L.A. Officials Perplexed by Ethics Law : City Hall: A lack of guidelines on the new code of conduct leaves many confused about what is legal. The uncertainty extends to accepting movie tickets and lunch.

Los Angeles’ ethics law is off to a faltering start, with no staff in place to enforce it and widespread confusion among elected officials, city employees and lobbyists as they try to adjust to a new code of conduct governing City Hall business.

Fearful of running afoul of the law, which took effect Jan. 1, officials and staff have been peppering the city attorney’s office with questions on a range of matters, including whether it is legal to accept free movie tickets and who may buy lunch for whom.

The law seems to say, for instance, that a lobbyist may not buy lunch for a city official at a restaurant, but a lavish spread at the lobbyist’s home would be OK.

Invitations to a recent free preview of “The Godfather Part III” prompted a flurry of inquiries from council members and staffers who were unsure whether they could legally attend. A wave of disappointment and grousing followed informal opinions from the city attorney’s office that attendance amounted to an unacceptable gift from Paramount Studios.

“We offered to pay an admission fee and they (Paramount) said they couldn’t accept it because they would have to set up books,” said Council President John Ferraro, who declined the invitation along with his staff.

“Hopefully, the Ethics Commission and the new executive director can review these things and come up with something practical,” Ferraro said.

Questions about lunches, dinners and other perks are dogging the five-member Ethics Commission as well, said its chairman, Dennis Curtis, a law professor at USC. “Most of the questions we’ve had come from people who clearly want to do the right thing--and want to know what the right thing is,” Curtis said.

Some of the inquires may seem “trivial,” he added, “but it’s serious and it’s the kind of thing we want to clear up as soon as possible.”

Commission members, who receive a token payment for their service, have chosen a full-time director who is to start work Feb. 1, but no other staff members have been hired.

One of the first actions of the staff will be to draw up guidelines, Curtis said, “but we don’t want to rush into writing regulations until we have people who can do the research.”

The city’s sweeping new ethics law was drawn up by the council last year in a burst of ethical zeal prompted by allegations of possible improprieties in Mayor Tom Bradley’s personal finances.

The law, which included a hefty pay raise for elected officials, was approved by the voters last June, but most of the provisions did not take effect until two weeks ago. The law calls for partial public financing of local elections, prohibits outside income for council members, bars gifts from anyone doing business with the city and requires increased disclosure of personal financial information.

With regulations explaining the arcane language of the lengthy document months away, officials and staff are left largely to their own judgment. They also rely heavily on the advice of Assistant City Atty. Anthony Alperin, who has been studying the intricacies of the law.

“We’ve been flooding the city attorney with questions,” said Greg Nelson, deputy to Councilman Joel Wachs. “Basically, we don’t turn around until we call Tony Alperin and ask him.”

Wachs, a member of the board of the Museum of Contemporary Art, contacted Alperin recently for an opinion on whether he could eat the lunch that is normally served at MOCA board meetings.

Alperin at first advised Wachs that he should not eat the lunch because it could be construed as a gift from an entity that does business with the city, Nelson said. But Alperin puzzled over the conundrum for several hours and changed his mind, having determined that Wachs could consider the lunch earned at a working board session, and thus legal.

The incident illustrates the confusion inherent in applying the new law to everyday life, Nelson said. “When in doubt, we just say, ‘No.’ That’s our policy.” Lobbyist Doug Ring points to confusion at a recent breakfast he attended with a council member, his aide and a city official. The bill came to $12. “We determined there had to be three separate checks,” Ring said, “and the waiter was not laughing.

“I’m not opposed to purity in government,” Ring said, “but I truly never met an elected official who I thought would change his vote because someone paid for his pancakes at breakfast.”

Councilman Michael Woo, one of the architects of the ethics package, concedes that he, too, is having trouble applying it to real life.

“Many staff members and others around City Hall are worried about violating the law or making a mistake out of ignorance,” Woo said. A recent briefing by the city attorney’s office settled some questions, but left many others unanswered, he said.

“In our office, we’re just trying to be as cautious as possible,” Woo said, adding that his staff, too, was instructed not to attend “The Godfather Part III” screening, “just to be on the safe side.”

But the ban has a positive side, Woo added. “It’s a great excuse to get out of going to certain dinners,” he said.

The original ethics package proposed by Woo and others would have allowed “gifts” worth less than $50, a provision that would have covered the lunches and free tickets that have been a way of life at City Hall.

However, the total ban was inserted at the urging of Wachs, who backed it in exchange for an amendment that permits gifts from those who do not do business with the city. Wachs, an art collector, receives thousands of dollars worth of paintings each year as gifts from friends in New York and elsewhere.

Perhaps few in the city find themselves in the uncharted legal waters now confronted by lobbyist Ring, a lawyer who is also on the city’s Library Commission and is married to Cindy Miscikowski, deputy to Councilman Marvin Braude. Both he and his wife are subject to a range of restrictions contained in the ethics law.

“If this ordinance was in place two years ago, I would not be married,” said Ring, who married Miscikowski in June, 1989. “I would not have dated her,” he said. “How do you start a dating relationship?”

The new law, Ring said, raises “very interesting life style questions” such as whether he and his wife may go out to dinner with one of his clients. “We’ve discussed the fact that we’re going to have to get a separate check for Cindy,” he said. “It puts a strain on social situations.”

And at home, Ring added, things are no less complicated. The couple also has puzzled over what to do if an appreciative client sends a case of wine to their home. “Is that a gift to me or a gift to us? And if it’s a gift to me, can Cindy drink the wine?”