Before the recent election, Santa Monica Coalition for a Livable City (SMCLC) filed a Complaint with the Santa Monica City Attorney regarding violations of city election law by the developer front group, Santa Monicans for Quality Government (SMQG).  Earlier this week, SMCLC queried the City Attorney about the status of its investigation of SMQG.

Friday, December 3, a month after the election, the City Attorney responded to  the SMCLC’s inquiry. It is referring the matter to the Los Angeles District Attorney for investigation and possible criminal prosecution.  The DA’s Public Integrity Division will conduct the investigation.
The District Attorney has broad powers to investigate whether a crime was committed under Santa Monica’s Municipal Code, to determine all those who were responsible, and, based on its findings, to seek criminal sanctions for the repeated, orchestrated refusal of SMQG to file  timely reports of any of the contributions it received from developers, and those who work for them, to the City of Santa Monica and its voters as required by law.

In a statement Friday, SMCLC said, “The failure to timely report who was funding SMQG affected the outcome of the City Council election as vital information was withheld from voters in this race.  The developers who paid for four deceptive mailers have big development projects which will come before the very City councilmembers they secretly financed through SMQG.  The President of SMQG was the political consultant for two of these City councilmembers.

“The decision by SMQG not to timely report vital funding information to the electorate made a mockery of the election process and cast a cloud over the election. The integrity and transparency of the election process is crucial to a free and democratic society.”

The Dispatch believes that the DA’s office should also investigate the City Attorney’s
failure to act immediately on the SMCLC complaint as well as news reports in the Dispatch and other news sources on the bogus mailers, rather than  waiting until the election was
over. Since the sole purpose of the SMQG mailers was to influence the election outcome,
the City Attorney should have given highest priority to the matter before
the election, in order to alert voters to the presence of the fake mailers before they cast
their  votes.

As it is, we have no idea how much influence the phony mailers had on the election or whether any of  the five newly elected or re-elected Council members owes his or her
victory to the mailers.

Four mailers presented Council candidates Pam O’Connor,  Terry O’Day, Bob Holbrook and Gleam Davis as the Police and Firefighters’ choices.  It’s generally seen as a
plum endorsement, the one every candidate wants. Kevin McKeown won the endorsement this year, as in previous years,  but he was not mentioned in any of the mailers.  He was
also endorsed by Community for Excellent Public Schools (CEPS), another plum, but SMQG’s bogus CEPS  mailer excluded him, too.

When the Police Officers Association learned of the fake mailers, which featured both the
police and firefighters insignia, a police spokesman said the mailers were “disingenuous.” As
far as we know, “disingenuousness” is not illegal,  but fraud is, and in an apparent attempt
to avoid associating the four candidates in the mailers with fraud, the officer made light of
it. But a line in the mailers states that  “Appearance is paid for and authorized by each candidate,” and Fred Huebscher, president of SMQG, was O’Connor and Davis’s
campaign consultant. There’s nothing disingenuous about any of it.

According to a story in the Santa Monica Daily Press, “Because the City Attorney’s Office represents the council in legal matters, Moutrie said members of her staff aren’t in a position to investigate complaints that involve council members or groups tied to them.”

In this instance, Council incumbents’ alleged rights took precedence over residents’ rights
to be fully and honestly informed when they cast their votes. But, if the City Attorney represents the Council, who represents the people to ensure that Council members act in the best interests of the community rather than the special interests who finance their campaigns? Apparently nobody in City Hall.

Like the recent election, the 2008 election was rife with false statements, bogus charges and
claims, and driven by developers’ money. We wrote about it.  Everybody knew about it, but the City did nothing. The developers were the big winners. New commercial projects, totaling
two million square feet, are now in the works, with more on the way.  The recent election
used the same playbook. We expect the DA investigation to be exhaustive and definitive,
but irreparable damage has been done, because four of the Council members who will take
their seats Tuesday for the new term were involved in a deception, and four constitutes a majority.

Will they do the honorable thing and recuse themselves on all votes on new commercial
developments, or will they vote, as they have in the past? And will they vote for the
special interests or the residents they were elected to represent?

Stay tuned.