Yorba Linda's Proposed Ethics Ordinance Falls Short
It's not an unfamiliar story. Council candidates <a href="http://www.ed4yl.com/Contract%20with%20YL.pdf" target="”_blank”">promise ethics
reform</a>. They are elected, and actually fulfill their promises with
a proposed ethics ordinance. But there's not really much to the
proposed ethics ordinance, and there's no enforcement mechanism.<br>
<br>
This is what is happening in <a href="http://www.ci.yorba-linda.ca.us/" target="”_blank”">Yorba
Linda</a> (pop. 71,000), just outside Anaheim. The <a href="http://ci.yorba-linda.ca.us/%7Eci26/images/stories/pdf/Clerk/Agendas/St…; target="”_blank”">proposed
ethics ordinance</a> has few provisions, most of them involving
campaign finance and city contractors and developers.<br>
<br>
One provision prohibits the solicitation (but not acceptance) of
contributions from city contractors. Another prohibits the acceptance
of contributions of $250 or more for twelve months after making a
decision or approval to the individual's benefit, and there is a companion
provision that prohibits participating in any matter involving anyone
who has made a $250 or greater campaign contribution in the previous
twelve months. This pair deals very well with a certain aspect of
pay-to-play.<br>
<br>
However, all other aspects of pay-to-play are ignored. And the rules
are only aspirational, since there is no enforcement body or mechanism.<br>
<br>
There is also a provision dealing with the use of public resources for
election purposes, but it only prevents coercion of city employees, not
their participation in election activities (it's almost impossible to
prove coercion). And there's an odd confidential information subsection
that says nothing about using such information to benefit anyone. This subsection has no place in an ethics ordinance.<br>
<br>
The other provisions include an ethics training requirement (at least every
two years), a whistleblower provision (which goes far beyond ethics matters), a provision that prohibits
seeking endorsements specifically from city employees and board
members, and a couple of transparency provisions (no ad hoc council
committee meetings, which are used to get around quorum requirements,
and video recording of closed council sessions).<br>
<br>
There is also an extensive code of conduct, which deals primarily with
civility and council procedures.<br>
<br>
The two council members who did not sign the ethics reform promise
oppose the ethics ordinance but, it appears, mostly for the wrong
reasons. One of the council members is quoted in the <a href="http://ci.yorba-linda.ca.us/%7Eci26/images/stories/pdf/Council/minutes/…; target="”_blank”">minutes</a>
of the September 30 meeting:<br>
<ul>
She believes it should be a collaborative effort that includes
council members, staff, the public and the business community. She
expressed that the proposed ordinance is overreaching in scope and has
no identifiable source of monitoring or enforcement. Councilwoman
Horton also stated that a person is either ethical or they are not and
a list of rules will not make them ethical.<br>
</ul>
It is good to make an ethics ordinance a collaborative effort, but in
practice this is very hard to do. Few people have much knowledge or
strong opinions regarding ethics provisions. They generally seek
ethical conduct, but do not know how to achieve it.<br>
<br>
The council member is right that the ethics ordinance has no
"identifiable source of monitoring or enforcement," but it is hardly
overreaching. It does very little. And she shows a complete lack of
understanding of ethics programs by stating that people can't be made
ethical by rules. Government ethics rules are not intended to make
people ethical, but rather to require them to do or not do certain
things, so that they act, and are perceived as acting, in the public
rather than in their personal interest.<br>
<br>
The same council member asks, on <a href="http://www.horton4yl.com/community-news/ethics/" target="”_blank”">her website</a>,
"If we are to consider adding additional specific rules to this
statement, where do we stop? And as someone finds a way around this new
list, do we just keep adding additional rules until it is unmanageable?
Is this what we want our City Government doing, controlling behavior?"<br>
<br>
This is an odd way of asking the question. It's not about government
controlling behavior, but about controlling the behavior of government
officials, which is certainly legitimate. Also, for someone who
considers the ordinance's few provisions "overreaching," it's not a
matter of adding more provisions, because she opposes the idea of an
ethics ordinance, not the number of provisions. Her questions here do
not ring true.<br>
<br>
This is especially clear from a quote from her in an <a href="http://www.ocregister.com/news/council-227669-city-ordinance.html" target="”_blank”">Orange
County <i>Register</i> article</a> this week: "I object to convoluted nanny
laws put in place that require extraordinary management to comply."<br>
<br>
The Yorba Linda ethics ordinance seems to be doing nothing more than
responding to a few, miscellaneous perceived problems. The council
majority is making no attempt to give its government an ethics program,
and the council minority seems to oppose any ethics code at all.<br>
<br>
Robert Wechsler<br>
Director of Research-Retired, City Ethics<br>
<br>
---</p>