A Code of Ethics for L.A.: Can It Make a Difference?

The proposals for a Los Angeles city ethics code presented last week are being called the toughest in the nation. The commission that drafted the recommendations also calls them the “fairest, clearest and most effective code,” but that is a matter of perception. There is going to be plenty of discussion in the coming weeks and months as to whose perception is correct and what impact such a code would actually have in Los Angeles.

As director of the staff that drafted the recommendations, let me state that what makes this code tough is not its parts; none are more stringent than anything else in U.S. government. But it is more comprehensive: Every recommendation is based on procedures in the private sector or the current practice in some city, state or federal branch of government; or it is proposed law. Nothing came out of whole cloth. Nothing was drawn from our imaginations--creative as they might be.

Putting aside the question of how tough is tough, perhaps there is a more appropriate question: What difference will this code make in the way business is conducted in Los Angeles?

The 30 recommendations include creation of a city ethics commission; specific and detailed requirements about financial disclosure; prohibitions on earning outside income and on investments that could cause a conflict of interest, lobbying for those who leave city government, and campaign finance. The commission called for oversight of ethics regulation, the power to investigate and prosecute violations and an extensive training program to educate everyone involved.

So what will change? We start with the assumption that most of the people who work for the City of Los Angeles are honest, dedicated public servants. Those in elected and top policy-making positions will be required to be more complete when they fill out disclosure forms, but we believe the new forms will be easier to fill in because respondents will know what is required of them (partly because they have been trained and partly because the questions will be so specific.) “Eliminate the gray” has become our motto in the past several months.

For the small group of individuals who move back and forth between the private and the public sector, there will be guidelines: They will not be able to leave city government one day and become lobbyists trying to influence the decisions of those they left behind the next. They will be “permanently barred” from being involved in “particular matters” in which they had a personal and substantial involvement while in office; that condition could last a few weeks or even a few years. A staff aide who worked on developing regulations for a specific development could not become a lobbyist for someone bidding on it. A staff member will be barred for one year from lobbying the department the staffer left, but will be able to use knowledge of city government to lobby others. Elected officials and those decision-makers who have citywide responsibilities would be banned from lobbying anyone in the city for a year.

These prohibitions will make it more difficult for individuals to leave City Hall and immediately build a career on inside knowledge. On the other side of the issue, these regulations will assure everyone else in the city that Los Angeles is not run by insiders bent on protecting their own. For the many individuals we met who pride themselves on integrity and honesty, these prohibitions will be an enhancement; no one will be able to taint their success because of whom they knew or what strings they could pull.

The biggest change is likely to come in two areas: enforcement and campaign finance. The proposed city ethics commission is modeled after the state’s Fair Political Practices Commission. It puts teeth in the entire package.

Campaign finance reform will require a change in the way business is conducted at City Hall. One proposal calls for a ban on fund-raising until nine months before election for that office. A similar plan, Proposition 68, was approved by California voters in June, 1988. Most incumbents raise most of their money in the years between elections.

Our proposals would also eliminate most non-campaign fund-raising committees. Such “friends of” committees are currently able to circumvent the intent of recent city campaign finance laws, because contributions to them are not limited to $500.

Partial public financing--which provides a floor--also makes it possible to impose a ceiling, in the form of expenditure limitations. Incumbents will have no need to spend their days and nights raising money, once they reach the spending limit. Challengers will have a chance to catch up in the spending and make their case to voters.

Will this make a difference to Los Angeles? Yes. It will not mean the wholesale dumping of elected city officials, because many incumbents have the opportunity and the desire to maintain close relationships with their constituents. But it will make a difference to those officials who forget the people who put them there.

Will it make a difference in the ethical measure of the city? We think it will. The proposals for campaign finance--and, in fact, in the entire ethics package--seek to draw sharp lines between what is acceptable and what is not, to establish a process for addressing conflicts of interests and to keep a tight a watch on the flow of money.

When I came here six months ago, a long-time friend said, “Make sure you don’t get taken over by those good-government weenies.” He was afraid that if our recommendations were too tough, no one would want to serve. But is that the reason anyone questions a public career? Would you want your son or daughter to go to work for the city?

If you have any reservations at all, it is not really because the city does not pay well (although we think there should be salary increases). It is not because they will have to disclose the cost of their house and the mortgage rate they pay on it. It is because you think it is a sleazy place to be.

An ethical code requires a broad sweep--unlike law, which must be narrow. The problem, of course, is that ethical behavior, unlike legal behavior, is not measured in narrow terms. It is reflected in a standard that is cumulative and general. One has a sense of integrity, or one does not.

We think a tough code--and only a tough code--will make all the people who do public work--or have public business--look on city government as a place of honor.