Council Calls for Further Debate on Censure Plan

Worried that everything from sexual orientation to unpopular speech will become the subject of official condemnation, members of the Los Angeles City Council on Tuesday said they are not yet ready to adopt guidelines for censuring colleagues under the new City Charter.

The council unanimously decided that more committee hearings are needed before it can create a process for rebuking members.

With some expressing hurt and anger over past scrapes with colleagues, council members argued that a vaguely written censure ordinance would impinge on their privacy and freedom of expression.

“This can be used as a veiled threat, and it is very, very dangerous,” said Councilman Joel Wachs. “When you have something so open-ended and so broad, it can be easily manipulated. The effect of this will be used to keep people in line, to keep people from speaking out when it’s unpopular.”

Under the new City Charter, which was passed by voters last year and takes effect in July, the council--with a two-thirds vote--can adopt a resolution of censure against members whose actions “constitute gross failure to meet the high standards of personal and professional conduct.”

Although the charter does not require it, the city attorney’s office is urging the council to develop a censure process. A resolution offered Tuesday would allow any member to lodge a complaint that would trigger a censure hearing. The proposal, drafted by the council’s Ad Hoc Committee on Charter Implementation, did not specify the types of conduct deemed unacceptable.

“These are dangerous waters we are treading on,” Councilman Nate Holden said. “. . . All these holier-than-thou, do-gooder people looking for ways to chop up people they don’t like. . . . When it comes back to bite you where the sun don’t shine, you’ll know you’ve created a problem for yourself.”

Council members said they hope to craft a policy within a few weeks. Over the years, a number have been embroiled in controversies that have raised questions about whether they should be censured.

Holden, for example, was accused of sexually harassing one of his female employees several years ago. Although he denied the charge, the council approved paying the employee $175,000 to settle her case against the city.

Councilman Mike Hernandez was arrested several years ago for possessing cocaine, prompting public attacks from a number of council members and the mayor. Hernandez pleaded no contest, kept his office and entered drug rehabilitation.

“I think you all understand why I was reluctant to stand up and speak about this issue,” he told colleagues Tuesday. “The reality is I’m celebrating 985 days of sobriety. . . . I’m not one to be out there judging your behavior. I will be judged by the way I treat other people.”

Councilman Rudy Svorinich Jr. apologized to Hernandez for criticizing him. “When a colleague needed help, I was one of the ones who took the easy way around and condemned him, instead of offering him support,” Svorinich said. “I never think this kind of debate should be on the council floor.”