Council Divided on Hahn’s Decision Not to Prosecute Bradley

The Los Angeles City Council on Friday refused to endorse City Atty. James K. Hahn’s decision to not prosecute Mayor Tom Bradley for conflict of interest violations, but the divided council also refused to reopen an investigation into the mayor’s controversial financial affairs.

The lopsided 11-3 vote came after 90 minutes of sometimes bitter debate and amid complaints by several council members that they were sweeping the Bradley affair under the rug.

Reacting to the council’s skepticism, Councilman Michael Woo withdrew his committee’s finding that the city attorney’s conclusions were “reasonable,” and he backed a motion that simply said Hahn’s report should be accepted “without comment, without prejudice.”

At least four of the 15 council members called for additional review of Hahn’s actions by an expert in prosecution. But the majority of council members made it clear they wanted the council’s involvement in the entire affair to be over.

The council has no other pending business related to investigations by the city attorney and city controller into Bradley’s financial dealings.

There are continuing investigations by a federal grand jury and the Securities and Exchange Commission, and the Los Angeles Police Department has launched a related probe into the city’s Task Force for Africa/Los Angeles Relations, which was headed by Juanita St. John, a friend and business associate of Bradley.

Neither Hahn nor Bradley would comment on the council vote. A spokesman for Hahn said the city attorney’s report “speaks for itself.”

The council’s Governmental Ethics Ad Hoc Committee held four public hearings in its review of the city attorney’s six-month investigation and Hahn’s conclusion that there was insufficient evidence to prosecute Bradley criminally. Hahn did file a civil lawsuit against Bradley over errors and omissions in his financial disclosure reports.

Though a majority of committee members agreed with Hahn’s findings, Woo said they did not “condone the mayor’s actions. We deplore the mayor’s errors in judgment and we are saddened by the erosion of public confidence that resulted from those errors.”

The committee was particularly critical of Bradley’s conduct related to Far East National Bank, which employed him as a paid adviser.

In 1988, Bradley received letters from Far East seeking deposits and forwarded them to the city treasurer’s office and to the Community Redevelopment Agency. Later, the treasurer’s office deposited $1 million in Far East. In March, after Bradley called Treasurer Leonard Rittenberg, the treasurer reinstated a $1-million deposit in Far East and added $1 million. Rittenberg and Bradley have maintained that the mayor exerted no pressure.

Councilwoman Gloria Molina disagreed with her fellow committee members that the city attorney’s investigation--conducted without the power to subpoena witnesses or compel testimony under oath--was both “fair and thorough.”

In her minority report, Molina called on the council to keep its review open and to hire a legal expert to assist the committee.

Molina said that after reviewing the Hahn report, “I cannot in good faith assure the public that no stone was left unturned.”

The mayor’s allies on the council, led by Councilmen Richard Alatorre and Joel Wachs, argued that the issue was moot because the council has no authority to investigate or prosecute. “Lo be the day that we determine who is a criminal and who is not,” said Wachs.

Councilman Zev Yaroslavsky said he could not support the committee finding that Hahn’s conclusions were reasonable. “I can’t make that determination,” he said, adding, “I don’t want to spend several million dollars (hiring legal experts) to satisfy my curiosity.” He introduced the successful motion allowing for Hahn’s report to be received without comment.