One of the enduring lessons of Watergate is that the cover-up often becomes more consequential than the underlying conduct. The scandal did not begin with proof of presidential criminality. It grew because information was withheld, explanations shifted, records disappeared, and public confidence steadily eroded.
That lesson is worth remembering as West Hollywood awaits the outcome of the referral to the California Fair Political Practices Commission regarding Councilmember Chelsea Byers.
At this point, no one should presume the outcome. The FPPC may conclude there was no conflict of interest. It may conclude otherwise. Until then, speculation should give way to due process. The integrity of the process matters more than anyone’s preferred outcome.
But process also requires transparency.
Residents deserve to see the referral submitted by City Attorney Lauren Langer. If the City is asking California’s independent ethics agency to evaluate these questions, the public should be able to understand exactly what facts, documents, and issues were presented. Confidence in the result depends in part on confidence that the referral is complete and objective.
What has fueled public skepticism is not merely the existence of ethics questions. It is the series of events that followed once those questions became public: reported changes to professional profiles, reported removal of social media content, and shifting public explanations about the relationship between outside employment and official duties. None of those actions, standing alone, proves wrongdoing. But each naturally invites additional questions rather than putting existing ones to rest.
That is why the comparison to Watergate is instructive. The lesson was never that every controversy is Watergate. The lesson is that efforts perceived as minimizing, revising, or removing relevant information can inflict greater damage on public trust than the original allegation ever could.
If Councilmember Byers is ultimately cleared, that should be welcomed. An independent finding of no conflict would strengthen confidence in both her and the City’s decision-making. But if there is nothing to hide, transparency should be embraced from the outset, not reluctantly after public pressure.
Public trust is not built by asking residents to stop asking questions. It is built by answering them completely.
The FPPC should be allowed to do its work. The City should disclose the referral. And everyone should resist prejudging the outcome. But West Hollywood should also remember the lesson of Watergate: public confidence is lost not only through misconduct, but through the appearance that the full story is being edited after the fact.
-Alan Strasburg
West Hollywood
Daniel Patrick Moynihan’s said that while one is “entitled to his own opinions, he is not entitled to his own facts.” This is the problem with Byers and Solomon and why they should resign
If there’s nothing to hide then why go changing the tracks left behind. Yes. I asked myself this question. I feel like my city has been sold out to monied interests.
Well said.
Bingo!!
Very well said, Alan! That any information was changed and/or deleted begs the question, why someone who has nothing to hide would need to change information?
That being said, you’re right… we should all wait for the outcome of the FPPC report.
And I hope that everyone will get a chance to see the report that was submitted to them by Lauren Langer.
Nicely done, Alan. I don’t always agree with you, but you nailed this one.