When Supervisor Robert Rivas nominated Stone Advocacy for the county’s first ever lobbyist, he stated that after looking over the credentials of all three “equally qualified firms” being considered at the Dec. 12 meeting, the resulting 3-2 vote assured Kim Stone—the sole lobbyist in her firm—$120,000 for one year’s effort to advocate for the county in Sacramento.
Rivas, along with Supervisors Jerry Muenzer and Anthony Botelho voted in favor of hiring Stone Advocacy. While Supervisor Mark Medina had originally encouraged DiMare, Brown, Hicks, Kessler to compete for the lobbyist position, he and Supervisor Jaime De La Cruz had wanted Hurst Brooks, Espinosa to capture the contract instead.
Supervisors agree to hire Sacramento lobbyist
***The vote may have been different if Rivas had disclosed prior to the vote that he and his brother, Rick, knew Stone previously.
Stone said she met and worked with Rick Rivas at the Civil Justice Association of California. She did not work on the campaign with the Rivas brothers when they ran Anna Caballero’s campaign back in 2006. Robert Rivas has revealed that he is currently exploring the possibility of running for State Assembly himself.
Rick Rivas worked with Stone starting in May 2007 at the Civil Justice Association of California (CJAC), an organization that represents big oil, tobacco, and pharmaceutical companies and whose board consists of executives from ExxonMobil Corporation, Shell Oil Company, and The Dow Chemical Company.
Even though Stone and Rick Rivas had worked together before, Stone couldn’t recollect exactly when she met Robert. However, she told BenitoLink that, as a lobbyist, she knew most legislators and many of their staff.***
CJAC also co-sponsored Proposition 64, which was “…opposed by consumer and environmental advocates and weakened the general public’s ability to pursue lawsuits over unfair business practices and environmental violations,” according to the California Progressive Report. Stone’s involvement in Prop. 64 was one of the points she made to bolster her credentials as she stood before the board of supervisors to promote her firm over the two other much larger firms.
“I lobbied for and then ran a trade association, the Civil Justice Association of California that fought against trial lawyers,” she said. “CJAC fought so that legitimate lawsuits would be allowed to precede and keep shakedown lawsuits from continuing.”
Supervisors Jerry Muenzer and Mark Medina disagreed whether Rivas should have been more transparent about his brother’s, as well as his own, history with Stone, which Rivas described as more of an “acquaintance” rather than relationship. Medina said it would have been more transparent if Rivas had disclosed the relationship, but since he voted against her anyway, it wouldn’t have changed his opinion on why she was not qualified for the job.
“The other two firms were much more diverse,” Medina said. “They have more depth and a lot more experience. I asked them all the same questions and it just seemed to me that the other two firms were a better fit for us.”
In researching this news story, Stone’s website, Stone Advocacy.com appeared to be incomplete or not functioning properly.
As for Muenzer, he felt being a sole proprietor was a plus for Stone. He had not met with representatives of the other two firms, but had met with Stone when she first made it known she would like to be considered for the lobbyist position. He said he was impressed with how she presented herself.
“She has been doing similar work for other organizations and has a network built up in Sacramento,” Muenzer said. “She seemed to be willing to give San Benito County the time to work for us, where that doesn’t always happen with bigger agencies. I’ve seen where you get promises and then they don’t follow through because they are busy helping other clients and they forget about us.”
He reiterated that because having a lobbyist for the first time is an “unknown,” was the reason he requested that the contract be for one year, as a trial, regardless of what agency was chosen.
“This will be a test to see if she is a good match or not,” he said. “Kim has the potential of being a very good match for us, yet I didn’t want to be locked into a long-term contract.”
Muenzer admitted that other than the conversation he had with Stone early in the process that he knew nothing more about her qualifications, but added he knew nothing at all about the other two firms. Muenzer said Rivas never disclosed his or his brother’s relationship with Stone. He said in his understanding of the Code of Ethics, it only pertains to “adults who live under your rooftop.” He contended it was beyond his ability to say if Rivas may have had a moral obligation to disclose that he knew Stone previously, but he did not necessarily have a legal obligation to do so.
