Wright Says Ethics Report Vindicates Her

Assemblywoman Cathie Wright (R-Simi Valley) claimed “clear vindication” Friday after the Joint Legislative Ethics Committee decided not to investigate whether she violated ethics rules by reportedly seeking special treatment for herself and her daughter for traffic offenses.

The committee acted Thursday on the advice of Legislative Counsel Bion M. Gregory, who said the allegations against Wright did not fall into the panel’s narrowly defined jurisdiction to look into potential conflicts of interest under the Legislature’s Code of Ethics.

Ventura County Dist. Atty. Michael D. Bradbury had referred the matter to the committee after completing a 10-week investigation. He strongly criticized Wright’s contacts with judges and police and state Department of Motor Vehicles officials about pending traffic cases. But he found she had “committed no clear-cut criminal violation.”

In a prepared statement, Wright said Friday, “The conclusion of the respected, nonpartisan Legislative Counsel is a clear vindication.

“However, the counsel’s response does serve to raise serious questions about the motives and actions of Dist. Atty. Michael Bradbury. Was this incredible effort by the D.A. a legitimate and ethical use of public office? I believe the legislative counsel clearly indicates it was not.”

In his 10-page legal opinion, Gregory rejected Bradbury’s suggestion that efforts by Wright and Assembly Speaker Willie Brown (D-San Francisco) to keep Victoria Wright from being fined, losing her license or going to jail may have constituted a conflict of interest under the legislative code.

Brown called a Ventura County municipal judge before whom a misdemeanor traffic case against Victoria was pending in March, 1988, identified himself as a close friend of Cathie Wright’s, and said that the younger Wright did not deserve to go to jail, Bradbury found.

Bradbury suggested that Cathie Wright stood to gain if her daughter avoided penalties and that Brown had a vested interest in helping Cathie Wright, who might in turn be politically beholden to him.

The Code of Ethics states that a legislator may not “have any interest, financial or otherwise, direct or indirect, or engage in any business or transaction or professional activity, or incur any obligation of any nature, which is in substantial conflict with the proper discharge of his duties in the public interest.”

No Monetary Interest

Gregory said neither Wright nor Brown had a direct monetary interest in the Victoria Wright case. And he added that it was his office’s opinion that “non-monetary or non-financial interests or obligations do not give rise to a conflict with a legislator’s official duties and obligations under the Code of Ethics.”

Further, he said, neither Wright’s nor Brown’s purported actions were allegedly carried out in their official capacities, and there was no alleged direct or implied suggestion by either of them that they would take action in their official capacity.

“The Code of Ethics, moreover, expressly recognizes that members may act as advocates without compensation, on their own or others’ behalf, before state agencies, and does not prohibit members from contacting local officials for similar reasons,” Gregory said.

Thursday’s meeting was the committee’s first since March 20, 1985. It has never recommended substantive disciplinary action against a lawmaker.

Bradbury said he was not surprised by the Ethics Committee’s decision.

“They may want to re-examine the code to see if it should be expanded to include some other abuses of office,” he said.