Open the Coastal Commission’s Doors

Sleaze is the catch word of the moment, generally referring to corruption, greed and self-interest. And, while this label is most often applied to individuals, corporations and bureaucracies are also subject to its sting. Sleaze is sometimes real, at other times simply perceived, but it always erodes the public’s confidence.

The California Coastal Commission is a case in point. More than 16 years ago, Californians concerned over the future of their 1,100-mile coastline and fed up with inability of the governor or the Legislature to take responsibility for its protection, passed the California Coastal Zone Conservation Act. This action was taken at a time when the initiative process was reserved for extraordinary issues, unlike today’s ballot, which reads like a special-interest shopping list.

Voters in 1972 had visions of an impartial commission, charged with the custody of California’s coast and free of the undue influences of either activists or developers. In addition, the initiative included specific language declaring that its intent was to “allow broad citizen participation in enforcing” its provisions. Voters envisioned a commission that would objectively evaluate proposals for development in a judicial-like setting, based on the facts presented in public hearings.

However, the coastal commission of the 1980s is most certainly not the impartial and objective body created by the voters. Coastal commissioners, ignoring the legal opinions of two attorneys general, George Deukmejian and John Van de Kamp, often privately conduct the public’s business behind closed doors--disregarding the requirement for open hearings. These communications, legally called ex parte, are literally one-sided, or for the benefit of one side only. One coastal commissioner indicated he had “no intention” of revealing any ex-parte communications “because I get too many.” Hardly the open and impartial hearing process called for in the Coastal Act.

Due to the private nature of ex-parte communications, it is impossible to know whether they involve corrupt attempts at influence-peddling or simple procedural questions such as, “When is your next hearing?” or “When do I need to file that permit?” Without a complete ban on back-room contacts, or at the very least, the full disclosure of their content, no one can ever be sure whether innocence or iniquity lurks behind closed doors.

To return public accountability to the coastal commission, I introduced a bill that would have required all coastal commissioners to disclose private communications on matters pending before the commission. Under that bill, decisions could not be based on evidence that was presented behind the scenes with no opportunity for rebuttal, nor could decisions be based on insider information available to only certain commissioners.

The bill, which was supported by the coastal commission itself as a reinforcement of current laws against influence-peddling, failed by three votes on the Assembly floor. But, its failure will not end efforts at reform. The perception of sleaze will not simply disappear. The coastal commission must take action. The commission can and should clean its own house by adopting regulations that will strictly prohibit private influence in its decisions. Californians want what they voted for, not a flawed facsimile.