WEHOonline reported earlier Monday on questions raised about whether Councilmember Chelsea Byers has a conflict of interest tied to her job with Welcoming Neighbors Network, a pro-housing advocacy organization. The question landed in front of the council Monday night, whether members wanted it there or not. They were prepared. See the discussion below.
Mayor John Heilman raised it first. “I know that there have been a number of concerns raised by members of the public about whether a council member has a conflict. I think we need to get that resolved before we take action on this,” Heilman said. “I don’t want us to be in a position where we might have to hold multiple hearings on the same item if we get a negative review from the FPPC.” The FPPC — the state’s Fair Political Practices Commission — is the agency responsible for enforcing California’s conflict-of-interest and political ethics laws, including the Political Reform Act.
Byers came ready with a prepared statement and said she wanted to read it into the record if C.4 stayed on the agenda. “I’m prepared to speak to the item tonight, Mayor,” Byers said. “So if there’s support for it to move forward tonight, I’m prepared to do that.”
City Attorney Lauren Langer told the council she’d discussed the matter directly with Byers. “Councilmember Byers has expressed to me, and she’s prepared to read them into the record tonight, reasons that she believes in good faith, that she does not have a disqualifying financial conflict of interest based on facts about her job and the organization,” Langer said. But she stopped short of clearing it. “The analysis is very fact specific, and I wouldn’t be prepared tonight to make a legal determination on whether or not that is a conflict of interest. Even if I make a legal ruling, it’s not legally conclusive. It is the FPPC who has the enforcement authority.”
Jai Lyn Schoenfeld, a 34-year West Hollywood resident and member of the Coalition for Economic Survival, spoke during public comment. “Anyone with a financial interest in a council item is legally obligated to recuse themselves,” Schoenfeld said. “Disclosure is not enough if a council member is paid by a group that supports or lobbies for something the council is considering.” She urged the council to reject both C.4 and C.5, arguing SB 79 would accelerate displacement rather than produce affordable housing. “The council majority has rejected a TODAP, despite city staff verifying that over 1,100 rent-stabilized units are at risk without it,” Schoenfeld said.
Heilman said “I don’t believe anyone on this council would knowingly or willingly violate ethical standards,” he said. “But ultimately, it is up to the FPPC’s determination.”
Vice Mayor Danny Hang said, “I had a very long discussion with the city attorney today, and it is my opinion that I believe that we should, in good faith, seek FPPC guidance,” Hang said. “This is not a knock against my colleague. I believe in my colleague’s integrity, and I believe what she stands for, because she loves this community dearly. Seeking FPPC guidance would put an end to any fog of speculation.”
Councilmember Erickson said he brought two prior FPPC rulings with him to read into the record. “That’s why I brought both FPPC rulings against the same individual, same website, same claim, same whatever they wanted to say… to read into the record,” Erickson said. He said the FPPC ruled in his favor both times. “I think, frankly, that put the matter to bed, because these same types of complaints go to the FPPC all the time, and they’ve ruled… about why these types of claims are just factually inaccurate.”
Byers said, “The facts of the matter, to me, are very clear. They’re very distinct from the other circumstance that was drawn up. I am not sure exactly what Councilmember Erickson’s prepared to read, but what I am prepared to read, I am certain of that.” She appeared to be referencing the FPPC’s December ruling on Santa Monica Councilmember Jesse Zwick.
Mayor Heilman called for a vote on a motion to continue C.4 until the FPPC weighs in. The council voted 3-2 to table Item C.4, a Zone Text Amendment that would streamline development permit review process for qualifying housing and mixed-use housing projects, until FPPC guidance is received. Byers and Councilmember John Erickson voted no. Councilmember Lauren Meister, Vice Mayor Danny Hang, and Heilman voted yes.
Langer said a formal FPPC request takes a few days to prepare once submitted, and the commission’s standard response time is 21 business days, though that can stretch if the FPPC asks for more information. Item C.5, a Zone Text Amendment and Resolution updating parking regulations and CEQA transportation guidelines for qualifying housing projects, had already been continued earlier.
