Need for Vigilance Seen to Enforce Ethics Law

Scandals have swirled around Los Angeles Mayor Tom Bradley and City Hall for nearly two years, prompting investigations, voter-approved reforms and creation of a new government watchdog agency.

From a small, nonprofit research office in West Los Angeles, lawyer and government ethics expert Robert M. Stern has been a key figure in the continuing drama and debate. He helped reporters covering City Hall work through a thicket of state and local campaign and conflict-of-interest laws. He helped a citizens panel, headed by former California Common Cause Chairman Geoffrey Cowan, craft a new Code of Ethics for the city. And he helped shepherd the landmark package of reforms through the City Council and onto the ballot.

Slim, slightly rumpled and soft-spoken, the bespectacled 46-year-old looks more symphony musician--he plays French horn in a Westside orchestra--than political guru. But said Cowan: “He’s an intellectual force and one of the leading and most knowledgeable people on law and political tactics in California.”

As general counsel of the California Commission on Campaign Financing, Stern has co-written major studies of politics that have shaped several recent state and local reform measures. The views in this interview are his, not necessarily the commission’s. He also drafted much of the state’s current conflict-of-interest and campaign law while serving eight years as general counsel for the state Fair Political Practices Commission.

Under Los Angeles’ new ethics law, which will be phased in beginning in January, Stern sees a chance to begin rebuilding public confidence in local government. But ensuring that the spirit of the law is aggressively enforced requires vigilance, he warns.

Q: When you look at the ethics controversy over the last couple of years in Los Angeles, what do you see as the crux of the problem?

A: People coming in, wanting government to make decisions which involve millions and in some cases billions of dollars. And the question of how do they influence the government to make those decisions. In court what we do is make the best case you can. . . . You don’t give campaign contributions to the judges. . . . You don’t wine and dine the judge. . . . When it comes to legislative bodies, campaign money and honoraria and gifts are given to decision makers at the same time decisions are being made.

Q: How is that different than what has historically happened?

A: Historically, it was worse. I think it’s getting better. We have much more honest and honorable decision makers today than we had 20 or 30 years ago. . . . One of the reasons, I think, are the (campaign and personal finance) disclosure laws. Another reason is a very aggressive press. And a third reason is, I just think we have better people.

When I was in Sacramento in the early ‘70s the word was that several people were taking money from lobbyists and just pocketing the money. . . . I think legislators now are raising money to ensure they stay in power, as opposed to getting rich.

Q: Polling shows voters think that elected officials sell votes for campaign contributions. Do we have “legalized bribery,” as some say? Is the public perception that the system is corrupt accurate?

A: I wouldn’t go so far as to say it’s legalized bribery. But I would say that the public is ahead of the politicians. The public knows something is wrong, (but) probably exaggerates it.

I think (elected officials) are much more honest than the public gives them credit for, given the pressures they are under, given the amount of money that’s involved. It must be very tempting to want a piece of the action, if you are a city councilman, having people that are making five times your salary coming in and begging you for a decision . . . that means millions. Yet, we see very few examples where the City Council person or the staff or the city administrators have benefited financially.

At the same time I think the City Council members underestimate the perception of receiving all this campaign money (from) the developer or the person who is coming before them. Their vote on it tells the public, well, there’s corruption.

You don’t see developers making very many contributions at times when their developments aren’t before the City Council or the supervisors. You don’t see cable companies making great contributions now that the cable contracts have been awarded.

You have to pay to play. And there’s this feeling by many people that there is nothing wrong with that. The givers . . . feel it’s sort of a cost of doing business.

In a sense, the campaign money is the way a politician says: I’ll be making the decision but there’s something in return that everybody has to give in order to be involved.

Q: Who are the culprits in the system? Is it the politicians, is it business, is it apathetic voters, is it the news media?

A: Probably the apathetic voter is No. 1. You have a turnout in the city of Los Angeles that is 23% in this last mayoral election. In the City Council election before that it was 13%. Part of the reason for that is . . . the election is held all by itself (in April). If the election was held in November, you’d have a turnout of 60%.

The politicians are to blame in the sense that they are very reluctant to change the system. The press is less to blame. I’m just not sure enough people are reading the newspapers. People are getting their news now from TV and I think TV news certainly isn’t as aggressive as the print media.

Q: You often hear people say, “That’s just politics and it doesn’t really affect me.” For those who are not political junkies, what do all these ethics scandals and reform efforts mean? Why is it important to them?

A: For most people, it’s not important. And it probably shouldn’t be important. If it were really important, we would be seeing some unrest. We would be seeing marches on City Hall. . . . In Berlin, they tore down the wall. They’re not tearing down City Hall. And they shouldn’t be because the politicians are certainly much more responsive here. . . . I think most people are basically satisfied, but unhappy. There’s a sense of something’s wrong, but there’s not a great outrage that something is so wrong that we need to overturn the system.

Term limits are really interesting . . . sort of the responsible response (to) a sense that government can’t respond to the problems.

One of the big problems you have (in Los Angeles) is that they’ve had a mayor there for so many years . . . you need to get some new energy into city government. . . . Same thing with the Board of Supervisors. It has almost been a kingdom. (Supervisor) Kenny Hahn has been there for 40 years. I guess the most recent supervisor is (Deane) Dana in 1980, 10 years.

Q: What do you think should happen next, in terms of reforms?

A: I think what you are going to see is an extraordinary change (under the new law) in L.A. city government, at least in terms of the elections, and hopefully in terms of perceptions. . . . As of July 1 of next year, there will be no fund raising by City Council members for at least two years. . . . After ‘93, you’ll see a two-year period where there won’t be any fund raising (by any city official). That’s an extraordinary change in the way business is conducted. You won’t have this year-round fund raising going on.

No. 2, City Council members and elected officials will not have any outside income. . . . Their (city) salary is the total salary they can receive.

No. 3, you’ll see no gifts being given by anybody appearing before the council or before any of the city agencies. Anybody doing business with the city can’t be making any gifts at all.

You’ll be seeing changes in the campaign (disclosure) statements. Unless you get the occupation and employer of the contributor, you can’t accept the money. . . . One of the big problems is that when you go in and read the campaign statements, about 50% of the (contributors’) occupations and employers are not listed. And you don’t know who these people are.

Finally, you have this ethics commission which is given tremendous powers by the Charter to administer this. One of the big problems you always had was a question of enforcement and administration.

Q: How do you ensure the commission is not a paper tiger?

A: (The press) will be monitoring it, I hope. . . . The first danger is they won’t be budgeted by the City Council. There’s no guaranteed budget there, unlike the (state) Fair Political Practices Commission. We tried hard for that and the City Council wouldn’t go along with it. The second danger is the City Council reviews all the (ethics) regulations. And that’s not done at the state level either. . . .

And finally, we have to watch the commission itself and make sure that they are doing the job.

Q: The state Political Reform Act was adopted in 1974, major amendments have been made over the years, in 1985 the city campaign reform law was approved. The laws are very complex and the same kinds of problems still come up. How do you get at the root problems? Can you really legislate solutions?

A: There’s never an assurance. I think this new law will help, but it’s not nirvana. I found the (state) Political Reform Act needed changing after about five years. I’m sure this law will need changing.

The reason (campaign and ethics laws are) so complex is that there are so many potential ways to get around it.

The other question is: Do you live within the spirit of the law?

Willie Brown has said: You write the law and I’ll follow the law, but don’t expect me to follow the spirit of the law. . . . Basically, what he’s saying is I’ll look for all the loopholes. I think that’s wrong. . . . The leader should be complying with the law and the spirit of the law and they should be setting an example and a standard.