Lawmakers Try to Plug Ethics Law : Council: Yaroslavsky proposes that the panel overseeing officials’ conduct be exempt from having actions vetoed. Wachs hopes to revise two portions of the regulation.

Already confronted with revelations that Los Angeles’ new ethics law applies to few City Hall employees and is largely unenforceable, the City Council is now being asked to close what is perhaps the ultimate loophole: the council’s apparent ability to overturn any Ethics Commission decision.

In a motion introduced to the City Council on Wednesday, Councilman Zev Yaroslavsky proposed that the Ethics Commission be exempt from provisions of a voter-approved charter amendment that recently gave the legislative body authority to overrule most city commissions.

Yaroslavsky said voters approved Charter Amendment 5 in June to put an end “to the closed-door cronyism that was evident . . . by some of our commissions. But they certainly never intended to subject the Ethics Commission to political review.”

At the same time Wednesday, Councilman Joel Wachs introduced a motion in what he said was an effort to close two other “gaping loopholes” in the landmark reform measure.

Though the ethics law has been billed as the “toughest in the nation,” it was recently learned that it does not apply to thousands of city employees below the rank of department head. That leaves some of the most powerful city officials exempt from provisions of the law, which as Proposition H was approved by voters in June, 1990.

City Council President John Ferraro said he believes the council is in agreement “that some changes need to be made.” But earlier, some council members said they see the council as a stumbling block to effective implementation of the law. Last week, Councilman Michael Woo said the council has “treated the Ethics Commission as if it was a nest of vermin.”

Yaroslavsky said Wednesday: “The voters of this city have given the Ethics Commission the power and responsibility of enforcing the ethics ordinance. In order to carry out that mandate, and to preserve the integrity of the system, the commission needs to be free to exercise that power without interference.”

Wachs’ motion would extend ethics regulations to all city employees, and it also seeks to cure what he called “an absurd paradox” in the law that allows city commissioners to lobby city departments, but bans lobbying by commissioners once they leave city office.

“The credibility of the city is at stake,” said Wachs. “We must demonstrate that the city is serious about implementing its ethics laws and keeping its own house in order.”

Wachs has asked that his motion get fast-track treatment and go directly to the City Council without being subject to the committee hearing process.

Dennis Curtis, president of the Ethics Commission, said the commission supports Wachs’ motion to expand ethics enforcement.

As for the rules on commissioners, he said, “they ought to be consistent, before and after” their terms. But at this point, the Ethics Commission has not yet decided if city commissioners should be banned from lobbying all city departments or just those that they deal with as commissioners.

And when told of Yaroslavsky’s motion, Curtis said it “sounds like a good idea to me.”

On Wednesday, the commission asked the council to allow it to hire an outside attorney to defend the law in its first legal challenge.

Last month lobbyist and city library commissioner Doug Ring sued the city seeking to overturn the ethics law, arguing that its financial disclosure provisions are burdensome and unconstitutional.

The city attorney’s office does not want to defend the lawsuit, as it may have a conflict of interest. It had already made some of the same arguments against the law that Ring has made in his lawsuit.

The City Council plans to interview outside attorneys for the job next week.