Probe Finds Ethics Violations in Hahn’s Office

Almost 15 months after launching an unprecedented investigation of the Los Angeles city attorney’s office, the city’s Ethics Commission has concluded that employees there improperly used offices and other equipment for partisan political work and that one employee conducted a profit-making venture on city time.

In addition, the commission’s 57-page report found that the hiring practices in the office of City Atty. James Kenneth Hahn were subject to “political interference” on at least one occasion.

The commission’s conclusions, to be formally released today, contrast dramatically with an investigation by the district attorney’s office, which last September found no evidence of criminal wrongdoing or other impropriety in Hahn’s offices.

Nevertheless, the Ethics Commission--like the district attorney--did not recommend action against Hahn’s office. Instead, it referred a series of recommendations to Hahn and suggested that disciplinary actions may be warranted and that the city be reimbursed any funds paid employees allegedly engaged in outside activities.

The report disturbed Hahn, who said Friday he was bothered most by the fact the findings seemed to reopen a matter already closed by the district attorney.

“I’m disappointed that they felt compelled to try through innuendo to accomplish what they could not accomplish through evidence and the facts,” Hahn said. “I believe the district attorney’s investigation will stand--that there was no evidence of (improper political activity) going on.”

Ethics Commission officials refused comment on their report until today’s news conference.

But a spokeswoman for the district attorney’s office said the findings paralleled their own. “The very fact they did not refer this to an outside agency for possible criminal filings reaffirms our findings,” spokeswoman Sandi Gibbons said late Friday.

Based on its own investigation and records culled from the district attorney’s probe, the commission outlined numerous examples of allegedly inappropriate political activities.

For example, the commission found that Hahn’s onetime chief administrative assistant, Charles Fuentes, who is now working for a legislator in Sacramento, handled almost 800 calls at City Hall from state Democratic Party officials and other political figures from January, 1990, to December, 1991.

At the time, Fuentes was Southern California vice chairman for the state Democratic Party. He reportedly told the district attorney’s office during its probe that Hahn wanted him to return calls because it was “essential” for Fuentes to “have relationships with politicians all over the state.”

A search of Fuente’s office also found various campaign-related materials ranging from six $1,000 checks to various political campaigns to documents outlining Fuentes’ efforts to lease office space for the state Democratic Party near Los Angeles International Airport.

While the district attorney’s office concluded that Fuentes “reasonably” separated his political and city duties, the Ethics Commission noted the district attorney did “find evidence” that Fuentes at least once worked on political matters on city time outside City Hall.

A district attorney’s report, the commission noted, found that Fuentes’ time sheet indicated he worked 15 hours for the city on May 7, 1991, even though his personal calendar showed that he was in San Francisco that day on state Democratic Party business.

In addition, the commission used other interviews by district attorney’s investigators to conclude that Fuentes used his position to influence the hiring of at least one employee for political purposes.

The employee, according to those interviews, was hired for an investigator’s position even though he had no investigative background and did not do well on tests for the job. The employee, however, did have extensive political experience and was working at the time for a politically connected Los Angeles law firm.

Fuentes, who previously denied wrongdoing, could not be reached for comment on Friday. But attorney Neil Papiano, who represented him in the case, angrily denounced the report.

“Hundreds of thousands of dollars was spent (on the inquiry) and all that was accomplished was an attempt to tarnish the reputation of a good man,” Papiano said.

Times staff writer Rich Connell contributed to this story.