View campaign reform separate from its players

In the late afternoon of March 11, during a study session in the

chambers of the City Council, campaign reform in Newport Beach was

ushered offstage not with a bang but a whimper. After four months of

earnest and even-handed effort to bring about significant reforms,

Councilman John Heffernan sat alone, as he has so often on this dais.

Only the leaders of Greenlight, whom he regarded as more of an

albatross than an asset in this project, supported his principal

disclosure issue.

Here’s how that suggested regulation appeared in City Atty. Bob

Burnham’s staff report to the City Council: “Require disclosure of

persons performing professional services. We believe that a properly

drafted ordinance could require applicants for contracts and grants,

as well as members of the City Council, to disclose the identity of

persons who (a) are likely to benefit from the grant or contract and

(b) who have performed professional services (for which they received

compensation in excess of a monetary threshold) for the member within

a defined period of time (generally 12 months before or after a

decision).”

This was one of seven new election regulations that the city

attorney offered up as “areas that this office and special counsel

have identified as most likely to survive a legal challenge and to

address issues that have arisen during and after the recent municipal

election.”

The council sent two back to his office to be put in legalese for

a vote by the members, Burnham said. The other five were either

rejected outright or put on a backburner allegedly to see how they

work in Los Angeles and Long Beach, where city officials are farther

down the road in election reform.

The two that will be voted on require (1) “candidates and their

treasurers to undergo training” in election law before running for

office, and (2) “the text of any publication or communication sent to

more than 200 people and intended to influence voters to be filed

with the city clerk concurrently with dissemination.”

The regulations requiring disclosure of “campaign solicitations”

and “persons performing professional services” were consigned to the

backburner.

The way-backburner, said Heffernan, who doesn’t expect to see them

again. In a newsletter he sends regularly to his constituents, he

said that he regarded this failure by the City Council to address

these critical disclosure problems “my largest personal

disappointment during my time in office.”

That’s when Greenlight jumped in with both feet -- and the fray

regressed from issue-oriented to old battles and personal attacks

with little or no relevance to campaign reform.

It comes as no surprise that the leaders of Greenlight and the

majority on the Newport Beach City Council have no love for one

another. But this disaffection should not be allowed to cloud an

issue of considerable interest and importance to the residents of

Newport Beach.

When Phil Arst, who serves as the Greenlight spokesman, announced

that the group would spearhead an effort to put campaign reforms

addressing conflict of interest on the local ballot, the announcement

jump-started a war of words that even flushed out campaign consultant

Dave Ellis, whose activities are at the core of this issue. It also

illustrated the maxim that the best way to defuse an issue is to

focus interest somewhere else.

Ellis managed this by coming up with documents “disclosing” that

Arst served on the Airport Working Group committee that hired Ellis

as a consultant. This set off a chain reaction of personal charges

and counter-charges among Ellis, Arst and Mayor Steve Bromberg that

had little or no relevance to the issue of campaign reform.

In case you don’t remember -- or would rather not -- all of this

grew out of two issues in last November’s election: Ellis’ admission

that he had been responsible for a last-minute phone tape that used a

deliberate lie to discredit the opponent of an Ellis client, and the

appearance of conflict of interest when several council members who

employed Ellis voted a $3.7-million grant to the Airport Working

Group from which a sizable portion was paid to Ellis for consulting

work.

These activities prompted Heffernan to research and prepare --

with the city attorney -- the seven proposed election regulations. He

was careful from the beginning to keep them clear of any political

agenda; his eye was on protecting future elections rather than

exhuming past ones.

One of those seven still in the running would have required Ellis

to file his misleading phone message with the city clerk, thus

probably preventing it. The conflict of interest issue, however, went

to the backburner, which is what prompted Greenlight to take it over.

Heffernan, who was elected with Greenlight support, has chosen to

distance himself from its effort to put election reform on a local

ballot. He says it’s not just because he’s tired and disenchanted,

but also because his worst fear of politicizing this issue has now

come about. He sees a vote on campaign reform under these

circumstances turning into yet another affirmation or rejection of

Greenlight. And he wants no part of that.

He’s probably right. But direct ballot may be the only route left

for residents who want significant election reform to get it. And the

Greenlight effort is right now the only game in town that might

provide a forum for the public officials who oppose these seemingly

benign regulations offered by the city attorney to debate their

downside with proponents of reform -- speaking always to the issues,

of course.

Then, residents can vote their views, hopefully not for or against

Greenlight, but for or against local election reform.

* JOSEPH N. BELL is a resident of Santa Ana Heights. His column

appears Thursdays.