff writer Frederick M. Muir contributed to this story.