Inglewood Mayor to Amend Campaign Cost Disclosure; Omissions Cited

Inglewood Mayor Edward Vincent did not itemize some political expenditures in his latest campaign disclosure statement as required by law, listing a $6,200 payment to American Express rather than detailing how the money was spent.

A review of Vincent’s campaign statements since 1985 indicates that he did not itemize thousands of dollars in credit card expenditures. The state Political Reform Act requires that elected officials describe each expenditure of more than $100.

In an interview last week, Vincent said the omissions were unintentional. He said he did not know until recently that he was supposed to itemize such expenditures, and that he gave detailed information to the campaign consultant who filed his latest report. The mayor said he would amend the campaign statement, which was filed Aug. 3 with City Clerk Hermanita Harris.

Harris said last week, in response to inquiries from The Times about Vincent’s statements, that she would send letters to the mayor and any other officeholders who filed incomplete statements, asking them to file corrections.

Rod Wright, the consultant who filed Vincent’s latest statement, said the previous statements will be amended if Harris requests it.

Harris said she had been aware of insufficient reporting on Vincent’s past statements and had planned to request additional information on statements dating back to 1986, when she took office. A shortage of staff and time had prevented her from doing so, she said.

Vincent’s most recent statement covers the reporting period of January through June, 1988. Of a total of $12,548 that Vincent reported spending in the period, about half--$6,220.76--is described in a single entry charged to American Express and described only by the commission code “T”--travel, accommodations and meals. The statement does not itemize where the money was spent, who received it or who was entertained.

Similarly, Vincent’s statements from 1987, a municipal election year during which he spent more than $90,000, include eight entries totaling more than $6,000 in American Express charges that are not itemized. The 1985 and 1986 statements do not detail entries totaling about $18,000 in American Express and other credit card charges.

Fair Political Practices Commission spokeswoman Sandra Michioku said Government Code section 84211 requires a specific breakdown of expenditures of more than $100. The breakdown must include the amount and a brief description of the expenditure, the name and address of who received it, and in the case of a credit card charge, the name of the final recipient of the money, such as an airline, hotel or restaurant.

The regulations are part of a series of laws that require politicians to disclose fully how campaign money is spent. They also serve to prevent candidates from diverting campaign contributions to personal use.

City clerks review the forms, but enforcement of the disclosure requirements is left to the state commission. Usually the agency requests an amended statement, Michioku said, unless a politician has been warned before about incomplete disclosures or if there appears to be an intentional attempt at concealment. In such cases, fines can be imposed.

“The goal is to get the information,” Michioku said.

The Fair Political Practices Commission is conducting an inquiry into another issue involving Vincent’s use of campaign funds.

Commission investigators interviewed Vincent and Councilman Ervin (Tony) Thomas in March about whether both men had properly reported that Vincent paid for Thomas’ campaign literature, postage and other expenses when Thomas ran for council last year. Thomas’ victory in that race was overturned by a Superior Court judge and is still being litigated.

Vincent said that he has been keeping better records of his expenditures since he spoke with commission investigators.

Vincent’s expenditures are noteworthy because he is a dominant figure in Inglewood politics--even though the mayor’s job is a part-time, largely ceremonial post. He has denied allegations of some critics that he runs a political machine, but he regularly contributes to City Council and school board candidates.

Vincent spent thousands of dollars from his campaign funds last year on an unsuccessful ballot initiative that would have made the mayor’s job a full-time post paying $49,621 a year. The mayor’s job pays about $10,800 a year plus car allowance.

For most of his tenure as mayor, Vincent has been on an unpaid leave of absence from his job as a Los Angeles County probation officer. He says he lives on savings, his mayoral salary and his wife’s income as a teacher in the Compton Unified School District.

After the defeat of Proposition 1 in April, 1987, Vincent said he would have to return to work as a probation officer in order to make ends meet. He has not done so, however, and he now says he is considering retiring from the Probation Department.

Among the expenditures specified on Vincent’s recent disclosure statement is $1,078 to repair a pickup truck he owns. Vincent said the money was used to paint the truck and repair its transmission.

Election Code section 12403 prohibits the “expenditure of campaign funds for . . . refurbishing of vehicles, appliances, equipment or real property where . . . the legal title resides in a candidate, officeholder or a member of his or her immediate family.”

Vincent is the legal owner of the truck, according to the Department of Motor Vehicles, but he said the expense was legitimate because he uses the truck solely for political campaigns. He said the truck was last used during the 1987 campaign for the full-time mayor initiative.

According to a 1982 Attorney General’s opinion on prohibited expenditures, the code section was intended to preclude officeholders from “using campaign funds to defray sizable expenditures on vehicles” and would “probably preclude” use of campaign funds for “painting . . . or engine overhaul.”

Spokesman Eugene Hill said Vincent’s claim about using the truck only during campaigns raises an issue that is not addressed “in precise terms” in the 1982 opinion. Hill said Vincent could request an opinion from the Attorney General on his case.

The Election Code provides a penalty of up to $500, or twice the amount of the unlawful expenditure for repair of an officeholder’s vehicle, whichever is greater. But officials are often asked to correct such a violation by repaying their campaign fund or transferring the title of the vehicle to their campaign committee, Hill and others said.

Regarding the lack of itemized expenditures and the truck repair question, Vincent said: “I haven’t tried to hide anything. If I knew it was illegal, do you think I would put it on my statements?”

His political consultant, Rod Wright, said: “The initial thing to do is get the report in on time. We file those things we believe we’re supposed to file. If there’s an amendment that needs to be done, we’ll do it.”