Bob Lingl's Biggest Campaign Donors

Since I became a member of Team Linn, I've been taking a crash course on campaign financing.

When candidates run for public office, they are required to file forms, so the public can see who they're getting their money from and what they're spending it on. This is called TRANSPARENCY, and needless to say, I LOVE it.  Louis Brandeis, known as the "People's Lawyer" and later a Supreme Court Justice, wrote:

If the broad light of day could be let in upon men’s actions, it would purify them as the sun disinfects.

So I went down to City Hall and asked for - and received - all of our opponent's finance forms.

I learned a couple of things about the 2014 Mayoral race that I think are worth putting out in the sunshine. These are the facts - it's up to Lompoc voters to decide whether they matter.

In his 2014 campaign for Mayor, Bob Lingl spent $23,048.49 to get elected. It was probably the most expensive campaign in Lompoc history.  (John spent less than half that on his campaign - a total of $10,477.20.) And the break-down is interesting. More than half of Bob Lingl's money in 2014 came from just two sources.

Big E Produce, a successful agricultural enterprise with property inside and outside the City limits, donated $9,900. IBEW Local 1245, the union that represents most City employees, donated $2,548. These are two powerful organizations whose interests may or may not align with regular Lompoc residents. (Also - a minor point - these donations were not reported properly. But never mind. Paperwork is such a drag. Update: click here for FPPC Chapter 10 of the Campaign Manual which details additional reporting requirements for donations of $1000 or more.) 

Here's another fact. On his website, when he asked his supporters to donate to his campaign, he wrote:

"A successful campaign will take time and money.  I promise to put in the necessary time and I have already started my campaign fund with $2000 of my own money.  Can I count on your help?"

Screen shot from electboblingl.org (2014 campaign)

Maybe it's just me? When I read that, I thought he was saying he had actually donated his own money to his campaign. A campaign will "take time and money," he said, and he seemed to commit to putting in both.  Didn't he?  Well, I have no way of quantifying the amount of time he put into his campaign, but it appears that he put in ZERO dollars. According to his financial disclosures, in 2014 Bob Lingl LOANED $3,917 to his own campaign, and then took it back after the election.

Apparently, loaning money to your campaign is completely legitimate, and politicians do it all the time.  It's seed money: a way to get the ball rolling, until the first donations come in. But generally they don't CLAIM they are giving money to their campaign, if it's only a LOAN. Lingl spent over $20K of other people's money to get elected - but NONE of his own money. Hmmm... said he was committing time and money... actually did not commit any money.  To me, this seems to undermine his proclaimed resolve to "Keep Ethics and Morality in Lompoc."

For the current election cycle, on his new and improved website, our opponent again asks for money, and again says that he has "started" his campaign with $2000 of his "own money." (He also sent out letters that claim he's giving $2500 - but whether it's $2000 or $2500, I guess it doesn't matter, if he plans to get it all back at the end.)

Screen shot from electboblingl.org (2016 campaing)

letter, 2016 campaign

So what are the possible "take-aways" from this?

If you are a Lingl supporter who is thinking of contributing to his campaign, you might want to ask your guy if he's going to chip in some bucks as well.  (For real. Permanently.)

If you haven't already decided which candidate to vote for, you will have to determine whether or not Bob Lingl's actions are "open" and "transparent" - if they exemplify "Keeping Ethics and Morality in Lompoc."  How much does it matter to you, that he relies on big donors who have very particular goals for our City government?

If you are a Linn supporter: Please understand that this is going to be another expensive election - and Lingl is probably going to get big money from a few donors. John doesn't want big money from a few donors - he's asking for a little money from LOTS of donors.  He's already donated $900 of his "own money" - an actual, never-get-it-back contribution, for real. Now it's your turn.

Money is how we get the word out. Money pays for campaign mailers, signs, ads, videos, Facebook boosts, door hangers - all of which reach different types of voters.

 Please click on the donate button RIGHT NOW.  (Do it NOW.  You'll forget, if you don't. It's super easy and quick.) Give what you can.

