Assembly OKs 2 Ethics Bills, Rejects Third : Legislation: A move to curb lobbying by former lawmakers and key aides was defeated. The approved bills now go to a conference committee.

The Assembly on Tuesday easily approved two bills that would create new ethical standards for state legislators; one to ban speech honorariums and limit gifts, the other to put teeth in the enforcement of conflict-of-interest voting rules.

But the Assembly rejected a third measure that would have prohibited former lawmakers and key staff members from lobbying their former colleagues for one year after leaving their posts.

The two bills now go to the Senate, which already has approved similar legislation. A two-house conference committee is expected to iron out the differences between the two versions--and possibly make substantial changes.

“We’re going to rewrite everything in conference committee,” said Assembly Speaker Willie Brown (D-San Francisco), who will be a member of the panel. He did not elaborate.

The legislation has been given impetus by a continuing FBI investigation into Capitol corruption that led to the indictment and trial of state Sen. Joseph B. Montoya (D-Whittier) on charges of racketeering, extortion and money laundering.

“We owe it to ourselves, to our reputation, and to our future to put this program into effect,” Assemblyman John Vasconcellos (D-Santa Clara) said before the Assembly vote. Vasconcellos chairs a select committee on ethics and sponsored the bill dealing with honorariums and gifts.

Many Assembly members questioned certain features of the ethics package, and Assemblyman Gerald N. Felando (R-San Pedro) called it a “farce.” But the bill banning honorariums and restricting gifts passed 69 to 1, and the conflict-of-interest measure was approved 69 to 0.

Along with banning honorariums, which generally are payments legislators receive for giving speeches, Vasconcellos’ bill limits gifts to lawmakers to $100 from a single source in a calendar year. It also would require legislators, staff members, and lobbyists to take an ethics course at least once every two years, with lobbyists paying the cost of the instruction.

Opponents tried but failed to amend the bill to plug what they called an honorarium “loophole” that would allow lawmakers who are practicing attorneys to be paid by their clients for appearing before public or private agencies to argue on the client’s behalf.

“We either ban honorariums or we don’t,” said Assemblyman Charles Bader (R-Pomona), who offered the losing amendment.

The conflict-of-interest bill, by Assemblyman Ted Lempert (D-San Mateo), would go beyond present laws that prohibit lawmakers from voting on issues that have a direct effect on their personal financial interests. The Lempert bill would empower the Fair Political Practices Commission to enforce the law and to impose fines of up to $2,000 per violation. Present laws exempt legislators from facing fines.

The bill by Assemblyman Byron D. Sher (D-Palo Alto) to restrict lobbying activities of former lawmakers and their aides was defeated when it was backed by 39 lawmakers but opposed by 23. A two-thirds majority--or 54 votes--was required for its approval.

“This is the worst bill of all,” said Assemblyman William P. Baker (R-Danville). “Why trash our staff? It’s not the staff that’s on trial, it’s us.”

Baker contended that the one-year ban on lobbying would make it more difficult for the Legislature to attract skilled personnel.

Lempert said he will try to amend the so-called “revolving door” prohibition into one of the Senate bills.