The Practical Side of L.A.’s Ethics Panel

Considering they are out to reform the system, the seven members of the Los Angeles ethics commission have adopted a most politically adept strategy to enact their proposed code of conduct for city officials.

Nothing unethical. Just hardheaded enough to be successful in the devious politics of City Hall, where several council members are already beginning to plot the death of the proposal. It’s simply too strict for the lawmakers.

That’s why the commission has decided to put the proposal before voters if the council does not give its approval by February. Unlike most other blue-ribbon study groups, this commission is not going to let its proposal be ignored.

To underline its determination, the commission is already planning a fund-raising campaign for an initiative election, should one be necessary. High-powered people such as Barry Diller, one of the most powerful executives in the entertainment business, and Warren Christopher, the leading downtown Establishment lawyer, will help assure the campaign’s success.

The mixture of practicality and reformist idealism on the commission, known formally as the Commission to Draft an Ethics Code for Los Angeles City Government, is not surprising. It is a reflection of its membership and its chairman, Geoffrey Cowan.

Mayor Tom Bradley created the commission in an effort to counter image damage caused by disclosures that he was employed by financial institutions involved with the city. He picked Cowan to head it because of Cowan’s long association with good works.

Knowing something about where Cowan works helps explain the man. His office is located in a plain West Pico Boulevard building that is the do-good capital of the Westside.

It might be said of its occupants, “Is there no good cause they do not espouse?” Liberal philanthropist Stanley Scheinbaum’s magazine, New Perspectives Quarterly, takes a global, if not universal, view from a second-floor office. Down the hall, and on the floor above, various groups raise money for poor children, advocate political reform, launch class-action lawsuits and promote the televising of legislative sessions. Cowan, always deep in Westside reform movements, seems a perfect fit for the building.

There is, however, a pragmatic side to many of the building’s occupants.

One of them is John Phillips, an attorney and chairman of California Common Cause. He’s the junkyard dog of the reform world, always snapping at the slightest hint of evil. Locally, he’s most famous as the man behind a class-action lawsuit that forced the state to provide low-cost housing for those displaced by the Century Freeway, and to equip the freeway with mass transit facilities. Caltrans will never forgive him for that.

Another occupant is Bob Stern, a lawyer, more reserved, who heads a campaign finance reform organization. A report by his organization provided important ideas for the ethics commission report.

To make the proposal happen, Cowan picked representatives of labor and good government groups, such as the League of Women Voters. He appointed leaders of neighborhood activist organizations. He chose representatives of business and of ethnic minorities.

He also signed up Phillips and Stern. Phillips is the assault weapon. He is the one who is already outlining the fund-raising campaign and thinking about the language of the initiative. Stern’s strength is his knowledge of campaign reform laws. He will monitor the commission’s proposal as it goes through the City Council.

Finally, Cowan brought in entertainment executive Diller, who runs 20th Century Fox and the new Fox television network. Diller, a successful fund-raiser, will provide access to entertainment industry money.

Diller told me that his years as a political money raiser caused him to become disillusioned with the process. He wants to change it. Like the others, he is committed to an initiative campaign unless the council approves all the recommendations.

It may come to that, for the proposal would complicate the lives of council members if it became law.

It would require them and other top city officials to disclose, in an unprecedented manner, the details of their private financial affairs. Outside income would be banned. There would be public financing of city campaigns. A powerful new ethics commission would enforce the law. Officials would have to attend ethics classes.

Despite its objections to the rigorous provisions, there will be intense pressure on the council to adopt the program. Bradley, having conceived the commission, has pledged to support every one of its recommendations. That means he won’t approve a watered-down version.

But the biggest pressure will come from the watch committee and from the well-financed, political organization it is assembling.