As many of you are aware, I opposed the Ethics ordinance placed on the ballot this election cycle. At the November 16, 2010 Yorba Linda City Council meeting, I proposed amendments to the ethics ordinance to close some of the loop holes I had identified. I did not receive a second to the motion to begin the process of readying the ethics ordinance for voter approval of the revisions. A substitute motion was made to recieve and file the suggestions so they can be incorporated with the whistle blower policy and Council conduct additions. Vote was 4:1 with Anderson voting no.

Prohibition against accepting campaign contributions for twelve months after approving or denying a permit or decision.

No Council Member or any campaign committee controlled by a Council Member shall solicit or accept any campaign contribution or loan of two hundred fifty dollars ($250) or more from any person for a period of twelve months following the date a final decision is rendered in any proceeding before the Council involving a license, permit, contract or other land use entitlement, if the Council Member knows or has reason to know that the person, firm or entity was the applicant, the contractor, the direct recipient of the approval, or the person, firm or entity  opposes the approval of a license, permit, contract or other land use entitlement. (remove: For purposes of this section, members of the public, other than the applicant, the contractor or direct recipient of an approval, who expresses an opinion to the City Council through direct public comment, testimony at a public hearing or in writing shall be affected by this section.)

Disqualification from acting upon a permit or decision if a campaign contribution was accepted within a previous twelve month period.
A Council Member shall not participate in, nor use his or her official position to influence, a decision of the city council if it is reasonably foreseeable that the decision directly benefits a recent campaign contributor by granting the contributor a license, permit, contract, land use entitlement,  or other benefit sought by the contributor from the City including the denial of a license, permit, contract, land use entitlement opposed by the contributor. A recent campaign contributor means any person, firm or entity who has made campaign contributions totaling two hundred fifty ($250) or more to the Council Member or to any campaign committee controlled by the Council Member in the twelve-month period immediately preceding the date of the decision.

Sec. 2.44.010. No solicitation of campaign contributions from city Contractors
It is unlawful for any City Official to use his or her position or prospective position, or the power or authority of his or her office or position, in any manner intended to induce or coerce any person, firm, entity or any labor association or community organization affiliated with any of the foregoing, that is under current contract to do business with the city or desires to contract to do business with the city, to make a campaign contribution to an individual, political action committee or association of citizens in connection with promoting or opposing any candidate for city council or any municipal initiative or referendum on the ballot for a City election, or to accept a campaign contribution or loan from an existing city contractor or labor association of a city contractor in excess of two hundred fifty dollars ($250).  For purposes of this section, City Official shall mean a Council Member, a Commissioner or any other person required by the City’s Conflict of Interest Code to file a Form 700 Statement of Economic Interest. Furthermore, this section shall not prohibit a City Official from seeking a campaign contribution from an employee of a city contractor in the case where the employee resides within the City.

Need to add:

• Wording to prohibit PACS from taking money from City Contractors, staff, Labor unions, etc or use to oppose or support candidates.
• Wording on who is monitoring these provisions in this ordinance

Since the Council meeting,  I became aware Mayor Anderson’s daughter received a college scholarship from the Yorba Linda Chamber of Commerce.  Given that the City has a Contract with the Chamber of  Commerce and Anderson was the sitting Mayor, it seems as if this would appear to be unethical for a member of his family to receive monetary gain. I have no doubt she earned the award, but he should have known better than have her apply for the scholarship given his position. Maybe we have to add langauge in the ethics code to cover this also.

This is one reason I opposed the ethics ordinance. Where do you stop making rules and just start acting ethically!

At the November 11, 2010 Council meeting, I proposed the following amendment to the policy guiding the use of the Yorba Linda Community Center lawn area. This was in response to a problem I became aware of after the last North Orange County Conservative Coalition event held there in support of Council candidates John Anderson and Tom Lindsey.

The issues:

• Only a noise permit was required to hold this large-scale event on the Community Center lawn. This event was advertised for weeks prior to the gathering and does not meet the test of spontaneous political gatherings protected by freedom of speech.
• Instructors cancelled classes community members paid to attend because of anticipated parking problems posed by two previous gatherings.
• No insurance was required to indemnify the City. All other groups using the community center or parks have to show proof of insurance.
• No “hold harmless” agreement was signed.
• During the event, two uniformed Police officers, assigned to Yorba Linda,  were in attendance instead of patrolling our community. This was at the City of Yorba Linda’s expense.
• At this time, anyone can use the lawn for small or large group events by obtaining only a noise permit if you plan on having amplified music or speeches. There is no other requirement to have parties, weddings, etc…

My suggestions:

• All large groups intending to use the Yorba Linda Community Center lawn, or any park area, need to apply for a use permit.
• Scheduling of these areas should be coordinated with existing classes and/or events to avoid residents missing classes/ or normally scheduled events.
• Private groups are to supply proof of insurance.
• Private groups are to sign a hold harmless agreement to indemnify the City.
• Security should be paid for by the group hosting the event.
• There should be a charge for use of the Community Center lawn, commensurate with charges used for the rental of rooms, to cover the increase foot traffic load on the lawn, building amenities, and staff.

My intention is not to limit freedom of speech, but to make sure the City is protected from lawsuits due to possible injury and the cost of the event lies with the hosting group.

