For A Righteous Referendum...On Their Money, Our Elections And Our City

LBReport.com

Editorial

LBREPORT.com is reader and advertiser supported. Support independent news in LB similar to the way people support NPR and PBS stations. We're not non-profit so it's not tax deductible but $49.95 (less than an annual dollar a week) helps keep us online.

Council votes 5-3 (Price, Mungo, Austin dissenting) on Feb. 3, 2015 to approve on second (enactment) vote change to LB Muni Code enabling Mayor (citywide electeds) and Councilmembers to triple the amounts they can annually amass in their "officeholder" accounts ("slush funds.")

(Jan. 26, 2015) -- The California Constitution provides what's been called a "people's veto" -- a Referendum -- that empowers the people to stop a City Council enacted ordinance from taking effect if at least 10% of the city's registered voters sign petitions to put the ordinance on the ballot so voters and not politicians can decide whether to enact it or not. A Referndum can stop a Council-enacted ordinance dead in its tracks, simply by submitting the required number of signatures within the required time period.

In our opinion, a Referendum is a right remedy for what a Council majority did in an initial vote on Jan. 20 and may complete with an enacting vote on Feb. 3. The Council is poised to finalize an ordinance that would radically increase the size of "officeholder accounts" (separate from campaign accounts) that serve as de facto slush funds for incumbents.

The radically increased "officeholder" accounts would enable LB incumbents to amass contributions of up to $30,000 per year for Councilmembers and up to $75,000 per year for citywide electeds including the Mayor. Those "contributions" could come from all kinds of persons and entities who may want to curry favor with helpful incumbents. The incumbents can in turn disburse their amassed amounts to assist worthy neighborhood projects OR give money to multiple hardball and blatantly political and special interest groups that can help helpful incumbents.

[Scroll down for further]

Fattening slush funds fed by monied contributors is NOT what holding public office in Long Beach should be about. In our view, LB's Councilmembers should be prioritizing actions that serve the public interest, not preoccupying themselves with inviting more contributions that can advance their interests.

Of course incumbents portray the accounts as a way to help constituents, but we believe that as a practical matter they enable monied interests (especially corporate interests) to curry favor and seek influence with incumbents outside of election cycles. That influence may begat votes that favor the interests of contributors against constituents.

The pending slush fund ordinance would for the first time let incumbents amass sums of a magnitude previously unheard of for LB officeholders. The incumbents could then disburse slush fund sums to any number of politically active groups that could prove politically helpful to themselves.

We believe the net effect of this machinery will invite votes that favor contributors instead of constituents and tilt elections toward incumbents and against challengers. Pouring more money into a political process where money has already reached toxic levels isn't good anywhere and won't be good for Long Beach.

In our view, the pending measure has the insidious ability to change Long Beach for the worse and send our city in the wrong direction.

On the initial vote (Jan. 20), every LB Council incumbent voted to increase the size of the officeholder slush funds. Five Councilmembers (Gonzalez, Lowenthal, Andrews, Uranga, Richardson) voted to triple them. Three Councilmembers (Austin, Price, Mungo) voted against tripling them but voted to double them.

The biggest citywide elected beneficiary would be Mayor Garcia (since we doubt the City Auditor, City Prosecutor or City Attorney will seek to amass up to $75k per year.) We don't think it's coincidental that Garcia's choices for the Council's "Election Oversight Committee" (Gonzalez, Uranga and Mungo) advanced the slush fund fattening ordinance within their first six months in office. (We think Councilwoman Mungo tipped her hand and showed what's really going on when she proposed a substitute-substitute motion that would increase the amounts by two and half times for Councilmembers, but leave the fattened triple amount for citywide electeds,)

It is deeply disturbing that during Council discussion, not one incumbent mentioned, much less showed any respect for, LB's voter-enacted Campaign Reform Act (Prop M). That measure was placed on the ballot in 1994 by a then-Council majority, spearheaded by then-Councilman, now Congressman Alan Lowenthan and enacted by LB voters. The measure's Findings and Declarations state in pertinent part:

[LB Muni Code section 2.01.120 (E)] Officeholders are responding to high campaign costs by raising large amounts of money in off-election years. This fund-raising distracts them from important public matters, encourages contributions which may have a corrupting influence and gives incumbents an overwhelming and patently unfair fund-raising advantage over potential challengers.
...The integrity of the governmental process, the competitiveness of campaigns and public confidence in local officials are all diminishing.

In our opinion, what the Council is attempting to do is a perversion of the spirit of Prop M and an affront to the voted will of the people.

Yes, Prop M specifically pertained to campaign accounts and didn't mention officeholder accounts, but that's because there were no LB officeholder accounts at the time. The Council concocted officeholder accounts after voters enacted Prop M, and did so without a vote of the people.

Time is of the essence for a Referendum. It requires collecting and submiting signatures from at least 10% of the City's registered voters within 30 days of the ordinance's enactment. Fortunately, the Council's enacting vote isn't scheduled until Feb. 3, giving proponents a small amount of time to get ready.

The LB City Clerk's website indicates that as of Dec. 24, 2014, LB had 252,239 registered voters. That means that as a practical matter, Referendum proponets would have to collect and submit between 26,000 to 30,000 registered voter signatures within 30 days.

Doing so would suspend the slush fund ordinance and prevent its implementation until some time in 2016. We can think of a number of constituencies and political groups that have incentives to do this, but whether they seize the opportunity remains to be seen. We're quite sure that principled Dems, incensed independents and repulsed Republicans would sign Referendum petitions if given the chance.

In the 1990s, progressive LB Dems supported enacting LB's Campaign Reform ordinance. Today's cynical LB Dems are undoing that principled work. They are out of step with election reform movements across the country. While others seek to reduce the effects of money on politics, some in LB are obsessed with driving full throttle in the opposite direction.

We urge groups with the wherewithal to fund a successful Referendum signature gathering drive to declare their intention to do so publicly and to move fast. They'll have to be ready to launch a Referendum drive on Feb. 4, the morning after the Council's Feb. 3 enacting vote.

Those who fund and lead the Referendum will earn the long-term gratitude of Long Beach voters. The people of L.A. County's second largest city deserve the opportunity to stop LB's further descent into monied politics. Those Referendum signatures will be a therapeutic reminder to Council incumbents and their allied Mayor that it's not smart to scorn the views of Long Beach voters who voted to prevent the type of conduct the city is witnessing now.

Opinions expressed by LBREPORT.com, our contributors and/or our readers are not necessary those of our advertisers. We welcome our readers' comments/opinions 24/7 via Disqus, Facebook and moderate length letters and longer-form op-ed pieces submitted to us at mail@LBReport.com.