275 Residents Comment on Lobbyist and other Reform Issues

In response to my online survey, 275 residents responded to a series of questions concerning reforms needed in the City of Long Beach. Below is the summary of their votes and the comments they posted. I did not edit the responses, other than removing the names of those who responded to the survey.

1. Should the City of Long Beach join the other 5 major cities in California and pass a law requiring the registration of lobbyists?
		Number of Response(s)	Response Ratio
Yes		254	92.3%
No		12	4.3%
Other		5	1.8%
No Responses		4	1.4%
Total		275	100%
88 Comment(s)
2. Who should be required to register as a lobbyist?
		Number of Response(s)	Response Ratio
Only those persons or companies who are paid to lobby		38	13.8%
Any person paid or employed to lobby on behalf of a business or organization		62	22.5%
Non profit organizations such as: Chamber of Commerce, labor unions, Camp Fire, etc.		11	4.0%
All of the above		192	69.8%
None of the above		10	3.6%
Total		275	100%
52 Comment(s)
3. Should all elected officials be required to disclose if they have had discussions or meetings with someone (other than a constituent) who has a matter pending before the City Council?
		Number of Response(s)	Response Ratio
Yes		236	85.8%
No		16	5.8%
Not sure		20	7.2%
No Responses		3	1.0%
Total		275	100%
62 Comment(s)
4. Should key city staff be required to report if they have had discussions or meetings with someone who has a matter pending before the City Council?
		Number of Response(s)	Response Ratio
Yes		233	84.7%
No		17	6.1%
Not sure		22	8.0%
No Responses		3	1.0%
Total		275	100%
56 Comment(s)
5. Should elected officials be permitted to accept gifts of any value from a lobbyist or a lobbyist's client?
		Number of Response(s)	Response Ratio
Yes		30	10.9%
No		227	82.5%
Not Sure		12	4.3%
No Responses		6	2.1%
Total		275	100%
85 Comment(s)
6. Some cities require that key city staff and elected officials post on the city website within 30 days of receiving or using a gift. Should Long Beach require posting within 30 days?
		Number of Response(s)	Response Ratio
Yes		215	78.1%
No		25	9.0%
Not sure		18	6.5%
No Responses		17	6.1%
Total		275	100%
91 Comment(s)
7. Should elected officials be required to post their schedules on the city website so that the public can know who is meeting with them?
		Number of Response(s)	Response Ratio
Yes		188	68.3%
No		38	13.8%
Not sure		43	15.6%
No Responses		6	2.1%
Total		275	100%
8. If the City Council again refuses to pass a lobbyist regulation law, do you think the issue needs to be placed on the April 2010 ballot so that the voters can decide whether or not Long Beach needs to regulate lobbyists?
		Number of Response(s)	Response Ratio
Yes		226	82.1%
No		23	8.3%
Not sure		20	7.2%
No Responses		6	2.1%
Total		275	100%
65 Comment(s)
9. On a scale of not important, important and very important, please rate how important is it to you whether or not the Mayor and City Council support regulating lobbyists and disclosing their activites?
Top number is the count of respondents selecting the option. Bottom % is percent of the total respondents selecting the option.	Not Important	Important	Very Important
	12	56	201
	4%	21%	75%
77 Comment(s)

