Ethics Rules Weighed for Officials in Irvine

Irvine may join a handful of California cities that have passed controversial campaign and ethics rules intended to prevent elected city officials from using their offices to enrich themselves.

The proposed ordinance would restrict officials from accepting campaign donations, gifts or jobs from anyone with a major municipal contract or project that required a City Council vote.

“I think it’s always important to do everything possible to instill and maintain public confidence in the honesty and integrity of elected officials,� said Mayor Larry Agran, who is pushing for the restrictions.

Voters in San Francisco, Santa Monica, Pasadena and Claremont recently passed ballot measures imposing the guidelines--initiatives sponsored by the Oaks Project, a Santa Monica-based citizens group. The ballot measure failed in the San Diego County community of Vista.

In Irvine, supporters failed to gather enough signatures from registered voters to place the measure on the city’s March ballot--coming up short by 81 names. But the organization successfully lobbied the City Council to consider adopting the ordinance, and Agran heads a council panel studying the proposal.

Agran said he hopes to bring the ordinance to the council for consideration this fall.

State law already prohibits public officials from voting on matters involving individuals or companies that have donated $250 or more to their campaigns within a year. State and local officials also are prohibited from receiving gifts totaling more than $320 from any single source in a year.

The Oaks Project’s proposed measures aim to regulate conduct for five years after a vote or one year after the public official leaves office, whichever comes first. During that time, officials would be barred from accepting money, gifts or jobs from companies or employees who benefited from the vote.

The Oaks Project was founded in 1997 as an arm of the Foundation for Taxpayer and Consumer Rights, a Washington-based nonprofit organization headed by consumer activist Harvey Rosenfield. The project also is allied with Ralph Nader.

The group targeted only Irvine and the five other cities for the measures because they represent a cross-section of communities in California, said Margaret Strubel, an Oaks Project spokeswoman.

At issue is whether the ban on campaign donations violates the 1st Amendment. Critics, including Irvine City Atty. Joel Kuperberg, contend that campaign donations are a form of free speech and cannot be banned.

“If a company enters into a contract to resurface a city street, for example, then the management, the employees and the owners of that company would be prohibited from making a campaign contribution to any City Council member who voted on that contract . . . and that would be a violation of the 1st Amendment,� Kuperberg said. “If I’m not allowed to cash your check, you haven’t really contributed to me.�

However, other legal experts say the law on contribution limits is not well-defined.

“There’s really no definitive answer because there’s really no constitutional law on this,� said USC law professor and constitutional law expert Erwin Chemerinsky. “The Supreme Court has said you can limit contributions, but the Supreme Court has never dealt with a complete prohibition of contributions.�

The new restrictions have already spawned a flurry of legal action in three of the four cities where the measures have passed.

In Santa Monica, the City Council has sued the city clerk, who refused to implement the law because of concerns about its constitutionality.

Claremont and Pasadena officials have expressed the same concerns and are trying to intervene in the Santa Monica suit so they too can have legal clarification, said attorney Craig Steele, who is representing both cities in the matter.