Score: +4
(4/2/0)
Sonoma County Grand Jury
• 2004-2005
• Agency Response
Response to:
City of Santa Rosa
City Council’s and City Manager’s Joint Response Conflict of Interest in Sonoma County The City of Santa Rosa
⚠️ Aviso de traducción: Este contenido ha sido traducido automáticamente. El texto original en inglés es la versión oficial. La traducción puede contener errores.
⚠️ Este contenido ha sido traducido automáticamente. El texto original en inglés es la versión oficial. La traducción puede contener errores.
Findings and Recommendations 1 findings
F4
Page 5
Ten Violations in Sonoma County Comment: Although the City Council and City Manager are not required to respond to the Findings, the City Council wishes to convey its partial disagreement with the Grand Jury’s Summary of FPPC Cases numbered 99/501 and 96/162. The Grand Jury summary of FPPC Case No. 55/501 ignores the fact that the appointed official voted “. . . against his own economic interests.” FPPC Case No. 99/501, p. 7. The table accompanying F4 states that the violation resulted in a Business/Personal Gain in excess of $450,000. In fact, the vote resulted in a substantial loss of income to the bank in which the appointed official held shares of stock, which constituted the basis for the conflict. The FPPC acknowledged that the vote in question was against the public official’s economic interests. This is a significant mitigating factor. The table accompanying F4 also omits and distorts FPPC Case No. 96/162. Two Council members received compensation in relevant years from the Santa Rosa Chamber of Commerce, a non-profit corporation. One served as a consultant responsible for the Leadership Santa Rosa program and the other served as Education Director (liaison to local education). Both Council members voted on matters pertaining to services (unrelated to their Chamber responsibilities) provided by the Santa Rosa Chamber of Commerce to the City of Santa Rosa. The City compensated the Chamber for the costs it incurred in providing the services. The Council members did not gain or stand to gain anything, yet the table suggests that there was a substantial Business/Personal Gain. The City realizes that the Grand Jury was attempting to summarize a substantial volume of data in a table. Unfortunately, the summary appears to be, in part, misleading. 5
Related Recommendations (1)
R4
Page 4
Institute regular, mandatory training Response: The recommendation has been implemented and will be further implemented. The City has provided introductory and ongoing conflicts of interest and Form 700 filing training for elected officials and members of the Board of Public Utilities, Planning Commission and Design Review Board, as well as for other boards and commissions and designated employees. The City will require bi-annual training for elected officials, appointed officials, and executive management, on conflicts of interest, ethics and other laws governing their obligations as public servants. (The Institute for Local Government, which has unique expertise regarding the functioning and complex responsibilities of California cities, recommends bi-annual training. The Institute is the research division of the League of California Cities.) The training requirement may be satisfied by attendance at a League of California Cities conference where there is a conflict of interest presentation, staff training, or other reasonable method. The City currently requires conflict of interest training, including providing written materials for new appointees, elected officials and designated employees, who serve on boards and commissions or in employment positions where conflict issues are likely to arise. Other appointed officials and designated employees are strongly encouraged to participate in annual conflict of interest training.
Comments 1
-
CO1 Page 5Although the City Council and City Manager are not required to respond to the Findings, the City Council wishes to convey its partial disagreement with the Grand Jury’s Summary of FPPC Cases numbered 99/501 and 96/162. The Grand Jury summary of FPPC Case No. 55/501 ignores the fact that the appointed official voted “. . . against his own economic interests.” FPPC Case No. 99/501, p. 7. The table accompanying F4 states that the violation resulted in a Business/Personal Gain in excess of $450,000. In fact, the vote resulted in a substantial loss of income to the bank in which the appointed official held shares of stock, which constituted the basis for the conflict. The FPPC acknowledged that the vote in question was against the public official’s economic interests. This is a significant mitigating factor. The table accompanying F4 also omits and distorts FPPC Case No. 96/162. Two Council members received compensation in relevant years from the Santa Rosa Chamber of Commerce, a non-profit corporation. One served as a consultant responsible for the Leadership Santa Rosa program and the other served as Education Director (liaison to local education). Both Council members voted on matters pertaining to services (unrelated to their Chamber responsibilities) provided by the Santa Rosa Chamber of Commerce to the City of Santa Rosa. The City compensated the Chamber for the costs it incurred in providing the services. The Council members did not gain or stand to gain anything, yet the table suggests that there was a substantial Business/Personal Gain. The City realizes that the Grand Jury was attempting to summarize a substantial volume of data in a table. Unfortunately, the summary appears to be, in part, misleading. 5
Agency Responses 2
Government agencies' official responses to this report's findings and recommendations. Click on a response to see the structured breakdown.
No Responses Found 1
Government entities assigned to respond to this report. No response documents have been linked in our database.
Bodega Bay Public Utility District
Special District