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." 

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."  

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.

The Mayor's Platform

When I watch the December 1 City Council meeting, what strikes me most is the absolute SILENCE of Councilmembers Mosby, Starbuck, and Vega.  Not one word. No questions about the Brown Act. No discussion about various interpretations, no review of the letter that I found to be "intentionally misleading." No effort to reassure the public of their professed commitment to transparency.

Councilmember Holmdahl at least offered a single half-hearted question: he asked the City Attorney if he had any response to public comments. Mr. Joseph Pannone basically reiterated that he and I disagreed on how to interpret the Brown Act. What: no follow up questions, Mr. Holmdahl? Maybe you could have asked him to specifically address the State Attorney General's Opinion (since it clearly undermines Mr. Pannone's position)?

The next thing that jumps out at me, as I review the video, is Mayor Bob Lingl's reiteration of his campaign platform. First, he acknowledges my concerns about transparency; he says it's true that "all of us have run on the platform of trying to be transparent."

But there's more. Starting at 43:15, in explaining his motion to accept the City Attorney's recommendation, he explains:

• "one of the things I ran on was that we as councilmembers, we certainly are not experts in everything that happens in the city"
• "we rely on the staff that we hire"
• "I believe that we did hire two very good people for the positions of city manager and the city attorney; for that reason I rely on their expertise"

Mayor Lingl seems to be saying that, regardless of any facts or opinions that the public might bring him, he is committed to RELYING ON THE EXPERTISE OF THE CITY STAFF.

Another important take-away: the mayor professes that "trying to be transparent" and relying on the expertise of the city staff are both campaign commitments - but when those two aims directly contradict each other, it is the "trying to be transparent" that gets tossed.



Discussion about Brown Act begins at 16:10, ends at 46:50.

But don't miss my final two cents (in two minutes), beginning at 1:08:50.

City Council Ignores Opinion of State Attorney General

Mayor Lingl thinks that the real property exception of the Brown Act entitles the council to meet in closed session whenever a piece of property is somehow part of the discussion; even when there are no negotiations in progress. As he explained in the Lompoc Record: "We always discuss property in closed session."

All together now: NO.  That's not how it works.  According to Section 54956.8 of the Brown Act:

Notwithstanding any other provision of this chapter, a legislative body of a local agency may hold a closed session with its negotiator prior to the purchase, sale, exchange, or lease of real property by or for the local agency to grant authority to its negotiator regarding the price and terms of payment for the purchase, sale, exchange, or lease. [my emphasis]

In the interest of securing a more transparent local government, I followed the procedure as detailed in the Brown Act. I asked the City Council for an unconditional commitment to cease and desist from the use of closed sessions to discuss property - EXCEPT, using a narrow interpretation of the Brown Act, when the Council is discussing property transfer, and it needs "to grant authority to its negotiator regarding the price and terms of payment."

The "cease and desist"/"unconditional commitment" request and response are intended to "remedy" an alleged Brown Act violation in a non-adversarial, non-litigious way. The Council doesn't even have to admit that the action in question was a violation - they only have to promise not to do it again.

In fact, if a proper "unconditional commitment" would have been offered, the city would have been immune from litigation.  But the City Attorney recommended against the unconditional commitment that I requested, and the Council followed the City Attorney's recommendation.

The City Attorney (unfortunately for all of us) holds to an overly-broad interpretation of the Brown Act's real property exception. It might be slightly more nuanced than the Mayor's interpretation (property = closed session), but apparently, his argument is that Council should be able to meet in secret whenever they are discussing a piece of property that may, at some point in the distant future, be bought, sold, leased, or otherwise transferred, even if the Council has no bargaining position to protect.

Second verse, same as the first: NO.  According to an opinion published by the State Attorney General's office (10-206):

We cannot accept the view that the real-estate-negotiations exception permits the closed-session discussion of any and all aspects of a proposed transaction that might have some effect on price and payment terms. The purpose of the exception is to protect a local agency’s bargaining position, not to keep confidential its deliberations as to the wisdom of a proposed transaction. [my emphasis]

Remember, the Council and the CSC were not engaged in any "bargaining" at this point.  According to the State Attorney General, the ONLY topics that may be discussed in closed session are:

(1) the amount of consideration that the local agency is willing to pay or accept in exchange for the real property rights to be acquired or transferred in the particular transaction; (2) the form, manner, and timing of how that consideration will be paid; and (3) items that are essential to arriving at the authorized price and payment terms, such that their public disclosure would be tantamount to revealing the information that the exception permits to be kept confidential.

Note: the terms of the Exclusive Negotiating Agreement (ENA) had already been publicly disclosed, and the ENA did not call for the transfer of property at any point, for any price.

It seems so clear to me.  But this happened.  On December 1, the City Council  decided that protecting their closed sessions was more important than protecting the City from litigation, and more important than transparency. The Councilmembers decided that they would "rely on [Mr. Pannone's] expertise" - even though they were presented with compelling evidence that the City Attorney's advice runs counter to guidance from the State Attorney General.

Before December 1, I thought: When the Councilmembers get the facts, they'll do the right thing. They'll restore my faith in their good intentions; they'll reiterate their commitment to transparency.

After December 1... AGAIN: NO. Unacceptable. Disappointing.