|
||||||||||||||
Access For Sale by Keith Higginbotham | City Beat | 01.05.10 | | Text Size: +
This April will mark 13 years since I first started writing as a business reporter. One thing that I have learned over this time is that, typically, successful businesses and business interests never do anything without the expectation of return. Now, this is not to say that successful companies are necessarily evil or nefarious because they expect a return on all investment. After all, that is what companies do. In many ways, they are very organic. They exist to propagate. To grow. To thrive. Much like any living thing. And like the diversity of organisms in the wild, businesses can range from hamsters to great white sharks and from kittens to grizzly bears. The common thread, if there is such a common thread, is the expectation of return, be it in market growth, profit, revenue or even good will among the community. These are all legal tender in the growth cycle of a successful business. For example, successful companies that rely in part or whole on municipal governments for their business spend a great deal of time and money courting city governments. It would be nice to think that a great track record alone would bring in the contracts, but with low-bidder language nearly ubiquitous throughout government, often times reputation is not nearly enough. So companies hire lobbyists to 'explain' to local government officials why they are so great. The name of the game is political access to the decision makers and even in this regard companies expect a return on their lobbying investment. This investment can take on many forms, from simply the cost of hiring a lobbyist who will arrange meetings and sit down with City Hall officials, to more extreme methods of influence. Keep in mind that a lobbyist, who has few rules to govern his ethical conduct other than his or her own soul, can use many tools beyond the face-to-face meeting to secure the influence his or her client desires. But now, in the wake of the Craig Beck debacle, where the former-RDA chief accepted gifts from lobbyist friend Mike Murchison, we find City Hall making moves to implement new rules regarding lobbyists. Being pushed forward by Councilmembers Robert Garcia and Gerrie Schipske, the new ordinance would seek to force lobbyists to register and report their client lists, report any one-on-one conversations with city officials on matters up for a vote and prohibit gift giving to city officials. Current rules allow city officials to accept gifts valued over $50, but must report them. If a gift is worth more than $250, current rules state that the city official must recuse themselves from any matter dealing with the gift giver. And, no gifts from a single source of more than $420 are permitted. Councilmember Schipske wrote on her blog several weeks ago that "All department heads and all elected officials need to come clean about whether or not they have accepted a gift of any kind from anyone having business at City Hall." Your intrepid writer could not agree more. Oh, except for one thing. What are we calling a 'gift?' It would appear by the context of the current rules that a gift is seen as anything that is given away that might result in improper influence or consideration being garnered by the gift giver. Readers of this column know that your writer has a zero tolerance when defining such things. No loop holes, no spin, no wiggle room. So your writer believes that a gift should be considered anything that involves money going to a city hall official from a person with business before City Hall. It could be a straight gift, as in the case of former-RDA chief Craig Beck's 'vacation-with-a-lobbyist' in Napa Valley. Other straight gifts could include a fancy lunch at a local restaurant with the lobbyist picking up the tab, or free transportation or lodging for a junket. However, in addition to these more obvious gifts, there are others that are not normally talked about by politicians, despite the fact that they are exactly the same--money given with the expectation of return. These include such things as a donation to the City Hall official's favorite charity or even the old tried and true campaign contribution. As Councilmember Schipske went on to say on her blog about gift giving, "We need a complete investigation -- everyone." The problem is, such an investigation might involve a lot of city officials, including Councilmembers Schipske and Garcia that are pushing the new lobbying rules. For example, while Mr. Beck has been pilloried here and in other places for taking a discount on a hotel room from lobbyist friend Mike Murchison, Councilmember Schipske received a $350 campaign donation from the president of one of Mr. Murchison's client firms, Lyon Apartment Companies. This donation is roughly equal to a one-night presidential suite room rate at the same hotel Mr. Beck stayed at in Napa Valley. You might know Lyon Apartment Companies better as the developer of the $42 million Lofts at Promenade and the $94 million West Gateway mixed-use project being developed along Broadway. And, Councilmember Schipske is not alone. Every single current councilmember and Mayor Foster have all accepted campaign contributions from Mr. Murchison's clients, or executives of these firms. A comparison of Mr. Murchison's client list to campaign records over the past four years reveals that 26 of Mr. Murchison's 67 listed client firms, and the executives of those client firms, have contributed a total of nearly $65,000 to the various campaigns of Mayor Foster and each sitting City Councilmember over the past four years. Keep in mind that this is just the client list of one lobbyist. The 26 contributing firms on Mr. Murchison's client list, which is no longer available on his website but is viewable by clicking here, have directly contributed