NOMA letter to City Attorney re Zwick inquiry

As many of you are aware, NOMA, along with five other neighborhood groups, recently contacted the Santa Monica City Attorney regarding Councilmember Zwick’s new job with an organization that promotes development, and how it poses a significant conflict of interest. The City Attorney has reached out to the California Fair Political Practices Commission, a State agency tasked with enforcing finance, lobbying and conflict of interest laws.

The NOMA Board found the City Attorney’s inquiry to be overly limited and insufficient; therefore, we have submitted the following response. 

November 24, 2025

Heidi von Tongeln
Interim City Attorney                                                                                           
City of Santa Monica

Dear Ms. von Tongeln,

We write to you regarding your letter to the California FPPC dated November 10, 2025. In that letter you inquire about whether Councilmember Jesse Zwick (“Zwick”) is “required” by law to either resign or recuse himself in certain specific situations based upon his recent paid employment by the advocacy organization Housing Action Coalition (HAC.) We thank you for your letter.

Obligation of City to Review Zwick’s Conduct

As an initial matter your inquiry to the FPPC is limited. 

• You are not inquiring of the FPPC whether Zwick “should” recuse or resign, but rather whether he “must” because otherwise his conduct would be illegal. 
• Nor are you asking whether his conduct—in neither recusing himself nor resigning— meets the highest ethical standards expected of an elected official and public servant. 
• Further, you do not ask the FPPC whether his conduct creates an appearance of impropriety, an important standard for elected officials. Finally, you do not inquire whether it violates Santa Monica’s Code of Ethics, which calls for integrity, acting as a guardian of the public trust, and avoiding actions that could discredit the City.

Because the FPPC is likely to carry out a more limited review, it is vital for you as our City Attorney to address Zwick’s employment, conduct, and voting utilizing each of these standards including reviewing the issues we raise in this letter. There is a growing controversy in Santa Monica about Zwick’s continued role on the City Council. It will not go away; it will continue to taint our City and Council’s actions; it will be a distraction at a time when we face very pressing problems. 

We believe that residents are entitled to the City’s view on these vital concerns. Should our City Councilmembers only be held to a standard of not violating the law, or should they have to meet higher standards and what are those standards? We will continue to watch this carefully and be fully engaged.

The Letter to the FPPC Raises Some Important Questions But is Insufficient 

As a starting point it is important to understand HAC’s paying membership base

• HAC is generally supported by dues-paying members who are also a source of the money paid to Zwick;
• A large group of these paying members are developers and the professionals who support them; and 
• The documentation that you attach to your letter makes it abundantly clear that a central part of Zwick’s HAC job is to recruit and “cultivate” additional paying members (“grow membership and revenue” and “cultivate a dues paying membership.”) 

Yet your letter does not raise the timely question of whether Zwick should recruit any entity or individual (e.g. developer, architect, lawyer, contractor) who has a relationship to any existing or upcoming project that requires or that may require action by the Council. Or, if that is permitted, whether he needs to recuse himself from a Council role related to those projects.

Nor does it ask whether Zwick should recuse himself from any decision on any matter involving or relating to any donor to, or paying member, of HAC.

Can one “grow” and “cultivate” a dues-paying developer base while voting independently on issues of importance to developers? This impossible dilemma is not highlighted in your letter. 

It’s Also Important to review Zwick’s Job &  HAC’s goals and policies

HAC’s website makes it clear that a major focus of Zwick’s new job is to “advance our political and legislative goals” and that HAC “channels” the housing industry. This is despite the fact that Zwick was elected to advance the interests and political and legislative goals of Santa Monica and its residents. He is paid by HAC to “build relationships with local policymakers, government officials, and civic leaders” for HAC, not the rest of us. He specifically is being paid by HAC to “Represent HAC in coalitions and public forums; educate stakeholders on housing policy and legislative implementation.” 

The significant conflict implications of these are not explored in your letter. 

Recently, at a City Council meeting you rightfully cautioned Zwick that denying applications which met the historic preservation standards could create legal exposure for the City. HAC has advocated that historic preservation laws can be an impediment to development. While the FPPC does not issue opinions on past conduct, this troubling and recent example provides perspective on the scope of the problem, but is not mentioned in your letter.

Another example of the scope of the conflicts raised by Zwick’s new job occurred just before Zwick signed with HAC. HAC’s chief executive appeared before the Santa Monica City Council advocating against requiring inclusionary affordable housing in pending development projects. 

This advocacy did not relate to any particular project. Rather it applied across the board to numerous upcoming projects and would increase developer profits. You mention this example, but your letter does not identify the breadth or the chronic nature of the ensuing conflict facing Zwick and the City in these situations. Repeated votes that have broad impact on development issues create an on-going conflict for an employee paid to advance HAC’s pro-developer goals and its need for Zwick to cultivate and grow new paying members. It brings discredit to our City.

Your letter does not inquire whether given this he needs to recuse himself from any vote where a policy or legislative goal of HAC is implicated. 

Your letter does raise two limited but significant examples, the Airport and a Parking Garage, which we appreciate. However, your letter appears to contain irrelevant information that presents an overly rosy picture and excludes certain information that does not.

For example, Zwick’s prior votes—and whether other council members voted similarly—are mentioned a number of times in the letter seemingly to paint a more favorable image. These are, however, irrelevant to whether he now has a conflict due to his current HAC employment. Not presented is the likelihood that if the Airport is opened to housing development some of HAC’s members would profit from it. 

Nor is it presented that if Zwick votes against housing at the Airport it would be more difficult to recruit members. He would also be on the wrong side of his job description and HAC which markets itself as “a force that channels the energy and experience of the housing industry into effective policy.” One that wants to eliminate housing “roadblocks.”

A Rabbit Hole of Conflicts

Finally, on October 12, 2025 there was an event held in North Hollywood co-sponsored by HAC, with its logo prominently displayed, celebrating the passage of SB 79. In each of the several widely distributed versions of the flyer advertising the event, Zwick, along with his photo, is identified solely as a Santa Monica Councilmember. No mention is made that he is the Southern California head of HAC or has any relation to HAC. 

As discussed above, he is being paid by HAC to represent it and its goals in public forums. Who does he represent at this and similar events? Who is he representing when he is sitting on the dais at a Council meeting? 

This blurring of his two roles is troublesome, and just one more indication of the rabbit hole he has sent himself and all of us down. 

We look forward to your response and further engagement on the issue of the integrity of our Council and what ethical standards we hold our government to.

Sincerely yours,

The Board of the North of Montana Association (NOMA)

Cc: 
Mayor Negrete and Members the Santa Monica City Council
City Manager Oliver Chi
FPPC
Friends of Sunset Park
North of Montana Association (NOMA)
Ocean Park Association
Pico Neighborhood Association
Santa Monica Mid City Neighbors
Santa Monica North East Neighbors
Wilshire Montana Neighborhood Coalition (Wilmont)