City Council Plans to Revise L.A. Ethics Law

The Los Angeles City Council, reacting to a court ruling that temporarily blocks enforcement of key provisions of the city’s ethics law, decided Friday to push forward with plans to revise the problem-ridden ordinance.

Meeting in closed session with the city’s Ethics Commission, the council moved to salvage the year-old law, which city officials once billed as the toughest in the nation but now concede was hastily conceived and poorly written.

“When we adopt ordinances, we need to look at all sides,” said Council President John Ferraro. “That is the mistake we made here. We didn’t look at it closely enough. We were too anxious to do something so that it didn’t look like were dragging our feet.”

The court ruling was the latest in a series of problems for the ethics law, which was adopted by the council after voter approval last year of an ethics reform measure that also provided council members with a 40% pay increase. The reforms, including restrictions on gifts and outside income, were initiated by Mayor Tom Bradley in 1989 as he faced several investigations into his personal finances and official conduct.

Superior Court Judge Ronald M. Sohigian temporarily barred the city on Thursday from enforcing provisions of the law that require detailed disclosure of personal finances by thousands of city employees and several non-elected officials. He also lifted a ban on gifts or honorariums from groups that do business with the city as well as a prohibition on lobbying by city officials for one year after they leave city service.

The injunction, which remains in effect until a trial on the issues, came in response to lawsuits filed by four labor unions and a group of city officials and their families. Among other things, the groups claimed that the financial disclosure requirements are excessive and an invasion of privacy.

The city’s Ethics Commission, long aware of the problems raised in the lawsuits, has been working on a revision of the ordinance for several months. A series of public hearings were held during the summer, and a council committee is scheduled to begin reviewing recommendations in two weeks.

The proposed changes include a provision that would exclude scores of city officials, including most city commissioners, from stringent financial disclosure requirements. Another change would limit the prohibition on lobbying by former employees for business related to their city jobs.

“It is almost a complete rewrite of the ordinance,” said Frederic D. Woocher, an attorney representing the city in the lawsuits. “The plan has always been to consider the revisions and come up with the best ordinance.”

The judge’s ruling, however, places a new urgency on the deliberations. If the council is unable to reach agreement on a new law that also satisfies the groups that have sued, the measure’s enforcement provisions could be permanently stricken during a trial next year.

“It would be a shame if special interests were allowed to overturn the ethics law the voters voted for,” said Julie Jaskol, spokeswoman for Councilman Michael Woo, who ushered the ordinance through the City Council late last year.

Library Commissioner Douglas R. Ring, a City Hall lobbyist who filed one of the suits against the city, said Friday that he would consider dropping the suit only if the council approved meaningful revisions to the ordinance.

“I don’t have a desire to spend the rest of my life doing battle over this issue in the courtroom,” Ring said. “But I also won’t sign off on a Band-Aid solution with the Ethics Commission continuing to have the authority to violate my civil rights or anyone else’s.”

The court ruling does not prohibit enforcement of the ethics provisions against elected officials and others not specifically named in the lawsuits. But the ruling, nonetheless, places the council at center stage in the current controversy.

By accepting the $25,000 raise mandated by the ethics reforms, some at City Hall said Friday, the council has an obligation to ensure other provisions of the law are not gutted during the revision process.

“There has been some talk the council is going to dump all the rest of the law and hold on to the pay raise,” said Benjamin Bycel, executive officer of the Ethics Commission. “I believe the overwhelming majority of the council wants a strong ethics law. For the very few who might not want it . . . we are not about to let them get away with it.”

Ferraro, who as president will oversee the revisions, predicted that the council will approve whatever the Ethics Commission recommends.

“The council wants to do the right thing,” Ferraro said. “They want to adhere to an ethics package, but they want to make it a practical, sensible thing.”