Supervisor Jaime De La Cruz did not merely accept donations and active campaign support from Lombardo & Gilles, the law firm representing DMB-El Rancho San Benito.
He neglected to report nearly all of the firm’s support to his campaign, only acknowledged the business’ help in some instances when pressed by the newspaper, and still has not answered to a former bar owner’s statements confirming that Lombardo & Gilles had offered to pay for at least one of his campaign parties. He still has not fully explained the firm’s level of campaign support.
The basic question here is whether De La Cruz intentionally left out the firm’s involvement during his campaign or if this was an unfortunate, embarrassing set of oversights. We believe the facts point to a suspicion of ethical impropriety by De La Cruz.
The Free Lance investigation revealing the campaign support confirmed that De La Cruz, who is no novice to election requirements and served previously on two other elected boards, neglected to report how Lombardo & Gilles organized two of his fundraisers and also oversaw the supervisor’s victory party in June before offering to pay the bar owner for that night’s balance of around $100.
The Free Lance also examined whether other board members accepted donations from DMB or the law firm and found that Supervisor Reb Monaco received $1,413 from the builder in early 2007 and also acknowledged receiving unitemized contributions of under $99 from Lombardo & Gilles. Supervisors Anthony Botelho and Pat Loe say they had not received any help from either, while Supervisor Margie Barrios has declined to disclose identities of donors who give less than $99 and noted how those contributors give money with an understanding of anonymity.
It is important to note that none of those disclosed or unitemized donations to other supervisors were improperly reported.
But there are, however, clear reporting requirements for such in-kind donations as those from Lombardo & Gilles for overseeing the De La Cruz parties, and he didn’t just miss one of the events on his reports, or even two. He failed to report three – while two of the gatherings were not mentioned at all in his filing statements almost as if they never took place.
It leaves the perception of potential impropriety on De La Cruz’s part. It also calls into question his ability to make objective judgments on the DMB-El Rancho San Benito project, which is proposing to build 6,800 homes northwest of Hollister in a plan supervisors will consider before a potential vote by citizens.
There is a clear nexus between the developer and law firm, one of which De La Cruz was fully aware, and one with potential to raise eyebrows if De La Cruz had knowingly, publicly accepted the level of campaign support he ultimately did receive – with less-than-forthright disclosure – from Lombardo & Gilles.
By accepting the wide support and also neglecting to disclose it publicly, the situation leaves De La Cruz with more questions to respond to than he appears willing to answer. Why would he not be up-front from the start and report whatever donations came from the firm? Why would De La Cruz continue to evade further questioning on the matter? His reaction only amplifies our skepticism.
De La Cruz when pressed has acknowledged some of his non-disclosures, but even in those cases, there are no acceptable ignorance excuses for a public official who has run campaigns for offices held previously that include seats on boards of the county water district and health care district.
As the supervisor knows, the reporting requirements are cumbersome. That is how our system works.
During the last national campaign, both General Motors and the United Auto Workers gave millions to support political candidates even though both claimed to be broke. Many of those same elected officials then voted to give GM and the UAW billions in bailout money.
The identical situation existed on a smaller scale with the Measure T tax increase and support from the city employees who reaped the reward of raises funded by those dollars.
We can see where the money starts and goes because the public has open access, sunshine if you will, on the campaign activities of elected officials like De La Cruz. It is how we hold such officials accountable.