Also, share this post with friends and family members who care about our City and want Linn for Lompoc.

GO AHEAD! Click it! See what happens!

Important update! 9/12/2016: Mayor Lingl, having read this post, has taken the time to inform me that the FPPC reporting rules (for donations over $1000) are new for 2016, and therefore he wouldn't have been expected to follow them in 2014.  I find it interesting that he defends himself against a charge that I referred to only parenthetically, and as a "minor point" and "paperwork" - but he has NO response, so far, regarding the big donors or his own campaign "contribution." 

Joining Team Linn

So. John Linn is running for Mayor, and I am a member of Team Linn.  The Mayoral campaign has already been mentioned a couple of times on this blog (The Gadfly reported exclusively on Bob Lingl's announcement of his reelection campaign here, and you can find Ean Behr's "A Call for Civility" here.)

For the next few months, I will post some random thoughts (- feelings - concerns - questions -) about the campaign on Lompoc Gadfly. First, allow me to briefly explain, how I found myself in this mess. (Just kidding, John.)

John and I have been friends for a few years now - I met him through my sister, who's known him for decades. He's tried to find me a tenant for the old Gemini Theatre space.  We've spent a lot of time talking about Lompoc and how to make it better for everyone.  I've learned a lot about City politics from our conversations.

Back in May, John asked me to help him get reelected.  He had been watching me pursue my eternal quest for transparency at Council meetings. He had learned that I was willing to make a stand, if I thought I could do some good.

So here's my stand.  I support John because, unlike his opponent, he wants to grow Lompoc - jobs, shopping, recreation, and entertainment.  I've seen him in action and I've seen the results of his dedication.   He doesn't just TALK about making Lompoc better - he works hard to make it happen.

And there's more.  John Linn has promised me that he will help increase PUBLIC PARTICIPATION in City government.  He has promised me improved TRANSPARENCY.

Yes, I absolutely DO trust him.  Absolutely. In spite of the relentless attacks on John's character starting before the 2014 election and continuing now - I KNOW John.  He is a big-hearted, smart-as-hell boy scout, who never fails to do what he thinks is right, even when he is driving everyone around him CRAZY (just kidding, John).

John is not a perfect candidate, and he won't be a perfect Mayor.  But he is MY CHOICE for Mayor, and I trust that he will make good things happen for Lompoc.

The Perils of "Relying on Staff"

Jane writes an open letter to her favorite Councilmembers:
_____________________________________________

Dear Councilmembers Holmdahl, Mosby, Starbuck, and Vega,

On December 1, 2015, I stood before you at a Council meeting and said: “I am going to try to save you from the trust you have placed in your City Attorney.”

July, 2016: I'm still trying.

To that end, let me point out just a few of the ways in which Mr. Joseph Pannone has lately failed you.

On September 16, 2015, Mr. Pannone recommended a closed session meeting, during which the Council decided to issue a Notice of Default to the California Space Center. The County District Attorney's Office has now informed you that this closed session meeting was a violation of the Brown Act. According to Chief Deputy District Attorney Scott, Mr. Pannone’s “expansive reading of the real property exception is not supported by law” (June 16, 2016, my emphasis). This is not a "difference of opinion," as Mayor Lingl would have you believe. When your City Attorney has a "different opinion" from the County District Attorney and the State Attorney General, that makes him wrong.

On November 3, 2015, Mr. Pannone agendized a closed session meeting, during which he apparently convinced the Council that he should send an improper "unconditional commitment" letter in response to my "cease and desist" request.  The unconditional commitment was decided upon in secret (instead of in open session as the Brown Act requires). The letter was signed by Mr. Pannone (instead of by the Mayor as the Brown Act requires, Section 54960.2).

On November 10, 2015, after I informed your City Attorney that the unconditional commitment letter was an unlawful response, he backtracked and said he never intended it to be an "unconditional commitment" letter.  Seriously.  Read my blog post, "Dissed," to remind yourself of how blatantly underhanded and ill-intended this letter was.  It should matter to you because, by informing you of his plan during the closed session (as I can only assume he did), he made you - deWayne Holmdahl, Jim Mosby, Dirk Starbuck, and Victor Vega - you, jointly and severally, complicit in this disrespectful ploy.

