(Aug. 2, 2015, 6:50 p.m.) -- Fifth district Councilwoman Stacy Mungo wasn't the largest recipient of contributions to LB Councilmember officeholder accounts (now with triple the previously allowed total sums) in the first half of 2015. (Mungo voted against tripling them but was amenable to doubling them.) And she wasn't the only incumbent to receive contributions from multiple corporate/business interests -- and from multiple labor unions -- between Jan 1-June 30, 2015.

But Councilwoman Mungo was the only LB incumbent to receive contributions to her officeholder account during the first half of 2015 from individuals with links to a major LB Airport general aviation facility operator. The firm supported her candidacy in 2013 and its President/CEO contributed to her officeholder fund on her taking office in 2014.

And Councilwoman Mungo is the only LB Council incumbent to receive contributions to her officeholder account in the latter half of 2014 from JetBlue Airways Corporation Crew member Good Government Fund.

The most recent officeholder contribution disclosure recently filed by Councilwoman Mungo (who took office in mid-July 2014) indicates that the $12,984 in contributions she received to her officeholder account between Jan. 1-June 30, 2015 included the following:

[Scroll down for further.]

JetBlue has asked the City to request a federal customs facility to enable the carrier to make international flights. Such a federal facility couldn't be restricted to a single operator. In Feb. 2015 testimony to LB's Airport Advisory Commission, LB City Prosecutor and former Airport Advisory Comm'n member Doug Haubert noted that allowing a federal customs facility could enable an entirely new category of operators -- international cargo and passenger carriers -- to seek LB Airport flight slots, all of which are currently filled under LB's Airport ordinance which protects the City from unlimited flights at all hours on all runways [Feb. 2015 coverage here.]

If a court were to strike down Long Beach's protective Airport ordinance, the City would lose local control over flights at its Airport, resulting in legally unlimited numbers of take-offs and landings on all runways at all hours and no nighttime protections. In that outcome, many of Councilwoman Mungo's 5th district homeowners would have much to lose. Mr. Castagna and JetBlue reps have both repeatedly stated that they support LB's Airport ordinance; JetBlue has said it intends to operate within its terms and Mr. Castagna for many years supported a mix of general aviation and commercial aircraft at LGB...but they don't control the actions of others.

[Scroll down for further.]

Advertisement

Advertisement

On March 3, 2015, Councilwoman Mungo, whose Council district includes the Airport and a sprawling residential area extending eastward to LB's city limit, was one of three Councilmembers to vote against an item agendized by Councilmembers Austin and Uranga that withheld action on JetBlue's request for a federal customs facility until 60 days after a new 4th dist. Councilmember was seated. Facing a Council audience filled with residents carrying signs supporting the Austin-Uranga item, Councilwoman Mungo read a prepared text declaring that in her opinion, bringing the item forward was "pandering to this crowd."

Three months later on July 7, 2015, when management brought the item back to the Council (after 4th dist. Councilman Supernaw seated), Councilwoman Mungo made a motion (a substitute-substitute) to authorize management to proceed with work necessary to determine the feasibility of a federal customs facility at LB Airport.

Public testimony in the Council Chamber was over two to one opposed. Of those testifying in support, half were associated with JetBlue and most of the others in support Airport or aviation business ties. Public speakers in opposition were mainly Airport impacted homeowners, several of whom voiced concern with safeguarding their home values.

Prior to casting her vote, Councilwoman Mungo extemporaneously stated: "I want all of you to stay in the homes you're in, but quite frankly if you moved, the city would actually increase its property tax revenue." Her words sparked audience anger; Mungo's position carried 6-3 (Supernaw, Austin, Uranga dissenting) and anger aimed at Councilwoman Mungo has grown on social networks...with some residents calling for her recall.

Aerolease was an early supporter of Council-candidate Mungo, making a $350 campaign contribution to her as she sought office in November 2013. After Councilwoman Mungo took office, Mr. Castagna contributed $500 to her officeholder account as did Cindy Cox-Goodfellow, Manager Aeroplex Aerolease Group ($500). And so did the JetBlue Airways Corporation Crewmember Good Government Fund ($500) on August 15, 2014 (all three contributions listed in the Councilmember's report on the same date.)

[Scroll down for further.]

Advertisement

Advertisement

Others contributing to Councilwoman Mungo's officeholder account between July 1-December 31, 2014 included the LB Police Officers Association PAC ($500), the LB Firefighter Ass'n PAC ($500) and O'Donnell for Assembly 2014 campaign ($250.)

Another contributor to Councilwoman Mungo's officeholder account in the period Jan 1-Jun 30 2015 was Matt Knabe, a lobbyist with the L.A.-based firm of Englander, Knabe and Allen. LB City Clerk lobbyist registration records indicate that during this period, Mr. Knabe was one of two individuals with his firm working to influence legislative or administrative action by all Councilmembers and the Mayor on behalf of NY-based JetBlue on [lobbyist disclosure form] "Airport issues and customs facility."

