Scandal Under Mayor Dispels Model Image : City Hall: Last three years of Bradley Administration have been tarnished by a pattern of cronyism and apparent conflicts of interest, ethics experts say.

By RICH CONNELL

Oct. 13, 1991 12 AM PT

TIMES STAFF WRITER

During the last three years, scandals swirling around Mayor Tom Bradley’s Administration have exposed fundamental weaknesses in a local political system once touted as a model of clean government, according to ethics experts, political scientists and elected officials.

“It was mythology . . . sold to generations of Angelenos,” said Eric Shockman of USC’s Unruh Institute of Politics. “We are not ‘the city on the hill.’ ”

Reforms of the 1920s and 1930s, which created Civil Service and put private citizens on city commissions, were intended to immunize Los Angeles against graft and political patronage.

But experts say that more than a dozen investigations and ethics controversies involving Bradley and his associates have demonstrated that the city’s government suffers from major ailments, including fuzzy political accountability, inordinate influence of political contributors and gaps in campaign finance laws.

These problems and others, they say, have resulted in a pattern of cronyism and apparent conflicts of interest that have marred Bradley’s fifth term as mayor.

“All these activities . . . are functions of a system we thought was infallible,” said Byran Jackson, a Cal State Los Angeles political science professor who is researching Los Angeles politics.

Many were stunned in March, 1989, when Bradley’s private and public dealings with Far East National Bank first snared him in a criminal investigation and the biggest ethics scandal to shake City Hall in decades.

“It wasn’t supposed to happen here in Los Angeles,” said Lisa Foster, executive director of California Common Cause, a political watchdog group.

But the controversies and probes, mostly initiated by news media reports, kept coming. They centered on fees that Bradley collected as an adviser to financial institutions; possible conflicts and insider trading in the mayor’s personal investments; questionable fund raising by his aides and appointees; campaign activities in the mayor’s office, and alleged irregularities in poverty and low-income housing funds received by Bradley associates.

Last month, former Bradley business associate Juanita St. John was convicted on embezzlement and tax evasion charges. And the mayor forfeited $55,000 in campaign funds collected through carnivals arranged by a businessman seeking to buy city land.

Bradley has not been charged with any criminal offense, although he has been required to pay $20,000 for errors and omissions in state-required reports on his personal finances. Several investigations, including a federal probe of Bradley’s investments, remain open.

The mayor was traveling in the Far East this week and was unavailable for comment, but he previously has said his conduct was legal and proper.

Deputy Mayor Mark Fabiani said “none of these so-called investigations have amounted to a hill of beans so far as the mayor is personally concerned.”

“The mayor remains, according to your own polls, very popular. In large part, the public has seen the real issues . . . seen through the media frenzy.” A Times poll in mid-July, during the Rodney G. King controversy, found that 48% of Los Angeles residents approved of the mayor’s job performance and 41% disapproved--roughly the same level as in September, 1989, after a city report on the ethics controversy.

Regardless of any impact on Bradley’s popularity, the scandals have provided several important lessons about Los Angeles government, political experts, city officials and community leaders say.

One problem, they say, is that authority over City Hall decision making is diffused among City Council members, the mayor, his appointees and city executives. As a result, it is difficult to identify who should be politically responsible for controversial actions.

For example, the city treasurer, an independent department head, deposited $2 million in Far East National Bank in 1989 after a phone call from the mayor, who had been a paid adviser to the bank. The treasurer and Bradley said the mayor exerted no pressure on behalf of the bank.

The city attorney found that Bradley had stepped into a gray area of the law and concluded that there was insufficient evidence to file criminal charges.

Bradley supporters say such incidents show that the mayor--a lawyer and a former police officer--knows what is legally permissible and acts accordingly. “The mayor has remained within the bounds of tolerance,” said the Rev. Cecil Murray, a leading church activist in South Los Angeles.

However, USC’s Shockman said the lesson is that “the way business gets done in Los Angeles is behind the scenes.”

The city’s form of government, he said, has allowed Bradley to maneuver the bureaucracy for the benefit of his friends and associates, without clear political liability.

If the mayor were directly responsible for the decisions of department heads, Shockman said, “you probably wouldn’t have these transgressions.”

