ValleyVote Update for 3-21-01 |
We are sending you this E-mail as you have requested to be notified concerning ValleyVote
Here is a group of stories on money and politics and how money is spent to influence elected officials. Also we have a Daily News and LA Times story about the same issue that the LAFCO director could not even work for anyone in the valley, compare the two stories.
The preliminary report from LAFCO's consultants on the feasibility of creating a new Valley and Harbor Cities is due to be released on 3-28-01. We will post it on our website as soon as we can.
Watchdog: Elected officials who use them as political consultants may be banned from voting on pertinent issues.
By PATRICK MCGREEVY, Times Staff Writer
The Los Angeles Ethics Commission moved Tuesday to consider barring elected officials from voting on issues involving lobbyists who also serve as their political consultants. The commission, the city's watchdog on political ethics, also decided to consider restricting lobbyists' contributions to and fund-raising for candidates.
The commission directed its staff to research how to reduce undue influence by lobbyists and special interests at City Hall. "We have mapped out what I'm sure will be an ambitious area to pursue and I think it's important," said Commission President Miriam Krinsky.
A major concern was the practice of political consultants doubling as City Hall lobbyists and attempting to influence the officials they help elect. The Times reported last month that two-thirds of the City Council members have, at one time or another, hired political consultants who also worked as lobbyists seeking council votes.
"One could either restrict the lobbyist, or one could restrict the officeholder from voting on something that involves an individual that the officeholder has hired to work for them," Krinsky suggested. "Those are both ways to deal with the issue," which Krinsky defined as "undue access or undue influence." The commission also agreed to consider proposals to restrict or ban registered lobbyists from contributing to or fund-raising for city candidates.
City Hall lobbyists directly made $219,831 in contributions to city candidates last year, including $72,911 to candidates for mayor, according to a new commission report. The report said lobbyists also delivered $222,620 in contributions to candidates, often from the lobbyists' clients.
City Atty. James Hahn, a candidate for mayor, received the most contributions from lobbyists, $22,835, followed by Deputy Mayor Rocky Delgadillo, a candidate for city attorney, who received $22,581 in lobbyist contributions, the report said. Councilman Mike Feuer, another candidate for city attorney, testified Tuesday in favor of leveling the playing field at City Hall for residents who cannot afford lobbyists. "Everybody should be able to effectively lobby their government," Feuer told the panel. "When lobbyists contribute, and particularly when lobbyists fund-raise, there develops an inequality of access to elected officials, which is troubling."
Later in the day, a Feuer spokesman explained a $1,000 contribution from the law firm of Manatt, Phelps & Phillips, which is registered to lobby at City Hall. The spokesman said the contribution, which was disclosed in the commission report, was inadvertently accepted and will be returned.
The Ethics Commission also agreed to revisit earlier proposals that would ban lobbyists from fund-raising for political officeholder accounts, and ban city commissioners from fund-raising for city candidates. Officeholder accounts contain contributions to cover office-related expenses such as educational mailers, but may not be spent to promote reelection. The panel will also look into fund-raising for legal defense and independent expenditure campaigns. "Those are all kinds of related areas where the concern arises that an officeholder might be in some way sort of engaging in a sale of influence or access," said Krinsky, who is also a federal prosecutor.
By Harrison Sheppard Staff Writer
The agency overseeing the San Fernando Valley secession study stood by its executive director Wednesday, declaring that his outside business interests do not represent a conflict of interest with his job responsibilities. Local Agency Formation Commission Director Larry Calemine voluntarily offered to seek the commission's approval in the future before he takes on additional outside clients.
Some critics had said Calemine's outside interests -- as a consultant for developers, including the Porter Ranch builder -- conflicted with his duty to oversee the study on whether cityhood proposals for the Valley, Hollywood and Harbor areas should be on the ballot.
But Los Angeles County Assistant Counsel John Krattli determined that Calemine's interests, which he has previously disclosed publicly, do not represent a conflict. In addition, Calemine's position as director does not give him a vote to determine whether the cityhood proposals will be on the ballot.
After discussing the issue in closed session for almost one hour, commission Chairman Thomas Jackson issued a statement expressing support for Calemine. "The commission has full confidence in Mr. Calemine's abilities to continue doing an outstanding job as LAFCO's executive director," he said.
