San Diego: An Unappreciative Council and a Close Look at the Revolving Door
Sometimes city councils feel compelled to write or improve their city's
ethics law due to a scandal. Sometimes city councils are compelled by a ballot measure. And in both instances, the council isn't happy with the result.<br>
<br>
In San Diego, the ethics code came via ballot measure in 2002, and yes,
the city council doesn't seem all that happy with the result. So it is
doing what it can to undermine the ballot measure and to keep the
ethics commission's work out of the public eye.<br>
<br>
According to <a href="http://www.signonsandiego.com/news/metro/20081014-9999-1m14ethics.html&…; target="”_blank”">an
article</a> in this week's San Diego <span>Union-Tribune</span>,
although the ballot measure provided for subpoena powers for the ethics
commission, the city council once again has declined to provide this
power, despite a 5-0 vote for it at the committee level. Of course,
they didn't actually vote against it, but instead sent it to back to
committee. At the same time, the council declined to make it illegal to
lie to the ethics commission or to provide false documents.<br>
<br>
And one councilman took the ethics commission to task for two
things: high fines and press releases. Needless to say, this
councilman was fined $17,000 last year (and here's <a href="http://www.sandiego.gov/ethics/documents/press/pdf/071108hueso.pdf" target="”_blank”">the
press release</a> that followed his fine). Of course, the councilman
implied some favoritism on the part of the ethics commission by
questioning how it decides which cases to write press releases for. The
favoritism is pretty straightforward: any case where there is a fine
over $100.<br>
<br>
The ethics commission chair "said the news releases are viewed as a way
to educate the public about ethics laws and demonstrate that there is a
price to pay when they are violated. 'I guess they just want us to put
it in the City Clerk's Office and hope the press finds it. ... What
we've been told over these last three meetings is "make your fines less
and shut up about what you do."'"<br>
<br>
The San Diego ethics commission certainly doesn't shy away from a fight
against elected officials. Just this week, in <a href="http://www.voiceofsandiego.org/pdf/story101608.pdf" target="”_blank”">an excellent
letter </a>to a former official accused by the (separately elected)
City Attorney of breaking the revolving door provisions of the ethics
code, the commission's executive director, Stacey Fulhorst, showed that
there was no evidence to support any of the allegations in the City
Attorney's criminal complaint. So much for fining officials too much.<br>
<br>
This letter is worth reading for its examination of various elements in
a determination of whether a former official has used confidential
information or what constitutes lobbying. Of special interest is
Fulhorst's discussion of the phases of a development project, and how
knowledge of an early phase may be of no meaning or value in later
stages, when the project has taken a completely different form. Also of
interest are her discussions of "substantial involvement," "attempt to
influence," and "direct communication."<br>
<br>
One problem I had with the letter, which is not about the analysis but
the ethics code, is the definition of "city official." This does not
include such people as the city's Associate Planners, Project Manager,
Senior Planner, and Park Designer. I think this definition, which I've
included below, might need broadening if the state financial disclosure
requirement doesn't include such employees.<br>
<br>
<div>City Official includes:<br>
(a) any elected or appointed City officeholder, including any City
officeholder elected but not yet sworn in; and<br>
(b) any City Board member; and<br>
(c) <u>any employee of the City, except for classified employees as that
term is defined in San Diego Charter section 117, who is required to
file a statement of economic interests pursuant to
the California Political Reform Act of 1974, as amended</u>; and<br>
(d) City Council members acting in their capacity as Housing Authority
and Redevelopment Agency officers; and<br>
(e) any consultants of the City who are required to file a statement of economic interests pursuant to the California Political Reform Act of
1974, as amended.<br>
<br>
Robert Wechsler<br>
Director of Research-Retired, City Ethics<br>
<br>
---