Union Emerges as Major Donor to Anaheim Council Campaigns : Contributions: The IBEW has given $8,000 to candidates since a resolution protecting city workers’ jobs from outside competition was adopted.

Of the four city employee unions, the International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers has always been the quietest at election time, particularly when it came to giving money to City Council and mayoral candidates.

But that has changed in the two months since the City Council adopted a controversial resolution that protects city workers’ jobs from outside competition.

Since then, the IBEW, which gave only $1,000 to Anaheim candidates during the last eight years--compared to $75,000 given by the other city unions--has suddenly emerged as a major donor to the campaigns of its council supporters.

Since Aug. 27, two days after the resolution’s passage, the IBEW’s political action committee has given $6,000 to Mayor Fred Hunter’s reelection campaign and $1,000 each to the campaigns of Councilman William D. Ehrle and council candidate Bob Zemel. Hunter and Ehrle, along with Councilman Bob D. Simpson, formed the majority when a split council voted to bar the city manager from investigating whether it would be cheaper for outside firms to perform tasks now done by city employees. Simpson is not up for reelection this year.

Of the $8,000 the union has given, $7,000 was contributed in the past month, according to campaign finance statements the candidates have filed with the city clerk. The union’s contributions were the largest of any organization during the last reporting period, which ran from Oct. 1 to Oct. 17. The other three unions combined have given $6,875 to candidates since Jan. 1.

The Anaheim Municipal Employees Assn., the only other city union affected by the resolution, has donated $1,625 to Hunter’s campaign and $2,500 to council challenger Keith Olesen since the resolution’s passage at the end of August.

The electrical union and its council supporters say there is no direct connection between any specific council action and the contributions. In fact, union leaders said they are stunned that they are now considered a major donor.

“I’m surprised we were the biggest” recent contributor, said Bob Villalobos, the IBEW’s local business representative. “I’m pleased.”

Councilman Tom Daly, Hunter’s opponent in the Nov. 3 mayoral election, voted with Councilman Irv Pickler against the moratorium and is now criticizing the IBEW’s contributions. Daly is also running--along with Ehrle, Zemel and nine other candidates--for election to the City Council in an at-large contest. The top two vote-getters will be elected.

Before the privatization moratorium, the 206-member IBEW local saw six employees transferred into lower-paying jobs when the city shifted its water meter repair operation to a contractor and feared layoffs of employees as the city considered hiring an outside firm to read utility meters.

Another factor that makes the IBEW contributions controversial, some say, is that the union and the city are negotiating a new labor contract, which would replace the one that expired July 2. The council will eventually have to approve the contract and any pay raise it may contain.

“It’s corrupt, in my opinion, for a mayor or a councilman to accept money from a city employee union that is currently negotiating a new contract,” Daly said. “I’m sure the moratorium was a factor in the contributions as well. There is nothing illegal about it and it’s been done for years . . . but it appears that Mr. Hunter--and Bill Ehrle and Bob Zemel to a lesser degree--are willing to give out millions of dollars of taxpayer money in return for campaign contributions.”

Villalobos said the donations were not tied directly to the moratorium vote and that the contract negotiations were not considered at all.

“I would say that the (moratorium) vote was a factor in the contribution in that I doubt we would have endorsed Hunter or Ehrle if their votes had been different,” Villalobos said. “But the contract negotiations are not considered. We have tried to keep those separate from politics and want to keep them that way. During past negotiations, we have often given no money.”

The union has long endorsed Hunter and Ehrle, he said, although city records do not show them receiving any contributions from the IBEW before Aug. 27.

Villalobos said the IBEW did give monetary and material contributions to the political action committees of the city’s other employee unions, which used those contributions to support Hunter and Ehrle. There are no documents filed with the city clerk that would confirm whether such contributions were made.

Hunter said he asked the union for the donation, but it was not connected in any way to his vote on the moratorium or his potential vote on the union’s upcoming contract. He received $1,000 from the IBEW two days after the moratorium vote and $5,000 more on Oct. 5.

“I admit, I have always been pro-city employee and I always will be,” Hunter said. “But when I say ‘city employee,’ I mean the Indians and not the chiefs. I used to be a police officer in the city and understand the (average city employee) and I listen to them. So they give me their endorsement. There is nothing corrupt in that.”

Zemel said IBEW gave him the money to help offset the $20,000 Pickler loaned to another challenger, Frank Feldhaus.

“Pickler is not a friend of theirs and I guess they assume that Frank Feldhaus will not be a friend of theirs either,” Zemel said. “But that doesn’t mean I would have voted for the moratorium. The city needs to look at privatization.”

Ehrle said IBEW has endorsed him since 1987 and that his vote in favor of the moratorium might change in the near future if it can be shown that the city is saving money on those jobs that were previously privatized.

“If it can be shown six months from now that the city is saving thousands of dollars on those jobs that were previously privatized, I’ll vote to overturn the moratorium,” Ehrle said. “So I hope IBEW didn’t give me money because I voted for the moratorium.”

The IBEW represents workers in the city’s Utilities Department. The other city employee unions are the Anaheim Police Officers Assn., the Anaheim Firefighters Assn. and the Anaheim Municipal Employees Assn., which represents various workers in a variety of positions.

Times staff writer Mark Landsbaum contributed to this report.

Union Boosts Giving in Anaheim Races

The International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, which represents 206 city workers, has boosted its cash contributions heavily in this year’s election. The largess comes while the city is negotiating a new contract with the union and on the heels of a divided council having approved a union-backed measure to save municipal workers’ jobs. Previously, the IBEW had been the smallest contributor among four city-employee unions.

IBEW CONTRIBUTIONS

Date: 10/22/85 Amount: $300 Recipient: to then-Councilman Ben Bay’s reelection campaign Date: 5/15/86 Amount: $250 Recipient: to then-Councilman Don R. Roth’s reelection campaign Date: 9/12/86 Amount: $200 Recipient: to Bay’s reelection campaign Date: 6/29/90 Amount: $250 Recipient: to Bob D. Simpson’s successful council campaign Date: 8/27/92 Amount: $1,000 Recipient: to Mayor Fred Hunter’s reelection campaign Date: 10/2/92 Amount: $1,000 Recipient: to council challenger Bob Zemel’s campaign Date: 10/5/92 Amount: $5,000 Recipient: more to Hunter Date: 10/15/92 Amount: $1,000 Recipient: to Councilman William D. Ehrle COMPARATIVE GIVING

This year, the IBEW has given eight times as much as it did during the 1984-91 period, and about twice as much as the next most generous union, Municipal Employees.

CITY EMPLOYEE UNION CONTRIBUTIONS,1984-1991

Union Total Number Average Firefighters $34,382 48 $716 Police officers 29,625 44 673 Municipal employees 14,065 26 541 IBEW 1,000 4 250

CONTRIBUTIONS SINCE JAN. 1,1992

Union Total Number Average IBEW 8,000 4 $2,000 Municipal employees 4,125 5 825 Firefighters 1,500 3 500 Police officers 1,250 3 417

Source: Campaign contribution reports