A Suspect Telephone Call

On the surface, the telephone call by Sen. William Campbell’s top aide to the state Office of Procurement seemed innocent enough. He wanted to know why the low bid of a firm in Campbell’s district--the aide referred to the firm as a “constituent” of Campbell--was not acceptable.

When told that the firm that was vying to supply the state with garbage bags could not meet the state’s requirement to deliver orders within six weeks, the aide said, “Fine.”

But, as with many things in the political arena, the transaction was not as simple as it seemed. The aide involved was not just any legislative staffer, but Jerome M. Haleva, an $80,000-per-year chief aide who is perhaps the most visible of his kind in all of the Capitol. His identification with Campbell, the former Republican minority leader of the Senate whose district includes portions of northeastern Orange County, is unusual. Rarely are the two men seen in public without being in tandem, and few aides are given as much latitude to speak for their bosses as is Haleva.

As Times’ writer Ralph Frammolino pointed out in his Aug. 16 story on the bidding controversy, Haleva is sometimes referred to as the “41st member” in the 40-member state Senate. Campbell himself has not been implicated in the bidding controversy, and there is no indication that he knew of Haleva’s inquiry. But a call from Haleva would carry the weight of his employer as perhaps no other legislative aide, even those to Assembly Speaker Willie Brown (D-San Francisco) or Senate President Pro-tem David A. Roberti (D-Los Angeles).

There was something else: Haleva was the beneficiary of an unusual loan arrangement with the firm involved, United Packaging Corp. of Industry. The firm provided Haleva with a $20,000 second trust deed on his house in 1987 at 2% to 3% below the market rate at the time. The loan itself was legal and was reported on economic interest forms as required by state law, although the favorable terms were not. United Packaging also is a contributor to Campbell, as well as to other Republicans.

One may question Haleva’s judgment. Once he had taken a loan from United Packaging, this clearly put the company in a category much different from that of other “constituents.” Haleva had even more of a duty to stay clear of any dealings the firm had with the state.

As Michael E. Josephson, president of the Los Angeles-based Joseph and Edna Institute for the Advancement of Ethics, said of the situation: “On the face of it, (the loan) prevents him (Haleva) from having the judgment of independence we expect our public officials should have.”

After Haleva’s inquiry, the Office of Procurement amended its bidding qualifications to allow United Packaging to win the contract with a $1.6-million bid.

Giving Haleva the full benefit of a doubt, the telephone call to the Office of Procurement was misguided. But in its most cynical interpretation, it was much worse: an attempt to intervene on behalf of one of Campbell’s contributors in a process that should be free of such pressures.

Haleva’s inquiry tainted that process.