Sen. Watson Votes Against Bill That Bans Honorariums

Declaring that “we’ve gone a little too far,” Sen. Diane Watson (D-Los Angeles) on Friday was among only three state senators to object to a new ethics standard that includes a ban on honorariums.

The measure--to place a proposed constitutional amendment on next June’s ballot--was approved by the Senate on a 33-3 vote and by the Assembly 68-7. It was among dozens of pieces of legislation approved before the Legislature ended its 1989 session early Saturday.

The measure by Senate President Pro Tem David A. Roberti (D-Los Angeles) would limit the acceptance of gifts by legislators, restrict lobbying by former lawmakers for a year after they leave the Legislature and require legislative committees to hold their meetings in public.

Prevent Poor From Running

During a Senate floor debate, Watson asserted that “these kinds of restrictions” would prevent poor people and minorities from running for office “because they are not going to (be able to) afford to stay here.”

Watson told her colleagues: “We ought to be ethical in what we do, but I think in some ways . . . we’ve gone a little too far.”

In an interview after Friday’s action, Watson maintained her vote was not a protest “against ethics” but against the cumulative effect of the proposal’s limits on outside income, gifts and speaking fees combined with curbs on campaign fund-raising approved by voters last year.

Watson, first elected in 1978, represents an area that incudes Inglewood, Hawthorne, Lawndale, Westchester, Ladera Heights and Lennox.

The senator raised her objections on the day after Sacramento County prosecutors announced there was insufficient evidence to seek criminal charges against Watson for using state-paid staff and equipment in preparing her Ph.D. thesis and managing a private rental property.

During the Senate debate, Watson cited the investigation, saying: “We always operate under a shadow of impropriety. I just came through that myself.”

But the potential for legislative misconduct, she said, is an insufficient reason for imposing new curbs. “I can’t identify a person in the Legislature who I think is bought by outside interests . . .,” she said. “But as we rush to judge and we rush to reform, it’s almost giving support to the claims that we are all corrupt.”

Salary Commission

The new ethical standards for lawmakers would be linked to the creation of an independent salary commission that would have the sole authority to decide on the level of pay for lawmakers. They now receive $40,816 a year plus a tax-free expense allowance of $88 a day.

Watson said she believes that the legislative salary should be at least $80,000 a year, but voiced concern that the commission might not raise it high enough.

“This is my entire income,” Watson said. “I have no independent wealth. . . .”

In her annual statement of economic interests for 1988 Watson reported collecting more than $23,000 in speaking fees, gifts and travel expenses. By comparison, Sen. William Campbell (R-Hacienda Heights), one of the Legislature’s top speechmakers, reported collecting $46,900 in speaking fees last year.

The remainder of the South Bay’s legislative delegation, except for Sen. Robert G. Beverly (R-Manhattan Beach), voted to place the constitutional amendment on the ballot. Beverly said he supports the proposal but when the vote took place he was away from the Senate floor. Sen. Ralph C. Dills (D-Gardena) voted for it.

In the Assembly, the proposal was approved with the backing of Dave Elder (D-San Pedro), Gerald N. Felando (R-San Pedro), Richard E. Floyd (D-Carson) and Curtis Tucker Jr. (D-Inglewood).