COUNCIL MEMBERS SAY PROVISIONS IN SPENDING CAP MEASURE ILLEGAL.

Byline: Rick Orlov Daily News Staff Writer

Two City Council members acknowledged Wednesday that two provisions in a measure on Tuesday's ballot raising the $10,000 cap on elected officials' officeholder accounts are probably illegal and will have to be deleted if the measure passes.

``Those shouldn't have been there,'' said Councilwoman Jackie Goldberg, one of the authors of the proposal. ``I agree with the idea these funds shouldn't be used for political purposes. I guarantee that I will bring in a proposal to delete that if it passes.''

The $10,000 cap was imposed on officeholder accounts throughout the state by Proposition 208, which was approved by California voters in November. The measure included a provision allowing the cap to be raised with voter approval in local elections.

Saying $10,000 wasn't enough for them to communicate with their constituents, a majority of City Council members voted to place Proposition 6 on this month's ballot asking voters to approve the previous spending cap of $75,000.

But on Wednesday, city officials admitted that two other provisions of the old law were contained in the Proposition 6 wording, even though they are clearly not allowed by the measure approved in November.

The two provisions at issue are paragraphs N and P, where it says city officials are allowed to make contributions to support or oppose candidates seeking election outside the city as well as contributions to a political part or committee, including tickets to political events.

``We're pre-empted by state law on this,'' said Councilman Nate Holden, another author of the proposal. ``That part will never take effect. People shouldn't even consider it.''

Ravi Mehta, chairman of the state Fair Political Practices Commission, said the state measure allows for $10,000 officeholder accounts, purely for the use in communicating with constituents or in carrying out their official duties.

``Proposition 208 allows changes to the contribution limits, but it's pretty clear no other portions can be changed,'' Mehta said.

Tony Miller, executive director of Californians for Political Reform and one of the backers of Proposition 208, said the city measure - if approved - will be immediately challenged.

``We'll see you in court,'' said Miller, a former secretary of state. ``We hope the voters will reject this. If they do vote for it, they are voting for a lawsuit.

``Proposition 208 was overwhelmingly approved by voters throughout the state and in Los Angeles by people who wanted the abuses to stop.''

Proposition 208 supporters said the reason for the ban on political contributions was to try to reduce the effect of large contributions and prevent politicians from donating to one another.

Goldberg and Holden have argued the $10,000 limit in Proposition 208 failed to take into account cities such as Los Angeles where each City Council district has more than 240,000 constituents.