• I think it would not hurt to make Paid Lobbyists register with the city as long as their is not some system that takes weeks and months or requires approval which opens the door for favoritism.
• eliminate the lobbyists all together, let the city officials get elected on merit and integrity.
• All lobbyists. Anyone who wants to meet with a publicly elected official or city staff.
• Absolutely!!!! Long Beach residents need to know what the lobbyists "Government Relations" reps are doing.
• Mike Murchison is Tom Dean's lobbyist (along with former City Manager Jerry Miller) and with his direct "longtime personal friendship" with Deverlopment Services Chief Craig Beck has incredible access -- the public needs to know how this friendship impacted the Sean Hitchcock Lloynes lot scraping situation, the Los Cerritos Wetlands "Land Swap" and other major development happenings.
• i disagree with you and robert garcia
• why are the two of you pushing this issue so hard?
• Big monied lobbyists only want what is good for their corporations. The citizens always come last when lobbyists can throw their money around behind th scenes.
• I support full disclosure/sunshine type laws, but would be opposed to fees for registrations of lobbyists, as this could be a back door way of restricting lobbying activities to those who could afford it and squeezing out grass roots and non-profit lobbying groups.
• Do ya think?
• Not just yes, hell yes. Anyone with even a cursory knowledge of how Long Beach politics works, knows that a tiny clique of insiders runs most of what passes for Long Beach politics making sweet heart deals. Example: Occidental Petroleum's bid to take port oil revenues over with the help of the Mayor and City Council. The public needs to know what is going on.
• I think it should also extend to state and national politics.
• we have too many lobbyists working for the City !
• I don't consider this as of particularly high priority, but it should be done.
• Lobbyists should be regulated in all cities.
• However the ordinance needs to be specific and include all entities who will/may be involved, lobbyiest, unions, etc. It cannot be a watered down law that means nothing and has a lot of loop holes. I suggest the council take the time to start with a solid foundation and work to make it a sound ordinance.
• I was not aware that lobbyists were NOT required to register.
• They shouldn't have to, but since people in authority don't have the sense to avoid improprieties themselves, it will have to be regulated. :-\
• Mike Murchison has been greasing the palms of city hall far too long. I like Craig Beck but is time that these lobbyists are identified.
• The entire country should be regulated
• Requiring registration is concerning. I have "lobbied" on behalf of community gardens to my councilmembers and do not feel it is neccessary to register. If someone wishes to lobby they should have that right. Regulations would have policy set out by ethical guidelines and apply to everyone, I do not see a need for registration. Giving personal information to the government is something that worries me.
• Especially because term limits tend to make councilmember less experienced in handling complex issues and leads to lobbyists having greater influence in their decisions.
• Not having this law allows for bad governing.
• Reasonable attention should be paid to this
• City which may be excessively hospitable to certain business interests.
• no brainer
• absolutely! the recent example of craig beck getting cozy with murchison proves the need!
• I noticed the stories so far printed have conveniently not mentioned that murchison has worked or is working for tom dean.
• Yes. For the sake of transparency in our city government, there should be a lobby ordinance. A lot of people in this city feel that there is not a judicial process at city hall, and that backroom dealings are how everything gets done. An ordinance would assist in halting this type of unacceptable behavior.
• City officials should encourage transparency. This is a start!
• More transparanc neededy
• What is the registration for and how is it checked. Having something in place with no protocol is worthless. Give us some idea of what this question truly means, details!
• Although Lobbyists play a role in the education of elected officials on both sides of an issue, there needs to be full disclosure of the meetings and the intent. This allows the constituent groups a better understanding of who is in bed with who...
• I'm not entirely convinced that the following statement copied from above is true. As I recall, as a former employee, under Jerry Millers' management, (2005/2006) an employee ethics program was initiated that made accepting gifts in the line of duty a violation ...
• "The City of Long Beach also allows the acceptance of gifts from lobbyists, even though gifts to public officials and employees can be perceived as attempts to influence City operations and can erode the public confidence."
• What would even be the downside!!!
• yes ...take a look at don knabe's office and you begin to question the morality of lobbyists...others as well trips are NOT the only perks given and taken...wrongfully
• Absolutely!
• Stop it with the Nannyism. You don't know better than anyone else. Work on your CRIME RATE instead.
• The passage of a law requiring the registration of lobbyists is essential to promoting integrity in government on all levels.
• I am seeing a lot of issues in Signal Hill as well, so if that small town is having the same problems, I'm sure Long Beach is too.
• The tragedy is that we don't have such regulations on the books now. There is no absolute freedom in society; especially noted should be the lobbyists.
• I've got 21 years here in Development Services. Playing by the rules and full disclosure is badly needed here in Long Beach. Managers make premature promises to developers and event promoters, etc., and break the rules to fulfill them - even when the Brown Act or other public protection processes (Coastal Act, CEQA)get in the way. Pointing this stuff out doesn't help your career.
• Regretfully, it appears that those given the responsibility of managing the city left their integrity in the trash can when they accepted the position. You can not legislate morality, but this legislation may be needed anyway.
• Although the influences of lobbyists in theory do not automatically denote impropriety, transparency and restrictions in these matter alway reassure a somewhat cynical constituency,
• I had always sided with the "Lobbyists"...those underprivileged sectors of constituants lobbying for better healthcare, maintenance of our roads, hunger programs...until I found that the roll of "Lobbyists" had changed. Now I find that Lobbyists are big money corporations (etc), lobbying for agendas that more than likely don't help the little folk of our fair(?) city
• Absolutely!
• lobbyists are rodents.....they should be arrested.
• More government at more cost. It's the staff and electeds who need to be regulated through disclosure. Not the lobbyists. Of course, as elected, it's easier to regulate others so you can be free to do whatever or take whatever you want, which you often do.
• Gifts of any kind to "government" officials have always been prohibited to avoid any semblance of persuading them. Even as a puny engineer at Rockwell International ( a defense contractor), I could not receive gifts from subcontractors worth more than $5. It's mind boggling that LB thinks it's above federal and state rules regarding such. It shows that the council members are self serving. They would lose all these frills and they would need to disclose the truth.
• I need more specifics
• Lobbyists are fox in sheeps clothing. Gifts to government officials at any level should never be allowed.
• I believe staff should be hired to collect the information a lobbyist could provide. Delete lobbyist altogether. I would rather see an objective review of a subject than a biased review with someone who has a financial interest in selling the outcome.
• The public process must be transparent, no matter how slow and painful it must become.
• Transparency is important in all government activities.
• I would hope that our elected officials would be savvy enough to know that their constituants may vote them out in the next election if they are viewed as "dirty"
• Lobbyists are too influential already. I dont want any around!! So do register them all and maybe some will leave.
• We need to regulate lobbyist. It is unethical to accept gifts valuing more than $20. I erodes public confidence and impacts integrity of our elected officals, including city councilmen and councilwomen.
• I want to know who might be influencing my public officials.
• Our city representatives should primarily listen to us--not to those who wish to profit by issues on which our representatives vote. Lobbyists should be allowed to express their positions in writing--or at open city forums. That's what we do--they should not be allowed to do more.
• Sounds like a good idea, but I don't know enough.
• I fear unintended consequences.
• Let's eliminate temptation by prohibiting the acceptance of gifts from lobbyists. We need decisions made on what the people want not what will help the lobbyists get what they want.
• Thank you for supporting this move to require registation of lobbyists and help find a way to prevent acceptance of gifts.
• Lobbyists are legally bribers.
• In addition to regulating them, there needs to be an easy access site to see what they do to influence the city.
• This is a must!
• Should elected and appointed officials charged with representing citizens be free to accept bribes to influence their decisions or behavior? Madam, lobbying should be outlawed! Lobbying is an insidious undemocratic invention designed to thwart legitimate evaluation of facts that pertain to public natters.
• This is LONG OVERDUE because some really bad decisions have been made over the years due to lobbyist influence with end result being negative impact on most of us while favorable impact on the minority (certain unions, for example) represented by loybbists.
• This is a good idea regardless of the size of the municipality.
• There needs to be some interaction with the businesses that Long Beach has relations with, whether existing or new business.
• Not only should lobbyist be required to register, but also elected public officials and city staff should be prohibited from accepting gifts of any significant monetary value from lobbyists or contractors with whom the City has potential or actual business.
• Laws regarding ethics pervade our society. Its difficult in the business world to even give a token at the holidays. As a result, it seems reasonable that Long Beach follow suite.
• It is just short of totally unbelievable that LB does not already have such regulations in place.
• I think that the law should be passed for Lobbyist's registration. Why should an official receive a gift for doing his or her job?
• Only IF both business interests AND ALL UNION representatives are included. Unions, especially the City's employee unions, are the groups that do the most "lobbying." They start their "lobbying" well before the official is elected. Unions give the most money to election campaigns to influence the way the official that they got elected, by their members physically working for the candidate and through the money the union spent on the candidates behalf, for the sole purpose of ensuring that the
• This subject is something that has always just begged for conflict and corruption. As such it is one most certainly in need of regulation. These are different times and we cannot, and should not allow mandates passed years ago to exist to the detriment of public confidence
• We need to know who is trying to influence our council members and departments.
• Most definitely!
• I am sick of the lobbbyist running the government instead of the people. We have to know who is paying for our laws. It is a sad state of affair when money has more power, than what is right!!!Thank you for standing up for fairness!
• if the lobbyists and the council and staff are doing things legally why would it concern them so much?
• The city's monitoring of lobbyists should be at least as rigorous if not more so than the federal government.
• This should apply to all who lobby the Council including Non-Profits, Unions, Corporations,Business Organizations, Chambers of Commerce and other quasi-official organizations within government.
• Such a law is long overdue.
• We NEED "SUNSHINE" on what influences our city officials! Shameful we are the ONLY one of the 5 major cities which does not have such a law!
• All lobbyists and their associates (friends) need to be registered as a way of allowing the public to be better informed on what may influence decissions of our elected officials. This should also apply to key city staff. An informed public will cause less confusion and allow better decissions to be made without undue influence from outside sources.
• Although Mr. West said he doesn't need a law to control his employees, apparently he isn't addressing this issue in the absence of such a law. Also if City employees who act as gatekeepers to City resources see nothing morally or ethically wrong with maintaining friendships with vendors who want access to those resources, then they need a law that spells it out for them. Since no or few City officials see that having exclusive access to such gatekeepers is a problem, there needs to be a law.
• I'm always for transparency in government, the more, the better. I want any elected official to be beholden to their constituents, not lobbyists.
• Let the sun shine in! We need all the transparency we can get, if we want to consider ourselves informed voters.
• Talking to the lobbyists is fine but bribing smells.
• In today's corrupt political climate it is unheard of to not allow the public to know who is influencing our public servants. We need a law requiring the registration of lobbyists as well as full disclosure on who is paying how much for what kind of influence. This information should be available to the public via the Internet.
• Stop lobbying all together. At the state and national level.
• I think the recent publicity about the director of the RDA and the lobbyist vacationing together is an embarrassment to the city. I'm sure this kind of thing has been going on, un-noticed for far too long, and it really makes me wonder about the about the way things get done in Long Beach and I think the time for transparency in government is long overdue.
• Perhaps such a regulation would minimize the influence of lobbyists because they would have to make their interests known.
• Only to require that they register, but no other real restraints...just know who they are.
• I'm in favor of holding our elected officials accountable by disclosing their activities. Lets call for an Accountability Ordinance.
• I do not believe that a Chamber of Commerce should be required to register as it is their job to protect the rights of not one business in our city, but all the business. Lobbying organizations are working for 1 specific business or industry.
• Labor unions may be non profit but there is still a political element to their mission.
• In regard to "non-profits" there probably should be some distinctions as to the goals of the lobbying - should look at how other cities and government entities handle these situations.
• don't most candidates running for office depend on monies from labor unions?
• Not 501c3 non profits. But maybe certain non-profits that have a PAC such as labor unions.
• A "non profit" oragnization like the Chamber of Commerce is just a tax dodging front for corporations. Labor unions and true nonprofits have nothing to hide. If they are all required to register, no wolf-in-sheeps clothing gets to sneek in undetected.
• If full disclosure means anything, it must mean everyone gets identified.
• All of the above, but not charitable non-profits, such as Camp Fire. And the person should spend some portion of his time lobbying -- not just making one request.
• The requirements need to be refined, but meaningful disclosure is important.
• A lobbyist is a lobbyist. If you're going to lobby the city on behalf of anyone you should be registered.
• I don't know about the non-profits; it depends on just what they are. Something like a charity: probably not. Labor unions: absolutely!
• Only orgs with PAC's
• The government should not be able to discriminate. Who's to say who's "right" and "wrong"? Why should a "paid" lobbyists be treated any differently than a charitable organization? We all deserve equal treatment.
• Yes, non profits too!
• Profit takers are the culprits.
• I would like to check the first two boxes, but think there should be a way to exempt people like
• attorneys representing organizations when there are legal issues involved. In these cases attorneys are usually just advising city officials about the law, which city officials don't always know enough about.
• I include non-profits to prevent their use as a "loop-hole" way to employ a lobbyist. For example, I am sure it would not take 2nd+PCH very long to figure they could still have Karl Kemp lobby for them as an employee of some made up non-profit, such as "friends of 2nd+PCH".
• Anyone with a vested interest should be included.
• again this question is vague. Is a salesman from a company a lobbyist? He or she is lobbying to sell you something, right?
• If you want a meaningful answer give us a meaningful question
• Non-profits should not have to register. There is a basic understanding that non-profits are seeking support of their cause, and their cause is specific to their mission statement. Business lobbyists and professional lobbyists often support who ever will hire them, so they are not focused on the better good
• influence is influence
• The police and fire unions must be included.
• Any one acting on another's behalf. Isn't that the definition of a lobbyist? If I am advocating for myself then no.
• Some will argue that prosecution of lobbyists for non-compiance will be too expensive. Loss of political freedom is more expensive; we elected other people to do the public's business.
