Writing Shotgun

IS THIS CITY MANAGER’S FINAL EXPLANATION FOR RDA CHIEF’S DISCOUNTED NAPA TRIP WITH LOBBYIST?

Dave WielengaSat. November 28
 

Credit Press-Telegram reporters John Canalis and Karen Robes-Meeks for breaking the story that Long Beach’s most-powerful development official—Craig Beck heads both the city’s Development Services Department and its Redevelopment Agency—received a special deal on accommodations during a weekend in Napa. On Nov. 13-14, Beck stayed at a boutique hotel owned by a company hoping to open a hotel in Long Beach, and he traveled with the local lobbyist for that hotel chain, Mike Murchison.

That’s the story Canalis and Robes-Meeks posted on the P-T website late Friday night—it’s must reading—and it includes quotes from Beck and his boss, City Manager Pat West.

But that isn’t the story West told me when I asked him last Tuesday about possible ethical problems with the wine-tasting trip that Beck and Murchison—and their wives—took to the Napa AVIA hotel.

In fact, the story in today’s P-T doesn’t much resemble any of three—yes, three—versions of events that West whipped up during two telephone conversations we had on Nov. 24.

Version No. 1: West said he didn’t know anything about Beck’s trip to Napa with Murchison.

West deflected questions about the ethics of Beck’s comings and goings by suggesting that I, as a reporter for a local weekly magazine, would likely know more about them than he, the $235,000-per-year city manager.

“I’m not as plugged into all that as you might be,” West said. “I think you know more information than I’m aware of.”

I told West what I knew: that well-placed sources had told me of the Becks’ trip to Napa with the Murchisons, that Beck had received a preferential price on his accommodations at the AVIA Hotel, and that West—having learned of this upon Beck’s return—had ordered Beck to pay in full for what he had received.

“No, I am not aware of that,” West told me. “Are you providing me with this information?”

I repeated what I knew and asked again if it were true—whether this was a violation of West’s ethical standards, and whether there might be consequences for Beck beyond payment of his bill.

“If you are calling about a personnel incident, there is nothing scheduled or under review in that,” West responded.

Version No. 2: West said maybe he did know something about Beck’s trip to Napa with Murchison—but he didn’t know about any possible irregularities associated with it.

“I’m aware of a trip [Beck] did take to review the AVIA hotel,” West allowed.

I asked West whether Beck’s trip was related to a proposal by AVIA’s parent company, LodgeWorks, to build an extended-stay hotel at The Pike at Rainbow Harbor near the recently opened Long Beach AVIA Hotel.

“I don’t believe it was a city trip,” West said.

I asked West whether that distinction—a city trip or a personal trip—would make a difference in terms of Beck’s obligation to pay his own way on a trip with Murchison, a lobbyist for a hotel in negotiations with the city.

“I don’t have knowledge of fact that there is any relationship where Mr. Beck has gone on some type of a trip with Mr. Murchison and not paid his way,” West said. “Are you making an allegation? Is that what you are alleging? It sounds like it. Because if you are making an allegation, I will investigate.”

We hung up.

Perhaps a half-hour later, my phone rang. It was West.

Version No. 3: West said he knew Beck went to Napa, that he knew Murchison was there and that he knew there was an issue with the hotel room.

“I’m aware Mr. Beck went on vacation, I’m aware Mr. Murchison was there,” said West, “and I’m aware there was an issue with the room.”

Then West said he didn’t want to talk to me, anymore.

“Given the conversation we had and allegations you are pointing toward, these are situations where city attorneys are best served,” West said. “They’ll be taking a peek at this.”

That was Tuesday afternoon, Nov. 24—four or five days after, West tells the P-T in today’s story, he learned about Beck’s trip with Murchison from City Manager Suzanne Frick on either Nov. 19 or Nov. 20.

After hanging up with West, I placed calls to Beck and Murchison. No response.

