Putting the Jeanie back in the bottle?

As Neighborhood Councils attempt to clarify to what extent they can participate in the Democratic Process, the answer may be none.

While attempting to determine if the Council, after taking a position on a ballot measure could use their funding to inform their stakeholders of their position, a new wrinkle has developed.

In the 2000 letter from former City Attorney James K. Hahn, it was clear the council could take a position on a ballot measure.

" If you are asking whether a neighborhood council can become involved in political campaigns or use its official status and resources to influence the election or defeat of candidates and ballot measures, our advice is that, with the exception of taking a public position in support of or opposition to a ballot measure, a neighborhood council may not engage in that type of conduct.”

The current City Attorney in a response for a clarification on the funding question, now refers to the:

Ethics Handbook for Neighborhood Council Governing Board Members, revised March 2003, Prohibited Political Activity, page 11.

Which if, as is stated, prohibits political activity and may result in NCs not being able to take a position.

The City Attorney, is as we write, calling for an in house meeting to determine whether new guidelines for NC need to be issued. Especially in light of the councils taking a position on Measure R.

Now here is even more irony: Councilmember Janice Hahn will be termed out if Measure R fails. Her brother, Former Mayor and former City Attorney James K. Hahn wrote the opinion which is being used to keep Neighborhood Councils from using funds to inform stakeholders of their position against Measure R.

Now we will see if the portion of his (Hahns) letter allowing NCs to take a position, will be eliminated by the current city attorney, who is representing the city in attempting to over turn the lower courts decision and keep Measure alive.

You just gotta just love LA City Politics

"improperly perpetuate themselves"-JAMES K. HAHN

December 15,2000

Rosalind Stewart, General Manager
Department of Neighborhood Empowerment
305 East First Street
Los Angeles, California 90012

Dear Ms. Stewart:

This letter responds to a question you posed to this office concerning whether a neighborhood council may raise its own funds and still receive City funding if it chooses to support political candidates or chooses to function as a political organization. Your specific question and our answer are set forth below.

Question
May a neighborhood council raise its own funds and still receive City funding if it chooses to support political candidates or chooses to function as a political organization?

Answer
Regardless of whether its activities are funded by City budgeted funds or private donations, a neighborhood council may not endorse candidates for public office or spend money under its control to support or oppose candidates for office. The individual members of the governing board of a neighborhood council are certainly allowed to make personal endorsements for candidates for public office, to work for their election and to contribute their own personal funds to political campaigns.

It is not clear from your request for advice what you mean by "function as a political organization." If you are asking whether a neighborhood council can become involved in political campaigns or use its official status and resources to influence the election or defeat of candidates and ballot measures, our advice is that, with the
exception of taking a public position in support of or opposition to a ballot measure, a neighborhood council may not engage in that type of conduct.


Rosalind Stewart. General Manager
Department of Neighborhood Empowerment
City of Los Angeles

Page 2

Discussion

In our letter to you dated November 30, 2000, this office concluded that neighborhood councils will be local government agencies within the meaning of the Political Reform Act. In that letter, we indicated that "the Charter's design-for the creation of a 'network of neighborhood councils evidences an intent that neighborhood councils be part of the governmental structure of the City, operating at a grass roots level." Although officially certified neighborhood councils may be authorized to receive monetary gifts to help fund their operations, the Charter also provides for the appropriation of City budgetary funds for the "functioning of neighborhood councils . . .
." Charter S 91 1.

Because neighborhood councils will be part of City government, gifts to the councils will be gifts to the City itself. Therefore, monetary gifts received by neighborhood councils would have the status of public funds. In Albright v. City of South San Francisco (1 975) 44 Cal.App.3d 866,869, the Court of Appeal stated, "An expenditure of public funds . . . must be confined to public purposes." Therefore, like funds appropriated by the Council for the operation of neighborhood councils, funds donated to neighborhood councils may not be used for private purposes, including support or opposition to candidates for public office or measures on the ballot.

Neighborhood councils would, of course, be required to comply with all City rules governing the receipt and use of those funds.

The courts have repeatedly said that "the use of public funds for partisan campaign purposes is improper. . . ." Stanson v. Mott (1976) 17 Cal.3d 206,218. See also, People v. Nathanson (1 955) 134 Cal.App2d 43; People v. Sperl(1976) 54 . Cal.App.3d 43; People v. Batfin (1978) 77 Cal.App.3d. 635.'

In the Stanson case, the California Supreme Court discussed the rationale behind the prohibition:' Stanson was a civil case that involved the use of public money by a department of state government- to campaign in favor of a statewide bond measure. Nathanson,Sped and Baffin were all criminal cases involving the use of public funds and or resources in connection with the election of candidates to public office.


