Palm Springs Mayor Steve Pougnet’s unclear business relationship with a local developer begs the question whether other Coachella Valley officials have failed to disclose real or potential conflicts of interest.
That’s difficult to answer. On a form he filed with the city, Pougnet included work for a company called Union Abbey. But the form doesn’t require noting that the company was created by developer Richard Meaney, to whom Pougnet and his fellow city council members later voted to sell land.
Every year, public officials and candidates across the state are required to disclose their financial interests on public documents known as Form 700s. But many of the most recent filings for city leaders in the valley offer little insight into their actual business relationships.
Three Coachella City Council members, for example, filed one-page reports that listed no gifts, income or other financial interests. Rancho Mirage Councilwoman Iris Smotrich, on the other hand, listed every local board and agency she served on and more than two dozen companies she owned stock in.
The range of disclosure could narrow if state Assemblyman Mike Gatto gets his way. The Glendale Democrat wants to strengthen the Form 700 by pushing a bill that would require more specificity from politicians over how much money they make and how.
He doesn’t know every detail, but Gatto is familiar with the Pougnet case — and how his legislation could have made the mayor’s relationship with Meaney public much sooner.
“I remember it very vividly because I remember thinking, ‘Gee, that is a pretty profound example of a need for greater transparency,’” Gatto said. “It’s exactly that kind of situation that this bill is trying to address.”
Californians voted to establish the Political Reform Act in 1974 as the Watergate scandal shocked the nation and destroyed public confidence in politicians. The state has led the nation in campaign finance ethics and disclosure ever since, said Jaycob Bytel, a spokesman for the California Fair Political Practices Commission.
The ‘74 reforms set ethical limits on politicians, required more disclosure of spending and fundraising by lobbyists and campaigns, and standardized the Form 700s. It also created the FPPC to oversee the new rules.
Bytel estimated at least half a million people file Form 700s every year. The FPPC, which is currently investigating whether Pougnet’s vote violated the Political Reform Act, hasn’t taken a formal position on the bill.
“The Form 700 is there because public officials should be making decisions that are in the best interest of the public” and not their own, Bytel said. A curious person could, in theory, check them before voting to make a more informed decision.
But little has changed by way of income reporting since the mid-1970s, when median salaries were far lower.
And, at the federal level, a 2010 Supreme Court decision struck down political spending limits for corporations, labor unions and other groups. That’s led to an expolosion in “super PACs,” which don’t often disclose their donors and are flooding elections with shadowy money.
Whether they’ve made money off interest in a property, an investment or a job, California officials don’t need to be very specific on their Form 700s. Someone who made $15,000 in a year falls under the same category as someone who made $85,000.
Gatto’s bill, AB 10, would require more specific income reporting.
Pougnet, for example, only had to report that Meaney’s company Union Abbey paid him more than $100,000 in each of the past two years for his consulting work. Under Gatto’s bill, Pougnet would have had to say whether he made $100,001 to $250,000, $250,001 to $500,000 or more than half a million dollars.
The mayor also may have had to list Meaney’s name on his Form 700. On top of the income reporting changes, Gatto’s bill would require more detailed disclosures of politicians’ business partners.
Pougnet said in a statement on Tuesday that he would have no problem with such rules.
“As the public record shows, I have always complied fully with my financial disclosure requirements past and present,” he said. “Should disclosure regulations change in the future, I will be pleased to continue to fully disclose any and all information required.”
Under Gatto’s bill, officials also would have to list every time a financial interest caused them to recuse themselves from a governmental decision. The public usually has to sit in on a City Council meeting or read the minutes — weeks later — to find out whether that happened.
For example, Palm Springs City Councilwoman Ginny Foat, who’s also running for mayor, recused herself by leaving the room when her colleagues decided to send $60,000 in city money to the Mizell Senior Center, which she runs. Foat disclosed that job on her Form 700, but most of the public would not know she recused herself since the minutes from that mid-June meeting are not yet available on the city’s website.
A few public interest groups, including California Common Cause and the California Clean Money Campaign, support Gatto’s bill. It passed the Assembly floor and must clear the Senate before heading to Gov. Jerry Brown’s desk.
But Gatto isn’t taking anything for granted. Similar bills have died before, he said, and he’s encountered resistance from politicians who “clearly aren’t reading the same newspapers I am” and don’t think more disclosure is necessary.
“I think the more transparency elected officials provide will make the public feel that most officials have nothing to hide,” he said.
Kia Farhang is a local reporter for The Desert Sun. He can be reached at (760)778- 4625, Kia.Farhang@desertsun.com or on Twitter @KiaFarhang.
How AB 10 would change officials’ disclosures
Income
Current ranges:
$500-$1,000
$1,001-$10,000
$10,001-$100,000
More than $100,000
Proposed ranges:
$1,000-$10,000
$10,001-$100,000
$100,001-$250,000
$250,001-$500,000
More than $500,000
Investment
Current ranges:
$2,000-$10,000
$10,001-$100,000
$100,001-$1 million
More than $1 million
Proposed ranges:
$5,000-$10,000
$10,001-$100,000
$100,001-$250,000
$250,001-$500,000
$500,001-$1 million
$1,000,001-$2 million
More than $2 million
Interest in property
Current ranges:
$2,000-$10,000
$10,001-$100,000
$100,001-$1 million
More than $1 million
Proposed ranges:
$10,000-$250,000
$250,001-$500,000
$500,001-$750,000
$750,001-$1 million
$1,000,001-$2 million
More than $2 million