Intrigue and Irony in the Ethics Law

Last week, as you may remember, we left the City Council deliberating on a city ethics law. The members had pretty much gutted the proposal and were ready to submit their effort to voters in June.

City Atty. Jim Hahn’s staff was preparing the final language, which would go before the council next month. Basically, the law, prompted by Mayor Tom Bradley’s conflicts of interest, would create a city ethics commission to write and enforce a few restrictions on conflict of interest and campaign contribution restrictions, subject, of course, to the council’s approval.

As it turns out, that’s not the end of the story. The political intrigue around the ethics law is as deep and complex as any novel by James Joyce. As is the case with Ulysses, students should be equipped with a guide book as thick as the original work to understand what’s going on. Studying this ethics law is truly an exercise in discovery.

To be more precise, the law is a victim of what political observers call the “The Christmas Tree” effect. That’s loading up a popular bill with extraneous features that certain lawmakers have coveted but found impossible to enact.

One “Christmas Tree” item is “Bernson’s Revenge.” Councilman Hal Bernson of the San Fernando Valley, who neither forgives nor forgets, had been harried all last year by citizens who wanted to recall him. They were angry because he backs a plan to build a small city on Porter Ranch, now inefficiently used as a refuge by hikers and other such nonproducers.

The recall never went anywhere, but Bernson demanded satisfaction. His amendment to the ethics law requires recall backers to disclose the names of contributors and the amount of the donations.

That sounds fair, but it’s not. Such disclosure will frighten off potential contributors who are afraid to antagonize powerful council members. It’s hard enough now to mount a recall campaign because of the large number of valid signatures required on petitions. City Clerk Lee Martinez, who examines the petitions, has never seen an unsuspicious recall signature, and customarily throws out huge numbers of them. Combining “Bernson’s Revenge” with Martinez’ suspicious eye just about eliminates the chance of a recall.

The most important “Christmas Tree” amendment passed by the council should be known as “The Power Grab.” Under that proposal, the council gets the power to approve the action of several presently independent departments, including Airports, Harbor, Water and Power and Recreation and Parks.

At present, the mayor has power over these departments. He appoints, with council approval, the part-time citizen commissions that supervise the departments. He can fire commissioners. The council can overrule such firings, but it’s a complicated procedure and seldom invoked.

Why did the City Council choose to change this procedure in the totally unrelated ethics law?

The author, Councilwoman Joan Milke Flores, said she did it to promote ethical behavior. She said council control would increase “openness in government” and strengthen “checks and balances.”

That, of course, was not the real reason. Flores has been feuding with the powerful Harbor Department for years. The department, perpetually lusting to build new facilities, treats the surrounding communities of San Pedro and Wilmington as if they were crown colonies. Flores, representing those areas, can do nothing to rein it in.

Councilwoman Ruth Galanter has the same difficulty with the Airport Department. And no matter how loud Councilman Nate Holden screams at Recreation and Parks Department chiefs on his car phone, neither he nor his colleagues have much luck in getting repair people to quickly fix broken basketball backboards in the parks.

The “Power Grab” amendment would certainly correct that. But in making this proposal part of the ethics law, the council, with unintended irony, created an even worse ethical problem.

The Harbor, Airport and Water and Power departments give out many multimillion-dollar construction contracts every year. With the council taking control of the departments, construction companies looking for city business will contribute to council members campaigns. No doubt council members will need the money now more than ever since they killed partial public financing of political campaigns during another portion of the ethics debate.

Bradley is talking about vetoing the legislation needed to put ethics law on the June ballot unless the “Power Grab” amendment is removed. Thus by taking the offensive, Bradley is helped politically. What’s ironic is that he started it off by accepting payments from a bank and a savings and loan that dealt with the city. He’s now the reformer attacking the council, which had been investigating him. You need a political guidebook to understand that.