State Questions Inglewood Mayor, Councilman on Election Spending

The state’s Fair Political Practices Commission has interviewed Inglewood Mayor Edward Vincent and Councilman Ervin (Tony) Thomas about campaign spending during last year’s council election, which remains the subject of a legal and political battle.

The two officials said FPPC investigators questioned them last week because of a complaint that Vincent did not accurately report giving services to the Thomas campaign and that Thomas did not accurately report receiving them.

FPPC spokeswoman Sandra Michioku said she could not discuss the commission’s activity because it is a pending matter.

In separate interviews, both Vincent and Thomas said they cooperated fully with FPPC investigators. The mayor and Thomas said they had nothing to hide and said any omissions on their campaign statements for the April primary and June runoff were accidental and due in part to the complexity of the rules.

“To the best of my knowledge, I reported everything,” Thomas said, while acknowledging the possibility that “something could have been reported wrong.”

Vincent acknowledged that he spent more on Thomas’ campaign for the 4th District seat than was specifically listed as contributions on the campaign reports, but said his reports do list all expenditures he made in the April and June elections. He said it would be difficult to figure out specifically how much he spent on Thomas because Thomas was included in literature the mayor bought promoting a slate of candidates.

Vincent said he told the investigators he would do whatever they requested to clarify his campaign statements.

“What they found out is that nobody’s hiding anything,” Vincent said. “If anything was left out it was by omission, not commission.”

Although Thomas continues to sit on the council, his election was annulled last October by Los Angeles Superior Court Judge Leon Savitch. Acting on a lawsuit filed by Thomas’ opponent in the runoff, Garland Hardeman, Savitch threw out 31 Thomas votes and called for a new election.

Thomas has appealed the ruling and remains on the council until it is resolved. Hardeman has also appealed, saying Savitch should have declared him the winner of the election because the ruling left him with more legal votes.

The FPPC would not reveal the source of the complaint because it was informal, Michioku said. Formal complaints require a signed public accusation, she said, while informal complainants may remain anonymous. She said the complaint was made in November.

Hardeman said Thursday that he complained to the commission several times last year, but said he did not know if he prompted the FPPC inquiry.

He said his complaints alleged that Thomas and Vincent did not sufficiently report services provided to the Thomas campaign by Vincent. The services included payments for campaign literature and mailings and the use of Vincent’s campaign headquarters, Hardeman said.

“Ed Vincent’s been campaigning long enough to know how to report,” Hardeman said. “I don’t know when they’re going to own up to the fact that they had an attitude of ‘win at whatever cost necessary.’ They didn’t follow the rules and I don’t think they ever intended to.”

The state’s Political Reform Act requires campaign disclosure statements to detail information including the date, amount and contributor of each contribution over $100. Judging by Hardeman’s complaints and Thomas’ and Vincent’s accounts of the FPPC interviews, it appears that the commission is looking into spending by Vincent on Thomas that the two did not report.

In a July 28, 1987, amendment to his campaign statement for the period between March 22 and May 30, Thomas reported a $5,000 payment to the Friends of Edward Vincent campaign committee for “in-kind literature and loans” and mentioned the public relations firm Benoit & Associates. Vincent’s disclosure for the first half of 1987 lists a $5,000 loan to Thomas and repayment. Vincent said Thomas paid him the money to defray the cost of campaign services.

But as Hardeman pointed out, Vincent’s campaign records show that he also paid $15,000--in separate payments of $10,000 and $5,000--to political consultant Willard Murray’s United Democratic Campaign Committee last April. The money--defined on the forms as contributions to unspecified other candidates or committees--went for political literature endorsing Thomas and other candidates for council, school board and city treasurer, Vincent said.

Records also show Vincent spent more than $6,000 for “professional management services” by political consultant Wright/Lester & Associates and Benoit & Associates during the election period, which included an unsuccessful April ballot initiative to raise the mayor’s salary. Thomas paid Wright/Lester & Associates $2,800, according to his campaign records.

Hardeman said their campaign disclosure statements should detail costs for specific mailers, such as a sample ballot prepared by Murray’s firm for the June 16 runoff bearing the pictures of Thomas and other endorsed candidates on the mayor’s “Inglewood Democratic Team” slate.

“I had four mailers and they cost me $4,500,” Hardeman said. “Thomas had 13 mailers and he hit double the households I did. There’s no way he could have put out the mailers and paid for postage for the amount he shows.”

Though Vincent said Hardeman overstated the cost and the distribution of Thomas’ mailers, he confirmed that he spent more than $5,000 on the Thomas campaign and said he would detail the information if the FPPC so requests.

“Everything Tony didn’t pay for, I paid for,” Vincent said. “ There’s no question it was more than $5,000. But so what?” Vincent said all expenses for Thomas are accounted for in general terms on the mayor’s disclosure statement.

For his part, Thomas said he and the other candidates endorsed by Vincent “were doing everything in a group.”

“I got a bill for my share (from the mayor) and I paid it,” Thomas said, referring to the $5,000 he listed as a loan repayment.

According to Thomas and Vincent, the FPPC also inquired about the Thomas campaign’s use of Vincent’s bulk-rate mailing permit, another target of Hardeman’s complaints. Permit No. 442, which Vincent said is his, appears on Thomas literature, but neither man’s campaign statements list payment of postage for Thomas mailings.

Vincent’s statement does show five separate payments totaling nearly $5,000 for “general operations and overhead” to the U.S. Postmaster in Marina del Rey during the election period. Vincent acknowledged that part of those expenses covered Thomas’ mailings. But again, he said he did not think he was required to report specifically what was spent on Thomas.

When Thomas was asked why he did not report as a contribution the postage from Vincent, Thomas said: “I wasn’t billed for it. I don’t see why I should have to report it if the mayor wanted to donate it to me.”

A “large percentage” of Thomas’ literature went out on the mayor’s bulk rate number, Thomas said. Seven different pieces of Thomas literature obtained by The Times bear the 442 number.

The investigators asked Thomas about his use of the mayor’s campaign headquarters at Imperial Highway and Crenshaw Boulevard, Thomas said. Thomas and Vincent’s campaign statements do not reflect Thomas’ use of the headquarters space.

Both Thomas and Vincent cited the complicated procedures involved in reporting campaign spending as one reason for any omissions that may have occurred.

“Nobody understands all those FPPC regulations,” Vincent said. “If the FPPC wants to help, they should become local and give us some advice so we can avoid these problems.”

In the future, Vincent said, he will simply loan the candidates he supports as much as they need to pay their own expenses.

“I’ll say, ‘This is what you need for mailers and postage, here’s $10,000 and you pay for it,’ ” Vincent said. “I should have just done that to begin with.”

Vincent also responded to Hardeman’s criticism with charges of his own. He said Hardeman has not reported on his campaign statements free legal work being done for him on the election case by lawyers for the firm Tuttle & Taylor and the nonprofit Center for Law in the Public Interest.

“The door swings both ways,” Vincent said. “It’s a gift in-kind and he should report it. How much did they spend? Why?”