Termed Out

Los Angeles Braces for a Storm

2008-08-14T16:17:00.000-07:00

Los Angeles Braces for a Storm

The winds of change reach Los Angeles as the court date for Prop R approaches. With the presiding judge granting the motion to place the Prop R Legal challenge on the August calendar, the forces of Los Angeles have lined up to do battle. Attorney Steve J Reyes of the Law Firm Kaufman Downing LLP—representing both the League of Women Voters and the Los Angeles Area Chamber of Commerce—has requested the court date be set on August 26, 2008.

Having no objections, Attorney Eric Grant, representing David Hernandez and Ted Hayes has agreed. Prop R, which was placed on the November ballot by the Los Angeles City Council in 2006, extended the term limits of City Council members to an additional four years. This was done under the guise of “ethics reform” and as a result combined two issues on a single ballot measure violating the states “single issue” clause. The ballot measure campaign, heavily funded by major business interests, convinced voters registered in Los Angeles to vote for the measure and it passed.

David Hernandez presented the legal challenge and enlisted Mr. Hayes to participate. Hernandez residing in the San Fernando Valley and Hayes a resident of Downtown Los Angeles, represent a vast cross section of individuals living in the Los Angeles area. The matter will be heard in the 2nd District, Court of Appeal, Division 8, 300 South Spring Street, 2nd Floor, Los Angeles, CA 90013, 213-830-7000.

In a year charged with political intrigue, the defeat of Prop R on “unconstitutional grounds”, will set the stage for a major political frenzy leading up to the March 2009 city elections. The immediate consequence will be six open city council seats with no incumbent eliminating the usual advantages enjoyed by incumbent office holders.

Those impacted by the legal challenge and decision to strike down Prop R will be: Council President Eric Garcetti Dist. 13, Janice Hahn Dist.15, Ed Reyes Dist. 1, Dennis Zine Dist, 3, Jan Perry Dist. 9, Richard Alarcon Dist. 7, and Jack Weiss Dist. 5. With the exception of Councilmember Weiss, who is running for City Attorney, all are seeking a third term.

In addition to the impact on current city council members, the defeat of Prop R will represent a major loss for the lobbyists and other special interest groups in Los Angeles. The measure was drafted by a law firm in San Francisco, which represents the Los Angeles Lobbyists and Public Affairs Association and was termed by its opponents as a measure “written by Lobbyists for Lobbyists.”

A victory on August 26, 2008 will represent the largest political accomplishment by activists and community groups since Prop 13. As the political muscle of Los Angeles amasses to protect a well-funded, well-entrenched and seemingly invincible machine, the Winds of Change will engulf every corridor of City Hall.

Respectfully,David Hernandezwww.termedout.com

http://www.kaufmandowning.com/client.php http://www.lachamber.com/http://www.eric-grant.com/http://ethics.lacity.org/pdf/election/propr2006_yes_contributions.pdf http://www.courtinfo.ca.gov/courts/courtsofappeal/2ndDistrict/http://www.lacity.org/council/cd13/http://www.lacity.org/council/cd15/http://www.lacity.org/council/cd1/http://www.lacity.org/council/cd3/http://www.lacity.org/council/cd9/http://www.lacity.org/council/cd7/http://www.lacity.org/council/cd5/http://ethics.lacity.org/efs/public_election.cfm?election_id=37#S147

The legal history, legal status & legal direction

2006-11-19T20:09:00.000-08:00

Measure R
“Councilmember Term Limits of Three Terms;
City Lobbying, Campaign Finance and Ethics Laws”

The legal history, legal status & legal direction

Before I bring you up to date on the legal challenge to Prop R, I want to take a moment to bring everyone up to speed as to what has taken place from the beginning in the legal realm.

The initial legal challenge was filed August 28, 2006 in the Los Angeles Superior Court. The case number BS104862 was titled Neil A Donner Petitioner vs. Conny McCormack, County of Los Angeles Registrar-Recorder/County Clerk; Frank Martinez, City of Los Angeles City Clerk, Respondents.

City of Los Angeles City Council and Does 51 through 100, inclusive, Real Parties in Interest.

This was a “Verified Petition for Writ of Mandate”. The “Relief” requested was the following;

1. For issuance of a peremptory writ of mandate directly Respondents Conny McCormack and Frank Martinez to remove Proposition R from the November 7, 2006 consolidated ballot in the City of Los Angeles;

2. For and award of costs and attorneys’ fees and

3. For such other and further relief as this court deems proper.

On September 7, 2006 Judge Robert H. O’Brien issued his ruling and granted the “Peremptory Writ of Mandate” and the proposition was removed from the ballot. The judge found that the proposition was a violation of Article XI, Section 7.5 of the California Constitution in that it combines two subjects in one measure.

The City appealed and a hearing date is set in the Appellate court on Tuesday November 28, 2006. The Appellate court case number is B19351.

While waiting for the appeal the Appellate court placed it back on the ballot. They did not over rule Judge O’Brien’s decision or claim it was constitutional, they only put it back on the ballot to give the voters an opportunity to vote in the event the Appellate court over turns the lower courts decision. As it stands right now, Proposition R is unconstitutional.

Mr. Donner is represented by the law firm of Bell, McAndrews, Hiltachk & Davidian in Sacramento, California. The local attorney on record is Paul T. Gough of Sherman Oaks, California. The action was supported and funded by US Term Limits of New York. Paul Jacob was the lead man from the group on the Prop R action.

Another legal action dealt with the language of the Ballot Measure and the Ballot Statement. This was the action in which Mr. Jeffrey Jacobberger and Jason Lyon was involved. This concerned language and it was moot once the ballot was issue was resolved. This case is over.

Now you know the facts, parties involved and current status as of November 2, 2006.

What took place next is where this writer became involved and engaged.

Prior to the weekend before the election a press conference was called by the “Not PROP R” Committee and the US Term Limits group. I attended the press conference as it was announced there would be a major legal announcement. We met at the Los Angeles City Hall. As I listened I was stunned to hear Mr. Donnor, Mr. Jacobberger, US Term Limits and the Not Prop R were not going to pursue the legal action should the voters approve the measure on election day.

At that moment I was faced with a decision. Could I, knowing all that I did about the deceit, manipulation and dishonest conduct in connection with getting the measure on the ballot, just step back and allow all those involved to succeed, just because our legal team had decided to give up.

My course of action was clear. If I truly wanted to be a public servant then I had an obligation to the people to step forward. I made my intentions clear at that moment.

I then contacted Attorney Candice E. Jackson in San Marino, California and she agreed to meet and discus my options. I then went to the court house and obtained copies of all the lower court files. Attorney Jackson advise me to contact the Bell Firm and request to be substituted as the Petitioner as Mr. Donner was dropping out. After one and a half weeks waiting for a response form the Bell Firm I received the following news.

