I am writing to urge you not to accept the proposed stipulation in CEC Case Number 2016-13, In the Matter of Marie Rumsey. First, the stipulation covers Ms. Rumsey’s lobbying activities only in June and July of 2015. It is clear from the public record that she engaged in lobbying over a greater time span than that. I understand that it is desirable for many reasons to obtain a stipulation, and that in order to do so it may be necessary not to include every single one of the respondent’s violations, but some of the instances omitted here are particularly egregious. I describe one example below.

Furthermore, Ms. Rumsey’s explanation for her violations seems to be contradicted by her own actions during 2015. According to the staff report which accompanies the proposed stipulation in this case, Rumsey received inaccurate legal advice from CCA’s former legal counsel and mistakenly believed that she could attempt to influence any City agency except Councilmember O’Farrell’s office.

Now, you can see from the appended speaker card that Ms. Rumsey attended the November 17, 2015 meeting of the Los Angeles City Council intending to speak. That she did in fact speak is proven by ⁵ Now, if Ms. Rumsey’s excuse is to be believed, we are asked to accept as a fact that she thought she was forbidden from attempting to influence Mitch O’Farrell’s “office” while at the same time thinking that she was allowed to attempt to influence Mitch O’Farrell himself. The video suggests that Councilmember O’Farrell was not present in the chamber during Ms. Rumsey’s comment, but of course the audio of the meeting is transmitted throughout the areas that Councilmembers retreat to. And the record shows that O’Farrell voted yes on the matter under consideration. That anyone, especially someone who worked for the City of Los Angeles for fourteen years, as Ms. Rumsey did, and who therefore attended multiple Ethics training sessions, could honestly believe that there was a distinction with a difference to be found here, is implausible to say the least.

One of the findings adopted in conjunction with the Government Ethics Ordinance, at LAMC 49.5.1(B)(2), states that “One of the best ways to attract talented people to public service is to assure that the government is respected for its honesty and integrity.” One of the stated purposes of the law, at (C)(7), is “To help restore public trust in governmental and electoral institutions.” Seeing the president of the City Council act so hospitably to someone who is violating a City ordinance right before his very eyes is sufficiently subversive of these goals. Allowing this violation, which directly contradicts Ms. Rumsey’s explanation for her actions, to go unmentioned in her stipulation is far more subversive of this finding and this purpose.

I urge you therefore to reject the proposed stipulation, to carry out a more extensive investigation to determine the full extent of Ms. Rumsey’s violations, and to make sure that all of these violations are taken into account when deciding on an appropriate penalty. Furthermore, I ask you to investigate whether Herb Wesson, Mitch O’Farrell, and other City officials who knew or who should have known that Ms. Rumsey repeatedly violated LAMC 49.5.13(C)(1) during 2015 are themselves guilty of aiding or abetting her violations, which is forbidden by LAMC 49.5.16(A)(1)(c).

Finally, whether or not you adopt my reasoning, whether or not you decide to accept the proposed stipulation, I would like to thank you and your investigative staff for accepting and investigating this case. Clearly reasonable people can disagree about the proper disposition of such matters. The fact, though. that your commission handles cases like this one speaks well of our City irrespective of the disposition of any individual issue.