CITY RESPONSE TO HERNANDEZ BAD PRECEDENT.

Byline: JOE GELMAN

CITY Councilman Mike Hernandez has been the recipient of praise and almost limitless expressions of concern and understanding following his recent arrest on charges of cocaine possession, and after having checked himself into a drug rehabilitation clinic.

Sympathetic articles dwelling on his ``unwavering advocacy'' for the downtrodden appeared in the major newspapers, with glowing descriptions of his interaction with constituents, and wonderful service to his community. Eat your heart out Marion Barry.

Mayor Richard Riordan announced that he was deeply ``saddened,'' by the arrest and proclaimed his hope that the councilman's ``family and friends will be there to help provide him with the support he may need.''

Councilwoman Jackie Goldberg lectured that ``It's time for American society to grow up and see these kinds of substance abuse issues as the illness they are and not as personal shortcomings.''

Lost in these misguided efforts, of course, were almost any expressions of condemnation or disgust over the behavior of a very powerful elected city representative, who presumably should be held to a higher standard than the average citizen. It appears that the capacity for moral outrage on the part of some of Los Angeles' highest elected officials seems virtually nonexistent.

It's as if Hernandez had just been diagnosed with an ailment that he had absolutely nothing to do with, kind of like catching a cold. Questions of morality, ethics and personal responsibility were nowhere to be found.

Hernandez was entrusted by the people of his district to represent them with honor. He betrayed that trust in the worst possible way when he was caught with cocaine near a San Fernando Valley high school. Actually he betrayed their trust well before that.

This was not a one-time lapse in judgment on his part, the councilman was apparently a longtime regular buyer. Police estimate that Hernandez was indulging in a $150-a-day habit, and cocaine residue was found on his desk in his private City Hall office.

Hernandez has served on the council's Personnel Committee, and in that capacity, surely he became aware of Los Angeles' tough policy toward substance abuse for city employees. Hardly a week goes by that the city doesn't fire one of its 35,000 employees for abusing drugs on the job, and countless applicants for the Los Angeles Police Department are routinely turned away for past substance abuse, even though they might be clean now.

What kind of message will the city be sending its employees, or perspective employees, if one of its leaders is not held strictly accountable for an offense that could easily cost the job of a city worker who carries far less responsibility than does Hernandez? What kind of a message will the city be sending to high school kids?

If City Hall is to be consistent, and maintain the moral integrity of its anti-substance abuse policy, Hernandez should be forced to resign his seat in disgrace. Period. How on Earth are we going to justify the disciplining of city workers who abuse drugs, if one of the top city officials not only admitted doing the exact same thing, but was the beneficiary of emotional statements of understanding and concern by the mayor and other City Council members?

The abuses of Hernandez don't need to be understood, as much as they need to be condemned. By failing to condemn abuse in a straightforward manner, while loudly expressing ``understanding'' and ``concern,'' for the abuser, our leaders might be testifying to their own terrific goodness and compassion. But they are sending the wrong message and are failing to exercise responsible leadership.