• There should be no charge to register as a lobbyist.
• As good as some of the nonprofits and their goals are, they should still be treated as lobbyists because it would be hard to know where to draw the line.
• Those Non-profit organizations that do not offer financial stimulus to our City Council, etc should not be regulated
• An organization does not need to register, but anyone that receives payment for lobbying on their behalf should be required to register and disclose that relationship.
• All lobbyist should be transparent.
• If they have nothing to hide, it shouldn't be a problem.
• All of the above have positions which largely benefit the agency with which they are affiliated. We citizens should listen to the logic of their views--but we should know whether these views are influenced by the agency to which they belong.
• There is a distinction between presenting facts for consideration and stressing one-sided viewpoints. The latter whether or not from a paid messenger is unethical and when accompanied by favors should be regarded as illegal.
• This list is a prime example of HOW MUCH influence and pressure exists on all of you (council members) as well as other public officials. While I do not think some organizations have an "agenda" (such as Camp Fire!) but focus on the principle here...TRANSPARENCY so that WE THE TAXPAYERS that pay your salary KNOW what is really going on behind closed doors.
• Plus labor unions
• Since I am a member of the Long Beach Mounted Police, which is a non-profit, I did not vote for non-profits.
• I would not have included charitable organizations or the Chamber, but you threw Unions in there. While I have respect for Unions in their role of protecting worker rights, I find Long Beach politicians support the Unions TOO much. I often find that because of this "security" the Unions do not go to the bargaining table in good faith.
• Neighborhood associations/organizations should be exempt. They are no more than "collectives of constituents".
• I think the City council should monitor the persons or companies as to what they stand for,
• As long as all Labor Union leaders and staff ALSO are included, since it is their dollars that buy elections more than any other in Long Beach
• This is the bane of government - lobbyists at every level of our governed states have been altering and influencing the populist word for decades now. This must cease and return government back to "for the people, by the people".
• Any person or business outside of City business who can or have the perception to buy or influence public policy, spending and law.
• Especially the unions.
• Non profits generally conduct advocacy related activities so i do not believe they need to be registered unless they are lobbying for passage of specific legislation.
• Some government agencies such as the Local School Boards, Costal Authority, etc. should also be required to register if they lobby any Council members or staff.
• There must be transparency across the board. A lobbyist is a lobbyist, no matter his/her source or employer. Anyone who seeks access to City decision-makers with the intention of influencing their decisions needs to be identified. If they are on the up-and-up, why should they object?
• The NGOs still get paid, still have vested interests.
• Would that include the Library foundation?
• The names of companies and individuals paying the lobbyist must also be disclosed, as well as the amount of money being paid. The goals of the lobbyist should also be disclosed.
• Although I believe non-profits should be exempt (except for the Chamber and labor unions), if such a requirement would make know who influences city regs, I would support it. The non-profits I am referring to tend to lobby for the interests of a greater variety of disenfranchised parties, not business interests.
• You know what's best.
• Please don't leave out non-profit groups. It's okay to have a group such as a homeless shelter lobby you, but we should still have a right to know about it. Registering as a City of Long Beach lobbyist isn't a bad thing, and it might help residents like me get behind something if I know certain non-profits are for or against it.
• I think that any discussions pertaining directly to the matter pending before the council should be reported, but if an individual goes on a social outing and is not given complimentary favors, there needs to be no reporting. We all know a lot of people in this big little city of ours and many of us have grown up together. I do not think that friendships need to be broken because of this. Just being more careful is important
• But this is no good, so yes we vote that they disclose, now what?
• YES - there are many unreported, unknown meetings, e-mails, communications of various types that need to be reported ... the paid lobbyists in Long Beach have incredible access and patronage.
• Good records will protect any elected official.
• We need to know everything that will affect the decisions of the City Council.
• why leave out constituents
• No, I think organizations building a relationship with elected officials is important. However, if there is registration for lobbyists, then disclosure in this context should be done if there has been meetings with those lobbyists prior to a matter pending before the City Council. But no disclosure necessary for meetings with community groups that are not registered lobbyists. I think community groups are constituents too and its natural to want to be heard by their elected official.
• Transparency please!!!!
• Yes, we need to know the anatomy of Long Beach politics. How else will we understand who gets access and has influence unless we have information about how public officials conduct the public's business?
• Certainly. Clandestine meetings with lobbyists doing business with the City should not be allowed.
• Too bad they don't do it anyway.
• just lobbyists, not everyone is a paid lobbyist
• This i favor, it does not require registration from lobbyists, but does ensure that we hold elected officials accountable and creates transparency.
• Who is a constituent? If I live outside your district, but have business interests in your district, or in the city as a whole, I should not be treated differently than a gadfly that lives in your district. Long Beach needs well informed councilmembers. You can't represent the city as a whole if communication is curtailed or limited. That's one of our prolems now, Long Beach is being Balkinized.
• Every elected official should list the people and organizations who contribute to their campagin funds on their website so that it's easily accessed.
• Might be entirley too sweeping; let's not micro-manage.
• As a constituent of the City of Long Beach, I want to know who is meeting with all of the elected officials.
• define discussion. If someone says something to you in passing does that require disclocure?
• All I have to say is "Studebaker LLC"
• Meetings and discussions with lobbyist as indicated in question 2. Should be required to be noted in the elected officials records.
• Communication is the key to common sense leadership
• Prompt disclosure (every month) must be mandated. Not 2 or 3 times a year.
• affiliations affect voting bias,
• Only if $$$s or favors were exchanged.
• This is a basic tenet of ethical conduct!
• This should be part of an ethics code covering such behavior. And a Councilperson's "diary" should be part of the normal examination preceding voting on upcoming elections.
• Disclosures should be written. It should not be necessary to make manditory statements at mettings.
• Constituents should fall under the measure and regulation of question 1. Being a constituent does not preclude the potential undue influence available tobusiness interest that happen to fall in (or for that matter out of) the Long Beach City boundaries
• YES! YES! YES!
• Only if gifts (financial or otherwise similar duty) are involved
• Full disclosure!!
• This would be great. Meetings to mean meetings, lunches, talks.... CONTACTS
• i.e. registered lobbyists
• Government should be transparent. What are they hiding?
• Transparency is very important.
• The model used by the Coastal Commission should be utilized.
• some privacy needs to exist I do not really know what this question refers to...
• absolutely!
• What do they have to hide. If they have spoken to an outsider--why is the outsider interested in issues which affect me more than him/her?
• Transparancy is absolutely essential for the proper functioning of a democracy.
• I believe in transparency but also some level of discretion so we must first be very clear with definitions of "constituent" versus "others" involved. Maybe incorporate language to ensure that organizations do not do an "end run" around registration and disclosure by sending a 'messenager' disguised as a constituent on behalf of the organization. Also, I think that "all elected officials" should be whittled down to a common sense list for key stakeholders and decision makers.
• If elected officials are unwilling to voluntarily disclose discussions, then a requirement to have them do so is necessary. If elected officials had acted with openess in the past, we would not be having this discussion!
• There is no limit to how restrictive this could be. It becomes bothersome in complying to all interactions
• Transparency in government helps ensure honesty.
• Depends on what the matter is, if the council member is involved, etc.
• From the standpoint that a public servant's calendar should be public.
• All meetings should be discussed by all members of the Council.
• AND including if that "constituent" is or has been a campaign contributer to that official.
• They should also be required to disclose discussions with constituents who may benefit or be harmed by pending matters. Being a constituent does not preclude the possibilty of undue influence for personal benefit for the council member or the constituent.
• This is something called "transparency"!
• We must not trust the elected officials to "come clean" with their own ability to be forthright and honest. Time and time again we have examples of our elected officials behaving as if they are above the law.
• It should all be transparent. No possible "back alley" negotiations. It'll protect the city official as well.
• with the caveat that the discloseure be limited to posting to their website. This could become a problem if they were to notify each constituent by mail or telephone. Make it the resopnsibility of the constituent to look to a specific place for lobby activities.
• Most Definitely
• We need to have more transparency with our public officials.
• Either these interactions are transparent or they are not. There is no such thing as partial transparency in government. Again, unless people are trying to hide something, why would such openness in the governing process bother them?
• And deal harshly with coverups.
• Discussions with Staff should also be disclosed. Add Planning Commission, RDA and the Port Commission.
• BUT WILL THEY????
• Onus should be on elected officials not people doing their jobs
• I say yes provided there is truth and honesty in divulging who elected officials are being influenced by. Is there a plan of how this mechanism would play out?
• Same as above. Only if the discussions were about the subject before the council or a subject that will at some point be before the council.
• But this is no good, so yes we vote that they disclose, now what?
• Define "key". Any city staff above a certain title or position or pay grade?
• Yes, all of this should be available to public viewing.
• that's unrealistic
• key city staff have to interview both sides in matters pending before the city council
• Same comment as #3. Just report meetings with registered lobbyists (if/when that happens). Then there is accountability.
• City staff have been the worst offenders making deals behind closed doors with corporate interests.
• Transparrency please!
• Yes, see previous comment.
• The key word is "key" city staff.
• Yes, those discussions or meetings should be a matter of public record.
• Who would this be? Department leads?
• this is getting a little excessive
• Report to whom? What about attorney-client pivilege? It is difficult to formulated recommendations without access to people with information. Internal monitoring for possible or potential ethics violations can be implemented, but this should not be used to deter people or businesses from expressing their opinions to staff.
• Normal discussions are OK
• Councilmembers rely heavily on city staff to gather information and to make recommendations on pending issues. Councilmembers and their constituents should be aware who city staff is meeting with.
• who does the key staff person report to? If it is their supervisor or to the city council?
• Come on why is this questionairre so vague, you have something in mind, ask it.
• As a matter of protocol, the City Staff will advise the Council in an open forum on the issue anyway, so this would be redundant.
• Meetings and discussions with lobbyist as indicated in question 2. Should be required to be noted in the elected officials records.
• Report to whom? This must be made public.
• one hand washes or dirty's the other
• Only if $$$s or favors were exchanged.
• Ditto to the comment above.
• See #3 above.
• Individuals with matters bfore the council have ample opportunity to speak openly to both the council and/or the open seesion. Private close door meetings hae the potential appearance of impropriety and should be disclosed. Again honest business dealing don't fear transparency.
• YES! YES! YES!
• Of course
• Staff is also limited on gifts and contacts, outside giving out info on when and where meetings are held.
• If they have discussions w/lobbyists, it should be a matter of record because they will be surrogate lobbyists when they tske those discussed matters to council members or other key city staff.
• Again, government transparency is the key.
• Staff should be under the same scutiny.
• If the city staff has impact on city council decision on the pending matter
• In light of the recent wetlands issues with Public Works Director Mike Conway and Development Services Director Craig Beck, it is imperitive any lobbyist regulation include key city staff.
• Definitely. City staff are not monitored as closely as elected officials and have more opportunities for influencing commissions and elected officials. They should be providing unbiased recommendations.
• I say yes because this could be a conflict of interest
• Yes!
• Whether elected, appointed, hired, or a volunteer, no person with potential influence in a public matter should be exempt from reporting lobbying.
• Similar approach as that stated in answer for question #3 except the leash should be much shorter since 'key city staff' should have transparency due to their positions, roles and responsibilities.
• There is no limit to how restrictive this could be. It becomes bothersome in complying to all interactions(same as #3)
• Transparency in government helps ensure honesty.
• From the standpoint that a public servant's calendar should be public.
• Isn't it standard policy to do this?
• Publish their synopsized calendars at month's end including "off the record" chats at social functions and with their personal "friends" who are trying to influence things.
• By requiring the same standards of staff you remove the plausable deniabilty excuse.
• Yes, but of course there must be some conditions around what is reasonable for reporting purposes. Description of reasonable is vague as well, this is an interesting area..what you want in your coffee, cream and/or sugar is not applicable. What is applicable is "how are you going to vote on an issue and let me tell you about the budgetary implications of such a vote"..now that should be reported..public funds pay these people to perform duties representing their constituents..not the lobbyists.
• If it's all on the up-and-up then it shouldn't be a concern.
• All key city staff that have the authority to bind the city by their decisions should come under the same rules as the elected officials. This would include the City Manager and his staff, Police Chief and his staff, Head of the City Utilities, etc.
• See comment on Question #1
• The term "key" needs to be defined clearly. I think that anyone who is in a position to influence an issue, either directly or indirectly, should be subject to disclosure rules.
• Add Planning Commission, RDA and the Port Commission.
• WILL THEY?????
• But define "meeting", is going on vacation with a decades long friend a meeting? How about going to a Christmas party of a neighbor? Are lobbyists allowed to have friends? What about city employees, before they are hired do they have to purge their friends list?
• For years key city staff have worked behind the scenes with lobbyists who are looking for something the City of L.B. can wind up paying for. Some projects in the past have not been in the best interests of the city or the public and there is no accountability. Back-room influence needs to stop.
• No gifts should be given in any circumstance. A card can say everything needed.
• Best If no gifts are accepted - but at minimum the gifts should be reported.
• every one gets discounts - any business person is a voter, correct?
• I think if we registered lobbyists, then the gifts should be reported. That said, I would limit the value of the gift. For example, a gift during a holiday season that is valued less than $50 seems reasonable to allow as long as it is reported. Gifts from registered lobbyists to elected officials that are valued at more than $50 should be prohibited.
• Use the federal government limit of $25.
• If they're allowed to accept gifts, there should be full disclosure of these gifts.
• Perhaps limit the amount...say $25. That should cover lunch (including the tip).
• Why should we tolerate bribery? Many politicians appear to be hardly above the status of a prostitute. No gifts.
• This is a small comunity. Suppose a lobbyist is a family member (cousin, in-law, etc.), or the two families are good friends and exchange meals at each other's homes? There should be some lower limit of the value of the gift.
