Ethics Panel Finds No Evidence of Svorinich Campaign Violations

Four months after allegations of misconduct were first leveled, the Los Angeles City Ethics Commission concluded Monday that there was no evidence--or way to prove accusations--that Councilman Rudy Svorinich Jr. violated campaign finance laws or engaged in other improprieties as an officeholder.

In a 36-page report, the commission’s staff did find that campaign contributions were twice delivered to Svorinich’s San Pedro office late last year despite a city ban on such activities. As a result, the commission said, Svorinich and his staff should receive more training in laws covering campaign finance and ethics.

While the Los Angeles County district attorney is reportedly continuing a separate investigation into Svorinich and his office, the Ethics Commission’s report was hailed by the freshman councilman as a vindication of his conduct.

“It confirms what I said all along. I have never violated any laws,” Svorinich said. “I was a victim of false and malicious accusations--by disgruntled ex-employees--that were totally unfounded.”

Svorinich’s praise for the report was countered by criticism of it among some former aides to the councilman who were the first to raise allegations of impropriety.

“It is exactly what I would expect from the Ethics Commission because they are simply incapable of independently reviewing one of their own,” said former Svorinich aide John Barbieri.

John Vidovich, Svorinich’s onetime chief deputy, noting that both he and his fiance resigned from the council office, said, “The two of us had a combined salary of $105,000 a year and we are still unemployed. Do you think we would have left that if something wasn’t wrong?”

Ethics Commission officials refused to respond to the criticism and Svorinich described it as “sour grapes.”

Barbieri and Vidovich are among six former Svorinich aides who were fired or resigned from his office in late January. After the exodus, the former employees raised a host of allegations of misconduct, including unreported campaign contributions to Svorinich and an aide doing work for Svorinich’s Wilmington paint store on city time.

But in reviewing the accusations, the commission found either no documentary proof of wrongdoing or only one witness to any single claim of improprieties by Svorinich or aides.

In the case of Svorinich’s onetime support for a controversial waterfront project, the commission found no evidence that the councilman backed the multimillion-dollar development because of contributions from one of its principals, Union Pacific Resources Corp.

It noted that Svorinich later withdrew his support for the project.

Likewise, the commission said it found no record or corroboration of accusations that Svorinich or his staff used city time or equipment for political and private work.

Only in one case did the commission substantiate any accusations against Svorinich’s office. The investigation found that contributions were received at the councilman’s San Pedro office on Nov. 29 and Dec. 8, but no proof existed that Svorinich knew of the activity.