It appears a new challenge arose as a result of the “Relief” requested in the original Donner action, that being taking the proposition off the ballot. As it is after the election, it is too late to remove it!

The Bell firm has moved forward and filed a request to withdraw the action and will not fight the appeal. The judge will honor their request and that case will be over as well.

My attorney Candice E. Jackson is preparing the documents to be field. As the Bell firm has already filed their withdrawal we shall move forward quickly and will not wait until the Appellate court date on the 28th.

Our argument will be the same as was successful in removing it from the ballot by judge O’Brien but our “Relief” will be to set aside the vote and up hold the unconstitutional ruling.

I have just been contacted by an attorney from one of the top Law Firms, if not the top law firm in Los Angeles. I have been offered his help in seeing this matter brought to a positive conclusion.

So here we are. The fate of Prop R is our hands and we have the a clear mandate in which direction we must go.

My attorney estimates one hundred hours of legal work to see this through the lower courts. Which represents fifteen thousand dollars in fees and expenses. Our first expense was coping the records and the next will be the filing fee.

So here is your opportunity to help with the funding. Please make your check payable to David Hernandez and rush it the PO Box 3245, North Hollywood, California 91609. Please write “Prop R Legal Fund” on the check.

Or you can make it payable directly to Candice E. Jackson Attorney at Law and write “Prop R Legal Fund”. It too can be mailed C/O David Hernandez PO Box 3245 North Hollywood, CA 91609.

Remember this is not tax deductible but is appreciated.

Sincerely,

David Hernandez

What Have We Done Los Angeles?

2006-11-17T22:20:00.000-08:00

What Have We Done Los Angeles?
By Donna Connolly

Not only did the November 7th election have Nancy Pelosi and the Democrats in DC celebrating, it generated some celebrations closer to home.

The passage of Proposition R–the so-called Ethics Reform measure–gave our LA City Council members an additional four years in office by raising term limits from 2 four-year terms to 3 four-year terms (from 8 years to 12).

Despite attempts by opponents such as City Controller Laura Chick, City Attorney Rockard Delgadillo, community activist David Hernandez, et al and the great effort on the part of the Daily News–the measure passed with 59% of the votes. Any opposition was completely eclipsed by the flood of misleading mailers and ads paid for by the financial contributions of wealthy businesses and lobbyists who had the most to gain from the passage of this measure.

The funding for the “NO on Prop. R” campaign was sadly dwarfed by the hundreds of thousands of dollars spent to deceive the voters into thinking this proposition was in their best interest. In light of the Abramoff scandal in Congress and a political climate rife with corruption, it was easy to convince voters that this proposition would protect them from corruption at home. But has it?

In the last week, the LA City Council members have given themselves a 15% increase in pay, and have awarded $150 million of bond money to a California investment bank with ties to lobbyists to build a new police headquarters. According to a recent article in the Daily News,
Council members concede that L.A. taxpayers might have gotten a better deal had other firms been able to compete for the bonds. But they claim they wanted to keep the contract local, and they insist that their decision had nothing to do with the fact that it benefits one of their lobbyist pals (article dated 11/12/06).
But all is not lost. There is still hope and that hope lies in the courts. According to the state constitution, a ballot initiative cannot have more than one unrelated issue. When two or more unrelated issues are included in one ballot proposition, the voters have to decide to accept both or to reject both. For this reason, a judge in October ruled that Proposition R was unconstitutional because it combined term limits and ethics reform in one initiative and ordered it off the November ballot. Unfortunately, an appellate judge overruled that order and it was put back on.

Community activist, David Hernandez has already begun preparations to file a new lawsuit to challenge the constitutionality of the proposition. Since a judge has already ruled it unconstitutional, victory is in our grasp.

But lawsuits are expensive, and this is a grassroots effort on the part of one lone crusader. In a recent article in the Daily News, David was christened the “San Fernando Valley gadfly”, and encouraged to keep up the fight. We should all give David our seal of approval and echo their endorsement; “We wish Hernandez well. The City Council's arrogance continues to grow, and he's now L.A.'s best hope for reining it in (Daily News article dated 11/12/06).”

YOUR “NO” VOTE COUNTS

2006-11-06T15:45:00.000-08:00

YOUR “NO” VOTE COUNTS

If for no other reason, you must go to the polls to VOTE “NO” on Proposition R.

For every “NO” vote on Proposition R, a “YES” vote is cancelled out. Who’s vote do you want to cancel?

Here is a list of a few of the top contributors to the “YES” on Proposition R campaign and their funding to date. So much for “reducing the power and influence of lobbyists and special interest.”

LA Arena Land Company $75,000
Ron Burkle, Investor $50,000
Morongo Band of Mission Indians $25,000
AEG and Affiliates $25,000
Casden Properties $25,000
Home Depot $25,000
Airport Management Services $15,000
UFCW Local 770 $10,000
St Andrews, Santa Monica $10,000
O’Melveny & Myers $7,500

Proposition R needs only a simple majority of the vote to pass. That means 50% plus 1. Every “NO” vote subtracts from that simple majority–every non-vote adds to it.

Send your councilmember a message on Tuesday, November 7th:

Tell them that you do not appreciate their deceitful tactics and will not reward them with 4 more years. Send a message to the LA Area Chamber of Commerce and the League of Women Voters who were complicit in this deception.

They have subverted the democratic process by ignoring the recommendation of the City Attorney that the proposition is misleading and unconstitutional (violating the single issue law for ballot measures).

And they have silenced the independent voice of the Ethics Commission that was formed in 1993 by the voters to prevent this type of ethics violation by our elected officials.

Shame on you Los Angeles City Council! Shame on you League of Women Voters! Shame on you Los Angeles Area Chamber of Commerce!

North Hollywood Trees under attack by ruthless R virus

2006-11-05T15:25:00.000-08:00

Breaking News,

North Hollywood Trees under attack by ruthless R virus.

Almost over night, a blight has erupted on many Trees in the San Fernando Valley. As motorists, bicyclist, joggers and folks just taking a stroll have observed, a deceitful virus has appeared on many trees in the North Hollywood area.

Awaiting a response from the Sierra Club and the local chapter of the Tree People, citizens are warned not to touch these illegally posted, non identified misrepresentations as they may cause the uninformed do- gooder to become infected with a citation from your local city enforcement agency. Yes, although posted illegally you can not attempt to ease the trees condition by removing the misleading wart.

Airborne contamination may have already spread the virus and evidence has already appeared on many other illegal posting sites such as telephone poles. Although only similar in appearance to the Trees, the virus has like wise attached itself to many wooden telephone poles. We will be interested in the diagnose from our friends at the phone company.

