Skeptical Panel Grills Hahn Aides on Bradley

Increasingly skeptical members of the City Council’s ethics panel grilled senior deputies to City Atty. James K. Hahn on Thursday about their unprecedented conflict-of-interest investigation of Mayor Tom Bradley and their conclusion that there was insufficient evidence to prosecute him criminally.

During two hours of heated questioning, council members hammered away at the team of investigators, demanding that they justify their “judgment call” that phone calls and letters the mayor made on behalf of a small Los Angeles bank that employed him did not constitute a criminal conflict of interest.

“I’m not second guessing the city attorney,” said Councilwoman Gloria Molina, who spearheaded the questioning. “I’m asking them (deputy city attorneys) to substantiate their conclusion. Is there another conclusion that could be here? Is there something that could be prosecuted?”

‘Mayor Acted Improperly’

City Councilman Michael Woo, chairman of the ad hoc committee on ethics holding hearings on Hahn’s investigation, said, “The mayor acted improperly and he was unethical.”

“The more we get into it, the more troubling it gets,” Woo said, vowing that the committee will delve much deeper into the substance of the city attorney’s 1,165-page report on Bradley and the methodology used during the six-month probe.

“I haven’t seen evidence that would warrant criminal prosecution,” said Woo. “But we will be going into this at greater length. It’s not over yet.”

The councilman said the committee may want to question some witnesses already interviewed by Hahn. The hearings will continue at 2 p.m. next Wednesday.

As the second day of hearings into the report opened, Molina went on the offensive, pressing Deputy City Atty. Kevin Ryan on why investigators did not include in their analysis a letter written by Far East National Bank Chairman Henry Hwang to Bradley seeking help in obtaining deposits. At the time of the Jan. 19, 1988, letter, Bradley was being paid $1,500 a month as the only paid member of the bank’s advisory board. The letter later was forwarded to City Treasurer Leonard Rittenberg, and subsequently $1 million in city funds were deposited in Far East.

“You’re saying he (Bradley) did this as he would for any constituent,” said Molina. “But he (Bradley) was an employee of this constituent. Isn’t that a conflict?”

Ryan responded curtly, “Under the applicable laws, the answer is no.”

But others on the panel agreed that Molina had found a weak spot in the city attorney’s findings. Ralph Erickson, a former deputy U.S. attorney general who is serving as a special adviser to the committee, said he too was concerned that the city attorney’s conclusions did not mention prominently the circumstances surrounding the 1988 letter and the city’s deposit of funds. “I don’t find what I’m looking for,” said Erickson as he leafed through the city attorney’s findings.

Circumstantial Conditions

Much of the questioning also focused on the “circumstantial” nature of the evidence that created an appearance that the mayor brought his influence to bear on the treasurer in obtaining a total of $3 million in deposits in 1988 and 1989 for Far East.

Assistant City Atty. Charles Goldenberg, who headed the team of investigators, said there was no direct evidence of a conflict of interest and the circumstantial evidence was not sufficient to bring charges.

Molina then asked sarcastically: “Every murderer shoots the gun and says I did it. Is that the only way you can prosecute the case?”

Goldenberg shot back: “We’re not precluded from using circumstantial evidence, but we have to conclude that we have enough.”

Still, Molina said she feels the investigators looked at the circumstantial evidence too narrowly, as isolated events, when they should have examined it cumulatively or sequentially.

Former state Supreme Court Justice Cruz Reynoso, another unpaid adviser to the committee, said that while the facts involved may be undeniable, they do not necessarily add up to a strong case. “There is good circumstantial evidence, and there is not so good circumstantial evidence,” said Reynoso.

Backs ‘Judgment Call’

Throughout the questioning, Goldenberg stood by the city attorney’s findings, which he called a “judgment call.”

“We’re called upon to do that every day. And it would be a judgment call for the district attorney or the attorney general,” Goldenberg said.

But Molina would not let the issue alone. “The city attorney made this judgment call and I’m asking you to please explain it to me so that I can be convinced,” she said.

Another committee adviser, Ed Guthman, professor of journalism at USC and former national editor of The Times, said: “I’m troubled, particularly by the events that occurred in the treasurer’s office after the mayor’s calls. According to your report, Mr. Rittenberg said nothing happened . . . but really, all hell started to move in that office.”

Within hours of Bradley calling Rittenberg on March 22, 1989, the treasurer reinstated a $1 million deposit in Far East and added $1 million more. The notation “per the mayor” on the Far East bid sheet was obliterated by someone in the treasurer’s office. Both Bradley and Rittenberg have denied that the mayor attempted to influence the treasurer.

Still, Guthman said he wants to hear more from the city attorney on how he concluded that the mayor had not attempted to bring influence on the treasurer.

The mayor may have been spared criminal prosecution because of his own poor record-keeping, investigators told the committee. Investigators could not find evidence that Bradley actually received the January, 1988, letter from Hwang and another Hwang letter in April, 1988, because the correspondence log kept by Bradley’s staff is so incomplete.

“We were amazed by the holes in the system,” said Deputy City Atty. Ellen Friedmann. But, added Deputy City Atty. Ed Fribres “It worked to his benefit,” in this case.