News

CROWDING THE LINE

Dave WielengaWed. December 24
 

Josh Lowenthal and Theresa Bixby’s fundraising letter for Robert Garcia almost goes too far


PHOTO by DANIEL DE BOOM

The long-awaited Robert-Garcia-for-city-council campaign finally burst from its staging grounds, and the past weeks have been a cavalcade of choreographed announcements, high-profile endorsements and well-heeled fundraisers. Thus far into the race toward the April 7 election, the 31-year-old Garcia is definitely the man to beat.

But two of the fresh-faced candidate’s most prominent supporters—Josh Lowenthal and Theresa Bixby, who also lead the board of directors of Children Today, a day-care center for homeless kids—became so caught up in their enthusiasm for fellow board member Garcia they crowded the legal line that prohibits not-for-profit organizations from participating in political campaigns.

A widely distributed Dec. 12 e-mail bearing the subject line “Children Today’s Theresa Bixby and Josh Lowenthal” began this way: “Dear Friends, We’re writing to ask for your support for Robert Garcia, a candidate for the vacant First District city council seat in Long Beach.”

The next sentence took a step back: “We write this as individuals and do not represent the board of directors of Children Today (Children Today is apolitical; as an organization it does not endorse candidates seeking office).”

But the remainder of the letter extolled Garcia’s work with Children Today, pointed out the organization is headquartered in the First District and asserted, “Having an advocate such as Robert on the city council will be a phenomenal boost to current and future operations of Children Today.”

Lowenthal, president of the organization’s board of directors, and Bixby, vice-president and cofounder, concluded with an invitation to a $100-per-ticket cocktail fundraiser they hosted Dec. 15—noting attendees could also commit at the host ($5,000), friend ($2,500) and supporter ($1,000) levels.

Even without the money, there’s no doubt the perceived support of the people involved with Children Today would benefit any candidate in Long Beach. Its board, associate directors and donors span the spectrum of the city’s most successful and influential citizens. That’s why Children Today is able to provide such top-of-the-line day care to children while homeless parents receive counseling, find jobs and move into apartments—as The District chronicled in its July 30, 2008 cover story, “Homelessness-less.”

But the e-mail aroused concern that Lowenthal and Bixby compromised the bargain the Internal Revenue Service makes with not-for-profit organizations. The IRS Web site says not-for-profits “are absolutely prohibited from directly or indirectly participating in or intervening in, any political campaign on behalf of (or in opposition to) any candidate for public office.” The penalty can be dire—revocation of tax-exempt status.

“Children Today does not endorse any particular candidate—our e-mail specifically said that,” Lowenthal maintained when first contacted by The District. “The e-mail from Theresa and I specifically said we were writing as individuals and were not representing the board. I thought we made that very clear. I don’t feel we broke any rules.”

Legally, Lowenthal was right. Attorney Doug Haubert, an expert on California ethics and political laws consulted by The District, was adamant the e-mail violated no laws because none of Children Today’s money or resources were expended and it was not sent on Children Today’s computers or letterhead. “Legally, there isn’t anything there,” he said. “I don’t even see it as a gray area.”

But Haubert said the e-mail could generate confusion or suspicion that might translate into public relations difficulties for Children Today and political restrictions for Garcia.

“It’s a questionable practice, if for no other reason than people may raise their eyebrows,” said Haubert. “By drawing a strong connection between a candidate and an organization you create the possibility that, under some circumstances the elected official might be conflicted from voting on certain issues.”

Garcia said he did not see Lowenthal and Bixby’s e-mail before it was sent. “My first reaction was, I thought it was really nice of them,” he said. “I consider myself an extremely ethical and honest person. The organization would never do anything that wasn’t focused on helping families facing homelessness.”

Evan Anderson Braude, a former First District council member who is running against Garcia, was wary about commenting on the e-mail. “I don’t want to hurt Children Today,” he said, “and I don’t attribute any bad motive to Josh, who is a wonderful human being and like family to me.” (Lowenthal is the son of Braude’s 20-year romantic partner, Bonnie Lowenthal, whose recent election to the State Assembly created a vacancy in the First District seat.)

