Recommendation to declare ordinance amending the Long Beach Municipal Code by amending Section 2.01.380; and by repealing Section 2.01.390, all relating to officeholder accounts, read and adopted as read.  (Citywide)
Okay. Thank you guys for being here. I really, really appreciate you guys coming out tonight. Thank you. Okay. And again, item 16 with Paul that I want to make sure I mention that again. So we've got a couple more items that were asked to be moved to the moved to the start of the agenda. So we're going to do item 24 next and then item 18, we'll try to get to these items here and they do the public comment as well. Madam Court. Can we read them 24, please? Item 24 is a communication from city attorney. Recommendation to declare ordinance amending the Long Beach Manager Code relating to office holder accounts read and adopted as read City Y. Okay, I know this is the second reading of the ordinance that was in front of us before is actually your public comment. Is there any public comment on this item? Please come forward. And then we'll go to Councilmember Pearce. My name is Steven Downing and I live in Melbourne. Sure. I have commented in writing to my council representative. And all I want to say is, is that. There has been zero. Transparency. On this issue. The memo issued by the. City attorney's office. Today, it was used by this council has not been made. A part of the package is probably about violation of the Brown Act if you consider it. The last time I was here. My only complaint was. There's no. Transparency. So I would recommend to the Council that this item be returned. To committee and the committee produced. Reports. There is nothing on the. Website that tells us any kind of discussion. Of this matter. It is merely a. Move to undo a. Reform movement. In the late nineties. So I recommend that the Council take this back to committee. And treat this matter. With the transparency that a democracy in Long Beach. Deserves. Thank you very much. Thank you, sir. Next speaker, please. Good evening, American Council members. My name is Dan O'Leary. I live in Beaumont, Shaw and Susie's district. I had to come up to speed on this item quickly, but basically I'm urging you to vote no if you do vote. I suggest that Steve is suggesting that we don't do that tonight. I see really no reason to it. What I was able to read, find, and then I did read the deputy city attorney's letter on this was that we're trying to align with. The. State government rules on this, but it's not clear why. And there's some some buzz about there being a constitutional right to be able to transfer money as free speech. That all sounds like it needs a. Lot more vetting. To me. It generally sounds bad if if there is going to be a vote on this and it passes, or is there going to be limits to the amount of money that can be transferred? I think there's a limit to the amount of money you can accumulate in your individual funds from. An individual contributor. There should be some sort of modest limitation on the money that can be transferred. To other candidates. So please. Consider tabling this and. Not doing this tonight. Thank you for your time. Thank you, sir. And I'm going to close the speakers list. The lady there is the last speaker. Next speaker, please. I shall make Mr. Goodhue the last speaker. He's the last speaker? Yes. Good evening. My name is Glenn Stoltz, and I've sent many of you letters regarding this. And my question to all of you in the beginning was, in what way does this benefit the residents of Long Beach? And I received no answers back on that question. The only councilperson who returned an email to me was Gerald Supernova, which I appreciate. A couple of you responded online and but still I didn't get an answer to that question. Additionally, I think that if you were to adopt this sort of ordinance or change this ordinance, that transparency, fair elections and the ability for newcomers to enter into elected offices is diminished, which I don't think is a good thing for the residents of the city. Also, I would also say that the fact that the last meeting was agenda ized as a study or a feasibility for this issue and suddenly turned into a an ordinance change, a rewrite of the ordinance. So there were there was talk of Brown Violation Act in the I think it was the press telegram, but which I think should be considered. Also, Janine Pearce, who introduced this, said that she and her colleagues have been talking about this for a year now. And for that to be true and for nobody here to be able to or willing to write back and express how this benefits the city, I think is pretty outrageous. So, Ivo, I mean, if I were to vote, I would ask you to vote no on this item and put it away. So thank you. Thank you. Madam Speaker, please come forward. Hi. My. My name is running. I'm in the fifth district. I'm against this measure. I mean, let's call it what it is. This does no benefit to the cities, the residents of this city. It only benefits the people here, the elected officials, nobody else. This is like a Kabbalah activity. That's all it is to it. This these funds were specifically put in place to not do this. And you guys are doing this. We have a situation where the mayor has got Lena Gonzalez and and Jimmy Pierce, who were on her election committee. Now they're now they're suddenly they're they're chair people have an election oversight committee and that only the mayor can appoint. And suddenly this thing pops up. There's no no visibility at all of what's taking place. We don't have any any study of what's taking place. So this thing was deliberately trying to be sneaked through through this. I'm I'm just going to say what it is through an obvious way to try to make the residents be sleepy and not know what's taking place. I praise Darrell Super now for speaking up and at least saying, Hey, look, what is this for? Because had he not done that, the residents of Long Beach would not have even known that this thing existed. This is just trying to sneak through. Let's also be honest with this thing that the we want to make things. The state law is a joke. This is just a narrative that's being used by the elected officials to try to take money that is