Bill to Curb Secret Lobbying of Coastal Panel Passes First Test

SACRAMENTO —  A measure aimed at curbing secret lobbying of California Coastal Commission members passed its first legislative test Monday, while another bill to reform commission practices stalled in the Assembly Natural Resources Committee.

The lobbying measure, by Assemblyman Terry Friedman (D-Los Angeles), was approved by the same committee on a 8-0 vote and sent to an uncertain future in the Ways and Means Committee.

The Friedman bill would limit private, or ex parte, discussions between individual commission members and people seeking to influence the outcome of a vote of the coastal development board. A commissioner who does participate in an ex parte discussion would be required to report it within seven days and then would be barred from commission deliberations and votes on the matter. Violators would be subject to fines of up to $15,000.

The proposal comes after two attorney general opinions, in 1981 and again this year, that private communications with Coastal Commission members could provide legal grounds for overturning commission decisions. That is because the commission, as a quasi-judicial body, is supposed to base its decisions solely on evidence presented in public. Yet, as detailed in a Times article last September, some of the commission’s 12 members have repeatedly had private discussions with those who are seeking commission permission for building projects.

A Friedman spokeswoman, Pat Garrett, said she was “encouraged” by Monday’s vote but predicted that the bill “is not going to sail right through,” despite Friedman’s promise to committee members to provide clarification of what constitutes an ex parte discussion.

Although the only opposition on record so far comes from the California Assn. of Realtors, Garrett said an earlier attempt to enact similar legislation, aimed at the Public Utilities Commission, ultimately was defeated.

Trouble for the bill also may be brewing within the Coastal Commission itself, where divided members at the commission’s March 24 meeting raised concerns about the bill and decided to take no position on it for the moment.

A second, and potentially farther-reaching bill, by Assemblyman Tom Hayden (D-Santa Monica), fell two votes short of the seven needed for committee approval. That measure, for which Hayden intends to try again later this week to get the necessary votes, would give commission members set two-year terms, thus insulating them from immediate removal if their votes anger those who appointed them: the governor, the Senate Rules Committee or the Assembly Speaker.

Last summer, Senate President Pro Tem David A. Roberti (D-Los Angeles) abruptly replaced Commissioner Gilbert R. Contreras because Roberti believed he would vote for an oil-drilling permit for Occidental Petroleum Corp., a project Roberti opposed.

Hayden’s bill, which has the blessing of the Sierra Club and the Natural Resources Defense Committee, also would require shared representation on the commission among counties along California’s 1,100-mile coastline.

Among the bill’s most controversial provisions are a ban on political fund raising by commission members and a prohibition on a commission member’s serving on another board that would pose a conflict of interest.