That night I phoned West on his cell, asking if he’d like to clarify our conversations from earlier in the day. No response.

Next morning—that’s Wednesday, Nov. 25—I phoned West’s office and Beck’s office, asking for an explanation of the trip. No response.

That afternoon I phoned Kraig Kojian, CEO of the Downtown Long Beach Associates, on both his office and cell phones—did I forget to mention that he was on that trip with Beck and Murchison, too? On the voicemail message I left, I asked Kojian if he wanted to talk about the circumstances of the trip to Napa—or even his Achilles tendon, which he ruptured on the trip. I mentioned that I have chronic Achilles tendonitis, myself, and I’d like to know if he has any tips for preventing what happened to him. No response.

Tags: , , , , , , , ,

  • Mike Ruehle
    Development Services Director Craig Beck’s judgment and credibility is suspect. During last night’s Planning Commission meeting to determine whether a permit should be granted for the Wetlands bulldozing, Mr. Beck defended Sean Hitchcock, the person whose company bulldozed the wetlands, by saying Mr. Hitchcock did not know a permit was required. Specifically, Craig Beck said, “If he would have met with us we would have told him about the Coastal Development permit requirements.”

    This is exactly opposite of what Beck claimed in the April 2, 2009 District Weekly article at the below link. Mr. Beck was quoted as saying, “Mr. Hitchcock was fully informed relative to the need for getting permits and relative to what permits he would be able to get under the land’s zoning.”

    http://thedistrictweekly.com/2009/daily/writing...

    This was also exactly opposite of what Beck’s boss, Assistant City Manager Suzanne Frick, claimed during the March 31, 2009 Beer and Politics meeting (37 minutes into below link) when she said Craig Beck and Councilman DeLong met with Sean Hitchcock 2-weeks before the bulldozing and advised him of his permitting requirements. Specifically, Ms. Frick said, “At that meeting he was informed of the appropriate permits for that kind of development.”

    http://www.instantpresenter.com/WebConference/R...

    If Development Services Director Craig Beck can not be truthful about whether Sean Hitchcock was informed of the permits required to bulldoze the wetlands, why should the public believe Beck when he claims lobbyist freebies won’t influence his decisions?
  • Mike Ruehle
    Development Services Director Craig Beck’s claimed during the Planning Commission meeting that wetlands destroyer Sean Hitchcock did not know permits were required to bulldoze the wetlands. However, Beck was quoted on April 2, 2009 as saying Hitchcock was “fully informed relative to the need for getting permits” during a meeting with Hitchcock in COUNCILMAN DELONG’s office prior to the bulldozing (below link). Beck previously claimed Councilman DeLong called him to attend a meeting already in progress between DeLong and Hitchcock, during which Beck advised Hitchcock of the permitting requirements. This begs a couple of questions:

    http://thedistrictweekly.com/2009/daily/writing...

    1. If Beck is NOW being truthful and did not inform Hitchcock of the permitting requirements as previously claimed, why did Councilman DeLong not step forward on April 2, 2009 and correct Beck when he was quoted as saying Hitchcock was advised of the permitting requirements? It was DeLong’s meeting. Certainly DeLong heard whether Hitchcock was advised of the permitting requirements. Why didn’t DeLong correct Beck’s claim if it was untrue?

    2. If Beck lied on April 2, 2009 about informing Hitchcock of the permitting requirements, why did City manager West not reprimand Beck? Surely West read about Beck’s claim in the papers. Surely West talked with DeLong who was in the meeting with Hitchcock and reported that Beck had lied about informing Hitchcock of the permitting requirements.

    3. Beck’s statements at Thursday’s Planning Commission meeting are in conflict with his April 2, 2009 statements. Either he was lying then or he is lying now about advising Hitchcock of the permitting requirements. Given this behavior from a senior city staff person, how can anyone trust Beck’s recent statements that he was not influenced by lobbyists in his most recent scandal where his family was provided discounted hotel rooms by a company who is seeking his help in building a hotel down town?
  • Mike Ruehle
    According to the Press Telegram artilce, City Manager West claims the key issue is whether Development Services Director Beck "knew about the discount."

