What an overwhelming response from the commission.

Always heartening to see the system work, however slowly.

Slowly?
They worked at lightening speed. This is the FPPC that took so many years to fine Liz Kniss $7,000 for wrong doing that she was able to serve 4 more years on Council and be Mayor before her case was decided.

Commissioner Wood set the course (while exhibiting her lack of integrity) by blithely announcing, “I don’t like this (law). I’m writing a book.” And wants to do book appearances. So her ambition was primary, not enforcing CA anti-corruption laws.

Lythcott- Haims attorney spoke briefly. Which was good since he thought his client’s name was “Hines”.

The only person that seemed committed to the law was the FPPC’s General Counsel. He was extremely well informed and thus highly skeptical that the law allowed an exception for Lythcott-Haims (AKA Hines), but was ordered to “be creative”. Which sounded to me like - bend the rules and just cobble something together we want. Presto Chango!

Good luck to us if we need the FPPC to do its job.

I tried to lodge a public opinion on the page with the chat screen thing, I guess AI isn't up to speed yet in FPPC.

A 5 person committee can be bought off easier than the legislature. I liked the one woman (sorry, can't remember her name) on the right side of the dais who kept bringing it around to the fact that they can't rewrite the laws, the legislature has to do it. As this case will keep boiling on the back burner, I predict Hines will quit because she may be trying to make a POINT but that POINT is going to cost her MONEY.

Nobody brought out the fact that she broke the law, and knew she was doing it, while running for public office. Which is what I tried to say in the chat box. All 5 of the committee members want their names mentioned in Hines' next book, "How I Broke The Law And Got Away With It" -- not exactly the kind of influence she wants to teach her children or your children or anybody's children -- oh wait --- she's not a teacher! Which is the only exception to the rule (LAW) she broke.

Absolutely fascinating to see how the system works.

"Lau maintained during the Thursday hearing that the FPPC's approach in the case of Lythcott-Haims was already lenient (since they could have outright banned her from receiving payments for speeches) and that carving out exceptions for situations like hers would clash with state statutes."

He raised lots of other objections, too, and each time was told to go back and find a "creative" way to rewrite the rule to give Julie everything she wanted.

Among the justifications is that few of her speeches are made locally and/or few of those paying her to speak are from Palo Alto -- as if campaign contributions are barred from outside contributors and as if JLH wasn't the biggest recipient of outside campaign funds.

Also ignored was her stated campaign goal of traveling NATIONALLY to spread her message since CITY Council evidently doesn't need to focus on CITY issues.

So privileged and entitled.

Just because JLH wants this exception does not mean she’s wrong. When the rule was written, 1990, big tech hadn’t yet destroyed the publishing industry as we know it and the livings people made from writing (especially the disabled, but that’s another unreported story for another day). In the years since, speaking engagements have become a major part of book author income. The rule literally could not have anticipated this situation properly.

The letter of the law should not be used to thwart the spirit of the law. Who can hire her for speeches might need guidelines, both to meet the spirit of the law but also so that JLH doesn’t constantly face criticism for crossing a poorly defined line. But it’s discriminatory to arbitrarily enforce a rule in a way that excludes writers from serving if they want to make a living. Again, that wasn’t so much of a problem in 1990 when the rule was written. It needs revisiting.

Whether we agree with someone’s positions on the dais or not, it’s just churlish to arbitrarily enforce a rule so she can’t make a living the way most people in her situation are deriving their living today.

It seems very suspicious to me that this was rushed through so quickly. Why was that I wonder?

From my understanding, the law was there for good reason and to protect us, the community, from underhand misdeeds by those on our councils. We are not experts in the law, but the laws that are written are to do us a service. Circumventing these laws can't be good for us, the community, but I see that it is good for the individual council person.

Does this mean that any potential council member can now flout the law and then get the law changed?

"When the rule was written, 1990, big tech hadn’t yet destroyed the publishing industry as we know it and the livings people made from writing (especially the disabled, but that’s another unreported story for another day). In the years since, speaking engagements have become a major part of book author income. The rule literally could not have anticipated this situation properly."

