OPINION
By Dave Price
Daily Post Editor
Palo Alto City Councilwoman Julie Lythcott-Haims is in the middle of another controversy.
This time the issue is whether she’s violating the state law for receiving honorariums, which are payments for speeches, articles, attendance at conferences, and the like.
The state Legislature and ethics organizations have struggled since the aftermath of Watergate to come up with rules that stop outside interests from giving money to lawmakers on the city, county or state level.
The fear was that people who wanted to influence council members or other lawmakers would pay them off using honorariums. So in 1990, the Legislature passed strict laws limiting honorariums.
Here’s the problem. Lythcott-Haims makes a living giving speeches, writing articles and books, and holding seminars.
She was elected to council in November and in January asked the Fair Political Practices Commission for advice on her particular situation.
The FPPC told Lythcott-Haims that she had to reduce the share of her income that came from public speaking to below 50%, or she would be violating the Political Reform Act that restricts public officials from profiting off of their public service. Penalties can include the immediate removal from office, fines of up to $10,000 and six months in jail.
Lythcott-Haims said she plans to appeal.
I guess she will claim that this election reform law shouldn’t apply to her.
But such an exception will create a loophole for politicians throughout the state, gutting this important method of stopping corruption.
Lythcott-Haims received her law degree from Harvard. Given her education, it’s surprising that she wasn’t aware of the law before she entered the race.
This problem could have been avoided if she had contacted the FPPC for this advice before she began her campaign for City Council.
If she contacted the FPPC two months after she was elected, she probably was aware of the law. She wanted to get elected, and then worry about it.
It seems like many people would have known about this requirement, including the Daily Post, and could have raised the issue before the election.
Lythcott-Haims‘ appeal seems totally without merit.
You’d think that somebody who graduated from Harvard Law would have an inkling that there would be a law banning honorariums.