PC 121416 - Laserfiche WebLink

Because of those seven criteria, there are also specified exceptions to the conflict rules that might otherwise apply, okay? Two of the seven questions are to ask, is it reasonable foreseeable that the economic interest of the individual will be materially affected by the actions taken by the body on which this person serves? So is it reasonable foreseeable that in this case, Commissioner Allen will personally financially benefit from any action she may take as a member of the DSPUTF. The seventh and final question to be addressed is, is the effect of the governmental decision to be made by the body on the public official's economic interests distinguishable from its effect on the general public? So again, the question specifically in this instance is, could Commissioner Allen, in her participation on the DSPUTF personally benefit economically in a way that is distinguishable in a meaningful manner from other members of the public, or what's called the public generally potential economic benefit; is it distinguishable. And out of those two questions again are what are potentially exemptions. So if you look at, is it reasonable foreseeable, one of the questions or factors that's applied is that a substantial likelihood must exist that decisions would have a material impact on Commissioner Allen and that further, that the extent to which the occurrence the material financial effect is contingent upon intervening events, not including future governmental decisions by the official's own agency or other agencies appointed to subject to the control of that official, meaning, is there the potential for intervening decisions made by other governmental bodies between the recommendations made by the DSPUTF and the final change in the DSP that could potentially impact a material self- interest that would be benefitted by Commissioner Allen. Is there a direct line to potential financial benefit from her actions on the DSPUTF or are there intervening potential events, right? Chair Ritter: So it sounds like you're getting into legal discussions. We could get an answer. Commissioner Nagler: Let me just say that my conclusion and my request is that we actually not resolve these matters tonight because I'm only trying to establish a public record of what I think the questions are but my bottom line is going to be a request that we not take action on this not, that we not appoint a replacement tonight for Commissioner Allen and that we do have an opportunity to work with the City Attorney's Office and the FPPC to see if any of the questions I'm raising are legitimate. So question number one is there a reasonable foreseeable economic interest to be benefitted. The second is, is the effect of the governmental decision distinguishable from its effect on others. What's interesting about that is that there's sort of a decision tree in determining the resolution of this question and whether it leads to an exemption, and that decision tree, at least how I understand it, is that broadly asked, does the decision that Commissioner Allen makes or contributes to benefit her differentially than the general public. Further, the general public as a phrase is defined as "A significant segment of the public generally." What's interesting is, then the FPPC regulation further speaks specifically to a retail operator and how this test of "a significant segment of the public generally" plays itself out on someone who realizes income from a retail operation within the affected geographic area. The two tests as I understand it applied PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES, December 14, 2016 Page 45 of 49