not theirs, that they did not deserve it. They did not even earn it and are going to use it for their own political purposes. That's what it's there for. This is not going to help even people who. Are trying to compete with. The incumbents and do things on their, you know, on their own. And so all I'm saying is we need to get a safe playing field. We need to be honest. And we need to also ask ourselves, why do we bring things in front of the city council when it doesn't do anything whatsoever to benefit the residents? Why is it there? You're only doing this for yourselves. It's a selfish thing to do, and I'm just going to say it straight out. This is what it is and you guys all know it. There's no secret behind it. And the people that know it know that some of these people are going to be reelected. And believe me, you're walking off a plank. Once this thing starts getting known to the public, you all know it. We all know what you did, and we all know who's orchestrating it too. Thank you, sir. Next speaker, please. So thank. You, Mr. Mayor. City council members. City staff. You know, I didn't know much about this issue just until recently, and I feel that it won't decrease transparency or increase transparency, but what it will do is just increase distrust. There is nobody that you've heard so far saying, oh, what a great idea. It's wonderful you're doing this. This is not good. You know, we all see that. We know that. And it feels like it's being rushed through. You don't let the public know about about it. No, I'm not saying receive and file, but I am saying it returned to committee. Let's discuss this. Let the public know more about this. It this looks like a conflict of interest because this will benefit you. It won't benefit us as a person who has contributed to campaigns. In the past. It really makes me not want. To contribute to campaigns. And that's not what you want. You don't want your campaigns by by contributors solely by unions or special interest groups or other characters like that. You want the public to contribute to your campaign. You you want a dollar from every one of us in this city. And that way we all have a part of what's going on. You really don't want this. This is a conflict of interest for you. And what you need to do is put it back. If you want to continue to discuss it, let's all of us discuss it and make it more public. As far as getting in line with the state of California, that's not a reason to do this. It's not a reason at all. Please do what's best for the city of Long Beach and its residents. And Daryl, thank you for your position. And Stacey, happy birthday. We're going to a birthday thing for Stacie at the end of the meeting. So you want to stick around next week? Katonah is that August 7th district. Over 20 years ago, the city council did. Not look like it does today. Previously, there were no district elections. Very few women and people of color were on the council. The council did not look like the city that I lived in over 25 years ago. The city went to district elections for city council and school board. In 94 we redistricted and had our first Latina serve on the council. That same year, the Long Beach campaigning for measure was passed and all was. It was all in an effort to level the playing field so that we could have representation that looks like the city. Well, I think we did some of that. And now our city council more and more reflects its population. Today we have a measure that is over 23 years old. Updating some of the terms of the officeholder account. To be in line with the FEC guidelines is appropriate. The city has a leadership role in the region, like the other 80 cities in the county, by allowing us to utilize age accounts as permitted by law. We can support candidates and officers that have the vision and support policies that help our city and our residents. We have a disadvantage because we are in the minority. And now that majority of cities have a more lax or no campaign contribution limits. Many have rules that allow FCC allowable activities in regards to age accounts, and many have no term limits. And the members that there are some members that have been there for over 20 years on the council in many cases. Long Beach is a leader in the region, but we are at a disadvantage unless we update our rules to adhere to the PCC guidelines. We're also at a disadvantage and should look at limiting our city council terms to three terms like L.A. Most cities around us have no term limits. This hurts us on a regional boards and commissions. We are lucky that our mayor in his first term could get on the MTA and that Ortega was able to get on Coastal Commission in his first term. The environment, transportation issues of clean air and prayer are a priority for a city. But unless we are at the table, we sometimes miss out. Last time we had someone on a committee was over 11 years ago when I was elected to the governing board. It's not a coincidence that the Ports Clean Air Act and plan for early and Long Beach was prioritized because L.A. had a mandatory seat and Long Beach had a seat. Was was elected to a seat. Updating our campaign finance reform is important. And because it makes us more relevant, it makes updating our office so it makes us compliant with the law and it does protect our city from lawsuits. Updating our terms of office is also important. You're all, for all intents and purposes, a part time council, but you get 25% pay. You should get at least 50% compensation. We are a growing city and one that is nearing half a million. Most cities that reach the mark start look that mark start looking at structure and making changes. Even Fresno have a full time council council. They start looking at a strong mayor form of government, start looking at revising campaign reform laws and are appropriate that are appropriate for large cities such as Long Beach. It's like a child that's growing. Sometimes the shoes don't fit anymore, so you have to change them. Or we start looking at clothes our kids can grow into. I support this idea because it protects the city. We need policies, regulations and structures for a growing city. One of the half a million changes needed in the city is