County Supervisor Zev Yaroslavsky, who had been one of those questioning Calemine's interests, said he was pleased Calemine agreed to seek commission approval on future clients. "He is entitled by his contract to take on new clients, but he will not take new clients without approval of the board," Yaroslavsky said.
Calemine said he was satisfied with the board's statement and he never believed he had a conflict of interest.
Supporters of the Valley cityhood study believe the questions raised about Calemine were an attempt to derail secession.
"They're trying to keep the study from going forward and provide the people an opportunity to vote on this important issue," said Chatsworth resident Laura DiGilio, who helped collect nearly 2,000 signatures in the Valley secession petition drive.
Jeff Brain, president of Valley Voters Organized Toward Empowerment, said opponents are more interested in looking at Calemine's career than examining the problems of the city, such as "why streets are falling apart, why parks are not clean and why our seniors must live in fear."
Government: Larry Calemine agrees to ask for approval of board and county
lawyers first, to avoid appearance of conflict of interest.
By MICHAEL FINNEGAN, Times Staff Writer
The government official in charge of shaping
how Los Angeles would be split apart under city breakup proposals agreed
Wednesday to take no more private consulting jobs without the consent of his
board and county lawyers.
Larry J. Calemine, executive officer of the Local
Agency Formation Commission, took the step "to avoid the appearance of
impropriety," board Chairman Thomas E. Jackson said.
The Times reported last month that Calemine had accepted tens of thousands of dollars in fees from developers and other clients for advice on winning City Hall approval of real estate projects in the San Fernando Valley. The scope of his private consulting business has alarmed some of the nine members of the autonomous commission. The panel pays him $100,000 a year. His main job is to supervise the study of proposals for the Valley, Hollywood and the Harbor area to secede from Los Angeles.
In a one-hour meeting closed to the public,
commissioners questioned Calemine on Wednesday about his outside work. After the
meeting, Jackson read aloud a public statement from the commission.
"County counsel has given us a written
opinion that Mr. Calemine has not violated any conflict-of-interest laws,"
Jackson announced.
"The commission has full confidence in Mr.
Calemine's ability to continue doing an outstanding job as executive officer of
LAFCO.
"However, Mr. Calemine has volunteered--in
order to remove any appearance of conflict of interest--that in the future he
will consult the county counsel and this commission should he wish to take in
any new clients, and will not do so without the full consent or approval of this
commission."
Calemine declined to comment.
Jackson described the private meeting as "no
holds barred," but neither he nor the other commissioners would provide
details.
"The issue is the appearance of
impropriety," Jackson said later. "We're very concerned about the
appearance of impropriety."
Calemine's consulting work has raised concerns
that the public's interest in the secession proceedings could conflict with his
clients' interests.
His public and private roles have overlapped in
one commercial real estate deal. He performed at least $10,000 worth of
consulting work for an attorney who was arguing a Valley secession group's case
before him and the LAFCO commissioners.
The study Calemine is supervising will enable the
commission to decide whether to put any secession proposals on the ballot next
year. The panel would rely on his recommendations as it sets divorce settlement
terms, from water rights and police protection to possible "alimony"
payments from one city to another.
The city Ethics Commission told Calemine last
month that he might have to register as a City Hall lobbyist. He responded that
he was not a lobbyist and not legally required to register as one.
John M. Walker, a leader of the secession group
Valley VOTE, appeared before the commission Wednesday to defend Calemine.
"To orchestrate that some kind of devious
thing is going on is an inappropriate perspective given by the media,"
Walker told the panel.
Lisa DiGilio, a Valley VOTE volunteer coordinator,
urged LAFCO to resist "the politics of personal destruction."
THE City Ethics Commission finally seems to have caught on that Los Angeles' elected officials look after their friends by steering them city contracts and then counting on those businesses to supply them campaign funds that keep them in power. The commission promises to examine this "vicious circle" and consider reforms -- in April. That's after the primary elections when most of the damage has been done.
Once again, L.A.'s ethical watchdog snoozes while the political wolves raid the public henhouse. It only wakes up, barking and drooling, long after the damage has been done.
