LEGAL EXPERTS SAY OFFICIALS FREE TO VOTE FOR THEIR FRIENDS’ ISSUES

Turns out that it’s NOT illegal for elected officials to have intimate relationships with people, and then cast official votes in favor of the issues those people bring before the elected body.

According to Robert Stern, the attorney who authored the state’s Political Reform Act of 1974, California elected officials only have a conflict-of-interest if their votes bring financial gain to themselves or members of their immediate families.

According to assistant city attorney Heather Mahood, Long Beach has no conflict-of-interest ordinances, instead relying on state law.

“The legal definition of a conflict-of-interest is fairly narrow,” said Stern, formerly the general counsel for the California Fair Political Practices Commission and now president of the Center for Governmental Studies. “The law was written 35 years ago, and it didn’t include provisions that cover things like extramarital affairs. Not that people weren’t having affairs back then, of course. But that’s just one of a lot of situations that are not addressed.”

That’s, uhhh, interesting-but I gotta admit, it leaves me conflicted.

So a single politician can vote for an issue presented by a girlfriend or boyfriend?

“Or an uncle, a brother, a cousin-anybody, as long as the official doesn’t make $250 or more on the deal, cumulative, in one year,” said Mahood. “Money is the key factor. The state law is all about money, money, money, money.”

What about campaign contributions?

“Campaign contributions are the one exception,” Mahood said.

Getting back to the girlfriend, boyfriend or undercover lover-what about gifts of lets-call-it affection to the politician? Things like dinners or jewelry or dinners or take-your-heart-away weekend trips?

“If the gift-giving is more-or-less mutual, that is permitted in a bona fide relationship,” said Mahood, who answered the next question before I could ask it, “and I don’t know, exactly, what the standards are for a bona fide relationship.”

Stern, who has spent pretty much his entire career parsing the laws of political conflict-of-interest, acknowledges that lots of people find the limitations of the law in this area rather incredible. But he offers what he hopes is some consolation.

“The legal definition of a conflict-of-interest may be fairly narrow, but in the political arena, legal definitions aren’t everything,” he says. “And in matters such as these, the ethical considerations are very broad.”

Then again, there’s also this … an ethical pledge tucked into Long Beach city ordinances, which everybody officially connected with the city is supposed to read, understand, sign–and follow:

2.07.010 Written pledge.

Prior to assuming office or employment, every city employee, elected city official, city commission or committee member and redevelopment board or committee member shall pledge, in writing, to follow these principles while acting in their official capacity:

A. To place the best interests of the city above all other interests.

B. To uphold all laws, regulations, and policies.

C. To take no action for the purpose of benefiting the official or employee personally.

D. To make every effort to avoid a conflict of interest.

E. To avoid disclosure of confidential information obtained in the performance of their duties or in their official capacity.

F. To exercise prudence and good judgment at all times.

G. To be fair, impartial, and unbiased in the decision making process.

H. To treat each other and the public with respect. (Ord. C-7839 § 1, 2003).

Tags: Center For Governmental Studies, Fair Political Practices Commission, Heather Mahood, Long Beach, Political Reform Act, Robert Stern