Law designed to protect taxpayer’s cash may pay for attorney fees
A voter-approved law preventing officials from getting kickbacks was so poorly written that the city was forced to sue itself just to enforce it, elected leaders say.
Los Angeles County Superior Court Judge Debra Yang recently threw out the case on the simplest of legal grounds called “standing,” ruling that neither side stood to be harmed by the issue.
But the question remained: Why would the city of Santa Monica sue itself and pay two sets of lawyers?
The answer, which arose over a recent anti-corruption ballot initiative, still isn’t clear. Neither are the two sets of legal bills to taxpayers from the unusual legal move.
The ill-fated suit took seed in 2000, when voters approved Proposition LL, limiting public officials from personally profiting from their decisions. It prevents campaign contributions, gifts or employment from flowing to officials who award contracts worth at least $25,000 to a successful bidder.
Santa Monica is usually a supporter of campaign spending reform, and the measure was initiated by the Oaks Project — a Santa Monica-based taxpayer and consumer rights advocacy group.
But in the eyes of many, Prop LL was far from a mandate by voters.
City clerk Maria Stewart refused to enforce the law, citing advice from the city attorney that it was unconstitutionally vague. City staffers studying the wording of the initiative decided it was full of loopholes and confusing provisions.
The Oaks Project cried foul, claiming the city was nursing sour grapes because it wasn’t consulted when the question hit the ballot.
But within City Hall, a question of strategy was unfolding.
“I said to them ‘this is a law. Now what do we do?’” Stewart said. “I needed clarification on how to go about enforcing it.”
The city council, which agreed to sue itself, wanted clarification too.
But it wanted to make sure that it was honoring the “will of the people,” 59 percent of whom voted for it. Suing the Oaks Project — the group that forced the measure onto the ballot — wasn’t an option for the same reason, according to Mayor Mike Feinstein.
The only way the city thought it could get clarification of the law’s constitutionality was to sue its own city clerk for not enforcing it, and then wait for a judge to rule.
City Hall complaints about the proposition fall into two categories. First, staffers say it isn’t well worded — it bars officials from benefiting if they approve contracts or proposals, where they should also be barred from profiting from their denial. Second, they cite confusion over to whom the initiative applies within city government.
“We either had to wait for someone to sue us for not enforcing it or wait for someone to sue us for violating their civil rights,” Stewart said. “I don’t particularly like my name as defendant on any lawsuit but I felt that I was going to get sued one way or another.”
“I don’t particularly like my name as defendant on any lawsuit but I felt that I was going to get sued one way or another.” — — MARIA STEWART City clerk
Some in City Hall feel voters were duped into approving a poorly-worded measure that was used as a spring board for a statewide issue the Oaks Project was pushing.
“If the Oaks Project had written this better, then we wouldn’t be in this situation,” said Councilman Kevin McKeown. “The intent is good but the execution is flawed.”
McKeown and Feinstein claim Santa Monica was a test market for the initiative that is now being tried out in Claremont, Pasedena and San Francisco. Only San Francisco is currently enforcing it. The municipalities that refused to enforce Prop LL also are seeking clarification in the courts, city officials say.
But the city may pay a price beyond the cost of the twin sets of legal fees. By having its suit dismissed by Judge Yang on a simple procedural ground, some argue that city staffers made a rookie error in their legal strategy.
Beyond that, city administrators and officials still aren’t escaping fears that they in fact oppose campaign spending reform locally.
It’s clear that the Oaks Project miffed the city when rumors flew that its signature gatherers were telling voters about widespread corruption among city council members, including tales of kickbacks.
Both McKeown and Councilwoman Pam O’Connor say they overheard such claims from initiative workers who didn’t know who they were.
Further, Feinstein says Santa Monica already has progressive campaign spending limitations on the books, which the Oaks Project ignored.
In the wake of the judge’s ruling, the city has a little less money, its reputation for flawless execution is flawed, and it’s still confused about how to enforce a law it believes is flawed.
City officials will discuss the case behind closed doors on Tuesday when they decide whether to appeal Yang’s ruling.
Oaks Project Director Carmen Balber defends the initiative and said the suit is nothing more than an attempt by city officials to thwart a law designed to keep them honest.
“Santa Monica is grasping at straws on this and I’ve been astonished at every turn in this case,” she said. “They are mad we didn’t consult with the powers that be and didn’t get their stamp of approval first. It’s petty politics.”
Originally published in the Santa Monica Daily Press print edition on April 8, 2002. Read the original PDF.