True, except for the facts from her own declaration the institutions from high tech are the ones paying for her speeches, including Facebook and the TED conference.

I'm sure it's just a coincidence that big tech is also funding the push for higher density to accommodate their workers.

We’ve had our share of councilmembers who came with much bigger conflicts. We don’t say Councilmembers who work for Stanford have to stop taking their salaries, we put in rules about recusal.

The TED conference is hardly a conflict of interest. I personally vehemently disagree that density for density’s sake in a job center creates affordability (see HK) but instead displaces existing lower income people through badly done gentrification and makes us vulnerable to sudden shifts in population when people get fed up with the ills of poorly done densification like in SF right now. I don’t even agree with JLH’s views there, but her views were well known long before she ran for Council and unlike others in recent memory, she didn’t pretend something else to get elected.

I can disagree with her while recognizing the job of Councilmember here is largely a volunteer one and we all benefit from the time and work every member puts into this community. Until we make Councilmember a paid salaried position, we should not be making arbitrary rules that cut off a Councilmember’s living. It’s just spiteful. We can look at the situation and say: that rule needs honing so it both ensures it’s purpose and doesn’t exclude authors who speak for a living from serving. We can in fact reasonably do that, and it was right for JLH to appeal.

@Silver Linings, I agree with much you say but let's remember who sponsors the TED conferences and selects the speakers -- bug tech.

I only mentioned it because in her public declarations, she listed income from only 4 sponsors: TED, FACEBOOK, Henry Holt (her own book publisher) and I forget the 4th one. She also claimed speaking income between $40K and $1 million -- quite the range!

Sure, there have been lots of conflicts -- real estate lawyers and real estate developers etc -- and those forced to recuse themselves have been inconsistent at best and transparently biased at worse.

Re recusals, those are very inconsistent. We've had elected officials from Stanford, Palantir and Google still voting while a PAN (Palo ALto Neighborhoods) member was forced to recuse himself because PAN sent out a public letter in support of something.

Watching the 4 commissioners repeatedly reject each and every argument from their own lawyer who tried to give the background for the anti-corruption / conflict of interest rules and repeatedly instruct him to find "creative exceptions" was indeed an education in the political process.

She should not be allowed to receive income for speeches from anyone who has a business interest in Palo Alto. This includes Facebook who has a strong interest in market rate high density housing in Palo Alto for their high paid workers. As was stated before, someone with a business or policy interest can fund a speech of hers to curry favor, regardless of the topic. Was this discussed by the FPPC. Seems like the FPPC is not interested in preventing corruption, given their disinterest with holding Liz Kniss accountable.

@Local resident
How is JLH’s situation different than a Councilmembers whose salary is paid by Palantir or a real estate developer? We don’t ask those members to quit their jobs or only serve so long as no more than half their salary comes from those employers.

The speech rule came about related to new speech-making activities in public officials, not to arbitrarily exclude a profession that relies on speech making to make a living, in ways that weren’t apparent when the rule was made.

If a Councilmember were an accountant, who is to say any new clients aren’t trying to curry favor? JLH probably needs to disclose who pays, which she seems to have done, and perhaps get clear guidelines where there are lines not to cross, like suddenly making twice as much for the same sponsor.

Beyond that, she should be allowed to make the living that she already did in the way many authors make livings now.

I watched the hearing.

All parties did what they were supposed to.

The FPPC attorney explained the current law and its history.

Julie's attorney explained why he thought the law was not meant for situations like Julie's.

The commission members asked questions and shared their perspectives.
Julie received an informal advice letter (not a directive) and this hearing was her right to an appeal hearing before the commission.

There was discussion of the history and of exceptions made by the FPPC.
Julie's attorney made the point that in her work more than half the time was not spent on speeches but in years when she did not get book advances, more than half of her income did come from speeches, which he argued were an extension of her writing.

Commission members were sympathetic to her situation and, as their right, asked FPPC counsel to explore whether an exception could be made as well as whether new legislation was appropriate.

