Groups hoping to hold candidate forums at City Hall have said they will not hire an outside moderator. (photo by Edwin Folven)

Two community organizations said they may not hold planned candidate forums at Beverly Hills City Hall for the upcoming March 5 City Council election after the council at its study session on Dec. 11 directed them to use an outside moderator for their events.

The Municipal League of Beverly Hills is tentatively scheduled to hold a forum in City Hall on Jan. 31, and the Southwest Beverly Hills Homeowners Association is planning to hold a candidate forum there on Feb. 1. Both organizations stopped short of officially calling off their forums, but adamantly stated they will not hire an outside moderator.

At its Dec. 11 study session, the City Council members all affirmed the need for the public to have opportunities to hear from the candidates, and granted approval for the organizations to use City Hall and the city’s broadcasting and technical equipment so the event can be livestreamed and rebroadcast on local Beverly Hills Television, BHTV 10. The council also gave direction that an outside moderator be used at the candidate forums to guarantee they will be impartial.

Leaders of the Municipal League of Beverly Hills and the Southwest Beverly Hills Homeowners Association said they felt blindsided by the direction to have an outside moderator, as both organizations have for years held candidate forums that have been led by one of their members. They said it is important because members have insightful knowledge of the city and its issues, and are better suited to determine and pose questions for the candidates. They also said it is unfair to ask that they be required to find and likely have to pay for an outside moderator, especially with such a limited amount of time.

“We have asked the City Council to reconsider,” said Ken Goldman, president of the Southwest Beverly Hills Homeowners Association. “We are not going to hire an outside moderator that doesn’t know the issues. I am hopeful we don’t have to.”

Thomas A. White, chair of the Municipal League of Beverly Hills, also said his group does not plan to hire an outside moderator.

“I have discussed the matter with our board and we are not going to yield to this coercion,” White said. “This is the people’s chamber, this is our city government, it’s a taxpayer-funded building. It does not belong to the council, it belongs to the people. We are not going to agree to substitute in our candidate forum someone who has no background, no value or connection to the voters. We are simply not doing it.”

Both White and Goldman said their groups are unfairly being singled out for something a member of a different organization did during a forum in the 2022 City Council election. In that forum, Beverly Hills North Homeowners Association president and former mayor Bob Tanenbaum questioned then-candidate and incumbent council member, and now vice mayor, Lester Friedman in an aggressive manner with “biased and uncivil actions,” Friedman said at the Dec. 11 study session. The 2022 forum was also organized by the Municipal League of Beverly Hills, and White was among the moderators present at the event.

Mayor Julian Gold declined to comment on the organizations’ opposition to using an outside moderator, and deferred to his comments at the study session, when he also referenced the 2022 candidate forum. At the meeting, Gold cited the need for the upcoming forums to be impartial and civil. He described the 2022 forum involving the questioning by Tanenbaum as a “master class on how not to be civil.”

“And frankly, I think it’s a stain that this chamber will not recover from in a long time,” Gold said during the study session. “For me, I’m all in favor of forums, I think they’re great. If the Municipal League would like to have their own someplace else, that’s certainly on [them] to do. People who want to participate will, but I really believe that, in order to preserve the integrity of the city and the integrity of this chamber, there’s just no way on Earth we can have version two of what we had two years ago.”

Friedman supported the candidate forums with an outside moderator, as did council members Lili Bosse and Sharona Nazarian. They all stressed the importance of open and impartial elections.

“I think that having the candidate forums is an important part of the process, and it should go forward. I think that we do need a neutral moderator,” Friedman said.

“I just really want for the public to feel that there is no, in any way, any sort of a bias, that this is very fair and balanced,” Bosse said. “I completely agree with my colleague about civility, and aside from the civility part, I think the other part is people want to feel, when they’re watching a forum or a debate or whatever, that the moderators, the people who are asking the questions, don’t have any relationship, or any sort of predetermined bias, towards anyone. I think that gives it more credibility, and I think that’s the goal.”

“I think that these forums are extremely important, and I agree that it’s a great time for residents to be able to get information and learn more about the candidates so that they can make an informed decision,” Nazarian said. “We do have a civility statement that is signed by every candidate. And I do hope that the questions are uniform for all of the candidates so that we support fairness. We pride ourselves in being a civil city, and we want to act with decorum.”

The City Council and city are prohibited by law from endorsing a candidate, holding candidate forums or otherwise influencing city council races and campaigns. However, the city is allowed to grant permission for community organizations to use city facilities for candidate forums.

The city attorney was not made available for comment on the legality of requiring an outside moderator.

“Historically, these groups have requested they use Council Chambers, that the city waive fees and that the city broadcast the debates live and continue to broadcast the replays regularly throughout the election. Any of these requests give the council adequate grounds to require the debates be fair and impartial,” read a statement from Beverly Hills public information manager Lauren Santillana.

Goldman and White said they do not know what will happen next with the forums, and remained adamant that the council’s conditions are unfair. The organizations are free to hold candidate forums on private property, which is a potential option.

“Don’t bring up or blame us for something somebody else did,” Goldman added. “It’s not fair.”

White deferred to a statement that he said sums up his sentiments.

“The board refuses to compromise its independence, self-determination and sovereignty, or to be coerced or leveraged into allowing these council members’ self-interest to control the proceedings, neutralize its educational and probative value, or to sabotage the forum so that it becomes of little or no value to inform the electorate as to the character, competence, judgment and suitability of the candidates seeking elected office,” read the statement by White. “Local government belongs to our residents and voters, who should never allow it to be appropriated, privatized or manipulated for the personal or political benefit, or demagoguery of any council member. Without candidate forums, voters will be forced to rely on campaign marketing and advertising financed through contributions provided by commercial real estate owners and investors seeking to secure favorable policies which enable significant profitability for themselves, but at the direct and permanent expense of the community’s residential quality of life.”

Beverly Hills City Councilman John Mirisch, who said it is imperative to hold candidate forums that are impartial and neutral, said he hopes a compromise can be brokered.

“We need the forums,” Mirisch said. “I’m in favor of figuring out a solution, including having the city pay for a moderator who would be approved and prepped by the groups sponsoring the forums.”