Bruce McFarland editorial on Mayor Kellar, media coverage
Written by Jeff on March 13th, 2008Bruce McFarland submitted this editorial to SCVTalk.com : In a written editorial on the KHTS website, dated March 11, 2008, Carl Goldman stated that Bob Kellar has gotten a raw deal, saying: “Bob is being attacked for making a simple mistake while filling out a very confusing Fair Political Practices Commission Form. He has admitted his mistake and corrected it. What more could you ask for? “
Unfortunately, Bob Kellar virtually admitted at Tuesday night’s Council meeting that the reason he did not, and is still not willing to fully complete the Form 700, is because he doesn’t think real estate agent should have to do that. The instruction information for the form 700 even gives examples of how real estate agents must handle their commissions.
There is no exception for completing that form. The only consideration is about how the form is filled out. It is a very narrow consideration that says the name of the person involved with the transaction may be withheld. If Kellar wanted to assert that, he would still need to list that/those transactions and state why he believes he has the right to exclude the person’s name. Real estate agents are not exempt from filing completed forms.
The reason we have these kinds of laws is so the public and the press has a chance to see who their elected officials are doing business with and are making money from. If elected officials are monetarily connected to people that might be considered a conflict of interest, we need to know it. Kellar’s claim that he’s done nothing wrong doesn’t make it true.
Goldman’s assertion that “Kellar admitted his mistake and corrected it,” is absolutely untrue.
I called Carl Goldman yesterday afternoon to challenge Mr. Kellar to an on-air debate, but I don’t expect Mr. Goldman to even make an attempt to make it happen. He has endorsed Kellar and stated (at the end of the editorial) that:
“My wife Jeri and I are ready to lead the charge to make certain Bob is re-elected to our City Council. We’re proud to be the voice defending the areas Bob is being politically attacked on. I hope you’ll join us in our support of Bob Kellar.”
It would be nice if the News Department at KHTS had some integrity and at least tried to cover both sides of the issue, but they haven’t. Carol Rock’s March 10 news article on the issue is titled “Mayor Corrects ‘Simple Mistake’.”
It is certainly not a news story. It is an opinion piece that shamelessly whitewashes the issues and tries to make many excuses for Kellar’s failure to comply with the law. It contains material and factual inaccuracies, and would certainly be tossed back to the reporter at any legitimate newsdesk. They never even contacted me for my side of the issue, much less state my positions.
It will be interesting to see how this all turns out.
- Bruce McFarland
Loading ...
13
PM
There’s a lot of speculation and denial going around, so it’s nice to see some specifics on what is required. I dug around and found the instructions that I believe Bruce is referring to:
Link
Some of the juicy bits:
“Commission income” means gross payments of $500 or more received during the period covered by the statement as a broker, agent, or salesperson, including insurance brokers or agents, real estate brokers or agents, travel agents or salespersons, stockbrokers, and retail or wholesale salespersons, among others.
In addition, you may be required to disclose the names of sources of commission income if your pro rata share of the gross income was $10,000 or more from a single source during the reporting period. …
The “source” of commission income generally includes all parties to a transaction, and each is attributed the full value of the commission.
Examples:
You are a partner in Smith and Jones Insurance Company and have a 50% ownership interest in the company. You sold two Businessmen’s Insurance Company policies to XYZ Company during the reporting period. You received commission income of $5,000 from the first transaction and $6,000 from the second. On Schedule A-2, report your partnership interest in and income received from Smith and Jones Insurance Company in parts 1 and 2. In part 3, list both Businessmen’s Insurance Company and XYZ Company as sources of $10,000 or more in commission income.
13
PM
The FPPC did issue some guidance in a similar sounding case and favored a realtor, but it’s unclear on the details. Probably not a broker, either. The full report isn’t online, just a summary:
http://www.fppc.ca.gov/Bulletin/09-06Bulletin.htm
“If a credit received on a realtor’s commission as a result of selling a home is made in the “regular course of business” without regard to an official’s status, it would not be considered a gift or income for purposes of the Act’s reporting, gift limit, or conflict-of-interest rules.”
13
PM
I too looked up the specific form on the FPPC’s website. It does give several scenarios and includes a help desk phone number on every page.
At the same time, though, it does look like a complicated form.
Is it possible a commercial/residential real estate broker who holds an elected position in California has never run into this before? Or did they simply disclose everything?
Anyway, the form link is here It’s a PDF file so be warned.
One other issue that’s not getting talked about much is that this happened -according to McFarland- several times before the COC land deal. So one would have to believe he made the mistake several times in a row, year after year.
