AS I SEE IT
There’s been a lot of news the last few days about whether the Bayside District Corp. should publish answers to questions on local issues posed to city council candidates.
The issue whether city-established and city-funded advisory boards and commissions should take public political stands is an easy one for me: Taxpayer-supported entities should not be engaged in any political activity, whatsoever.
The BDC is funded by the city and is a non-profit corporation created to promote business on the Third Street Promenade, as well as manage it.
The Bayside staff drafted questions covering topics such as parking, transient feedings, desirability of shopping downtown, the living wage, development and zoning.
The nine city council candidates were asked to submit brief answers to be printed verbatim and without commentary in the September issue of the Bayside Beat, a monthly newsletter distributed free to 2,000 downtown businesses and interested residents.
Some council candidates and at least one Bayside director, Art Harris, argued that the BDC should not be conducting a candidate’s survey because the organization is city-authorized and therefore it should not be involved in political activity.
During Wednesday’s emergency board of directors meeting, called by Harris, the issue was hotly debated. Harris pointed out the organization’s own bylaws made it clear that the BDC shall not “authorize or reimburse any director or staff for expenses incurred in the support of nominees to the board nor involvement in political activity.”
Harris stated that because it was illegal for the board to spend money on “involvement in political activity,” they should cease all work regarding the candidate survey. Pending an opinion from the city attorney as to whether publishing candidate comments violates BDC bylaws, the Bayside board voted to roll the presses and publish the comments this month. However, the presses won’t roll until the city attorney weighs in on the matter.
Political involvement is nothing new for city-authorized boards and commissions. Even though most of these organizations’ mission statements and bylaws do not permit political activity, a couple of commissions have pushed the envelope anyway.
Last spring, the Commission on Older Americans brazenly and publicly supported Measure U, Santa Monica College’s $160 million bond issue. They were told that some bond money was earmarked for the Emeritus College. So, they endorsed the bonds even though there was nothing in their charter that allowed them to do so.
Recently, after a plea from Mayor Michael Feinstein, the Social Services Commission voted to request the city to send a letter to Gov. Gray Davis, asking for a moratorium on the death penalty in California.
Reaction was quick and negative with many critics complaining that the Social Service Commission was not created to speak for the citizens of Santa Monica. In doing the mayor’s bidding, it appears that the SSC prostituted itself and may have violated its own charter at the same time.
More than a year ago, the SSC considered supporting the living wage ordinance, and entertained opposing a proposed municipal ordinance that would prohibit people from residing in vehicles on public property.
Wisely, the SSC took no official position on either issue although its board has recently debated whether they should take stands on proposed city ordinances as well as ballot measures. However, I see nothing in their mission, or in the Powers and Duties of the Commission (Section 2.60.030 of the municipal code), that allows the SSC to publicly advocate positions on political issues.
The BDC and most of the other boards and commissions were mostly created to advise city council and to make city government aware of certain issues and conditions important to the community within their purview.
A board or commission is not a two-lane street, my friends. And, these organizations must stop exceeding their authority and refrain from using the city bully pulpit to editorialize and campaign on issues.
Because most board and commission members are political appointees, the groups should scrupulously avoid becoming shills for their benefactors and cronies, as well as propagandizers for their own personal agendas.
Commissions and boards are chartered to carry our message to those who govern. It’s not the other way around. (Bill Bauer is a 25-year resident of Santa Monica and a freelance writer.)
Originally published in the Santa Monica Daily Press print edition on September 6, 2002. Read the original PDF.