• Considering how campaigns are financed, I am not sure how meaningful this really is.
• I think withen a limited amount - under $250
• Unless a very modest gift, such as a box of candy, a plant, pen, etc. with a value of less than $50.
• Absolutely not! Why isn't this illegal already?
• Absolutely not. They should have the moral fiber and sense not to do it anyway, but again, apparently some do not.
• Bribes are bribes. Who tells you of those bribes.
• But with a $100 limit.
• probably should need to just disclose or register the gift and approximate value
• Obviously this is a conflict of interest.
• There should be a $25.00 dollar limit, like with the U.S. congress.
• Set a low limit similar to IRS rules.
• There should be a $20 limit to any gift.
• Conflict of interest
• Only if disclosed.
• maybe allow "token" gifts, value less than $50.
• NEVER!!!
• If a lobbyist buys you lunch is that a bad thing. An offical can go to lunch with a supplier to the city and not report it, right? What is the difference. I believe that if our officals do not have the integrity fo the job then fire them or don't hire them in the first place.
• People given authority have a responsibility and legislating their job performance isn't the way to get quality results.
• There should be a $ limit
• Provided they disclose the gift, the value and the reason for the gift in a timely manner
• not even a soft drink
• Gifts over some minimal amount ($50?) should be always reported. This includes gifts to public officials family too.
• Other government employees, including those in the rank and file, such as court clerks, are prohibited from accepting any sort of gift or gratuity. The same prohibition should certainly apply to all public officials, whether elected or appointed.
• As long as the gift is disclosed. I believe it is the secret gift that causes undue influence.
• As long as all gifts are disclosed, then yes. That will limit the gifts accepted!
• There should be a value limit.
• Without exception, no.
• There is no need for any gifts at all. They receive a salary for doing their job.
• ...but this must be disclosed!!
• calendars and coffee mugs would be allowed, but anything over $20 should be disallowed.
• as long as it is disclosed and taxes are paid
• Are you kidding me???
• Define "value." That's the rub.
• No more than $3.
• ABSOLUTELY NOT! Can a police officer accept a bribe - No.
• THE FIRE DEPT AND POLICE DEPT CAN NOT ACCEPT GIFTS....THIS SHOULD BE FOR ALL CITY EMPLOYEES.
• Nominal gifts should be acceptable within a certain limit, such as $50.00
• Conflict of interest.
• Absolutely not!
• Small value gifts should be allowed, such as dinners during which city business is discussed.
• Defining value and the gift's influence is difficult. Make the lobbyist ordinance a bright line ordinance with no gray area.
• If the salary paid is not enough to support the position, perhaps the official should look for other employment - maybe the private sector would offer more remuneration.
• Elected officials get paid to do their jobs. That pay should motivate them--not gifts.
• NEVER!
• Bribery has no place in our city!!!
• If a person wants to serve the public properly, it should be with the knowledge that accepting favors of any kind is not allowed.
• Different officials have different 'thresholds' for what could tip the scale with them. Again, transparency becomes an issue so avoid the muddy waters and gray areas - JUST SAY NO.
• $10.00 or less
• Amount of gift should not exceed $50.00 and should be reported.
• Gifts - even small ones - can influence a person's opinion of an individual/organization. Elected officials should strive to maintain as much objectivity as possible. Anything that could cloud that objectivity should be excluded. As an elected official, why would one even want to open up the possibility of scrutiny, taking focus away from the issues and putting the spotlight elsewhere?
• 1. This is open to interpretation. A cheap monogrammed pen, desk calendar, light business lunch, etc., MAY be acceptable.
• I would establish a limit on the monetary value of gifts. Accepting a pen is one thing but accepting a paid vacation is quite another.
• If businesses have limits for their employees, it is reasonable for elected officials (and city staff) to have them, too.
• Or trips/vacations or meals.... Or any thing else that one might interpret as a "bribe".
• A gift is a token of friendship and it should be noted as such. No need for extravagant gifts.
• Within limits. If you get a cake or cookies ok. A mercedes is out of the question. Where I work the general rule is "If you can eat it you can keep it" plus you are expected to share it with the staff. Try eating a car!
• Plus, Does it pass the "smell" test?
• Only of nominal value. "ANY GIFT" could be construed to even include a business card, birthday card, or Holiday card!
• A ban on meals travel and discounts of any kind should be included. This is the norm when dealing with vendors in private industry and should be mirrored by public policy.
• Even a small gift can place an official in "debt" to a lobbyist.
• Limit the amount, just as we do in the private sector. Report all gifts, so that way those who fly under the amount but give numerous times are reported.
• Absolutely not.
• What, their not paid enough, now they need gifts. Of course not getting gifts will give them another excuse to request pay increases.
• With the caveat that the gift should not exceed $25.00. (Federal tax deduction limit) Adjusted for inflation. I can see no harm in someone picking up the tab for coffee and pie or some other deminimus items. To restrict it to the point beyond that would create an accounting nightmare.
• It is payola & should not be permitted
• Limited value, if done.
• Anything of value is an obvious influence! Outrageous!
• The value of the gift, the recipent,the gift giver,and the gift giver's association with an organization or product should be identified. These values to be placed on an easily accesible listing and/or web site.
• Any accepted gifts to officials could or would allow undue influence in the decission making process. We need more inpartial decissions made by our elected officials, etc..
• The only reason I can think of why a lobbyist would give a gift, or cause one to be given, is to influence someone - or thank that person for allowing him/herself to be influenced. If lobbyists would not otherwise go around distributing gifts randomly, they should not be allowed to give them to elected officials OR PAID CITY STAFF.
• Anything over $25
• Duh!
• Only token gifts of minimal value.
• We don't allow doctors to accept pens or pads or fancy dinners from industry anymore hoping to restrain undue influence. Why should lobbyists who can have an even bigger and farther reaching impact on each individual's taxes and quality of life be any different?
• A limit on value (e.g. $25) should be imposed. This is standard practice for all government contractors and city officials should be no exception.
• If they accept then gifts to should be donated to charity.
• Yes, only if elected officials are required to divulge the gift and giver. If the value exceeds a certain threshhold the city official should recuse his/herself from voting.
• There should be a low cap on the total amount any officials can receive in a year. Something like $500 in one year from all sources.
• We have a situation before the Council right now where a Councilmember appears to have accepted a $100 gift from an entity with an issue before the Council to be voted on very shortly. This should be reported.
• But only if they are allowed to accept gifts to start with.
• what about support from unions in the city that get you elected
• Only from gifts given by registered lobbyists.
• Depends on the value of the gift. If a $25 limit is not set, then all gifts >$25 should be posted.
• Even though I am strongly opposed to City Employees accepting gifts in the first place, but if this is allowed then they should be open about it.
• Transparency issue again. Gifts under $25 probably need not be posted.
• I dont think any city staff should be able to accept any gift, so there would be no need to post on the cities website.
• The elimination of gifts means posting won't be required.
• They shouldn't be allowed to accept gifts or money, but if they do it should be required to publish it on a website and in print.
• should not be allowed
• They shouldn't accept the gift to begin with.
• See question 5, they should not recieve ANY gifts
• This question would not be applicable if city officials were prohibited from accepting gifts, which they should be.
• Detirmine the depth of the bribe
• no, again, to put it on website getting excessive and time consuming, but there should be a centralized office where they submit/disclose basic info about the gift. keep it simple.
• They should not be recieving gifts. Policy should be set based on matters of ethics and the will of the people. That is the ideal of the democracy, gifts compromise this ideal.
• Yes, if over the limit established by the legislation.
• If etiquette suggests a "Thank You" note should be
• written within 7 days, then the city employee can certainly find time to post it within 30 days on the website. It should be days.
• This representa a potential loophole if an elected is lobbied the same day an issue is on the agenda; still, something is better than nothing.
• #7 below. Not personal details like dr appt or sick child, etc.
• They shouldn't be permitted to accept gifts at all.
• They shouldn't be taking gifts - we all know that is just bribery - who is kidding whom? I think everyone is sick and tired of the unethical conduct of the lobbyists and some politicians.
• NOGIFTS
• I think this would be prudent to know before an EIR or project is approved.
• If gifts allowed.
• again you haven't defined your question clearly. Is a cup a coffee a gift and must it be reported?
• This is not an absurd question it is a fact about something that happens every day in business.
• No Gifts
• no gifts
• ...if not sooner
• see above
• and "charitable " gifts donated in their name or to their causes
• No gifts period.
• A smart practice.
• Disclosure in an open forum like a website will avoid the appearance of impropriety.
• Or less!
• Electeds and City Officers should not take any gifts. Period.
• Any gift should be made public within 72 hours and should be returned. Public official should waive the right to gift from those coming before them on city business.
• If they are allowed to accept ANYTHING they should post it within one week, and sooner if there is any matter coming before them regarding the gift-giver in less than one week.
• 30 days sounds reasonable...unless this occurs just prior to an election. Then it should be posted immediately
• They should not be allowed to accept gifts.
• There should be no accepting of gifts!!!
• Better within 14 days
• No gifts... No need!
• Gifts should not be allowed in any form
• It wouldn't be necessary if the practice was prohibited.
• Within 10 days would be better, they should also need to disclose the gift verbally at a council meeting if the giver was affiliated to anything that was being voted on, but not yet posted to the city website. The transparency should be there.
• But why are they being allowed to accept them?
• They should post the detail of the offered gift which they should not be allowed to accept - see 5 above.
• If not 30 days, 60 days is timely enough.
• I still prefer zero gifts.
• Yes, if gifts are allowed.
• gifts should not be part of the lobbying process at all.
• THEY SHOULD POST IT BUT NOT EXCEPT IT THAT WAY IT MAY STOP THOSE THAT ARE TRYING TO BUY OFF SOMEONE OR SOMETHING IF THERE NAME WAS POSTED.
• The same should be for meetings with others. The calendar can be published after the event so the security of our representatives is not compromised by telling the entire Web where they will be.
• They should not accept any gift with a dollar value of $20 and above.
• I don't think that they should receive gifts. If they are allowed to receive gifts then they should have to post them within 30 days. I would even make it much less than 30 days.
• I'd surely like to know when I read that my representative is voting on something, that he/she has received some outside motivation for the vote.
• 7 days. not 7 business days, 7 days.
• No gifts means NO gifts. Period.
• They should not be receiving gift in the first place.
• Receiving or using a gift should be illegal, and therefore no posting would be necessary.
• They should not accept any gifts therefore there would be no need for a posting
• If gifts of any amount are allowed (per #5) then you must have transparency as stated multiple times in previous answers on this survey.
• thats weak. require them to post before even getting the gift
• Anything to encourage transparency and full disclosure.
• For practical reasons, I would limit such disclosure to those items and/or services that exceed a set monetary value. Even a $20 book is not going to affect someone's vote or decision.
• But they would find a way to circumvent this requirement, I am sure.
• If not sooner... are there so many it cannot happen within days?
• Better that they don't accept any gifts at all!
• Why not. They are being payed by our taxpayer's money. What they do is everyone's business. There should be nothing to hide from the public.
• They should be prohibited from accepting gifts and subject to the same restrictions as elected officials.
• And that posting should have a history and storage area. That way we are able to review historical data as well.
• Yes most definitely. It's a factor when researching candidates.
• No Gifts
• But within some period of time...60 days?
• yes, but they should not be receiving ANY gratuities. But if they do they should definitely be on record.
• And also, in another EASILY accesible place/s like City Hall and all of the library branches for those who do not have computers/are not computer literate.
• They should not be receiving gifts..Gifts equals favoritism which in turn can breed corruption.
• if you accept gifts, then yes. I don't think gifts (bribes) are appropriate!
• Again for transparency purposes.
• Yes.
• preferably sooner
• If #5 applies and no gifts are received, this is moot. If gifts ARE received, 30 days may be too long, especially since such gifts may be given just before an election.
• However, per #5, they shouldn't receive gifts. But if allowed to receive gifts, then yes, make gifts public knowledge.
• An audit to see how honest the officials' posts are is also needed.
• See question 5, no gifts.
• THEY SHOULD, BUT DO THEY????
• If allowed to accept gifts then yes
• This sounds reasonable.
• Just disallow gifts and this paperwork nightmare (which can lead to honest mistakes) becomes unnecessary
• Yes, it is important that Long Beach deal with this festering issue.
• Seems to me that any law that affects the income of the Council members, staff, etc. including gifts, should be made by the people and not the Council members anyway. This will make sure that all expenses are held within our budget.
• How much would that cost?????
• Yes. I think that this kind of law not only keeps lobbyists accountable but also elected officials accountable. So for the elected officials to vote against their own accountability seems wrong to me. It seems the issue is about transparency and accountability to and for the people, so we should decide.
• I favor laws that regulate in the form of full disclosure, rather than laws that regulate by restricting activities; I would not want to see a law that does the latter passed in the heat of the moment by either the council, or the voters, so I'd rather see the right proposal put up for a vote, rather than just see one passed.
• The seven council members who defeated the previous motion are part of a system that seems incapable of reforming itself. Go directly to the people and see what happens.
• It depends on the text of the proposed law.
• Any member not willing to vote for thios, should be voted out of office
• yes because if the council votes no again, I think they are hiding something and I think the voters would like to know what it is.
• Absolutely, but there should not be a special election for this one item only.
• I think most of the council are there more for their own interests than those of the citizens city-wide.
• We the People.
• There is a constant call from the community for city officials to regualte lobbying. I have heard this complain at many city meetings for several years from all political spectrums, this is what the people want!
• Can't you make any decisions without the voters? Just regulate yourself.
• Referendums usually result in "bad" laws and legal expenses. I would rather the council, with the help of the city attorney draw it up.
• Yes, absolutely - let the people speak - I think the people are so weary of all the nonsense going on with their representatives, that they will speak out loudly and clearly.
• Yes yes yes!
• Lobbyist regulation law should become a campaign issue in all districts up for election/re-election. Transparency should be more than a word.
• How can voters vote on something like this when this questionairre is a good example of how something on a ballot would be written. What you would get is garbage out from the garbage in question.
• Too expensive for all involved. The lobbyists will throw money in as well as the unions and non-profits. This will amount to nothing more than a polarizing money pit and the good intentioned council may end up paying the price. The Council should have the backbone to do it on their own.
• The measure must have teeth in it and no wiggle room so the city attorney can't excuse someone that accepted gifts.
• to avoid more "queen mary " or lb museum disasters..
• Definitely!
• This is something the voters may wish to address and it is a valid subject for legisilation. It makes more sense than many of the items we sometimes see on the statewide ballot!
• I know how I would vote...
• Waste of money and won't solve the problem. The problem is with government, not the lobbyists.
• Absolutely