But Braude suggested the clumsiness of the letter illuminated one of Garcia’s flaws as a candidate.

“This is an example of someone who is young and not experienced, who has not been around as long as I have, to know how to deal with these kinds of issues, to see them before they go out,” said Braude. “It also raises a policy issue of how he might vote on various things: Is it an indication that Garcia has pre-determined which organizations will get money and which will not?”

Presented with that question, Garcia responded: “A vote for me is a vote for addressing the issue of homelessness in general. I have learned most of what I know about homelessness through Children Today. But will Children Today get preferential treatment? Of course not.”

Ultimately, Lowenthal sounded apologetic.

“Robert has worked so hard as a volunteer for our organization; he gets it [and] is committed to ending homelessness in our community,” said Lowenthal. “Theresa and I have seen this commitment firsthand through his sweat and leadership, and wanted to share it with our friends. I think Robert will be an advocate for any program providing services to homeless families and children—not just ours. That’s what we intended to convey in our letter.”

Tags: , , , , , ,

  • diaper beach
    the lowenthal family has helped turned LB into a santuary for homeless, parolees, mentally ill people and illegal (lol @ undocumented) immigrants. why would anyone vote for a candidate that has potentially been influenced by a lowenthal?
  • Rick
    Former republican Robert Garcia is not qualified for the job. He lacks experience and should probably stick to school politics. He’s just another Lowenthal crony.
  • tecumseh
    from the author, mr weilenga:

    "The rules prohibiting political activity by non-profit agencies are old, well-known and apply to everybody."

    Well, exactly, sir. Which makes you late to the party, sort of like someone at a football game who jumps on the field yelling "pass interference"...when it's a running play. If the rules are old, why is the tone of the article so smug. You discovered 501c3 campaign laws...so?

    You acknowledge the law is well-known (including, presumably, to Lowenthal and Bibxy), yet you presume to educate everyone about it.

    You quote a lawyer...but he's dismissing the issue. Or, dismissing it on legal grounds anyway - the area of a lawyer's expertise, yes? But you didn't like his answer, so he became, it seems, a political consultant in the next paragraph, commenting on the "appearance" of a conflict of interest, something about which he is no more necessarily an expert than are you or I.

    So which is it - campaign finance law, or a future hypothetical conflict of interest? the DW is "REPORTING"?

    This whole thing deserved about two column inches, on a slow day. There are real stories in this town. Why not find one?
  • Juan Pardell
    Allow me to reiterate my comment(s); Not one of the eight individuals, who have filed paperwork to run for the First District seat, has stated how they will help solve the major issues/problems (budget deficit, infrastructure, public safety, etc.) of Long Beach.
    Perhaps this story was much ado about nothing. However, the silence of each candidate, regarding where they stand on the city's major problems, is deafening. Voters haven't been given any specifics on what is the agenda of each candidate, and, most importantly, how they plan to pay for the items they propose.
  • Juan: Let not your heart be troubled, my friend. There will be plenty of opportunities for the candidates to address these issues between now and the special election in April.

    I'm told that the Junior Chamber plans to host a Candidates Forum within an upcoming monthly "Beer & Politics" event. With so many candidates there may not be time for a lot of questions for each, but it'll prove a fine opportunity to access the candidates nonetheless.

    Surely there will be other such opportunities as well.

    The Candidates are doing their part by stepping up and asking for our votes. DW is doing its part by covering the candidates and the election and providing a forum for the discussion of both.

