MOUTRIE REFERS COMPLAINTS AGAINST O’CONNOR TO L.A. DA

Santa Monica’s City Attorney has referred the Transparency Project’s detailed
31 Complaints, along with over 70 exhibits, against Mayor Pam O’Connor to the
Public Integrity Division of the LA District Attorney’s office.

The complaints allege repeated violations of the Oaks Initiative by O’Connor
for illegally accepting campaign contributions from developers after voting to approve their projects. City Attorney Marsha Moutrie stated that because she “report[s] directly to the City Council (of which the Mayor is a member)” her
office has a conflict of interest, as does the Santa Monica Police Department.”

The DA’s Public Integrity Division has broad powers to investigate whether Pam O’Connor committed a crime under Santa Monica law, and, based on its findings,
seek criminal sanctions. It describes its responsibility concerning public off-
icials as follows:

“Public officials are elected…to positions of public trust. In the event of any breach of this trust,the Public Integrity Division will investigate and, if appropriate, prosecute criminal misconduct by any elected…public official.”

Specifically, concerning election and campaign violations, the Division explains:

“Because the integrity of the election process is crucial to a free and democra-
tic society, the District Attorney’s Office must be vigilant in enforcing all
laws that regulate the election process. In this regard, the Public Integrity Division is charged with investigating and prosecuting allegations of…illegal campaign practices [and] illegal campaign contributions…”
See http://da.co.la.ca.us/pid.htm

These serious allegations relate to batched, coordinated contributions Pam
O’Connor accepted from those who own or are senior officers of three of the
biggest developers in Santa Monica — Hines, Macerich and Century West—after
she voted to award them a substantial public benefit.

“The Transparency Project welcomes a serious investigation by the District At-
torney of these serial violations of Santa Monica law by the Mayor. Since 2008,
Pam O’Connor’s violations have been repeated, on-going and egregious. She now attempts to trivialize the violations. In interviews with the press she has
expressed disdain for the law and portrayed herself as a public official too
busy to follow it,” said Mary Marlow, Chair of the Transparency Project. “Santa Monica residents and the Transparency Project look forward to a thorough investigation by the Public Integrity Division and the implementation of approp-
riate remedies.”

The Transparency Project is an all-volunteer group of Santa Monica residents concerned about openness and accountability in our City government and politics. Marlow said, “We believe that openness and accountability are the cornerstones
of a healthy democracy. The Transparency Project formed in 2010 after a developer-funded PAC refused to timely disclose contributor information to Santa Monica
voters. As part of our commitment, we track political contributions to city
council candidates and members. The public served by the city council must be
able to rely on their representatives to be working in their best interests.”

The members of the Transparency Project are Mary Marlow, Chair, Julie Lopez-Dad, Laurence Eubank, Zina Josephs, Carol Landsberg, Lorraine Sanchez, Elizabeth Vandenburgh and Alin Wall.

COUNCIL CANDIDATES LIVE ON CITY TV TONIGHT

CityTV, in partnership with the League of Women Voters’ Santa Monica Educa-
tion Fund, is presenting a series of election programming, ranging from
candidate forums and interviews to quick takes and ballot measure discussions.

“Council Candidates Live!” a highlight of the series, will debut tonight.
Moderated by Sandy Jacobson, it will present Santa Monica City Council candi-
dates in random groups of three to four. Each group will answer a set of five questions in a 20 to 30 minute segment. The questions have been submitted
by Santa Monica “community leaders, representing neighborhood groups, business improvement districts and other areas,” according to CityTV

“Round One,” will begin at 7 pm tonight. The candidates will be shuffled for
“Round Two,” at 7 pm, on Monday, October 27. In addition to being broadcast on CityTV, channel 16, the programs will also be streamed at citytv.org.

“On The Record With Your City Council Candidates” will feature each of the
City Council Candidates making a 45-second statement to introduce himself or
herself to voters.

According to CityTV, these election programs can be seen on CityTV Cable Chan-
nel 16 and digital broadcast channel 20.2. In addition, CityTV is streamed on-
line at citytv.org. Individual videos can be seen at smvote.org, the City of
Santa Monica’s election website. In addition, Vote 2014 programming airs 24/7
on Time Warner Cable Channel 99.

