Elected Officials: Conflicts of Interest in California

On Thursday evening residents of Redwood City found out that their democratically elected council members have put on their next meeting agenda an item that would allow them to extend their own terms of service.

A fundamental tenet of democracy is that officials will represent their constituents and not their own self interests. According to Merriam-Webster the Definition of democracy includes:

• 1a : government by the people; especially : rule of the majority
• b : a government in which the supreme power is vested in the people and exercised by them directly or indirectly through a system of representation usually involving periodically held free elections

Laws are written to allow individuals and society to co-exist peacefully but sometimes it is possible to obey the letter of the law but not its spirit. In a democracy the right of the people to elect representatives for an established period of time and for those elected representatives to leave upon the conclusion of that period of time is fundamental to the spirit of democracy.

For any elected official to vote on in any way on extending the term granted by the electorate may be able to be done through technical mechanisms including modifications of ordinances but that does not in any way mean that such a technicality does not in fact represent the most basic conflict of interest.

In California the Fair Political Practices Commission (FPPC) is tasked with managing conflicts of interest of elected representatives. http://www.fppc.ca.gov/learn/conflicts-of-interest-rules.html As stated in the Conflicts Guide:

“What is a conflict of interest under the Act? In 1974, the voters enacted the Political Reform Act.2 In adopting the Act, the voters recognized that conflicts of interest in governmental decision-making by public officials posed a significant danger. ‘The people find and declare …
a) State and local government should serve the needs and respond to the wishes of all citizens equally, without regard to their wealth;
b) Public officials, whether elected or appointed, should perform their duties in an impartial manner, free from bias caused by their own financial interests or the financial interests of persons who have supported them....’”

Extending your own elected term of service is of direct benefit to ” the financial interests of persons who have supported them.” and should therefore automatically preclude any sitting elected official from voting on such an issue regardless of whether or not it is technically feasible. In effect changing the length of a current elected official during his or her term is tampering with the will of the electorate.

Imagine if President Obama, Governor Brown or any other elected official for any reason decided to submit a proposal to extend their term of service and expected to be able to vote on that decision what the public outcry would be. Well Redwood City officials think they can do just that!

Stay tuned to this story....