The newly formed Coalition for Political Reform reports that a small number of companies doing business with the city gave local candidates at least $250,000 in the last three months of 2000. Even though the city's ethics code caps personal or corporate donations at $1,000, the fat cats get around it by bundling their checks.
The biggest givers were law firms Latham & Watkins and O'Melveny & Myers and accountants Ernst & Young. The biggest takers were mayoral candidates Steve Soboroff, James Hahn and Antonio Villaraigosa.
This shady practice is nothing new, and it's an issue that the Ethics Commission should have addressed long before this year's elections -- instead of waiting until afterward. The coalition -- which includes groups as diverse as Common Cause and the Howard Jarvis Foundation -- proposes banning campaign contributions from corporations with business before the city.
But don't count on the Ethics Commission to do anything that bold. Drawn from the very pool of insiders it's called to monitor, the commission's main function is giving the public the false impression that someone is enforcing the rules in City Hall. In November, it fined City Councilman Hal Bernson a mere $3,000 for illegally accepting $4,604 worth of legal representation -- netting Bernson $1,604 for breaking the law.
And while the watchdog sleeps, wasteful practices continue at City Hall, benefiting no one except the contractors and politicians. Now that the coalition is making some noise, the city's ethics watchdog has been startled to attention. It might offer a few growls and maybe some toothless legislation, but if the past is any guide, these reforms will be too late for this election, and too little to make a difference in the future.
Then the old mutt will go back to sleep.
As a longtime [San Fernando] Valley community activist, it appears to me that Times writer Patrick McGreevy has focused public attention on highly questionable ethical practices of several Valley City Council members ("Some Who Lobby Politicians Also Run Their Campaigns," Feb. 11).
Over the past 30 years, I have been a management consultant serving a wide range of public and private sector clients. I have carefully avoided any semblance of conflict of interest between me, my firm and public sector clients.
Apparently, several City Council members don't appreciate the difference between an employee and a lobbyist, particularly when both feast out of the same taxpayer trough. Since several of our important elected officials unequivocally defend this practice, they should be held accountable for any abuses and / or unethical practices they tolerate.
J. B. JERRY DOMINE Winnetka
Politics: The practice of acting as consultants to officials they try to influence raises questions, commission officers say.
By PATRICK MCGREEVY, Times Staff Writer
The Los Angeles Ethics Commission will examine the relationship between elected officials and City Hall lobbyists who double as political consultants for those they are seeking to influence, top panel officials said Monday. Commission President Miriam Krinsky said a story in The Times on Sunday raised enough concerns over the perception of a conflict of interest created by the dual roles to justify a review by the panel into whether new rules are needed.
"The situation described is one that is reasonably troubling to people to the point we should look at it," said Krinsky, who is also a federal prosecutor. "There are problems worth considering. Even if it's simply appearances, that's of sufficient import for us to consider it." Commission Executive Director LeeAnn Pelham said she will recommend that the panel examine the issues raised by lobbyists who also work as political consultants for the elected officials they lobby. The review, she said, will be part of a broader look at ways to curb undue influence by lobbyists at City Hall.
Lobbyists may legally work as paid political consultants for the City Council members they are attempting to influence on behalf of other clients. The Ethics Commission only requires disclosure of the relationships. Two-thirds of the City Council members have, at one time or another, hired political consultants who also worked as lobbyists seeking council votes for clients.
In the ongoing battle between House of Blues and the Nederlander-Greek Corp. over control of the Greek Theatre, seven of 14 city council members who will probably vote on the matter have at some point hired as political consultants the same lobbyists whose clients are bidding on the contract. Jim Knox, executive director of California Common Cause, said the practice allows lobbyists special access to wield undue influence over elected officials.
Krinsky and Pelham said Monday the commission will consider whether the business relationships pose a real or perceived conflict of interest, and also will look at whether regulation is warranted. Even the appearance of a conflict might warrant rules to avoid a perception that can be damaging to city government, officials said.
"Whether there is a perception of a conflict or a real conflict, this is important for the commission to look at because they are equally damaging," Pelham said. There are constitutional issues that could hinder the commission from barring people from working as lobbyists and political consultants, but the panel might restrict elected officials from voting on issues involving their political consultant/lobbyist, said Barbara Freeman, a staff member for the Ethics Commission.