• As stated by President Lincoln in the Gettysburg Address - "Government of the people, by the people, for the people ...
• I would hope that this is something the council could accept and avoid expensive ballot measures that would surely include other regulations.
• OK as long as it's placed on a ballot with other items, so it won't cost any additional money to include it on an existing ballot.
• Absolutely. That would make it an election issue possibly worthy of having detractors of the lobbyist regulations voted out of office when the regulation is voted in.
• Allowing the council to make this decision is akin to the inmates running the asylum. What do they have to hide?
• But, the city needs to co-ordinate the elections to coincide with state/fed elections so as to save money.
• DEFINITLY!
• City officals these days tend to vote their personal opinions and not of those they represent. I say listen to the people and lets vote.
• November 2010 would be better
• City councilmembers who oppose transparancy should also find stiff competition in the next election based on this issue.
• Absolutely! Isn't them voting on this issue a bit like the fox watching the hen house! I bet a prop would pass overwhelmingly if worded and communicated properly with the public.
• Only if there are other issues to be voted on - not any sort of special election. The City can't afford any additional expenses!
• This election item could be influenced too much by those on both sides of issue
• If the elected officials refuse to regulate their behavior, then the voters must exercise their oversight.
• The resistance alone becomes suspect.
• It shouldn't have to come to that, but if it does, please be sure that ordinary citizens are allowed to participate in the wording/preparation of the ballot measure. I will volunteer my time in that endeavor.
• If the regulation is not passed byu the City council then it should be placed on the april 10 ballot. We need regulation of some kind.
• If there really is not a problem, why try to fix something that isn't broken, unless the real reason is to collect new fees and expand a city staff to administer the new program. It should be upon the elected officials and staff to disclose who they meet with and for them to be prohibited from receiving gifts.
• It will be necessary and preferable. Any restrictions passed by this council will be water down and riddled with lopholes and ambiguous language.
• This would be a good use of public funds, to protect our future from corporate owned cities.
• Yes, most definitely.
• WITH OUT A DOUBT. I am realy tired of elected officials feeling that once in office they can do what ever they want and not be accountable. I think people are tired of being kicked around and are going to pay more attention at election time instead of just voting the same people into office.
• We need to have a say in making sure that our local government officials are not tempted. Our vote can do that.
• It sounds like the City Council needs to be regulated
• only if this does not cost $$$ for a special elelction. if it can be placed on a regular ballot, then o.k.
• Humph. If the majority are so shamefully full of self interest only, let us hope the public will have the sense to remind them why they were elected in the first place! Shame on the majority!
• By all means, absolutely yes.....just no more special elections please.
• Most definitely. Many decissions are made before council meetings or public imput. Lets get back to truthful, honest decission making with public involvement.
• Why is there no comment section for item #7? While I do believe elected officials should be required to post their schedules so the public knows who is meeting with them, I do not believe they must do so ahead of time, as that may raise legitimate security concerns. However, the schedules should be posted within 1-2 business days.
• Given the history of the issue, it seems advisable.
• TO MUCH MONEY WILL BE SENT TO DEFEAT IT OR ACCEPT IT. WE just don't HAVE THE MONEY TO SPEND ON THIS. YOU CAN DECIDE ON YES OR NO! YOU GUYS NOW MORE THEN THE VOITERS!
• If the public is upset they can then vote accordingly in the districts where the measure was defeated
• Given the percent of non-voters in this city, I would question the cost. The City Council should decide this issue.
• As long as it's not a "Special Election". I will not support any issue that wastes tax dollars on an election outside the regular election cycle.
• If they vote no, vote 'em out of office!
• Yes, let the voters who elected the officials into office in the first place, set the regulations that they must adhere to.
• Otherwise it's like allowing children to decide what they want for christmas, where they want to go on vacation, what they'll eat at dinner and we pay the bill.
• I'm in favor of holding our elected officials accountable by disclosing their activities. Lets call for an Accountability Ordinance.
• As I said, get the lobbyists out of the picture, or charge them an exorbitant fee make so lucrative to the city that the budget deficit is greatly reduced.
• This has gone too far for too long. Mr. Beck's reputation may have been affected in an inadvertent and innocent way but it's a lesson that could prevent future sorts of smears and/or fodder for investigative media. Remember Dan Baker?!
• I'm sure that most, if not all of our City Council members are honest about what our city needs and doesn't need, and voting accordingly. But you never know when you are going to get someone who makes a bad decision. Sometimes a person doesn't even realize the whole consequence of what that decision will do.
• how has the city's perception changed with the business community recently? it is much more positive.
• how is the city to get monies without business growth?
• with your current philosophy you are going to drive more businesses out of LB
• there has to be something behind you spending so much time and effort on this
• again, have you never gotten a discount from anyone or any store in your district or any other district in long beach
• We can best regain the trust and confidence of the people in their elected officials when they voluntarily opt for transparency and accountability. Increased trust will lead to increased participation of citizens on civic matters - perhaps it will contribute to increasing voter turn out.
• Disclosure is the most important factor, rather than regulating that restricts lobbying activities.
• What do they have to fear? Why hide?
• We need to get back to basics on how the political system operates in making decisions effecting the public interest. The city is in desperate need of progressive to break the stranglehold of a tiny elite who have set up their local little plutocracy.
• Too often government at all levels votes in favor of legislation proposed or supported by lobbyists. Especially when the outcome provides particular benefit to those who have lobbied city officials, the public needs to know that has taken place.
• Funny thing, I never thought about this issue because I thought all lobbyists were required to register and that elected city officals were not allowed to receive gifts from them. Wrong on both counts.
• More important would be restructuring city pensions so we don't end up like the state government, playing Nero (fiddling away...).
• We see the results throughout the state on this subject and others. This nation is not informed as to what the politicians are doing, they see themselves as better than We the People. It is time to remember who you represent. It is not this or that party. While in office.
• sure it's important, not sure it's the most important thing on their plates, seems like economic development, cutting waste, keeping the city running efficiently, promoting the positive aspects of our great city are more important at the moment
• read above comment
• I naively thought that City employees, staff, council and lobbyists were already regulated in the City. Silly me.
• FYI. I would like the option of forwarding this to my rep (Rae Gabelich). Please consider adding this option on future surveys. a resident from 90807.
• Not regulating lobbyists and not disclosing activities certainly looks like there is something to hide - if it's all above board, what is the problem with regulation and disclosure? It may cause some of those nice perks to be lost but, hey, we lowly taxpayers don't get those, so why should the politicians???
• Thank you for your efforts in this matter. Good luck.
• Nobody wants to see "Chicago-style" politics in this city. If a politician isnt doing anything wrong, then this information will not harm them.
• It appears that it is not important to the individuals involved with this questionairre because if it was these questions would have been written in a comprehensive manner so that the quality of response would provide meaningful information not with answers that could be construed in the direction desired by the authors.
• It's only impotant to me as a tax payer that tax money is being spent wisely. I know first hand how much time and related manhours are spent digging out of circumstances created that could have been avoided. This current flare up involving Mr Beck is a perfect example.
• I firmly believe there is much misbehavior among city staff both elected and non-elected in Long Beach city government.
• for instance if a council member has pro trucking affiliations .. the rerouting of truck routes through neighborhoods could be delayed something badly needed for the health and safety of our residents living close to misused streets .
• Work on your deficit budget instead and knock this sh*t off. Damn Liberals.
• Their support - or resistance - would be indicative to me of their integrity and credibility, or the lack thereof.
• This has been a very important issue nationally; we can only speculate if we have been effected locally. We ought to take a premptive step to avoid future harm.
• Thanks for not being silent on this issue. I will help you in anyway I can.
• Officials should be free to determine the frequency of such listing, and whether the meeting is with lobbyists or people who are not engaged in lobbying.
• For a large community, this City is very insular. With high poverty and a large immigrant population focused on the daily struggle to live, those in power seem to have little motivation to share. Let's at least know who is making the deals so the people know what they are up against.
• thanks for the convenient oppurtunity to have a voice on this issue.Taking care of the little guy is the officials job.
• As a matter of public interest over private, this matter goes to the very heart of the condition of public service.
• Full transparency is only one means of promoting (although not guaranteeing) honest government. But, to be effective, it must document every contact of city officials (whether elected or appointed) by any person or organization asking for a specific decision or a vote favorable to their interests, financial or otherwise. Such documentation must be open to public inspection, with timely regular audits conducted to assure compliance. Heavy penalties must apply to both parties for noncompliance.
• If they do not want to enact this change in the law and disclosure rules, it tells me they have something to hide.
• I would even love to get my hands on the "Easy to Read" version of the City Budget, and where our taxpayer dollars are going, for each government division within the city (and outside the city)
• No public official should accept gifts!!
• Allowing lobbyists is one of the major problems in this country!!!
• The problem isn't with the lobbyists -- it's the staff and the electeds who need regulating. It's the government, stupid. Not the lobbyists.
• No more frills for city servants. No more scratch your friends back in return for gifts or favors (valued at more than $3)
• Lobbyists are a way to buy votes. Just do what is right by the people, your constituants.
• Hi, Although this is a concern I am more concerned about the excessive pensions awarded to city employees in the city of Long Beach. It is a bigger issue. We can't afford them. It is a difficult political issue, but it needs to be taken care of, now before lobbyist issuses.
• eliminate waste, bribery, and the temptation to do the wrong thing for financial gain.
• As an example, I visited Sacramento this last year as a March of Dimes "lobbyist" to see if we could influence several of the legislators to support bills under consideration. I was surprised at the number of paid lobbyists who were courting our elected officials. I came away with a new understanding about how government is run and I certainly agree that it should be run by the "people" not lobbyists.
• And please do something about pensions awards which are obscene when compared to general industry workers and have driven the city into near bankruptcy.
• Many of the recent and questionable Council decisions have been subject to significant scrutiny by the media and public. Regulating lobbyist contacts would go a long way to restoring the public's confidence in their elected officials.
• We need to know if the constituents are being taken care of, or if special interests are being taken care of and if so at what price.
• Thank you for taking the lead on this matter. I have spent my life in this city and have been well aware of unethical practices. There have been more under the table deals made than a frat house poker game.
• We as a City need to be aware of what is going on and who is doing what, it may save some problems down the road and the need for feeble excuses for one's actions.
• There are too many other issues to be addressed, and common sense should override this lobbing issue
• What is government behind closed doors!
• Lobbying undermines the concept of democracy and gives us the best politicians money can buy. That's not funny.
• Regarding #7, we need to be careful about security issues with posting schedules. Maybe post the who and what but no details of times and locations for security reasons, but I think there is room for some discussion on this point.
• With that said, the overall issue of regulating lobbyists is crucial and transparency is badly needed and long overdue, especially in these rough economic time! Thank you.
• I feel that there is too much going on behind the scenes in our government, including local, state and federal that we do not know about. The more transparency, the better.
• The difference between lobbying and outright sales can be difficult to separate. Stay on the safe side and disclose all contacts.
• I would question the honesty or integrity of an official who opposes such regulation.
• Why should elected officials and public servants be allowed to accept gifts when most businesses employees cannot. Most companies have gotten down to $25.
• There is NO LEGITIMATE reason for the Mayor or any councilperson to oppose this unless they have something (corrupt?) to hide!
• If one does not have anything to hide, Regulation is the way to go.
• The regulation should not be of the lobbyists, but should be of the Officials. Make them responsible to disclose their actions and meetings, and make them responsible to not accept gifts. Hold the Officials accountable to show that they are "clean".
• The lack of "sunshine" regarding lobbyists and gifts goes a long way towards explaining all the sweetheart deals this city has engaged in for decades. If you have any doubts if this is true look into the "land swap" for polluted land currently before the council.
• If the Mayor and City Council were able to remove themselves from their current position and think like an everyday citizen of LB, they would find their alegiance change.
• Thanks for the opportunity to respond to this important topic.
• Shows me their level of honor and integrity.
• I am tired of electing officials and then the highest bidder gets the say in what happens instead of the people who put them in office.
• If they are not involved then others can find a way to ignore the rules. If they believe in the importance, then things work much smoother. I mean real commitment, not just lip service when it is needed.
• Transparency helps keep honest people honest. Even the most contentious, law abiding person can fall to temptation at a weak moment, especially to presistent stimuli. If a person believes that they are under scrutiny, they will usually follow the correct path.
• This is a no brainer. It will help eliminate conflicts of interest.
• The integrity of the deliberative process is at issue here.
• My statements above support this most important process.
• Those who do not take this issue seriously demonstrate that they either are clueless about perceptions of unfair influence, or they simply don't care. My observation is that most don't care - which is why a law becomes necessary.
• If it were NOT important, lobbyists wouldn't exist, let alone thrive as they seem to do.
• Open government would seem to be the democratic thing to do and noone who's above board in their dealings with the city should object.
• There are obvious biases and behind the scenes politics going on by these people who only represent what they want and not me. This must end now.
• If the city council and mayor again refuses to support regulating lobbyists and disclosing their activities, it gives a connotation of having something to hide. I would hope there will be a moderatae compromise so something is in place that makes everyone think twice.
• Government needs to avoid even the appearance of impropriety to reassure our citizens that the laws they pass which affect us all aren't influenced by the interests of a few.
• put the responsibility on the lobbyists and staff, not the elected officials
• Example: How would the people in the city of Long Beach know whether the Mexican government run PEMEX oil company is entertaining a purchase of land within the city limits of Long Beach?
• Everything is being done secretly and there's no accountability by city officials.
• I'm in favor of holding our elected officials accountable by disclosing their activities. Lets call for an Accountability Ordinance.
• This is one of those issues: if you have nothing to hide, it shouldn't matter to you anyway.

