Assembly Ethics Panel Balks at Making FPPC a Legislative Watchdog

SACRAMENTO â€”  The Assembly Select Committee on Ethics, contending that legislators should police themselves, rejected a proposal Thursday to give an outside enforcement agency--the Fair Political Practices Commission--the power to watch over lawmakers’ conduct.

Attempting to piece together a code of ethics for the Legislature, the panel agreed to restrict the size of honorariums and gifts legislators may receive but stopped short of imposing a ban on such outside payments. Ultimately, the panel agreed that honorariums should be banned if legislators receive a corresponding salary increase.

The decisions came during the third in a series of unusual public meetings in which the panel is drafting new rules designed to clean up the tarnished image of the Legislature.

In recent months, Assemblyman John R. Lewis (R-Orange) has been indicted on a charge of forgery and Sen. Joseph B. Montoya (D-Whittier) has been indicted on charges of extorting payment of honorariums in exchange for action on specific bills.

“What we’re all about here is trying to improve the image of this body (the Assembly),� said Assemblyman Robert C. Frazee (R-Carlsbad), who sits on the newly created Ethics Committee.

Nevertheless, several members of the committee expressed the view that problems of conflict of interest and payment of honorariums are not as serious as some outsiders have suggested.

“There really isn’t that big a problem with conflict of interest,� said Assemblyman William H. Lancaster (R-Covina), a member of the panel and chairman of the virtually dormant Joint Legislative Ethics Committee.

And Assemblyman John Vasconcellos (D-Santa Clara) argued that the ethical problems posed by the receipt of speaking fees from groups with an interest in legislation “pales� when compared to the much larger amounts of campaign donations doled out each year by the same interests.

One of the key issues facing the committee Thursday was whether to bring in the Fair Political Practices Commission to enforce conflict-of-interest laws in the Legislature.

Because of a loophole in the Political Reform Act of 1974, legislators are exempt from outside enforcement of laws prohibiting them from voting on matters in which they have a financial interest. By contrast, local elected officials throughout the state are subject to scrutiny and potential fines by the Fair Political Practices Commission.

Although the Legislature has its own joint ethics committee with the power to look into conflict-of-interest allegations, it has shown an extreme reluctance to investigate members of the Legislature. Under Lancaster’s chairmanship, the committee has met only twice since 1985 and has not initiated any investigations.

Freshman Assemblyman Ted Lempert (D-San Mateo), who ran on a platform of ethics reform, urged his colleagues on the panel to bring in the political watchdog commission to take action against any legislator who has a conflict of interest.

“If we are going to be serious about reform in this area, we should put the Legislature in line with other elected officials and have FPPC enforcement,� he said. “If we’re going to leave conflict of interest to the in-house ethics committee, then we’re not really changing anything.�

But by a vote of 7 to 1, Lempert’s proposal was rejected. Instead the committee decided to broaden the jurisdiction of the Joint Legislative Ethics Committee so that it could become more aggressive in policing members.

Vasconcellos and other members of the panel argued that the Legislature should not give an outside agency the authority to investigate its members.

“I’m not about to do that to myself or anybody else,� Vasconcellos said. “I think we can police ourselves adequately.�

In dealing with the issue of outside income, the panel voted to place an annual limit of $1,000 on all honorariums and gifts to a legislator from a single source. Honorariums could not total more than one-third of a legislator’s salary, which is now $40,816.

In addition, honorariums would be paid only for substantive appearances, not simply for meeting with an interest group. Legislators who receive an honorarium would have to report their scheduled appearance at least a week in advance and afterward provide the newly constituted ethics committee with a transcript or tape recording of their speech.

In the long run, the panel agreed it would favor an outright ban on honorariums and a limit on earned outside income equal to one-third of a legislator’s salary. However, the committee agreed that such restrictions would have to be linked with a constitutional amendment creating an independent panel that would have the authority to substantially increase legislators’ salaries.