a total of just under $23,000 to the various campaigns of the Mayor and seven City Councilmembers. These firms made more than 40 direct contributions to the Mayor and Council members ranging in value from single donations of $700 to single donations of $100. It should be noted that Councilmembers Tonia Reyes-Uranga and Gerrie Schipske received no direct donations from the firms on Mr. Murchison's client list. In addition, executives of Mr. Murchison's client firms (staff workers of the firms were excluded) have also made total contributions of just over $42,000 over the past four years to the various campaigns of the Mayor and each sitting Council members, with the exception of Patrick O'Donnell. These more than 50 personal contributions made by executives of Mr. Murchison-represented firms also ranged from single contributions of $1,000 to single contributions of $100. It should be noted that Councilmember O'Donnell received a single $200 donation from one of the client firms, but no personal contribution from executives. Councilmembers Tonia Reyes-Uranga and Schipske, who received no direct donations from the firms on Mr. Murchison's client list, both received at least one personal donation from executives at these firms. Councilmember Reyes-Uranga received two personal donations worth a total of $600 and Councilmember Schipske received one personal donation of $350. The largest single recipient of campaign contributions from Murchison-represented clients was Mayor Foster. For his upcoming 2010 re-election campaign Mayor Foster has received $9,150 from firms on Mr. Murchison's client list and an additional $8,950 from executives of these firms. During his 2006 campaign, Mayor Foster received $4,875 from Murchison-represented firms and another $16,800 from executives of these firms. Here is a listing of campaign donations over the past four years the Mayor and councilmembers have received from firms represented by Mr. Murchison and executives of these firms. Mayor - Bob Foster, $14,025 (firms), $25,750 (execs) This is in no way to say that any of these firms or individuals or even the elected officials have done anything improper. But as pointed out earlier, successful firms rarely do anything without an expectation of some return. These firms chose Mr. Murchison to represent them and as we have seen, Mr. Murchison is not above creating an ethical dilemma that led to Mr. Beck's downfall. And just like Mr. Beck's actions have tainted all he has touched with the air of suspicion, so too should we perhaps look askew at Mr. Murchison's dealings with City Hall in their entirety. After all, once the suspicion genie is out of the bottle, it can not be put back in. The taint grows like a malignancy, infecting everything past, present and future. Unfortunately, this infection has all the possibilities of spreading to Mr. Murchison, and through him, directly to his clients, at least as they relate to City Hall. And perhaps Councilmember Schipske is correct--there should be an investigation of all gifts by people having business with City Hall. But, why use the definition of 'gift' that only includes a $50 lunch and not a $1,000 campaign contribution? Does one cause less damage than the other to our government process if the cause and effect are both the product of ethical lapses? As this column argued several weeks ago, a single ethical breech can cause immeasurable harm. Not just in the short term, which City Hall appears comfortable living in, but also in the long term, which is simply off the radar for most on the top floors of 333 Ocean Blvd. This is not about a hotel room, or Mr. Beck's 'demotion,' or even a single campaign contribution. This is about undermining the will of the people. It is about putting a "For Sale" sign on the public trust and ultimately eroding the whole concept of democratic representation. Ethical breeches like that engaged in by Mr. Beck literally exchange the will of the people for a cash register, with elected officials hawking their wares like some carnival barker. "Step right up folks, get your political access." The problem is that the "For Sale" sign is not always so obvious--it is not always out on the front lawn where every passerby can get a good look. Sometimes the "For Sale" sign is a private listing, only open to viewing by a select crowd that too often does not include "we, the people." However, the sad fact, only reinforced by the 6-percent voter turnout in the recent 3rd District School Board election, is that we as the citizens of Long Beach have to some degree abrogated control of the city to these carnival barkers. Think about that--6 percent. Winner John McGinnis managed to convince 2-percent of the registered voters in the district to vote for him. That's 748 voters out of nearly 36,000 in the district. And he only beat his nearest opponent by 81 votes--or 0.27-percent of the registered voters in the district. That is not representation. And just saying something like "Well, the other 94-percent of the voters had the chance to make a difference," doesn't change the fact that they are not being represented. How can we have majority rule when the overwhelming majority does not even participate? This is governance by ultra-minority. My friends, the system is broke and the only people that can make the carnival pack up and move on are us. If we don't step up to the voting box plate soon with a Louisville Slugger of outrage, then we can only sit back and join the other 94-percent of the electorate that seemingly don't care who gets elected and quietly watch the game. Or we will just have to figure out how to come up with some serious campaign donations when we want that pothole fixed or street light changed. Well, that’s the start of the soapbox for this decade. Ta. Click here to read our policy on covering the Long Beach City Council. Comments
