July 2010 proved explosive in the world of local government in California when the news broke that officials in the city of Bell had committed egregious abuses of public trust and the aftereffects of this seismic controversy are still being felt. The name Robert Rizzo likely evokes a lip-curling snarl from even the most even-tempered of individuals, and it’s hard to believe that it was just a year ago this month that the L.A. Times reported on the scandal that made headlines across the country. In our retrospection, we examine what lessons were learned a year after the news broke.
After Bell, the public no longer viewed just federal and state government with anger but also local governments. “Transparency” and “accountability” are the new buzzwords for ALL levels of government, as it’s no longer as easy to blame just the state when there are bad actors in city halls throughout California. Simply put, local governments can no longer score points by pointing fingers at the state and saying "those are the bad guys.” Bell was a defining moment in city government, much like Watergate was for politicians and Enron was for corporations. The times have changed and we will never be able to turn back the clock.
Newspapers are turning to local governments with a renewed focus to expose abuses, fraud and corruption in few (but too many) city halls, which has helped shape the image of local government in the mind of the average citizen. The same level of scrutiny, oversight and transparency that city leaders are demanding (and deserve) from state officials is exactly what the average citizen expects and demands from city hall.
That being said, the excessive and conscience-shaking salaries were immediately and widely condemned, including by the League of California Cities, which took a proactive approach to addressing how such abuses could be prevented from occurring again through efforts to increase transparency and accountability. Legal reforms were only the beginning, as the State Controller also developed a comprehensive database of local government compensation, which has been rolled out in phases over the past year. Local officials stepped up to the plate and quickly complied with the expansive effort to meet loud calls for greater accountability.
So where do we stand today? Since ethical and legal standards for compensation have been in the limelight, disclosure has greatly enhanced along with public access. Furthermore, legal reforms are continuing to play out; many have failed to gather enough support and others have successfully moved forward. There has been no shortage of bills introduced, including many that are sponsored by the State Controller, as they concern local agency auditing. An example of one potential piece of legislation, AB 187, is described as follows by the League: “The bill grants the State Auditor overly expansive authority to audit local agencies he or she believes to be at ‘high risk for the potential of waste, fraud, abuse or mismanagement or that has major challenges associated with its economy efficiency or effectiveness.’ The League has raised many concerns about this bill, such as the specifics on the criteria that would be used to warrant Auditor intervention. A list of the so-called “Bell Bills’ for 2011 can be seen here.
As for the city of Bell itself, through a recall election and the selection of fresh representatives, the city now has a cleaner slate to work from, but it has been a steep uphill climb to build public trust and steer the city back on the right path. Adding to the city’s difficult recovery is the threat of insolvency and the inability to recruit strong leaders, such as a City Manager.
The better question may be where cities in general, not just Bell, will go from here. At a time when city budgets are tight, services have been cut, positions eliminated, and salaries reduced, city leaders across the state have demonstrated their ability to take responsible steps to keep budgets in balance while meeting local service needs. This sense of responsibility to the public is the very antithesis of the waywardness that was rampant in Bell, and the public would do well to note that the scandal therefore was the exception not the rule. A key lesson perhaps to take from the scandal is that a firm commitment to transparency and open communication will continue to encourage civic engagement and constructive scrutiny.
While the Bell scandal was undoubtedly an embarrassment to diligent members of city government who are paid fairly, city officials across the state have been committed to ensuring that the byproduct of the scandal was not merely a speedy resumption to “business as usual” but a strong affirmation that there was a lesson to be learned—evident by the subsequent changes that have only improved local governance standards. The lesson learned also extends to residents of the city of Bell, as their civic awareness and involvement in the fate of their city has undoubtedly been awakened to a level previously unseen.
