Council Votes 6-1 (Supernaw Dissenting) On First Of Two Votes (With Enacting Vote Set For April 18) To Law To Let Themselves And Mayor Use Their Contributor-Fueled "Officeholder Accounts" To Support Candidates Running For Other Local, State or Federal Offices 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.
(April 11, 2017 initial front page breaking, further text added) -- As seen LIVE earlier tonight (April 11), in just under two minutes, the City Council voted 6-1 (Supernaw dissenting, Pearce and Price absent, with Price arriving a few items later) to advance to a final vote on April 18 a change in city law that would let LB Councilmembers, the Mayor and other citywide electeds use sums from their "officeholder accounts" (tripled by Council action in 2015 on grounds it would let electeds better support neighborhood and community events) to transfer, loan or contribute "to any other candidate for local, State or federal elective office."

At the April 11 Council meeting, Mayor Garcia took the item out of order near start of meeting. No Councilmembers or the City Attorney spoke. One member of the public, frequent Council communicator Larry Goodhue, said the measure "doesn't pass the smell test."

If approved on April 18, the change would erase current LB's Municipal Code text that specifies "Officeholder funds may not be used as a transfer, loan or contribution to any other candidate for local, State or federal elective office." Erasing that text would let LB incumbents use "contributions" (solicited and accepted from interests that may have interests in Council outcomes) given to their "officeholder accounts" to assist candidates seeking other offices by replacing current LB law with less restrictive statutes and rules written by Sacramento.

The proposed change first appeared on the March 14 agenda of the Mayor-chosen "Elections Oversight Committee" (chair Pearce, vice chair Andrews, member Supernaw) listed as "request City Manager to study the feasibility of aligning candidate officeholder accounts to those of state/FPPC regulations." The item as agendized included no written explanatory materials. The measure cleared the Committtee on a 2-1 vote (Supernaw dissenting), sending it to the City Council.



On April 4, the item was (again) agendized as "request City Manager to study the feasibility of aligning councilmember and other elected officials officeholder accounts to those of state/FPPC regulations" but Councilwoman Pearce made a motion (seconded by Gonzalez) to request the City Attorney to go further in actually drafting new ordinance text for Council enactment (no "study" of the action's "feasibility.")

When Councilman Supernaw indicated he was under the impression that Council vote would simply request a report, Mayor Garcia corrected him...and said Councilwoman Price had actually moved to direct the City Attorney to draft an ordinance to enact the ordinance change. City Attorney Charles Parkin replied that Pearce's motion had indeed directed his office to draft ordinance text for coming Council enactment [in two votes, now coming April 11 and 18.] Supernaw thanked them for the clarification and said nothing further. Neither did any other Councilmembers.

The Pearce-Gonzalez April 4 Council motion carried on a 6-1 vote, with Supernaw dissenting, Price exiting the Council Chamber prior to the item, and Andrews absent for the entire meeting.


Sponsor: Computer Repair Long Beach

The Council's April 11 approval vote leaves one additional Council vote on April 18 when the Council will decide whether to enact the measure.

In early 2015, a Council majority (5-3, Austin, Price, Mungo dissenting, 4th dist. vacant) voted to triple allowable totals LB electeds could annually amass in their "officeholder accounts" to reach $30,000 per Councilmember and $75,000 for citywide electeds (including the Mayor.) ( editorially criticized the Council action at the time as fattening de facto "slush funds" that LB incumbents can dole out to friendly, politically-useful, constituencies.) To fend off criticism at the time, some Council incumbents portrayed their action as allowing them to collect more money they could use to assist community groups and neighborhood events and stressed they weren't changing the long-standing LB prohibition against giving officeholder sums to political candidates themselves.

The change now coming to a final Council vote would in fact allow LB elected incumbents to give "officeholder account" sums to candidates seeking local, state or federal elective offices.



In 1994, at the urging of then-progressives (including then-2nd dist. Councilman Alan Lowenthal), the Council put on the ballot, and LB voters overwhelming enacted a LB Campaign Reform Act, which adopted tougher requirements than minimal state law. The LB Campaign Reform Act stated in its Findings and Declarations:

"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." [LB Muni Code section 2.01.120 (E)]



blog comments powered by Disqus

Recommend to your Facebook friends:

Follow with:




Return To Front Page

Contact us:

Adoptable pet of the week:

Carter Wood Floors
Hardwood Floor Specialists
Call (562) 422-2800 or (714) 836-7050

Copyright © 2017, LLC. All rights reserved. Terms of Use/Legal policy, click here. Privacy Policy, click here