(2/9/2012, Los Alamitos) by Highlands Guy: Over the last few years I have tried to be a good friend, neighbor, and citizen. I have not always achieved my goal, but gave it a good try.
Over the same time period a whole bunch of posts on Dave’s blog touched on subjects related to those in elected positions and their legal duty to, at the very least, make their closeness or connections to entities that can benefit (or not) from their vote.
With this in mind I would like to have a chat about the general subject of conflict of interest.
Brown Act, FPPC Regulations
On the legal side, the Brown Act and the California Fair Political Practices Commission regulations cover most the areas that impact our local elected officials. While I have read the Brown Act Ethics requirements, I have read some but not all of the chapter (10) and verse (almost 300) components of the Commission constraints. What I conclude is that all of us can make pretty good decision based on reading these two documents or getting advice from highly paid legal council.
Let me be clear, I am not talking about any current emotion-laded, legal entanglements. I am talking in a more general sense of open ended questions, but with some very real local references.
Advertisement:
I do realize that we are a tiny city, and thus, there is a good chance that a Los Alamitos resident with a financial, or otherwise, interest in a Los Alamitos property or legal entity, and a connection to a City decision making body may run afoul of aforementioned conflict of interest rules.
A few examples of possible conglicts:
Let me throw out a little for-instance. Now, while I agree with and support the goals of the Youth Center, some time back I did find that the City provides the Center a good deal of tax dollars in support of their activities. Which is fine, but it must also be noted that folks who have been on the City Council over the years have also been on the board of the Youth Center. I have never heard of a sitting council person not voting on this dispersal of City monies. I guess that’s fine, but I don’t really know.
And as I’m thinking about it, it sure seems odd that a street name changes from Sausalito St to the ¼ mi Briggeman Dr in a flash across Los Alamitos Blvd. Heck, if you take a look, even Google maps is confused. Don’t seem to see any other streets named for local businesses. But how long will it be until Catalina St. becomes Southland Way? So, who was on the City Council and who were the commissioners on the Planning Commission at the time of the name change? Could they still be serving?
The range of possible conflicts of interest is wide. Whether the issue is more City park time and space given to a for-profit sports program, city staff time devoted to raising money for a non-profit (but where the money ends up with a Church), or perhaps a City Commissioner pushing their pet cause from the dais, it is probably time that we take a closer examination of how tax dollars and public time is used within our City. At the very least, a better job of vetting those making the decisions is called for.
Look, I understand the realities of local politics, but come on guys, let’s at least be consistent in the application of the rules, and reasonable in accomplishing important City tasks. How about sitting down on the dais or in the back room, or wherever and prioritize the needs our City.
I just don’t have the time, but I sure hope someone is writing down all the time and energy and tax money being wasted and bring out those charts at the next candidate forum.
conflict of interest, noun:
1. The circumstance of a public officeholder…, whose personal interests might benefit from his or her official actions or influence: The senator placed his stocks in trust to avoid possible conflict of interest.
2. The circumstance of a person who finds that one of his or her activities, interests, etc., can be advanced only at the expense of another of them.
…And that’s just the way I see it.
As always, your perspective & comments, diplomatically expressed, are welcome.
Related posts:
Good post Highlands Guy, now don’t stop there. Spend some time, send your questions/complaints to the FPPC. You can also call them with questions. They are very nice and helpful
I think the City of Los Alamitos needs a new panel. It should meet once a quarter and anyone can file a “complaint” to the panel. The Panel should be five people, with the mandatory quorum rules (three must be present to vote).
The name of the panel?
Los Alamitos Ethics Panel.
The goal of the panel is NOT to punish anyone for ethical violations, but to consider a report of an ethics violation form anyone in the city, to review the report, and to file the appropriate complaints with the FPPC and/or the OC Grand Jury if necessary based on filed complaints.
It will not be the job of the panel to act as an advisory committee to the City Council, but to ensure that the people who have concerns about questions of conflicts will have a resource which will be responsible for investigating those conflicts and helping ensure that conflicts get reported to the appropriate authorities.
Staffing might be a problem. My suggestion is that the positions be for six years with the chairman requiring all five council members to approve and be a six year position initially. Then two members at four year positions. Here the vote for the first member would have to be simple majority, but the second member would be selected by those that did NOT vote for the majority candidate. In the same way the last two positions would be filled.
This would lead two members up for re-appointment in two years for a six year term, two more in for years for a six year term and finally the chair in six years.
A current member can request appointment for the chair, and they would get the six years of the chairs term, and their remaining term would have to be filled by a consensus appointment as well.
In this way the panel would be balanced, and would always contain members where were NOT appointed by the current council membership (we an hope) thus reducing any conflicts of interest within the panel itself.
Since the only thing the panel can do is take ethics actions against members of council, it is very limited in it’s scope, but acts as a very solid break on the possibility that there will even be the appearance of ethics issues by the Council Members.
My guess is that Sausalito St would still be 100% Sausalito St had such a panel existed prior to the gifting of the street name to the Briggeman family.
You can thank Art Debolt’s running mate Fred Freeman for the renaming of Sausalito.
Chuckie, how many times do you have to be told? I am not Highlands Guy or any other anon handle. I actually use my name, unlike you “Larry the Liar”.
And as Lisa like to point out, I’m “met00″ over at Patch (and also in most other public places, like the osc and oscmax forums).
Now grow up and use your real name when posting.
Good idea. And in addition to looking into the Briggeman Dr fiasco, maybe they can investigate why the City spent our money on a Monte Collins Way (that leads nowhere), off of Chestnut, 1/2 blk N of Sausalito
It’s just that, an idea. It’s about transparency in government. That means that the current council majority will never do it.
Too bad.
You say:
“And in addition to looking into the Briggeman Dr fiasco, maybe they can investigate why the City spent our money on a Monte Collins Way (that leads nowhere), off of Chestnut, 1/2 blk N of Sausalito”.
Monte Collins Way is not a public street, it is the driveway for that business. It’s the same as me putting my name on my driveway. No money was spent by the city.
OK, you got me. But it certainly is made to look like a public sign, in color and shape and includes Chestnut. And the driveway seems to lead only to a dirt and weed lot. Don’t really see any business. But I do thank you for the correction. It certainly points up the value of Let’s Fix Los Al, a valuable public forum.