growing. Let's promote a political infrastructure that we can grow into it. Thank you. Thank you. Next speaker, please. Hello. My name is Carmen Huxley and I've been a resident in Council District Number three for. At least seven years now. I'm a happy resident. Hasn't always been easy for me and a victim of crime and high. And we're going to be prosecuting it soon because the statute of limitations. Is as long as I'm alive. But at any rate, I wanted to mention and remind the group here that. Our federal government has. Said that money is a form of communication. And if I give my money, I, I didn't do this. But let's just say I support the mayor. If I wanted to give him money for his upcoming reelection, which I hope that someone runs against him. But at any rate, yeah, it's not funny. Thank you. Thank you. And I'm going to sleep better tonight. But anyway, I just like to remind you that money, as far as the federal government is concerned, is a method of communication. So if I'm giving my money to Dr. Garcia, he shouldn't be able to turn around and give that money to Mr. Price. That's all. So please keep that in mind and table this issue. Thank you. Thank you, ma'am. And our final speaker, Mr. Good. Here, please come forward. Yes. Although the speaker two speakers ago essentially articulated what the councilman in your anger would have articulated a word for word. At least she was better looking. As I indicated last week, this clearly does not pass the smell test period. And those that doubt that need to understand the target that is on their back. The convening authorities at the federal level. Well, no, every time you change your jockey shorts. And that's why the stench that flowed from last week's council meeting. In many cases, it's probably not that often. I'm handing out to you something I picked up yesterday. I've had these out to people to help that if they have problems with it, with the stench to put on their nose. And I went out to Home Depot to pick them up and I walked in and I asked the greeter there where they find them. And he sort of laughed. He said, Well, gee, I haven't seen Kossmann since my mother did the laundry. And he said, Well, you might check over there. I found him, came back out, and as I was walking out, he asked, What are those for? And I asked him, first of all, what city do you live in? And he said, Long Beach. And I didn't ask him what district. Isaias explained what was being brought before the council tonight, as well as last night as his instant reaction was, No way. Not at all. Period. No ifs. No answer. No buts. It's corruption. Period. And indeed last week's. Tactic by the mayor to even try to usher it through a little faster by reverting to the Seinfeld. His Seinfeld method of using the Seinfeld's Kramer method of entering into leaving a room, jerking the agenda around, because maybe by that, if he didn't, Councilwoman Pryce would have been in there. And my hope in God is that she would have expressed the same view that I did. Although in more diplomatic terms, this stinks. Period. It will be your legacy. And it will undoubtedly. Lead to at least one, if not two. Joining the mayor is cell mates, period. As soon as we get the federal master in here, which I think is going to be about 120 days period, so bring it back if you want. But no way. And no matter how you launder it, it still comes up as corruption. Period. Thank you, Mr. Good. You. We're going to take this back to the city council now. We have a motion in a second. I'm going to go and turn this over to Councilmember Pearce. Thank you. I wanted to thank everybody for your civic engagement, for staying attuned to what we're doing. It really means a lot that we have a civically engaged community, which is core of what I've tried to do on every single agenda item that I've brought forward. And this one is no different. I want to make it clear on a couple of items. One, to address transparency. It did go to committee and it's now at its last reading. And I want to thank our city attorney for bringing this to our attention. And really, the fact is that this is about eliminating a conflict that we have at the city. This is about nothing more than eliminating a conflict and protecting the city. And so with that being said, I want to say that this simply aligns our rules with the current case law as well, clarifying these issues in his memo today. I really want to ask my colleagues for their support. Thank you so much. Thank you, Councilmember. And I just wanted to make sure, because I think it's it's worth it. Mr. City Attorney, I know you and I had a conversation as well. And I do appreciate, obviously, you kind of laying out the memo and what current state law says. But I want to also just talk about kind of there's two questions I know that I kind of asked you, and I want to just make sure we for the public's purpose that we that you couldn't tell them what you had told me. The recommendation that is in front of us today does approving the recommended change I know it's on its final reading eliminate the current conflict that exists in our code with state law? Mayor Members of the Council. Yes. The the action that we were directed to bring back on the amendment by the City Council to repeal that section will eliminate a potential conflict with state and federal law. Under the Citizens United case, which came out in 2010, and the SEIU versus Fair Political Practices Commission case out of the Ninth Circuit, which talks about the contribution spending restrictions on those findings are political speech, and they've been held to be protected by the First Amendment and that in order there has to be strict judicial scrutiny. And what the council what the ordinance currently reads as a complete ban at this time. So by the elimination of that complete ban, you are being consistent with state and federal law. Thank you. And also and to and through the attorney, I know I asked you this as well, and would you recommend that we approve the change tonight to eliminate this conflict? It would be in the city's interest to eliminate the conflict. At what time the council decides to do that is a policy decision. Thank you, Mr. City Attorney. They are going to go in and