The council approved the amended agenda, with Erickson voting against.
WEHOonline will continue following this story.
Related Coverage
Chelsea Byers Called West Hollywood SB 79 Critics Irrational Then Voted Against the City’s Map
SB 79 Map Is Out. West Hollywood Isn’t On It. What It Means — and Doesn’t.
State Orders Jesse Zwick To Recuse From Housing and Zoning Votes
Larry- First a sincere thank you for this forum and your excellent choice of Brian Holt to oversee it. I also appreciate that you are the first candidate I am aware of to weigh in on this serious matter. That being said, I do take issue with some of your points. I am not a fan of Lauren Langer, our City Attorney, either, but I am hopeful she will request prompt FPPC review based off her comments last night (and perhaps in fear of being accused of legal malpractice otherwise). Secondly, how can you seemingly assume John Heilman knew something… Read more »
Hi Jay, thank you- and I hope everybody appreciates the effort that goes into this site, for years, with no pay. All for honest debate and to speak truth to power and provide all of you a forum to discuss and debate city issues. Community is what I stand for, thats why on day 1 when we opened BlockParty the sign inside reads, “a community store”, and thats why I founded the term limits initiative to foster a healthy rotation in our local government, and thats why I bought and continued this publication without any pay and a loss of… Read more »
Byers had her chance to state her case but chose not to because she held those comments hostage to her being able to vote last night. That’s not healthy for democracy. I urge Byers to plead her case and not emote alligator tears at the end of the meeting. So, no, she was not willing to state her case outloud, but rather only on her manipulative terms. She didn’t get her way and she cried like a baby in response. She got put in time out. Pathetic.
All true, Alan!
Larry, while I do not agree with Chelsea Byers on most of anything, thank you for sharing some of the background. Most of us are unaware of these details but it helps put things into context for many of us. Also I’d like to echo Jay’s appreciation for this website.
Question is will City Attorney Langer do the right thing? I hope that members of the City Council will review her submission to the FPPC BEFORE it is sent, Mayor John Heilman, in particular. In Santa Monica regarding similar concerns involving Council member Jesse Zwick, Zwick recused himself from housing-production matters. The California Fair Political Practices Commission (FPPC) ruled that he must do so.
I might start to like Hang. Byers I wouldn’t trust – at all. And Erickson, that clown.
Chelsea Byers confirmed at last night’s council meeting that her day job is Policy Manager for Welcoming Neighbors Network. This is an organization supporting SB 79 and fighting for an end to single-family homes. In her final speech, trying to clear herself from a clear conflict of interest, Byers stated: “I have advocated for better land use policy for the last 20 years and my work on this council has been consistent with my values. I have a day job working for a cause that I am passionate about. The idea that I’m somehow unable to make decisions in my… Read more »
Accepting paid employment from a group lobbying for specific policy & legislative outcomes that you’re also voting on is textbook conflict of interest. It doesn’t matter whether those interests also align with her own personal views or not, it’s simply not acceptable to take a paid position and expect to still be able to vote on these issues because that vote will always be suspect for conflict. This is the exact reason why lawmakers have the mechanism to recuse themselves and do so all the time. She is diminishing her credibility and that of the Council by not immediately recusing… Read more »
Sadly you are correct on all counts, Izzy.
Credit to John Heilman, Lauren Meister, and, somewhat surprisingly, Danny Hang, for tabling developer friendly Item C.4 following Chelsea Byers’ failure to appropriately recuse herself, so at least one less vote may require a redo.
“Byers is planning to displace renters and destroy rent-control buildings and single- family homes to replace them with luxury apartments with no parking and she has the audacity to call it “equitable housing”.”
Well put and worth repeating!
Slightly tweaking what you wrote just before that, Chelsea Byers has repeatedly said her hands are tied. Turns out she was telling the (partial) truth all along! Her hands ARE tied- by the purse strings of Welcoming Neighbors Network. Oopsie forgot to mention that!