I am in favor of ethical behavior and feel all public servants should be held to a higher standard. The  ethics policy, established in 1972, stated it was a minimum standard of behavior the People of Yorba Linda should expect from their elected officials, appointed officials and staff. It spoke to many of the same things the current policy addresses: conflict of interest, gifts, use of public property, and obligations to citizens, to name a few.  I support ethical behavior but have philosophical and procedural differences with the new ordinance. Unfortunately, when this ordinance was proposed, the Majority  Council would not allow votes on the separate sub-sections of the ethics code; it was an all or nothing approach. Since I had reservations about portions of the code, I could not vote for a law I believe to be flawed.
I view an ethics code as a living statement reflecting the values and direction of the Community. I would have preferred a process to include the community, staff, Commissioners and the Council to cooperatively develop an ethics code, rather than a dictate from Majority Council.

To view the new ethics ordinance, go to:  http://www.ci.yorba-linda.ca.us/~ci26/images/stories/pdf/Clerk/Agendas/StaffReports9-30-09.pdf

Issues I had with the New Ethics Code by Subsection:

Section 2.44.010 No solicitations from City Contractors:
I agree, any contractor that the Council gives contract approval, should be exempt from solicitations. There is another level of contractors in the city that are hired through various City Department Heads, many of whom are YL residents. For example: those who teach parks and recreation classes or a hardware store owner from whom the City purchases supplies. These could be considered contractors and a council member could accidentally ask or accept a donation without knowing they had a relationship with the City at that level.

Section 2.44.020 Prohibitions against accepting campaign contributions for 12 months after approving a permit or decision.
I agree. This section deals with accepting donations, $250 or more from an applicant if a Council vote is taken on their project. BUT this prohibition did not include individuals who benefit from a “no vote” to a project. There is a potential to “buy” a vote from either direction. This Council did not want this included since two of them had accepted $1000 from an individual where their “no” vote favorably affected his position. Mayor Anderson returned his “donation” after holding onto it for two weeks and he is the author of this ethics policy.

Section 2.44.030 Disqualification from acting upon a permit or decision if a campaign contribution was accepted within a previous 12-month period.
I agree although a year is a long time to expect a decision to be affected by a $250 donation.

Section 2.44.040 Prohibitions against seeking endorsements from city employees, commissioners, labor associations affiliated with city contractors.
I agree, employees should be exempt from solicitation. I do not see the harm in asking a commissioner for endorsement as long as they do not feel coerced. I do not disagree with excluding labor associations from solicitation but I feel ALL labor associations should be excluded including Sheriffs, District Attorneys, etc.

Section 2.44.050 Adoption of a code of conduct for elected and appointed officials
I agree but it seems silly to pass a law that says we will do something in the future. This majority Council has broken many of their proposed conduct rules including:  staff bashing, Consultant bashing, campaigning from the dais, disregarding public votes to fit their own political agendas, and the list goes on. We have had more staff quit because of this Councils behavior and yet it is not an infraction in their current new code.

Section 2.44.060 Adoption of a “Whistle blower” Policy
I think this was the ONE thing we should have done first and immediately. This would afford staff protection if they are asked by their supervisors or Council to do something they consider unethical. This would allow them to report the concern without fear of reprisals. Again, it seems silly to pass a law that says we will do something in the future. Why not now?

Section 2.44.070 Mandatory AB1234 training for all city staff, executives and appointed and elected officials
I agree with the state law of bi-annual training. I do not feel it is necessary to have all commissioners, Council members, Commissioners and staff take the training annually. In addition, I do not believe the Mayor has the authority to ask other Council members to notify them when they are doing the training independently. The Mayor runs the meeting and is the ceremonial figurehead for the Council but has no more or less power than any other elected Council member. We do not answer to each other, we answer to the People of Yorba Linda.

Section 2.44.080 Prohibition against closed door ad hoc committee meetings of the City council and Commissions
I agree as long as this does not violate personnel rules.

Section 2.44.090 Taping of all closed session meetings of the City Council
This section requires all closed sessions of the City Council to be taped. I disagree with this. This places the City in a vulnerable position when we discuss items regarding potential litigation.  Our City Attorney has also us advised against adopting this provision. There are undefined thresholds that would allow the tapes to be released. Additionally, the tapes could be release with the vote of three Council members. Although the majority Council approved this ordinance, I believe the threshold to release the tapes should have been raised to a super-majority of four to avoid a simple majority council from acting inappropriately for political reasons rather than what is best for the Community.

Section 2.44.100 Prohibitions against the misuse of City Resources or staff involvement in elections
I agree. I have observed the Majority Council abusing this section by working around the ordinance.
Section 2.44.0110 Enforcement
With this ordinance, I feel it is easy to make a mistake and then be vilified for political purposes. Who is responsible to track and enforce this policy? What is the threshold of the infraction and what is the punishment? This is not defined. It has a weak enforcement statement about hiring special council and possibly referring infractions to the DA. Larger items, like misuse of City funds would already be corrected with our current laws.

I do believe in transparency and making sure the community is informed. What has been extremely frustrating is how this Council espouses transparency and then finds exceptions for their own behavior. I do not believe an ethical code makes you ethical. Either you are ethical or you are not and should be judged by your behavior.

We are all in favor of ethical behavior and expect our elected representatives to hold ourselves to higher standard than others in the community. We are expected to set the example for the community. Yet, given the state of our political system, people are eager to try anything to get elected officials” under control”. That is a very easy thing to say. But, how do you legislate ethical behavior and who monitors it? How do you begin to define ethical behavior? Our idea of ethical behavior is a personal choice, defined by our own moral compass and intentions. You have already seen during our Council discussions,  we have different ideas of what is ethical or not.

My opinion is that we have an ethics statement defining the behavior our elected officials. This statement was further refined with a list of what ethical behavior should look like in our community. This is the starting point of the behaviors we as elected officials should use in conducting ourselves in the publics interest. 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? Or should the electeds be responsible to understand the ethical expectations of the City through its existing policy and be responsible to the constituents?
I would love to hear your thoughts