⚠️ Translation Notice: This content has been automatically translated. The original English text is the official version. Translation may contain errors.
⚠️ Este contenido ha sido traducido automáticamente. El texto original en inglés es la versión oficial. La traducción puede contener errores.
Findings 2 findings
F01
Any action of the City Council to reduce or eliminate funding or to curtail investigative authority of the Commission could be perceived as presenting a conflict of interest. Fact: The citizens of San Diego voted overwhelmingly, on March 5, 2002, to give the Ethics Commission subpoena power. Fact: Subpoena power for testimony is currently allowed but only for official hearings of the Ethics Commission. Fact: The Ethics Commission has offered reasons for the Executive Director to have subpoena power for testimony during an investigation. Fact: The City Attorney’s office has raised concerns about individual rights during the investigative process if a person is compelled to appear before a Commission investigator to answer questions. Fact: The City Council has the authority to approve subpoena power for testimony for the Ethics Commission during the investigative process.
F02
Subpoena power for testimony during the investigative process would better serve the citizens of San Diego by: shortening the investigative process, providing protection for people who provide information to the investigator and often eliminate the need for a Commission hearing as the information provided has disproved the allegation(s). 6
Recommendations 2
-
09-41Page 1Place a measure on the ballot to amend the City Charter to
-
09-42Page 1By Ordinance clarify the powers of the Ethics Commission to
No Responses Found 1
Government entities assigned to respond to this report. No response documents have been linked in our database.
San Diego
City