Council’s Class War Over Reform

A casual observer might not recognize the Los Angeles City Council’s hostility to the proposed municipal ethics law as class warfare, but that’s just what it is.

The law would create a city ethics commission to enforce rigorous new rules governing campaign financing, and define and prohibit conflicts of interest. It would apply to a number of top city officials, including the council members.

The hostility comes more from the council members’ dislike of Westside reformers than from their fear of being watched by ethics cops. The symbolic target of their hostility is an affluent neighborhood around San Vicente Boulevard that happens to be the home of several prominent and rich activists in reform politics--Brentwood.

To council members, who consider themselves the blue-collar workers of politics, Brentwood means affluent goat-cheese-and-sun-dried-tomato-loving dilettantes imposing their arrogant notion of a moral code of behavior on men and women struggling to survive on the assembly line of public life. “The Brentwood perspective,” Councilman Zev Yaroslavsky called it.

There are, of course, other reasons why council members oppose the proposed ethics patrol. Some council members walk perilously close to the outer limits of ethical standards. Lobbyists for politically generous land developers are welcomed in council offices while unknown constituents beg for appointments. But that’s not the whole story.

The ethics code was written by a citizens’ committee appointed by Mayor Tom Bradley after he got caught in political scandal. The commission head, Geoffrey Cowan, a wealthy lawyer and political reform veteran, assembled a diverse group to do the work. It is not a commission of the rich.

But much of the actual drafting of the code was done by a group of Westside attorneys who have been fighting for political reform for years. For Cowan, Bob Stern, Tracy Westen, John Phillips and a few others, this was a long-awaited chance to clean up a city political system they have long considered corrupt. Council members know them--and resent their scorn.

Rather than follow the example of the Ten Commandments or the Constitution--strong but general language--the attorneys, in lawyer-like manner, tried to spell out remedies for every possible political sin.

Confronted with this detailed set of rules, written by people they can’t stand, it’s no wonder even the most ethical council members rebelled. Three examples illustrate the point:

Councilwoman Ruth Galanter was elected as a reformer after slogging through the neighborhoods of Crenshaw, Mar Vista, Venice and Westchester. With strong grass-roots support, she defeated a better-financed incumbent.

Galanter has a reputation for being an honest public servant. That’s why she objects to the idea of being under perpetual scrutiny when she hasn’t done anything wrong.

That same feeling motivated Councilman Joel Wachs, who joined with Yaroslavsky in winning approval of an amendment narrowing one portion of the code. Rather than banning all gifts and honorariums, the code now bars council members from accepting them from lobbyists or those dealing with the city.

Wachs was elected as a reformer in 1971, long before reform became fashionable. With his father’s money and a large number of volunteers, Wachs beat a a well-financed, entrenched incumbent supported by developers.

A third example involves a veteran council staff member who, like Wachs and Galanter, is considered to be an upright person. Cindy Miscikowski is the top aide to Councilman Marvin Braude, an ethics reform advocate who represents Brentwood. Her husband is Doug Ring, an influential lawyer-lobbyist for land developers.

Ring, testifying before the council Wednesday, said the proposed code would force him to disclose the names of all his clients--and those of the 29 other members of his firm. That’s because the statute requires disclosure of income earned by an official’s spouse. “I’d have to cease to participate in my law firm or cease to participate in my marriage,” said Ring.

Since Miscikowski is popular with council members, Ring’s testimony had an impact. It fed the resentment of council members that they were being pushed around unfairly.

That resentment fueled the council’s last two days of debate and the result was a weakened campaign reform proposal.

The reformers may have mastered the legal side of the ethics question. But they forgot that victory goes to those who understand that politicians are driven by the same complex motives that drive the rest of us.