Reward Posted:

This writer has yet to see a legally posted sign. I am offering a $25.00 reward to the first person who sights and reports a legally posted sign to me.

A second reward of $50.00 will be given to the first person who can document which individual or individuals designed, printed, distributed and paid for the signs.

Contact,

David Hernandez
Community Advocate and general pain the neck to the "political hack" community.

P.S.

Please pass this Virus warning on to your e-mail groups.

Oh yes, Vote No on the R Virus

What’s In It For Them?

2006-10-24T18:18:00.000-07:00

Prop R: What’s In It For Them?

Recently, the Los Angeles City council voted to place an initiative on the November ballot that will make changes to the current City Charter regarding ethics reform. This initiative (Proposition R) is known to the voters as the City Government Responsibility, Lobbying and Ethics Reform Act.

Many voters who do not regularly read the opinion section of local newspapers, have only the word of respected organizations like the League of Women Voters and the Los Angeles Area Chamber of Commerce to help them make informative decisions on Election day.

These two organizations supporting this measure are responsible for bringing these changes to the city council earlier this year. Included in the changes is a term limit extension from 2 terms (8 years) to 3 terms (12 years) for city council members.

According to the City Attorney,
“Having reviewed the various proposals…we have concluded that the ethics, lobbying and campaign finance reform proposals can simply be adopted and implemented in their entirety through an ordinance passed by the City Council.”

Simply stated, the issue of ethics reform does not need to go before the voters. The only reason Prop. R is on the November ballot is because of the term limit increase.

So this is our question: Why do the League of Women Voters and LA Area Chamber of Commerce care about city council member terms being increased from 8 years to12 years? What is in it for them?

The mailers that were sent out to over 100,000 likely voters mislead the public in two ways: 1) by claiming that Prop. R will “limit” council members to “three terms (12 years total)” without informing voters that the current charter limits council members to two terms (8 years total) at present. And 2) that it will prevent city officials from swindling city government out of millions of dollars (referring to a case brought before the city council by City Controller, Laura Chick against the LADWP). These mailers suggest that this initiative if passed will prevent these incidents from occurring again and imply that the City Controller is a supporter of this proposition. In a letter printed in the Daily News, October 24, 2006, Laura Chick writes,

“For the Proposition R campaign to use my name in any way is duplicitous and intentionally deceiving. My work to expose millions of dollars in fraudulent public relations bills has nothing whatsoever to do with Proposition R. The City Council actually voted to turn down my request for them to stop the LADWP from paying millions of dollars more to outside public relations firms.”

“In fact I adamantly oppose Proposition R for many reasons, not the least of which is the disingenuous way with which this measure was placed on the ballot. I urge the voters of the City of Los Angeles to vote no on Proposition R.”
Sincerely,
LAURA N. CHICK
City Controller

When Liza White, President of the League of Women Voters, was asked about the mailers, she defended them saying “they aren’t deceptive.” If she really believes these mailers are not misleading, then how can this woman be trusted? She is obviously confused about what the word ‘deceptive’ means or she is trying to save face. Or she has another agenda.

Nevertheless, the most important thing the voters need to know when they go to the polls has not been made clear by the LA City Council, the League of Women Voters, or the LA Area Chamber of Commerce and that is: The changes to the city charter regarding ethics reform, can be made without voter approval.

If this council and these two organizations really care about ethics reform then this reform needs to begin closer to home. They need to be more transparent and truthful about their motives and political agenda.

Donna Connolly
David Hernandez
Citizens for Rational Reform

For more information, please go to www.TERMEDOUT.com.

I adamantly oppose Proposition R-LAURA N. CHICK

2006-10-23T17:16:00.000-07:00

October 23, 2006

Mr. John Shallman
YES on Proposition R

Dear John:

It has come to my attention that you are using my name, and the credibility of the Office of the City Controller, in the campaign for the passage of Proposition R.

The mailers imply that I believe that Proposition R would have prevented the public relations over-billing scandals. Nothing could be further from the truth. Proposition R would have had no preventive effect on that matter. I remind you that the City Council actually voted to turn down my request for them to stop the LADWP from paying millions of dollars more to outside public relations firms.

In fact I adamantly oppose Proposition R, using my name in mailers to voters in support of this measure is duplicitous and intentionally deceiving.

Please cease and desist immediately from using my name, or the Office of the City Contr oller, in conjunction with the Proposition R campaign.

Sincerely,

LAURA N. CHICK

City Controller

STATEMENT BY CITY CONTROLLER LAURA CHICK ON PROPOSITION R

"For the Proposition R campaign to use my name in any way is duplicitous and intentionally deceiving. My work to expose millions of dollars in fraudulent public relations bills has nothing whatsoever to do with Proposition R. The City Council actually voted to turn down my request for them to stop the LADWP from paying millions of dollars more to outside public relations firms."

"In fact I adamantly oppose Proposition R for many reasons, not the least of which is the disingenuous way with which this measure was placed on the ballot. I urge the voters of the City of Los Angeles to vote no on Proposition R."

financial backers of Proposition R

2006-10-09T12:46:00.000-07:00

SO now we learn that the financial backers of Proposition R - L.A. City Council members' deceitful plan to keep themselves in office for four more years - are some of the most deep-pocketed special interests in City Hall. Is anyone surprised?

Who did you think would be paying for this? The Boy Scouts? The Sisters of Charity? The March of Dimes?

Um, no.

Try companies run by AEG, Colorado billionaire Philip Anschutz's entertainment behemoth, which is benefiting from the council's $300 million subsidy for a hotel by its downtown l.a.live project.

Other contributors include the city's police and firefighter unions, whose contracts require council approval. Also on the list are some of the lawyers and contractors who make big bucks doing business with the city of Los Angeles.

For them, backing R is an investment. In exchange for a few grand, the special interests get to keep their wholly owned council members around for four more years - a favor for which the pols will no doubt be grateful, and which could prove to be worth millions later.

This racket is just one more reason to vote no on Proposition Proposition R on Nov. 7 - as if we needed one.

LA Daily News 10-09-06

2006-10-03T13:17:00.000-07:00

Perpetual fraud
Vote against the City Council's term-limits deceit

LA Daily News

MEASURE R - members of the Los Angeles City Council's deceitful ploy to give themselves four more years on the public dole - will go before voters Nov. 7, even though it's likely to be ruled unconstitutional.
For this you can thank the 2nd District Court of Appeal, the City Council and yourself - because it's your tax dollars that keep this cynical scheme alive.

Since its inception, it's been obvious that Measure R violates the California Constitution's requirement that ballot measures be limited to a single issue.

But the council's members knew voters would reject giving them three four-year terms instead of two, so they combined their term-limits plan with a package of so-called "ethics reforms" that in fact do nothing to clean up City Hall.

