Strife of the party: Greens rift deepens over lost loot
Nearly a year after he was cleared of any criminal wrongdoing for allegedly misappropriating a $10,000 political donation, Santa Monica City Councilman Mike Feinstein is still suffering political fallout from the muddled controversy, which now is in the hands of the state Green Party.
At issue is a $10,000 check intended for the Los Angeles Green Party donated by former member Bill Pietz three and a half years ago. Feinstein admittedly took the check and deposited into a private bank account that only he controls.
After more than a year of requests from Green Party officials for Feinstein to hand over his bank records and explain how the money was spent, a subsequent criminal investigation was conducted by the Santa Monica Police Department. But the Los Angeles District Attorney’s Office didn’t file any charges, citing a lack of evidence.
After still more failed attempts by Green Party officials to get Feinstein to disclose where the money went, party members filed a small claims lawsuit against him. But it was dropped, a decision Feinstein was able to be involved in. Feinstein, an elected member of the local Green Party County Council, was both a plaintiff and the defendant in the lawsuit — a fact some Greens contend is a conflict of interest.
Local Greens have recently accused Feinstein of breaking a party bylaw by participating in the vote within the local chapter to drop the small claims lawsuit against him.
In a series of private meetings over the last two weeks, state party officials agreed to review the alleged bylaws violation — which some members hope will force Feinstein out of the party. They’ve also met behind closed doors with Feinstein’s lawyers regarding the missing money. Yet, Feinstein still refuses to explain how exactly the donation money was spent.
“The smartest thing Mike could do at this point would be to open those records,” said local Green Party leader Joe Crompton, a vocal critic of Feinstein. “A lot of people want to just brush this thing under the rug.”
State officials expect resolution on the missing bank records by the end of the year. They have alleged recently that Feinstein deposited still more contributions intended for the state party, in addition to the $10,000 check in question.
Though Feinstein apparently spent some or all of the money on Green Party business, party officials maintain they’re required by state law to report exactly how the money was spent. Several Green Party members also believe they’re still owed several thousand dollars.
The dispute has driven a wedge in the local Green Party that appears to grow more contentious by the week. Some party officials don’t think Feinstein broke any conflicts of interest laws.
The unresolved issue was sent to the state bylaws committee to determine if any rules were indeed broken. The bylaws committee agreed on July 12 that the issue is within the purview of the state’s coordi-nating committee, or general assembly. One of those groups is expected to discuss the matter at a future meeting. Some Greens feel the conflict is serious enough to remove Feinstein from the party.
The controversy has become so divisive that picketers stationed themselves in front of a recent Feinstein fundraiser for reelection to the Santa Monica City Council. Another disgruntled Green Party member said she moved to town solely to fight Feinstein from winning a seat on the City Council.
At the most recent meeting of the County Council, an item to censure Feinstein was at the top of the agenda. However, since Feinstein supporters missed the meeting, the reported unanimous vote in favor of censure wasn’t binding. But it might not have mattered anyway, as Green Party officials said it was unclear whether censure is even permitted under the grassroots party’s bylaws.
Feinstein, a Green Party pioneer who helped establish Los Angeles County as the state’s strongest Green Party base, has refused to comment to the Daily Press about the disputed money.
Pietz has since quit the party, saying he was displeased by both sides’ response.
Supporters point out Feinstein has been cleared of criminal wrongdoing and con-tend that he fears handing over the bank records because they may be used against him politically, though he’s done nothing wrong. As to his participation in the vote to drop the small claims lawsuit, backers hold that it didn’t constitute a conflict of interest because Feinstein spent the money on Green Party business.
“It seems the people who are after Mike Feinstein, they are not into resolving issues, they are into making it more complicated,” said Sara Amir, a member of the County Council. “I don’t think there would be any end to it. If they don’t get their way, they bring something else on.”
On the other side are elected Green Party members like Santa Monica City Councilman Kevin McKeown, who said it’s time to resolve the matter, rather than continue to ignore and delay it.
“We’ve seen the $10,000 check, canceled as deposited by Mike at his credit union. The donor has said in writing that he intended it to go to the County Green Party, not to Mike, who apparently decided how to spend it and on what,” McKeown said. “The law absolutely requires that political expenditures be publicly reported. We all want to put this difficult situation behind us, and we won’t get there by ignoring it or delaying it, but rather by resolving it.”
While they work to help resolve the local dispute, state Green Party officials expressed a desire to promote a local resolution of the matter — an ideal of the grassroots Green Party. Still, the state officials acknowledged that wasn’t likely with the Feinstein controversy.
“It’s a work in progress and we choose not to be police,” said Michael Borenstein, a veteran state Green Party leader from El Dorado and a member of the bylaws committee. “Many people are working very hard, including Mr. Feinstein and the state party. Everybody is on the same page.
“Yeah, there’s a lot of arguing going on, but everybody in their heart wants the same thing,” Borenstein added. “I know it doesn’t look like it.”
Beth Moore Haines, a Green spokeswoman, said officials are trying hard to keep the controversy from tarnishing the reputation of the underdog party. The state is only getting involved as a last-ditch effort, she added.
“The state tries very hard not to be involved in local issues,” she said. “We respect our grassroots democratic mechanisms. We pride ourselves in being different from other parties, in that it’s not orders from on high on how to run things.”
Originally published in the Santa Monica Daily Press print edition on July 24, 2004. Read the original PDF.