LA Times/LA Now | http://lat.ms/aqgFbE
March 10, 2011 | 5:02 pm - Los Angeles Community College District Board of Trustees candidate Scott Svonkin said Thursday that he has returned more than $12,000 in campaign contributions from developers and others working on the district’s troubled $5.7-billion campus rebuilding program.
Svonkin, 45, a senior advisor to Sheriff Lee Baca, finished first among seven candidates for Office 5 in the March 8 balloting but did not win a majority and faces a May 17 runoff against the second-place finisher.
In two years of campaigning, Svonkin raised $228,459, including $12,600 from 11 vendors on the construction program, which was financed by a series of bond measures over the last decade. A six-part Times investigation, which concluded Sunday, found that tens of millions of dollars had been wasted due to questionable spending, poor planning and inferior workmanship.
“While I would never be influenced in any way by a campaign contribution, I want to eliminate even the slightest appearance of a conflict of interest,” said a statement by Svonkin, who ran on a slate that included two board incumbents. “I will not take contributions from bond vendors for this campaign and, if elected, I will fight to ensure that bond vendors do not contribute to future campaigns.”
To that end, he called on the board to ban contributions from bond program vendors, to enact conflict-of-interest regulations that would prevent board members from interfering in employment decisions and require that campaign contribution filings be immediately available online.
Lydia Gutierrez, Svonkin’s likely challenger in the runoff, agreed to the need for strict financial and conflict-of-interest reforms but said Svonkin’s actions were disingenuous. Gutierrez, 53, a teacher in the Long Beach Unified School District, was ahead in second-place votes, although final election results may not be certified for several weeks.
“These are rules I’ve already followed,” she said. “He directly campaigned with the two incumbents and was thick into receiving money and knew exactly where that money was coming from. He was a part of the problem.”
No comments:
Post a Comment