Ethics Panel Hears Recital of Complaints

The Los Angeles Ethics Commission heard a litany of complaints Friday from city managers and the City Council president, who claim that a strict new ban on gifts from contractors, developers and others doing business with the city is awkward and unreasonable.

Calls for a relaxation of the ban, which took effect in January, came during the commission’s first public hearing on the confusion surrounding enforcement of a landmark ethics reform package approved by voters last year after the controversy over Mayor Tom Bradley’s personal finances.

Some gripes won a sympathetic ear from members of the new commission, who have been struggling because of a lack of staff to begin enforcing the nation’s toughest government ethics code.

City executives said that, under the ethics code, they must refuse a cup of coffee or validation of a parking stub when they attend business meetings.

City Council President John Ferraro complained that he was unable to attend a recent Paramount Studios movie preview because of the new law. “It offends me that there are people out there who think that, because someone sends a bottle of wine or a case of apples or takes you to lunch, you’re going to vote contrary to the best interests of the city of Los Angeles,” he said.

Robert D. Duncan, a union representative of city engineers, said his members have often accepted free lunches and dinners from the same contractors whose projects they oversee. It is “used as work time,” Duncan said. He urged the commission to permit engineers to accept up to $250 worth of such meals per year.

But Lisa Foster, executive director of California Common Cause, a citizens lobby that pushed for the reforms, said many of the city officials who testified fail to grasp the purpose of the ethics law.

“This behavior is precisely what the voters wanted to get rid of,” Foster said.

While some commissioners said they hope to quickly address concerns such as prohibiting a free cup of coffee, they were more cautious when city employees complained about being forced to turn down free tickets to sporting events and meals offered by city contractors, consultants and lobbyists.

“Why are we getting hung up over lunch?” asked Commissioner Edwin Guthman. “Just split the ticket . . . I assume all of you people are reasonably well paid.”

Commission President Dennis Curtis expressed concerns that there “obviously can be a quid pro quo” in such situations.

Investment brokers and dealers who compete for millions of dollars in city deposits occasionally give treasurer’s office employees tickets to Lakers games “strictly out of appreciation,” said Ron McCullough, a cash management officer.

“We liked the situation the way it was,” McCullough said. He insisted that tickets and meals paid for by the investment brokers do not affect business decisions made by city employees.

Similarly, officials of the corporate-like Harbor and Airport departments argued that it is “awkward” to refuse gifts or insist on paying for their share of elaborate business dinners, particularly when they are hosted by Asian firms which view gift exchanges as a routine part of business.

Bill Stein, director of port administration, said the Harbor Department will be at a competitive disadvantage with other city ports if officials are not allowed to be taken to lunches, dinners and golfing outings. “It places a real hardship on our organization, quite frankly,” he said.

Other city officials said many employees were confused by the ban on gifts under the new ethics law.

Jane Ellison, the legal adviser in the mayor’s office, said she had fielded dozens of questions from city employees. One issue for employees is how they can determine whether someone is doing business with the city before they accept a gift, she said. “I think the ordinance is very difficult to live with,” she said.

Planning department employees, for example, are confused about whether they may continue to accept free tickets to fund-raising dinners for City Council members and others, said Melanie S. Fallon, director of city planning. She said that in some cases the tickets are paid for by developers, consultants and lobbyists and distributed by the council offices.

The gift-giving practices at City Hall puzzled Commission President Curtis, who said at the meeting that “nobody gives me gifts . . . if they do, it’s my brother or sister or daughter.”

Commissioner Treesa W. Drury said that a bottle of wine or other gifts can help the donor “gain recognition” so politicians might be “more apt to take (the donor’s) phone call.”

Moreover, the public’s perception of political corruption is very high and city government needs to change the way it does business to rebuild confidence, said Foster, the Common Cause official. She said the law needs to be fine-tuned to cover such things as a cup of coffee or certain professional luncheons.

But the guiding principle should be that city officials “do not accept gifts,” she said, noting council members received a hefty pay raise in the ethics package so they could afford to pay their own way.

The commission’s new executive director, Benjamin Bycel, said he would return in three weeks with a series of recommendations on ethics law amendments to permit city employees to accept incidental food and beverages at certain business meetings.

But commissioners noted that the tricky part will be deciding how and where to draw a clear line limiting gifts once an outright ban is lifted.

ETHICS RULES

City officials have complained that a strict ban on accepting gifts from those doing business with the city, imposed at the beginning of the year, is unreasonable. Here are excerpts from the city ordinance that describe the ban :

“No member of the City Council, mayor, city attorney, city controller or full-time officer or employee required to file statements of economic interest pursuant to the conflict-of-interest code of his or her agency shall:

Accept any gifts, honoraria, or payments for personal services or activities performed by the official for a person other than a government agency from any lobbyist, lobbying firm or lobbyist employer;

Or from any person doing business with the city or seeking to do business with the city;

Or who has within the prior nine months knowingly attempted to influence the officer or employee in any legislative or administrative action which would have a direct material financial effect on such person;

Or who is a party to a proceeding involving a license, permit or other entitlement for use while . . . such matter is . . . pending before the officer or employee;

Or before a body on which the officer or employee is a member, and for nine months following the date a final decision is rendered in the proceeding.”

“The term ‘gift’ within the meaning of this section . . . does not include any of the following:

Gifts to non-elected officials for legal expenses related to an enforcement action brought under city or state ethics law.

Gifts of food, drink or occasional lodging provided in the donor’s home.

Standard business gifts such as calendars, ballpoint pens, boxes of candy for the entire office, etc., which do not constitute a conflict of interest or give the appearance of impropriety.”