Officeholders Learning to Work Without the Perks : Politics: Many benefits fall to austerity. Some fear if the trend continues, public service will be only for the rich.

By TINA DAUNT

Sept. 6, 1994 12 AM PT

TIMES STAFF WRITER

Santa Ana City Councilman Ted R. Moreno remembers the old days--extensive travel, health club memberships, lunches with lobbyists and, ah yes, the council’s sumptuous Christmas buffet, complete with fine wine.

Perks were as much a part of local politics as ribbon cuttings and endless discussions about zoning variances.

Until now.

Call it one of the legacies of the recession: Southern California politicians, spurred on by angry and distrustful constituents, are trying to curry public favor by giving up the goods.

“In a day and age when a lot of residents and constituents have little faith in their officials, we have to show that we are watching our pennies,” said Moreno, who successfully pushed for council cutbacks in Santa Ana. “The free spending of the ‘80s is over. Let’s come into the ‘90s.”

The most visible example of the new downwardly mobile trend is multimillionaire mayor of Los Angeles, Richard Riordan, who is taking only a buck a year for his services. But over the past two years, as government dollars diminished, councils and boards of supervisors from Ventura to San Diego have cut their pay, slashed their expenses and turned down gratuities.

The cuts, however, have come at a cost of their own, some political experts say.

Although the pay and benefit reductions win points with taxpayer advocates and voters, they make it difficult for all but the very rich to hold public office.

“Each time we pull back, we change the equation by which people can run and stay in office,” said Sherry Bebitch Jeffe, a political analyst and professor at Claremont Graduate School. “It’s going to make it harder for lower income people, for minorities, for women. It will mean a government that is not representative of California cities.”

Retiring Los Angeles County Supervisor Ed Edelman, the only board member to accept a 5% pay raise this year, calls the trend to work at a cut rate “government by bandwagon.”

“These are hard times, we understand that,” Edelman said. “There also has to be an understanding of reasonable compensation for our elected officials. If you are going to have people running for office who are going to give back all of their salary, it puts people who can’t compete in that arena at a disadvantage.

“Obviously, there needs to be a standard and so on, but I think this pay thing has gone too far.”

But many constituents disagree.

Residents have had to tighten their belts since the start of the 1990s, said Shirley L. Grindle, an Orange County taxpayer advocate. It’s only fair that government officials do the same.

“The public is really uptight and rightfully so,” Grindle said. “It’s hard to understand when officials take pay raises and perks when everyone else doesn’t have jobs.

“They don’t want to be viewed as insensitive to the economic situation.”

Nonetheless, some of the most notorious perks have been left intact. Members of the Los Angeles County Board of Supervisors still tool around town in bulletproof cars. And officials from Anaheim to San Diego continue to receive free tickets to concerts and sporting events at city-owned stadiums.

But consider:

All 15 Los Angeles City Council members and four county supervisors agreed to either waive a 5% pay increase or donate the money to charity or other causes.

Torrance, Redondo Beach, Pasadena and other Southland city councils cut their travel budgets--contributing to a 15% drop in the number of officials attending the League of California Cities’ state conference last year.

And in Orange County, it’s a crime for many elected officials to even accept a stick of gum from a lobbyist.

Not surprisingly, the trend is finding its fullest expression in political campaigns.

Following in Riordan’s footsteps, wealthy Silicon Valley entrepreneur Ron K. Unz, who ran unsuccessfully against Gov. Pete Wilson in the June primary, vowed to accept only $1 a year if elected.

Rep. Michael Huffington (R--Santa Barbara), the millionaire son of a Texas oilman, has refused contributions from lobbyists and other special-interest groups while pouring at least $10 million of his own money into his campaign against Sen. Dianne Feinstein.

Several Los Angeles-area candidates, meanwhile, say they would refuse to take a proposed 37% pay raise for state legislators, even though a state salary commission says an increase from $52,500 a year to $72,000 a year is justified.

All this worries Ruth Holton, the executive director of California Common Cause.

“We have always held that public officials should receive a fair salary,” Holton said. “Without that, the office will only be accessible to wealthy candidates. And we are seeing more and more wealthy candidates.”

But Holton said she understands the public pressure.

“Unfortunately, people look at a pay increase and they say, ‘They don’t deserve it, what have they done for us lately?,’ ” Holton said. “The public at this point is not receptive, regardless of the merits of any kind of pay increase.”

That lack of receptiveness is by no means restricted to Southern California.

In Placer County, which includes a portion of Lake Tahoe, taxpayer advocates found out that the Board of Supervisors had gradually increased its pay and perks from $22,000 in 1985 to $84,000 in 1992.

Furious, the advocates put an initiative on the ballot that called for limiting all pay and benefits to $30,000 annually for each of the five supervisors.

“They had the rights to give themselves raises, and they abused them,” said Jim Pillow, who helped draft the initiative. “We said, ‘enough is enough.’ ”

The measure passed with about 63% of the vote, forcing board members to roll back their salaries. Now, most supervisors spend little time at the county government center, said board Chairman Alex Ferreira.