Checking Account Wiped Out by Thief

Gotta love Bank of America. They call me at 11:45 am yesterday to ask me if I made a purchase with my ATM that wipes out my checking account. Actually when we talked it was several major purchases. Nope. Didn't do it. Was at home trying to get last minute Christmas decorations up.

Seems that at 11:42 am someone made the ATM purchases and the bank let it take everything from my checking account -- then they call me and they tell me that because other items hit that I would have overdraft charges. Notice they let the charge go through before they called me.

5 days before Christmas What a present!

So I am off to the bank to get a new ATM card. They are supposed to restore the stolen money by tomorrow. They dropped some of the overdraft charges until I can prove the others are not mine as well.

Somewhere out there, someone is enjoying over a $1,000 in stuff from Sunglass Hut and another $1000 in Coach purses. Merry Christmas.

What Would Long Beach Taxpayers Think? WWLBTT?

So glad to learn that since my colleagues rejected a lobbyist ordinance a year ago -- saying it was not needed -- (instead of it being fatally flawed like some are posturing about now) --that they are working on their own.

All of the work was done in the Elections Oversight Committee -- a matrix showing all other big cities and what they do. We reviewed all the other cities language and gave that report to the full city council which rejected all of it on a 7-2 vote.

So back to the drawing board.

It isn't just an ordinance that is needed -- it is a new attitude that sets the bar high for public officials and key department heads -- instead of WWJD (what would Jesus do) -- it should be -- WWLBTT? What Would Long Beach Taxpayers Think?

What would they think when an elected official takes a gift from someone doing business with the city?

What would they think when a department head travels with a paid lobbyist and that lobbyist then gives direction to city staff on what he wants done?

What would they think when an elected or city staff gets wined and dined by developers?

From the hundreds of responses I have received from taxpayers -- they are livid and assumed that Long Beach already had in place clear guidelines so that everyone inside City Hall knew what was appropriate and not.

So we don't need just a lobbyist ordinance -- we need a new attitude that respects the taxpayers of the City who pay our salaries.

P.S. We also need an ordinance that prohibits any elected official or department head or city manager or Planning or Harbor Commissioner from leaving service with the City of Long Beach and then representing anyone doing business with the City of Long Beach for a period of 3 years! No more revolving doors.

If I were City Prosecutor

Facts: The City of Long Beach spends over $11.7 million tax dollars each year for a City Attorney and a City Prosecutor.

We need to ask ourselves if we: a) need to spend that much money and b) are we getting the most from our tax dollars.

We need to ask ourselves, what would we do if we were City Prosecutor or City Attorney. So today, I answer:

If I were City Prosecutor, I would:

• Start showing the voters what I do with their monies. This would mean including statistics showing how many cases filed and how many won and caseloads for each of the attorneys in the office.
• Explain why I spend funds on brochures and office redecoration.
• Really take domestic violence cases seriously.
• Step up local environmental prosecution.
• Step up code enforcement prosecution.
• Set up an Office of Public Integrity to handle complaints about public official misconduct and Brown Act violations and other violations of the City Charter.
• or alternatively -- merge the office of City Prosecutor with the Office of City Attorney or dissolve the Office of City Prosecutor and let the City contract out to private law firms for prosecution of misdemeanor crimes in Long Beach.

No, I am NOT running for City Prosecutor but since the office is being vacated, how about if we all start looking on how to make it more effective for the taxpayers of Long Beach?

Airport on Track for Improvements

A right-sized parking structure and then a right-sized terminal are on the near horizon at Long Beach Municipal Airport. We broke ground last week on the parking structure and hopefully that bodes well for the terminal improvements.

As a reminder -- the City was held up in moving forward on both of these projects because of lawsuits filed by the Long Beach Unified School District and the PTA. Now that the suits are over -- we can move forward - still carefully because we need to be able to fund these projects with FAA grants and passenger facility charges (PFCs).

The PFC brings me to an article run in the local media -- the FAA sets these charges -- right now they are set at $4.50 per passenger. The PFC can only be used on airport related projects -- they do not go into the City's general funds. Long Beach will use these PFCs and FAA grant monies to do a number of improvements at the Airport.

The FAA is discussing increasing the PFC to $7.00 per passenger. Long Beach has no authority to increase these fees.

As I said during the ground-breaking -- The City of Long Beach got it right when it hired the new Airport Director, Mario Rodriguez, who agreed that the proposed parking structure needed to be reduced in size. Mario is moving these projects along at the appropriate speed. But as an elected official -- I know we can't please all the people all the time..

It's Time for House cleaning in City Hall

Now that the City Manager has placed a department head on administrative leave for accepting a gift of a hotel room from a lobbyist and for not being truthful when asked if he did so, it is time that a complete housecleaning be done at City Hall.

All department heads and all elected officials need to come clean about whether or not they have accept a gift of any kind from anyone having business at City Hall.

Two years ago, then Councilmember Bonnie Lowenthal and I were the ONLY votes in favor of a lobbyist ordinance -- and a proposal to prohibit the acceptance of gifts from lobbyists of any amount. Several of my colleagues argued that "These are our friends. We should be able to accept their gifts just as is done in the business world." (Yeah, we saw what the banks and Lehman Brothers did..)

After this latest debacle, and considering an earlier release of emails between another department head and a developer in which the department head told the developer: "I have 5 or 6 councilmembers in pocket..." the voters are saying "Enough is enough."

We need a complete investigation -- everyone. We also need the calendars of the elected officials published to show the public who has been meeting with whom. And, we need elected to disclose prior to a vote if they have had a private discussion with anyone having a matter before the City Council.

Unless we do and unless we pass the strictest lobbyist ordinance and prohibit any type of gift in the future -- the voters will not trust us.

