Former Ethics Panel Chief’s New Role Raises Questions : Politics: Lawyer takes case before state FPPC, which he recently headed. He says ‘there is no bending of the law.’

SACRAMENTO — Created by initiative in the wake of the Watergate scandal, the state Fair Political Practices Commission is supposed to keep California government clean and restore people’s faith in politicians.

So when Gov. Pete Wilson’s FPPC chairman, Ben Davidian, resigned in January to practice law, then two weeks ago began representing Wilson’s agriculture secretary, Henry J. Voss, in a high-profile conflict-of-interest case before the commission, political reformers and some legislators began clamoring for a tougher revolving door law.

“It looks terrible. These kinds of things really taint what we do,” said Assemblywoman Kerry Mazzoni (D-Novato), chairwoman of the Legislature’s joint ethics committee, who introduced a bill Thursday prohibiting future FPPC officials from handling any enforcement matters before the commission for at least a year.

“This is blatant and it is wrong, and at a minimum the FPPC ought to refer this whole case to the attorney general or some other agency,” Assemblyman Richard Katz (D-Sylmar) said, contending that the commission cannot adequately handle the case given that Davidian supervised people who will pursue any possible enforcement action against Voss.

“That’s ridiculous,” Davidian replied. “Richard Katz is always good for a comment in the newspaper.”

Defending his decision to represent Voss, Davidian said that nothing in the law prevents him from handling Voss’ case because it was not an open matter during his four-year tenure at the commission. The FPPC’s in-house attorneys and Davidian’s replacement also said there is nothing in the law preventing Davidian from representing Voss.

“There is no bending of the law. There is no shading of the law,” Davidian said. “I am in full compliance with the law.”

*

Davidian quit the $95,000-a-year job as chairman of the FPPC on Jan. 14 to return to his former law firm in Sacramento. Attorney Wayne Ordos, who was the FPPC’s executive director, also quit in January and went with Davidian to the law firm.

Together, the lawyers trumpeted their departure in a lengthy front-page tribute in the FPPC’s in-house newsletter, opening the article by naming the law firm and concluding by saying that they intended to specialize “in general litigation and political law.”

Soon afterward, the law firm--Wilke, Fleury--announced Ordos and Davidian’s arrival in an advertisement in California Journal, a magazine about state government and politics that is widely read in the Capitol. In the ad, Davidian is quoted as saying: “We believe our clients will benefit both from our trial experience and our years managing the FPPC.”

Meanwhile, Ordos and Davidian had sent a letter to their former employees asking for advice about what matters they could handle before the commission.

Replying in a carefully worded letter March 14, the FPPC’s general counsel--whom Davidian recruited when Davidian was FPPC chairman--said California’s revolving door law bars Davidian and Ordos from ever handling cases that were open when they worked at the commission. It also bars them from lobbying the FPPC on matters such as rule-making for at least one year.

But the letter also said that the revolving door law does not preclude them from representing people who are accused of violating the Political Reform Act after Davidian and Ordos’ departure date. The letter added, however, that “we trust that both you and commission staff will make every effort to avoid even the appearance of any impropriety or special access.”

Wilson’s new appointee as FPPC chairman, Ravinder Mehta, lauded the letter, adding: “The law says (Davidian) can handle (the Voss case). I don’t know what the public is going to think. The way the law is written, I think, is fine.”

Enter Henry Voss.

Consumers Union and California Common Cause filed a complaint with the FPPC in February charging that Voss had failed to comply with the Political Reform Act by failing to disclose outside income from his private farming interests, and called for an investigation into Voss’ potential conflicts of interest.

Voss, who has been director of the state Department of Food and Agriculture since 1989, responded by amending his annual disclosure statements going back five years to 1989, showing that he received at least $450,000 in outside income from food processors and packers--including ones he regulated.

Voss also turned to Davidian for legal help. Davidian said he called the FPPC to make sure Voss was not a target of an investigation over his disclosure statements during Davidian’s tenure at the agency. After being told there were no such cases, Davidian took Voss as a client.

“There are specific proscriptions. This is not one of them,” Davidian said. “I was very careful to ask for a formal letter specifically addressing what I could and could not do.”

*

California’s revolving door law, written in the 1980s and 1990, is aimed at ensuring that public officials not capitalize on their knowledge of the inner workings of government, at least not immediately after they leave government service.

Under the law, former legislators cannot return as lobbyists for at least a year after they leave office. The one-year ban also applies to appointed officials. But the law has exceptions and the FPPC is generally the arbiter of what is permitted.

Other former FPPC attorneys now practice before the commission, and some former chairmen have handled cases, too. But those who were contacted said that although they should not be precluded from handling matters in their area of expertise, they abstained from taking FPPC cases immediately upon leaving government.

One, Roger Brown, left his job as head of enforcement in 1988, and wanted to take a case in 1991. With Davidian as chairman, the FPPC issued a letter telling Brown he could not handle the matter because it had been filed--but not acted on--shortly before he resigned. Brown said he was not aware of its existence at the time.

“For the first year after I left the FPPC, I decided I simply would not take any enforcement cases. I thought it would look unseemly for me to do it, so I didn’t,” Brown said. “All I can say is that it is an area fraught with problems with appearances. I didn’t do it, and that was because of my own ethics.”

Harry Snyder, co-director of Consumers Union’s West Coast office and a force behind the complaint against Voss, said he is skeptical that the commission will vigorously pursue Voss, given Davidian’s relationship with the FPPC.

“This is another example of people using private government to make private gain,” Snyder said. “This is more than political by-play. This is substance. This gets at what goes on in Sacramento.”