    Now we, the Electorate, must do our part: Do our research, ask pertinent questions, require clear and direct responses and then, most importantly, vote *intelligently* come Tuesday, April 7th.
  • Juan Pardell
    John: Usually, when a candidate announces their run for elected office, they already have a platform which best defines an ability to deal with the most pressing issues pertaining to the responsibilities of that particular office. The mere fact, no candidate has raised matters regarding the budget deficit, infrastructure, public safety, etc., would lead any intelligent voter to believe that person is trying to deviate from the issues.
  • Dave Wielenga
    Actually, I was reporting both--the mass e-mailing of a letter that drew strong connections between a not-for-profit agency and a political candidate and the potential conflict-of-interest that may result. Several recipients were bothered by the e-mail, and forwarded it to me with their objections and concerns. They were members of other non-profit organizations and were offended by what they thought was a disrespectful wink at laws that are intended to protect citizens from political operatives that might try to hide behind tax-exempt status. (I have subsequently contacted other not-for-profit organizations and all have expressed discomfort or disdain for the Lowenthal/Bixby letter.) Some were also worried that Children Today might be damaged by some future e-mail. Some who support Garcia precisely because of his interest in the problem of homelessness were concerned that his effectiveness as a councilman might be diminished. Honestly, I don't understand what you are so bothered about. I simply reported the existence of the letter and the potential for breaking the law and creating a conflict-of-interest. Obviously, I did not exclude any pertinent facts; as you note, I include the attorney's evaluation of the situation, as well as Josh Lowenthal's explanation of his actions. Why does it bother you so much to have the existence of this e-mail publicized and considered?
  • tecumseh
    And Josh, you owe no apologies.
  • tecumseh
    This is much ado about nothing. The DW just needs a scandal; it seems to be all they know how to report. Expect more; will Robert have a conflict of interest if his mailman endorses him and the post office has business before the city? Should Robert's pizza delivery guy be allowed to attend council meetings? Will the LBCC media studies dept have to fold to avoid a conflict of interest if Robert is elected?

    This story isnt about Garcia. It's about the DW having no raison d'etre other than cutting people down - Laura Richardson, Tom Henessey, Gary DeLong... it's a new one every week. Fortunately, maybe 25 voters actually read this rag, so I dont think Robert needs to worry.

    jdt
  • Doug Haubert
    Dave, I would clarify something. The statement that, under some circumstances, Mr. Garcia could have a conflict of interest requiring him to abstain from decisions as councilman might be confusing people. There is nothing in that letter that would cause Mr. Garcia to abstain as a councilman. If he remained on the Board of Directors of any nonprofit, and he received compensation for being on the Board, he may have to abstain from decisions directly affecting the nonprofit. If he was an unpaid BOD member, or resigned from the BOD after his election, it is unlikely he would ever need to abstain. This would be the case whether a letter like this went out or not.

    Also, I mentioned a few other occasions where politicians strongly identified with nonprofits ran for office. I believe it is probably pretty common for candidates running for office to have ties with local nonprofit groups or serve on a nonprofit Board. Thanks, Doug
  • Juan Pardell
    Dave, Doug, Josh, etc.,

    Although there may be a correlation, between Robert Garcia's candidacy and his affiliation with Children Today, I don't view it as a major issue. What is more important, is that neither of the eight candidates, who have filed paperwork to run for the vacant First District councilmember seat, has stated how they will solve the dire problems affecting Long Beach's city government. Not one of them ,has mentioned how they will vote on issues pertaining to the budget deficit, infrastructure repairs, public safety,etc.
  • District Weekly’s coverage of Robert Garcia’s candidacy generally and the Lowenthal/Bixby endorsement e-letter specifically are both valid topics for inquiry and consideration.

    Ms. Bixby and Mr. Lowenthal are both prominent figures from prominent families in our community and, thus, what they have to say about a political candidate tends to hold a lot of weight with many. This is as it should be.

    Together, they (and others) also represent “Children Today” a tax exempt organization that, by law, is “prohibited from directly or indirectly participating in or intervening in, any political campaign on behalf of (or in opposition to) any candidate for public office.” This is an important factor to consider in this context and DW likewise, very appropriately, considers it in this coverage.

    Ms. Bixby and Mr. Lowenthal assure us, in various ways, both here and elsewhere that their support of and advocacy for Mr. Garcia is a personal one and does not, in any way or to any degree, represent the official position of Children Today. Fair enough.

