The following is part 3 in our series covering four charter-amendment measures that will be on the Nov. 6 ballot for Long Beach residents. The last two issues have reports on Measures AAA and BBB.
When Long Beach voters head to the polls next month, they will determine, through their approval or denial of charter-amendment Measures CCC and DDD, whether a city ethics commission and a citizens redistricting commission will be established, respectively.
CCC and DDD are two of four measures the Long Beach City Council approved on Aug. 7 to be placed on the ballot.
Although the formation of the two committees may seem like the “good government” moves, critics of CCC and DDD have called them “worrisome” and “poorly written.”
As previously reported, the Signal Tribune reached out to the mayor, the city auditor and all nine councilmembers by sending questions about the measures to at least two email addresses per district office, as well as following up with phone calls to several of those offices. Doud did respond, and her replies were published on Oct. 12. However, no other elected official responded to the inquiries.
[related title=”Related Stories” stories=”39454,39366″ align=”left” background=”on” border=”all” shadow=”on”]
Instead, Mark Taylor, who is serving as the spokesperson on behalf of the campaign to support the measures, replied with answers to the questions. (Taylor is also Garcia’s chief of staff.)
In addition to contacting the 11 elected representatives, the Signal Tribune also reached out to community organizers to get a sense of how neighborhood groups are viewing the measures.
CCC
If voters approve Measure CCC, the city charter would be amended to establish a city ethics commission to “impartially” administer and implement governmental ethics in Long Beach. The city charter does not provide for such a governmental body. CCC would create a commission of seven members who would be responsible for “the impartial administration and implementation of the provisions of the city charter, statutes and ordinances concerning campaign finance, lobbying, conflicts of interest and governmental ethics,” according to the “impartial analysis” on the City’s website by City Attorney Charles Parkin.
Abetterlongbeach.com, which is the website for Mayor Robert Garcia and City Auditor Laura Doud Committee to Support Good Government Measures AAA BBB CCC DDD, states that the purpose of the commission is to “hold local politicians and public officials accountable to strong ethical standards.”
“The independent Ethics Commission would help monitor our existing lobbying ordinance and promote and enforce good government measures for both elected and appointed members of our local government,” the campaign website states. “It will also enhance public confidence in the fairness and transparency of our local government. Creation of an independent ethics commission will help safeguard and advance the public interest. Measure CCC ensures the ethics commission is made up of qualified residents that include experts in public law, public policy, campaign finance [and] auditing, and those who have demonstrated a history of involvement in local governance. Measure CCC is a good government measure that will make our government more effective, efficient and ethical.”
In an emailed response, Taylor elaborated on the criteria for those appointed to the commission.
“Measure CCC would create an independent redistricting commission by ensuring that no elected official appoints more than two members and by empowering the appointed members to select three members from a qualified pool of applicants,” Taylor wrote. “Measure CCC also specifies clear expertise which members must possess and has clear criteria to limit political influence on the panel. All four measures, including CCC, were endorsed by Common Cause, California’s leading good-government group.”
However, one former Long Beach councilmember has been vocal in criticizing the measure, along with the other three that the current council approved for the ballot.
Rae Gabelich, former 8th District councilmember, told the Signal Tribune that she is against all four measures, saying she believes they are “a bit disingenuous” and that the purpose of AAA, CCC and DDD is to cover for BBB, to extend term limits for the mayor and city council.
“Measure CCC is an effort that began years ago with [former councilmember] Bonnie Lowenthal followed by [former councilmember] Gerrie Schipske,” Gabelich said. “They could not get the momentum behind them with the rest of the council. At that point, when [then Mayor Bob] Foster came on board, he was growing his ‘Gang of Six,’ and division was clear every Tuesday night.”
Carlos Ovalle, executive director of People of Long Beach, a grassroots organization that has formed in response to the measures, is another community leader who has been critical of all four measures.
“Measure CCC, which seeks to establish an ethics commission, is very worrisome,” he told the Signal Tribune. “It appears as a carefully crafted commission that cannot have the power or incentive to hold the politicians accountable to any ethical standards. Think of it like hanging an onerous ‘Beware of Vicious Dog’ sign on a fence, but you look over the fence and find a nervous little lapdog cowering in the corner.”
Ovalle claims one of the “major flaws” with CCC is that the majority of the commissioners– four of seven– are selected by the mayor and city auditor, thereby making the commission beholden to them and not independent or accountable to the citizens of Long Beach.
