Council Cuts Proposed Pay Hike by $8,187

The Los Angeles City Council reduced its pay-raise request by $8,187 Wednesday, but turned back attempts to separate the raise from the ethics reforms package the city wants to place on the June ballot.

As a result, voters must approve a $24,635 council pay raise if they want to adopt the wide-ranging set of reforms approved by the council Wednesday. Council members now make $61,522 a year and already are the highest-paid City Council in the nation, according to a Times survey.

The hike, if approved, would boost the salaries of council members to $86,157--the same pay earned by Municipal Court judges. Council members earlier had sought to peg their pay to that earned by Superior Court judges--$94,344.

But Councilman Michael Woo, who has been shepherding the package through the council, was able to pull together enough votes to reduce the raise, a move he hopes will make the package more palatable to the voters.

The measure would also give the mayor a 9.2% pay raise, bringing his salary to $112,004. Mayor Tom Bradley has said he would turn his raise over to charity.

After a final flurry of amendments Wednesday, the council tentatively voted to place the entire package on the June ballot.

The council’s 10-2 vote was the culmination of a debate on ethics reform that began last spring after questions about Bradley’s personal financial dealings began to emerge.

The chief architects of the reforms, Woo and Geoffrey Cowan, the chairman of a citizens commission on ethics, said they were pleased with the final version of the package, but sharp division remained among council members.

Some council members accused each other of attempting to sabotage the ethics reform by insisting that the pay raise be tied to the package.

“We’re going to come out of here looking so bad we’re never going to recover,” Councilwoman Joy Picus said. “Everybody wants what they want and they’re going to sabotage the rest of it.”

Other council members objected to some of the reform measures included in the plan, especially public campaign financing.

In addition to the pay raise and public financing provisions, the package includes a ban on outside work and honorariums for elected officials, limitations on gifts they may receive and a one-year ban on lobbying after they leave office.

Councilmen Zev Yaroslavsky and Ernani Bernardi, both foes of public campaign financing, voted against the package. Councilmen Nate Holden and Joel Wachs were out of town and Councilwoman Ruth Galanter abstained.

The ethics reform package has been amended dozens of times and approved several times since it was introduced in January. The measure must come before the council for final approval next week because Wednesday’s vote was not unanimous. But no further changes can be made if the council is to get the package on the June 5 ballot.

“I think today was a very successful day for campaign finance reform and for ethics reform generally,” Woo said. “We succeeded in reducing the salary increase, we kept intact the package . . . and I think that we are building a lot of momentum.”

Woo conceded that the pay raise included with the ethics measures will hurt its chances of being approved by the voters.

“I think that the public may be willing to support the pay raise if they understand that it is linked to a ban on honorariums, a ban on all outside earned income and removing the authority from elected officials to set their own salaries,” Woo said.

“By itself, I don’t know if the voters would approve a salary increase,” he added.

The package contains a provision linking future council pay raises to those of Municipal Court judges, whose salaries are set by the state Legislature.

Linking the pay raise to ethics reform was the main sticking point for some council members, including some who predicted that the measure will not fare well before the voters.

“My gut reaction is that while (the reforms) are tied to a salary increase, voters are going to deny it,” Councilwoman Gloria Molina said.

Molina lost an attempt Wednesday to have the pay raise removed from the ballot entirely.

“I truly believe that what we’ve done has been very unfair to the voters,” Molina said. “The only option we’re giving them is ethics rules if we get a pay raise and I think that that’s an unfair choice.”

The council action appears to have headed off a citizens’ initiative threatened by Cowan, who headed the ethics panel appointed by Bradley last year to draft a new code of conduct for public officials.

“Overall, I think this is a very strong package which represents the most comprehensive and, in some respects, the toughest and most effective ethics law in the country,” Cowan said. “I’m delighted that the City Council put it before the voters.”