On December 1, 2015, Mr. Pannone continued his efforts to limit public discussion of my request by adding it to a Council agenda as a "consent calendar item," even though the Brown Act clearly states that an unconditional commitment must be approved “in open session at a regular or special meeting as a separate item of business and not on its consent calendar” (54960.2(c)(2), my emphasis).

On March 15, 2016, Mayor Lingl unilaterally switched the order of two agenda items during a Council meeting, which is against the rules, according to your City Council Handbook. When I raised the issue during public comment, Mayor Lingl told me FOUR TIMES that switching the order of agenda items was at his discretion.

Here are the relevant sections from your City Handbook:

B2.5 Order of Business
[...]The Presiding Officer should call the meeting to order promptly at the time set, and the business of the Council will be taken up for consideration and disposition in the order set forth in the published agenda, except that, with the consent by acclamation of two-thirds of the members present, items may be taken out of order.  See, also, Section B6.3 of this Handbook.

B6.3 Supermajority Requirements
Motions which limit a procedure designed to allow the expression of all points of view or which may affect public access to Council deliberations require a “supermajority” vote.  One example is a change in order of the published agenda, which can cause persons relying on the published order to miss the opportunity to observe or speak on the issue prior to Council action. 

Mayor Lingl called me the morning after the meeting, to admit that he was wrong.  But here's what I find most remarkable: Mr. Pannone sat silently on the dais and watched the entire painful exchange. Your City Attorney, remember, is your parliamentarian, and is supposed to be ensuring that you follow your own rules. Watch the video, starting at 3:04:05.

On May 17, 2016, a member of the public (Ruth McKenna) made Mayor Lingl uncomfortable by asking the City Council a direct question. You can see it here. After Ruth was shut down, watch Mr. Pannone step in to defend Mayor Lingl, starting at about 31:40 on the video.  Your City Attorney stated:

Mr. Mayor, just for the public to know, the public comment period is an opportunity for the public to give comment, it’s not to create a situation of dialogue between the council and the public. The purpose is for the public to give comment.

Mr. Pannone's statement is incorrect. During comment periods, members of the public may, according to your Council Handbook, ask questions. It is up to the Presiding Officer - the Mayor - to decide whether or not he wants to answer a question or allow other Councilmembers or City Staff to answer a question. (See Sections B2.3, B2.4, and B4.9 of your City Council Handbook, which all reference the appropriateness of members of the public asking questions.)

On June 7, 2016, when Councilmember Mosby made a detailed motion to restart the Motorsports Park Project, and it was clear that Councilmember Vega also had a printed version of that motion, your City Attorney said:

I see you holding a piece of paper, and I see Councilman Vega holding a piece of paper, and you mentioned – and you mentioned – that it’s something that Mr. Mosby had. If that’s something that you gave Mr. Vega, then what we need to do is make the copies of it so the public can have it.

Well. What Mr. Pannone did here is wrong on SO many levels.

Your City Attorney, while calling out Mr. Mosby and Mr. Vega in public, insinuated that the Council might have acted improperly, or even unlawfully. To be clear: the lawyer that you hired to protect the interests of the City publicly called attention to what he believed might be an unlawful act.

Even worse: Mr. Pannone had no valid reason to assume that anything inappropriate had happened. That Councilmembers Vega and Mosby each had a copy of the same document should not been surprising. Councilmembers often all receive copies of the same documents (besides the agenda packet). For example, I sent identical letters to each of you about the California Space Center project. I'm sending you each identical letters right now, and surely other residents have done the same thing, regarding various topics. As I understand it, any such documents would appropriately be considered part of the public record. Incidentally, Mr. Mosby had already read the motion into the public record.

