Brown Harried by Controversy Over Teacher Forum

The California Labor Federation, AFL-CIO, announced its endorsement of state Treasurer Kathleen Brown’s gubernatorial bid Thursday amid continuing allegations--vigorously denied by Brown campaign staffers--that the candidate cheated in her effort to win another key endorsement.

At a morning news conference, John Henning, the labor federation’s executive secretary, said Brown won the group’s support by an overwhelming margin because of her management skills, her social conscience and her “impeccable integrity.” But moments later, Brown found herself defending that reputation as reporters asked her to respond to a letter from her chief Democratic rival, Insurance Commissioner John Garamendi.

Garamendi’s letter, addressed to Brown but distributed widely to reporters, alleges that before a California Teachers Assn. forum in January, Brown tried to gain unfair advantage over Garamendi and Gov. Pete Wilson by arranging to receive in advance the questions that would be asked.

Even if true, the allegations do not rank on an all-time list of political dirty tricks. But Garamendi partisans contend that Brown’s need to obtain the questions in advance underscores her lack of confidence and inability to think on her feet.

On Thursday, CTA political director Alice Huffman confirmed that she worked with Brown “more than anyone else because she needed it more than anyone else” because Brown seemed less familiar with the CTA’s views on key issues. But Huffman, who has been criticized because an independent political action committee she controls received $175,000 from the Brown campaign earlier this year, said there was nothing improper about the briefings.

“I wanted her to have a fair shot. Our position is, ‘We want you to know what we believe is the right answer.’ I felt like Kathleen needed extra help and I gave it to her,” said Huffman, who said the final questions were not written until about 20 minutes before the forum “so there was nothing to give anyone, no sheet of paper.”

Brown’s vague responses to Garamendi’s repeated charges have allowed the CTA forum three months ago to become a continuing irritant for her campaign. Even on Thursday, when Brown presumably expected to be asked about Garamendi’s letter, she offered a confusing account. “In every interview with every organization that I seek support from, I have been fully briefed, have received questions and have always sought to find out what the issues of importance are. . . ,” said Brown, who called the flap over the CTA forum an attention-grabbing tactic of her “desperate” opponent. “I never received a list.”

But a few minutes later, Brown said, “I was given, as with every single group that I meet with, an itemization of what their top questions and concerns were. . . . I did my homework.” When a reporter asked whether she thought it was fair that she had received such an “itemization” when other candidates had not, Brown balked.

“We weren’t given it,” she said, adding later: “I did not receive anything inappropriate to my knowledge whatsoever. . . . I am not aware of any special treatment that I’ve received.”

Moments later, Michael Reese, Brown’s spokesman, hastened to clarify, telling reporters: “What she was referring to were lists that were compiled prior to the forum by members of the (CTA) organization of possible questions and issues of concern.”

Brown’s opponents quickly pounced on her response.

“If she didn’t get the questions, wouldn’t the answer just have been, ‘No’?” asked Dan Schnur, spokesman for Wilson’s reelection campaign.

Darry Sragow, Garamendi’s campaign manager, agreed. “The question is very simple: Did she cheat on the exam?” he asked. “Either she cheated on the exam or she didn’t.”

But Brown’s allies at the CTA said Brown did nothing wrong. When asked to explain what Brown referred to as an “itemization,” Huffman said Brown “is not able to distinguish between all the prepping we gave her and the (final) questions. . . put together 20 minutes before the forum.”

Huffman said that while she worked with Brown, she assigned a staff member to work with Garamendi. “I don’t believe (Brown) had any unfair advantage unless people think having me was an advantage,” Huffman said. (Wilson was offered a briefing, but declined).

According to Sragow, the only CTA official that Garamendi had access to was Frank Graham-Caso, a member of the executive board who on a single occasion discussed education with Garamendi over a cup of coffee. Sragow said that at the time, Huffman refused to return his telephone calls.

Last month, after Garamendi first made public his concerns about Huffman’s role in the CTA endorsement process, the CTA announced that it would not endorse a candidate in the June 7 primary because no candidate had won 60% of delegates’ support.

In response to Garamendi’s charges, the CTA last month reviewed the $175,000 contribution that Brown made earlier this year to the political action committee headed by Huffman. Garamendi’s campaign alleged that the contribution was made to unfairly sway the union to endorse Brown. But the CTA review found “nothing to support a charge that Alice Huffman or any (other) CTA staff person acted inappropriately.”