The council is now raising huge bundles of cash from developers, contractors, unions and other insiders who live handsomely on the favorable treatment they get at City Hall.

The council's members believe they found a clever political strategy to trick the public. And they've hired high-priced private lawyers at taxpayer expense to try to get around the state constitution's single-issue requirement for ballot measures.

The first judge to hear the case ruled not only that the measure was unconstitutional, but also deceitfully worded. So the council took its case to the appellate court, which left in the dishonest wording and left the measure on the ballot - without actually ruling on the constitutional issues.

The court's action is an insult to voters. There's nothing urgent about this measure; there's not even an honest argument that can be made in its favor.

With all its ill-gotten campaign funds, the council will try to blow smoke over voters' eyes, but how can anyone mount an effective opposition when the measure itself is already the subject of a legal fight?

That's why it is so important that each and every one of us makes sure our friends, family and co-workers knows that it's up to them to stop the council's abuse of its power.

Vote against political cynicism. Vote no on Measure R on Nov. 7.

A Nation of Laws, not men.

2006-10-01T13:33:00.000-07:00

A Nation of Laws, not men.

The Constitution of the United States has enabled our county to prosper for over 200 years.

From that template, our states have formulated constitutions of their own. Constitutions which were established to protect the rights of all people and ensure the growth and wellbeing of the state and its residents.

Failure to abide by the constitution or to blatantly ignore its provisions to suit the wants of a political figure or fifteen politicians, as well as special interest groups is not only an affront to the provision violated but to the people it was established to protect.

It is unfortunate the State Appellate court has ducked the issue of Measure R until after the November election. When the measure fails to receive the votes needed to pass, the court will deem the action moot and will not make a ruling.

Those politicians, the LA Chamber and League of Women Voters will simply decry that the public is uninformed and too ignorant or apathetic to vote for real reform. They will not accept responsibility for their actions and their attempt to violate the state constitution and the rights of the people.

If one is too blinded by hate or too vested in maintaining the status quo, no amount of logic and reason will suffice.

So let us begin the campaign and tell those who would so freely and willingly violate our constitutional rights, to go to hell!

That includes the Mayor for his willingness to violate our rights in his backroom LAUSD power grab.

Putting the Jeanie back in the bottle?

2006-09-20T15:01:00.000-07:00

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

2006-09-19T11:41:00.000-07:00

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"

2006-09-19T11:30:00.000-07:00

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.

2006-09-15T21:37:00.000-07:00

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

2006-09-09T17:14:00.000-07:00

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!

2006-09-07T12:10:00.000-07:00

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

Judge Orders Ballot Measure Title To Be Changed

2006-08-31T16:07:00.000-07:00

Judge Orders Ballot Measure Title To Be Changed
(CBS) LOS ANGELES A judge who agreed the title of a ballot measure that would allow City Council members to serve three terms instead of two was misleading, Thursday ordered that the measure be changed.

Los Angeles Superior Court Judge Robert H. O'Brien directed the city clerk to change Proposition R's title from "Councilmember Limits of Three Terms" to "Lengthening Councilmember Term Limits to Three Terms."

The League of Women Voters is a leading sponsor of Proposition R, which also includes new lobbyist restrictions. The measure on the Nov. 7 ballot is also endorsed by the Los Angeles Area Chamber of Commerce.

Dan Pasley, a Los Angeles voter, sued the city Aug. 22, claiming the title of the proposition and some of the written arguments in favor of it were false or misleading.

In addition to ordering the title changed, O'Brien ruled that the words "no travel junkets" and "appointed commissioners, board members and high-level employees" should be deleted from the ballot argument in favor of Proposition R.

Both phrases pertained to the part of Proposition R that would change regulations concerning lobbying. O'Brien said the word "junket" is slang and has no legal meaning.
.
"We're very happy the judge acted to clarify the matters," Pasley said outside the courtroom.

In a separate lawsuit filed by Liza White, president of the League of Women Voters of Los Angeles, the judge also ordered that wording in the anti-Proposition R ballot argument be changed from "written by lobbyists, for lobbyists" to "written by lobbyists."

However, a third lawsuit, filed by West Los Angeles resident Neal A. Donner, is asking that Proposition R be removed from the ballot entirely for improperly addressing two unrelated issues -- term limits and lobbying restrictions.

O'Brien will rule on that lawsuit Wednesday.

2006-08-30T11:34:00.000-07:00

Term-limits suit may cost L.A. big bucks
Outside attorneys possible
BY KERRY CAVANAUGH, Staff Writer
LA Daily News

After failing to heed warnings that a City Council term limits/ethics reform measure could face legal challenges, the city is faced with spending thousands of dollars to hire lawyers to defend the plan.
West Los Angeles resident Neil Donner filed a lawsuit Monday in Los Angeles Superior Court, seeking to remove the measure - which would give council members a third four-year term - from the Nov. 7 ballot.

The suit says the measure violates the California Constitution because it combines two issues - a term-limit extension and ethics reform - in a single ballot measure.

City Attorney Rocky Delgadillo had warned the council that the measure would leave the city vulnerable to legal challenges, and the suit would have put him in the position of defending the city against the very sort of action he had warned of.

But City Attorney's Office spokesman Nick Velasquez said Delgadillo is considering hiring outside counsel to defend the measure because specialized help is needed.

"The city attorney shared his office's thoughts on this matter. At this juncture, following the council's and mayor's approval of the measure, the city attorney is now charged with defending the city in court and that's what he intends to do," Velasquez said.

Officials could not estimate the cost of defending the measure. Proposition R opponents said they don't want to see taxpayer money used - especially because the public had little input before it was put on the ballot.

"We are extremely concerned that the City Council rejected the legal advice of the city attorney - who was hired by the people to represent our interests - and now the city must spend thousands and thousands of dollars of taxpayer money to defend this ill-conceived, dishonest measure," said Jason Lyon of the Silver Lake Neighborhood Council and the Not Prop R campaign.

The City Council, which fast-tracked the term-limits measure, would have to approve the hiring of an outside law firm to handle the case.

The court will consider a request to remove Proposition R from the ballot on Sept. 6 - two days before the city's deadline for printing the voter-information guides.

Proposition R would allow City Council members to run for a third term and would change a number of the city's lobbying and campaign finance disclosure requirements. The measure was proposed by the Los Angeles Area Chamber of Commerce and League of Women Voters, and quickly approved to go on the ballot by the City Council and Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa.

Critics have complained that the measure was rushed through with no input from residents, neighborhood councils or the Ethics Commission.

Supporters have said they hurried to put Proposition R on the November general election ballot, which is expected to have a large turnout, so more people could weigh in on the issue of ethics reform and term-limit extensions.

Supporters and opponents of Proposition R are already facing off in court over the language in each side's ballot arguments. The lawsuit filed by Donner seeks to remove Proposition R from the ballot altogether.