“They are all busy with their other jobs,” Ferreira said. “There is no way you could support a family on $30,000.”

Capping salaries can also cause other problems, Holton said.

“It discourages people who might not otherwise run for office, but it also increases the pressure to hide the pay from the public,” she said.

Take Ventura County, for example. Fearful of the public’s reaction to an across-the-board pay increase, county supervisors in the late 1980s quietly voted themselves a large array of lucrative perks, including seven weeks “in lieu of vacation” pay and a bonus based on how long they could stay in office.

After all the extras were added to their base pay of $50,232, the supervisors were earning between $73,000 and $98,000 annually.

Under pressure from taxpayer advocates to get rid of the extras, the supervisors eventually agreed to cut the perks and raise their base salaries to $64,543 annually, or 65% of the salary of a Superior Court judge.

By linking their salaries to those of the judges, the supervisors figured they no longer would be burdened with the task of increasing their own pay, since the jurists’ salaries are set by the state. Officials in Los Angeles, San Diego and Riverside counties had already passed ordinances linking their salaries to those of the judges.

But last year, the Legislature unexpectedly voted to increase the pay of judges and other state employees by 5%, forcing the local officials to decide whether to take the raise or turn it down. The most savvy politicians saw the dilemma as a chance to gain points with the public.

Ventura County supervisors each agreed to waive the increase, as did three of the supervisors in San Diego County, where board members earn $76,171 annually.

“It’s important for us to lead by example,” said San Diego County Supervisor Dianne Jacob, who has been giving 10% of her salary each year to the county. “Times are tough.

“Out of respect for businesses who are struggling and private citizens who are struggling, this is my way of stating that as one elected official, change is needed and change must come from the top.”

In Los Angeles, council members quickly made public their plans to turn down the increase, which would have added $4,534 to their $90,680-a-year salaries.

Councilman Hal Bernson vowed to donate his increase to the Devonshire and Foothill police divisions, and Councilman Nate Holden said he would turn his 5% raise over to the American Youth Foundation.

Councilman Richard Alarcon promised to give his raise to police in his northeast San Fernando Valley district, while the rest signed waivers, leaving the money in their office budgets.

“We all said if there is a raise to be had, it is not going to be us,” said Councilwoman Jackie Goldberg. “Part of it is to provide some symbolic leadership. It’s really a way of saying, ‘Look folks, we are all in the same boat.’ ”

Holden, however, accused the other council members of grandstanding, saying if they were really serious about making sacrifices, they should have given up more than $4,534.

“If they want to give up something, they should roll back their salaries,” he said. “That puts a bite in it. . . . Who are they kidding? They are just jiving, that’s all.”

His colleagues insist they mean business and say they’ve got a list of other voluntary givebacks to prove it.

When City Councilman Rudy Svorinich Jr. took office last year, he turned over his city cars--all seven--to the Police Department.

Goldberg hung a “No Gifts” sign outside her second-floor office at Los Angeles City Hall, making it clear she would not accept any of the many gratuities--from baseball tickets to fruit baskets--that are routinely given to elected officials.

And Councilwoman Laura Chick gave the LAPD three cars and $80,000 from her office budget.

“I had listened very carefully during the campaign,” Chick said. “I heard loud and clear from citizens that they had really lost their faith. They saw us as fat cats who were more interested in filling our own pockets than in doing the job.

“I wanted to send a message that I want this job.”

In Orange County, government officials sought to improve their image by implementing a stunning set of political reforms, from new limits on meals for officials at its chief transportation agency to campaign contribution limits for officeholders.

The county Board of Supervisors last year adopted a virtual ban on all gifts to 1,650 elected, appointed and certain “designated” county officials who are in a position of influence.

The action followed Supervisor Don R. Roth’s conviction on state ethics law charges for failing to report thousands of dollars in gifts of home landscaping, meals and other favors from those who did business with the county.

Disney officials even got into the act by banning all gifts to officials after two Anaheim council members accepted thousands of dollars in complimentary Disneyland tickets. The scandal led to the temporary suspension of those council members’ voting authority on the amusement park’s proposed $3-billion expansion.

“I cannot think of anything good about wining and dining,” Grindle said. “It just confirms what the public tends to think already: They are being bought and paid for. I’m proud they enacted the gift bans.”

Impressed by what Orange County had done, two Redondo Beach council members proposed a similar ban last year, saying it would help restore public confidence in city politics. The measure failed, however, by a 3-2 vote.

Marilyn White, who earns an annual salary of $7,658 as a Redondo Beach councilwoman, voted against the ban. She said adopting the measure would be like “putting four stoplights in a one-intersection town. You don’t need it.”

Rather than instill confidence in voters, the ban would erect a barrier between council members and the public, she said.

“You want to talk to me and you can’t buy me a cup of coffee?” White said. “We felt it was too restrictive.”

While the council voted down the no gifts ordinance, Redondo Beach officials did cut their travel budget--an action dozens of officials across the state have taken over the past few years.

The travel budget for council members was $10,500 in 1990 in Redondo Beach. It is now $7,300.

In nearby Torrance, the City Council has cut its travel budget from $35,000 to $24,500 annually. And in Pasadena, council members have allocated $12,000 for travel, down from nearly $25,000.