"It's premature to say what the solution might be," Pelham said, adding that the panel also will consider whether there should be restrictions on political fund-raising by lobbyists.
Less than a year after the Los Angeles City Council shoved a dump in the back yards of Granada Hills residents, Los Angeles County has miraculously found a way to preserve the quality of people's lives by buying landfills in remote desert areas.
The City Council's ill-conceived decision to reopen Sunshine Canyon Landfill in the north San Fernando Valley was its most outrageous act of 1999. And, in light of the county's action, its failure to reverse that decision will probably be its most outrageous of 2000.
And that says a lot, since the council has such a long list of failures to its discredit: failure to pave sidewalks or decide who should pay to repair them failure to take responsibility to reform the Police Department failure to develop strategies to regenerate neighborhoods and community life. The list goes on and on.
No saint when it comes to urban landfills, the board of the Los Angeles County Sanitation Districts did the right thing last week when it voted to pay $82 million for the Mesquite Regional Landfill in Imperial County and the Eagle Mountain Landfill in Riverside County as long-term dump sites. The two purchases give the county the capacity to handle trash for the next 100 years and beyond.
Shame on the city for failing to do its homework and join in this deal. City Councilman Hal Bernson, an outspoken opponent of Sunshine, had begged the council to hold off for a few months, knowing that the city had done little to research alternatives to Sunshine Canyon and that inexpensive land in remote spots was available for trash.
The city did not face a landfill crisis when it made the Sunshine Canyon decision, but it will by the time litigation over the failure to honestly and fully examine the environmental impacts of it on the land, air and water.
Like a desert tortoise with time on its hands, the city still needs a long-term solution to its trash.
Judith Wilson, head of the city Sanitation Bureau, said a preliminary long-term plan will be presented to the council's Environmental Quality and Waste Management Committee this week. It will, of course, include remote sites that should have been considered before the decision on Sunshine Canyon was made.
If there was any honor at City Hall, council members would give back all the political money [Reported to exceed 450,000] they took from Sunshine's operator, Browning Ferris Industries, re-examine the deal and join with the county in solving the region's landfill needs for the 21st century.
Don't hold your breath waiting for that to happen. Hold your nose -- especially if you live in Granada Hills.
By PATRICK MCGREEVY, Times Staff Writer
In agreeing Wednesday to exclusive negotiations over rebuilding the Valley Plaza shopping center in North Hollywood, Los Angeles City Council members were effusive in their praise for developer Jerry Snyder.
It should be no surprise that Snyder is so popular. The developer has emerged as a major political contributor to sitting council members, pouring thousands of dollars into their campaigns.
Over the past three years, Snyder, his wife and employees have given more than two dozen contributions totaling $14,000 to a select group of mostly Valley-area council members, including Joel Wachs, Laura Chick, Hal Bernson and John Ferraro. The contributions included $2,000 to Wachs' mayoral campaign, and another $2,000 to Wachs' council committees.
Wachs led the love-fest Wednesday for Snyder before the council voted unanimously to enter negotiations to allow him to launch a $140-million overhaul of the downtrodden mall. "There is no opposition, and for good reason," declared Wachs, whose district includes Valley Plaza. "It's a great project."
Snyder was picked by the Community Redevelopment Agency based on a competition in which he beat out another company. The developer thanked the council Wednesday for its unanimous support.
"We are prepared to go forward," Snyder said. "So far this has been very smooth and we haven't had any opposition."
Observing the lengthy pro-Snyder council discussion, Councilman Mike Hernandez told his colleagues he was amazed by what appeared to be a decision involving "this circle of friends." .......
The rest of the story concerns other issues
See our Website and all the Updates are archived on our site.
** NOTICE: In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C., section 107, some material is provided without permission from the copyright owner, only for purposes of criticism, comment, scholarship and research under the "fair use" provisions of federal copyright laws. These materials may not be distributed further, except for "fair use," without permission of the copyright owner. **If you friends want to be added to our E-mail list please send an E-mail with ValleyVote as the subject. We share our e-mail list with no one. Charles Brink Webmaster. If you want to have your name removed from the list just reply with remove as subject |