But, so far, we haven’t found any program we’ve looked for at the time and
place cited by CityTV. We have, however, seen bits and pieces of innumerable food/cooking shows.

On The Record with your City Council Candidates — presents each of the City
Council candidates making a 45-second statement to introduce himself or herself
to voters.

On The Issues – Transportation will presumably feature candidates’ statements
on bikes, buses, cars, light rail and, perhaps, skateboards and drones – but
probably not jets, helicopters or airplanes, unless they’re owned by Harrison
Ford.

On The Issues – Santa Monica Ballot Measures will feature City Council candi-
dates talking about Santa Monica ballot measures in 45-second presentations.
If any candidate can describe all the ballot measures in 45 seconds, he or she
should have the measure of his or her choice named after him.

On The Issues – Free Choice. Each Council candidate can talk about whatever he
or she wants to talk about – presuming it’s an issue.

On The Issues – What Do I Like Most About Santa Monica? These may be, by turns,
the most revealing or the phoniest statements in the campaign.

These programs can be seen sometimes on CityTV Cable Channel 16 and digital
broadcast channel 20.2. In addition, CityTV is sometimes streamed on-line at citytv.org. Individual videos can be seen at smvote.org, the City of Santa
Monica’s election website. In addition, Vote 2014 programming airs 24/7 on Time Warner Cable Channel 99 – between cooking shows.

Meet Your Council Candidates — Sandy Jacobson will host these five-minute one-on-one interviews with each of the Council candidates.

On The Record: School Board
The candidates running for seats on the Santa Monica-Malibu Unified School
District Board of Education in this series of one-minute candidate state-
ments.

On The Record: Rent Control
Candidates – the three people running for the three seats on Santa Monica
Rent Control Board — will present one-minute statements.

On The Record: College Board
Each of the candidates for the Santa Monica Community College District Board
of Trustees will present statements.

Ballot Measure Forum: LC
The proponents and opponents of Ballot Measure LC answer questions in this
forum moderated by Sandy Jacobson.

Ballot Measure Forum: D
Ballot Measure D will be the focus of a discussion.

Ballot Measure Forum: H
Real Estate Transfer Taxes are the focus of Ballot Measure H in this Forum.

Ballot Measure Forum: HH
Ballot Measure HH, an advisory vote, will be discussed.

City Council Candidates Live! Round Two
Round Two of City Council Candidates Live! Will air on Monday, October 27
at 7pm. Replays are as follows:

Candidate Forum: School Board
Coverage of the SMMUSD School Board Candidates Forum presented by the Lea-
gue of Women Voters of Santa Monica Education Fund and the Santa Monica-
Malibu PTA Council. Taped on October 1, 2014.

Candidate Forum: College Board
The Santa Monica Community College District Board of Trustee candidates
are featured in this Candidate Forum taped on October 1, 2014. Presented
by the League of Women Voters of Santa Monica Education Fund and the Santa
Monica-Malibu PTA Council.

CELEBRATING THE CAMPAIGN TO REDUCE EVICTIONS IN L.A.

70,000 evictions are filed in Los Angeles County each year. 2200 of those
households are represented by free legal services via legal aid. 99% of
the tenants that go to court alone lose their cases and lose their homes.

In November, 2013, the Eviction Defense Network (EDN) pledged to close the
Access to Justice Gap for the 70,000 tenants that face eviction in LA County
each year by 2024.

In order to be accessible to working families, EDN has increased its hours
to Monday through Thursday 9AM to 9PM, Friday 9AM to 6PM. EDN staff antic-
ipates that in 2014 EDN will provide counsel, advice and brief service assis-
tance to approximately 4000 different families and represent close to 2000
of them.

Join EDN in celebrating its success.

Attend their annual celebration on 10//23/2014 at 5 PM for an evening of
music and dancing under the stars, featuring the rag-time music of the Cal-
ifornia Feet Warmers.

