Ethics Panel Head Will Ask Council to Seek Smaller Raise : City Hall: He says the proposed 53% pay increase may doom the entire package of reforms with voters.

The chairman of the citizen’s commission that proposed a broad range of ethics reforms for city officials said Wednesday that he will urge Los Angeles City Council members to reduce the pay raise they are seeking as part of the ethics package.

The pay raise measure approved Tuesday by the council is substantially higher than a raise approved three weeks ago and could prompt voters to defeat the entire ethics package when it is put before them in June, said Geoffrey Cowan, chairman of the ethics in government commission.

The council voted Tuesday to include a proposal for a 53% council pay raise in the ethics reform ballot measure. Under the council plan, voters who want to approve the ethics reforms must also approve the pay raises.

Three weeks ago, the council voted for a proposal that would have raised members’ $61,522 annual pay to $86,157, the level of Municipal Court judges. But in a 10-4 vote Tuesday, the council raised the amount to $94,344, the level of Superior Court judges.

“I think politically it’s going to be far more difficult for this to pass if the raise is at the Superior Court level,” Cowan said Wednesday.

“It would be far more prudent and politically palatable for the pay raise to be tied to the Municipal Court level.”

Cowan said the pay raise issue should be reopened Feb. 27, when the council is scheduled to vote on the technical language of the measure to be placed on the ballot. The measure also would raise the mayor’s salary by $20,110, to $122,647; the city attorney’s by $26,056, to $113,212, and the city controller’s by $42,256, to $103,778.

Councilman Michael Woo, who worked closely with Cowan in developing ethics reforms, said said Wednesday that he too is having second thoughts about the amount of the pay raise after voting for it. “It makes it somewhat more difficult to pass the overall package, but I’m not sure how big an obstacle it is,” Woo said.

City Council President John Ferraro said that he could not predict what effect the pay raise will have on the vote but that the pay raise approved Tuesday is deserved.

“There are 1,500 people working for the city of Los Angeles who get paid more than council members,” Ferraro said. “I don’t know if that seems right. . . . I just hope that the voters will be fair.”

Ferraro said it is unclear whether City Council rules will permit further amendments to the measure when it comes back to the council.

There appeared to be little sentiment among council members Wednesday to make any further changes in the ethics package.

The package emerged from the council late Tuesday with provisions that establish public financing for political campaigns and ban outside work and honorariums for city officials.

Virtually no one involved in the lengthy process that led to passage of the package Tuesday is completely satisfied with the result, but it appears headed for the June ballot nevertheless.

Mayor Tom Bradley, who objected to linking ethics reform and pay raises, said Wednesday that he would not veto the package and would donate any pay raise to charity.

Bradley said the reforms are “far from perfect” but added, “I think it is a major step forward.”

City Atty. James Hahn said that “linking the pay raise has doomed ethics reform” but that he would accept the raise if voters approve it.

Councilman Richard Alatorre said he knows of five colleagues who voted for the pay raises in an attempt to make the reforms--especially public campaign financing--less likely to win voter approval. But he declined to identify them.

Alatorre said he does not necessarily believe that voters will be heavily influenced by the pay raise issue. “I don’t believe that the pay raise makes it harder to pass if people are sincere and really believe there is a need for an overhaul,” he said.

Alatorre and other council members defended the pay raise Wednesday and said they voted in favor of it because it is well deserved.

“We have to be like a board of directors of a $2.5-billion corporation we have responsibility for,” Alatorre said.

Councilwoman Joan Milke Flores, who voted against the pay raise, said she believes that some of her colleagues voted for it in an attempt to sabotage the public financing provisions, which are disliked by a number of council members.

Councilman Zev Yaroslavsky conceded Wednesday that his opposition to the public financing provisions played a part in his decision to vote for the pay raise.

Yaroslavsky predicted that the whole package will have a “tough time” winning because of the pay raise provision.

NEXT STEP

The ethics reform package approved by the City Council on Tuesday now goes to the city attorney’s office for drafting of the technical language that will appear on the June ballot. The measure will be sent back to the council for a final approval on Feb. 27, after which no further changes can be made.