LA Council Approves Ethics Reforms For Ballot. Critics Say The Changes Are Watered Down

The Los Angeles City Council moved closer Tuesday to placing on the November ballot a package of ethics reforms designed to fight corruption, but the panel dumped key proposals in the process.

Council members unanimously directed the city attorney to draft ballot language for the package, which involves a number of changes to the city charter. The reforms follow successive City Hall scandals that have shaken the public’s trust in elected city officials.

Among the biggest proposals: one that would triple the maximum fines imposed on elected officials and others who violate city ethics rules, including campaign finance laws.

“I think this sends a message that’s loud and clear that we expect accountability and top-level ethical behavior from all of our elected officials,” Councilmember Traci Park told LAist in an interview after the vote.

Some activists who spoke at the meeting called the changes long overdue.

“Such reforms could not be more salient given the slew of corruption-related charges and convictions that have plagued the City Council,” said Ariana Marmolejo of Common Cause, an organization that fights for more accountability in government.

Over the past three years, former council members Mitch Englander, Jose Huizar and Mark Ridley-Thomas have been sentenced to federal prison on corruption charges.

Councilmember Curren Price faces corruption charges in state court. And the city Ethics Commission has accused Councilmember John Lee of accepting illegal gifts from developers. He is not facing criminal charges.

It’s been more than a year and a half since City Hall was rocked by the release of audio recordings of some members making racist and derogatory remarks in a secret conversation about political redistricting — the event that prompted the creation of the Ad Hoc Committee on Governance Reform that proposed the changes.

The charter changes are designed to make the Ethics Commission stronger and more independent. The proposals would:

• Triple the maximum fine per violation of ethics rules to $15,000.
• Allow the commission to hire independent legal counsel in certain circumstances.
• Require the City Council to consider Ethics Commission proposals within 180 days of submission.
• Establish a minimum annual budget for the commission of $6.5 million adjusted annually to reflect changes in the city’s actual revenues. 

The council nixed a proposal that would have allowed the Ethics Commission to place reform measures directly on the ballot, bypassing the City Council. The change would have given the panel leverage to force the council to act on ethics reforms that too often have languished in committees without hearings.

Councilmember Hugo Soto-Martinez argued only the City Council should have the power to place measures on the ballot.

“The folks making citywide policy decisions should be the ones directly accountable to the voters, to the people,” he said.

Some activists denounced the move.

“The really big thing we needed to do was address a system of inactivity where reform goes nowhere,” Rob Quan, an organizer with Unrig L.A., told LAist. He called the package of reforms “marginal improvements.”

Quan doubted fines alone would stop corruption.

“Fines do not change the culture of City Hall,” he said.

Activist Jaime York echoed the sentiment.

“What we are doing is nibbling at the edges of reform,” York told LAist. “It's not actually creating a change in the power dynamic.”

York said individual council members should have less influence over development projects in their districts. In the most high profile corruption case, Huizar accepted bribes from developers to help get their projects through the City Hall approval process.

“There’s too much ability for any individual council members to essentially kill, or approve a project in their district,” she said.

The council also rejected a proposal to expand the size of the Ethics Commission from five to seven. Under the proposal, the additional two members would have been appointed by the panel itself.

Supporters said it would have made the commission more independent. Right now, all of its members are appointed by elected officials.

The council also voted to create a 13-member commission to consider other changes to the city’s charter, including whether to expand the size of the City Council.

Activists had hoped the council would place a measure on the ballot that would increase the size of the panel from 15 to at least 21, but that seems increasingly unlikely. The council has to act by early July to get something on the ballot in November.

In a statement, City Council President Paul Krekorian, who supports expansion, said “such a dramatic and unprecedented change in the makeup of the Council” requires more debate.

“This ongoing discussion will require more public input and analysis than can be completed in time for the November ballot,” Krekorian said.

One measure already headed to the ballot in November would end council members’ ability to draw their own district boundaries, a fraught political process that was at the center of the secret City Hall tapes scandal.

Under the proposed charter amendment, that responsibility would be given to an independent redistricting commission.