Heritage Square in Highland Park, 3800 Homer Street, LA 90031
Ticket: $50, Students/Low Income/Nonprofit Staff: $25

Sponsors: Champion for Justice $1000; Leader for Justice $500; Advocate for
Justice $250; Friend $100.

Elena Popp
Executive Director
Eviction Defense Network
1930 Wilshire Blvd., Suite 208
Los Angeles, CA 90057
213/385-8112
213/385-8181 (fax)
elenaipopp17@gmail.com

To reach me directly use my cell (310/704-8785). Texting works best.
Please do not give cell or email to potential clients.
Potential clients should simply walk in M-Th 9AM-9PM or Friday 9AM-6PM
(try to arrive at least an hour before closing)
No appointments
No advice over the phone

MID-CITY NEIGHBORS TACKLE BALLOT MEASURES: PRO & CON

Santa Monica Mid City Neighbors will devote much of their monthly board
meeting to a discussion of Property Transfer Tax Measures H & HH and Air-
port Measures LC & D on Monday, October 20 at Colorado Center, Community
Room, 2500 Broadway. Doors will open at 6:30 pm.. Discussion will begin
at 7

Guest Speakers: MEASURES H & HH DISCUSSION: Speakers For: Council member
Gleam Davis and Leslie Lambert. Speakers Against: Bob Seldon and Peter
Tigler

MEASURES LC & D DISCUSSION: Speakers For LC: John Fairweather -Committee
for Local Control of Airport Land Speakers For D: Stacey Falcioni, Santa
Monicans for Open and Honest Development Decisions

RSVP:Santamonicamidcityneighbors@gmail.com

Garage Parking Validated & Broadway is Free after 6:00 pm

Organization business will be addressed following the discussion, which
Stacy Dalgleish, Mid-Cities VP & Communications Officer, described as
“exciting, and potentially incendiary.”

O’DAY AND HOTELS CHOOSE O’CONNOR AND GRUBER

The Daily Press reports that “Mayor Pro Tem Terry O’Day is listed as the
principal officer on an independent expenditures political action committee
(PAC) called Responsible Leadership for a Better Santa Monica, which has
received $25,000 donations from two separate local hotel-backers.” O’Day
told the Daily Press that the PAC will support Mayor Pam O’Connor and
former Planning Commissioner Frank Gruber.

“’It’s important to get the best candidates elected to council,’” O’Day
said, in response to a question about potential political repercussions.
‘If backlash were a concern, then I wouldn’t be in politics. I believe in
doing what’s right and deal with the politics later.’”

According to the Daily Press, “On Oct. 5, The Edward Thomas Management
Company, which owns Shutters on the Beach Hotel ad Hotel Casa del Mar,
gave $25,000 to the group…Ocean Avenue LLC, owner of the Miramar Hotel…
gave another $25,000 to O’Day Thursday. The group had raised and spent
just over $9,000 as of Sept. 30.”

O’Day entered local politics in 2008, when he and Judy Abdo co-chaired
“Save Our City” and devised a campaign to defeat a residents’ ballot
measure, proposition T, which would have limited annual commercial growth
in Santa Monica. The pair spent $700,000, contributed by developers, on
a series of ads and mailers that featured well-known local people, in-
cluding then-State Senator Sheila Kuehl, making all sorts of dire and unsubstantiated claims about the damage prop T would do to the town, the
schools, and so on. Virtually everyone in City Hall, from City Council
members, whose primary role was allegedly representing residents, to the
City unions, and the City Manager opposed Prop T, and it failed.

O’Day was appointed to the Planning Commission, but resigned before his
term ended. Subsequently, he was elected to the City Council, and is now
Mayor Pro Tem. And his brand-new PAC is backing O’Connor, who’s facing
multiple complaints for violating the Oaks Initiative, and Gruber, whose
only prior experience was one term on the Planning Commission some years
ago.

“Responsible Leadership for a Better Santa Monica?” Not bloody likely.

THE THREE BEST CITY COUNCIL CANDIDATES FOR SANTA MONICA

Santa Monica Community For a Livable City (SMCLC) urges residents to vote
for a City Council that will stand with residents, not developers. Santa
Monica is our home and we are thankful o live in such a beautiful place.