Rosalind Stewart, General Manager-
: Department of Neighborhood Empowerment-
City of Los Angeles

Page 3

"Underlying this uniform judicial reluctance to sanction the use of
public funds for election campaigns rests an implicit recognition that such expenditures raise potentially serious constitutional questions. A
fundamental precept of this nation's democratic electoral process is that the government may not 'take sides' in election contests or bestow an unfair advantage on one of several competing factions." Id. at 217.

The prohibition against the use of public funds for political campaign purposes applies to expenditures in support or opposition to both candidates and ballot measures. See cases cited above.

Nor may neighborhood councils. endorse candidates for public office. As stated above, neighborhood councils will be part of the City's governmental structure, operating at a grass roots level.
For basically the same reasons that the government may not spend public funds in support of candidates for public office, the government
also may not officially endorse candidates for office. The Court in Stanson, supra, stated that "[a] principal danger feared by our country's founders lay in the possibility that the holders of government authority would use official power to improperly perpetuate themselves, or their allies, in office." id.at 217. Just as the government may not "'take sides' in an election contest" (id.) by using public funds to assist candidates in obtaining office, the government may not 'take sides by endorsing candidates.

Please let us know if we can be of additional assistance to you in connection
with this matter.

Very truly yours.

JAMES K. HAHN
City Attorney
cc: Mayor Richard J. Riordan
Each Member d the City Council
Each Member of the Board of Neighborhood Commissioners

"improperly perpetuate themselves, or their allies, in office"

The North Hollywood North East Neighborhood joined the long list of other Councils which took a position in opposition to Prop R-Measure R. This measure would extend the terms of the existing City Council members from two four year terms to three four year terms.

In addition, the NHNE NC voted to allocate funds ($4,000.00) to inform their stake holders of their position. Not to campaign for or against but to insure those in the community were aware of their position.

One condition of the allocation was the clarification of the rules and regulations pertaining to the use of council funds for this purpose.

On Monday September 18, 2006 Department of Neighborhood Empowerment Assistant General Manger Arturo Pina addressed the members of Valley Vote. During the question and answer segment, David Hernandez requested an official DONE clarification on the funding issue.

Attached is the response received from Mr. Pina.

The response is a letter dated December 15, 2000 from then City Attorney James K. Hahn to then DONE General Manager Rosalind Stewart.

Mr. Pina stated there have been no policy changes in this area since the date of the letter.

Then City Attorney Hahn states:


" If you are asking whether a neighborhood council can become involved in political campaigns or use its official status and resources to influence the election or defeat of candidates and ballot measures, our advice is that, with the exception of taking a public position in support of or opposition to a ballot measure, a neighborhood council may not engage in that type of conduct.”

Does this mean, we as council members can take a public position but are barred from using funds to let our stake holders know of our position? Maybe so…

But what is also contained in Attorney Hahn’s opinion is the following:

The courts have repeatedly said that "the use of public funds for partisan campaign purposes is improper. . . ." Stanson v. Mott (1976) 17 Cal.3d 206,218. See also, People v. Nathanson (1 955) 134 Cal.App2d 43; People v. Sperl(1976) 54 . Cal.App.3d 43; People v. Batfin (1978) 77 Cal.App.3d. 635.'

For basically the same reasons that the government may not spend public funds in support of candidates for public office, the government
also may not officially endorse candidates for office. The Court in Stanson, supra, stated that "[a] principal danger feared by our country's founders lay in the possibility that the holders of government authority would use official power to improperly perpetuate themselves, or their allies, in office." id.at 217. Just as the government may not "'take sides' in an election contest" (id.) by using public funds to assist candidates in obtaining office, the government may not 'take sides by endorsing candidates.

So here are my next questions to be answered:

Does the city council action violate Stanson v. Mott? Clearly, by having the term limit extension begin with their terms, it most definitely does “perpetuate themselves”

Has the City Council spent any city funds on the forwarding of the measure? If the City Attorney is in fact representing the city council in order to retain the measure on the ballot, then they are using public funds to perpetuate themselves, also a violation of Stanson V. Mott.

Now I will turn to the City Attorney for an additional attempt to clarify the use of the funds.

Next question: If the City attorney represents the City Council on one side of the issue, is it not a conflict of interest to advise the Neighborhood Councils who are on the opposite side of the issue.
Does this not conflict with the below opinion also contained in Attorney Hahn’s letter?

"Underlying this uniform judicial reluctance to sanction the use of
public funds for election campaigns rests an implicit recognition that such expenditures raise potentially serious constitutional questions. A
fundamental precept of this nation's democratic electoral process is that the government may not 'take sides' in election contests or bestow an unfair advantage on one of several competing factions." Id. at 217.

The prohibition against the use of public funds for political campaign purposes applies to expenditures in support or opposition to both candidates and ballot measures.

