Council Defends ‘Officeholder Accounts’

Despite public testimony decrying so-called “officeholder accounts” as “slush funds” with “no redeemable social value,” the Los Angeles City Council moved Tuesday to ask voters in April to override a recent state initiative that lowered the limit on the accounts from $75,000 a year to $10,000.

Acting one week after the new state law took effect, council members responded angrily to a report issued Monday that detailed how they spent more than $1.1 million of the privately raised funds during a 21-month period ending Sept. 30.

Lawmakers defended the accounts as essential to helping them communicate with constituents in an era of dwindling government budgets, although the Ethics Commission analysis showed that only one council member spent more than $10,000 a year on literature and postage, and city records show that the council’s $13-million budget has been hiked each of the past two years.

Tuesday’s 11-2 vote came after an hourlong debate filled with indignant rhetoric on both sides, with reform advocates complaining about abuse of the funds and council members earnestly justifying their spending habits.

Representatives of Common Cause and the Center for Governmental Studies, both sponsors of Proposition 208, urged the council to adhere to the $10,000 annual limit on contributions and spending. The accounts “are used primarily for incumbents either to relate with lobbyists, or to get their name out for incumbency advantage,” said Craig Holman of the Center for Governmental Studies. “They are of no benefit to society.” The council members disagreed--vigorously.

“We’re dealing with very serious innuendoes here,” said Councilwoman Jackie Goldberg, who spent $82,391 during the period studied. “I am not apologetic. Not only am I not embarrassed about my officeholder account, not only am I proud of the expenditures, I am proud of the people who helped me raise the money.”

“I am sick and tired of the grandstanding,” added Councilman Nate Holden, whose $46,481 in expenditures included $4,949 on meals and a $119 parking ticket. “You can say, ‘Throw them all out,’ and democracy as we know it won’t work anymore because you’ll label everyone as a dishonest person.”

Council members Mike Feuer and Richard Alatorre voted against the motion, which forces it back on the council agenda next week for final consideration. Passage is virtually assured, however, because it requires only eight votes the second time around.

Feuer said he believes the voters spoke “loudly and clearly” in November when they approved Proposition 208, a sweeping campaign reform measure that, among other things, limited officeholder accounts to $10,000 a year for politicians ranging from the governor to the members of the smallest city councils. Alatorre suggested that government budgets be increased slightly to accommodate the legitimate expenditures now funded through the officeholder accounts, but that politicians abide by the lower $10,000-a-year limit.

Council President John Ferraro and Councilman Joel Wachs were absent during the vote.

The Ethics Commission study revealed that the city’s 18 elected officials--15 council members, Mayor Richard Riordan, City Atty. James K. Hahn and Controller Rick Tuttle--spent 20% of their officeholder accounts, $232,815, paying political consultants and bookkeepers. They passed on $145,296 to charitable organizations, made $56,385 in political donations and spent $51,163 on meals, $28,535 on travel and $14,644 on gifts, the study shows.

The politicians also spent $118,422 of the officeholder money raising more funds to fill the accounts.

Born in 1990 when new ethics rules prohibited government funds from being used for any campaign-related purposes, including constituent mailers, officeholder accounts have long been criticized by government watchdogs as unmonitored perks. They historically have been filled mainly by lobbyists and other political insiders, many of whom give the maximum $1,000 per year contribution to a broad spectrum of officeholders. Proposition 208 prevents lobbyists from donating to the accounts.

Tony Alperin of the city attorney’s office said Tuesday it remains unclear whether a city ballot measure overriding the $10,000 limit of Proposition 208 also would undo the ban on lobbyist contributions. Even though it was a state measure, Proposition 208 included a provision that allows local voters to change specific sections.

During Tuesday’s debate, several council members insisted they are not attempting to ignore the will of voters but are simply asking voters to reconsider the officeholder accounts in a narrower way with more information.

“The people of Los Angeles will have the ability to have the final say on this,” said Councilman Hal Bernson, who is being investigated by the Ethics Commission for possible misuse of his officeholder account to pay for tickets and parking at the Hollywood Bowl. “If the people of Los Angeles feel we should have a larger amount for our officeholder accounts, then so be it. If they think we should be limited to $10,000 then so be it. If they think we should have none, then so be it.”

Councilman Richard Alarcon defended the more than $7,000 that politicians spent over 21 months on flowers, saying it is “the right thing to do” to send a bouquet to a grieving family victimized by crime. Goldberg said she uses her account to pay two full-time community organizers, helping communicate with an impoverished district in which residents speak many languages.

“I basically do not believe I abuse this account,” Councilman Mike Hernandez said.

Referring to the campaign reformers who came to City Hall to speak against the motion, Councilwoman Ruth Galanter said sarcastically: “I hereby promise I will never take anybody from Common Cause or the Center-for-whatever-it-was to lunch.”