go to a couple of council members, controversial panel. Thank you. We had some electronic problems up here, so I apologize for being out of my seat for a while. Let's see if I can regroup. First of all, I'd like to thank everyone for attending tonight and speaking, and I'd also like to thank all the online audience for their civic engagement over the last few days. And thank you all for even emailing me, contacting me, texting me. And for the 100 people that texted me, I know my voicemail is full, but it's been that kind of a weekend. What some of the online comments and I don't think I've ever seen an issue so polarizing. Until tonight, I had not heard anyone in favor of this. 100% of online comments were opposed to this. And one of the things that struck me, because I've been very close to this issue, I sit on the Elections Oversight Committee. So tonight will be my fourth vote on this issue more than any other council member. So I've been seeking answers since a little over a month ago. I think it was March Tuesday, March 14th, when our election oversight committee met. But what struck me about the comments was a couple that said they questioned our ethics and someone said, let's start an ethics class. And someone else responded, right, teach ethics to politicians. Okay. For those of you who don't know, we are required to take ethics training every two years. I served on a commission for seven years. I was also required in that capacity. So since 2007, I've taken the ethics exam every two years, so I'm sort of familiar with it. I think whichever side you are on this issue, this body fumbled the ball. And I'll go back to one of the parts of the the ethics training in involving public perception. He says public service ethics is not only about doing the right thing, but also about the public's confidence that indeed the right thing is being done. That's where I think we failed, because somehow someone got the message that we were just totally self-serving. And that's not our job. Our job is more than doing the right thing, as the training says, we have to communicate to that public. So on behalf of the Council, I apologize to everyone for us not doing that. Now at that. Meeting a little over a month ago. I question the deputy city attorney. She's not here tonight, but anyone could go back and watch the video. I was digging for answers. I asked multiple times, what is behind this? What is the rationale? And that's why I'm suspicious of a document that comes out today in the 11th hour. Why wasn't I told that a month ago that this was the motivation behind this? So for that reason, I will not be supporting this issue tonight. Further to Mr. Parkin's rationale that Citizens United took place in in 2010, and I should say about citizens, you know, you talk about public trust. I think the Bloomberg survey in September 2015 rated that. And I believe 78% of the general population wants Citizens United repealed. So if you wonder why the local folks aren't for this, there's a good rationale right there. But that date, Citizens United was in 2010, SEIU. You gave an earlier date. My question is, if it was a problem in 2010, why did we take the action in 2014? It wasn't an issue in 2014 after the fact. So for those reasons, I really can't support the measure tonight. But again, thank you for all your civic engagement. Thank you, Councilmember. Councilwoman Price. Thank you. I want to thank my colleague, Councilman Supernova. And this is really an issue that, you know, last week the vote happened within a few minutes after the start of the council meeting, which was the first council meeting. I think we have had in my time in office that started exactly of 5 p.m. and I got here at 520 and I missed the vote last week. That is important because I feel that it was one of those decisions that was well-intentioned. I read the memorandum from the city attorney's office today, I think, and I don't know if this is correct, but I believe that what the memorandum is trying to say is that our local ordinance was superseded by state law. Is that right? Councilmember Yes, I think what we're trying to say is that if our ordinance as written, we would if someone were to violate that provision of the ordinance, we would have a difficult time to enforce that restriction on the contributions. So basically the ordinance, as it's written, reflects the intent of those who put the ordinance into place in 1994. But it's not enforceable. This this provision was, I believe, adopted in 1999. But that's correct. Okay. And so I struggle with this because from a legal standpoint, I think there is definitely logic behind why we're doing this. But as those who have followed my thoughts on this issue know, I hate the idea that fundraising is such a big part of local politics. It's really impossible to get in to politics unless you're independently wealthy or unless you're able to raise a lot of money. And I shared that in 2014 when we talked about raising the limits for the officeholder account to begin with. So I have a struggle with the issue personally and morally, although I understand what the state law is. And from a legal standpoint, I understand that we're not in compliance with state law. But but I think it's an issue for me that's much, much bigger than the legal parameters. I do want to acknowledge Councilwoman Councilmember Pearce, because I think she's in a really difficult spot. She is chair of a committee that is in charge of a code that's outdated. And I think there have been efforts to try to update this code for years. So the timing of it is not ideal for her because there has been efforts to try to update this code for many years. So I don't think there's any ill intent behind the the item. I think it really is a clean up item. So with that, I want to thank Councilman Superhot and I, too, will be voting no on this item. Thank you. Members, please go ahead and cast your votes. Bitcoin cash revolts. But not. Voice. Vote for you, please. No. And what is your vote, Mr. Count? My mango. Phone numbers. All the. It's not working. Okay, Councilman Austin. Should I. Oh, okay. No, I'm fine. Okay. Motion carries. Thank you. Okay. We're moving on to the next item, please. Item 18.