    ARE YOU KIDDING ME.

    The real issue is that BECK SHOULD HAVE KNOWN any type of personal relationship with a highly influential lobbyist for a company seeking favorable treatment from Beck would fall under serious scrutiny and subject the entire city to embarrassment.

    I'm sure that Beck and West will have their stories straight by the end of their Monday meeting. That is similar to how these same two guys covered for each other and Sean Hitchcock's (another Merchison client) bulldozing of the wetlands. They both met with Hitchcock 4-days after the bulldozing to all get their stories straight and assure Hitchcock he would not receive a fine from the city.

    That is also the same incident where City Manager West was quoted telling seven different untruths to the media, and later changed each story as the facts disproving his statements became available during the following weeks. How did Long Beach voters end up with such terrible and unethical city management and elected leaders?
  • howardx
    does anyone think this was the first time this happened?
  • I wonder who pays for all those lunches at Smooth's?
  • Guest
  • My favorite part is when Dave plucked Kojian's Achilles' tendon at the end of the story.
  • Shame Shame
    In other jurisdictions such events would cost people their job. For too long, Long Beach has this tainted reputation as the best little City that money can buy.

    The Lobbyists put together pacs to fund candidates, and when they bet on the wrong horse, they rush over to the person who defeated their buddy and pour money on them to retire campaign debt.

    The more that you work cases around here, the sicker you get. The results are often arranged, or purchased, or pre ordained before Council ever hears the matter.

    Mr Murchinson is considered a 'hired gun'. When he shows up, Councilpeople know that ' there is money involved'. This can mean, approve this deal, because there is revenue and jobs in it supposedly. However, too often the deal is a boondoggle, or a loser, or a law suit waiting to happen, or a City harming Buddy Buddy scheme.

    Recall the Email on the Wetlands fiasco, quasi gift of public funds, which may go to court still ? Counting votes, predicting results?.

    Staff said '' We have to pass the smell test here''. In this case.....we are just barely doing that ''. There should have been firings there too.

    The primary role of Public Servants should be Public Service, and maintaining the Public Trust, while managing OUR town for the Public Benefit.

    This is just one of many examples of Ethical lapses downtown by some.

    The average workers do a good job, but too many of their bosses in the fast lane act like this. It is an embarrassment, and it makes everybody look bad.

    Get ready for some other mudslinging event to attempt to distract us until the smoke dies down.
  • Bad Examples
    All we know is, our Dad was a Staff head for decades downtown, and was there as much of this town did many wonderful things. Many fine people played the game straight.

    Around the Holidays, cases of Crown Regal, or Cutty Sark, or other nice gifts would begin showing up on the door step. Each and every time, we were instructed to NOT accept any of these gifts, and would say, please tell these people Thank You, but accepting anything creates the wrong impression. It sets the wrong standard. Somebody will cry favoritism. It's not right.

    Many times, our Mother would pen a quck Thank You, this is not necessary card. We appreciate it, but we cannot accept gifts.

    What happened to Ethics downtown ? What about avoiding any appearance of Impropriety ?

    We need a Lobbyist Ordinance, full disclosure of PAC money arranging outcomes, and less business as usual. We end up with too many bad deals. Too much fat for the guys hiring the Lobbyist, too little return for the average resident.

    Too often, you see a Lobbyist, emailing Staff, or Council, for their clients, as the clients matter is being heard. This is wrong.

    And also, why does Mike Murchinson often come and go from the side doors reserved for Councilpersons, and Staff ? Why has he boasted; '' I always have MY votes?''

    Does anyone stop to think how bad that looks to the residents ? Karl Kemp does it too, so does Sam Hall ? Why the special status? The preferential access ? This grates on the common resident attempting, too often in vein, to get a fair shake?

