COUNCIL: IT'S NOT 'SLUSH FUND' TOUGHER CONTROLS GO BACK FOR STUDY.

Byline: Harrison Sheppard Staff Writer

Los Angeles City Council members bristled Friday at suggestions that the $270,000 they each got to spend this year with few controls were ``slush funds'' - but put off an effort to reform how they spend the money.

The council's ``general city purposes'' accounts have been criticized as a slush fund that members use to their political benefit. During the March primary, Councilman Nick Pacheco was accused of funneling some of the funds to his own re-election campaign by sending thousands of dollars to a community organization closely linked to a political group that spent similar amounts supporting his campaign.

Councilman Jack Weiss had proposed a limited plan to put tighter controls on those funds by requiring recipient groups to certify they will not improperly spend the money for political purposes.

Weiss' plan would also have required that GCP expenditures that cumulatively exceed $5,000 annually to a particular group be subjected to more rigorous scrutiny.

Several council members objected to the reforms, saying some groups might have trouble understanding the forms or would be intimidated by the fear of perjury charges if they made a mistake. They also said they resented suggestions from critics, including City Controller Laura Chick, that the accounts are ``slush funds.''

Councilman Ed Reyes suggested local nonprofit groups would suffer if they are required to sign forms saying they will not spend the money on political purposes because he thinks many would choose simply not to receive the funds out of fear.

``And who pays? It's not going to be us. It's going to be those kids who will not have an option, who will not have that service because we're accused of using slush funds,'' he said.

Weiss, who sponsored the motion with Councilwoman Wendy Greuel, said his plan was a simple one that should not have caused so much concern.

The council approved one element of Weiss' plan, to require council members to post on their Web sites reports on how they spend the funds. The other two elements, about recipient groups signing the form and the $5,000 requirement, were sent back to committee for further study.