"A Gift Is A Gift Is A Gift"...Is Not.
Posted by: Jubal | 07/01/2008 12:33 PM
As readers may recall, the California Fair Political Practices Commission has turned its gimlet bureaucratic eye on the use by Anaheim City Councilmembers of city-owned suites and seats at city-owned sports annd entertainment venues. The FPPC claims these perks constitute either a gift or taxable income.
"A gift is a gift is a gift," claims FPPC Chairman Ross Johnson.
Reasonable people can disagree on whether this perks should be available to Anaheim councilmembers, but Ross Johnson sound bite is just plain wrong -- at least according to FPPC regulations.
For example, the FPPC ruled more than a decade ago that these tickets are not considered gifts for reporting purposes. The FPPC stated the tickets were city property and could be distributed by the city...if the city publicly enacted a distribution plan -- which Anaheim did.
Somehow, that hasn't made it into media coverage of the issue. As a matter of fact, the reason it has become a story is the FPPC is considering changing its previous advice on the matter to the City of Anaheim.
The perks at the center of the OC Register's calculated-to-outrage coverage are included in contracts negotiated by Anaheim with the relevant private entities -- based upon the rules and advice provided by the FPPC.
Here are just a few more examples of how FPPC Chairman Johnson's claim that "a gift is a gift is a gift" is contrary to FPPC rules.
I could give an elected official -- such as an Anaheim councilmember -- the gift of a book, which is not actually considered a "gift" under FPPC rules.
A from an elected officials wife, child or friend with whom they regularly exchange gifts...is not a gift under FPPC rules.
The FPPC considers it a gift if you buy a councilmember lunch at Burger King...but not if you provide them with a delicious steak dinner and expensive wine in your house. In the eyes of the FPPC, home entertainment isn't a gift, but a Whopper at Burger King.
Providing airfare, accommodations and dinner for Buena Park City Councilmember to attend a conference in Hawaii -- the FPPC says that is a gift.
But providing that Buena Park City Councilmember with airfare, accommodations and dinner at a conference in Hawaii at which the councilmember drones on for 10 minutes about Buena Park redevelopment efforts...well, that's not a gift, according to the FPPC.
In other words, there are a number of FPPC rules in which a "gift is not a gift is not a gift" -- including the Anaheim ticket situation.
Some food for thought next time the media weighs in with the Solomonic insight of the Fair Political Practices Commission.
And a final thought that has also been absent from media coverage of this issue: if the FPPC actually carries out its threatened rule change, the only practical result is no one would use those city-owned suites and seats in Angel Stadium, the Honda Center and The Grove. They're part of the city contracts with the relevant entities. They'll just go unused, because the proposed FPPC rules would effectively prohibit councilmembers from giving them away to anyone.
"A gift is a gift is a gift," claims FPPC Chairman Ross Johnson.
Reasonable people can disagree on whether this perks should be available to Anaheim councilmembers, but Ross Johnson sound bite is just plain wrong -- at least according to FPPC regulations.
For example, the FPPC ruled more than a decade ago that these tickets are not considered gifts for reporting purposes. The FPPC stated the tickets were city property and could be distributed by the city...if the city publicly enacted a distribution plan -- which Anaheim did.
Somehow, that hasn't made it into media coverage of the issue. As a matter of fact, the reason it has become a story is the FPPC is considering changing its previous advice on the matter to the City of Anaheim.
The perks at the center of the OC Register's calculated-to-outrage coverage are included in contracts negotiated by Anaheim with the relevant private entities -- based upon the rules and advice provided by the FPPC.
Here are just a few more examples of how FPPC Chairman Johnson's claim that "a gift is a gift is a gift" is contrary to FPPC rules.
I could give an elected official -- such as an Anaheim councilmember -- the gift of a book, which is not actually considered a "gift" under FPPC rules.
A from an elected officials wife, child or friend with whom they regularly exchange gifts...is not a gift under FPPC rules.
The FPPC considers it a gift if you buy a councilmember lunch at Burger King...but not if you provide them with a delicious steak dinner and expensive wine in your house. In the eyes of the FPPC, home entertainment isn't a gift, but a Whopper at Burger King.
Providing airfare, accommodations and dinner for Buena Park City Councilmember to attend a conference in Hawaii -- the FPPC says that is a gift.
But providing that Buena Park City Councilmember with airfare, accommodations and dinner at a conference in Hawaii at which the councilmember drones on for 10 minutes about Buena Park redevelopment efforts...well, that's not a gift, according to the FPPC.
In other words, there are a number of FPPC rules in which a "gift is not a gift is not a gift" -- including the Anaheim ticket situation.
Some food for thought next time the media weighs in with the Solomonic insight of the Fair Political Practices Commission.
And a final thought that has also been absent from media coverage of this issue: if the FPPC actually carries out its threatened rule change, the only practical result is no one would use those city-owned suites and seats in Angel Stadium, the Honda Center and The Grove. They're part of the city contracts with the relevant entities. They'll just go unused, because the proposed FPPC rules would effectively prohibit councilmembers from giving them away to anyone.
When this issue first came up I opined that the Anaheim CMs weren't doing anything wrong, and that since the City owned the suite anyway it would just sit empty.
In the case of Harry Sidhu some commenters were quick to point out that he gave lots of tickets to worthwhile charities.
Upon further reflection (without respect to the FPPC mumbo-jumbo)I think I missed the real point. Anaheim ought to cut out the practice.
The ability to dispense this largesse, no matter how noble its stated purpose, gives incumbents a free way to enhance their reputations that challengers can't enjoy. The problem to me is not that they're getting something - a gift; but, rather, that they're able to give something away and thereby increase their standing in the community without really having to do any of things they were ostensibly elected to do. It's a kind of modern day dispensation of patronage.
The City can come up with all sorts of reasons why they need this facility, but those ought to be examined publicly. Options might be to sell it or sublet it; or even distribute the tickets directly via lottery.
This issue needs more discussion in Anaheim.
Good analysis of a difficult issue. These conflict of interests problems are never as simple as they seem, any statement like "a gift is a gift" is almost certain to be wrong in some situations. I think there is probably over regulation in this area, not in the types of activities prohibited, but due to confusing regulations. We'll see if the FPPC ever gets around to trying to simplify things.
RP:
I hadn't thought of a lottery-system for the city-owned tickets, but then the devil is in the details. Is such a lottery limited to Anaheim residents? Does it create its own set of problems in having city staff oversee it?
Since the city ticket portion of the contracts were based on FPPC rulings, mightn't it be more equitable to postpone any new regs from taking effect until those contracts expire?
Maybe the City could just sell the balance of the term for the "assets" altogether - either to the concessionaire or to a high public bidder.
The lottery idea was just a flash of inspiration that probably would be too cumbersome - although better than the current situation. And I'll bet Anaheim already expends significant time "managing" these resources.
In any case, I'd like to see it done sooner than later. I'd also like to see this develop as a campaign issue for the fall.
I think the underlying issue here is that this kind of problem arises when municipalities go beyond the business of providing those necessary services for a local governement, and start to "branch out" into areas best reserved to the private sector -- such as sporting venues.
The best way to solve the issue of how to deal with this ticket situation, in the case, is to figure out how the city can divest itself of these extraneous holdings.
At least that's my ten cents.