With One Member Perhaps Not Up to Par, Is Council Playing Charades? : City Council: In systemically diluting an ethics package, members seemed to abuse their own as well as the public.

Two incidents at a recent Los Angeles City Council meeting on a proposed ethics package underscore how ethical attitudes shape workaday political practices. Politicians are frequently so busy doing what they have been trained to do that they overlook the crucial role high ethical standards play in ensuring their effectiveness and in promoting positive perceptions of them.

The council was debating the recommendations of an independent commission and of its own ad hoc ethics committee. At least 50 amendments were also on the table. One of the most important recommendations was public funding of campaigns. A vote was taken to put the idea on the June ballot. The measure lost.

One of those voting against public financing was Council President John Ferraro. That was a surprise. For weeks, Ferraro had stated that he would allow the public-funding measure to reach the ballot. His vote, he explained later, was the result of having misunderstood the vote--an amendment to an amendment.

For the public-funding measure to be reconsidered, a council member who had voted against it had to request that the debate be reopened. That task fell to Councilman Gilbert Lindsay. Why? Because his colleagues apparently felt that he was the easiest person to persuade: The councilman is often described as feeble and forgetful.

Council members on both sides of the issue surrounded and coaxed Lindsay. One of his staff pulled him aside for a talk. Then came a call to Lindsay from the mayor, a supporter of public financing. Finally, Lindsay was led to his seat, a sheet of paper, with large red letters on it, handed to him. “I move for reconsideration of Amendment 45,” Lindsay read, haltingly.

The opportunity for Ferraro to correct his mistake and vote for public funding of campaigns had arrived. All that was needed was a second to Lindsay’s proposal. It didn’t come, and the public-financing measure died. So ended City Council willingness to let the public decide a fundamental change in the way city elections are conducted.

When the public learns of these incidents, the damage to the political process is great. More than political rhetoric and piecemeal reforms are required to replace the skepticism and negative perceptions created by conduct such as the council’s.

The incident involving Lindsay raises several questions: Who is really making his decisions? Whose vote is being recorded? How are the responsibilities of his office being carried out and by whom? Are other council members helping or using Lindsay?

It is sad, indeed, to witness what has happened to the Gilbert Lindsay of just a few years ago. A vibrant, active, forceful voice in city politics, he enlivened council proceedings. Whether Lindsay pleased, amused or angered, his position on any given issue was never in doubt. Nor was he ever reluctant to speak his mind.

Persuading popular politicians to leave office because of a personal condition that adversely affects performance is a delicate task. In California, a non-elected commission may remove sitting judges when circumstances warrant. No other office is subject to that principle.

When is a politician obligated to leave office because of personal problems that impair his or her performance? The answer not only affects the politician and his or her district but also political colleagues and their constituents.

In addition, under what circumstances is it ethical for other elected officials to carry their less-than-full-time colleague? Are workloads rearranged to pick up the slack? Are key assignments being handled by others? Are crucial decisions being made on behalf of the member without his or her full knowledge?

If any of this is happening, the public could reasonably conclude that a charade is being perpetrated, that poor standards are being accepted. For an officeholder not to be fulfilling his or her duties while others remain silent erodes public trust and undermines respect for political institutions and politicians.

The public’s lack of confidence in their elected officials was one of the reasons why many of the reform proposals were before the City Council. The public’s perception of politicians as self-servers was another reason for the call for change. The council’s handling of the ethics legislation, in which they engaged in the very practices that cry out for reform, negates the argument of those who say there is no need for change. There is. And it can begin when the public holds politicians to a higher level of ethical conduct.