By Michael Feinstein. Inside/Outside. September 6, 2024
Santa Monica has a long tradition of deep community involvement in local government. The City of Santa Monica convenes numerous community meetings and on-line processes to seek public input. There is also communicating with City Staff, City advisory Boards and Commissions, and the City Council.
These opportunities are complemented by our neighborhood organizations, which provide for grassroots, community-building interaction on issues large and small, providing an additional venue for community voices to be heard.
The politics of neighborhood voices
During the 1990s, all but one of Santa Monica’s neighborhood organizations had 501(c)3 IRS tax exempt status, allowing them to do educational work, but not "directly or indirectly participating in, or intervening in, any political campaign on behalf of (or in opposition to) any candidate for elective public office." In turn the City funded the Neighborhood Support Center (NSC) with $250,000+ annually, providing staffing, meeting space and resources to the 501(c)3 neighborhood organizations, freeing them to focus on issues.
In 1993/1994, the majority of neighborhood organization board members opposed the City Council’s then-approved Civic Center Specific Plan. In 1997 the Council voted 4-3 to defund the NSC, questioning whether the neighborhood organizations were truly ‘representative’ to merit substantial City support.
Today five of Santa Monica’s seven recognized neighborhood organizations hold 501(c)4 IRS tax exempt status, to "engage in political campaigns on behalf of or in opposition to candidates for public office provided that such intervention does not constitute the organization's primary activity." Each also receives $7,000 annually for membership building.
In November 2022, the City Council voted that a disclaimer be placed on the City website that "any [political] endorsements made by those groups is not paid for using city funds", and on the neighborhood organizations’ websites that "no public funds are used for campaign purposes" and "the views of the organization do not necessarily reflect the views of the City of Santa Monica or any of its officials."
Which brings us to the City Council candidate forum this Sunday at Lincoln Middle School — originally co-sponsored by all seven neighborhood organizations — but now minus one - the Ocean Park Association (OPA).
Ocean Park Association excluded?
I reached out to OPA Boardmembers and was told OPA had been invited to participate and had contributed $500 - the same each original co-sponsor paid to cover the auditorium rental cost — under the premise that each would have a co-equal say in determining the forum format and questions.
OPA’s Board agreed to participate under these terms. But on August 28, the same lead organizer informed OPA in writing that they would not be allowed to participate in the planning process where content and format decisions would be made. With the original agreement violated, OPA withdrew as a co-sponsor and asked for its $500 back (which has not been returned.)
Non-partisan information and partisan messaging control
Because candidate debates can influence voters and election results, the need for impartiality in their conduct has long been paramount. Our nation’s generally-recognized, gold-standard non-partisan practitioner is the League of Women Voters. For many years the local League chapter partnered with the City to host candidate debates, interviews and statements, all broadcast on Santa Monica’s CityTV (and posted online.)
But in 2016, City election coverage began to be cut back. Then the 2020 pandemic hit the City budget, all City election coverage was eliminated, and has not been reinstated. This makes how non-partisan Sunday’s event will be even more important.
Questions in the public interest
On Sunday the co-sponsors should disclose whether anyone involved in determining the questions and format holds an official position with any city council campaign or independent expenditure committee planning to influence the election. Additionally…
- An explanation should be provided of who decided the questions and format, and why OPA was excluded.
- The co-sponsors have chosen not to live-cast the event, in order to provide more incentive for people to attend in-person. They’ve assured they will be videotaping for rebroadcast, and the City Attorney’s office has clarified that "attendees should [also] be allowed to video." The co-sponsors should clarify when and where their rebroadcast will occur, and whether it will be ‘gavel-to-gavel’ style, which would obviate concerns they might edit the content for partisan purposes, and provide a check against others who attempt the same.
- The Federal Elections Commission website states "A tax-exempt nonprofit organization (a 501(c)(3) or 501(c)(4) organization) that does not endorse, support, or oppose candidates or parties may stage candidate debates."
Does this mean that after co-hosting Sunday’s candidate event, Santa Monica’s neighborhood organizations can not by Federal law endorse candidates in this November’s election? The City Attorney office’s take?: "These neighborhood associations are not City entities. Whether this event may affect their tax status is something the organizations should discuss with their independent legal counsel."
- It’s been reported that a 15-20 question yes/no ‘lightning round’ will occur, with candidates given green/red paddles to indicate their answers — but only one minute in total to explain any/all of their positions. This can be entertaining. But it also eliminates candidates’ ability to demonstrate depth and nuance — a baseline to be an effective Council member.
Without prejudging this practice — because I don’t know the questions — with so many framed this way, it runs the danger of casting more darkness than light, especially if some are ‘gotcha’ questions; and it opens the door for political manipulation by creating images that can be used in attack pieces that do not accurately represent the candidates.
What if a question is "do you support LA County’s Harm Reduction needle exchange program in Reed Park?" At the August 29 Council meeting, the City Attorney explained that authority to locate such programs is delegated to counties by state law, and cities’ local control is preempted.
Despite this, four council members, two of them incumbents that will be on the debate stage Sunday, voted to direct the City Manager to violate state law and shut down the program. Presumably they will hold up a paddle saying they oppose the program. But what will that tell us about them as Council members? Won’t their actions hurt the ability of the City to attract talented staff, if potential applicants know City Council members expect them to violate the law? That might attract people to a Trump administration. I’m not sure that should be a selling point for Santa Monica.
See you on Sunday!
=======================
Michael Feinstein is a former Santa Monica Mayor (2000-2002) and City Councilmember (1996-2004). He can be reached via X/Twitter @mikefeinstein
‘Inside/Outside‘ is a periodic column about civic affairs Feinstein writes for the Daily Press that takes advantage of his experience inside and outside of government.