Donner volunteered to put his name on the lawsuit, which was filed by the firm of Bell, McAndrews & Hiltachk, at the request of Paul Jacob, president of the group U.S. Term Limits.

"This ballot measure is a cruel trick on the voters. They take some minor ethical reforms, some of which are questionable reforms to begin with, and glom onto a term-limit extension," Jacob said.

"This is a classic illustration of why single-subject requirements make sense. They want to put a few things voters like with another thing that voters don't like."

The lawsuit references Delgadillo's concerns expressed in a July 28 report that was sent to the City Council before it voted to put Proposition R on the ballot.

"Combining charter amendments and ordinance provisions in the same ballot question has not been the city's prior practice and could be subject to legal challenge."

kerry.cavanaugh@dailynews.com

(213) 978-0390

language is designed to deceive

2006-08-28T13:24:00.000-07:00

Word games
Council's Measure R language is designed to deceive

LA Daily News

MEMBERS of the Los Angeles City Council used every sleazy political trick in the book to put their dream of weakened term limits on the November ballot. So we shouldn't be surprised - just disgusted - that in formulating the ballot language, they were every bit as dishonest.

Unless a court intervenes first, when L.A. voters go to the polls they will see Measure R, titled, "Councilmember term limits of three terms; city lobbying, campaign finance and ethics laws. Charter amendment and ordinance proposition."

Note the first deception: "Council term limits of three terms."

Almost sounds like a pro-term-limits measure, doesn't it? Vote yes to impose term limits on the City Council!

Except that council members are already limited to two terms. The effect of Measure R would be to give incumbents a third term, thereby letting them hang around even longer. But city pols are hoping that uninformed voters - who sometimes don't read past a proposition's title before deciding how to vote - won't figure that out.

Then there's the wording of the question itself, which begins, "Shall the Charter be amended and ordinance adopted to: change Councilmember term limits to three terms"?

"Change" is a conveniently ambiguous word. It neglects to inform the uninitiated that the limits are being "changed" to make them weaker.

"Lengthening" was the more accurate term that City Attorney Rocky Delgadillo's staff chose when it wrote up the measure's original language. But the council voted to alter the wording in favor of the new, deceptive language that doesn't actually tell voters what the measure would do.

Nice, huh?

About what we'd expect from a council that packaged the plan with a bunch of faux ethics reforms drawn up by lobbyists, all in the hopes of confusing the public into thinking the measure has something to do with cleaning up government - which it doesn't.

On Thursday, a Superior Court judge will decide on a motion filed by opponents who argue that the more honest language should be restored. Let's hope the judge does the right thing and smacks the council down for its lack of integrity.

Then let's hope that voters do the same in November.
****************************************************
No More Years! Send the class of 2001 home to get a real job.

David Hernandez

three terms of office as member of the City Council

2006-08-21T13:18:00.000-07:00

“City Government Responsibility, Lobbying and Ethics Reform Act” 1
The proposed amendments to the City Charter and
Municipal Code read as follows:

“City Government Responsibility, Lobbying and
Ethics Reform Act”

[New language added to the Charter or the
Municipal Code is shown in boldface type; deleted
language is shown in strikeout type.]

Section 1. Subsection (c) of Section 470 of the
Charter of the City of Los Angeles is hereby
amended by adding a new subdivision (11) thereto
to read as follows: “No City official or candidate
for elected City office, or committee acting on
behalf of the candidate, shall solicit or accept
any contribution to his or her campaign for City
office, or to one of his or her controlled
committees, from any person required to be
registered by ordinance as a lobbyist or
lobbying firm registered to lobby the City office
for which the candidate is seeking election, or
the City office, department, bureau or agency of
the official. No person required to be registered
by ordinance as a lobbyist or lobbying firm shall
make any contribution to any City official or
candidate for his or her campaign for City office,
or to one of his or her controlled committees, if
the lobbyist or lobbying firm is required to be
registered by ordinance to lobby the City office
for which the candidate is seeking election, or
the City office, department, bureau or agency of
the official.”

Section 2. Subsection (d) of Section 501 of the
Charter of the City of Los Angeles is hereby
amended to read as follows:
“Qualifications. (1) No person shall be appointed to
a Charter created commission who is not a
registered voter of the City. This requirement shall
also apply to standing commissions created by
ordinance that are advisory to a department or
office.

This requirement does not apply to
commissioners who are elected or who serve ex
officio. (2) No person who is required by
ordinance to be registered as a lobbyist shall be
appointed to a commission whose members are
required to file financial disclosure statements
pursuant to the California Political Reform Act.”
Section 3. Section 206 of the Charter of the City of
Los Angeles is hereby amended to read as follows:
“No person may serve more than two terms of office
as Mayor. No person may serve more than two
terms of office as City Attorney. No person may
serve more than two terms of office as
Controller. No person may serve more than two
three terms of office as member of the City
Council. These limitations on the number of
terms of office shall apply only to terms of office
which begin on or after July 1, 1993. These
limitations on the number of terms of office shall not
apply to any unexpired term to which a person is
elected or appointed if the remainder of the term is
less than one-half of the full term of office.”

Section 4. Subsection (l) of Section 470 of the
Charter of the City of Los Angeles is hereby
amended to read as follows:
(l) Campaign Expenditures – Uncontrolled by
Candidate or Committee. Persons or organizations
not subject to the control of a candidate or
committee but who make independent expenditures
for or against a candidate or committee shall
indicate clearly on any material published, displayed
or broadcast that it was not authorized by a
candidate or a committee controlled by a candidate
comply with the applicable disclaimer
requirements established by ordinance.

Section 5. Subdivision (4) of subsection (A) to
Section 49.5.10 of the Municipal Code of the City of
Los Angeles is hereby amended to read as follows:
“No lobbyist or lobbying firm shall make, and no City
official shall accept, any gift from a lobbyist or
lobbying firm which is a restricted source as to that
official.

The prohibition of this subdivision shall not
apply to gifts of office or other hospitality, or other
gifts of nominal value, so long as the cumulative
value of such gifts from a single source does not
exceed $25 during any calendar year.

Section 6. Paragraph 19 of Section 48.02 of the
Municipal Code of the City of Los Angeles is hereby
amended to read as follows:
“Lobbying firm’ means any entity, including an
individual lobbyist, which receives or becomes
entitled to receive $4,000 $1,000 or more in
monetary or in-kind compensation for engaging in
lobbying activities (either personally or through its
agents) during a calendar quarter any consecutive
three month period, for the purpose of attempting
to influence municipal legislation on behalf of any
other person, provided any partner, owner,
shareholder, officer or employee of the entity
“City Government Responsibility, Lobbying and Ethics Reform Act” 2
qualifies as a lobbyist. Compensation does not
include reimbursement of or payment for reasonable
travel expenses. An entity receives compensation
within the meaning of this definition whether or not
the compensation is received solely for activities
regulated by this article or is received for other
activities as well; however, only that portion of
compensation received for the lobbying activities
shall count toward the qualification threshold. An
entity ‘becomes entitled to receive compensation’
when the entity agrees to provide services regulated
by this article, or performs those services, whether
or not payment is contingent on the accomplishment
of the client’s purposes.”

