Reformers Fashion New Ethics Outlook : * County Government Can Lead Cities by Example

A welcome new atmosphere of concern with ethics in government has taken root in Orange County government. It’s an approach to governance that would have been unheard of even fairly recently--say in the past 15 years--during the boom years when developers were oh-so cozy with planners. The door flung open for major projects, fueled by golf outings and freebies.

Some changes on the Board of Supervisors, the dogged efforts of reformers like Shirley Grindle, and some lessons from the school of hard knocks--such as the troubles of former Supervisor Don Roth--have helped fashion a new outlook. Now if we only can get some of that spirit extended to more of the county’s cities, which have had their own local sets of ethical dilemmas. What happens in municipalities increasingly will be important as redevelopment in older areas moves on to planning agendas.

What’s remarkable is that the county is pointing the way. Early this year, The Board of Supervisors approved the toughest ethics law in the state, banning nearly all gifts from firms that did business with the county in the previous 12 months. What a difference from what we saw in Roth, who even in his final months was so strapped by potential conflicts that he had to abstain from votes 10 times. And last year, county voters put a $1,000 limit on political contributions to county supervisors from a single source.

Now, an ad hoc committee of concerned citizens has suggested a code of ethics to plug some gaps, the most significant of which is a need to put distance between former county employees who are lobbyists and current officials.

All of these efforts are putting Orange County in step with progressive counties, and in the particular case of the gift ban, right on the vanguard. The reach of that coverage to 1,650 county officials cannot be underestimated, because the supervisors themselves are not the only ones who need to be watched. Indeed, some willingly have joined reform efforts.

So the next great area for improvement will be the cities.

Consider, for example, the accepted practice in Anaheim for years that the City Council accepted tickets to Disneyland. Council members were doing so even as they prepared to make important decisions about a theme park expansion. The practice of brokering tickets stopped only after the Fair Political Practices Commission looked in.

And the recent $10,000 fine of Anaheim-based Arnold Construction was instructive. The FPPC determined that the firm funneled $2,880 to candidates at various levels through what the commission calls “laundering.” That is, the company allegedly gave the money through employees whom it later reimbursed--a process characterized by the developer as simply “an administrative misapplication.”

In that case, the $1,000 that went to a successful incumbent city councilman Irv Pickler was significant because it was a very close race. Interestingly, because of general unhappiness with the flood of money in the system, Anaheim now has set campaign contribution limits, and some other cities have reform measures or have considered them.

But problems are there. In Brea, for example, there have been significant questions about past relationships between city officials and developers or business partners.

In general, there is a need at the local level to put in place reforms aimed at cleaning up both the financing of campaigns and relationships between officials and lobbyists. At the local level as in the case of the county, the stakes are high.