Mailbag: City should request an audit of Team Newport’s campaign finances

City should request an audit of Team Newport’s campaign finances

Recently the Daily Pilot reported that the California Fair Political Practices Commission (FPPC) had opened an investigation into whether Residents for Reform, a political action committee, filed the required disclosures of campaign expenditures and contributions related to the 2014 City Council election.

For the past several months, I have been looking into how the 2014 election was financed. Despite a $1,100 contribution limitation in the municipal code, the campaigns of the Team Newport slate were financed by a few powerful interests giving tens of thousands to committees not subject to the limits. Following all the money spent in the City Council race has been made nearly impossible because funds were funneled through state committees, political parties, independent expenditures and some costs, such as polling and consultants.

These big contributors were not disinterested parties. Some were involved directly, or through their affiliates, in major litigation with the city. Another had major development projects pending in the airport area. Some were major dock owners.

Councilman Scott Poetter’s recent use of the city seal in his attack on the Supreme Court decision on gay marriage takes on added significance when it is understood that a primary campaign donor is a leading opponent of gay rights efforts in California.

I believe the residents of Newport Beach are due an accounting of all of the money spent to take over the council by Team Newport and these special-interest individuals and groups. All of us need to know who had investments in the outcome of the election, and how those contributions may influence council decision-making.

I believe the city should request that the FPPC conduct a full audit of all of the candidates (winners and losers), independent expenditures, slate mail committees and other expenditures spent to influence the election. This is not a witch hunt, or a whitewash, but a commitment to full transparency so that all of us will be able to know exactly to whom our elected officials are beholden.

Jeff Herdman

Newport Beach

*

Undergrounding is expensive

Re. the assertions that undergrounding utilities, at $20,000 per parcel, not including conversion costs, is a bargain, because it works out to $3 per day for 20 years.

There are problems with this statement. The burden being placed on us by the proponents of undergrounding in Assessment District 114, with the help and encouragement of a supposedly neutral city government, is unjust. Many longtime home owners have modest incomes and it will change the way they are able to live without selling their homes.

The suggestion of deferring the assessment until the property is sold doesn’t change the fact that we don’t need undergrounding, and we don’t want it.

Geri Ferguson

Newport Beach, CA