Don’t Let the Fox in the Hen House

Voters in Los Angeles decided last June that they wanted city government they could believe in, city government that was open and accessible. That desire was expressed through the passage of Charter Amendment H, the city of Los Angeles’ ethics law.

That law, the toughest of its type in the nation, is now creating some confusion among City Hall bureaucrats and commissioners. Doubtless there are some wrinkles that need ironing out. But the City Council, whose tinkering with the original ethics recommendations led to some of the murkiness in the current law, ought not to be in such a big rush to “fix” it. Quite frankly, some of them don’t want the ethics law to work and are in a hurry to condemn it while glossing over the key public interests served by it.

One part of the law requires extensive financial disclosures from elected city officials and some city employees and commissioners. The central complaints have focused on the degree of financial disclosure. Three commissioners, two on the crucial Police Commission, resigned last week rather than publicly disclose their financial holdings.

Various city commissioners have complained about the conflicting legal advice the city has provided, resulting in one commissioner filing forms that provide great detail about his financial portfolio, while a colleague on the same board may have revealed very little. The confusion has led some in City Hall--people who were never fans of any greater financial disclosure--to suggest the ethics law needs revamping.

Before council members consider anything so unnecessarily drastic, they might examine the experience of the state Fair Political Practices Commission. The commission, a result of a post-Watergate, clean-up government ballot measure in 1974, oversees state government’s financial disclosure law. Its disclosure requirements also were initially attacked by state appointees, some of whom resigned. But once the dust settled, there was no indication that state disclosure requirements stemmed the flow of high-quality individuals who wanted to serve in state government.

A fully staffed Ethics Commission should be able to clarify the confusion about the law and suggest any needed changes. Had the council not inappropriately inserted itself into the matter of how much the commission’s executive director should be paid--politicians should not decide the salary of the person in charge of monitoring political conflict of interest--many of the questions now being asked could be answered. The council’s unseemly interference prompted the leading candidate for executive director to decline the job. The Ethics Commission should be be given a reasonable chance to hire the people it needs to make this law work smoothly. The sentiment behind June’s popular vote demands no less.