But whether the measure will make it onto the ballot is not certain. Last week, the county Board of Supervisors threatened to block the city from participating in the June election because of a dispute over election costs.

The city sued the county last December, objecting that a $755,654 bill for the city’s share of the costs of the November, 1988, election, was too high.

No decision has been made on how to resolve the dispute.

Wednesday’s ethics reform debate was interrupted when an earthquake shook City Hall, a building that is in need of major seismic upgrading, according to city engineers. Some in the council chambers moved under archways while the building trembled, but there was no apparent damage.

“If there’s any doubt about how God feels about public financing, this should answer it,” Yaroslavsky quipped after the shaking stopped.

HIGHLIGHTS OF ETHICS REFORM PACKAGE Here are highlights of the ethics reform package approved Wednesday by the Los Angeles City Council: A ban on outside employment for all elected officials.

A ban on all honorariums and most gifts.

Pay raises of 40% for council members, bringing their salary to the $86,157, the level of Municipal Court judges. The mayor would get a 9.2% boost to $112,004, the city attorney an 18.6% raise to $103,388, and the controller a 54% raise to $94,773. Future salary hikes would be tied to raises given the judges by the Legislature.

A ban on lobbying by elected officials for one year after they leave office.

Partial public financing of political campaigns. Council candidates could get up to $100,000 in matching funds for a primary race and $125,000 for a general election, but must limit total spending to $300,000 and $250,000 respectively. (Less money is alloted for general election campaigns because they are shorter.) A mayoral candidate could get as much as one-third matching funds for a primary race and one-half for a general election, but must limit spending to $2 million and $1.6 million respectively.

A limit of $25,000 on “officeholder accounts,” the currently limit-free funds set up by elected officials and used for a wide range of purposes.

Disclosure of exact amounts of income and investments, including the price of a home bought while in office or within a year of taking office.

A ban on delivering campaign contributions to any city office building.

PROPOSED PENSION INCREASES FOR CITY OFFICIALS

Pay raises proposed as part of the city ethics reform package also would result in pension increases for elected officials. Listed below are approximations of what the mayor and City Council members over the age of 55 would receive if they were to retire:

Mayor Tom Bradley AGE: 72 ELECTED: Councilman, 1963-73; mayor, 1973-present YEARS OF SERVICE: 27 ANNUAL PENSION: $59,800* WITH PAY INCREASE: $65,321 INCREASE: $5,521 Ernani Bernardi AGE: 78 ELECTED: April, 1961 YEARS OF SERVICE: 29 ANNUAL PENSION: $38,537 WITH PAY INCREASE: $53,969 INCREASE: $15,432 Hal Bernson AGE: 59 ELECTED: June, 1979 YEARS OF SERVICE: 11 ANNUAL PENSION: $14,618 WITH PAY INCREASE: $20,471 INCREASE: $5,853 Marvin Braude AGE: 69 ELECTED: June, 1966 YEARS OF SERVICE: 24 ANNUAL PENSION: $31,893 WITH PAY INCREASE: $44,664 INCREASE: $12,771 John Ferraro AGE: 65 ELECTED: Appointed, May, 1966 YEARS OF SERVICE: 24 ANNUAL PENSION: $31,893 WITH PAY INCREASE: $44,664 INCREASE: $12,771 Gilbert Lindsay AGE: 89 ELECTED: Appointed, January, 1963 YEARS OF SERVICE: 27 ANNUAL PENSION: $35,881 WITH PAY INCREASE: $50,247 INCREASE: $14,366 Joy Picus AGE: 59 ELECTED: June, 1977 YEARS OF SERVICE: 13 ANNUAL PENSION: $17,276 WITH PAY INCREASE: $24,193 INCREASE: $6,917 * Bradley already receives an additional pension of $13,336 for work on the Los Angeles Police Department from 1940 to 1961.

SOURCE: Los Angeles City Employees Retirement System

Compiled by Times researcher Cecilia Rasmussen