Voters OK L.A. Ethics Measure

Los Angeles voters on Tuesday approved a sweeping ethics-in-government measure that institutes public financing for political campaigns and bans outside jobs for elected officials, but also grants them pay raises.

Proposition H was winning 56% to 44% with 70% of the city’s precincts reporting and 253,436 ballots counted.

Supporters said the vote represented a strong message to City Hall that the public is tired of official corruption.

“Out of the ashes of a series of scandals for this city we’ve created an ethics law that puts us at the forefront of the nation,” said Geoffrey Cowan, who headed a citizens’ commission that helped draft the proposition. “I feel terrific. . . .

“It won’t only make this a more ethical government, but it will attract more ethical people.”

Councilman Zev Yaroslavsky, a vocal opponent of the measure, conceded defeat late Tuesday night and said backers spent 10 times as much as those who opposed Proposition H.

“People felt more strongly about ending the scandals at City Hall than they did about the cost (of public financing and the pay raises),” Yaroslavsky said.

Supporters of the proposition had expressed concern earlier in the day that voters would find the measure unpalatable because it links reforms to a pay raise for the mayor, City Council members and other elected officials.

Councilman Michael Woo, who shepherded the measure through the council, said he was surprised that the measure was approved.

The vote, he said, reflects the “deep public concern” about the integrity of the political process.

Proposition H has been described by its backers as the most comprehensive local ethics legislation in the country. The proposed City Charter amendment calls for partial public financing of political campaigns. It also requires increased financial disclosure by elected officials and prohibits outside employment--the first such ban in the nation.

But the measure also includes a provision inserted by the City Council that would give substantial pay raises to the council, mayor, city attorney and city controller.

Some voters interviewed as they left the polls said they voted for Proposition H without realizing it contained a pay raise.

On the ballot, the section concerning the pay raise came at the end of a 12-clause sentence and never actually used the words “pay raise.” Instead, voters were asked if they want to “relate (city officials’) salaries to salaries of Municipal Court judges.”

Less obscure language was used in an information pamphlet mailed to voters. A rebuttal argument asked, “What does a pay raise have to do with ethics?” Another section referred to the measure as “a pay raise for politicians masquerading as ethics reform.”

Several voters who relied on the official ballot said they unwittingly voted for the pay raise.

“I feel deceived. I didn’t do my homework,” said Howard Lau, a Silver Lake teacher.

Others said they were aware of the pay raise and voted against the proposition because of it.

“I didn’t like the way they were trying to sneak in the raises for the City Council and the mayor,” said Mary Garcia, 70, as she left a polling place in Sylmar Tuesday afternoon. “I don’t think they deserve it. I don’t know what they do for us.”

At Park La Brea in the Mid-Wilshire area, 32-year-old Sheri Bickman, a theatrical manager, said she voted for the measure despite the pay raise because she wanted to see limits on campaign spending. “I think people are taking payoffs,” she said. “I’d rather for them to be honest about the money part and raise their salary, and not have them taking money under the table.”

The seeds of the ethics reform movement were planted over a year ago, when questions about Mayor Tom Bradley’s financial dealings and connections with two local banks began to emerge publicly.

At the time, Bradley conceded that he had used poor judgment in accepting paid positions with the banks, one of which held city deposits. He returned the payments to the banks, but his squeaky-clean image had been tarnished and his popularity with the voters dropped.

The day after his narrow reelection victory in April, 1989, Bradley appointed an ethics-in-government commission to draft a new standard of conduct for public officials.

“Out of what was a very difficult experience for the mayor, has emerged something very significant for the city, a model for other cities,” Deputy Mayor Mark Fabiani said Tuesday.

After the disclosures about Bradley, the City Council set up its own ethics committee to come up with an ethics proposal that would head off a citizens’ initiative threatened by Cowan, the head of Bradley’s commission.

The measure on the ballot Tuesday was a combination of the far-ranging proposals of Bradley’s commission and those of the City Council, which made a flurry of amendments last January and February, including the pay-raise provision.

The package that emerged was strongly pushed by Common Cause, the League of Women Voters and other civic groups, although their leaders were less than enthusiastic about the inclusion of the pay raise on the same ballot measure.

The proposals had provoked an angry debate in the City Council and some council members complained bitterly that the measure raised an unwarranted implication that they all were corrupt.

Some highly vocal opponents came forward. Council members Yaroslavsky and Ernani Bernardi objected to the public financing provision, arguing that it would prove too costly. Councilwoman Ruth Galanter said the outside work bans and financial disclosure requirements went too far, infringed on the rights of elected officials and would discourage people from running for office.

Some council members said privately that they voted to include a pay raise in the package in the hope that voters would find it so unpalatable they would vote down the entire measure. Others argued that a pay raise was long overdue and that it would be fair compensation for a total ban on outside employment.

The pay-raise portion of the proposal calls for council members to receive a 40% increase, boosting their salaries to $86,157 from $61,522. Under Proposition H, the mayor would get a 9.2% raise, making his salary $112,004; the city attorney’s pay would jump 18.6% to $103,388, and the city controller’s pay would rise to $94,773, an increase of 54%.

Despite intense debate in political circles, the campaigns to win voters were relatively quiet until last week, when opponents of the package attacked the ethics backers for raising nearly $100,000 from the same special interests they say should be driven from City Hall.

Yaroslavsky dipped into his personal campaign fund to finance a last-minute radio advertising blitz in which he called the proposition “a fraud.”

The key elements of the package, according to its backers, are public financing of political campaigns and overall limits on campaign spending. Under current law, there is no limit on what office-seekers may spend and the cost of local elections has skyrocketed in the past two decades.

The necessity of raising large sums of money to launch a campaign frequently leads politicians to developers and other large contributors who do business with the city. Public financing, according to its backers, would cut down on the influence of these special interests.

Under Proposition H, City Council candidates may receive as much as much as $100,000 in city matching funds for primary elections, but may spend no more that $300,000 if they accept the public money. In general elections, they may get up to $125,000 in matching funds and must limit spending to $250,000. Candidates for mayor and other citywide offices would be assigned higher limits.

The ballot Tuesday also included some less controversial measures.

After the Bay Area earthquake last fall, the City Council took stock of city-owned buildings and quickly approved a $376-million bond measure to shore up inadequate structures, including City Hall.

Called Proposition G, the measure would allow the city to raise money to strengthen and repair 84 city buildings and 459 bridges to standards that should allow them to withstand a major earthquake. The measure, expected to cost the average homeowner about $28.50 a year for the next 20 years, was winning by a 72% to 28% margin, more than the two-thirds needed for approval.

Two other measures, which required only a simple majority, appeared to be winning easily with nearly three-quarters of the voters approving them.

Proposition I, a City Charter amendment, would speed cost-of-living adjustments to the pensions of surviving dependents of police and firefighters killed in the line of duty. Some surviving dependents now have to wait up to five years for the adjustments.

Proposition J would adjust police and fire pension programs to make them conform with new federal rules. The changes are not expected to raise costs to the city, but if they are not enacted, employees could be taxed on part of their pension benefits even while they are still working. Similar changes have already been made to other public pension programs.

Times staff writers Penelope McMillan and Dean Murphy contributed to this story.