    Readers can draw their own conclusions on this and that fact should in no way limit DW from speculating about it one way or the other. This is what DW and other independent opinion/news outlets like it does, after all…discuss the pros and cons of current and topical information of local public interest.

    So thanks, Dave, for posting this piece. Had you not done so Mr. Lowenthal might not have felt motivated to post his personal response which offers still more information for all of us to consider further. Had you not done so prominent posters like Mr. Pressburg and Juan Pardell might not have felt inclined to chime in.

    All of it offers more food for thought. All of it stimulates interest, conversation and discussion. All of it furthers the public discourse on matters of local interest and import.

    Keep it coming!
  • Dave Wielenga
    Hello Mr. Addison. Sorry you were bored. Let me reassure you that nobody I quoted or contacted for this story considered it a waste of time; everybody saw the potential violation of the law prohibiting the participation of not-for-profit organizations in a candidate's political campaign as a very serious matter. I did not discover this situation alone; officials of other not-for-profits alerted me to it, concerned that some future letter from Lowenthal and Bixby that made so many connections between Children Today and Robert Garcia might ruin the organization. The attorneys I spoke with were quite concerned about this, too. Also, please read carefully the part of the story in which the attorney speculates that this letter already could create conflict-of-interest issues for Mr. Garcia. Lowenthal and Bixby are historic names in Long Beach, and quite experienced in matters of influence and politics. Their endorsements already carry a lot of weight; they don't need to take such risks, especially when the consequences can be so dire for people in need. The rules prohibiting political activity by non-profit agencies are old, well-known and apply to everybody. Long Beach's tradition of ends-justify-the-means politics does not provide an exception. The spirit of these laws are as important to examine as the letter of their compliance. Again, sorry you were bored, but just because something is complex doesn't mean it is a waste of time.
  • Devorah Helnick
    let's see if I get this straight. nobody believes the law was broken or even close to it, including elections attorneys, so there isn't risk for children today or lowenthal & bixby. then in your blog you say the risk is actually not with children today now but MIGHT lie with garcia having a conflict of interest down the road. i read lowenthal's letter to you and it shows no risk for garcia there either, since the city doesn't control any matters regarding children today. where is this unnecessary risk you keep talking about? baloney. is it a public relations risk for children today? lowenthal doesn't care - he still isn't shy in his support of garcia or his history working with garcia in his rebuttal letter. it sounds to me like these guys do real good things and follow all the rules. this smells like you're on a witch hunt; you are obviously infatuated with robert garcia and have nothing more interesting to write about. your story would have juice if there was a law broken (or even if it was a "grey area" since that was also ruled out by your own legal sources). or if the councilman had to vote on allocating funds to children today, which it seems he doesn't. where's the beef? i can guess that the nonprofit officials who alerted you to this are probably not garcia supporters....hope you realize you have become a political pawn. this story doesn't shed light on garcia or his supporters, but does shed light on you.
  • beach closure
    Josh, you forgot to add that the Play House West is accredited by the NYAEC....
  • Brian Addison
    Wow, Mr. Wielenga, thank you for wasting my time, Long Beach's time, and your readers' time. When you have an attorney stating that this isn't even "a gray area," then I am confused as to why you want to make it a gray area. Are citizens who support political campaigns supposed to completely abandon any association they have with non-profits whenever they endorse someone? Or were you simply hoping to be Provocateur of the Week? When someone has to question a politician's support from members of the non-profit community, it becomes clear that we are stretching our concerns; this article addressed Children Today as if Children Today itself had something to do with a political endorsement. In the already grimy and vicious arena of local politics, it seems that the author is acting as a catalyst towards increasing that viciousness and slander. The banality (not to mention the boredom) of this piece -- as with many of Mr. Wielenga's political diatribes -- has unfortunately exacerbated the view that The District is becoming more of a gossip-rag than a news journal. For the sake of your intelligent readers, please focus on things that matter within a campaign, not neutral aspects that are contorted into something they are not.
  • Dan Pressburg
    Knowing Josh and the work the Bixby's still do throughout the city is not the question here. Does this effect Children Today? Extremely doubtful. Putting your feelings of support for a candidate is part of the democratic process. There is still a First Amendment and neither J. Lowenthal or T. Bixby were yelling fire in a theater. Doing something on their own dime is what they are expressing and telling others about Garcia and having a committment to their candidate. The email states and gives first hand background knowledge of the homeless problem through Garcia's participation on a board. This is pertinent and succinctly explains his experience. The questions of who is the most qualified, if he is a special interests guy, will he be neighborhood friendly and what his plan for the city begs the question as it does for any other candidate. Atty Doug Haubert explained this doesn't even correlate to touching a gray area. Individuals have opinions and judging by the email and their stated position, this is a personal thing that each felt compelled to express as individuals not as a corporate, not for profit, or any other such entity.
  • PatBryant
    Children Today is an outstanding organization. Learning that Mr. Garcia has been a part of it impresses me even more about his candidacy.

