ELECTION SPENDING LAW STALLED BERNSON, HERNANDEZ DERAIL ISSUE TEMPORARILY.

Byline: Harrison Sheppard Staff Writer

A tactical move Friday prevented the City Council from passing an ordinance that would require more disclosure of campaign spending in the June mayoral election.

Two city councilmen - Mike Hernandez and Hal Bernson - withheld their votes and were able to stall the ordinance.

Hernandez said he supports the change but said it should come after the election.

``I've never been to a football game where the rules change in the middle of the game,'' said Hernandez, who supports mayoral candidate Antonio Villaraigosa. ``... When that happens, you taint the process.''

During a two-hour debate, eight members supported a series of amendments and indicated that they will have enough votes to approve the changes next Friday under the council's complex operating procedures.

But with two vacancies and two absences on the 15-member council, Hernandez and Bernson withheld their votes, meaning the council couldn't take action because that would have required participation of at least 10 members.

The ordinance would close a loophole in state law opened by Proposition 34. The voter-approved state ballot measure allows political parties, unions and other groups to spend unlimited amounts communicating with their own members in support of candidates, without disclosing the spending until after the city's June 5 runoff elections.

In the race for the nonpartisan post of mayor, the state Democratic Party endorsed Villaraigosa, the former Assembly speaker, over City Attorney James Hahn, and under Proposition 34 it won't have to disclose its spending until July 31.

Both Hahn and Villaraigosa have expressed support for more disclosure.

The state Democratic Party, which opposes the changes, sent a letter to the City Council hinting at a lawsuit if it passes.

Party attorney Lance H. Olson said he thinks the changes violate state law by trying to override Proposition 34.

The party ``believes the council should not rush to judgment on such an important issue without thorough legal analysis,'' Olson wrote. ``Such a course of action is likely to lead to costly litigation if an affected membership organization concludes that the council acted without authority to do so.''

Assistant City Attorney Pete Echeverria said while he hasn't fully reviewed the party's challenge, the city believes the proposed ordinances are legally defensible.

``I think the intent of the state laws are to apply to statewide campaigns,'' Echeverria said in an interview. ``If an entity gets involved in a local election, each has unique requirements. I can't imagine they aren't legally required to abide by the local requirement.''

The council also changed the proposal submitted by the city Ethics Commission to raise the monetary thresholds that trigger disclosure. The initial plan called for disclosure of spending and contributions over $1,000, but the council changed it to $10,000. Members said they were concerned about smaller organizations being able to fulfill the reporting requirements on such short notice.

The proposed ordinances would apply only to the current election, but the council asked the City Attorney's Office to draft a permanent ordinance that would apply to future elections.

Staff Writer Beth Barrett contributed to this report.