“It probably would have made no difference to me,” Muenzer said. “If it would have made a difference to the public, I have no idea. Would it have made a difference to me? No.”
While Muenzer said he based his decision to support Stone on his meeting with her, Medina commented that he was not impressed by either her verbal presentation at the meeting, nor her qualifications, resources or lack of clients.
“She’s not just trying to keep us, she’s searching for other business also,” Medina said. “She’s a firm that’s growing, so she’s not exclusively with us. When you look at the other ones, they have several people to take care of matters. Every business’s intent is to grow, and as she does she devotes less time to us.”
Supervisor Anthony Botelho concurred with Muenzer in that being basically a one-woman shop was a good thing in that Stone would be able to concentrate on the county, and that as she tries to build her reputation in Sacramento, she is simultaneously advocating for San Benito County.
“It’s good for the county and her,” he said, “because if she does a good job for us we can recommend her to other potential clients and it benefits all concerned.”
Medina, however, maintained that he not think Stone’s background was relevant to what she would do as a lobbyist for the county.
“She’s never dealt with a rural community and she only had one instance of grant writing, where the other firms had pretty much brought in people who can write grants,” he said. “She’s never written a grant for a county. It was only for a nonprofit.”
Rivas, however, believes just the opposite is true. Even though he said he does not know Stone very well, other than she and his brother worked for CJAC at the same time, and did not know her in 2006 when they were both campaigning for Anna Caballero, he still believes she is the best choice as a lobbyist.
He maintains that he does not have a direct conflict in nominating Stone.
“I don’t gain any economic benefit,” he said. “If you’re going to look at this issue under a microscope, then I’d hope you’d ask Jaime (De La Cruz) why he voted for the firm that he did. Maybe it’s the cozy relationship he established at CSAC. I knew a lot of people who applied for this because of my brother and relationships I’ve established. I have high regard for all of them who were in the boardroom that morning. All of them would have represented us well, but based on the information from the resumé she submitted, she had a unique set of qualities that put her in the position to best represent our needs as a county.”
Rivas said if he had perceived a conflict of interest, he would have disclosed the information about his brother. But as word apparently filtered back to him that the issue had been brought up, he said he had spoken with Barbara Thompson, county counsel, about a possible conflict of interest. He said she assured him it was not an issue.
Rivas said the $120,000 contract will put Stone in the best position to advocate for the county, particularly because she does not have any other government clients. He said he had asked the other two firms that do represent other counties if it would be an issue that San Benito County is much smaller, with a smaller budget. When they told him it wouldn’t be an issue because whomever in their offices was handling competing counties wouldn’t discuss their work among themselves, he said that “wasn’t good enough.”
“The fact that she didn’t have any local government clients, for me, goes a long way because we’re going to be a priority for her,” Rivas said. “Aside from that, she’s a Stanford Law School grad; she was a practicing attorney on the federal circuit. That says something to me. She’s uniquely qualified as an individual.”
Rivas wanted to make it clear that he has nothing to do with negotiating the contract, but was only concerned with choosing the best firm for the job.
“One of the stipulations moving forward is the one-year contract,” he said. “In that one year if she’s not able to handle it the board will go in a different direction.”
Even though staff will attempt to negotiate the contract down, Rivas said $120,000 is the ceiling that Ray Espinosa, county administrative officer, had set, but he is being directed to try to get the best deal for the county possible. At the Dec. 12 meeting, Rivas had compared San Benito County to surrounding counties, stating that some have spent upwards of $221,000, while San Benito has spent nothing. In fact, Monterey County expended $90,000 in 2017, while Santa Cruz County budgeted $60,000, and Santa Clara County spent a whopping $279,000, according to OpenSecrets.org.
***Editor’s Note: This section was updated to correct an error.
You must be logged in to post a comment.