Legislators Back Tough Ethics Bill : State government: Conflict-of-interest penalties are part of the landmark package. It is tied to voter approval of pay-raise legislation.

Seeking to boost the Legislature’s sagging public image, top state lawmakers agreed Thursday on a landmark package of new ethical standards, including the first conflict-of-interest penalties for legislators.

Billed by supporters as one of the toughest ethics codes in the nation, the legislation would also ban outside speaking fees for legislators, place a $250 limit on gifts, and restrict lobbying by ex-officials. These three provisions, however, would take effect only if voters approve a June 5 ballot measure paving the way for a legislative pay increase.

In a significant departure from existing laws, the bipartisan proposal also would make it a crime for a member of the State Board of Equalization who accepts $250 or more from a campaign donor to vote on any matter--such as a tax break--affecting the contributor.

The legislation was spurred in large part by the recent conviction of then-state Sen. Joseph B. Montoya and the indictment of former state Sen. Paul Carpenter--now a member of the Board of Equalization--on a variety of political corruption charges. A Los Angeles Times poll in January showed that most voters believe it is a common practice for legislators to take bribes.

After more than a year of public debate and back-room negotiations, the ethics package was approved unanimously by a two-house conference committee that included the Legislature’s highest leaders--signaling that the measure is almost certain to win approval from both the Senate and the Assembly.

“It’s a major step forward as far as ethics reform in the state Legislature and I think it’s a model for all legislatures,” said Senate President Pro Tem David A. Roberti (D-Los Angeles), who chaired the committee. “Basic remuneration has to come from the people so there is no conflict of interest in who a legislator is beholden to.”

But some critics of the measure contended that it is flawed and does not go far enough in curbing abuses. For example, they pointed out, the bill still would allow legislators to receive thousands of dollars in free trips. Others argued that the bill’s conflict-of-interest provisions are too weak and that local elected officials who vote to benefit their own financial interests face much stricter penalties.

ntil now, it has been against the law for legislators to engage in votes that constitute a conflict of interest, but the law has been irrelevant because there is no penalty. Under the bill, legislators who vote to enrich themselves would be subject to a fine of up to $2,000. Local officials, on the other hand, already can be charged with a misdemeanor or fined three times the amount of money they have gained as a result of their improper vote.

“I hope we don’t make the mistake of pretending this bill is more than it is,” said Assembly Republican Leader Ross Johnson of La Habra, who also served on the committee. “This proposal has several loopholes and omissions that could have, and should have, been corrected in this committee.”

As part of an effort to secure a pay increase for legislators, some of the most significant elements of the ethics plan are tied to Proposition 112 on the June ballot.

If approved by the voters, Proposition 112 would create a commission with the power to set new salaries for legislators, who complain that they now receive only $40,816 a year plus a tax-free expense allowance and a state-subsidized car. At the same time, the proposed constitutional amendment would require the Legislature to impose stricter ethical standards on its members.

Roberti and the citizens’ lobbying group Common Cause had urged legislators to enact such legislation before June so that voters would know precisely what ethics measures would take effect if they vote for Proposition 112.

The legislation approved Thursday by Roberti, Johnson, Assembly Speaker Willie Brown (D-San Francisco) and other leaders from both parties includes a wide range of measures.

The bill would prohibit legislators from accepting outside speaking fees or other cash payments that are commonly known as honorariums. The practice of accepting honorariums from special-interest groups has been widely criticized, particularly since Montoya was videotaped accepting a $3,000 payment from an undercover FBI agent.

The leaders also agreed to set a limit of $250 on gifts to legislators from a single source each year. However, certain free trips sponsored by special-interest groups would be allowed, such as travel within the United States to give a speech.

rown had initially balked at voting for the legislation, complaining that it would prohibit him from accepting free tickets to such events as the Academy Awards and the Super Bowl. But ultimately he agreed to support the ethics package, noting that he could pay for his own tickets if necessary.

In addition, the legislation would prohibit legislators and top government officials from lobbying their former colleagues for 12 months after leaving office.

All three of these provisions--the ban on speaking fees, the limit on gifts and the restrictions on lobbying--would take effect only if voters approve Proposition 112.

However, the conflict-of-interest provisions affecting legislators and the Board of Equalization would become law regardless of the vote on the proposition.

The provision affecting the Board of Equalization marks the first time the Legislature will treat a campaign contribution as a payment that can result in a conflict of interest.

Members of the board, who often decide tax appeals for individual corporate taxpayers, could face criminal prosecution and ouster from office if they voted on a matter benefiting a campaign contributor.

James Wheaton, executive director of Common Cause, praised the legislative leadership for approving the ethics package and urged voters to pass Proposition 112.

“This is landmark legislation,” Wheaton said. “It is the first step to wean legislators from the flow of special-interest dollars.”

NEXT STEP

The ethics measure next goes to the Senate and Assembly. If it receives approval as expected in both houses, it will be sent to Gov. George Deukmejian for his signature. Major portions of the legislation would take effect only if the voters approve Proposition 112 on the June ballot. The new ethics standards would take effect Jan. 1, 1991.