Comments
THE BOTTOM LINE - Los Angeles does not suffer from a lack of ethics rules. It suffers from a persistent failure to enforce them in ways that actually restrain power. Nowhere is this failure more apparent than in the City’s response to Councilmember John Lee’s ethics violation—a response that once again exposes how City Hall shields its own while demanding strict compliance from everyone else.
The City Ethics Commission found that Councilmember Lee violated campaign finance laws connected to his first election campaign. The facts were examined. The violation was established. And the outcome followed a familiar script: a fine, quietly paid, and then institutional silence.
No suspension.
No loss of authority.
No meaningful consequence.
Just another reminder that in Los Angeles, ethics enforcement is treated less as a safeguard of democracy and more as a transactional inconvenience.
Campaign finance laws are not technicalities. They exist to protect the integrity of elections, ensure fairness, and prevent the misuse of political influence. When those laws are violated, the harm is real and immediate. Public confidence is weakened. Electoral legitimacy is questioned. Trust erodes.
Yet City Hall’s response suggests these violations are viewed as administrative missteps, easily resolved with a check. The message to the public could not be clearer: if you hold office and violate ethics rules, the consequences will be manageable—and your position secure.
This is not about one councilmember in isolation. John Lee’s case fits a broader and deeply troubling pattern that Angelenos have seen time and again—ethics violations followed by modest penalties, no internal discipline, and no sustained public accountability. Fines are issued. Headlines fade. City Hall moves on.
That pattern is not incidental. It is corrosive.
Everyday Angelenos know how aggressively the City enforces its rules when power is not involved. Miss a permit deadline. Violate a zoning requirement. Fall out of regulatory compliance. Penalties escalate quickly, enforcement is rigid, and discretion is scarce. There are no quiet resolutions or indulgent second chances.
But when an elected official violates ethics laws, enforcement suddenly becomes careful, procedural, and restrained. The contrast is unmistakable—and it is deeply damaging to public confidence.
This double standard is not accidental. It is the product of a political culture that prioritizes insulation over integrity and convenience over accountability. It teaches residents that there is one set of rules for them—and another for those who govern them.
Supporters of Councilmember Lee may argue that the Ethics Commission fulfilled its role and that the matter is closed. But compliance is not accountability. Paying a fine does not restore trust, deter future violations, or acknowledge the seriousness of the breach. It merely satisfies a procedural requirement.
In practice, ethics fines often function as a cost of doing business—absorbed, budgeted, and dismissed. When violations carry no real threat to power, influence, or political standing, they lose all deterrent value. They become permission, not punishment.
This is how public trust collapses—not through a single scandal, but through repetition. Case by case. Fine by fine. Silence by silence.
At a moment when Los Angeles faces historic budget deficits, rising frustration over mismanagement, and declining faith in public institutions, City Hall cannot afford to trivialize ethics violations. Each unresolved breach reinforces cynicism and confirms what many residents already believe: accountability in Los Angeles is selective.
Councilmember John Lee’s case should have prompted serious reflection within the City Council itself. Instead, it has been met with indifference. No public reckoning. No internal review. No acknowledgment that ethical violations—regardless of how they are resolved—damage the credibility of the institution as a whole.
That silence is not neutral. It is enabling.
Los Angeles does not need more ethics rhetoric, press releases, or symbolic enforcement. It needs consequences that actually constrain power—public censure, loss of authority, mandatory corrective action, and enforcement that deters misconduct rather than absorbs it.
Until City Hall is willing to treat ethics violations as failures of leadership—not paperwork errors—the public will continue to lose faith. And that loss of faith is not accidental.
An ethics fine is not accountability.
It is evidence of a system designed to protect itself.
And that system is failing the people it claims to serve.
(Mihran Kalaydjian is a seasoned public affairs and government relations professional with more than twenty years of experience in legislative affairs, public policy, community relations, and strategic communications. A respected civic leader and education advocate, he has spearheaded numerous academic and community initiatives, shaping dialogue and driving reform in local and regional political forums. His career reflects a steadfast commitment to transparency, accountability, and public service across Los Angeles and beyond.)