    Too often, when a contentious issue is heard, the residents watch all of this and lose. They suffer some non sense result that does not add up, until you realize that money, favors, and influence peddling has skewed the result.
    This has to change, and Foster needs to not hide again on this one. Silence, is an admission.

    An act of Omission, is as troubling as an act of Comission in such instances.

    The size of the gift means less than the fact of the gift, and we all know, that for every time one gets caught , many other examples slip by.

    Nice job DW, interesting to see Kojian was also partying in the Wine Country. Mr highest vacancy rate in any larger downtown needs to vacation more. Maybe he'll get inspired, to do even a worse job.

    Ever notice that when the Mayor is away,, these guys get carried away like kids when the teacher leaves the room?
  • nobody
    sam hall is a city employee
  • Rotten Eggs
    This is just a rare example of getting caught with your hand in the cookie jar. It is much, much worse.

    Look at how Gary DeLong got elected? At his first 'Coffee', the powers that be had their relatives, friends, employees, and club members, all gather stacks of checks to hand him ?

    Close to 50,000 $? The Lobbyists inculpated here were key to that manuever as well ?

    Tom Dean alone apparently had his people give ol' Kingfish Huey D. Long almost 11,000 $??

    Since then, this clique has had their way again and again.

    Somehow, despite having potholes and broken curbs all over District 3....we have the money to completely renovate the alleys behind DeLong's close friends businesses in the shore ?

    Of all the damaged roads....look at Loynes Drive? The Davies Bridge? Along the Lagoon, all of the cracked concrete roads in Naples, and elsewhere, the barely used Alley's are first priority ?

    Look at the roads in the entire Districts neighborhoods ? Look at the hundreds and hundreds of potholes ?

    Go to Park Estates, where SoLong lives, and look how many miles of curb, gutter, and asphalt are new? A lot compared to elsewhere?

    Thousands of taxpaying residents use these neglected roads daily, but since Rotundo, Lorbeer, Roth, Schnietner, and others back DeLong all of the way, they get to make sure that the area behind their clubs is perfect. Sure those roads are bad, but how many residents benefit from these expenditures? Very few.

    And of course, we have 78 Million to spruce up the Marina too ?? How many people in District 3 get a direct benefit from that ? Few.

    But it will really help some other key backers of DLong, the BANCAP folks, who control the Master Lease, of Long Beach land, around the Marina.?? This use of our money should really be great for their rents, and the value of key friends of DeLong. How does the benefit to a few hundred, seem fair to the 55,000 residents in the remainder of the District ?

    Why can't some of these funds be applied throughout the entire district ? Why can't we do less for the exclusise water front gang, and more for the other people in this District? Oh right. They are not that well connected. They do not through lavish parties. They fail to employ Lobbyists. They merely pay 10's of Millions in Taxes.

    Again, who sets these priorities ?

    So much public money is diverted to enrich special interests around here. Something has to change.

    Too many sacred cows. Too little fairness towards all. It is as if these people think that they know what is best for us, and that we are dumb enough to remain distracted, while settling for far less.??

    Mr Beck is a nice guy, but he was born of the Old Guard, wholly beholden to the powers that be, and thus, far less than objective in the exercise of his powers.

    People like this have no business directing all of that RDA money.

    And Murchinson Consulting really screwed the pooch this time. He needs to be banned from City Hall for some time. He has gone too far.
  • Dan
    You spout alot of vile towards, I assume but you don't state, your coucilmen and the projects of paving the alleys behind the businesses in Belmont Shore. Are you arguing the alleys do not need paving?
    Are you arguing those businesses, who employ far more people than most in the 3 district should not have the alleys paved?
    Please provide how you would handle the alley situation. Please provide your solution to this problem.
    You say "Why can't some of these funds be applied throughout the entire district ?" Please provide the amount of money you believe this project costs and how you would divide this money throughout the entire district.

