PC 121416 - Laserfiche WebLink

received no legal advice, no FPPC input, no formal guidance on this. What I'm about to say is based on my work, my research and my opinion. I think it's also important to say for the record that staff was very kind and forthcoming to offer to be of assistance in approaching FPPC if I had questions or wanted to get clarification, but I purposely didn't do that because there are members of our community who regularly ascribe and into various purposes to office holders and public officials because somehow things are done out of the public eye and I want everything that I have to say to be on the public record, so I personally didn't avail myself of your kind offer, and that's why it's coming up this evening. I think that it is absolutely imperative that the public interest be protected away from self - dealing by public officials. It should be inherent in our democracy. There was a time in California history when it wasn't so and the Fair Political Practices Act is a central tenant of good government in California and ought to be upheld. I also believe that the attempts by the FPPC, in some cases the courts, have been substantial and purposeful and appropriate in interpreting the Act and I think the public's interest is substantially served. However, I also believe that the public's interests demands that its implementation be careful and sometimes more subtle than obvious and that at we at times challenge the 'on the face' conclusion that one might reach about when conflicts exist or when self- interests exist and when it does not. And, that the public's interests ultimately is best served by those who are most qualified to represent their collective interests are asked to do so. And I just want to say what's motivating me on this issue in particular is that I think that Commissioner Allen would provide value to the Downtown Specific Plan Update Task Force that would be substantial and meaningful to the community and that the public's interests are best served by her participation on the task force. So at the base of this for me is what I believe to be in the larger scope of things in the public interests. So with all that said, I think we can agree that as givens, what Larissa has suggested in her communications and staff report are true —that Commissioner Allen receives income out of a retail operation that is going to be within the boundaries of the DSP. I think it should be a given that that income has been disclosed by Commissioner Allen so there's no secret about it; that it's a known amount. I think it's a given that that amount is above the threshold of $500 that establishes potentially a conflict or probably a conflict of self- interest. It's a given that Commissioner Allen has not in any way objected to the conclusion that she's conflicted out and is completely willing to acquiesce to that conclusion, and I think that again, from my perspective, it's a given that Commissioner Allen would do a terrific job on the task force. So given all of that I was referred to this tomb of a publication which is entitled, "Conflicts of Interest 2010 California Attorney General's Office" which has been suggested to me to be the operating bible for attorneys and others who are attempting to interpret the Fair Political Practices Act, specifically around conflicts of interest. What is in this document and further in the California regulations from the FPPC is a listing of seven criteria; questions that are to be asked to determine whether someone has a financial conflict of interest. And if all those 7 questions are answered in the affirmative, then in fact, a person is subject to the conflict and therefore, may not serve on a subject body or otherwise would have to disqualify themselves from voting. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES, December 14, 2016 Page 44 of 49