“But Mayor [Robert] Garcia and [City] Auditor [Laura] Doud falsely claim in their campaign website and mailers that ‘Measure CCC ensures the ethics commission is made up of qualified residents,” Ovalle said. “The mayor and auditor control the majority of the commissioners in perpetuity, such that when one of the commissioners selected by the politicians is termed out, gets fired or otherwise leaves the commission, the replacement again is made by the politicians. This creates a majority and minority class of commissioners. The majority commissioners then get to select the minority commissioners, keeping this minority barely an arm’s length from the politicians. This is what Mayor Garcia and Auditor Doud call an ‘independent ethics commission.’”
Ovalle added that another problem with CCC is that Garcia and Doud falsely claim in their campaign website and mailers that Measure CCC ensures the ethics commission is made up of qualified residents.
“However, there are no qualifications standards to become a commissioner, except that those selected by the mayor shall: ‘have represented local civic organization(s) with a demonstrated history of involvement in local governance.’ And those selected by the city auditor shall: ‘have a background in public policy or public law, governmental ethics or open government matters, campaign finance, auditing of compliance with ethics laws, protection of whistleblowers, or technology as it relates to open government.’ This means the ethics commissioners could have been lobbyists, campaign contributors, former appointed or elected city officials, etc. and can hold office or work as lobbyists after they leave the commission. This is far from good government; it allows a revolving door of influence peddlers. Yet this group of potentially conflicted people beholden to the politicians is tasked with selecting the members of the redistricting commission.”
However, enforcement is the most concerning area for Ovalle.
“But the most worrisome aspect is that an important obligation that an ethics commission ought to have– the enforcement of good government measures– was purposely deleted from the boilerplate text,” he said. “So, this commission, as proposed, is more of an advisory committee.”
DDD
Measure DDD proposes to amend the city charter to establish an independent citizens redistricting commission with sole authority for establishing council districts following the U.S. decennial census, or more frequently if necessary, according to Parkin.
Charter Section 103, “Councilmanic Districts,” grants the city council the authority to establish or change council district boundaries and provides that the council must examine and modify, if necessary, council district boundaries at five-year intervals or at any other time the council may direct, so that the districts are as nearly equal in population as required under the federal and state constitutions, and other applicable laws.
DDD would repeal and replace the existing Charter Section 103 with a new article entitled “Councilmanic Districts and Redistricting.”
“The proposed new article would establish a new Long Beach Independent Redistricting Commission with the exclusive authority to redraw council district boundaries,” Parkin wrote in his analysis. “The commission would be independent of mayor and city council control. The commission would have 13 commissioners. Nine commissioners– one from each existing council district– would be selected from a pool of qualified applicants by a ‘screening panel,’ as described in the proposed measure; those nine persons would then select the remaining four commissioners, plus two alternates.”
Abetterlongbeach.com states that DDD would establish a Citizens Redistricting Commission to create new council districts every decade after the census.
“Measure DDD establishes strong criteria for redistricting that keeps communities of interest and neighborhoods together and prohibits gerrymandering in which districts are manipulated to benefit a candidate or party,” the campaign website states. “Measure DDD increases transparency by requiring multiple public hearings in districts so resident input is heard. Local citizens apply [and] go through a screening process, and then one person from each council district is randomly selected to be on the commission, supplemented by four additional citizens to ensure a good and fair representation of our diverse community. Measure DDD ensures these important decisions are made by unbiased and qualified local citizens, not politicians, so the process represents the will of the people.”
Gabelich said DDD is indeed a measure she could support, but not with “the background rules that are in the very fine print.”
“The one that really sticks out to me is that, if you serve on the commission, you cannot run for office for 10 years,” Gabelich said. “I had no idea in 1994 that in 2004 I would be determined to get a vote on our city council. These rules are poorly written and do not support future leadership. In the 2010 redistricting, [then 7th District Councilmember] James Johnson, supported by Foster, did their best to break up my 8th-district boundaries. They succeeded, and, even today, those folks they call the SOBs (south of Bixby) are still angry about it. It was one of the most difficult fights of my two terms and so wrong.”
More information on all four charter-amendment measures, including arguments for and against each, is available at longbeach.gov/cityclerk/elections/ballot-measures.
