Drastic Proposals to Disassemble the Dream Machine

Vernon, CA, the subject of several blog posts here (click here for the latest), has been the object of criminal investigations, but now local officials are starting to get creative in response to the most creatively imagined city in the U.S.

Solution 1: Constitutional Amendment
According to an article in yesterday's Los Angeles Times, Los Angeles County supervisors will, next week, be considering the proposal of an amendment to the California constitution that would remove the Vernon administration's most creative ploy:  limiting housing to those who work for the city, so that personal economic dependence and voting go hand in hand (and there is no one to start a NIMBY movement against polluting companies in town). However, according to the article, housing is no longer occupied only by employees. Their replacements include family and friends of council members and other city officials.

That's pretty drastic, amending the constitution to undermine an anti-democratic scheme, but nothing else seems to have worked. The amendment would "direct that no more than 10% of the housing owned or controlled by a charter city can be occupied by city employees or by people whose connections to City Hall could constitute a conflict of interest."

That's got to be the first time government ethics and city housing have come together in a law, not to mention a constitutional amendment. But it would hard to apply such an amendment to friends of officials, since "friend" is impossible to define. And wouldn't a constitutional action against officials be a pretty complex way to change things in Vernon? And the amendment would require approval by the state legislature and by state voters. A lot of work to clean up one little town.

Solution 2: Competitive Bidding
The county supervisors will also be considering a proposal for the county or its Community Development Commission "to put the housing units for a city like Vernon out for competitive bidding." The sponsor of these proposals actually represents the area that includes Vernon, so she is presumably reflecting the feelings of its neighbors. But she's been in office since 1991, so one wonders where her thinking cap has been all these years.

Solution 3: Disincorporation
The district attorney wants to disincorporate the city of Vernon. It certainly deserves this, but how is it done? The answer is surprising. According to "Municipal Disincorporation in California" by John H. Knox and Chris Hutchison, the state legislature has set up a process, but can change the process whenever and however it likes. This is a reminder that, at least legally, municipalities are creatures of the state and exist only at the will of the state. One thing that derives from this is that, even though many states want no part of it, ultimately they are responsible for local government ethics.

This definitely seems like a better method than a constitutional amendment. The county can apply for a special legislative statute to disincorporate Vernon, and why would the legislature not be willing to go along? This would create an excellent precedent to keep other local officials from taking conflict of interest to its logical extreme, as has been done in Vernon.

There is also some action on the criminal front. According to the article, last month a grand jury indicted Vernon's former city administrator on charges of conflict of interest and misappropriation of public funds involving two contracts the city entered into with his wife. It's a minor matter, but chipping away is something to do while waiting for the wrecking ball to arrive.

Robert Wechsler
Director of Research-Retired, City Ethics

---