Paragraph 20 of Section 48.02 of the Municipal
Code of the City of Los Angeles is hereby amended
to read as follows:
“‘Lobbyist’ means any individual who receives or
becomes entitled to receive at least $4,000 in
monetary or in-kind compensation for is
compensated to spend 30 or more hours in any
consecutive three-month period engaging
engaged in lobbying activities which include at least
one direct communication with a City official or
employee, conducted either personally or through
agents, for the purpose of attempting to influence
municipal legislation on behalf of any other person,
during any calendar quarter.”

Section 7. The Municipal Code of the City of Los
Angeles is hereby amended by adding Section
49.5.18 to read as follows:
“All City Officials are required to participate in
an ethics training no less than once every two
years conducted by the City Ethics Commission,
in partnership with the Office of the City
Attorney. These training sessions shall be
structured to assure that each participant has
the knowledge to comply fully with all of the
relevant ethics laws governing their service to
the City of Los Angeles.”

Section 8. Subsection (D) of Section 49.5.11 of the
Municipal Code of the City of Los Angeles is hereby
amended to read as follows:
“For one year two years after leaving City service,
no former elected City officer, member of the City
Ethics Commission or other former high level official
shall, for compensation, engage in direct
communication with any agency for the purpose of
attempting to influence any action or decision on
any matter pending before an agency on behalf of
any person other than an agency. This section
shall only apply to City officers and officials who
leave City service after the effective date of the
ordinance.”

Subsection (E) of Section 49.5.11 of the Municipal
Code of the City of Los Angeles is hereby amended
to read as follows:
“For one year two years after leaving City service,
no former City official shall for compensation,
engage in direct communication with any agency in
which he or she served during the twelve month
period preceding his or her departure from City
service, for the purpose of attempting to influence
any action or decision on any matter pending before
that agency on behalf of any person other than an
agency.

For purposes of this subsection, the agency
of a City Council office employee means his or her
former Council office and the Council member of
that district. This section shall only apply to City
officers who leave City service after the effective
date of the ordinance.”

Section 9. Subsection (A) of Section 49.7.26 of the
Municipal Code of the City of Los Angeles is hereby
amended to read as follows:
Disclosure of Payments. Any person that makes or
incurs independent expenditures of $1,000 or more
in support of or in opposition to any City measure,
candidate for elective City office, or one or more
payments for member communications as defined
by this article, totaling $1,000 or more in support of
or in opposition to a candidate for elective City office
or City measure, shall notify the City Ethics
Commission within 24 hours by certified mail or fax
or e-mail each time one or more payments, which
meet this threshold, are made.

Subsection (B) of Section 49.7.26 of the Municipal
Code of the City of Los Angeles is hereby amended
to read as follows:
“Contents of Notice. The notification shall consist of
a declaration specifying each candidate or measure
who was supported or opposed by the expenditure,
the amount spent to support or oppose each
candidate or measure, whether the candidate or
measure was supported or opposed, and that the
expenditure was not behested by the candidate or
candidates who benefitted from the
“City Government Responsibility, Lobbying and Ethics Reform Act” 3
expenditure. This declaration shall be made under
penalty of perjury and signed by the person or
officer and the treasurer of the group making the
expenditure. In addition, the date and amount of the
payment, a description of the type of communication
for which the payment was made or incurred, the
name and address of the person making the
payment, the name and address of the payee, and a
copy of the mailing or advertisement, or a copy of
the script or recording of the call, transmission, or
advertisement, shall also be provided to the
Commission.
The notification shall also include
disclosure of all contributions made by the
person to City candidates, their controlled
committees, committees primarily formed to
support or oppose City measures, and City
general purpose recipient committees in the
current calendar year. In the case of
independent expenditures and member
communications made by a City general
purpose recipient committee, the notification
shall also include disclosure of all contributions
received by the committee since the day after
the closing date of the committee’s last
campaign report.”

Subsection (D) of Section 49.7.26 of the Municipal
Code of the City of Los Angeles is hereby amended
deleted:
“Additional Notification Required. Any person that
makes or incurs independent expenditures of more
than $10,000 in support of or opposition to a
candidate for elective City office, and any person
that makes or incurs one or more payments for
member communications as defined by this article,
totaling more than $10,000 in support of or
opposition to a candidate for elective City office
shall notify the City Ethics Commission in
accordance with the reporting schedule for the
primary or general election for which payments are
made, and no later than seven days prior to the
primary or general municipal election, with a closing
date of the previous Friday and covering activities
and payments through that date. For purposes of
this ordinance, the notification shall contain all
information required by Government Code Section
84211, and shall report all contributions received on
or after the date a candidate for City office begins to
fundraise, all expenditures and payments within the
meaning of California Government Code Section
85312 made or incurred on or after the date a
candidate for City office begins to fundraise, in
support of or opposition to candidates for elective
City office.”

Section 10. Section 49.7.26.3 of the Municipal
Code of the City of Los Angeles is hereby amended
to read as follows:
“DISCLOSURE ON VOTER COMMUNICATIONS
A. Any person or committee that makes an
independent expenditure of $1,000 or more for a
broadcast or mass mailing advertisement that
advocates the election or defeat of a candidate for
City elective office or any ballot measure must
disclose the name of any contributor or $25,000 or
more to the committee in the six months prior to the
date of that payment. This information shall be printed
clearly and legibly in no less than 12-point type and in
a contrasting color to the background on which it
appears in all materials published or displayed. If the
communication is broadcast or otherwise spoken, the
name of any contributor of $25,000 or more to the
committee in the six months prior to the date of that
payment shall be disclosed throughout the
advertisement. Payments of $25,000 or more that are
earmarked for any other candidate or ballot measure
outside of the City of Los Angeles need not be
disclosed.
B. In addition to the requirements set forth in
Charter Section 470(l), an advertisement, call, mailer,
or other communication paid for by a non-candidate
committee shall include the full name of the committee
in all materials published, transmitted, displayed, or
broadcast. If an acronym is used to specify any
committee names, the full names of any sponsoring
organization of the committee shall be printed on print
advertisements, spoken in broadcast advertisements,
or included in the script of a live or recorded telephone
call.

DISCLAIMERS ON CAMPAIGN
COMMUNICATIONS.
A. Any candidate or committee that pays for a
campaign communication shall print, display or
incorporate the following words anywhere
within the communication: “Paid for by”
immediately followed by the name, address and
city of that candidate or committee.