WeHo’s NIMBY’s can’t stop fighting Byers! Shouldn’t the City Council issue a statement rescinding the claim that it was founded in part on the principle of affordable housing for all? It clearly is a city dominated by homeowners who are afraid that more housing will reduce the value of their property. A city that doesn’t care about the rights of poor people who end up homeless. A city that’s about wealth and privilege. A city that’s afraid the subway will let more poor Latinos cross its borders (they do make those hotel beds and clean the floors). I guess “gay”… Read more »
You should read this article – an interview with the planning commissioner in Minneapolis, a city that did away with single family homes in the exact way all the California YIMBYs hope to do. She sheds light on the unintended consequences they now face…
https://www.planningreport.com/2019/06/17/minneapolis-planning-commissions-alissa-luepke-pier
Read the facts.
Another CIMBY heard from (Corruption In My BackYard) No attack. Just Fact.
Earl, I think you’re missing the point of the issue here. Whenever the K Line fully qualifies, SB79 will trigger massive rezoning like it or not. The people you’re calling NIMBY’s here aren’t for the lost part opposed to the subway or additional housing, we’re just looking for a fair process and to retain local control to thoughtfully determine where all this new housing goes. SB79 itself provides for this via a TODAP (alternative plan), which still requires 100% as much incremental housing as the default circle on a map, so the question is why Byers and others are reluctant… Read more »
Earl: You’re obviously passionate about your anti-NIMBY position, but is it helpful to generalize about other local residents, in this case gay? The most vocal and visible protector of single family homes in my West Hollywood neighborhood is heterosexual. I suspect many gay residents support more housing for the poor and underserved, possibly a majority. It does no one any good to stigmatize a group of people already facing reactionary forces regaining ground at the national level, especially when there’s no evidence to back up your underhanded slur, as if we’re all wealthy and elitist.
Statistically it is impossible for 20% of the voters to dominate anything. You might actually look at the data along with the fact that a large percentage of those oppose SB79 are actually renters. And that the overwhelming response, both written and verbal, has been from neighborhoods throughout the city with a diverse cross section, by home type, location, and individual’s age, etc.
Does anyone know if the FPPC takes public comments for Chelsea Byers’ actions? Has anyone investigated if she or the threats made by Andrew Solomon had anything to do with SCAG’s map modifications? It would also be great to investigate what Welcoming Neighbors Network lobbied for. I am tired of SB 79 veiled as an affordable housing solution. The only thing it does is adding density to “transit corridors”. The current mapping now makes almost all of West Hollywood in those 1/2 mile radius zones. TODAP is what the residents want and it is what our council members should activate… Read more »
My thoughts exactly. The about face feels very suspect.
You can personally file a complaint with FPPC.
For once, the City Council chose caution over expediency. When credible ethics questions are raised, the answer isn’t to rush the vote and hope for the best. It’s to get an independent opinion and proceed with confidence. Democracy takes time, and that’s by design. Due process, transparency, and public trust are built by asking difficult questions before decisions are made, not by dismissing them as political inconveniences. The only people who should fear an FPPC review are those who don’t want the questions answered.
It was actually a very sad day to sit in the chamber and watch the city council come down to a split vote on such a consequential matter. This is not an appearance of conflict, this is using a city council seat to promote company initiatives. It is even more problematic that our City Attorney is so silent and so weak, and that John Heilman who worked close to Byers as Vice Mayor for the full year prior during these votes never spoke up. But, Publius, alias Dillon Hosier, of the Israeli Civic Action Network has his own issues. He… Read more »
Larry, you appear to be missing the mark. This appears to be an actual conflict of interest, not merely an appearance, but the FPPC will sort it out. Why are you dragging John Heilman into this? His stance was calm and professional. As a rule, Council members don’t check the filings to see if their colleagues’ employment might be the basis of a conflict; it is not their job. Whoever revealed Byers relationship with Welcoming Neighbors did a mitzvah, a public service.
Just saw your response to Larry’s comment after posting my own, Steve. Great minds think alike!
I was mistaken that anyone on the Council should have known about Chelsea’s conflict. That is the City Attorney’s job. The City Manager oversews Langer’s work so, hopefully, Jackie Rocco will review what Langer is submitting to the FPPC and explore why Langer did nothing for two years when this possible conflict of interest was in Chelsea’s file.