Further, Mr. Pannone had no reason to assume that Councilmembers Vega and Mosby had discussed the piece of paper with each other (which would have been lawful), and no reason to assume that they had discussed it with a third Councilmember (which would have been a "serial" meeting, and thus unlawful according to the Brown Act). Perhaps, if he was genuinely concerned about the Brown Act (I have my doubts), a private discussion after the meeting would have been proper.  But if his aim, in this case, was to cast general suspicion on two Councilmembers, a public interrogation was much more effective.  It should go without saying: this is not how lawyers are supposed to protect the interests of their clients.

To sum up, let's review some of the many ways in which your City Attorney has been wrong.

• Wrong about the real property exception to closed session meetings.
• Wrong on how to write an unconditional commitment letter to conform with the Brown Act.
• Wrong by putting the unconditional commitment letter on the agenda as a consent calendar item.
• Wrong in allowing Mayor Lingl to switch agenda items unilaterally.
• Wrong about the appropriateness of questions during public comment periods.
• Wrong that any "piece of paper" held by two Councilmembers is part of the public record and should be immediately copied and distributed to the public.
• Wrong to publicly insinuate that two Councilmembers had violated the Brown Act.

Important to note, gentleman, that this is certainly an incomplete accounting. These are the errors and omissions that I have witnessed in the past several months. I shudder to think about the quality of advice he's offered out of public view.

Please ask yourselves: Why do you still trust your City Attorney?

Sincerely,

/s/ Jane C. Behr

A Call for Civility

A guest post from Mr. Ean Behr:

This is a call for civility. This is a call to remember that come November 9, no matter who becomes our Mayor (not to mention our President), we will still be neighbors. We will still run into one another at fundraisers and in grocery stores. We will still, it is to be hoped, be able to look one another in the face, unashamed of things we've written in the heat of the moment from the safety and comfort of our keyboards.

This is an election year. This is a time of change. People get emotional about change. We feel hopeful or fretful about what the future will bring into our lives. We want more of the good stuff for the place we live and love, not less. We want the bad things, as we understand them, to stop. It worries us sometimes, makes us angry sometimes, makes us sad sometimes. It is deeply important to us and we take it very personally. We want to protect the things we love. That is understandable.

We are making it ugly...and dangerous.

We live in a democracy. In a democracy, you can disagree with a candidate's vision for the future; it is your right and more, your obligation. You can take exception to his or her political philosophy in general, think it's bad for the City or the Country. You can certainly disagree with that politician's interpretation of the facts pertinent to a policy position. Those are fundamental tenets of political discourse in civil, democratic societies. What you may not do is engage in attack on the character of the person. What you do not want to do is say publicly to that person what you would never say face to face. In civil societies, we do not accost someone in a public or private venue and attack her or his character. You would not, I sincerely hope, come up to me at an LHS football game or in the bathroom at a City Council meeting and call me a liar to my face. Full stop. You would not accuse me of being untrustworthy. Period. There is all the difference in the world between telling me you fundamentally disagree with my stance on an issue and bashing me as a person. Why? Because even if you truly believe those things, you would not (or should not) say them because it is uncivil, it is beneath your dignity, and it serves no higher purpose. All it does is urge the conversation into a downward spiral, one from which we both will somehow have to recover if we are to continue any pretense at civility in the future.

The mayoral election cycle has barely begun and it is already heading into that downward spiral. We are already engaging in name-calling and fear mongering and pot shots. All too rarely do I see on Facebook someone say something along the lines of, “I know what I want for Lompoc and based on what he's done in the past, he doesn't share my vision for this city.” Or, “If I had to pick between two future Lompocs, I'd pick the one that X wants.” Or, “I like the direction the City is going in and I think it's getting there because of him (or in spite of him)." Or, “He'll make sure ABC doesn't get out of hand.” Those are useful comments. Those help other Lompocans consider their own hopes for the future of their city, whether they believe it is good the way it is, or needs to change in ways.

Maybe you're for Lingl; maybe you're for Linn. Maybe you think neither of these men can do a satisfactory job with your city and you want some hoped-for third option. You cannot be blamed for how you feel, only for how you behave.