Click Here to Join the Discussion on this Story
26 Comments so far.
clue seeker Lots of complaining and insinutation - but what are you actually proposing? I cant figure it out. KCinLB Some have said l'affaire d'Beck was a tempest in a teapot. You've clearly shown here and in your earlier reports that an ethical breach can have devastating consequences - both for the perpetrators and for the public. Bikewood Yes! the system is broke, and more rules will not fix it, We the people need tell the City Council to do the work of the people not the work of lobbyists. DF in LB I think you have something to say, but you sure are wordy. Quit trying to be clever and get to your point.Make it a poiint to edit your stuff and cut out any extra words. All that verbosity discourages me from reading your stuff. Curious Did anyone ever tally up the value of the free receptions, hotel rooms, dinners at Sir Winston's, etc. that Long Beach's own "mini Madoff" gave to City Council members and other city officials over the years? This is not even counting the political contributions made by him and his executive staff to their campaigns. The result was acquiesence in extensions to his lease from 5 years to over 60 years and total inaction by the city officials in enforcing the terms of that lease as he raped the Queen Mary and by default us as citizens, its true owner. The tradition of corruption runs wide and deep in this city. WrigleyWriter What is he actually proposing? That we pay attention and vote. That's what Mr. Higgenbotham said, fairly explicitly. When a journalist does the job of gathering the data, as he has done here, we need do only three things: 1) insist that the data is collected equitably; 2) remember what we read come election day; and, 3) vote. City Hall observer The real problem with this money=access equation is that it ultimately produces cynicism and apathy among the general population (we are already seeing this in the School Board example)and ill-gotten gain among those who participate. Neither of these outcomes bodes well for democracy. I'm in favor of strict ethics laws and public finance of all campaigns--others have it, and we should, too! Gerrie Schipske Keith -- you should have disclosed that the one contribution I accepted was on 8/31/06 -- and none since. Upon taking office I refused to accept any developer money and any gift of any amount. Mr. Murchison actually stopped talking with me because I returned his christmas gift in December 2006 because I have a no gift policy. I have never had a conversation with the person who gave that 2006 donation. Dennis Lord Okay, the system is broken. Propose a solution. First you explain business motives and then you disparage them by casting shadows. As the local rep for 20 cities and communities, I am before Councils on a regular basis. Yet, as a Utility rep, I cannot be a lobbyist but an advocate for common sense decisions that allow us to continue to provide our customers with safe and reliable service at the lowest possible cost. My colleagues and I educate without consideration of tangible quid pro quo which is where the trouble starts. I agree with Bonnie Lowenthal. Go back to the Ethics panel that I, and others, sat on for eight months and resurrect the proposals that were previously rejected. Meanwhile, I will continue to report internally each and every contact with elected officials and city staff that incurred a cost as REQUIRED by my Company. In addition, our Business Code of Conduct Guidelines demand, as a condition of employment, to take an annual refresher course in ethical conduct and SIGN OFF that we will abide by them. You can't regulate the world, but you can certainly educate internal staff who interact with outside influences and link it to their job performance. Who's in Charge Don't forget the impact the unions have when they make donations and endorsements to political races. They expect a return for their support in getting someone elected, which can be substantial - including legs on the street all for support for better benefits when the negotiations and votes come before the city. The people of this country may be better served if unions and thier PACs were not permitted to make donations to politicians. Substantial trade offs occur in this arena. CHARLIE O HECK, everybody does it that's running for a political office from the dog catcher to President Obama - even the wealthy like Sen. Kerry for example, except he married his. :>) No body, firm or individual, even the Lobbyist, will give you money for your campaign without the promise to support the issues their concerned about - liberals, teabaggers or concervatives - of course there's always a return; The voter decides the same way regardless of party affiliation - so investigate away, Schipske, have fun, but even you accepted donations for your campaign. :>) LBResident1 Schipske attempts to tar all City employees with the ethical failures of one. The real problem with the City is the City Council, not the hard working dedicated staff that must make difficult decisions everyday as they attempt to serve the public. Back door deals on done on behalf of the Council, not because staff beleive the deals are in the best interest of the people. Dennis Howard CDM....this is the real estate company who got a very sweet heart deal. Buying a downtown building from the City of Long Beach and having the City carry back a part of the mortgage. Now that is a sweet deal in these times. Try to find a seller who would take back a mortgage, especially a city. Now we know how Howard CDM pulled that one off...Mike Murchinson. Funny thing is, Howard CDM is a very local Long Beach firm. Why would