False and Misleading & Democracy Sacked, Raped and Looted

May 9, 2003

Dear Lookout Editor:

The Green Party of California (GPCA) wishes to thank you for your recent interest and articles featuring the GPCA. We are concerned, however, with a number of allegations made by both your reporter, Oliver Lukacs, and by Mike Feinstein. (“SPECIAL REPORT: Shades of Green”)

They assert that the GPCA was in some way responsible for the opening of a bank account and a party headquarters controlled by Mr. Feinstein. The GPCA regards this assertion as non-factual.

Following an exhaustive review of all pertinent documents, the GPCA insists that it has never maintained any bank account in Southern California, nor has it ever authorized, leased, rented, staffed or occupied any headquarters in Santa Monica.

Representations to the contrary are false and misleading, and merely divert attention from the real issues of concern to us all: full and complete disclosure and documentation of the $10,000 check and any other contributions intended for the Green Party of Los Angeles County and of all expenditures made with those funds by Mr. Feinstein.

The Coordinating Committee of the GPCA became aware of the problems in Los Angeles two years ago, and has since sought to have full disclosure, legal compliance and accountability. This remains our policy.

We are committed to finding appropriate means of ensuring full transparency and accountability in the matters now under investigation by the legal and administrative authorities with jurisdiction in this matter.

We thank the Lookout and its staff for the opportunity to clarify the record in this regard.

Sincerely,
Beth Moore Haines
GPCA Spokesperson

(Eds. Note: According to official minutes of the January 29, 2000 GPCA meeting held at the Pico office, state party officials referred to the storefront as a “state office” and acknowledged that they were aware of a “Green Party” account opened under Feinstein’s name. Officials said that while the state party had “no legal or financial obligation for the office… the GPCA has a political responsibility,” according to the minutes.)

May 9, 2003

Dear Editor,

Your very well researched and written chain of events regarding the finances of the former Mayor, his cohorts and the Green Party that they represent is yet another very telling example of the state of politics today in the fair city of Santa Monica , where socio-politico progressive attitudes have devolved into get money, get elected, keep money and power at all cost.

What’s more telling is the fact that there seems to be no authority that will address the issues at hand. Was this estimated $30,000 used to circumvent the non-partisan status of the electoral process here as defined under the city charter?

Were these monies comingled in such a way as to benefit another Green Party candidate who was reelected yet again to council, ie. rent, lights, phone mail, and printed materials, that resulted in a disadvantage to other candidates who also ran without the benefit of tens of thousands of unaccounted for monies?

And do these circumstances taint each and every vote and other actions the council may or may not have taken when it would appear from all outward indications that the furtherance of the Green Party national and even international agenda was the ultimate goal of these tawdry dealings?

While it would be easy to target the parties involved as corrupted, power coveting opportunists, it’s more important now to deal with these goings on in such a way as to preserve and protect the democracy here that has been sacked, raped and looted by those who would run the City as though it were a private club.

What’s most important is to restore the promise of Santa Monica as a city where clean government is the ideal and fairness and honesty in the elections are above reproach, which is a concept that has faded here over the last two decades.