Bernardi Plays Crucial Role in Ethics Package : Reform: The City Council is readying a measure for the June ballot. But using tax money for campaigns has a key councilman angry.

Ernani Bernardi doesn’t like costly frills in government or in hairstyles.

That was apparent as Bernardi, the most senior member of the Los Angeles City Council and a man with a well-known reputation for frugality, sat recently in a pre-blow-dry-era barbershop near his City Hall office, got a $7 haircut and inveighed against a proposed city ballot measure.

“I’ll do everything I can to kill public financing of campaigns,” the 79-year-old Van Nuys-based lawmaker vowed as the workmanlike barber snipped around his ears. “I’ll talk to any groups that’ll listen. Anyplace. Anytime. It’s a high priority of mine to kill this thing.”

Such threats are viewed seriously by Westside liberal Geoff Cowan as he works on strategies to win voter approval of a complicated ethics plan he and other political reformers are sponsoring. The issue has been hotly debated for months at City Hall and appears to be headed for a test at the polls.

“Bernardi is a formidable foe. . . . He could defeat it,” Cowan said recently.

The measure would limit campaign spending by providing tax dollars to partially finance candidates’ campaigns. Another key element of the reform would bar elected officials from taking outside jobs.

The multifaceted measure, a product of the controversy over Mayor Tom Bradley’s receipt of consulting fees in 1988 from Far East National Bank while the bank was doing business with the city, also would give the city’s 18 elected officials a major pay hike.

What is proposed for council members is a 53% increase that would boost their yearly pay to $94,344. The plan also would alter the way salaries are set for all elected officials.

Now, the council votes to set the annual pay increases. But its discretion is limited; the City Charter bars any yearly hike greater than 5%. Under the new proposal, the annual increases would be tied to those awarded to judges. Judges’ salaries are set by the state Legislature.

This Tuesday Los Angeles City Council members will put the final touches on the complicated plan before trying to place it on the upcoming June ballot.

It is the proposed use of tax money to fund campaigns that has got the tightfisted Bernardi in a fighting mood.

Bernardi said last week that he may try on Tuesday to divide the three major parts of the proposed ballot measure--public financing of campaigns, ethics reform and the pay hike. “Each of them ought to be a separate measure so the voters could have a real choice,” Bernardi said.

Bernardi and Councilman Marvin Braude, who represents Encino, Tarzana and Woodland Hills, were the only two San Fernando Valley lawmakers to vote against the controversial tactic of wrapping all three topics into one all-or-nothing, omnibus measure.

The big question is whether voters will view the omnibus package as a “glass that’s half-full and vote for it or one that’s half-empty and vote against it,” said Councilman Michael Woo, who represents parts of Studio City and Sherman Oaks. “We’re serving the public a very mixed drink.”

The pay hike alone “could kill the measure in the Valley,” predicted Councilwoman Joy Picus of the West Valley.

As dean of the council members in the voter-rich, fiscally conservative Valley, as a lawmaker with considerable credibility as a campaign-finance reformer himself, and as a well-known watchdog of the government’s purse, Bernardi’s opposition to the omnibus measure also could prove decisive.

So far, the plan appears to be heading for a test at the polls with the active support of only two of the eight council members who represent the Valley--Council President John Ferraro, who represents Toluca Lake and North Hollywood, and Woo.

Valley council members have played an active role in the debate about the plan. Here are some of their views and votes on the issue:

* Joel Wachs--Councilman Wachs authored the motion to raise the pay of council members to that earned by Superior Court judges. Wachs said he could only support tighter restrictions on lawmakers making outside income if the council got a pay hike. Wachs also supported linking all three topics--ethics reform, public financing and the pay hike--into one measure. Wachs represents a U-shaped district that stretches from Panorama City southward through Van Nuys to Studio City and then angles back northward to take in Sunland-Tujunga. Wachs could not be reached for comment about his votes.

* Picus--Picus, who represents the West Valley, said she sees the proposed omnibus reform measure as “the best package of reforms of any city in the nation.” But the lawmaker also said she has not decided if she’ll take a high-profile stand to seek its passage. Ideally, the three issues would not be tied together, she said.

Valley lawmakers Picus, Braude and Woo have been the steadiest supporters of public financing of campaigns during the lengthy debates.

* Ferraro--Ferraro authored the motion to link a pay hike for elected officials to a ban on all outside jobs. He said he will work to get voters to pass the proposed omnibus measure but is vague about what his support might entail. “It can’t pass without an active campaign,” he said. “I’m hopeful there will be one.” By using his influential post as the council’s leader and his surplus political funds, Ferraro could give a big boost to the campaign to secure passage.

* Zev Yaroslavsky--Yaroslavsky is undecided about whether to campaign for or against the proposed measure. “I’m torn. I like the ethics part of it but the public financing part is a disaster,” he said recently. “We shouldn’t be spending money to fund the campaigns of candidates we don’t agree with.” If the package fails at the polls, Yaroslavsky said, he would immediately propose that the council adopt an ethics reform ordinance to ban outside jobs. He said such a ban does not need voter approval.

The West Los Angeles-based lawmaker, who represents parts of Sherman Oaks and Van Nuys, also said he believed the city’s elected leaders deserve a pay hike. “But this year is the worst year to convince the people that the mayor and the council--particularly the former--should get a pay hike,” he said.

* Braude--This lawmaker also said he is still uncertain about whether he will ask voters to reject or support the proposed omnibus measure. “I haven’t decided what to do. I’m strongly supportive of the package except for the salary matter,” he said. While he believes that “it’s obscene for us to be voting on our salaries,” Braude fears that tying the pay-hike proposal to the other measures threatens the entire package.

* Woo--Woo was an architect of the tactic of tying all three elements--ethics, public financing and a pay hike--into one all-or-nothing package and he defends the move.

“It was the mayor’s search for outside income that got us into the ethics problem in the first place,” he said, referring to Bradley’s job with Far East. If lawmakers were paid better, the need to seek potentially compromising outside employment would be reduced, Woo said. And simply banning outside employment while leaving salaries at current levels is not reasonable, Woo said. “If officials are giving up the opportunity to have outside income, its reasonable for them to get a higher salary.”

* Hal Bernson--Councilman Bernson said he has very mixed emotions about the package. “I’m very opposed to public financing,” he said. Despite that, Bernson voted to lump the public-financing issue in with the ethics reform and a pay hike. “I’m very happy to tie public finance and the pay raise together--now they’ll both go down in defeat,” he said.

QUESTIONS OF ETHICS

Should the following measures be placed on the ballot?

Chart shows how council members cast their votes on whether to put these issues to voters. The dates in parentheses are dates of the votes.

1. Public Financing of Campaigns (2-13)

2. 53% Salary Increase for Council Members (2-13)

3. Linkage: Salary increase, ethics reform and public financing should be linked in one ballot measure on the ballot (2-13)

4. Ban on income from outside jobs, gifts and honoraria (1-17)

5. Strengthen requirements for disclosing income and investments

Ban on Public Salary outside Income financing Increase Linkage jobs disclosure Wachs No Yes Yes Yes Yes Picus Yes No Yes No Yes Ferraro Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yaroslavsky No Yes Yes Yes Yes Bernardi No Yes No Yes Yes Braude Yes No No No Yes Bernson No Yes Yes Yes Yes Woo Yes Yes Yes No Yes Valley Vote (Y-N) 4-4 6-2 6-2 5-3 8-0 Council Vote (Y-N) 10-4 10-4 11-3 9-4 13-0