    In regard to Mr. Braude's criticism, it seems like a cheap shot and I would be less likely to vote for him.


    I look for candidates who have a positive message about what THEY would do, I'm not interested in their criticisms of their opponents. I'll make up my own mind.
  • Juan Pardell
    Children Today does very good work. However, I wouldn't soley utilize a councilmember candidate's community affiliation, as a means test for deciding if that person is going to be an effective city official. Before deciding, perhaps you should ask yourself the following: 1. Who will be the candidate best qualified to deal with the city's problems? 2. Who is best qualfied to get rid of the budget deficit? 3. Who will make neighborhoods a top priority? 4. Who is not beholden to the special interests that dominate local politics? 5. Who has a concrete plan to improve Long Beach's infrastructure? 6. Who has the best ideas to pay for things without burdening the taxpayers?
  • Dear Dave:

    I'd like to offer an apology to anyone who might misinterpret my actions as unethical based on what you’ve projected in your story and subsequent comment. Please know that was not our intention in any way, shape, or form. We followed the legal guidelines as they are defined, and even went further by explicitly stating that we are supporting Robert Garcia as two individuals and not representing Children Today, or any other members of the agency’s Board or staff. We did not do it in consultation with anyone other than ourselves, by design, to ensure that it was indeed ethical.

    Having said that, I need to dispel the notion that Children Today could receive preferential treatment (or as Evan postulated getting money) with a sympathetic councilmember. In reality, CT does not receive funding from the City of Long Beach. We receive some public funds from the federal, state, and county levels via grants, but not from the city (the lion’s share of our funding comes from private donation). We do participate in the Long Beach Helath Department’s “Continuum of Ccare” at the City’s Multiservice Center by choice, not by mandate or funding contingencies. We further work with the Continuum in application for our annual HUD grant, which includes an administrative portion that covers City personnel. To that end, one might argue that we create revenue for the City, not the other way around. In the absence of the Continuum we could apply for the HUD monies on our own.

    Let me be perfectly clear and unequivocal so that all of your readers, and particularly you, understand: Children Today provides a free service to the City of Long Beach and privately raises roughly a million dollars a year to do so.

    Why then, would it be good in my personal estimation (again I am not speaking for the organization) to have councilmembers sympathetic to our mission? In my experience, our locally elected officials are more than legislators, they are beacons in the community and ideally serve as a bridge between groups. Many of the ways public/private partnerships transact are through the council office. A recent example would be church or community group donating toys to Children Today families after learning about us through a councilmember. Or Long Beach citizens who offer to volunteer for our organization by learning about us through the council office. Or councilmembers interfacing at various government functions learn of grant opportunities and pass that information on to us so we may apply on our own. Or assistance in leadership getting various agencies to collaborate in offering services to overlapping clientele (for example a homeless family may need more than childcare; they may also need counseling, job search resources, shelter, etc.). I could go on and on - the list is endless – but it certainly doesn’t have to include lobbying for funding/resources as you have suggested to your readers. To date it has not.