    Do you have any clue of what you are talking about, any facts to back up your claims or is it mindless, dribble?
  • Laurence B. Goodhue
    Dan has a very solid and very point.

    The funding for the alley repair certainly much needed-as with the funds
    to re build the Marina are both separate funds and may not,as a matter of
    law,be used for projects that fall outside those respective areas.

    The case against the De Long- Foster culture which so hobbles the District and City is solid and can be based upon fact and public record.It ill serves
    the cause to try to make a case based upon incorrect data.

    As the campaign unfolds it will be refreshing to hear Tom Marchese
    articulate those facts and record-which underscore so well the need
    for a near clean sweep of the corruption engendered by the poster boys
    for such=De Long and Foster.


    As Dan as found out,there are a number of people who offer views which
    are based neither on fact,truth and intelligence -essentially the product of
    mental twits.
  • howardx
    gib⋅ber⋅ish  /ˈdʒɪbərɪʃ, ˈgɪb-/ Show Spelled Pronunciation [jib-er-ish, gib-] Show IPA
    Use gibberish in a Sentence
    See web results for gibberish
    See images of gibberish
    –noun 1. meaningless or unintelligible talk or writing.
    2. talk or writing containing many obscure, pretentious, or technical words.


    --------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Origin:
    1545–55; appar. gibber + -ish 1 , on the model of language names so formed


    Synonyms:
    1. nonsense, foolishness, babble, gabble, drivel, gobbledegook.
  • "gobbledegook"...awesome word.
  • Laurence B. Goodhue
    Any there is of course no better example than HowardX who will be the
    featured subject in a Journalism class at one of the major Universities
    trying to examine the type of mind which produces that which is
    contained in the posts of Howard X.Apparently they will go all the way back to his very first DW post in search of the smallest mind in cyberspace.
  • howardx
    youre worse off than i thought goodhue, if you think commenting on a message board constitutes "journalism". news flash sparky your poorly thought out, incompletely worded jibber jabber isnt journalism, its just white noise the rest of us have to wade through whenever you are here.
  • Laurence B. Goodhue
    Far be it from me to tell them they made a poor selection.It is
    my understanding they made it in conjunction with their
    Department of Mental Health Administration.
  • howardx
    i'll have to take your word for it, im sure youre much more familiar with the mental health authorities than i am.
  • Unfortunately, it appears as though Laurence is not as aquainted as he should be...
  • Laurrence B. Goodhue
    As is undoubtedly the case with so many subjects-so
    amply demonstrated by your small mind which is
    must be the reason your posts were selected for study,
  • Laurence B. Goodhue
    ...."They'll be taking a peek at this."...

    A PEEK!!!!!

    A P E E K !!!!

    A PEEEEEEK!!!!!!!!!!!

    Do you think its possible to take a peeeek ,at how many tens of millions
    it would cost taxpayers to render, toxic free the land, the guy who Beck
    his personal cell number to!!!!


    Do you think it is possible to take a peeeek at the body of deceit,
    deception and dishonesty captured in the public record strongly
    suggesting the Mayor,Gary De Long and Pat WEst have embraced the
    presence of a congenital,habitual,pathological or polished liar as head
    of the Marine Bureau!!!
  • Laurence B. Goodhue
    ....the guy Beck gave his personal cell number to-who wants to off load the
    toxic land...
  • Dave Wielenga
    Hi Laurence, I think the guy you are referring to is Mike Conway, not Craig Beck---unless there is another situation in which a city official gave his cell phone number to Tom Dean.
  • Laurence B. Goodhue
    Dave:

    As you can see by my latest posts; it would appear we have SO MANY
    bad guys,engendered by the Foster-De Long culture--it is near impossible to keep track of them!!!!!!
blog comments powered by Disqus
 

© 2007-2008 Seven Days Publishing LLC.