TIME: Almanac 1993/TIME Almanac 1993.iso/time/120489/12048900.008

Text File | 1992-09-23 | 4KB | 74 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."