    In my seven years with the organization I cannot recall one council vote that directly impacted Children Today. Dora Jacildo, our outstanding Executive Director, was honored at City Council a few years ago, and Janelle Holt was recently recognized by Mayor Foster as “Preschool Teacher of the Year”, but beyond those nothing comes to mind. Over the years I have met with many councilmembers not to ask for their help, but rather to let them know we're out there and able to help them with their needs. Some take us up on that and have made the effort to weave us into their neighborhood endeavors. Others have not; unfortunately there are those that believe homelessness may simply go away if we don't deal with it.

    In sum, there is no risk to our agency or to a candidate and colleague that I wholeheartedly support, Robert Garcia. I would gladly write more emails on his behalf, or talk to anyone who is interested in listening. I am certainly grateful for the work he has done on behalf of our City’s neediest and feel it is the least I can do. He will be an outstanding leader for Long Beach.

    Finally, I'd like to note an inaccuracy in your story: Children Today is headquartered on the border of the the 8th and 9th Districts, not the 1st…..I’d like to believe we enjoy the support of Councilmembers Gabelich and Learch as well. We do operate a childcare facility in the 1st District. If any of your readers would like to learn more about us, they may visit www.childrentoday.org.

    Thank you for providing me with an outlet to respond to your story. And thank you for your appreciation of our work – we also truly appreciate yours.

    Happy Holidays and a healthy new year to all!

    Josh Lowenthal
  • Dave Wielenga
    Hey Josh. Sorry about my confusion regarding the location of Children Today headquarters. When I did my story on Children Today last summer, I made several visits to CT's original facility (Playhouse West) to meet with you and Dora Jacildo and the family I ultimately profiled and apparently incorrectly assumed that it was CT headquarters. I continued that assumption when I read the wording of the letter that you and Theresa wrote in support of Robert Garcia's candidate, specifically this part: "The District that Robert seeks to represent houses our city's poorest---the largest percentage of homelessness, as well as the Playhouse West itself. Having an advocate such as Robert on the city council will be a phenomenal boost to current and future operations of Children Today. With this economy, we expect homelessness to rise, and resources to dwindle. Robert understands firsthand the tremendous value we bring to the community, and will be our greatest ally in elected office. As an elected he will remain on the Board of Directors of the organization, and will wield tremendous influence in the policymaking process." Guess I just asked one too few questions.
  • Dave Wielenga
    I guess it's a matter of whether or not you are measuring the legal standard now, when Robert Garcia is still a candidate, or later, when he may be a city councilman. On one hand, the attorneys we consulted said they did not believe that Children Today's non-profit status was threatened by the letter that Lowenthal and Bixby wrote for Garcia the candidate. (Of course, the attorneys do not work for the IRS, the agency that investigates and makes such determinations.) But those same attorneys said there is a very strong possibiity---thus the use of the word "almost"---that the letter might create a situation in which Garcia the city councilman would be forced to declare a conflict-of-interest and abstain from voting on any issues pertaining to Children Today. I agree that Lowenthal and Bixby and Children Today do wonderful, essential work. I think it would be tragic if their overzealousness hurt the organization and the poor people they love so much. That, as much as anything, is why we ran the story after several recipients of the e-mail contacted us in anger and concern--to warn against taking such an unnecessary and terrible risk.
  • anon
    I don't understand the basis for Robert to have to conflict out of voting on issues pertaining to Children Today if he is elected. Just because others shared their opinions that he would be a strong advocate for the organization? They said that, he didn't. How is that different from every other election where interest groups tout what their chosen candidate will do on behalf of their organization? For instance, the police and fire organizations, routinely tout how their chosen candidate will promote public safety and their candidates, after elected, are not conflicted out of voting on their contracts.
  • Almost
    Huh? Almost goes too far? In politics, like sex and horseshoes, "close" or "almost" doesn't count. If a fundraising limit is $1000, and a donor contributes $995, would you say that he "almost" violated the law? If the speed limit is 55, and a driver drives 54, did he "almost" violate the law? Josh & Teresa, committing your volunteer time to help homeless kids is unbelievably noble--keep it up!
blog comments powered by Disqus
 

© 2007-2008 Seven Days Publishing LLC.