If an acronym is used to specify a committee name,
the full name of any sponsoring organization of
the committee shall be included in the campaign
communication disclaimer required by this
section.
B. (1) Campaign communications funded by an
“City Government Responsibility, Lobbying and Ethics Reform Act” 4
independent expenditure supporting or
opposing City candidates shall include the
phrase “Not authorized by a City candidate,”
and shall also include the name of any
contributor of $25,000 or more to a committee
funding the independent expenditure in the six
months prior to the date of that payment in the
phrase “Major Funding Provided By [Name of
Contributor(s)].”
(2) Campaign communications funded by an
independent expenditure supporting or
opposing City measures shall include the name
of any contributor or $25,000 or more to a
committee funding the independent expenditure
in the six months prior to the date of that
payment in the phrase “Major Funding Provided
By [Name of Contributor(s)].”
C. For printed campaign communications, the
requirements of subsections (A) and (B) shall be
satisfied by using a typeface that is easily
legible to an average reader or viewer, but is not
less than 12-point type in contrasting color to
the background on which it appears. For
campaign communications sent through the
mail, the requirements of subsections (A) and
(B) shall be satisfied by printing the required
statement on the outside of the mailer or
envelope.
D. For telephone call or radio advertisement
campaign communications, the requirements of
subsection (A) shall be satisfied by using the
words “on behalf of” immediately followed by
the name of the candidate or committee that
pays for the communication in a clearly audible
manner at the same speed and volume as the
rest of the telephone call or radio advertisement.

The requirements of subsection (B) shall be
satisfied by incorporating the required language
in a clearly audible manner at the same speed
and volume as the rest of the telephone call or
radio advertisement.
E. For purposes of this section, “campaign
communication” means any of the following
items:
1. More than 200 substantially similar pieces of
campaign literature distributed within a calendar
month, including but not limited to mailers,
flyers, pamphlets, door hangers, e-mails,
campaign buttons 10 inches in diameter or
larger, and bumper stickers 60 square inches or
larger.
2. posters, yard or street signs, billboards and
similar items;
3. television, cable, satellite and radio
broadcasts;
4. newspaper, magazine, internet website
banners and similar advertisements;
5. 200 or more substantially similar live or
recorded telephone calls made within a calendar
month.
F. For purposes of this section, “campaign
communication” does not include: pens,
pencils, clothing, mugs, skywriting or other
items on which the statement required by this
section can not be reasonably printed or
displayed in an easily legible typeface;
communications paid for by a newspaper, radio
station, television station or other recognized
news medium; and communications from an
organization to its members.”

Section 11. A new subdivision (3) is hereby added
to subsection (G) of section 48.09 of the Municipal
Code of the City of Los Angeles:
“Any person who submits a written response to
a request for proposals, request for bids,
statement of qualifications or other document
submitted for the purpose of entering into a
procurement, services, or construction contract
with the City that requires approval by the
Council and/or Mayor or is subject to Council
review pursuant to Charter section 245 shall
certify, on a form proscribed by the Ethics
Commission, that the person acknowledges and
agrees to comply with the disclosure
requirements and prohibitions for lobbying
entities established by ordinance. Each
department shall include a copy of Municipal
Code section 48.01 et seq. in each request for
proposals, bids or statements of qualifications
for a contract with the City that requires
approval by the Council and/or Mayor or is
subject to Council review pursuant to Charter
section 245.”

Section 12. The amendments to the Municipal
Code outlined in sections 5 through 12 of this Act
shall become operative only upon the approval of
the amendments to the Charter outlined in sections
1 through 4 by the voters of the City of Los Angeles,
and upon the acceptance and filing of the Charter
Amendments by the Secretary of State.

“City Government Responsibility, Lobbying and Ethics Reform Act” 5

Ethics group members told to watch words

2006-08-17T14:16:00.000-07:00

Ethics group members told to watch words

BY KERRY CAVANAUGH, Staff Writer
LA Daily News

Excluded from the race to put a term-limits/ethics reform package on the ballot, the Ethics Commission found itself silenced Tuesday when members finally got a chance to discuss the proposal to change lobbying rules and give the City Council a third term.

Vice President Bill Boyarsky kicked off the discussion by asking how the ethics reform measure on the Nov. 7 ballot would affect the city's existing rules.
"So instead of strengthening the lobby control laws as the proponents of this measure have claimed, could it be said that it actually weakens it?" Boyarsky asked after staffers advised him that some lobbyists might be exempted from registering under the new rules.

But Deputy City Attorney Renee Stadel interrupted him to warn that, because the ethics package has already been placed on the ballot, city employees or public resources cannot be used to support or oppose it.
And that includes using "valuative adjectives" during an Ethics Commission hearing.
"I am concerned that by using words such as `strengthen' or `weaken,' it becomes an advocacy on either side of the issue," Stadel said.
Chastened, Boyarsky continued his technical questions on the measure, choosing his words carefully.

He later said the council's decision to put the measure on the ballot before seeking Ethics Commission input "took us out of the ballgame."
Critics of the ballot measure complain that the proposals were never vetted or voted on by the Ethics Commission.

The commission was supposed to consider it July 31, just days before it went to the council. But the session was canceled when President Gil Garcetti couldn't make it and there weren't enough members present to legally hold the meeting.
While Boyarsky previously has said he opposed the ethics/term-limits package, Tuesday marked the first time the commission was able to review the proposed legislation with staffers.

Tied to the term-limit extension is a series of proposals to toughen the city's ethics laws, limiting the role of lobbyists in raising campaign contributions and serving on city boards and commissions. It also would extend from one year to two the length of time for which a former official would be prohibited from lobbying a city agency.

Also Tuesday, the commission issued $48,200 in fines for various campaign-contribution violations, including those to former Mayor James Hahn and Councilman Tony Cardenas.

Secretary Dolores Valdez was fined $41,000 for aiding attorney Pierce O'Donnell in soliciting and laundering 21 illegal contributions to Hahn's 2001 campaign.
O'Donnell admitted making $26,500 in contributions under various names and was fined $147,000 by the commission March 14.

Since May, 21 people who agreed to be reimbursed by O'Donnell for making contributions to the Hahn campaign have been fined $500 to $2,000 each. City laws allow a person to make a $1,000 maximum contribution per candidate in each election cycle.

Valdez was the last person to face fines from the commission regarding the matter.
On Feb. 2, O'Donnell pleaded no contest to five misdemeanor charges of improper identification of campaign donors.
O'Donnell was sentenced to three years' probation and ordered to pay $155,200 in fines and penalties.