Kevin McKeown, as Council member, opposed the massive Hines Project. He
opposed shutting down the Village Trailer Park and evicting its tenants
for a new mega-project. He’s fought and voted against 300-foot condo/hot-
el towers on Ocean Avenue. Kevin doesn’t take money from developers and
doesn’t defend their interests. Kevin is on our side.

Sue Himmelrich. as a Planning Commissioner, Sue voted “No” on the massive
Hines project. As an Attorney, she fought for Village Trailer Park residents
against the City Council and a developer who wanted to take their homes.Sue
is against 20-story condo/hotel towers on Ocean. She’s a fighter who fights
for us.

Richard McKinnon, as a Planning Commissioner, Richard voted NO on Hines. He
opposes condo/hotel towers on Ocean Avenue. As Richard says, “Santa Monica’s 35-year-long over-development has created water scarcity, endless traffic
jams and an unsustainable future. This cannot continue.”

THE SIERRA CLUB HAS ENDORSED KEVIN, SUE and RICHARD.

Is Pam O’Connor funded by developers? Did she take illegal campaign contribu-
tions from developers after voting for their projects? Yes and Yes. A formal multi-part complaint has been filed against her. More was added this week.

She voted to reward developers with lucrative projects who evicted tenants
and destroyed rent-controlled housing. In both 301 Ocean Avenue and the Vill-
age Trailer Park, O’Connor voted to reward developers who had evicted tenants
from their homes and destroyed rent-controlled housing by allowing them to
build with greater heights and/or density than existing code allowed.

Just in the last 4 years, she approved projects which would add 20,000 daily
car trips to our roads

There are over 40 large development projects in the pipeline,

Pam O’Connor takes money from developers both before and AFTER voting for their projects. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gu2twln4Gzw Question 8: Have you in
the past accepted campaign contributions from developers and their associates? Developers who donated to Pam O’Connor in 2010 BEFORE she voted on their proj-
ects (as shown on her campaign disclosure statements) include NMS, Trammell
Crow, Colorado Creative, Maxser, Roberts Company, Edward Thomas, Luzzatto Co,
Hines and Macerich. http://smclc.net/campaign

http://smclc.net/campaig

Pam O’Connor has never voted against a large development project (30,000 square
feet or more) in 20 years. Just Google her Council votes for the following pro-
jects: Target, Lantana Hines, Maguire-Thomas, Rand, St John’s, Santa Monica Place, Hines Papermate, Village Trailer Park, 710 Wilshire Hotel, and Civic Center “Village.” At “Squirm Night” on October 14, 2014, sponsored by the Daily Press,
the Daily Press reports that current Mayor O’Connor, who has served on city coun-
cil since 1994, said she could not remember the last time she voted against a development agreement. “I don’t keep track that way, no seriously, I don’t,” she
said.

http://smdp_backissues.s3.amazonaws.com/101514.pdf

“Does money buy political influence?” “In 2010, Santa Monicans for Quality Government (developer-funded group) spent $445,000 on deceptive mailers…in sup-
port of Davis, Holbrook, O’Day, and Pam O’Connor.”

DAILY PRESS: BROCK WILL RETURN DEVELOPERS’ CONTRIBUTIONS

City Council candidate Phil Brock has vowed on his website, and at gatherings
and, now, at candidate forums that he opposes development as he does “not be-
lieve that high rises, massive developments, streets that become canyons of buildings, or roads that can’t be navigated by our families are what my grand-parents moved to Santa Monica for in the 1920’s… Big business wants to take the heart out of our city, to replace it with tall, dense buildings and twenty-four
hour a day traffic jams…”

He has repeatedly promised in print and in stump speeches that he will not ac-
cept campaign contributions from developers. But, as the Daily Press reported
this week, he has now promised to return two contributions that he received
from developers.

According to disclosure statements, “Brock’s campaign accepted a $325 contribu-
tion from Jim Jacobsen, an executive member of the 26Street TOD development team, which, at the time, was trying to win council’s support to add, among other th-
ings, a hotel and office space to the Bergamot Station Art Center.