Solid Landings Behavioral Health is a private, for-profit corporation based in OC whose website indicates its staff's fields of expertise include 12 step recovery, alcoholism, substance abuse and several other areas. The firm is believed to have some of its group-home based facilities in Long Beach residential areas, including the 5th Council district. Company representatives were present at a January 2015 community meeting at the El Dorado Park senior center at which Councilwoman Mungo and a City Attorney's office rep discussed issues surrounding group homes.

Advertisement

Advertisement

With the exception of Matt Knabe (who lobbied all Councilmembers and the Mayor on behalf of the JetBlue re its desired federal customs facility), none of the individuals related to the Jan-June 2015 Aeroplex or Solid Landings contributions were listed as having Long Beach zip code addresses.

During the July-Dec. 2015 period, Councilwoman Mungo spent her officeholder sums for items including:

• $300 to Survey Monkey (reported as POL = "polling and survey research.") [LBREPORT.com doesn't know for sure at this point for what purpose(s) the polling/survey was conducted; we speculate it may be related to a controversy over the type of material to use on a proposed artificial turf soccer field in El Dorado Park West.]
• $1,629.09 to Tervis (a Florida firm which makes drinkware, mugs, collectibles. [LBREPORT.com speculates that this expenditure is for items visible and distributed to thank community volunteers at Councilwoman Mungo's State of the 5th dist. event.]
• $1,490.90 to HB Products (we Huntington Beach firm that does screen printing/T-shirts. [We speculate that this expenditure is also for items visible and distributed to thank volunteers at Councilwoman Mungo's State of the 5th dist. event]
• $100 to USC (reported as Civic Donation)
• $250 to Long Beach Police Foundation
• $100 to Multiple Myeloma Research Foundation
• $100 to Newcomb Academy Foundation
• $600 to Rotary Club of Long Beach

On Jan. 20, 2015 and Feb. 3, 2015, the Council voted to triple the collectable amounts up to $30,000 per year for Councilmembers and up to $75,000 for citywide electeds. The votes were 5-3, with Mungo, Price and Austin dissenting [4th dist. then vacant] after the three dissenters proposed as a compromise doubling the previous amounts. The new higher limits took effect in early March 2015. Cynics at the time noted that although the dissenters were on record as voting against tripling allowable sums, they could still collect beyond the doubled amounts they'd proposed. If Councilwoman Mungo continues to collect officeholder contributions at her current pace ($12,984 in the from Jan-June 2015), she will have collected nearly $6,000 more by year's end than she voted to allow.

Officeholder accounts collect sums from contributions solicited at fundraisers or by mail. Contributors can include various persons and entities (including those with self-interests in helping helpful incumbents.) The incumbent can then disburse the collected sums to neighborhood groups or for community events or give sums to favored politically active groups potentially helpful to the incumbents.

Within months after a new Council majority took office (mid-July 2014), the Council's Election Ovesight Committee (Gonzalez, Uranga, Mungo) proposed to significantly increase the allowable sums they and other city electeds could collect.

In Council discussion accompanying an initial Jan. 20 vote to triple the sums, several Council incumbents argued that the change would let them better support neighborhood events and community events...and said (Gonzalez in particular) that the change simply brings Long Beach up to levels allowed in other neighboring cities. [LBREPORT.com and the PressTelegram both criticized the Council action editorially, calling the accounts "slush funds."]

During Council discussion, no Council incumbents cited LB Proposition M, enacted by LB voters in June 1994 to do the following [Text of Prop M Findings and Declarations]

[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.

Officeholder accounts weren't part of voter-approved Prop M; they were added by the Council in a controversial 1995 action without a vote of the people over the objections of a number of Prop M supporters who called them "slush funds."

In 2007, the Council voted to raise the allowable officeholder amounts over the objections (again) of some local residents but with the support of LB's elected Auditor, who argued at the time that the then-proposed increase would let Councilmembers use donated sums to support district events instead of tapping taxpayer resources. [Auditor Doud remained mum during Council discussions on the increases in 2015.]

As a result of the Council's 2015 action, LB incumbent electeds can solicit and accept sums for "officeholder expenses associated with holding office" under CA Government Code sections 89512-89519 but under the LB ordinance excludes uses under sections 89513(e) and (g) relating to loans to candidates, political parties or committees.) Although the ordinance specifies that officeholder expense funds can't be used or expended in connection with a future election for an elective city office, it doesn't preclude incumbents from giving funds to various groups and entities (including advocacy and political groups) whose support might prove useful to an incumbent in a future election.