Glad to be of service,

David Hernandez
www.termedout.com

Valley VOTE Board voted to recommend a NO vote on Proposition R.

Press Release
From: Valley VOTE
Valley Voters Organized Toward Empowerment
14622 Ventura Blvd. #424, Sherman Oaks, CA. 91403
September 14, 2006 Contact: Joe Vitti -President
javittisr@cs.com [818] 366 1668

Despite the continuing uncertainty of the legal issues, the Valley VOTE Board of Directors has voted overwhelming to recommend a NO vote on Proposition R.

Proposition R will be on the Ballot in November, however, it's fate at this time, is also in the hands of the courts. The proposition recommends a Los Angeles City Charter change to permit City Council member to serve 3- four year terms. It also includes a number of Ethics reform measures.

"The primary justification for Valley VOTE's opposition to the measure is based upon procedural, legal and ethical matters" said Joe Vitti, President of Valley VOTE. " Increasing the term limits for the L.A. City Council should be proposed to the voters as a single issue and not obscured by any other language or reforms."

A summary of the major arguments to Vote No on R are as follows:

1] On August 31,2006 a judge ordered the title prepared by the Yes on Proposition R authors to be changed to clearly state that the term limits of Councilmembers will be "lengthen" not simply "changed." This ruling was reversed by the 2nd District Court of Appeals with the judges stating that "to comply with the election statutes the ballot title need not be the most accurate, most comprehensive or fairest" wording.
2] Another attempt to confuse the voters on this important Charter change to term limits, that occurred early on, was the addition of the flawed ethics reform proposal, added after polling had indicated that the term limits recommendation alone was in serious trouble of passing by the voters.
3] The City Council motion for Proposition R was approved on July 14,2006. On Tuesday, July 18,2006 the City Council passed the final proposal with little time for them to review it.
4] The passage of Proposition R by the City Council ignored the advice of City Attorney Rocky Delgadillo who stated that Proposition R "weakens current ethics laws, places the city in legal peril and is misleading to the voters."

In addition, the rush by the City Council to get this on the ballot in November bypassed a critical review by a number of organizational entities.
5] The Ethics Commission, which has the responsibility to oversee Ethics regulations was never consulted. Ethics Commissioner Bill Boyarsky said that Prop. R is an "outrageous proposal" and "showed absolute contempt for the Ethics Commission"
6] Neighborhood Councils, as the City Charter states, should receive notice and given "a reasonable opportunity to provide input before decisions are made" were not consulted.
7] Many political organizations and political leaders throughout the city were not provided an opportunity to review the proposition. Local Chambers of Commerce and homeowner groups were ignored by the City Council. City Controller Laura Chick said, commenting on Prop. R "I do not think in its current form it should go on the ballot, and if it does it should not pass"
8] What is further damaging to good government is one aspect of the proposed ethics reform measure. It could relieve lobbyists from disclosing who they are working for if they agree to get paid after the issue has been decided.

Valley VOTE Mission Statement
Valley VOTE, a diverse coalition of San Fernando Valley residents, business people, educators, community activists, and organizations, is committed to exploring and implementing programs that empower the people of the San Fernando Valley and the City of Los Angeles, including opportunities to improve local governance, education and public participation on policy matters.

Prop. R on ballot at least till Oct. 3

Prop. R on ballot at least till Oct. 3
Appeals court to review issue
BY KERRY CAVANAUGH, Staff Writer
LA Daily News

The bid to give the Los Angeles City Council an extra four-year term is back on the Nov. 7 ballot.
In a surprise reversal, the 2nd District Court of Appeal on Friday overruled a Superior Court judge's order to take Proposition R off the ballot.

The swift decision by the three-judge appellate panel came the same day as a printing deadline for ballot measures, meaning Proposition R will appear on the ballot.

But the measure's fate isn't settled: On Oct. 3, the appellate court will consider whether Proposition R violates the state constitution's requirement that a ballot measure address only one subject.

If the judges decide that Proposition R - which combines term limits and ethics reform - is illegal, they could order county elections officials not to count any votes it receives for or against that measure.

Still, the appellate court decision was at least a temporary win for the City Council and Proposition R proponents, who have argued that the term-limits extension and ethics reforms are a package designed to lessen the influence of lobbyists at City Hall.

"This gives voters a chance to decide for themselves how to keep special interests out of city government," council President Eric Garcetti said in a statement.

Opponents vowed to campaign against Proposition R and said they hold out hope that the court will strike down the measure before Election Day.

"At this point, the key is that the people who are going to vote on this get the information on what this is all about," said Paul Jacob, with the national group U.S. Term Limits, which encouraged the lawsuit challenging Proposition R.

"If the people of Los Angeles realize what this measure contains, I think it will go down in flames."