City News Service contributed to this story.
kerry.cavanaugh@dailynews.com
(213) 978-0390

We call for the entire Ethics Commission to resign

2006-08-17T05:51:00.000-07:00

City Hall's fig leaf
City Hall has silenced the Ethics Commission and exposed its own corruption

LA Daily News

THE Los Angeles Ethics Commission has to be feeling totally irrelevant.
First, the five-member panel was excluded from the discussion of the ethics/term-limit expansion package that the Los Angeles City Council voted to put on the November ballot. Half of the ballot measure deals with expanding the terms that City Council members are allowed to serve from two to three. The other half makes changes in the provisions governing lobbyists, something that would seem to fall under the purview of the Ethics Commission.

But Commission President Gil Garcetti scuttled discussion of the proposal before the council voted on it - a convenient occurrence for his son, Council President Eric Garcetti.

Then, on Tuesday, when the commission was finally able to discuss the details of the so-called "reforms" included in the ballot measure, members were barred from saying what they thought about them.

City government took a page out of the totalitarian handbook and invoked its Catch-22 rule that bars city officials from making any comment that could be construed as negative or positive campaigning once a measure is on the ballot.

Understand, the rule doesn't apply to elected officials or city employee unions, only to those who are in a position to actually know what they're talking about - like commissioners and other top advisory officials.

Commission Vice President Bill Boyarsky was chastised when he pointed out that the proposed changes seem to weaken current rules regarding lobbyists.

How convenient that the very people who were appointed to advise on all things ethical are now effectively censured for their honest analysis.

All this makes one wonder why the city even has an Ethics Commission. If it is this easy to thwart the "watchdog" of the politicians, then it seems pointless even to have an agency - especially given its long record of providing cover for City Hall's corruption, rather than exposing it.

A week ago, we said Gil Garcetti should resign from the Ethics Commission because of the appearance of a conflict of interest involving his son.

Now, we call for the entire Ethics Commission to resign so former members can speak freely against this phony measure and lead the campaign for tough ethics laws and an independent commission to enforce them.

Jim Alger on Measure R

2006-08-17T05:40:00.000-07:00

Dear Neighbor,

I am, of course, deeply disappointed in the results of the vote on the Council File issue Wednesday. For those who supported us we owe our sincere thanks. A special thank you should go out to Janice Hahn and Dennis Zine, who fought to keep the motion alive by referring it back to committee, but all who spoke for the measure gave a strong and compelling case.

While their were a few City Councilmembers who were opposing the measure at this time based on “ethical” concerns, only one City Councilman fired a shot directly at the Neighborhood Councils. Jack Weiss, who according to reports has racked up over 30 ethical violations himself, demanded the City Attorney and DONE bring back to him a report of every complaint alleging ethical violations or conflict of interest of Neighborhood Councils. This aught to be fun. I can think of one Neighborhood Council who has a board member who feels the need to file complaints on every single petty thing that doesn’t go her way. What does this prove? Nothing.

More importantly this is the same City Council that had no problem bypassing the City Ethics Commission when it involved extending their terms. No, that sailed right through council while our right to be heard languishes in committee. As Neighborhood Councils the question inevitably becomes exactly how much more of this are we going to take? How much longer will we be held to higher standards than the City Council? And what are we prepared to do about it?

I think we have taken enough, it needs to end now and we can start by defeating Measure R.

On principle alone I can not support a measure extending the City Council terms that was crafted in a way that bypassed the City Attorney (in fact he advised AGAINST it), and defrauds the voters into believing this is some ethics reform package. Imagine for a moment your Neighborhood Council passing a motion in direct contradiction to the City Attorney’s advice, ignoring input and rammed through on a special meeting. How quickly would your council’s action be challenged or dismissed? If it involved your Neighborhood Councils elections forget it.

Secondly we can and must begin speaking with one voice. Solving our problems internally whenever possible so the City Council can stop pointing to 100 letters from a Neighborhood Council to prove the entire system is a failure (which of course it isn’t) and DONE can stop citing contradicting points from boardmembers at City Council meetings.

Lastly, we need to draw a line in the sand and get the Council File Issue passed. If City Coucilmembers have legitimate concerns as, for example, I believe Greig Smith has, we should sit down with him and find a way to abate those fears. BUT, for those City Councilmembers who wish to change the subject to a discussion of Neighborhood Council’s ethical standards, a word of caution…

We do not seek, nor will we provoke an outright battle with the City Council, but we shall not back down from one either.

Jim Alger

Self- Serving Council

2006-08-14T10:15:00.000-07:00

Self-serving council Longer terms, yes; better roads, no
LA Daily News

IF there's an upside to the Los Angeles City Council's recent slide into unabashed arrogance, it's that we now know what really motivates our city leaders.

Late last week, City Councilmen Tony Cardenas and Greig Smith yanked plans to put a $1.5 billion street-paving bond on the November ballot. The reason, they said, was voter fatigue and confusion. On a ballot crammed with state propositions, city measures, tax hikes and bonds of every kind, voters' burnout would doom the chances for street repairs.
Nor did it help matters that when Cardenas and Smith took their idea to the council at large, response was lukewarm at best. The two figured they had little chance of getting the council to sign on, and even less of winning over the public.

And in a sense, they're probably right. When politicians ask the public for too much, the public tends to say no to everything. No one knows this better than the politicians themselves, which is why they're starting to worry whether maybe they've overdone it by putting 10 different tax and bond measures on the November ballot.

What's telling about this is that the council wouldn't put street repairs that affect everyone on the ballot, but did put $1 billion for "affordable" housing on the ballot that affects a narrow class. And it leaped at the chance to ask L.A. voters to water down council members' term limits, something that affects only themselves.
Priorities. Priorities. Priorities.

Far from the frosty reaction that Cardenas and Smith got over their streets plan, the council unanimously backed the bogus "ethics reform" package that's chiefly about giving themselves an extra four years in office. Members crammed that one through even though the city attorney said it's unconstitutional and the Ethics Commission and neighborhood councils never got to look at it. And they did it with next to no public comment or debate.

Los Angeles' roads are crumbling, thanks to a city government that's ignored them for decades while pumping endless cash into unions, developers and other special interests. But for this council, politics isn't about public service, but self-service. Members have made that much abundantly clear.

Time to send the City Council packing

2006-08-13T11:56:00.000-07:00

The Los Angeles City Council has given the voters of Los Angeles a great opportunity to speak up and speak out.

This is a bold move given the current actions of the Council in limiting public input, freedom of speech and blatant disregard for the voters.

So now we begin the campaign to defeat Measure R, the self-serving ballot measure put on the November 2006 ballot by the LA City Council. The Measure would extend the Term Limits of the City Council from two four year terms to three four year terms--starting with the people who voted to put the measure on the ballot--thereby changing their employment contract!

I look forward to a great campaign to put these folks back in their place and some of them packing...