Sunny Zia's Sunshine -- Insisting On Openness/Transparency On Spending At LBCC -- Needed Now At LB City Hall

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.

(Dec. 11, 2014, 8:30 p.m.) -- Long Beach Community College Trustee Sunny Zia, who took office in mid-July, rocked the boat and angered the gods by seeking itemized disclosure of LBCC monthly spending items under $25,000 (which often total six and seven figure sums) before voting to approve them.

Her principled stance -- refusing to join in approving collectively totaled items without knowing what she was approving -- was at first shrugged but led to a pointed verbal exchange in October. Trustee Zia didn't prevail in the boardroom but carried the day as the public learned what took place (including meeting video linked on LBREPORT.com.)

[Scroll down for further]

Board of Trustees President Jeff Kellogg, a veteran elected official who's usually unflappable, took her transparency advocacy personally. Board VP Doug Otto, an experienced trial lawyer, followed with defensive arguments that didn't sit well in the court of public opinion. The net effect prompted a tsunami of comments supporting Zia in news outlets' comment sections and on social media.

At the next board meeting (Nov. 11), LBCC Superintendent-President Eloy Oakley effectively acquiesced, announcing (in a surprise Power Point presentation on transparency) that after a year and half in discussion, LBCC is now poised to convert -- in January -- to a paperless electronic board agenda management system. Oakley indicated the new system will include easier access for Trustees and taxpayers to board agendas and backup details including details sought by Trustee Zia.

We're not questioning what Superintendent-President Oakley said about plans already being discussed, but discussion is one thing and actions are another. Our translation is that Trustee Zia clearly prevailed. We think it's fair to say she catalyzed substantive change advancing transparency and openness. At minimum, she accelerated it...and we suspect that her stubborn persistence produced it. It was a victory for her...and for the public.

In our opinion, the openness, transparency and accountability on which Trustee Sunny Zia insisted at LBCC are overdue and awaiting correction at Long Beach City Hall. Sadly, the City's current policy hides six figure spending items from routine public view as well as the names of the payees being paid sums up to $200,000. It's MUCH worse in both procedure and substance than what LBCC had.

To recall how this happened, LBREPORT.com opens our "Amnesia File" on the matter.

On December 4, 2012 [holiday period, fewer people paying attention], an agenda item surfaced in which Director of Financial Management John Gross (answers to City Manager West who answers to the City Council) noted (accurately) that the FY13 budget approved by a Council majority in September 2012 included "savings" from actions to [Dec. 4, 2012 agendizing memo text] "streamline the purchasing process, improve efficiency, introduce enhanced financial controls, and decrease administrative expense." The agendized item proposed to let a city purchasing agent (a bureaucrat) bind the City through a "purchase order" -- an item that isn't agendized for taxpayer viewing and isn't slated for Council voted approval -- for spending items up to $250,000 in specified circumstances (listed below.) This had previously only be allowed for purchase order items under $100,000 [and not too long before that to items under $50,000.]

The whopping proposed increase to a quarter million dollars was justified, the memo argued, because the Council had adopted a FY13 budget in Sept. 2012 that eliminated a buyer position. To capture those cost savings required a "streamlined" process, the memo said. This "streamlining" included the following "controls":

Any sole source procurement above $100,000 will require City Council approval.
The purchase must be in conformance with purchasing procedures developed and promulgated by the Purchasing Agent. The required purchasing procedures will include award protest procedures to provide additional pre-award controls.
As an additional control, City purchasing procedures will provide for a quarterly report to the City Council on all purchases above $100,000 that were approved by the Purchasing Agent.
Any purchases above $250,000 would require City Council approval.
...The adopted FY13 budget [also] includes a provision to increase a department's purchasing authority to $25,000, from the current $10,000 limit. The LBMC change allows the Purchasing Agent to delegate authority to departments for purchases. Currently, the Purchasing Agent will set the limit at $25,000, but the departments will only be able to make purchases if they follow the purchasing procedures promulgated by the Purchasing Agent.

Is this the kind of "streamlining" you want? Do those sound like sufficient "controls" to you? Would you like to see who's being paid, how much and for what? Notice that the quarterly report on spending over $100k comes to the City Council, not agendized for routine disclosure to the public. We have no idea what it shows and doesn't show [and we'd need a Public Records Act request to get it.] And what about spending under $100k? These matters didn't bother some Councilmembers.

Councilman DeLong, seconded by Councilwoman Lowenthal made a motion to approve the proposal. After some Council discussion, Councilman Johnson made a substitute motion, seconded by Lowenthal, to "reduce" the proposed new limit to $200,000...that is, to DOUBLE the amount of purchase order authority from $100,000 to $200,000.

The substitute motion passed 7-2 on Dec. 4, 2012 with the "yes" votes of Vice Mayor Garcia and Councilmembers Lowenthal, DeLong, O'Donnell, Andrews, Johnson and Neal. Councilmembers Schipske and Austin voted no. Since the proposal was a change to an ordinance, it required a second vote, which took place on Dec. 11, 2014. The same Councilmembers voted "yes." Schipske and Neal voted "no" and Austin was absent.

In our opinion, what's needed now -- and is overdue -- is for some Long Beach City Councilmember(s) to agendize an item changing the status quo on spending. We think the status quo is especially unacceptable now, with oil at levels that don't meet the City's current budgeted spending. This is no time for the Council to continue to authorize blank check spending of up to $200,000.

It doesn't matter if a single Councilmember's motion fails to get a second. It doesn't matter if there's a motion and a second and the motion fails. The public needs to see which Councilmembers defend the status quo on this or seek to change it. It's not the only openness and transparency issue that deserves change at LB City Hall; former Councilwoman Schipske was right on the merits on several matters that remain to be pursued.

Regarding spending, we urge Councilmembers to swiftly agendize an amendment that rolls back management's spending authority and brings overdue openness and oversight to who's being paid, how much, and for what.

That will take someone with the principles and stamina displayed by Trustee Sunny Zia, someone unafraid to rock the boat, anger the gods...and bring sunshine where there's now darkness.

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.