Yes, Nuns Covered but Lawyers Exempt

Since it was approved by voters in 1990, the Los Angeles Ethics Commission has been instrumental in improving a grossly under-regulated and, as such, widely suspect city government. Indeed, the commission, under the leadership of Chairman Benjamin Bycel, deserves much credit for fundamental changes in the rules governing relationships between those in City Hall and those who conduct business there.

Among the hard-won reforms are tough rules for campaign contributors and on gifts to public officials and a one-year prohibition on lobbying after an individual has left city office.

But the crusade is by no means complete. The commission still must grapple with the difficult issue of how to bring fairness and equity to the city’s problematic lobbying ordinances. As it now stands, lawyers doubling as lobbyists can get away without registering and reporting their earnings for lobbying.

Meanwhile, as Times columnist Bill Boyarsky recently reported, people like Sister Diane Donoghue, a nun who sometimes appears at City Hall on behalf of the homeless, are required to register as lobbyists and pay a fee.

Two reform proposals intended to bring balance to this system are now before the City Council’s Rules and Election Committee. One, originating within the council, is favored by professional lobbyists and some council members, perhaps not surprisingly. It would create confusing standards under which lawyers often would continue to be exempt from reporting the money they earn or spend in lobbying. The proposal also would exempt from earning disclosure those lobbyists taking in less than $2,000 a month.

The other proposal, put forth by the Ethics Commission, makes much more sense. It would eliminate special exemptions, target the big spenders by lowering the reporting requirement to $1,000 a month, provide a more comprehensive picture of lobbying activity and keep the bureaucracy off the backs of people who do business with the city infrequently.

Richard Alatorre, chairman of the council committee, should speed consideration of both reform plans. But the council should approve the more sensible Ethics Commission version.