Howard CDM need a lobbyist in Long Beach when the principle lives here? Murchinson greased the skids for this deal that is why. Judy Huge differance there is no corolation and you went no where with this except maybe to upset a few people for this crude comparison. Beck took a vacation with the lobbiest, what else do you think he gave Beck while on his lavish vacation? Hmmm I can imagine. for LB Keith thank you for your information it is clear that you have done your homework. To LBResident1: I am sorry to say, I have seen first- hand how even city employees clearly cross the ethical line. This is not only by using the City name and resources for their own benefits, but also for deliberately covering-up the unethical process of their co-workers. There are age old relationships between city employees and different authorities, to a point that it is absolutely amazing. These matters are not even necessarily connected to political campaign contributions. Yet they are all still significant ethical issues. We should ask how responsible LB residents are expected to address such issues? If they do take action, how do they do it and who is there to help them make a difference? Unfortunately, time and time again it turns out that no one is interested in offending the next person. So we have a never ending saga. John Greet Thanks again for another well-researched column, Mr. H. While I understand the "unethical government = voter apathy" argument, I strongly disagree with it. It is voter apathy and overall lack of active and constructive participation in our entire process of self-government that has made an unethical government possible in the first place. The responsibility is not government's to remain ethical, it is the responsibility of the electorate to keep it so. Not through inattention or inaction or apathy but through active and well-informed and constructive participation. Left to its own devices, unmonitored and unchecked, government will sink into tyranny...every...single...time. Tyranny is the antithesis of liberty. The more liberty we demand and defend and reserve to ourselves, the less tyrannical our government necessarily becomes and remains. It really is just that simple. Mike Ruehle Fne article and compelling questions Mr. Higginbotham. I only hope it helps to wake up Long Beach voters so we can flush the Mayor and most of City Council. Campaign contributions are indeed gifts and Mayor Foster recieves the most of these gifts from people who don't even live in our fine city. Time for a double flush on Foster. KeithH Thanks for the comments. I have always felt it is my job to present factual information and let the reader make his or her own decisions. However, since several of you have asked what I think the solutions to these problems might be, let me offer a few thoughts, first, on campaign contributions and gifts. First, there should be a very low cap on campaign expenditures per candidate per race--my gut feeling is somewhere in the $100,000 range per candidate. Going door to door cost nothing, so no complaining about reaching the voters. If you want it bad enough, hit the pavement. Also, no expenditures for uncontested races. Second, no non-personal contributions, such as from corporate, business and non-profit groups (and yes, I know the law says they have the right--but that doesn't make it right). Third, no personal contributions over $100. Fourth, no gifts to City officials of any kind except meals at events where the official has been asked to speak beforehand. Earn your rubber chicken and cheesecake lunches. These should be limited to a cash value of no more than $50 and must still be reported and published on the city website within 24 hours. As for things like lobbyists, here are a few suggestions: First, if lobbyists meet with City Hall staff at any level, in or out of City Hall, it must be posted to the city website within 24 hours. The topics discussed and the names of all those at the meeting must be reported, just like a public meeting (after all the public, in the form of our city officials, are at the meeting). Second, there should be a limit on how many times a single lobbyist can meet with staff on a given topic in a certain time frame. Beyond this, a lobbyist can go to the City Council meeting and get their three minutes like the rest of the public. Third, all lobbyist that have met with City Hall staff or officials on a topic before the City Council should be identified before the agenda item is voted on during the Council meeting and before the public is asked to speak on said issue. Who they are, who they represent, and who they spoke with should be identified during the meeting and made part of the record. Fourth, lobbyists representing entities with business before the City Council should not be allowed to meet privately with any city official on a given topic within two weeks of a Council vote on the topic. So, there you have a few of my soapbox solutions to the problems. Sean Zullo The Tail Wagging the Dog? Chris Windsor I would also suggest an examination of the extent to which Verizon and its predecessor General Telephone (and their local Public Affairs Manager) have gone to preserve their hometown monopoly in Long Beach. Mike What I do not find in your report is an accounting of all the Labor Union Influence that has dominated control over our City Council. When will we see the other side of the story? KeithH Mike, thanks for the comment. You make a good point. I would say that my arguments apply to any group that has business before City Hall. However, in the case of some groups it may be much harder to see the outcome of the influence. For example, a business