The Ethics Commission Is a Special Case : It would be prudent for the City Council to keep a proper distance

The City Council and the new Los Angeles Ethics Commission are just beginning to feel their way with each other, but it must be said, even this early on, that they do not appear to be getting along royally. Each is irritated with the other over a highly unnecessary flap involving the salary of the new director of the commission. This is a bad way to start.

The commission was created in June by city voters who, in passing Charter Amendment H by an relatively large margin, evidenced considerable hunger for cleaner government and cleaner political campaigns. During the debate that preceded the referendum, many members of the City Council who initially opposed the idea were gradually won over, but nevertheless an unmistakable feeling was left that many council members were not exactly thrilled by the idea of having this ethics watchdog.

Unfortunately, that general impression, however unfair, is unlikely to ease in the wake of the council’s intervention to reduce the salary of the commission’s recently selected executive director. In their hiring negotiations with Walter Zelman, a former political science professor and director of California Common Cause for 12 years, the ethics commissioners, operating within a previously approved salary range for that job, put $90,000 on the table and it was accepted. Then last week the council, no doubt still reeling from the scandalous $1-million-plus Community Redevelopment Agency buyout of director John Tuite’s contract, cut that salary by almost $14,000. The ethics commission Friday asked the council to reconsider its decision.

The council, in fact, was operating within its legal right to review the starting salary of an official of a new agency, but it should have left the matter alone. A $14,000 savings is not exactly going to solve the city’s fiscal problems, and the relatively unusual intervention of the council in this particular compensation issue inevitably raises questions about its motivation.

It may be that in the course of its work the commission will find itself pursuing trails that lead to the chambers of the City Council. Whatever happens, the public must perceive that this commission and its director have the maximum amount of freedom to do their work, insulated from political pressure to the extent possible. Thus a prudent and properly circumspect City Council would want to keep its hands off the Ethics Commission. It failed to do so in this case. The next test will be a decision on funding for the commission’s staff, which is yet to be decided.