TIME: Almanac 1990/1990 Time Magazine Compact Almanac, The (1991)(Time).iso/time/120489/12048900.008

Text File | 1990-09-19 | 4KB | 67 lines

ETHICS, Page 70

Where Angelenos Fear to Tread

A panel proposes the toughest guidelines yet for city employees


    When Los Angeles Mayor Tom Bradley appointed a special
commission in April to come up with a new city ethics code, critics
dismissed it as a face-saving device. After all, Bradley had just
narrowly won re-election after a campaign that centered on his
alleged ethical lapses -- including his serving as a paid adviser
to two banks that did business with the city. But last week the
seven-member panel proved it was no rubber stamp. It proposed a
code of conduct for city employees and elected officials that may
be the most stringent in the country.

    The code would outlaw all outside earned income, including
honorariums, for decision-making officials. Former officials could
not lobby city departments for one year after leaving the payroll,
and would be permanently barred from acting as lobbyists or
advocates on matters directly related to their government
employment. Candidates for city office would be forbidden to raise
campaign funds until nine months before an election, and partial
public funding would be available for hopefuls who agreed to
spending limits.

    The most sweeping of the panel's 30 recommendations concern
financial disclosure. Elected officials, high-ranking civil
servants and candidates for city office would have to make public
the exact amount of their income and investments, including their
homes, and even list the names of their stockbrokers. Lobbyists who
received more than $1,000 a year to influence city officials would
have to disclose their transactions each quarter. Taken together,
the proposed regulations could affect as many as 1,500 of Los
Angeles' 45,000 employees, as well as an undetermined number of
lobbyists and candidates.

    The panel urged creation of an independent watchdog agency with
the power to impose civil fines of up to $5,000, or as much as
three times the amount involved in a violation. Keeping city
officials aboveboard will not be cheap. The additional personnel,
office space for housing the mountain of new disclosure forms,
matching public campaign funds and mandatory ethics training for
every city department are expected to cost between $2 million and
$4 million a year.

    Unlike the ethics and pay legislation passed by Congress
earlier this month, the Los Angeles proposals do not make up for
banned outside income with salary increases. This leads some
critics to wonder whether many Angelenos, faced with relatively low
city wages and the prospect of having to reveal their most intimate
financial affairs, won't avoid public service if the code goes into
effect. Says Michael Harmon, a professor of public administration
at George Washington University: "The implicit message is one of
distrust."

    Bradley, who is under investigation by state and federal
agencies for possible conflict-of-interest and insider-trading
violations, pledged to work for passage of the code by the city
council. But that body is writing its own ethics rules and is said
to be lukewarm toward the recommendations. Even if the council
balks, however, the commission has vowed to take its proposals to
the voters as a ballot initiative, which may assure victory since
Californians tend to approve such measures. Once enacted, Los
Angeles' no-nonsense ethics rules could become the model for
municipalities like New York City and Chicago, whose current
guidelines are not as tough. Says Bruce Jennings, an associate at
the Hastings Center, an ethics institute in Briarcliff Manor, N.Y.:
"Cities will see the Los Angeles code as a bellwether for what the
public expects of government officials."