Advertisement

Probe Focusing on 2 City Managers

Share
TIMES STAFF WRITERS

The full nature of the law enforcement raids on city halls in Cudahy and Bell Gardens is unclear, but some observers suspect that investigators are probing whether the city managers of both cities violated conflict-of-interest laws by voting for measures that eventually cleared the way for their appointments.

The ascendancy of the city managers followed strikingly similar paths. George Perez, a former Cudahy councilman, was appointed to his post last year by council allies. So was his counterpart in neighboring Bell Gardens, Maria S. Chacon.

Perez and Chacon, neither of whom have college degrees, now each earn more than $80,000 per year managing their small, blue-collar cities a few miles southeast of downtown Los Angeles. On Wednesday both managers had to fend off accusations of wrongdoing after residents learned that they were possible targets in an ongoing political corruption probe. The raids that closed down Cudahy City Hall became the talk of the two towns, and rumors flew that city employees--even the city manager of yet another nearby city--had been arrested. No arrests occurred.

Advertisement

According to Cudahy officials and a search warrant obtained by The Times, among the items seized in Tuesday’s raids were records related to the appointments of Perez and Chacon. In Cudahy, investigators seized, among other items, personnel records, minutes of City Council meetings and Perez’s personal organizer.

In Bell Gardens, officials did not disclose a list of items seized. But according to one search warrant, investigators were seeking any documentation or records concerning Chacon’s appointment last year.

In all, 46 district attorney’s investigators searched at least six homes or businesses in both cities, including the law offices of Bell Gardens’ city attorney, Arnoldo Beltran. Investigators also visited the homes of Chacon and Perez, and searched Perez’s home. Authorities would not say if Chacon’s home had been searched, and she did not return calls seeking comment.

Perez dismissed speculation that he is a target in the probe, saying that any criticism is fueled by vanquished political foes. “I’m not worried,” he said. “It’s all political. A lot of it could be past sour grapes. Folks that may have lost elections.”

Perez and Chacon were elected to their City Council posts in the mid-1990s. Perez was a former maintenance worker who had also worked in the city’s Parks and Recreation Department. Chacon was a political heavyweight who helped engineer the Latino takeover of an all-white council in the early 1990s and quickly consolidated her grip on power.

For Perez and Chacon to assume their managerial positions, certain ordinances had to be changed, including one that requires a one-year period before former council members can be eligible for appointments.

Advertisement

Perez voted to repeal the ordinance in May 2000 and then started his $89,000-a-year post a few months later. Chacon, according to former council members, voted to repeal the one-year rule as well as another ordinance requiring certain qualifications for the managerial post.

Reaction to the moves was mixed. In Cudahy, Perez’s appointment passed without significant dissent.

But Chacon’s appointment fueled controversy, including protests outside City Hall and political brawling that led to a shake-up of the City Council. On Wednesday, a few of Chacon’s critics gathered outside City Hall, protesting her appointment to the city manager post.

Joaquin Penilla, a council member at the time, said he thought Chacon’s votes on ordinances that could eventually benefit her were questionable.

“I thought it was suspicious,” he said. “I suspect the investigation is about how the city managers [in Bell Gardens and Cudahy] got their jobs.” Penilla has also been embroiled in Bell Gardens’ political intrigue and in 1999 was ousted from the council in a recall.

California statutes prohibit politicians from voting on contracts in which they have a financial stake. But whether the managerial position constitutes a contract is open to interpretation, according to legal scholars.

Advertisement
Advertisement