I am a member of Team Linn. All the members of Team Linn are on John's campaign website: linnforlompoc.com. We're right out there for all to see. So, you may choose to filter out what I'm writing here. You may decide to discount it as just more political hooey. I hope you will not. John and his team have no control over how his opponent—or opponents, as the case may be—choose to run their campaigns. We have no control over how Lompocans conduct themselves on social or traditional media. We can only say what we will do—and will not do. We will, in every situation, speak only to policies with which we disagree, not to the character of the people who support them. Yes, we will call out behaviors we believe are inappropriate and unhelpful, swiftly and forcefully. Likewise, we will express firmly our stance on every plank of John's and every other candidate's platform. But we will never engage in ad hominem attacks on our opponents, their supporters, or anyone else. Because we will always remember that they are, first and foremost, our neighbors, our colleagues, and oftentimes our friends.

There are ways to fight to protect the things you love and want to preserve. Some of which will make us better at being community members; others of which will lead to smoldering resentment. Some can lead to serendipitous outcomes; others only to a City on the verge of a meltdown. Both have happened to cities before. It's entirely up to us. Only we can decide which scenario to aim for.

Mayor Bob Lingl Announces Reelection Campaign

Last week Mayor Lingl publicly announced that he would be running for reelection. He has decided that he wants to be our Mayor for two more years.  This would seem to count as “news,” so I’m not sure why his announcement hasn’t received any attention. But never fear: this Intrepid Girl Reporter was on the scene.

Bob was one of the "dignitaries" at a dinner hosted by the Santa Barbara County Action Network (SBCAN). The event was held in the fancy ballroom of the Santa Maria Radisson, and most of the attendees were residents of Santa Maria and Santa Ynez Valley.

Ron Fink, one of Mayor Lingl's closest advisers, has written bitter tirades against SBCAN and its members; are Fink and the Mayor at odds where SBCAN is concerned? Fink's vitriol seems unwarranted, but on one point, at least, I can agree with him. He writes: SBCAN “is about 180 degrees out of sync with the thoughts and ‘politics’ of the people that I encounter in Lompoc.” 

It's not that I have anything against SBCAN. It was a very nice dinner (salmon). Two Lompoc residents were honored at the event, receiving awards for their service to our community. But I have to admit, Ean and I felt a bit uncomfortable with that crowd.  We sat in the back and tried to convince our table-mates that Lompoc's Motorsports Park Project might not be such a bad idea.  The posh-looking lady from Buellton and Joan Hartmann (Valley resident and candidate for 3rd District S.B. County Supervisor) flared their nostrils ever so slightly. Not motorcross fans, apparently. "You don't want to become a mini-Santa Maria," warned the posh lady. Thankfully, the cash bar stayed open throughout the entire event, and Ean was the Designated Driver.

I wasn't surprised to hear that Mayor Lingl has decided to run for another term. But I'm puzzled that he didn't tell us - Lompoc residents - here in Lompoc, before he announced it to a banquet hall full of SBCAN members and other "North County" guests and "dignitaries."  

One of Five City Council Members Willing to Talk Transparency

[This is Part 2 of my discussion of the March 15 City Council Meeting; Part 1 is here.]

At the end of the March 15 City Council meeting, I asked the Council "to agendize the topic of transparency with the goal of having a public discussion, with public input, on ways to increase the openness of city government."

The Council's reply was:

YOU WANT THE TRANSPARENCY? [sneer]
YOU CAN'T HANDLE THE TRANSPARENCY! [spittle flying over the dais]

Just kidding.

They didn't say "no" with a bang, but with a whimper. Not a single Councilmember flipped the switch of his little "I have something to say" light. Thus, the City Council decided AGAINST a public discussion to improve transparency.

How discouraging.

But I found out on Wednesday that at least one City Councilmember DOES, after all, want to talk about transparency.  Councilmember Mosby has decided to host a public discussion - on Tuesday, April 12, 6 - 7:30 pm, in the Grossman Gallery of the Lompoc Public Library.

Yes, there are still four City Councilmembers who don't want to talk about the importance of open government. But I like to look on the bright side.