“A month after that, in September, Brock, who’d been initially critical of the project, wrote to members of council: “In discussing the potential for land use
and in keeping with the now established use of Bergamot as an art, museum and
theatre venue I believe that 26Street/TOD Partners is the best developer to en-
hance the site.

“Less than a week after that, Scott Ginsburg, who’d been another executive part-
ner on the 26Street TOD team, made a $325 contribution to Brock’s campaign. This contribution was also accepted, according to campaign disclosure statements filed with City Hall.

“A month after that, in September, Brock, who’d been initially critical of the project, wrote to members of council: “In discussing the potential for land use
and in keeping with the now established use of Bergamot as an art, museum and
theatre venue I believe that 26Street/TOD Partners is the best developer to en-
hance the site…”

According to the Daily Press chronology, “Two days later, council ignored rec-
ommendations from city staff, the Arts Commission, and Brock, selecting, instead, Jeff Worthe Real Estate Group for potential development of the site.

“Earlier this week at Squirm Night, the Daily Press’ candidates’ forum, we asked Brock about the contributions.

“He said that he’d gotten 177 individual donations, a majority from Santa Monica residents. He claimed that he didn’t know that Jacobsen had donated…

After some backing and filling, Brock emailed the Daily Press that he was plann-
ing to return the checks.

TRANSPARENCY PROJECT FILES ADDITIONAL COMPLAINTS AGAINST MAYOR

Amendment adds additional Complaints to the Taxpayer Protection Amendment of 2000 Complaints Against Mayor Pam O’Connor Filed by The Santa Monica Transparency Proj-
ct on October 8, 2014.

On October 8, 2014, the Santa Monica Transparency Project filed with the City twenty‐four (24) Complaints against Mayor Pam O’Connor alleging that she repeat-
edly violated Santa Monica law under the Oaks Initiative by accepting campaign contributions from owners, board of director members and officers of Hines, Mace-
rich and Century West partners—after voting in favor of their development projects. The Complaints called for a full, thorough and impartial investigation into all of Ms. O’Connor’s campaign contributions, and that appropriate remedies be taken for these very serious violations of Santa Monica law. See the original Complaints for more detail.

In response to the 24 Complaints filed last week, Pam O’Connor has admitted under questioning by the press that mistakes were made by her regarding her campaign financing, that “perhaps” she violated the law in accepting some of her developer donations, and that she still is checking to see about the others.

At the same time she made these admissions, her comments evidenced a disdain for being held accountable for violating the law, and a belittling of her repeated violations. Mayor O’Connor offered a slew of excuses to the press for not follow-
ing the law, and launched misguided attacks on the message and the messenger.
They range from she is too busy to follow the law (aren’t we all busy, but have
to follow the law?), to claiming that raising the issue of the Mayor of our city having violated the law must be “political” (the question is, is it correct or
not, did she violate the law or not), to that if Oaks covers the hundreds of employees of a developer, it violates their First Amendment rights (Oaks does not cover them, it only covers the owners and senior most people. See Section 2202(b).) She never raised any of these excuses when she was telling residents how she follows the Oaks Initiative before she was caught not following it. www.smgov.net; 1/28/14 City Council meeting, video at 3:46. See newspaper articles in Attachment R.

Mayor O’Connor’s dismissive comments in the press are relevant to the appropriate remedies to be taken against her. Her conduct in accepting these illegal contributions and her most recent comments show disrespect for the importance of a public official obeying Santa Monica law directed at her official activities. Mayor O’Connor’s violations demonstrate a pattern of taking illegal contributions from three of the biggest developers in Santa Monica.

These alleged violations are ongoing, starting in 2008 and continuing into 2014 as was just revealed in her latest campaign disclosure statement filed on October 6, 2014.

It is in her latest filing last week, that the Transparency Project finds yet additional violations which form the basis of this Amendment, which is brought on information and reasonable belief. These involve yet another benefit that she conferred on Century West Partners, after which she took contributions from its
three principals, including its two founders, and from a senior officer, all in violation of the Oaks Initiative.

Please see Attachment R for backup documentation.