Fabiani said Bradley had long advocated changes in the City Charter to clarify political accountability at City Hall, which would require the mayor to bear responsibility for the actions of department heads.

Another problem bared by the Bradley scandals is that special interests, such as developers and city contractors, have gained inordinate influence through political contributions, experts said. “The stakes in Los Angeles got big, beyond anyone’s expectations,” said Foster of Common Cause.

Bradley, who has raised more than $10 million since 1985, favors public financing. “The mayor has said many times . . . that the most distasteful thing about politics is fund raising,” Fabiani said. “He hates to do it.”

A new ethics law passed last year by Los Angeles voters provides for partial public financing and stricter contribution limits to reduce elected officials’ dependence on special interest money. “I think (public financing) would strike right at the heart of it,” said Jackson of Cal State Los Angeles.

But the public financing provision is stalled by legal challenges.

A related issue, City Atty. James K. Hahn and others say, is that current fund-raising techniques cannot be adequately scrutinized under the existing reporting requirements.

Under current law, the intermediaries or “bundlers” who solicit campaign contributions are not identified, although they have tremendous political clout.

Bradley commissioners and aides have raised hundreds of thousands of dollars as intermediaries, The Times found last year after suing to obtain internal campaign records. Much of the money was collected from lobbyists, developers and other special interests doing business with the city.

The aides and appointees denied any improprieties. Police are wrapping up an investigation.

The records also documented the activities of businessman Allen Alevy, who collected $80,000 for Bradley’s 1989 reelection campaign by arranging traveling carnivals. At the same time that Alevy was delivering the proceeds to the mayor, Bradley was aiding Alevy in efforts to purchase city land. Bradley and Alevy denied wrongdoing. The carnivals remain under investigation by the district attorney’s office.

“We’ve got to (find) an easier way (for the public) to figure out how money is contributed,” said Bruce Cain, a professor of political science at the Institute of Government Studies at UC Berkeley.

The city’s new ethics czar, attorney Benjamin Bycel, said that is one area his panel intends to address.

The Bradley controversies, Bycel said, also have shown that potential conflicts can arise because political contributors and fund-raisers, city contractors and lobbyists often are appointed to city commissions.

“You need to somehow break that cycle,” Bycel said. “These webs are the backdrop of everything.”

The district attorney is looking at several potential conflict-of-interest cases involving Bradley commissioners.

Consultant Patric Mayers, a Building Advisory Appeals Board member, collected a $5,000 fee for helping a theater chain that had run into problems with his agency. Mayers denies any wrongdoing.

Former Planning Commission President Dan Garcia hosted a Bradley fund-raiser at his home that raised several thousand dollars from lobbyists and developers that had business before his commission. Garcia said he did not act improperly and did not invite the guests.

Fewer political insiders should be appointed to the city’s commissions, said Councilman Michael Woo. “Part of the irony . . . is the commission form of government (originally) was intended to save the city from professional politicians,” Woo said.

Fabiani defended Bradley’s appointments, saying that he has tried to reach out to the community--even to the extent of appointing several political critics.

The scandals, coming so late in Bradley’s otherwise untarnished career, suggest to some a need for term limits. “The main theme is people got sloppy . . . maybe because you get too comfortable,” said attorney Fred Woocher, an election and ethics law specialist who supports some term limits.

The ethics controversies are part of Bradley’s evolution, said Jackson of Cal State Los Angeles.

After rising to office in 1973 as a builder of grass-roots coalitions, Bradley began courting special interests in the 1980s to finance his two multimillion-dollar bids for governor, Jackson said. “It set a tone for this (controversial) activity to accelerate,” he said.

In recent years, Bradley entered a final “power broker phase,” and began catering to narrower interests, even at the risk of potential conflicts of interest, Jackson said.

Fabiani disputes this, saying that the mayor is still deeply involved in grass-roots coalition building, such as the recent negotiations that led to a truce in escalating racial tensions between black activists and Korean merchants.

Jackson said the “behavior we are seeing here is typical” of many longtime politicians. “Everything he’s doing is honest graft,” he said. “(But) if he had exhibited this kind of style initially, he never would have gotten elected.”

Bradley has not indicated whether he will seek reelection in 1993.

