Palo Alto Council member and best-selling author Julie Lythcott-Haims received a hopeful sign from California's political watchdogs on June 15 when the Fair Political Practices Commission (FPPC) agreed to reconsider a rule that bans elected officials from receiving payments for book talks, workshops and other types of paid speeches.

By a 4-0 vote, the four-member commission directed FPPC staff to take another look at existing statutes and examine whether it's possible to craft an exemption to a 1990 law that bans elected officials from receiving honoraria. The law, which was enacted after California voters passed Proposition 112, was intended to target public corruption by removing a way for elected leaders to get paid by people seeking to influence them. But it is now creating a financial barrier for Lythcott-Haims, who published three books before getting elected to the council in 2022 and who currently makes more than half of her income from speaking at author events.

The Thursday hearing was requested by Lythcott-Haims after she received an informal advice letter from FPPC staff in April that directed her to limit the time she spends on -- and the income she receives from -- speeches. The commission cited a law that prohibits "payment made in consideration for any speech given, article published, or attendance at any public or private conference, convention, meeting, social event, meal, or like gathering."

Yet the FPPC staff stopped short of outright banning her from making money from speaking. Rather, the letter allowed her to continue to receive income from speeches so long as it makes up less than 50% of her business' total income. That was based on an exception that the state grants to "bona fide" businesses that were in existence for two years before the official was elected.

"Moving forward, she will only be able to receive compensation for speeches and other public talks so long as speech making is not the predominant activity of her business," the April letter from FPPC General Counsel Dave Bainbridge and Assistant General Counsel Brian Lau stated.

Lau maintained during the Thursday hearing that the FPPC's approach in the case of Lythcott-Haims was already lenient (since they could have outright banned her from receiving payments for speeches) and that carving out exceptions for situations like hers would clash with state statutes.

"This approach allowed the official to continue receiving payments for business-related activities, including articles published and attending related events," Lau said.

Lythcott-Haims' attorney, Gary Winuk, challenged the conclusion of the April letter and asserted in his response letter that her book talks and workshops are "based on the specialized expertise she has developed in the course of her extensive research and publication of three books" and that they are "completely unrelated to her service on the Palo Alto City Council and do not in any way trigger the potential harms against which the Honorarium ban seeks to protect."

Winuk made a similar case Thursday to the four-member commission –- with some success. While commissioners acknowledged the broad applicability of the 1990 law of honoraria, Winuk pointed to instances in which the state carved out exceptions, including a case in which an FPPC commissioner was paid for doing a radio show and another case in which official who was a teacher was allowed to give a presentation on a book they had published.

Winuk suggested that the FPPC can address the Lythcott-Haims situation by revising its definition of "speech given" to exempt situations in which authors make money off speeches that have nothing to do with their elected duties.

"I think under this narrow circumstance and under our fairly extraordinary facts, there is an exception that could be applied under existing regulation under 'speech given,'" Winuk told the commission.

A sympathetic commission

Though Lau was hesitant to reconsider staff's earlier advice, which he argued was wholly appropriate, the four commissioners were far more receptive to Lythcott-Haims' request. Because the subject of the hearing was an informal advice letter, the commission didn't have the power procedurally to overturn its conclusions (that power is reserved for formal advice letters). All four of the commissioners agreed, however, that the law wasn't intended to govern situations like the one in front of them and that FPPC should explore new exemptions for situations like Lythcott-Haims'.

Chair Richard Miadich spoke for all his colleagues when he said the commission feels a "high degree of sympathy" for the position that Lythcott-Haims found herself in. Commissioner E. Dotson Wilson, who worked on the legislation that implemented the 1990 act, said the honorarium ban did not contemplate situations like this one.

And Commissioner Abby Wood, a law professor, called the current situation "lousy" and noted that she is now writing a book and will want to give book talks in the future.

"I don't like that this is the way this has gone down," Wood said.

Miadich was open to this suggestion but went a step further and requested that Lau review all aspects of the statute to see if there are other "creative" approaches that the FPPC can take that would address Lythcott-Haims' situation while still staying true to the intent of the statute.

"We're asking you to be as creative as you possibly can to see if you can craft some amendments to this regulation that would on one hand allow somebody in the requester's position to continue receiving those payments -- because we don't feel like they create the same type of danger that the honoraria ban is really intended to target -- without opening up the floodgates," Miadich said.

Miadich agreed with FPPC staff that its interpretation has been consistent with the state law, which does not make any exceptions for authors or others who rely on speeches as a significant source of income. He noted that when the 1990 proposition was being considered, opponents raised the issue and argued that the prohibition on honoraria would keep them from making a living. The proposition passed anyway.

But even though he agreed with the staff interpretation of the statute, he suggested that the statute may need to be updated.

"In my view, what I'm struck by is that I think we have a statute that couldn't be clearer that it was intended to apply broadly to a lot of things because there was a present harm at the time that they were trying to address," Miadich said, referring to the contemporary efforts to curb corruption in public office.

"Since that time, I think there have been changes in how people earn money. More people do things that might fall within the scope of this," Miadich said.

Lythcott-Haims said she was very pleased with the outcome of the hearing.

"First, it's clear that they understand my work, and feel it's legitimate," Lythcott-Haims told this publication in a statement. "Within that context, they've asked staff to 'cast a wide net' and 'be as creative as possible' in crafting an amendment to regulation to allow me to continue to operate my business."

The FPPC had recognized that it had allowed similar situations in the past, she said, and spoke about modernizing the regulation to reflect "new types of professional activity that were not contemplated by the original rules.

"I'm pleased and also hopeful that when it's all said and done not only will I have a green light but others like me will be able to serve their city without sacrificing their income," she said.