It’s a tough situation he’s in. I wouldn’t want to disclose client names if I was in his position. But, as you argued earlier Mike, the public has a right to know by law, and it appears there’s an appeal process if you want to hide names.
13
PM
I think it’s a bogus charge. And Goldman was right to say that this is a political attack. McFarland had years to uncover these so-called improprieties, yet he releases it all just weeks before the election.
The form is confusing too if you’re pointing to the right one. It’s not hard to see how you could error. Besides, Kellar admitted it and fixed it.
13
PM
“McFarland had years to uncover these so-called improprieties”. And Kellar has had more than a few years to follow the law of the land. Kellar has known for a long time that people are not happy about his conflict of business and Council interests. Because of this, one would think that Kellar would have made double sure that he was following the rules. This is not a McFarland problem, it is a Kellar problem. By the way, Kellar has fixed nothing. He has said he is looking onto the matter.
13
PM
Certainly Bruce can clear this up, but this is my best distillation:
He did not report his gross income for three years in a row.
Did he give this information in all other years?
For those three years, he did not name sources of $10,000 or more.
From the way it sounds, he has omitted this information every year, is that correct?
If I were to use the services of Kellar-Davis to purchase or sell a home, that relationship is not subject to any overriding privilege of privacy, correct?
13
PM
The crux of the matter really isn’t gross income. The purpose of the disclosure is so that potential conflicts of interest are out in the open.
This isn’t exactly an October surprise. Bruce McFarland and company have been making noise about this for quite a few weeks now. It was a very long time before Kellar even offered a comment.
If there are any aspiring lawyers out there, I found reference to a case some years ago that struck down specific disclosure thresholds for lawyers and realtors. So the argument that the changing real estate market would somehow exempt realtors from disclosure of income over $10,000 is wrong on its face.
13
PM
I’m glad people are talking about this, but just for everyone’s information, this particular issue came up because, many months ago, after I started pushing for a city code of ethics, Kellar told me he was interested in asking the council for a study session before the election.
At that time, I had gotten some current Form 700s and Form 460s for all the seated council members, but I didn’t really examine them too much. After several subsequent times being blown off at the city council podium, without even being acknowledged by Kellar, I thought of looking deeper into his financial disclosures.
It was only a few weeks ago that I asked to see all his Form 700s and discovered the deficiencies. I was shocked that this law-and-order council member had so many instances on his forms. (They seemed to be entered correctly for 2000 and 2001 – which made it even more peculiar)
And one more thing, I’ve been fighting for transparency and ethics around city hall for years – this isn’t a new quest for me. It is really The Signal that has vetted Kellar’s current issues as legitimate campaign issues. I believe they are as well.
Isn’t it important for the public to know about a candidate’s illegal behavior before he/she gets elected?
If the public doesn’t care if Kellar refuses to disclose potential conflicts of interest, then by all means, go ahead and vote for him – I think people should know the truth and be able to make an informed decision.
14
AM
I lost interest in Kellar when he turned against the winter homeless shelter, and I like him even less, now.
I think too that Diane Trautman might be the only council member/contender who has a full grasp of ethical behavior.
14
AM
If an elected official refuses to follow the law, then they should step down. Period.
They shouldn’t be allowed to pick and choose which laws to follow, and which laws to either break or ignore.
I’m not going to speculate on whether Kellar was breaking the law or not in this particular instance, but it would seem that an elected official who knowingly omits information from his required disclosures should at least be subject to further investigation. If there are modifications to the standard rule for the real estate and legal professions, then he should let that be known so everyone can be satisfied that his activities have been reported as required by law. Supposedly “not knowing” the law in regards to this reporting is no excuse.
14
AM
Supposedly “not knowing” the law in regards to this reporting is no excuse.
Well said!
16
PM
Bob Kellar is a former LAPD officer/training officer. He is an experienced member of the City Council and community. In recent public statements to the public during the City Council meeting (as quoted in The Signal) he admits he intentionally did not report properly concerning his real estate business and commission income. But, he appears to have done so in earlier years.
So, we have a former law enforcement officer, city council member and real estate broker/owner who basically has blown off the California Fair Political Practice Rules (created by citizen initiative, another Proposition 13 in the 1970s) and is telling us he doesn’t want to comply with the law. That is not neglect; that is not a mistake; this is an intentional flouting of the law. Kellar has two choices — either comply with the law, the rules that we all are supposed to follow in a civilized society; or if he cannot do so, than he should not run for any public office requiring such disclosures, such as City Council. What is he hiding?