I think it’s neither the city attorney’s job, nor the responsibility of the city manager to research and connect the dots on these incestuous interconnected organizations. It is the job of the individual council member to have some sense of integrity and ethical standards to know where they are conflicted and to disclose those conflicts when they arise and act accordingly, in this case that means recusal. Byers failed in that basic sense of integrity and ethical standards My problem with Byers has been her consistent stealth operating style and she got caught, plain and simple. Operate in sunshine. It… Read more »
Historically City Hall was not really set up to be monitoring Council member’s respective employment in any detail. But when you have Council members working for various advocacy groups, it would seem prudent for the City Manager to review the conflict statements carefully in the future. If the vote had gone forward on Monday and the FPPC ruled that Byers should not have voted, that would guarantee the City would be spending hundreds of thousands of dollars in litigation fees to sort it all out. That is why continuing the two items on the Council’s agenda was the mature thing… Read more »
Congratulations to Danny Hang for sticking up for what’s right and not simply going along with Byers/Erickson.
I agree; he approached the issue with a sense of dignity with an intellectual appreciation for the issue; in stark contrast to his colleague, John Erickson, whose unfounded accusations regarding “attacks from the right” simply showed him to be a partisan buffoon.
If a California public official has a legally disqualifying conflict of interest, recusal is not optional—it’s required by law, and there are civil and criminal penalties for failure to do so. The key law is California Government Code § 87100, part of the Political Reform Act. It states that a public official “shall not make, participate in making, or in any way attempt to use” their official position to influence a governmental decision in which they have a disqualifying financial interest. The facts appear sufficiently similar to recent FPPC guidance that an independent FPPC opinion should be requested. Until that… Read more »
In that case SCAG must be informed of her interests and her interference in the process before the final mapping meeting on Thursday.
Make sure you email SCAG letting them know ePublicComment@scag.ca.gov
I believe SCAG will be buried in emails on just this subject.
Fiat Lux. Let there be light. Partially as a result of wisely mandated disclosures, OccupiedWeHo/Publius was able to pinpoint Chelsea Byers’ clear conflict of interest, paralleling Jesse Zwick’s in Santa Monica as determined by the FPPC. Publius then notified Councilmembers John Heilman and Lauren Meister of their findings and requested an FPPC review. West Hollywood Heights Neighborhood Association President Elyse Eisenberg then spread the word to the community to encourage their advocacy for review as well. Brian Holt of WeHoOnline further publicized the situation and requested comment from City Attorney Lauren Langer among others. To her credit she at least… Read more »
What a nasty comment from Erickson to Lauren.
He despises his constituents is what is glaringly obvious. He’s gotta go.
He’s a petty, vindictive, immature clown. Lauren is everything you want in a representative. Erickson is everything you don’t want.
I wish someone would make a sizzle reel of Erickson’s greatest hits. He consistently demonstrates emotional immaturity. He is rude, dismissive and arrogant. And the repeated public displays of snark prove that he doesn’t know how to get along with constituents or colleagues. Not fit for city council and definitely not fit for state office.
Yep Marc clocked that too!
John Erickson should go get a job in a competitive industry – that pays him a salary that can increase over time based on hard work and legitimate promotions – from which he can save for the next 25 years so that he can buy a house, LIKE THE REST OF US DID. That’s how it works, John.
Why is it Erickson and Byers can openly discriminate against people who own homes without being cancelled? And they are both openly trying everything they can (trying to create and enforce laws) to rid the city of them. If that’s not a prejudiced personal agenda I don’t know what is. This city was founded on diversity. Homeowners are part of that diversity and, like everyone else, deserve to be protected by the city.
Diversity and inclusion both have limits to this crowd. Ironic, isn’t it? Erickson’s comment was way out of line and shows once again his unsuitability to an office of public trust, particularly in a deliberative legislative body. He too often speaks before he thinks. Most people outgrow that immaturity much earlier in life.
And why doesn’t Erickson say the same to Heilman who has owned his penthouse for years.
I suspect misogyny on Erickson’s part.