Amid accusations and counteraccusations, members of the Santa Monica City Council voted No come back with an ordinance that would prohibit gifts to council members, thus potentially restricting the amount of gratuities and ancillary items received.

One of the items guaranteed to create sparks at the last meeting was this one, Item 8C, a request by Councilman Gleam Davis to direct the city attorney to prepare and come back at the next meeting with an ordinance that would ban gift giving. to the councilors. using definitions of gifts and exceptions in the California Political Reform Law, and adding an exception for admission and meals when attending events in a City official capacity.

This is an ongoing point that Davis has been trying to push for some time. The last attempt to have a debate on this topic was abruptly closed by Mayor Phil Brock, at the beginning of the council meeting. September 242024.

A recent decision by the United States Supreme Court in Snyder v. The United States said that absent a clear ban on “gratuities” by a local jurisdiction, such payments to an elected official would be permitted. Gratuities differ from bribes because they are given after an official act, and not before.

To the September 10At its Jan. 1, 2024 meeting, the Council approved the direction after initially passing an ordinance prohibiting city officials from accepting gratuities to also introducing an ordinance prohibiting aldermen from accepting all gifts. The proposed ordinance would have prohibited providing or accepting gifts, using state law definitions and exceptions, to council members.

“We read almost every day about elected officials accepting things of value, whether or not they are tied to a particular action, but the effect of calling them gratuities or tips actually erodes trust in government,” he said. Davis. , adding: “It seems to me that what we should do is adopt a policy that basically says, for all intents and purposes, that there is no such thing as a free lunch for council members.”

Councilwoman Christine Parra was the first to open the discussion and began by making it clear that she supported the idea, but that quickly gave way to a more aggressive line of questioning about why exactly Davis was bringing this up now.

“I was very curious to know why this is coming up now. You know, especially as a council member who’s been on the council for the last 15 years, have you received any gifts? she asked.

Davis insisted, as he has in the past, that he has declared every gift — such as traveling to speak at a conference, for example — on the appropriate form inside City Hall. However, she broke the Magic Circle and spoke openly about some of her experiences.

“I could have accepted an iced tea or something, if someone had offered it to me, if I had gone to meet someone in their office or something (but) that’s not what this is designed for,” he said, adding: “I’ll tell you, I was at a restaurant in Santa Monica where someone asked me if I wanted the council member discount. And I had no idea there was a council member discount.

“These were not organizations that had anything pending before the City, but they clearly thought they were supposed to give free food to council members… And then the Snyder decision came out… and we adopted something to address that (but) the way we adopted It was very limited,” he said.

Parra replied: “The reason I am taking this path is that, since you and I are the outgoing councilors, it seems strange to me that we make this decision on behalf of the incoming councilors.”

Parra asked City Attorney Doug Sloan what policy currently existed, to which he responded: “Other than tipping, which we just did under state law, almost everyone in the city involved with politics is subject to reporting gifts on Form 700. You must report all donations over $50 and are limited to no more than $590 worth per year from a single source.”

Vice Mayor Lana Negrete also expressed intrigue as to the timing of this issue. “We’re not talking about people taking million-dollar deals out the back door, we’re talking about coffees and pancakes,” he said, leaving little ground in the middle. Negrete used an example of when a resident sends him “seasonal socks” each year and asked Sloan what the appropriate action would be.

“If (the proposed ordinance) were in effect, I would have several options. You could return it, pay it off, or donate it to a nonprofit,” he said, adding that if she kept them, “Technically, it could be a misdemeanor.”

Negrete continued down this rabbit hole, but made some interesting points, including the distinction between being offered tickets to an event that might not even be accessible to the public, making determining value very difficult.

Councilman Jesse Zwick attempted to navigate through the turbulent waters, saying, “I hear from people on both sides of this. I think there are some distinctions to be made in terms of what is allowed now and what is not… We can currently accept up to almost $600 from any individual source as long as we disclose it and (that is) a sizable gift. . So I think there could easily be a way to word this to satisfy both sides.

“We could easily set a threshold that eliminates some of these examples that are cited as absurd and really just limits them to larger gifts that we all agree we shouldn’t accept.”

Councilwoman Caroline Torosis also seemed interested in fine-tuning the language. “Just so we can move forward with our agenda here, I might be inclined to come up with some sort of compromise that we adopt, like a threshold for this ordinance, if others so desire,” he said.

Davis attempted a friendly amendment to have the language modified to incorporate a $50 threshold; In other words, gifts under $50 would not be prohibited.

However, Parra considered it unfriendly and that is why the motion remained as the original one, as written on the agenda. Zwick voted yes, Parra voted no, Davis voted yes, Negrete voted no, Torosis voted no, De la Torre abstained, Brock also abstained.

“Because while I understand Councilman Davis’ expressed justification for this, I am so concerned that he is electioneering that I will also abstain,” Brock said.

Both Brock and De la Torre face re-election in a week and Parra has decided not to run again. Curiously, Torosis broke with current political lines and voted against. when he daily press When approached for comment, she said, “I would like to review a comprehensive package of ethics reforms that it is clear this current council is not willing to consider.”

[email protected]

Related