Amendment Adding New Complaints

Factual Background for Twenty‐Fifth Through Thirty‐First Complaints The Vote Conferring the Benefit
401 Broadway project. A public benefit was conferred in contract 9821 at the October 22, 2013 City Council meeting on Century West Partners. Ms. O’Connor voted in favor of conferring the benefit, which was in excess of the Oaks’ threshold of $25,000. The contract was an amendment to the project’s original development agreement entered into between the City and the previous owners. The amendment added a third subterranean level, added parking when the original development agreement did not have parking, in order to, according to Century West, enable Century West to obtain appropriate financing for the project, and other benefits.

The Beneficiary: Century West

That Century West was the owner and developer of the project was clear. On October 8, 2013, when the project was introduced for its first reading, the applicant’s attorney, Dave Rant, introduced the Applicant “Century West Partners,” and from the audience introduced from Century West “Michael Sorochinsky, principal” and Kevin Farrell—both of whom were later to contribute to Ms. O’Connor. Mr. Rant further explained how his client Century West Partners had acquired the property after the initial development agreement had been entered into. www.smgovt.net; 10/8/13 City Council meeting, video at 3:05:45.

Additionally, this is one of the cases where the City’s on-line Taxpayer Protection Report (log) contains some of the names of individuals with the entity upon whom the benefit was

conferred, and from whom councilmembers who voted in favor of the project could not afterwards accept contributions.

The log lists three names: Michael Sorochinsky, Steve Fifield and Steve Henry—the first two of whom later contributed to Pam O’Connor. The log is incomplete, as it does not list another principal of Century West Partners: Randy Fifield. It also does not list an officer of Century West, Kevin Farrell, who is either the Executive Vice President or Senior Vice President of Century West. Ms. O’Connor also improperly accepted contributions from both of these individuals.

The City’s on-line log is at most one step in a due diligence process—it is incomplete with whole years missing and data categories, such as the vital names of the owners, officers and board of directors, often blank. This is manifestly clear after a basic review of the log.

The Contributions Afterwards. City council candidate O’Connor’s campaign disclosure statement e‐filed last week, October 6, 2014 lists a number of donations from people related to Century West. These batched contributions were received by Mayor O’Connor’s campaign in July and August, 2014, nine and ten months after she voted to confer a benefit on Century West for the 401 Broadway downtown development project, amendment to its development agreement. The campaign statement states that she executed it on October 6th, as the candidate for office.

The list of donations include contributions from both founders, another principal of the company and an officer of Century West, and other individuals associated with them and a trust, the Michael and Lauren Sorochinsky Family Trust (several of the contributions are made by the Trust.) All of the contributions were made in a similar pattern and in unusual sums: with two donations each being made by four individuals, each of the four making one contribution for $99 and one for $226, totaling the maximum total donation permitted by law. Moreover, with three other individuals, only a donation of $226 was listed—the City should review if there were also $99 donations made by these individuals and not disclosed in the Campaign Statement.
On July 25, 2014, Pam O’Connor received a contribution for $226 from Randy Fifield (managing director and principal of Century West); on the same day she received a second contribution from Randy Fifield for $99; on the same day Mayor O’Connor received a donation for $99 from Steven Fifield (founder and principal of Century West); on the same day she received a second donation of $226 from Steven Fifield; on the same day Pam O’Connor received a contribution for $99 from Lauren Sorochinsky (listed as Homemaker, and believed to be the wife or other relative of Century West Co-­‐Founder Michael Sorochinsky and a Trustee of the Michael and Lauren Sorochinsky Family Trust); on the same day Mayor O’Connor received a donation of $99 from Michael Sorochinsky (Co-­‐ Founder and principal of Century West.)

Additionally, on August 14, 2014, Candidate Pam O’Connor received a contribution of $226 from Lauren Sorochinsky; on the same day she received a contribution also for $226 from Michael Sorochinsky; on the same day Mayor O’Connor received a contribution of $226 from Aaron Sorochinsky; further on the same day she received a donation for $226 from Kevin Farrell (Senior or Executive Vice President of Century West.)
Finally, on July 22, 2014 Pam O’Connor received a contribution from Greg Goldman in the amount of $226 (believed to be Century West project manager.)
As with the original Complaints, the Amended Complaints below are only brought as to campaign contributors who were principals of Century West, including its two founders, or officers: Michael Sorochinsky, Steve Fifield, Randy Fifield and Kevin Farrell. Others with a connection to Century West who made contributions to Ms. O’Connor are mentioned above to show the coordinated, batched nature of the contributions, but are not alleged as Oaks violations.
Please see Attachment S.