Controversies for Mayor, Associates

In the last three years, Mayor Tom Bradley and several of his aides, appointees and political fund-raisers have been involved in more than a dozen investigations and ethics controversies, including the following:

FAR EAST BANK--After a call from Bradley in 1989, the city treasurer deposited $2 million in Far East National Bank, which had paid Bradley $18,000 as an adviser the previous year. The treasurer and Bradley denied that the mayor had applied any pressure. An investigation concluded that there was insufficient evidence to prosecute Bradley, but City Atty. James K. Hahn criticized him for creating an appearance of conflicts of interest.

FINANCES--In 1989, federal authorities began probing Bradley’s personal finances for possible conflicts of interest and insider trading. A U.S. grand jury subpoenaed records involving eight financial institutions with ties to the mayor. One was the Beverly Hills brokerage firm headed by now-jailed financier Michael Milken, where Bradley bought junk bonds. Sources said the investigation remains open.

DISCLOSURE LAPSES--The city attorney’s 1989 investigation found errors and omissions in Bradley’s public reports on his financial holdings. In a suit, Hahn alleged that Bradley failed to disclose more than $200,000 in investments. The mayor, saying that the omissions were oversights, paid a $20,000 settlement penalty.

ST. JOHN--Published reports in 1989 alleged misuse of city funds for the Task Force for Africa/Los Angeles Relations, headed by Juanita St. John, a Bradley friend and former business associate. A city suit alleging that St. John misappropriated $400,000 is pending. St. John was convicted last month of two tax evasion charges and an unrelated embezzlement charge, but the jury deadlocked on a charge that she stole $178,000 in task force money.

CARNIVALS--In late 1989, Bradley collected $80,000 for his mayoral reelection campaign from inner-city carnivals arranged by businessman Allen Alevy and public relations consultant Mary Anne Singer, The Times reported. At the same time, Bradley was intervening with city agencies on behalf of Alevy, who was trying to buy city land. The city attorney alleged violations of city election laws, and Bradley recently agreed to a $55,000 settlement. The Los Angeles County district attorney’s office also is investigating the carnivals. Bradley and Alevy have denied any impropriety. Singer has declined to comment.

BROOKINS--City officials in 1989 alleged that Bishop H.H. Brookins, a leader of the African Methodist Episcopal Church and longtime Bradley political mentor, used $336,000 in city-controlled federal poverty funds to repair a commercial building he secretly owned. Brookins also collected nearly $50,000 in rent from a city poverty program he headed, officials said. Brookins denied misrepresenting the building’s ownership or personally benefiting from the property. A criminal investigation was dropped in 1989, officials said, because the statute of limitations had expired. The city attorney sued Brookins to recover rent payments and won a default judgment earlier this year. Brookins is seeking a new hearing.

FUND RAISING--In late 1990, The Times reported that Bradley staff and commissioners raised more than $700,000 in campaign funds between 1985 and 1989, often from special interests that did business with the city. Internal campaign records indicated that aides operated a fund-raising network at City Hall, using offices, phones, secretaries and equipment. The aides and commissioners deny wrongdoing. Police investigators say that criminal prosecutions appear unlikely. Final decision rests with the district attorney.

CITY GRANTS--Los Angeles police are investigating Bradley political fund-raiser Harold Washington and a low-income housing project he received from the city’s Community Redevelopment Agency. The probe involves allegations that Washington sought campaign contributions for Bradley and other city officials to gain assistance on city projects. Washington denied the allegations, which he said were made by disgruntled former partners. Bradley has repeatedly intervened with city and federal agencies when Washington’s projects ran into problems. But a spokesman said Bradley did nothing improper and only wanted to encourage more affordable housing. The Times also reported that Washington collected questionable campaign donations for Bradley while seeking approval of the CRA city project. Washington denies intentionally making any improper donations. The state Fair Political Practices Commission is investigating Washington, but declines to give details.

CAMPAIGN WORK--In May, Bradley aides, including Deputy Mayor Mark Fabiani, used city computers to solicit campaign help from mayoral staff members for 9th District council candidate Rita Walters. Staff members also wrote briefing papers and provided Walters, whom Bradley was backing, with material from City Hall files. The aides denied acting improperly, but Bradley expressed outrage and reprimanded Fabiani and five other aides. Police investigated but Dist. Atty. Ira Reiner declined to file charges, saying that the assistance Walters received was readily available to others.