Council Won’t Overturn Firing of Ethics Chief : City Hall: Sources say even council members upset by the action will not exercise their oversight authority.

The Los Angeles City Council is going to let stand the Ethics Commission’s recent firing of founding Executive Director Benjamin Bycel, City Hall sources confirmed Tuesday.

But no one expects the council’s apparent unwillingness to exercise its power to overturn the firing to put an end to the 2-week-old controversy.

More debate over the 3-1 vote to fire Bycel--taken without explanation during a closed-door commission session Oct. 27--is expected Friday, when the commission is scheduled to meet privately to choose an interim director. The commission also is likely to consider Bycel’s request for some form of severance pay, sources close to the commission said.

Friday is the last day the council can invoke its voter-approved authority to take jurisdiction over virtually any action by another city agency. But to do so takes consent of 10 of the 15 council members, and that is not likely in this case.

Even some of those council members who were angered by Bycel’s abrupt dismissal have expressed reluctance to overrule the commission, which is charged with overseeing the city’s pioneering anti-corruption laws. The commission’s watchdog powers extend to all elected officials.

“I think the Ethics Commission is qualitatively different from others when it comes to [the council’s oversight powers],” said Councilman Mike Feuer in explaining why he does not favor overruling the commission, even though he was upset by its action.

Nonetheless, Feuer plans to raise questions about the circumstances of Bycel’s firing at a Nov. 8 hearing on two of his proposals aimed at strengthening the anti-corruption system.

One proposal would dilute the mayor’s appointive power on the commission; the other would define a process to evaluate and terminate an executive director, who now serves at the pleasure of the five-member commission.

Feuer said he has invited commissioners and others to testify at the hearing by the council’s Rules and Elections Committee, which he chairs. Both proposals would require voter approval.

Feuer said Bycel’s firing has created the impression in the public that “ethics reform is on the back burner” and has “undermined public confidence in the commission.”

The ruckus began when commission President Racquelle de la Rocha, who was appointed last summer by Mayor Richard Riordan, moved against Bycel. She cited a rift between Bycel and the California Fair Political Practices Commission (for which de la Rocha formerly worked) as well as with other agencies.

Bycel has had a yearlong feud with the FPPC, which refused to work with him. He also had tangled with the city attorney and the district attorney. Supporters said he was doing his job, but critics said he was abrasive and disruptive.

De la Rocha, a UCLA law school instructor who had been recommended for the presidency of the Ethics Commission by Bycel and others, has declined to publicly discuss the firing, citing the confidentiality of personnel matters. But she has repeatedly denied that she is trying to undermine the commission or that Riordan was behind her move to oust Bycel. She also has said she expects Bycel’s removal to result in a stronger, more effective commission within a few months.

Commissioner Edwin Guthman, the only dissenter in the 3-1 firing vote, has made no secret of his anger and of his belief that the mayor’s office was behind it. The mayor’s office has repeatedly insisted that De la Rocha acted independently and without consultation with Riordan or his advisers.

“I think any reasonable person would have to conclude there was another agenda here that went beyond Ben Bycel. . . . It was to cripple the Ethics Commission, and any reasonable person would have to conclude the mayor and the FPPC had a hand in it,” said Guthman, who praised Bycel as an effective battler of civic corruption.

According to Guthman, De la Rocha said during the closed session that led to Bycel’s firing that she could not work with Bycel and threatened to quit the commission if he were not dismissed. Further, Guthman said, Bycel was called in and told he must resign or be fired. De la Rocha declined comment Tuesday, and Bycel could not be reached for comment.

Guthman laid out some of the details of that meeting and discussed the reasons for his anger this week on a local cable television public affairs program.

“I haven’t seen anything as ruthless and as cold as this in a long time. The way it was handled was so unnecessary and so unfair,” Guthman said.

Asked whether he had qualms about publicly discussing a confidential matter, Guthman retorted:

“I think the public has the right to know everything that went on in there.”