Long Beach Business Journal Publisher George Economides points out that Mayor Bob Foster has the support of the business community in an effort to change our charter. The only exception…it’s not the Long Beach business community. According to Economides, 75% of the donors are from outside Long Beach. Check out what he says:
Mayor Foster’s Group Raises Nearly $200,000 To Pass Charter Reforms
More Than 75 Percent From Firms Outside City
By George Economides, Publisher
Long Beach Business Journal
It’s not easy to say “no” when the mayor comes calling asking for money. A few dozen companies – most of them from outside Long Beach – evidently didn’t want to say no, or couldn’t say no, so they ponied up money – lots of it – to help Mayor Bob Foster convince voters to support seven charter reform proposals on the May 1 special election ballot.
As of last Thursday, Citizens for an Effective Charter Yes on Props A-G – a group formed by the mayor – raised $198,350, with just over 75 percent of it coming from businesses not located in the city.
Why 26 firms/individuals have given between $1,000 and $15,000 each to get charter reforms passed in Long Beach is unknown. What’s in it for them? It’s also interesting that only a handful of companies and individuals in Long Beach have donated. (The names of those contributing to Foster’s group are listed at the end of this article.)
With three weeks left before the election, Foster is expected to raise even more money. Maybe he can raise enough to pay for the election, which is costing Long Beach taxpayers hundreds of thousands of dollars?
What’s that you say? Your sidewalk needs fixing, but the city says it doesn’t have the money?
So far, the group’s two largest expenditures, according to city clerk records, are $52,500 to Target Enterprise, LTD of Encino for “TV or cable airtime and production costs,” and $20,590 to Fairbank, Maslin, Maullin & Associates, Inc. of Santa Monica for “polling and survey research.” Advertising spots have been running on Charter Cable TV for a few weeks, and at least one direct mail piece has been issued.
Foster’s group is pushing to, among other items, provide the mayor a stronger veto and the ability to use a line-item veto on the annual city budget. He’s also seeking the right to more easily remove city commissioners (such as harbor and water) from their posts. Those are all bundled into Proposition A.
Propositions B and C are the most controversial of the seven measures, and are opposed by both the Press-Telegram and Business Journal, as well as a group formed more than a year ago to effect charter reforms, Citizens For A Better Long Beach. Prop B provides for the formation of three commissions: one to review city council salaries; one to prepare council district boundaries; and one related to ethics. Prop C adds a third, four-year term for the mayor and city councilmembers.
Foster’s message to voters is to support all the propositions in order to create a more effective government and to make government more accountable to citizens.
Opponents argue that a salary commission and several of the other proposals have nothing to do with government being more effective or accountable and everything to do with higher pay and longer terms with no increase in responsibilities.
Prop A, however, does make the mayor – not councilmembers – more accountable. If it passes, the mayor will certainly wield more power since he can veto line items in the annual budget, play a larger role in the hiring and firing of the city manager, and be able to remove commissioners from specific commissions before their term is up. If the city council decides to override a mayoral veto or the removal of a commissioner, under Prop A it would take two-thirds of councilmembers present to do so. Currently, it’s a simple majority of five votes.
The Business Journal supports a stronger mayor, especially the strengthening of the veto, but does not support the at-will removal of commissioners. The Business Journal believes commissioners would be forced to follow the mayor’s lead on casting commission votes or face removal. It would be a threat hanging over the commissioners, whose independence currently provides a much-needed system of checks and balances. For that reason, the Business Journal takes no position on Prop A, but leans against it.
The salary commission proposal does not spell out what the qualifications should be in order for one to serve on the commission, nor does it provide any limits on how high the salary could go. Prop B also calls for an “independent” redistricting commission, however, the commission can only recommend boundary changes to the full council. Councilmembers can alter the boundaries, thus it is not “independent.” The third part under Prop B is the formation of an ethics commission, but it, too, has no teeth since it can only recommend. As proposed, it has no authority to take action against elected officials.
