Council disagrees over whether public should know
All seven Santa Monica City Council members have met privately with the developer of a multi-million dollar Main Street project, but only three of them want the public to know about it.
“It’s nobody’s business who I meet with,” said Councilman Herb Katz. “I don’t think (disclosure) is important. What difference does it make?”
Developer Howard Jacobs wants to build the largest housing and retail development Main Street has seen in years. Elected officials met with him so he could better describe the details of the architecture and schematics of the plan.
All council members say meeting with a developer beforehand helps them understand the project better and gives them the ability to do their homework without taking up too much of the public’s time during hearings. They also said they have not been influenced one way or another about the proposal, and have discussed the project with many of their constituents through telephone conversations, e-mails and in person.
Council members Pam O’Connor, Ken Genser, Bob Holbrook and Katz said they didn’t intend to tell the public they met with Jacobs. Council members Richard Bloom, Kevin McKeown and Mayor Mike Feinstein said they planned to disclose their private conversations with Jacobs during tonight’s city council meeting.
With the exception of Holbrook and Feinstein, council members said they only listened to Jacobs’ plans and were careful not to discuss the project at any length.
Feinstein said he discussed the changes Jacobs has made in the plans since it was reviewed and denied by the planning commission Dec. 5. They discussed the “trade offs” of doing some things different and possible “nips and tucks” in the development plans, he said.
“I need to understand why people have done what they’ve done,” Feinstein said, adding that it benefits the community if he understands the project fully before it’s reviewed in public. “I’m pretty confident that the public is being well served here.”
Holbrook said Jacobs told him the city process has delayed the project, which has made him “financially stressed.”
Private, or ex parte, communication between elected officials and developers is forbidden in some cities, while other quasi-judicial bodies choose to meet with people prior to a public hearing on a development proposal.
In Santa Monica, whether or not elected officials should disclose they had private conversations is debated. Some people, including Santa Monica senior land use attorney Barry Rosenbaum, feel full public disclosure on ex parte communication should be mandatory.
Rosenbaum presented reams of case law to the Santa Monica Planning Commission in 2000, providing ample reasons why full public disclosure is not discretionary, but required. He also advised planning commissioners that if they don’t disclose ex parte communication, they must disqualify themselves on the review of a land use application.
Planning chair Kelly Olsen said such disclosure lets the public know that officials may have been improperly influenced and it may give reasons that underly an official’s decision on a land use proposal. But more importantly, Olsen feels talking to developers privately could slant a decision maker’s mind because he or she is gaining evidence outside of a public forum.
It is policy for planning commission members to disclose any information they received regarding a development proposal before the hearing is opened to the public. Olsen wants the city council to do the same and plans to ask council members this month to adopt a policy to disclose their ex parte communications. The city’s architectural review board also discloses ex parte communications prior to hearings.
But Mayor Feinstein and others feel strongly that the council should not have such a policy. Feinstein said disclosure could actually impede the process, fearing it would become mundane because he would have to cite each time he had a conversation, an interaction or anything regarding a proposal. Feinstein also said he planned to meet with Jacobs for a second time on Monday, but declined to disclose where and when.
O’Connor said full disclosure could stifle the democratic process because people may fear their concerns and comments could end up in public.
“I was elected to council to use my discretion,” said O’Connor. “Am I going to disclose every single person I talk to? People expect to have access to me but they don’t expect me to say what I talked to everyone about.”
“I was elected to council to use my discretion. Am I going to disclose every single person I talk to? People expect to have access to me but they don’t expect me to say what I talked to everyone about.” — — PAM O’CONNOR Santa Monica city councilwoman
City attorney Marsha Moutrie said disclosure on ex parte communication has been discussed at the council level in the past. At times, she has advised elected officials that not disclosing could pose risks to their ultimate decision. She said she would support a full disclosure policy.
Originally published in the Santa Monica Daily Press print edition on February 12, 2002. Read the original PDF.