Coastal Commission Appointment Goes to Santa Monica

I am honored to have been considered for appointment to the powerful California Coastal Commission and to be one of only three endorsed by the environmental community and the only one endorsed by labor and the California Nurses Association (CNA).

The appointment has been given to a Santa Monica Councilmember Richard Bloom -- which like me was one of three endorsed by the environmental community. Congrats to him -- he has a great record of protecting the environment.

Had I been appointed to the Coastal Commission, I would have to have given up my Senate Appointment to the California Medical Board. I am the first and only registered nurse in California and the United States to serve on a medical board. I work very hard on this Board and will remain there for several more years.

This was a great honor for me and for Long Beach to be seriously considered for this prestigious appointment.

The Impact of Pearl Harbor on Long Beach

In writing my two historical books on Long Beach, I found out an interesting connection between Long Beach and the attack on Pearl Harbor on December 7, 1941.

Many of the ships that were destroyed or severely damaged during the attack had been recently anchored off the coast of Long Beach.The ships included: West Virginia, Maryland, California, Oklahoma, Tennessee, Nevada, and Arizona. This means of course, that many, many families and friends in Long Beach were directly impacted by this attack -- more than other cities.

The other impact was on the Long Beach Municipal Airport - Daugherty Field and the new terminal building that was actually scheduled to open the day of the attack. The opening ceremonies were canceled. The pastel paint was covered with camouflage paint. Military guns and soldiers were billeted around the terminal building and in the basement for the duration of the war. Showers and hot water tanks were installed for the soldiers. Barracks were built adjacent to the terminal. The building was repainted in 1945 for its real "grand opening."

City Finally Gets Off the Dime and Proposes Incentives to Attract Tesla to Long Beach

The Press Telegram just broke the news that the City Council will be asked on Tuesday to approve a package of tax incentives to lure Tesla Motors to property owned by Boeing Company.

Finally. Finally. Finally.

I am glad that after all the pushing and prodding to get the City actively involved in recruiting jobs to the Boeing Property it may be happening.

Remember the spin of how the City could not get involved between Tesla and Boeing because it was "Boeing's property and not the City's" -- well, as we shall see this coming Tuesday that spin was nonsense and an excuse for not having stepped up to do something to get Tesla to come to Long Beach.

I want to thank the residents who took time to write letters in support of getting Tesla. I want to thank the residents who sent emails to the Mayor about getting involved.

This City has stepped up so many times to recruit businesses -- remember Best Buy in Marina Pacifica? I knew they would think of something and it is none too soon with Long Beach experiencing 13% unemployment -- the highest percentage in Los Angeles County.

The sooner these good paying jobs come to Long Beach, the better!

Over 200 Respond to Survey on Regulating Lobbyists

Less than 24 hours after I posted a survey asking residents to weigh in about whether or not Long Beach should regulate lobbyists (like the other 5 largest cities in the State do), I have received over 231 responses.

The percentages in favor of the proposal are overwhelming. You can check out the results yourself by click here.

I am going to keep the survey open for another week or so. If you haven't already given me your view click here and answer the survey.

Tell the City If You Think Long Beach Should Regulate Lobbyists

I am conducting a survey asking Long Beach readers to weigh in regarding whether or not you think the City Council should pass a law regulating lobbyists in Long Beach.

If you click on the link it will take you to the survey: http://survey.constantcontact.com/survey/a07e2nbl8z4g2qif834/start

Your opinion is important and will be shared with my colleague on the City Council and the news media.

City Council Starts Discussion on Public Pensions

The City Council held a study session today on the issue of public employee pensions. Read the document uploaded to the right of the blog and read the information given to the council from staff.

As you will note, the issue is complicated and needs extensive discussion about what the City Council can do to deal with the growing burden of pension expenses.

The Council still needs to hear from the pubic and the employee associations -- because whatever changes made must be approved by the employee groups that are part of the collective bargaining process.

Lobbyist Ordinance Needed in Long Beach

We're the 6th largest city and the only one of those 6 without a lobbyist ordinance which regulates and discloses contacts between our elected officials and key city staff.

This isn't for lack of trying. Former Councilwoman Bonnie Lowenthal and I were the only two members of the City Council to vote for a lobbyist ordinance a year ago. So much for transparency.

So now we have another front page story regarding key city staff having personal conversations with developers -- facts only disclosed because someone snitched to the press.

How about listening to the advice of our City Attorney Robert Shannon who was quoted today in the press as saying:

Shannon said he feels that this another example for the City Council to again consider adopting a strong policy regulating city employees' relationships with lobbyists - an issue that has died on the vine in the past.

I support a lobbyist ordinance, disclosure of elected officials' calendars, and disclosure of ex-parte conversations with anyone related to a council agenda item.

It would be great to get a lobbyist law on the ballot for 2010 -- short of that the Council needs to step up and get with the other big cities in California.

Christmas Tree Lighting and Music

You all are invited to two Christmas tree lighting ceremonies and the festivities that surround them:

December 6th at 4:15 pm at Heartwell Park (around the duck pond). Santa will arrive with the LB Firefighters (so bring an unwrapped toy for Spark of Love campaign). We'll listen to Golden Sands singers, light the trees (ok so they are wooden triangles that float in the pond) and watch "Polar Express." There will be popcorn and cookies too.

December 13th at 4:30 pm at Good Neighbor Park (in front of the El Dorado Community Center) we'll do the same except this time we'll light a real Christmas tree and listen to singers from Whaley Park. Don't forget your unwrapped toy.

LB residents need "Autopsy" About Why TESLA Deal Died and Went to Downey

November 23, 2009-- Gerrie Schipske, councilwoman for Long Beach’s fifth district, has been outspoken in her desire to keep alive the possibility of Tesla Motors locating its plant in Long Beach.

She personally contacted Elon Musk, President of Tesla to ask him what the City of Long Beach was doing to encourage his company to locate there. She also mounted a letter writing campaign called "Long Beach -- We Can Do Better Than Downey."

She used her blog to prod Long Beach officials to actively market the City to get Tesla here. So today upon learning that Tesla has signed a letter of intent with Downey to locate a plant which will manufacture 20,000 electric vehicles and produce 1,000 jobs she issued the following statement:

"The taxpayers of Long Beach deserve a full explanation about who or what killed the deal to bring Tesla to Long Beach. How did we lose this revenue producing opportunity to Downey? Long Beach has so much more to offer to a business than most southern California locations -- we have manufacturing space at the Boeing site, nearness to freeways, an airport, a port, railroad, convention center, training programs at our local community college and most importantly a workforce ready and willing to work. We also have an enterprise zone that provides tax credits for employers. And just recently the City announced it won the 'Most Business Friendly City Award' in Los Angeles County.

So what went wrong?

Anyone who has worked in corporate America knows how important it is to develop positive relationships in order to do business, which is exactly what the City of Downey did and the City of Long Beach did not do.

Unlike the City of Downey, which marshaled its Mayor and Council to actively court Tesla through calls, letters, ads and personal outreach, Long Beach apparently treated Tesla as a 'second-class citizen' according to comments made to me and to the press by Tesla President, Elon Musk. (It would be interesting to examine how much time and effort was really expended by Long Beach officials and staff in recruiting Tesla.)

I would like to congratulate the City of Downey for getting Tesla, and thank them for helping to keep these important types of jobs in the region."

US Senate Votes to Move Health Care Bill Forward

In a 60-39 vote just two minutes ago, the US Senate voted to move the Obama health care bill forward to allow discussion and amendment to the proposed health care bill.

This is historic. Finally there will be a discussion in both houses of Congress about the 2000 page bill which proposes to change health care in this country.

I am still trying to wade through the bill and I would suggest readers do also. This is going to be a bloody battle as the insurance and drug industries attempt to scare the stuffins out of Americans about why we should keep things just as they are.

We need frequent and current crime reports

As the Vice-Chair of the Council Public Safety Committee I made a motion that the Police Department report to the City Council on a quarterly (not yearly basis) about the amount of crime we are experiencing in Long Beach.

Without this data the City Council can't budget or plan in advance for adding officers and other programs to stem crime.

I am sick and tired of hearing my Blackberry go off with yet another killing or robbery or auto theft or auto burglary. Unfortunately, we don't get notices for rapes, sexual assault, child abuse or domestic abuse even though I hear from the victim services community that these crimes are on the rise.

We need to get serious about this problem and not just at budget time. Getting data out to the public will be a first step.

EPA Officials Tell City About PCB Contamination in Wetlands

A couple of weeks ago I placed on the City Council agenda an item requesting the appearance of the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) at a City Council meeting to brief the council and public about their February 2008 citation of the LCW, LLC the owners of property being considered for a swap with the City.

This past Tuesday, the officials came. To summarize, if you go back to my blog on 9/24/09 (http://www.gerrieschipske.com/2009/09/weve-got-trouble-right-here-in-long.html) you can read how I came about learning that the EPA had cited the current owner of the property -- despite the City Council not learning about this fact during real estate negotiations. EPA confirmed what I wrote and it looks it might take quite a bit of time to determine the extent of the contamination (god knows we don't even know what else is there) and the clean up.

You have to ask yourself (I know I did), who in their right minds would get into a real estate transaction without getting full disclosure? And who would go into escrow until all disclosure and remediation is done? Huh?

Ranchos Meeting Well Attended

Close to 100 people attended my community meeting last night to discuss proposals to remove RV's, oversized vehicles and non-motorized, unattached trailers in the Ranchos area. We also discussed the differences in set-backs for fences (they vary from street to street), other traffic improvements needed in the area and a little about fixing up the medians on Spring Street which are in serious disrepair.

City Traffic Engineer Dave Roseman explained the City's new ordinance that allows the Traffic Engineer to determine street by street if oversized vehicles and unattached trailers are appropriate for the size of the street and whether or not they create public safety problems. Because the Rancho's are a self contained and defined area (PD-11) it was thought that we could try this approach on a pilot project basis. To do so, a notice will be sent to all residents of the area telling them what is being proposed and asking if they agree. We will continue to have public meetings until a decision is made about how to proceed.

The discussion of the set backs largely centered over the confusion that even city planners have when asked if a fence can be replaced and at what height it can be replaced. Because this area is unique, fences can be placed in the front yard up to 10 feet --while the limit is 3 feet in other parts of the city.

The Traffic Engineer is also looking at the streets for additional stop signs to slow down some of the speeding that occurs. Missing street signs were also brought up.

The medians are a mess. The brick is raised because of tree roots (there's a surprise...). I am encouraging residents to "adopt" a median and help spruce it up.

Traffic Upgrades To Start in 5th

I am pleased to announce that the City Department of Public Works has contracted with the California Professional Engineering, Inc., to furnish and install new traffic signal equipment at the following locations:

• Claremore Avenue/Wardlow Road --5th District
• Clark Avenue/Centralia Street -- 5th District
• Clark Avenue/Arbor Road -- 5th District
• Palo Verde Avenue/Metz Street - 5th District
• Woodruff Avenue/Willow Street -- 5th District
• Studebaker Road/Los Arcos Street --5th District

Other signals:

• Paramount Boulevard/South Street
• Long Beach Boulevard/67th Street
• Atlantic Avenue/11th Street
• Pacific Avenue/Spring Street

Construction is scheduled to begin on November 16, 2009 with an estimated completion date of January 29, 2010.