Prop C proposes increasing the number of terms one can serve as mayor or as a councilmember. In November 1992, the voters passed a measure calling for a limit of two four-year terms, with the ability to run as a write-in candidate beyond the two terms. Former mayor Beverly O’Neill achieved a third term in 2002 as a write-in candidate. Prop C extends term limits to three four-year terms while maintaining the ability to run as a write-in thereafter. Since there is no increase in councilmember accountability, the Business Journal opposes lifting the two-term limit.
Props D, E And F
Propositions D, E and F are less controversial and there appears to be little opposition to any of them. The Business Journal supports all three.
Prop D has three elements: it establishes a stronger residency requirement for candidates seeking office; it prevents an individual from running for two city offices at the same time; and it allows a write-in candidate who finishes first or second in the primary to have their name appear on the general election ballot. All three are good improvements to the current systems in place.
Prop E makes it more difficult to develop on public parks or recreation areas. Enough said.
Prop F eliminates the requirement that the city prosecutor “shall prosecute, attend and conduct on behalf of the City Manager and other appointing authorities, all hearings before the Civil Service Commission.” The city prosecutor’s office should concentrate on prosecuting misdemeanor crimes and not waste time serving as a labor lawyer.
Prop H
The final item on the May 1 ballot – except for 6th District voters, who are electing a new councilmember (see Page 1 story) – is Proposition H.
Referred to as the “Police and Fire Public Safety Oil Production Act,” this measure proposes to increase the barrel tax charged to oil producers from the current 15¢ per barrel to 40¢ per barrel. It will raise between three and four million dollars a year for public safety needs, including hiring more police officers. The current barrel tax is far below what other cities charge, and oil producers do not object – at least publicly – to the increase. The Business Journal supports Prop H.
Donations
The following is a list of firms and individuals who have contributed $1,000 or more to Citizens for an Effective Charter Yes on Props A-G group. The name of the contributor, city and amount are taken from “Recipient Committee Campaign Statement” Form 460.
Non-Long Beach Contributions:
AECOM Tech Corp., Los Angeles – $15,000
BNSF Railway Company, Fort Worth – $10,000
Clean Energy, Seal Beach – $10,000
Forest City Residential Group
Los Angeles – $10,000
NRG West Coast LLC,Princeton, N.J. – $10,000
Recreational Vehicle Storage Associates LLC
Sunnyvale – $10,000
R. Hall Investment Properties, Tustin – $10,000
Southern California Edison
Rosemead – $10,000
TELACU Industries Inc., Los Angeles – $10,000
IBEW Local 47 PAC (International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers), Diamond Bar – $6,000
Catalina Channel Express Inc.
San Pedro – $5,000
Cordoba Corporation, Los Angeles – $5,000
DeMenno Kerdoon, Compton – $5,000
Stone & Youngberg, San Francisco – $5,000
Union Pacific Railroad, Omaha – $5,000
UFCW Region 8 States Council Political Ed. Fund (United Food and Commercial Workers Union), Buena Park – $5,000
G & C Equipment Co., Gardena – $3,000
Gence Corporation
Gardena (same address as G & C) – $3,000
CA Teamsters Public Affairs Council Issues Account, Sacramento – $2,500
Girardi and Keese, Los Angeles – $2,500
Volt Management Corp., Orange – $2,500
Mayer Brown Rowe & Maw LLP
Los Angeles – $2,000
Steven Watts, Santa Fe Springs – $1,500
Manatt, Phelps & Phillips LLP
Los Angeles – $1,000
Matson Navigation Co.
& Subsidiaries, Oakland – $1,000
Total contributions listed above: $150,000
Other non-Long Beach contributions: $3,200
Long Beach Contributions:
City Light & Power – $10,000
Compulink Mgmt. Center Inc. – $5,000
Matthew Jenkins – $5,000
Samuel A. Keesal Jr. – $5,000
Signal Hill Petroleum Inc. – $5,000
Jeff Jenkins – $2,500
Martin Howard – $2,500
Michelle Molina – $2,500
Geoffrey Payne – $1,000
Morton Stuhlbarg – $1,000
Raymond Alpert – $1,000
Stephen Gordon – $1,000
Trutanich-Michel LLP – $1,000
Total contributions listed above: $42,500
Other Long Beach contributions: $2,650