Panel on Secession Issues Draws Fire for Closed-Door Committee Session

A Los Angeles County panel considering rules requiring financial disclosure by groups that lobby on municipal secession issues barred the public from its discussions, drawing criticism from politicians and ethics experts.

A subcommittee of the Los Angeles County Local Agency Formation Commission took testimony from the head of the Los Angeles Ethics Commission on Thursday, then asked that city official and the public to leave. The discussion then continued behind closed doors.

“It’s unfortunate,” said LeeAnn Pelham, acting executive director of the Ethics Commission after she left the meeting. “It’s ironic that it is a closed session to talk about public disclosure.”

County Supervisor Zev Yaroslavsky, a LAFCO member who is not on the committee, also was critical of the decision in an interview later in the day.

“I don’t think that’s appropriate,” Yaroslavsky said, arguing that because LAFCO is subject to open-meeting requirements imposed by the state’s Brown Act, a committee of the agency should be also.

A lawyer for the county counsel’s office who attended the meeting called the session a workshop and therefore not subject to the state open-meeting law.

“I don’t know why they wouldn’t let the public attend even if it is not subject to the Brown Act,” Yaroslavsky said. “There is nothing to hide. I’m very disappointed to hear that.”

Pico Rivera City Councilwoman Beatrice Proo, who chairs the LAFCO subcommittee, said the panel wanted to discuss the issues in an informal setting without the public in attendance.

“We need to be able to take our coats off,” Proo told Pelham and other members of the public as she asked them to leave. “I just want to have the opportunity to study this and ask questions about the whole process and put my thoughts together.”

Ethics Experts Ask for Open Meeting

The meeting was held in the office of county Supervisor Yvonne Brathwaite Burke, who attended the closed-door session as a member of LAFCO and the subcommittee.

The subcommittee was asked to recommend ways of exercising the agency’s newly granted power to adopt rules requiring disclosure of those who finance municipal session proposals and those who lobby on the issue. LAFCO is studying secession proposals for Hollywood, the San Fernando Valley and the Harbor area.

Valley VOTE officials have said they spent $500,000 to qualify petitions that triggered the San Fernando Valley secession study, but they have refused to release a list of donors. Valley VOTE has confirmed only that top donors in 1998 included the Daily News of Los Angeles, Los Angeles Police Commissioner Bert Boeckmann and Los Angeles Fire Commissioner David Fleming.

Ethics officials have argued that the public has a right to know which special interests are bankrolling efforts to break up Los Angeles. It was criticism of the lack of disclosure that led to a new state law which authorizes LAFCO to require such public reporting.

Proo opened the session Thursday by calling for anyone from the public who wanted to address the subcommittee to speak.

Pelham urged the subcommittee to adopt rules requiring disclosure of lobbying activity by any person receiving $1,000 or more in compensation in any calendar quarter for attempting to influence LAFCO, its members or its staff.

If the threshold is reached, Pelham’s proposal would require the lobbyist to file quarterly reports with details on the lobbyist, the lobbyist’s client, total payments received, total expenses and a description of the issue being lobbied on. Lobbyists would also be required to report any gift or political contribution made by or delivered to a commission member, staff member or LAFCO consultant.

“It’s important for people to be aware of who is trying to influence the LAFCO decision makers,” Pelham said.

LAFCO is also considering adopting Los Angeles County rules requiring lobbyists to register and disclose activity and funding if they are paid or promised $1,000 in a month, or make at least five direct contacts in any two month period.