Time to put ethics down on paper
Since Yorba Linda is operating with a full City Council for the first time in seven months, the five members can now tackle a major issue facing the governing body: restoring public confidence in the council’s decision-making processes.
Council appears ready to revise an existing but long-forgotten ethics code from 1972 or consider an entirely new code, involving council members, appointed officials, such as the 20 city commissioners, and municipal employees.
The city needs a tough policy with teeth and enforcement powers, not a cosmetic code to provide cover for past business-as-usual practices or bullet points on re-election resumes.
Council can choose between a “rule-based” code, emphasizing what not to do, or a “value-based” policy, highlighting what individuals should strive to do; but a hybrid might be best, with some specific “don’ts” and a list of exemplary practices.
And, as part of a code or additional legislation, council needs to address two more key concerns: council members accepting election-year contributions from city contractors and conducting city business in closed-door committee meetings.
Taking campaign cash from individuals or businesses whose profits depend on council votes is unseemly and should be identified as injurious to the city’s health and welfare.
Maybe contract costs could be lower, if these donations were outlawed.
Also, council committee meetings should be open to the public—subject to limitations identified in the state’s Brown Act—as fetid fallout from secret Town Center Ad Hoc Committee meetings held in 2005 and 2006 clearly demonstrates.
The Yorba Linda Water District has five standing and two ad hoc committees, which meet at scheduled times, follow agendas, allow public participation and record minutes. There’s no reason the city can’t benefit from a similarly transparent policy.
Fortunately, state legislation outlaws especially egregious practices, but the Fair Political Practices Commission relies on self-reporting, and, in the last analysis, a local code needs an involved and diligent public to prove truly effective.
A FINAL NOTE
Also needing council attention is the sign ordinance, particularly relating to street-side political postings at election-time. Candidates and volunteers involved in last month’s special ballot e-mailed me two concerns about campaign signage.
One complaint was that a contender was advised by one management official to ignore a list of rules issued by another top-level administrator. Fairness dictates that city officials speak with one voice on such matters.
But a perennial grievance probably can’t be solved and will continue to plague future municipal elections. Representatives from each campaign claimed their roadway signs were vandalized or stolen, and they all blamed opponents for the misdeeds.
Council appears ready to revise an existing but long-forgotten ethics code from 1972 or consider an entirely new code, involving council members, appointed officials, such as the 20 city commissioners, and municipal employees.
The city needs a tough policy with teeth and enforcement powers, not a cosmetic code to provide cover for past business-as-usual practices or bullet points on re-election resumes.
Council can choose between a “rule-based” code, emphasizing what not to do, or a “value-based” policy, highlighting what individuals should strive to do; but a hybrid might be best, with some specific “don’ts” and a list of exemplary practices.
And, as part of a code or additional legislation, council needs to address two more key concerns: council members accepting election-year contributions from city contractors and conducting city business in closed-door committee meetings.
Taking campaign cash from individuals or businesses whose profits depend on council votes is unseemly and should be identified as injurious to the city’s health and welfare.
Maybe contract costs could be lower, if these donations were outlawed.
Also, council committee meetings should be open to the public—subject to limitations identified in the state’s Brown Act—as fetid fallout from secret Town Center Ad Hoc Committee meetings held in 2005 and 2006 clearly demonstrates.
The Yorba Linda Water District has five standing and two ad hoc committees, which meet at scheduled times, follow agendas, allow public participation and record minutes. There’s no reason the city can’t benefit from a similarly transparent policy.
Fortunately, state legislation outlaws especially egregious practices, but the Fair Political Practices Commission relies on self-reporting, and, in the last analysis, a local code needs an involved and diligent public to prove truly effective.
A FINAL NOTE
Also needing council attention is the sign ordinance, particularly relating to street-side political postings at election-time. Candidates and volunteers involved in last month’s special ballot e-mailed me two concerns about campaign signage.
One complaint was that a contender was advised by one management official to ignore a list of rules issued by another top-level administrator. Fairness dictates that city officials speak with one voice on such matters.
But a perennial grievance probably can’t be solved and will continue to plague future municipal elections. Representatives from each campaign claimed their roadway signs were vandalized or stolen, and they all blamed opponents for the misdeeds.
posted by Jim Drummond at 12:00 PM
<< Home