Garcetti, Hahn Oppose Special Prosecutor Bill : Laws: They say city job being considered by Assembly is unneeded. Ethics panel official accuses them of betraying voter-approved reforms.

Los Angeles’ two top prosecutors have launched a campaign against state legislation that would create a special prosecutor to help the city enforce campaign finance, lobbying and ethics laws.

City Atty. James K. Hahn and county Dist. Atty. Gil Garcetti plan to oppose the special prosecutor bill to be introduced before an Assembly committee today. The post was endorsed by voters as part of a 1990 city ethics package.

Hahn and officials in Garcetti’s office said the special prosecutor post is unnecessary because city, county and state attorneys are in a position to investigate and prosecute ethics violations.

But Ben Bycel, executive director of the city Ethics Commission, said opposition by the city attorney and district attorney betrays voter-approved ethics reforms and could hamper a serious crackdown on violators.

“With friends like this, who needs enemies,” Bycel said of Hahn’s and Garcetti’s opposition. “I think it’s clear that these two agencies are not comfortable with the Ethics Commission doing its job.”

The expected showdown today at the Assembly Committee on Public Safety continues a feud between the Ethics Commission and the two elected prosecutors.

The dispute began 1 1/2 years ago when the commission launched an investigation into allegations that Hahn’s office had illegally become a center for political activity, with employees on the public payroll using city supplies to support candidates.

The commission found evidence supporting many of the accusations. Commission President Dennis Curtis said Hahn “had to be aware” of the alleged improper activity that “was all happening right outside his door.”

Hahn vigorously denied the allegations and was supported by the district attorney’s office, which found that there was not only no evidence of a crime, but that the Ethics Commission had botched the investigation.

Hahn said Monday that his opposition to creating a special prosecutor is based strictly on policy considerations.

“It’s hogwash and preposterous to say that others can’t prosecute,” said Hahn, adding that the district attorney and attorney general can be used to prosecute ethics violations. “A special prosecutor can run rampant, and nobody has any check on this person whatsoever.”

Despite the fact that the ethics prosecutor was authorized by voters, Hahn called it “anti-democratic” because the prosecutor would be chosen by a panel of three retired judges, instead of being elected.

Hahn’s office sent memos to Assembly members in opposition to the special prosecutor. A deputy district attorney is scheduled to express Garcetti’s opposition at today’s committee meeting.

“We think it’s unnecessary to have a special prosecutor,” said Sandi Gibbons, a spokeswoman for Garcetti. “There are already about four ways you can go about it now.”

Bycel rejected arguments that a special prosecutor would be unnecessary or would run roughshod over city officials. The City Charter amendment approved by voters permits such a prosecutor to be hired only when the city attorney has declared a conflict of interest. The three-judge panel would ensure the prosecutor’s impartiality, he said.

The need for a special prosecutor was proven, Bycel argued at the end of the Hahn investigation, when the district attorney’s office released to Hahn the name of the confidential informant who reported the alleged problems in his office.

“There is something wrong when they release the name of our whistle-blower,” Bycel said. “We would hardly feel comfortable bringing (another) case to them.”

The district attorney’s office acknowledged releasing the name.

The bill authorizing a special prosecutor could suffer another blow because its sponsor, Barbara Friedman (D-Los Angeles), might miss the committee meeting in order to appear with President Clinton in Los Angeles.