Voters Could be Asked to Amend Controversial Conflict Law

By Gene Williams
Staff Writer

March 11 -- Santa Monica’s ongoing battle against one of the nation’s strictest conflict of interest laws has taken a new turn, as the City considers asking voters to amend the controversial initiative approved at the polls nearly five years ago.

The City Council’s move Tuesday to change the law -- which bars public officials from accepting campaign contributions, gifts or jobs from sources who have benefited from their votes or actions -- comes less than three weeks after the council voted to ask the California Supreme Court to take up the issue.

Although the City has challenged the Oaks initiative in court, it has so far been unable to strike down the voter-approved charter amendment which it says is unconstitutional, unfair and difficult -- if not impossible -- to implement.

Under council direction, staff will study the idea of a ballot initiative “that could achieve the goals of (the Oaks Initiative) in a transparent, enforceable, Constitutional way.”

“I accept the idea of waiting for some judicial resolution,” said Council member Bobby Shriver. “What I’m nervous about is any appearance that we’re trying to thwart the will of the voters” or indicate “in some way that we don’t support clean government, which I know we do.

“Let’s put forward a better idea” to the voters, Shriver suggested in making the motion to study a counter-initiative.

‘This matter has had a rather twisted process,”said Council Member Ken Genser.

In January an Appeals Court acknowledged that the law’s constitutionality needed to be addressed, but threw out the case, ruling that the City could not sue itself in an effort to strike down the measure, which was approved by 60 percent of Santa Monica voters in 2000.

The City, along with the Santa Monica-based Foundation for Taxpayer and Consumer Rights (FTCR), which sponsored the initiative, is now waiting to see if the California Supreme Court will hear its challenge to the Appeals Court ruling.

“The position of the Oaks has been to prevent a court ruling on the constitutionality and getting some resolution,” Genser said. “They’ve declined our offer to reach goals that, I hope, we would mutually share.”

But speaking from the floor, Oaks proponent Carmen Balber, a consumer advocate with the foundation, put the blame on the City.

“We have, over the course of the last four years, seen hundreds of thousands of dollars of the taxpayers’ money spent to fight the will of the voters,” Balber told the council.

“Each council member who votes to go forward with this process could personally be held responsible for a the misuse of taxpayer funds in this way,” she added.

But the council has remained steadfast in its opposition, arguing that, if implemented, the Oaks initiative would subject public officials who unknowingly violate the law to criminal and civil penalties and could unfairly disenfranchise hundreds of homeowners and small-time contractors who receive building permits and contracts from the City.

“Over the course of a year there’s hundreds of (City contracts), and over the course of five years there’s thousands of them,” Genser told Balber.

“Yet… I would be subject to criminal sanctions if I ended up taking a political contribution …. from someone who owned ten-percent of this company, (when) I don’t even remember the name of the company,” said Genser, adding that Santa Monica caps individual campaign contributions at $250.

Council member Kevin McKeown agreed. “It sounds as if full enforcement of (the initiative) would politically disenfranchise a number of individual homeowners in this city over time,” he said.

“I’m all for electoral reform and clean financing, and I’m frustrated by this,” McKeown added. “The real money isn’t coming from homeowners who are getting a benefit, or small contractors, or people who own ten-percent of a corporation.

“We have huge hotels putting hundreds of thousands of dollars into campaign gifts,” McKeown said. “This isn’t going to make a difference.”

But Balber thinks the council is making the law, which was implemented in San Francisco with no controversy, sound worse than it is.

Unless the law is violated, "the City’s only obligation, as the Court of Appeals noted……. is to notify the City’s contractors of the measure’s provisions,” Balber told the council.

Under initiative LL which became an amendment to the City charter, officials cannot receive gifts from public benefit recipients for two years after the expiration of their terms, two years after the official's departure from office, or six years from the date the official acted to approve the allocation, whichever comes first.

Citizens would be authorized to bring civil enforcement actions under the law. Civil remedies would include penalties, restitution to the City, injunctive relief and disqualification from future public office.