They Want a Lap Dog, Not a Watchdog : Ethics: Critics of L.A.’s panel want the appearance of reform but no substance.

Given the the decision by a Superior Court judge barring the Los Angeles Ethics Commission from assisting in a felony investigation and news accounts about the panel’s work, the commission needs to set the record straight.

In June, 1990, Los Angeles voters amended the City Charter to create the Ethics Commission. They gave the commission authority to oversee lobbying, campaign financing and government ethics. The commission is required to use the Los Angeles city attorney as its lawyer. But Charter amendment drafters and the voters knew that giving the Ethics Commission one lawyer, the city attorney, was not enough. Why? Because if any questions were raised about employees of the city attorney’s office, the commission obviously could not seek advice from that office.

That’s just what happened last summer. As was reported in this newspaper, the commission received serious allegations of improper conduct by people working in the office of City Atty. James K. Hahn. So, as required by the Charter, the Ethics Commission reported the allegations to the authority with the power to prosecute, Dist. Atty. Ira Reiner.

The district attorney asked us to assist in the investigation. There was nothing improper about that nor about the commission providing assistance to the D.A.’s office.

The Ethics Commission has the duty under Charter Section 600K to help the district attorney and other law-enforcement officers investigate allegations of wrongdoing related to government ethics. The voters of Los Angeles required the commission both to “provide assistance to agencies and public officials in administering . .. the laws relating to campaign finance, conflicts of interests and government ethics” and to “investigate alleged violations of state law, this Charter and city ordinances” related to all of these issues.

When the district attorney’s office asked the Ethics Commission to assist in the investigation, the commission knew it needed help; at the time, it had no investigative staff. As provided in our Charter, the commission hired David Alkire, an experienced former prosecutor, to advise us in assisting the district attorney’s office.

What the commission didn’t have the power to do--and what it has never done--is authorize searches or issue grand jury subpoenas. The press got it flat wrong when it said that the commission “served a search warrant on Hahn’s office and subpoenaed employees to appear before a grand jury.” It did neither.

Reiner’s office prepared the search warrant, which was then signed, after careful consideration, by a Superior Court judge. The district attorney’s investigators then served and executed the search warrant. Reiner’s office also obtained the grand jury subpoenas.

It is no surprise that the commission has been attacked in newspaper articles and by lawsuits for doing its job. Critics want the commission caged and toothless--a lap dog, not a watchdog. They want the appearance of ethics but no substance.

But the voters wanted more than superficial reform. They created an independent commission, expected that it would have a staff and gave it the authority to investigate serious criminal charges as well as to impose civil penalties and fines. The commission has important responsibilities under the City Charter, and recognizes that it has a duty to carry them out. The commission has been very careful not to go outside these powers. But it’s not surprising that it has been difficult to bring real ethics reform to the city of Los Angeles.