I get lots of these..but this is special

Children Are Quick
____________________________________

TEACHER: Maria, go to the map and find North America .
MARIA: Here it is.
TEACHER: Correct. Now class, who discovered America ?
CLASS: Maria.
____________________________________

TEACHER: John, why are you doing your math multiplication on the floor?
JOHN: You told me to do it without using tables.
__________________________________________

TEACHER: Glenn, how do you spell 'crocodile?'
GLENN: K-R-O-K-O-D-I-A-L'
TEACHER: No, that's wrong
GLENN: Maybe it is wrong, but you asked me how I spell it.

(I Love this child)
____________________________________________

TEACHER: Donald, what is the chemical formula for water?
DONALD: H I J K L M N O.
TEACHER: What are you talking about?
DONALD: Yesterday you said it's H to O.
__________________________________

TEACHER: Winnie, name one important thing we have today that we didn't have ten years ago.
WINNIE: Me!
__________________________________________

TEACHER: Glen, why do you always get so dirty?
GLEN: Well, I'm a lot closer to the ground than you are.
_______________________________________

TEACHER: Millie, give me a sentence starting with ' I. '
MILLIE: I is..
TEACHER: No, Millie..... Always say, 'I am.'
MILLIE: All right... 'I am the ninth letter of the alphabet.'
________________________________

TEACHER: George Washington not only chopped down his father's cherry tree, but also admitted it.
Now, Louie, do you know why his father didn't punish him?
LOUIS: Because George still had the axe in his hand....
______________________________________

TEACHER: Now, Simon, tell me frankly, do you say prayers before eating?
SIMON: No sir, I don't have to, my Mom is a good cook.
______________________________

TEACHER: Clyde , your composition on 'My Dog' is exactly the same as your brother's.. Did you copy his?
CLYDE : No, sir. It's the same dog.
___________________________________

TEACHER: Harold, what do you call a person who keeps on talking when people are no longer interested?
HAROLD: A teacher

Town Hall Meeting on Marijuana Collectives Was Positive

About 70 people turned out for my townhall with City Prosecutor Tom Reeves and Deputy Police Chief, Bill Blair.

More than 1/4 of the people in attendance operate a marijuana facility. The remainder were both constituents and residents of other council districts.

The discussion was informative and civil. Tom Reeves and Bill Blair made a formal presentation on the status of the law on this issue and then took a number of questions and responded to comments.

I think the best outcome was hearing from constituents then and today that they realize the issue is very complex...because it is.

Schipske Proposes Consolidating Local Elections with County

Creating the best opportunity for Long Beach residents to participate in municipal elections is an informal charge of the Long Beach City Council and a formal charge of the Long Beach City Clerk. Different formats have been discussed, as have the timing of Long Beach municipal elections. The City election cycles are arranged according to Section 1901 of the City Charter:

The primary and general municipal elections for elective officers of the City shall be held in even numbered years, on the second Tuesday in April and the first Tuesday after the first Monday in June, respectively, and candidates elected to office shall assume such office on the third Tuesday in July and serve until election and qualification of their successors.

In the 2000 presidential election, seventy-one percent of registered California voters participated. In the 2008 presidential election, that number rose to seventy-eight percent. The lowest turnout percentage for a general election was 50.6% in November 2002.In June 2006, the voter turnout was 33.6%, and that was a record low for a statewide primary held in June. In comparison, voter turnout in the June 2006 city-wide election was 28.8%. Before that, in June 2002, voter-turn our was 23.4%

Between special elections, statewide elections and municipal elections, voters are expressing fatigue at the frequency of elections. In addition, the cost of conducting elections in alignment with the State should be explored for any possible savings.

I am proposing consolidating our elections with the County and alignment with state. Combined with the in-house expertise of the Office of the Long Beach City Clerk, this consolidation would allow us to continue conducting municipal elections that meet the needs and concerns of residents while at the same time increasing voter turn-out.

In order to do this, we need to amend the City's Charter. This will require a vote by residents to approve the change.

City Health Officer Finds Proposed Cigar Lounge Ordinance "Not Consistent with the Health Department's mission of promoting and protecting public.."

What has gotten into the water in Long Beach lately? Or better yet, what are people smoking? (Don't ask...)

First the council moves to allow "cigar lounges" and then it speeds along to gut most of the proposed restrictions on marijuana collectives.

What is galling is that allowing the cigar lounges flies in the face of not only the City's protective, comprehensive policy for no smoking in public places and workplaces (which was affirmed by a public vote of the citizens), but is absolutely contrary to the City of Long Beach's Public Health Department's core mission of "promoting and protecting public health."

You can read the complete memo I requested during Council from our City Public Health Officer at the right of this post. The report by the way that is required in the City's current no smoking ordinance.

Now on to the proposed ordinance to regulate marijuana collectives in Long Beach. On the floor last Tuesday, many changes were proposed to be made to what City Attorney Bob Shannon wrote. I made a motion to slow the train down a little by bringing the proposals back to council next week as a draft and not as a first reading of a done deal ordinance.

I am concerned that many of the changes severely weaken the city's ability to regulate these operations and am especially concerned that they might be able to operate near libraries and parks and in mixed zoned areas that have both residential and commercial.

I proposed and hopefully it will be in the draft that any residence within 1,000 feet will have to receive notice of these collectives applying for a permit to operate.

Residents should be asking who is getting campaign contributions from these two entities -- cigar lounges and marijuana collectives -- before a final vote is taken. Also, how on earth can our local news outlets (sans www.lbreport.com) be considered "objective reporters" when they are taking thousands of dollars in advertising. I doubt they are going to "bite the hand that feeds them" by taking a position for strict regulation.

Getting Smashed About Marijuana

I love it when a publication that takes thousands of dollars in ad revenue from marijuana dispensaries runs an article "Gerrie Schipske Says Let them get it somewhere else" -- and then proceeds to post 23 comments that state what an awful person I am and how I should be voted out of office.

Yep. That's what I like. Objective journalism.

So The District Weekly is upset I am having a townhall on the issue of regulating marijuana collectives on Nov. 12 at 6:30 pm at the El Dorado Community Center at 2800 Studebaker and feels it is my way to stir things up to get these places shut down.

Too bad. My constituents want more information and many have expressed concern about having these facilities in their neighborhoods. So I am having a townhall meeting with the City Prosecutor and the Police -- the two entities that will have to enforce any law we put in place.

And while the "reporter" who did the story would like to portray me as the Marie Antoinette of pot -- the question was posed to me about what would happen if the dispensaries were regulated out of existence in Long Beach. My answer: they would have to get it somewhere else.

Elected Officials Calendars

I am puzzled. If a city such as San Jose can have the calendars of their elected officials on line and it doesn't cause a problem for them -- why is this being such a problem in Long Beach?

Arguments about security are valid -- but there is a way to deal with this problem (even though San Jose publishes calendars in advance). Either take out the address so people can't show up and stalk the official -- or publish the calendar after the fact -- as I do.

Bottom line is that because we are employed by the public don't you think people should know how we do our job?

Not Even One -- Why Our Community Needs to Focus on What Caused the Death

Long Beach again makes the news because of yet another killing of a young person. This time on the east side of the city.

And the finger pointing begins: it was the police's fault for not having enough presence at the football game; it was the city council's fault for not budgeting enough police; it was the school district's fault for not sending security outside the school perimeter; it was the city's fault for not having enough programs that would have involved the shooter and turned him away from crime; it was....actually all of our faults. Both for this shooting and the many other shootings that have happened in Long Beach.

My blackberry goes off 1 to 3 times a week with notifications that someone has been shot in Long Beach or has showed up in a Long Beach Emergency Room with a gun shot wound. And yet, none of us, including me, has stood up and said "enough" and really meant it.

I made a move in that direction about 10 years ago when I had the honor of being on one of three Community Action Teams in the United States -- ours being Long Beach and Compton based -- organized by the Jimmy Carter Center to mobilize the community against youth firearm violence. The premise of the program was simple: The central driving conclusion of our gathering was the conviction that not one gun death of a child can be acceptable. Not even one.

As Marian Wright Edelman, president and founder of the Children's Defense Fund, pointed out, this country is losing the equivalent of a classroom of children every day because youth are being killed by firearms.

Under the project, named "Not Even One," Community Action Teams (CATs) were formed at demonstration sites in three states (California, New Mexico, and Georgia). CATs included local community members, parents, clergy, and representatives from law enforcement, education, and public health agencies. CATs were to:

* Collect public health data on fatal firearm injuries on youths.
* Collect data sufficiently detailed to prepare written portraits "putting a face" on the victims.
* Use the data to develop viable, effective interventions at the community level and, eventually, nationally.

A child's death by a firearm would automatically call for, not just a criminal investigation, but a public health investigation that would determine all of the things that went wrong and produce recommendations for corrective actions to be taken by every responsible individual, group, agency, and public organization to be sure it didn't happen again.

Such a sentinel system would inevitably become the basis for a research agenda so that the tragic deaths would at least bear a fruit of understanding. The sentinel events could put faces on statistics and channel emotions toward prevention, not just after-the-fact punishment. Firmly grounded research also has the power gradually to force public policy to implement the creative, compassionate common sense programs that are needed.

We met after the killing of a child and tried to put the pieces together of what led that person to kill that child and who in the community might have been able to prevent that killing. This concept is much like what is done in medical centers. A committee is formed to review the death of a patient to determine what led to the death and what might be done in the future to prevent similar deaths. No finger pointing. Just working together to prevent it from happening again.

The national Not Even One program was closed because of difficultly of getting data. But the concept remains sound.

Our community needs to examine the root causes of these killings. Our community needs to stand up and say "enough" -- "Not even one death is acceptable." And we need to mean it -- and not only just when the killing happens near our neighborhood.

Town Hall Meeting on How Marijuana Collectives Should Be Regulated

In response to the numerous e-mails and telephone calls I have received about the opening of marijuana collectives in the City, I am scheduling a Community Town Hall on Thursday, November 12 at 6:30 pm at the El Dorado Community Center, 2800 Studebaker Road.

I have invited City Prosecutor, Tom Reeves and Deputy Police Chief, Blair to attend the meeting and to listen to the concerns of residents who do not want these facilities in our city.

Please note that because the City of Long Beach does not regulate facilities dispensing marijuana for medical purposes, I do not receive any type of notice when they open. I am relying upon residents to let me know so that I can refer them to the Police Department.

Come to the Town Hall on November 12 and let your opinion be heard.

Also check this blog for the proposals I have sent the City Attorney regarding regulation of these facilities.