Coalition Proposes Ethics Code for County Employees : Government: The draft plan has not been revealed, but a Common Cause official said it is similar to those of other jurisdictions and also addresses activities by lobbyists.

An ad hoc committee of reform-minded groups is urging the Orange County Board of Supervisors to take further steps to prevent abuses in local government by adopting a code of ethics that would apply to county employees.

The proposal from representatives of the Orange County League of Women Voters, the Orange County Chapter of Common Cause and activist Shirley Grindle comes on the heels of the supervisors’ adoption of the most far-reaching conflict-of-interest ordinance of its kind in California, banning the acceptance of virtually all gifts by 1,650 Orange County officials.

The gift ban was formally adopted by the supervisors after the resignation of former Supervisor Don R. Roth, who pleaded guilty to seven misdemeanor counts of violating the state’s conflict-of-interest law.

Moreover, Orange County voters last year placed a $1,000 limit on political contributions to county supervisors from a single source.

It was unclear exactly what kind of ethics code was being proposed because Board of Supervisors’ Chairman Harriett M. Wieder had not yet received the letter containing the draft ethics code Friday, and its authors would not disclose its details. William R. Mitchell, president of the Orange County chapter of Common Cause, said the letter was mailed Thursday.

It was also unclear Friday just how warmly supervisors would receive the latest recommendations for reform.

In light of the recently adopted gift-ban ordinance, Wieder was not expecting a concerted drive for an ethics code, but will reserve comment until she has studied the letter’s contents, a spokeswoman in her office said. And Supervisor Thomas F. Riley said he thinks such a code is unnecessary, although he will not oppose it.

“I don’t see the need for it, but maybe others do,” Riley said. “I know what’s right and what’s wrong, but some people think public officials can’t be trusted.”

Supervisor William G. Steiner, however, said it is likely that by the end of the year the supervisors would adopt an ethics code similar to that of the city of Orange, where he served on the City Council.

“I assume that will be the next piece of the puzzle in terms of ethics reform,” said Steiner, who replaced Roth on the board and who had not yet seen the committee’s proposal.

Mitchell said committee members agreed not to discuss details of the proposed ethics code until county officials have an opportunity to review it.

“The board needs to see it first, not read about it in the newspapers,” Mitchell said.

However, Mitchell did say the recommendations contain “no bombshells” and are “consistent with a code of ethics that you will find with every other major jurisdiction in the state of California.”

About 20 county governments have adopted codes of ethics, according to a spokesman with the California State Assn. of Counties.

The recommendations being made in Orange County encompass areas not already covered by the county’s gift-ban ordinance and campaign reform law, Mitchell said.

“The code of ethics ordinance will address some of the concerns about lobbyists’ activities,” he said.

Grindle could not be reached for comment Friday.

Wieder asked County Counsel Terry Andrus in March to draft a code of ethics. But Andrus said he has held off submitting his draft, because Grindle asked county officials for an opportunity to submit recommendations.

Those recommendations probably are patterned after resolutions adopted by many California municipalities establishing guidelines to avoid conflicts of interest and the appearances of conflicts. Resolutions do not carry the weight of law, as does the ethics code adopted as an ordinance by Los Angeles city government.

In Los Angeles, the city’s ethics code specifically bans certain activities, imposes financial disclosure requirements beyond those required by state law and imposes penalties, a spokeswoman for the City Ethics Commission said.

For example, Los Angeles prohibits former high-ranking city employees and elected officials from lobbying any arm of city government for up to one year after they leave city employment.

By contrast, the code of ethics adopted by resolution in 1991 by Stanislaus County supervisors in Northern California sets forth general guidelines, such as instructing employees to “engage in no business activity which is inconsistent with the conscientious performance of one’s governmental duties.”