A Snakebitten City Ethics Law? : Council can move to repair what everyone hopes is an erroneous impression

It is hard to imagine putting the matter any better.

“The voters of this city have given the Ethics Commission the power and responsibility of enforcing the ethics ordinance. In order to carry out that mandate, and to preserve the integrity of the system, the commission needs to be free to exercise that power without interference.”

With those helpful words, Los Angeles City Councilman Zev Yaroslavsky proposed to exempt the decisions of the Ethics Commission from the council’s jurisdiction and thereby resurrect the hope that the panel will be able to do its business without being overruled by politicians.

Charter Amendment 5, passed in June, now gives the council license to void decisions of city commissions. Under the amendment, lobbyists and contractors who are unhappy with commission decisions can take their cases to the council. Predictably, that is already happening: In what could be the first test of this law, a company whose proposal was spurned by the Airport Commission is now seeking, in effect, a “veto” from the council.

Unfortunately, the council now has precisely that power over the ethics panel and, worse yet, has given little reason to believe it wouldn’t use such power. Not long ago it moved to reduce the salary that the commission was able to offer candidates for the key position of executive director--an outrageous interference. And recently it has complained at almost every conceivable turn about the new ethics law. But most of the problems to date are caused by the enabling legislation crafted by the council itself to give specificity to the measure passed in June, 1990, and known as Charter Amendment H.

The council, with its credibility at risk, should move quickly to insulate the ethics panel from interference. It should also repair a pair of ridiculous loopholes in the ethics laws. One leaves too many city employees uncovered by the regulations; another permits city commissioners to lobby while they are active commissioners but forbids them to do so after they retire.

Last week Councilman Michael Woo deplored the council’s callous attitude toward the Ethics Commission, which has attracted to its much-needed service a number of public-spirited citizens, saying it has “treated the Ethics Commission as if it were a nest of vermin.” That has been the distinct impression of many people in Los Angeles. The City Council has much to do to prove them wrong.