Civically Speaking is a weekly newsletter on the latest local government news from the lens of the Long Beach Post’s City Hall reporter, who sits through so many city meetings for us. Subscribe here.
Let’s talk about the Levine Act
Over the weekend I received an email from a concerned reader who was worried that her City Council representative wasn’t going to be able to vote on an issue that was important to her; the proposed outdoor dining parklet at Legends Bar and Restaurant.
It wasn’t because the council member was going to be absent from the meeting but because she (Councilmember Kristina Duggan) had accepted too much money in the form of campaign contributions from a person connected with the project.
Under the amended Levine Act, elected officials and appointed commissioners can’t accept more than $250 from a person with business pending before their voting body. The previous law did not apply to council members and had a shorter reportable period, which was three months after a vote was taken.
The new law is retrospective and applies to any contribution made within 12 months before and after a vote. If you need a refresher, I wrote about the issue in greater detail in 2023.
Basically, the law requires elected officials to recuse themselves from a vote if someone connected to the item donated more than $250 to their campaigns. Alternatively, they can pay it back if they want to take part in the vote.
When Tuesday night’s council meeting arrived, something really interesting happened.
Duggan announced that she had received a $550 contribution from a company associated with one of the co-owners of Legends, Matthew Peterson, who also chairs the Belmont Shore Parking and Business Improvement Area Advisory Commission.
But, Duggan said she paid back “the legally required amount” (we’ll assume that was $300) in order to take part in the discussion. Her colleague, Councilmember Cindy Allen, opted to take the recusal route but likely did that improperly because the law requires elected officials to disclose the contribution on the record.
Allen said “I’m going to be recusing myself due to the Levine Act,” before leaving the room.
When I started digging through Allen’s campaign contributions to determine how much money she’d received from people associated with Legends, I stumbled across something more interesting.
While city law caps annual contributions to council candidates at $500, Allen and other incumbents running for reelection have campaign finance documents littered with $249 and $250 donations from consultants, powerful labor unions, the Long Beach Grand Prix and lobbyists like former city manager Pat West.
You know, the types of people who likely will have business before the council in the next 12 months, or did in the previous 12 months. It appears they have all gotten the memo about the Levine Act.
Duggan’s payback of the donation is the first public disclosure of a politician returning funds to take part in a vote. And it re-raised a question I had when I wrote the original story last year: How will politicians behave when they have to choose between campaign funds and representing their constituents on issues important to them?
The Legends parklet is in Duggan’s district, so it makes sense that she’d want to be part of that discussion. But for years, council members have stressed to me that while they were elected to represent a district, they represent the entire city. Their vote is important on all matters and an opportunity to make sure their residents are heard.
Before the Legends vote, the council approved another parklet in Allen’s district when it voted unanimously to allow the bar and music venue, Supply & Demand, to build a parklet in the Zaferia neighborhood. Both projects faced similar concerns about parking, but the council approved both Tuesday night.
Whether we see another situation where a council member pays money back to take part in a vote is a mystery to me. But if you want to place bets on who might have projects headed toward the City Council in the next year, those $249 donors are probably a good place to start.
WHAT YOU SHOULD KNOW THIS WEEK:
The Long Beach Ethics Commission is still months away from sending over proposed changes to the city’s lobbying rules to the City Council. It’s not quite back to square one, but the commission is sending the issue to its committee to revise (again) after its most recent round of recommendations stirred up outrage in the nonprofit community (again). One of the primary concerns raised by nonprofit leaders is that the blanket exemption under the current law is being repealed. But beyond that, they say the $1 million operating revenue threshold for when a nonprofit would have to register as a lobbyist is too low. About 180 organizations in the city would be required to register their contacts with city employees at that mark, according to the commission, but whether the dollar figure is increased will be something it discusses before returning with new recommendations. That could happen as soon as May.
PAY ATTENTION TO THIS NEXT WEEK:
My colleague Alicia Robinson wrote a great story this week about how incumbents have been dodging public forums, including ours, as Election Day nears. It’s not ideal for people who are seeking office to not show up to tell voters why they’re the best candidate, but I suppose it’s better than having their subordinates do it for them. Having said that, some candidates have opted to participate in the democratic process this year and you can see those forums and interviews on our elections website. Election Day is March 5 but if you want to cast your ballot before then you can mail them back to the county or drop them off at one of these dropbox locations by election night.