The League of California Cities has felt the greatest impact from the travel cuts. Attendance at the league’s annual state conference, where council members attend workshops on everything from planning and development issues to budget matters, has dropped.

“Whether it’s fewer people from a city or fewer cities themselves, we’ve seen a 15% drop,” said Terry Dugan, the league’s assistant director for education and conferences.

Dugan and political analyst Bebitch Jeffe said they believe the travel reductions will only hurt the officials’ ability to do their jobs.

“Even if it’s a blowout like the League of Cities convention, you get ideas, you begin to network,” Bebitch Jeffe said. “You can only do so much by phone. Travel is so critical.”

Riverside City Council members tried to buck the trend in February by voting to increase their monthly expense allowances from $275 to $875 each, on top of their monthly salaries of $1,000.

Council members said they needed additional money to pay for lunches with constituents, phone calls, office supplies and travel expenses--things they now pay for out of their own pockets.

The residents, however, showed up in force to urge the council to reconsider the increase. The council eventually reversed its decision and turned the matter over to a citizens committee for review.

The fate of the $875-a-month expense allowance is now uncertain, but there’s one thing Councilwoman Joy Defenbaugh knows for sure: By the time her term is up three years from now, she will have charged a hefty sum on her credit card to pay for council expenses.

It will make her think hard about running again, she said.

Defenbaugh says she spends hours preparing for the meetings, turning a part-time council job into the main focus of her life.

“We work very hard,” she said. “Certainly if you are not paying a living wage, that limits who is going to be able to run for office.”

Give and Take

Across Southern California, city council members and county supervisors are trying to win points with the public by cutting their perks and forgoing pay increases. Here is a look at the salaries and benefits they still receive and some of the extras they have given up:

COUNTIES

LOS ANGELES COUNTY / Population 8.5 million

Board of Supervisors (5 members)

* Salary of $104,262 annually.

* Car allowance of $8,280 annually, which they can use to lease bulletproof government cars.

* Free tickets to events at the Coliseum.

* All except Edmund D. Edelman, who is retiring, agreed earlier this year to donate a 5% raise to charity or government services.

ORANGE COUNTY / Population 2.5 million

Board of Supervisors (5 members)

* Salary of $82,056 annually.

* Use of a county-owned car.

* Under an ordinance adopted last year, cannot accept even a cup of coffee from a lobbyist.

RIVERSIDE COUNTY / Population 1.3 million

Board of Supervisors (5 members)

* Salary of $62,557 annually, increased by 5% this year.

* Car allowance of $4,200 annually.

SAN BERNARDINO COUNTY / Population 1.5 million

Board of Supervisors (5 members)

* Salary of $65,857 annually.

* Auto allowance of $7,200.

* Council members give back at least 4% of their salaries to the county each year to help boost the budget.

SAN DIEGO COUNTY / Population 2.6 million

Board of Supervisors (5 members)

* Salary of $76,171 annually.

* Car allowance of $8,820 annually.

* Two tickets per supervisor for every event held at San Diego Jack Murphy Stadium.

* Three of the board members turned down a 5% raise this year.

* One supervisor gives the county 10% of her pay each year.

VENTURA COUNTY / Population 700,000

Board of Supervisors (5 members)

* Annual salary of $64,543.

* Waived 5% raise this year, citing the county’s financial problems.

* Cut annual car allowance by $1,500, to a total of $4,500 annually.

CITIES

LOS ANGELES / Population 3.48 million

City Council (15 members)

* Salary of $90,680 annually and the use of a city car.

* Tickets to events at the city-run Sports Arena and the Coliseum.

* All agreed to forgo a 5% raise or to donate the money to the Police Department or to charity.

* Richard Riordan only accepts $1 a year to serve as mayor.

TORRANCE / Population 133,107

City Council (7 members)

* Salary of $1,200 annually.

* Expense account of $3,000.

* Car allowance of $5,352.

* Cut annual travel allowance in 1992 from $5,000 to $3,500 per council member.

ANAHEIM / Population 266,406

City Council (5 members)

* Annual salary of $12,000 plus $25 for every meeting they attend.

* Car allowance of $5,700.

* Six tickets each to most events at the city-run Anaheim Stadium and the Convention Center, including special parking privileges on game days at the stadium.

* Disney cut off all gifts to council members after the acceptance of thousands of dollars in complimentary Disneyland tickets led to the temporary suspension of two council members’ voting authority on the amusement park’s $3-billion expansion.

RIVERSIDE / Population 226,505

City Council (8 members)

* Annual salary of $12,000.

* Expense allowance of $3,300.

* Voted in February to increase annual expense allowance from $3,300 to $10,500 each, but reversed the decision under public pressure.

SAN BERNARDINO / Population 164,164

City Council (8 members)

* Annual salary of $600, plus an additional $75 for every redevelopment agency meeting they attend, not to exceed $150 per month.

* Auto and expense allowance of $6,600 annually.

SAN DIEGO / Population 1.1 million

City Council (9 members)

* Annual salary of $49,000.