Twenty-­‐Fifth Complaint
On July 25, 2014, Pam O’Connor received a campaign contribution in the amount of
$226 from Randy Fifield, managing director and principal of Century West Partners, upon whom she conferred and voted to confer a benefit valued at over $25,000 on October 22, 2013.

She did not return the contribution within 10 days. All, in violation of the Oaks Initiative. Please see Attachment O to the original Complaint.
Twenty-­‐Sixth Complaint
On July 25, 2014, Pam O’Connor received a campaign contribution in the amount of
$99 from Randy Fifield, managing director and principal of Century West Partners, upon whom she conferred and voted to confer a benefit valued at over $25,000 on October 22, 2013.
She did not return the contribution within 10 days. All, in violation of the Oaks Initiative. Please see Attachment O to the original Complaint.
Twenty-­‐Seventh Complaint
On July 25, 2014, Pam O’Connor received a campaign contribution in the amount of
$99 from Steven Fifield, founder and principal of Century West Partners, upon whom she conferred and voted to confer a benefit valued at over $25,000 on October 22, 2013. She did not return the contribution within 10 days. All, in violation of
the Oaks Initiative.
Please see Attachment N to the original Complaint.

Twenty-Eighth Complaint
On July 25, 2014, Pam O’Connor received a campaign contribution in the amount of
$226 from Steven Fifield, founder and principal of Century West Partners, upon whom she conferred and voted to confer a benefit valued at over $25,000 on October 22, 2013. She did not return the contribution within 10 days. All, in violation of the Oaks Initiative.
Please see Attachment N to the original Complaint.
Twenty-‐Ninth Complaint
On July 25, 2014, Pam O’Connor received a campaign contribution in the amount of
$99 from Michael Sorochinsky, founder and principal of Century West Partners (and Trustee of the M & L Sorochinsky Family Trust) upon whom she conferred and voted to confer a benefit valued at over $25,000 on October 22, 2013. She did not return the contribution within 10 days. All, in violation of the Oaks Initiative.
Please see Attachments N to the original Complaint.
Thirtieth Complaint
On August 18, 2014, Pam O’Connor received a campaign contribution in the amount of $226 from Michael Sorochinsky, founder and principal of Century West Partners (and Trustee of the M & L Sorochinsky Family Trust) upon whom she conferred and voted to confer a benefit valued at over $25,000 on October 22, 2013. She did not return the contribution within 10 days. All, in violation of the Oaks Initiative.
Please see Attachments N to the Original Complaint.
Thirty-­‐First Complaint
On August 18, 2014, Pam O’Connor received a campaign contribution in the amount of $226 from Kevin Farrell, an officer, Senior Vice President or Executive Vice President, of Century West Partners, upon whom she conferred and voted to confer a benefit valued at over $25,000 on October 22, 2013. She did not return the contribution within 10 days. All, in violation of the Oaks Initiative.
Please see Attachment P to the original Complaint.

The Santa Monica Transparency Project

/s/ Mary Marlow
Mary Marlow, Chair. Dated: October 16, 2014.

Appendix -­‐-­‐-­‐ Chart of Key Dates

-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐
=401 Broadway Project – Century West ( Complaints 25-­‐31)
Benefit Conferred: October 22, 2013

Contributions Afterwards: July 25, 2014 and August 18, 2014.
-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐

TO WHOM IT MAY CONCERN

As we hope you noticed, the Dispatch computer went blooey the other day. A
number of stories vanished and the posting ofsome new stories was delayed.
We apologize for all of it.

There may be a few more blips, but we will prevail, because our only reason
for being is to give this splendid gathering of residents a voice and preserve
the character of this gloriously idiosyncratic beach town.