Secrecy Serves No One

Protecting petitioners from retribution is one argument for exempting city secession drives from the kind of disclosure laws that govern nearly every other political campaign in the state. It’s not as ludicrous as a second common argument--that a secession drive is not a political campaign--but it’s just as wrongheaded.

And Henri F. Pellessier is the last person who should be making such an argument. As chairman of the Local Agency Formation Commission, the government panel charged with deciding whether to put San Fernando Valley, Harbor and Hollywood secession on the ballot, Pellessier should be ensuring that the process is as open as possible.

Yet when LAFCO last week began considering whether to require secession petitioners and lobbyists to disclose donations and expenses, Pellessier trotted out the excuse used by Valley VOTE, the group pushing Valley secession, for keeping the names of its financial backers secret. Had LAFCO required disclosure then, Pellessier said, fear of retribution from City Hall would have kept people from donating to Valley VOTE’s petition drive and killed any chance for cityhood.

Since when is protecting secessionists from hypothetical retribution more important than promoting the public’s interest in understanding what forces are behind efforts to break up the city? Disclosure is the only way for the public to know which special interests are bankrolling a campaign--and which may later want favors. Openness is in everyone’s best interest. Withholding information only encourages rumors and innuendo and makes recognizing retribution--and condemning it--impossible.

Candidates for office, and initiative, referendum and recall drives, must report all contributions and expenditures. So must secession campaigns--once they qualify for the ballot, a determination that LAFCO will make. But the petition drive that starts the study process--and the lobbying of LAFCO during the study itself--are not covered by state campaign laws.

The Legislature last year gave LAFCO the authority to close this loophole and require disclosure during the petition and study period. Among those urging LAFCO to do so are Miriam A. Krinsky, president of the Los Angeles Ethics Commission, and Bob Stern, president of the Center for Governmental Studies, a nonprofit group that researches campaign finance issues. Even Valley VOTE now supports disclosure, as long as it is not retroactive and applies to those lobbying both for and against secession.

The potential consequences of breaking up the nation’s second largest city are enormous. Imagine the pressures being exerted on LAFCO by influential supporters and opponents alike. Unless LAFCO’s eight other members challenge their chairman’s penchant for secrecy, imagine is all you will be able to do.