Here's our chance, Lompoc.  Let's make sure our voices are heard. Let's demand a more transparent city government. The Council needs to be reminded, as noted in the Brown Act:

The people of this State do not yield their sovereignty to the agencies which serve them. The people, in delegating authority, do not give their public servants the right to decide what is good for the people to know and what is not good for them to know. The people insist on remaining informed so that they may retain control over the instruments they have created.

Here's a link to the Lompoc Record article:

Lompoc councilman plans forum to discuss government transparency

Update: I am VERY sorry to report that I was out of town visiting family when the forum was held, but I read about it here:

Forum focuses on improving public participation in local government

... and the Record did a nice editorial on this subject:

Working together for success

... and here is another opinion, published in the Record a few days later:

Making the most of true transparency

District Attorney's Office Investigates Lompoc City Council

Happy Sunshine Week!

Sunshine Week is an annual celebration of government transparency that’s coordinated by the American Society of News Editors and the Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press.
2016 marks the 11th year that Sunshine Week has sparked dialogue and reporting, nation-wide, to spotlight the efforts and commitments of those who demand open and accountable government at all levels.

Seems like an apt time for an update on my Transparency Quest, especially since I just got an email from Chief Deputy District Attorney of Santa Barbara County, Kelly Scott, to let me know that she is writing a letter of inquiry to the Lompoc City Council, regarding my Brown Act complaint.

When I first talked to Kelly Scott, I asked her if she remembered the details of her previous investigation of the Lompoc City Council.  She did, of course, and her first question was, is that City Attorney still there? What was his name? Joseph Pannone, I replied.  Oh, aahhhh, she said, yes, I remember him.

This is happening a little less speedily than I might have wished - I TRY to be patient - but the good news is, Ms. Scott HAS initiated the investigation and is reviewing my cease and desist letter and other related documents.

So I shared my good news with the City Council.  From the meeting on March 15, here's the text of my public comment:

I have been reminded – and I’m here to remind the city council now - that “The wheels of justice grind slowly, but they grind exceedingly fine.”  The Santa Barbara County District Attorney’s office is investigating my Brown Act complaint and your improper response to my cease and desist letter.  On March 7th I was informed that the Chief Deputy District Attorney, Kelly Scott, is planning to write a letter of inquiry to your City Attorney.  You might recognize the name – Kelly Scott –  since Ms. Scott is the same attorney who wrote a cautionary letter, the last time the city council was accused of a Brown Act violation.  

At that time Mayor Lingl, you were quoted by the Lompoc Record as follows: “I’m going to be leading the city down a path of openness - as opposed to personal agendas, micromanagement, and legal actions by the district attorney’s office.”  

I am here to give you a heads up about this most recent District Attorney’s inquiry, so you’ll have some thinking time on what a “path of openness” might look like in this case. Otherwise, when Mr. Pannone gets the letter from Ms. Scott, I’m afraid he will draft a reply without consulting with you, in an attempt to make the whole thing disappear quietly.  I’m afraid that you’ll be gobsmacked into silence and acquiescence – that you’ll decide to follow the advice of your attorney without question. I think that would be a mistake.  Instead, I think you might want to back the train up, and take a serious look at when the council is permitted to have closed sessions.

Mayor Lingl, you stated, “I always have, and I will, operate with complete transparency.” In fact, all of you have said, publicly and repetitively, that the city council is committed to transparency.

I don’t believe that to be true any longer, but please, prove me wrong.  Prove your commitment by putting transparency on the agenda of a future city council meeting.  Schedule a workshop on the importance of open government, and ask for the public’s feedback and input.  Invite a Brown Act expert to Lompoc, to educate you and other interested citizens.  

Or, you could do nothing. But if that’s your choice, please, stop telling the citizens of Lompoc that you’re committed to transparency.

Coming up: For Part 2, I was planning on the rather depressing post title: City Council Decides Against Transparency Discussion. But since the meeting, there has been a positive development - read about it here: One of Five City Council Members Willing to Talk Transparency.