Is Lake Forest For Sale? Part 6 - The Council Acts

 
This is Part 6 in our examination of the influence of special interests in decision making at the City Council. Last time we left off at the point where three city council members who received more than $80,000 for their election campaigns from developers Brookfield and Trumark (and their associates) wanted to go beyond a discussion of the proposed project and offer motions in support of the developers’ desires to be given preferential treatment in the planning process.

The specific agenda item on Feb 5, 2013 had been listed as –

“Discussion of letters submitted by Brookfield Residential and Trumark Homes regarding proposed residential development in the Foothill Ranch Auto Centre”

The staff comment listed under “Recommended Action” was simply “Discuss at the discretion of the City Council.”

There was no mention or even a hint of any action being taken beyond the discussion. Bear in mind that if an action is contemplated, the City staff normally offer their recommendation. Other items on the agenda that night recommended that the council “Award a contract to…”, “Approve three cooperative agreements…”, “Approve the fourth amendment to…” The city staff had a clear recommendation about the developers’ requests for preferential treatment, and had expressed this opinion several times in the past in documents to the Council. Had the staff thought that action by the council was contemplated, they surely would have included their recommendation, which was to deny the developers preferential treatment and proceed with the independent review and additional study. But no such recommendation was made because no such action was contemplated.

In an article from the Voice of Orange County, open government expert Terry Francke was quoted as saying that

“The council's action was not foreseeable from anything stated either on the agenda or in the staff's agenda report, which framed the item as one for discussion…I believe a court would find the action subject to nullification for want of legally adequate notice should someone seek that remedy.”

In the end, the outcome was never in doubt. The three council members who received over $80,000 from these developers in the past elections, voted to allow them to proceed without the additional studies that the City and their fellow (and more experienced) council members advocated.

It was an incredible action. The agenda did not put the public on notice that anything but a discussion would take place, making the action just as inappropriate as the City Attorney ruled at the December 18th meeting when he said that acting on motions then, as requested by Councilman Voigts, was improper because that agenda item was only for “discussion”.

It was equally incredible because the substantive issues raised by the Staff were never addressed, and these issues went to the long term well-being of the City. Here we had inadequate studies submitted by the developers, and all the City staff wanted was to have them updated and two critical questions answered. The cost of insuring that the decision was in the best interests of the City was a mere $25,000 – less than one third of what the developers had spent to elect their candidates. And the delay, as both Herzog and McCullough pointed out, had been caused by the developers, not the City. Indeed, had the developers not postponed the study two months before the election, the additional studies would have been completed long before this meeting.

To top off a series of incredible events, the three council members who received more than $80,000 from the developers never said a word about the money they received and then went ahead and voted for the very people who helped finance their campaigns (In all due deference to Councilman Nick, he had received the benefit of their money through 3rd parties, whereas Voigts and Robinson got the checks directly from the source.).

So here we have another in a long series of case studies about the ways in which special interest money helps shapes the decisions that city council members make. In this case, developers help elect council members who then reversed the decisions of previous council members, despite the recommendations of city staff and more experienced council members that the preferential treatment given the developers was not in the best interests of the city.

Was the law broken?

No.

Did the council members violate their own Code of Ethics?

Yes. Absolutely!

Were the desires of the developers placed above the needs of the City?

Yes. That was the staff’s opinion and if you read this series I’m sure you’ll agree.

Is this the type of action that most people would condemn?

I think so. What do you think?

How can we prevent this from happening in the future?

City council members should not be allowed to vote on any issue where they have received a campaign contribution from one of the principals who stand to benefit from the decision. They should (a) disclose the contribution and (b) not participate in the discussion and vote.

If members of this city council are so morally bankrupt that they don’t see the wisdom in this simple proposal, we need to vote them out of office and put in responsible people whose vote cannot be purchased, leased, or otherwise influenced by campaign contributions. Election 2014 is coming up soon. All three of the council members up for re-election (Herzog, Voigts, and McCullough)  are guilty of taking special interest money, failing to disclose the money when the topic came up, and then voting to give these special interests contracts or concessions that earn these people and businesses millions of dollars. It’s a disgrace, and brings dishonor to our City.