Tough Ethics Rules Proposed for MTA Board

In response to the federal government’s demand for a code of conduct, the MTA has drafted new rules that for the first time would prohibit board members from attempting to influence contract awards and impose sanctions ranging for violations that range from public reprimands to ousters.

The code, drafted by the MTA’s ethics officers at the request of U.S. Transportation Secretary Federico Pena last week, spells out dozens of do’s and don’ts that could radically change the way the agency does business if it is approved by the board, officials said.

“It’s like sending them all back to catechism class. We’re saying, ‘This is wrong and this is right,’ ” said ethics officer William C. Lowe. “It’s everything you’re supposed to learn in kindergarten, but they were absent that day.”

The most critical rules would govern the Metropolitan Transportation Authority’s contract process, which was found to be seriously flawed in a recent audit of the agency by independent management consultants. Reports of board members’ meddling in the agency’s day-to-day operations were criticized by Pena when he met with four board members Dec. 16 in Washington to discuss steps sought by the federal government to ensure continued funding for subway construction.

One proposed regulation declares that board members and their alternates “should not communicate with responsible MTA staff during the procurement process.” Another states that board members should not attempt to obtain information about a procurement until an award has been publicly announced.

James Cragin, a Gardena city councilman who is chairman of the new board committee that will have first crack at approving the new rules, said he will seek a new state law allowing the MTA to fine directors who violate the rules. Legislative approval would not be needed to remove board members who violate the rules.

“We’ve got to make this thing hurt. The board won’t like it, but tough,” he said. “We’ve got to turn this . . . place around and get our credibility back.”

It could not be determined if the rules would be approved by the full board because most members could not be contacted. The board is expected to vote on the matter on Jan. 10.

Cragin expressed distress, however, that the proposed rules have already sparked some controversy. In the committee’s first meeting Monday, he said, one board member complained that the new definition of improper financial ties between contractors and directors might be too restrictive.

“The MTA is like the Titanic. We’ve got water rushing over the top deck, and we still have people asking if we should put the lifeboats in the water yet,” Cragin said.

Even Los Angeles County Supervisor Zev Yaroslavsky, who is also an MTA board member, expressed some reservations about the new rules, which he has not seen. He said board members should be allowed to contact agency staff members who deal with contracts, but should be prohibited from trying to influence their decisions.

Cragin said he relished his role as head of the new Ethics Committee because a predecessor panel that he led was disbanded 2 1/2 years ago at the request of then-board Chairman Richard Alatorre, a Los Angeles city councilman. “Whenever I put something on the agenda about ethics and procurement back then, Alatorre took them off,” Cragin said. “Finally, he just dismissed the committee. I said in closed session last week that we better get it right this time.”

Alatorre could not be reached for comment.

The drive for the new rules took on renewed force last Wednesday when the board engaged in nasty personal attacks during a bitter debate over the awarding of a contract to manage subway tunneling on the Eastside. Failing to reach a consensus, the board delayed a decision until next month.

The next day, Federal transportation administration chief Gordon Linton told The Times that the board members’ lack of public civility “seemed to indicate that they’re not on the right track.”

Speaking of the meeting that he and Pena had held with board members earlier in the week, Linton said: “We have conveyed in clear terms our concerns for their governance. But their behavior, and the decisions not made, shows that they have a long way to go to meet our requirements.”

The MTA board has been criticized for political infighting, overspending on subway construction and continuing tunneling mishaps.

Joseph E. Drew complained of board members’ meddling when he resigned as MTA chief executive last month. He has announced that he will become head of an organization that is trying to turn 700 acres of farmland near Bakersfield into a hub of global commerce.

Drew was not available for comment, but he told the Bakersfield Californian that he was excited about the promise of his new role as chief executive of an industrial park called the International Trade and Transportation Center. “Just look at the map and you can see that Kern County is going to be the next center of distribution for the West Coast and the Pacific Rim,” he told the newspaper.

Meanwhile, the MTA has run into at least one roadblock in its attempt to hire an interim chief executive to replace Drew by the time he leaves at the end of January. Three board members said they were dismayed to learn this week that their top candidate, former New York City transit chief Alan Kiepper, now works for one of the agency’s leading contractors.

Kiepper, who was interviewed by several board members in Los Angeles on Monday but was not available for comment Tuesday, is a consultant for engineering conglomerate Parsons Brinckerhoff in New York. The company leads a consortium called Engineering Management Consultants that has designed all MTA rail projects for the past decade.

Cragin said Kiepper would not take part in any decisions involving Engineering Management Consultants’ contracts if he took the job.

“I don’t know, he might not be the guy. I think we’ll be putting ourselves in hot water again,” Cragin said. “I wish we could find someone else who had very little ties with any of the contractors or anyone we’re dealing with.”

Lowe, the MTA ethics officer, hopes that the new code of conduct will help define such gray areas for the board.

“Ethics is the enforcement of the public trust beyond what the law calls for,” Lowe said.

One section of the code, he said, attempts to rein in the entire agency’s lax attention to appearances of conflicts.

“It is essential to recognize that an act is not ethical simply because it is legal and conduct is not proper simply because it is permissible,” declares the draft report. “Board members [and their alternates] should be willing to do more than the law requires and less than it allows. Strict compliance is not necessarily enough and attempts to evade or circumvent ethics laws and rules is improper.”