With Proposition R back on the ballot, Los Angeles City Attorney Rocky Delgadillo's office said it intends to appeal an earlier court decision that required the city to change the ballot title so it expressly says the measure would "lengthen" the City Council's term limits.

Nick Velasquez, Delgadillo's spokesman, said the judge should have deferred to the City Council's choice of title, which said the measure would "change" term limits.

Proposition R opponents said they're disappointed that the city attorney would fight the ballot-title ruling.

"Why would they want to appeal the judge saying, you need to make this title clear and understandable? That's like telling the voters, we want to fool you," said Not PropR campaign member Jacque Lamishaw.

With the title language up in the air, city and county elections officials must wait a little longer to finalize the voter guides.

They have until Tuesday to make minor wording changes before ballot information is finalized.

"We're in limbo," City Clerk Frank Martinez said. "Our concern is to make sure we get timely information to the voters."

Some legal scholars said the appellate court made the right decision Friday by letting the measure stay on the ballot.

"The fact that they are setting the court date in early October suggests they intend on ruling before the election," said Richard L. Hasen, a professor at Loyola Law School and an election law specialist.

There would also be enough time for the loser to appeal to the state Supreme Court before Nov. 7.

If the appellate court decides Proposition R is unconstitutional, it's fairly easy to order elections officials to just not count the votes, Hasen said.

But if the county had been prohibited from printing the voter information guides and ballots without Proposition R - and the appellate court then decided the measure was legal - the county would have had to send out supplemental information and ballots.

The appellate court decision Friday marks another twist in the fight over Proposition R, which would allow City Council members to run for a third four-year term.

The measure would also restrict lobbyists from making campaign contributions, prohibit lobbyists from serving on commissions and institute new reporting requirements for independent expenditures.

The Los Angeles Area Chamber of Commerce and League of Women Voters presented the package to the City Council in the middle of July, and the council quickly OK'd the measure for the November ballot.

From the beginning, community activists and term-limits supporters have argued that the measure was fast-tracked with little input from neighborhood councils, the public or the Ethics Commission.

They also charged that proponents were trying to mislead the public by packaging an unpopular term-limits extension with popular ethics reforms.

Delgadillo echoed those concerns and warned the City Council there were legal flaws in the measure that could leave the city vulnerable to lawsuits.

On Thursday, Los Angeles Superior Court Judge Robert O'Brien ordered Proposition R off the ballot because he said it violates the state's single-subject rule by combining issues that are not "reasonably related, or germane to each other or to a common theme, purpose or subject."

Delgadillo and attorneys for the League of Women Voters and Chamber of Commerce filed an emergency appeal.

League of Women Voters of Los Angeles President Liza White said she was pleased with the appellate court's decision.

"The measure has always been about the right of Los Angeles voters to decide if there's a better way for them to have their interests represented.

"It's still a day-by-day thing. I'm just very pleased today that we're in the position of knowing it's on the ballot."

kerry.cavanaugh@dailynews.com

(213) 978-0390

Breaking News-Prop R is off the ballot!

Article Last Updated: 9/07/2006 11:56 AM




Measure to give City Council members an extra term in office ordered off the ballot

By Kerry Cavanaugh, Staff Writer
LA Daily News

A measure that would have given Los Angeles City Council members an extra term in office was ordered removed from the November ballot today by a Superior Court Judge.
In his order Judge Robert O'Brien said Proposition R, which also would have instituted some ethics reforms, violates the state constitution because it includes two separate issues in one measure.

But proponents said immediately that the city is considering a last-ditch effort to keep the measure on the Nov. 7 ballot.

"We are going to review the opinion. The city attorney is considering an appeal," said Liza White with the League of Women Voters, which proposed Prop. R along with the Los Angeles Area Chamber of Commerce.

A West Los Angeles resident, Neil A. Donner, had filed the lawsuit seeking to take Prop. R off the ballot. He was backed by the group U.S. Term Limits that supports term limits.

Attorneys for Donner charged Prop. R violated the state's constitutional requirement that ballot measures address a single issue.

They argued that Prop. R covered two issues: allowing City Council members to run for a third, four-year term and changing a number of lobbying and campaign finance disclosure requirements.

Opponents also argued the ethics reform were added to entice — or fool — voters into adopting the lengthening of term limits.

Charles H. Bell Jr. represented Donner and he called the judge's decision a win for voters.

"The issue of term limits stands on its own and deserves the right to be voted on up or down," said Bell.

"If presented separately, at least the history of this is that the public is really skeptical of extending terms when term limits are already in place.

"That's worthy of public debate rather than being couched in other measure intended to be more attractive."

---
Kerry Cavanaugh, (818) 713-3746 kerry.cavanaugh@dailynews.com