They may in the end say "tough luck" or they may find a rationale for an exception and rule clarification.

I am sure all posters support the right of appeal to the decision makers whatever they think of Julie and the current law.

One thing is certain, she isn't willing to talk for free. And her contributions to the CC are usually summed up in one sentence. She is out of her league, she's not even swimming in the right ocean for what her agenda seems to be. How many people in High Places like she's trying to achieve, have come from the Palo Alto City Council? If she was running for national office, people would look at her record of "accomplishments" in Palo Alto and realize she doesn't have expertise on any issue except talking about talking for money. People in local government usually just play musical chairs and never leave Santa Clara county. Big fish, little pond. So sorry to hear she is going to have to keep tightening her belt because the FPPC committee will go out in recess and leave her hanging. Not to mention the legislature will adjourn in September. No one wants to rush in to save one little goldfish. It would look like the FPPC is corrupt, if they rush through a "creative" way to let Hines keep breaking the law until the legislature reconvenes. By the way, there are issues that have been waiting to advance through the maze called the legislature for YEARS. So she may have to keep tightening her belt until however many years have passed ... long after she is no longer sitting on the CC. How many of you out there think that as soon as her term expires without convincing the FPPC to keep breaking the law with her, she will give up the fight?

Hmmmm, Interesting that Stephen Levy says he watched the Hearing. It seems not close enough.

He refers to Lythcott-Haims as having the right of “appeal”. But she didn’t do that (file an Appeal), as was mentioned during the Hearing.

Levy also leaves out that when Commissioners pressed its General Counsel to find an exception for her, he was highly reluctant, believing that the law didn’t allow it.

A Commissioner said he noticed Counsel wasn’t happy about being told to try to find an exception (having explained exactly why the law was intended to apply to L-H). So he told Counsel to “be creative”.

Basically the Hearing (not Appeal) ended with 4 political appointees telling its expert Counsel to cobble together an end run around our anti-corruption laws intended to include city council member L-H.
Trust erodes, cynicism grows.

"Hmmmm, Interesting that Stephen Levy says he watched the Hearing. It seems not close enough...

He refers to Lythcott-Haims as having the right of “appeal”. But she didn’t do that (file an Appeal), as was mentioned during the Hearing.

Levy also leaves out that when Commissioners pressed its General Counsel to find an exception for her, he was highly reluctant, believing that the law didn’t allow it... '

Indeed. Tough to miss the countless times the commissioners directed their attorney to GO BACK and be "creative" in crafting an exception whenever he objected and/or tried to educate them on why the rule existed in the first place.

They did that so often it was impossible for Mr Levy to miss --or for anyone objectively recapping the hearing. Check the report here and you'll find under the subhead "A SYMPATHETIC Commission" the following:

"Miadich was open to this suggestion but went a step further and requested that Lau review all aspects of the statute to see if there are other "creative" approaches that the FPPC can take that would address Lythcott-Haims' situation ...

We're asking you to be as creative as you possibly can to see if you can craft some amendments to this regulation that would on one hand allow somebody in the requester's position to continue receiving those payments..."

Their bias was so strikingly obvious that one wonders who appointed them and/or if they bother to follow the news to see all the cases showing why the provision existed in the first place!

The nature of publishing has changed. The FPPC should consider that if they make a change on officials getting honorariums. Anyone can easily publish a book and then individuals could easily funnel unlimited funds to their candidate to speak. And what if the person ventures into a topic not in a book? Lythcott Haines talks on a variety of subjects some only tangential to a book.

People raising issues about other conflicts , accountants etc don’t seem to understand the conflict of interest laws. Officials must recuse if an issue involves their income. So an accounting customer with a development project in front of council - clear recusal. If people paid large funds for “accounting work” as a way to funnel funds and were caught it would be illegal. Reasonable standards apply and the work must be performed.

I continue to believe this is a good law and must remain in place. This is much larger than one council member at a small town.

The FPPC has already stretched the law allowing 49% of her income to come
From speaking. That seems far beyond the legal intent of the ordinance.