lobbies for a contract and then gets it. Case closed. Easy to see. However, unions and other groups such as non-profits, often lobby for a more ambiguous things such as a change of political direction (i.e., getting an official to lean towards a labor-friendly view in all votes) as opposed to a specific instance of influence (like the business wanting a contract). That doesn't mean that unions and others don't lobby for specific contract related issues, just oftentimes less directly than a single business entity. Regardless, all attempts to influence officials, good or bad, small or large, left or right, should all be made clear to the citizens in a timely and thorough fashion. lbresident It's very easy to see the union influence on this council. One only has to look at the lack of pension reform, the recent PLA proposal at the airport, the resistance to allocating resources efficiently, reluctance to contract out services to cheaper private firms and a host of other things. Our council is much more dominated by union influence than any other special interest. Dennis (the original exPo What about seats at fundraisers? What about a holiday party at top law firms with passed hors d'oevres and free drinks? What about seats in a box at the Grand Prix for 3 days? What about attending a constituent's, or non-constituent's, 4th of July party with food and drinks? Just about everything is worth over $50 and how much is reported? Read Shirley Wild's columns and see who was at what events from the city, how often are those events free to the electeds and City Hall workers? Businesses want contracts or zoning ordinances and residents want potholes filled airplanes quieted, everyone wants something. Where does the so called reporting that is being called for become ridiculous, a $50 gift versus a weekend watching motor cars versus being honored by a local charity at a nice dinner? They all are worth something. And I will echo very strongly those who ask about the union influence. We pay for their PAC dues to be collected and accounted for, they use those funds to then elect the same people that vote on their salaries, benefits and jobs. Ethical? Many of the Council members signed pledges with one of the city unions just to interview for and endorsement; ethical? Cops knocking doors during a campaign, what is that worth? Ethical? Firefighters cooking hot dogs at a campaign fundraiser for free, ethical? Bixby Knolls Resident Keith...and all others. Unfortunately, all current or proposed laws will do nothing to avert the corruption in the hearts of politicians in and out of our city. It is a sad case that today, the wind always blows in the direction of who has the most money or the most influence. Politicians may believe they are voting in the best interest of their constituents when they vote "pro" union. Yet, perhaps their decision was influenced by the whisperings of a "friend" in the union. Or, perhaps their vote was purchased, much like Sen Nelson of Nebraska. The only way to change the political environment is for the ethical behavior within the politician to change...like the Grinch who's heart grew 3 sizes. But, then again the Grinch is just a tale. Grumpy Guy Good job Keith! Dig up that dirt and show what's crawling in it! Now let's get the same list for all the other lobbyists. This is exactly some of the info that needs to be plainly visible to the public so we can see who is trying to grease whom of our elected officials. Anyone who thinks this type of info should stay hidden is just a sleaze bag too. Now we SEE WHY Suja was against new lobbyist rules!! And maybe we see where Foster got all that "out of town" money for his first campaign. These are suppossed to be the representatives of the voters not the corporate greasers. WE NEED FULL LOBBYIST DISCLOSURE NOW!!!!!!
City Beat
Keith Higginbotham takes you inside City Hall and reports weekly on the decisions being made.
Keith Higginbotham is a freelance journalist and writer who most recently served as the West Coast editor for the trade magazine American Shipper, covering the shipping and logistics industries. Prior to this, he served as the Advertising and Multimedia Manager for the Port of Long Beach. He began his journalism career more than a decade ago as the Trade and Transportation beat reporter at the Long Beach Press-Telegram.
Keith's Community
 
Keith's Favorite Links
en.wikipedia.org huffingtonpost.com laobserved.com marvel.com/digitalcomics/ poynter.org
Keith's Archives
September, 2010 09.01.10 Judge Upholds LA Port Truck Plan, ATA To AppealAugust, 2010 08.25.10 Long Beach City Council: Campaign Contributions & More08.18.10 Municipal Band Gets Reduced Commitment Of $180k Funding08.16.10 Prop D: Undercutting Port Assets By Up To $150MJuly, 2010 07.29.10 Council Attendance Much Better Than First Reported07.28.10 Full Council Only Met 42% Of Time In 2008-10 Term07.26.10 Vice-Mayor Is Not Just A Figurehead07.21.10 Long Beach City Council Splits On Vice Mayor Vote07.20.10 City Council Gets Ready To Rumble Over Vice Mayor Vote07.19.10 UPDATED: Long Beach City Council: Vices And Vacations07.13.10 UPDATE: Reduced Council Meetings Motion Pulled From Agenda07.08.10 Long Beach Experiences Shrinkage, Loses 7.63 AcresJune, 2010 06.23.10 Long Beach City Council Round-up For June 2206.22.10 Sramek Tapped For 2nd Term As Port Board President06.21.10 Long Beach Airport Noise Violations Up, Though Still Rare06.16.10 City Council: $25M Port Transfer, Seawalls & Cat Licenses06.14.10 Kroc-a-dile Tears, Part Deux06.07.10 RDA Round-up: Housing Updates, Tax Credits, and Public ArtShow All Archives |
||||||||||||||
| About Us | Contact Us | Policies | ||||||||||||||
