PRC MIN 1976-09-08 - Laserfiche WebLink

Browse Search

-1 ` � �, � � �; Cormnissiorrer Rollins inquired as to whe-ther the department head was respon- sible for determi.ning what each Commissioner must disclose. Mr. Riback explained that the department head was �responsible for establishing the �codes and determining the catagories for disclosure. However, it was the responsibility of each individual Commission member to determine which of his interestsmeet the reasonable foreseeability or material effect criteria for disclosure. Commissioner t+leintraub commented that she was "turned off" by the require- s ments beca�use it would discourage people from volunteering their services . to the Cir,y. She inquired if the services of the City would be made avail- able to Commissioners upon request to assist them in the preparation of disclosure statements. Mr. Riback said that he thought those services would be available. Chairperson Pound asked Mr. Riback if the Pl.anning Commission was not already required to submit such disclosure statements. Mr. Riback responded that not only the Planning Commission, but the City Council , the City t4anager, and the Planning Director have been required to prepare such statements for several years. He further stated that even before the passage of the Political Reforms Act, there has been a require- ment on the books which obliged any government official to disqualify him- self from making decisions which might have a material e��fect on any of his financial interests. Mr. Riback further reminded the Comr�ission that the requirements to develop Conflict of Interest Codes ��as the result of an initiative which was placed on the ballet and voteu on by the ;3eo;�le of the State of California. He said that unless the courts in the future determine this particular Act to be unconstitutional or invalid for some other reason, the only way it can be ammended is by another intiative on the part of the people. 1�1r. Haner of the Housing Concerns Committee inquired as to the definition of "a financial interest". Mr. Riback directed Mr. Haner's attention to Page 4 of the City Attorney's memo dated August 16, 1976 which clearly defined the term "financial interest". In an attempt to brief everyone on the time table involved, P1r. Riback rev�iewed the procedure necessary for the adoption of the code. He pointed out that a public hearing aias set for Wednesday, September 29, where all of the Department's Conflic�c of Interest Codes would be available for � review and public scrutiny. After that hearing, if individual departments wish to make changes in their codes, t"+ey could do so. 4Jhen all changes were made, each department would adopt its individual code. On October 11 , all of the adopted codes would be submitted to the City Council for review and final adoption. The City Council must adopt the codes �►ithin 90 days of their submission. Once the City Council had adopted the coc:es, individuals in designate� positions have 30 days in which to comr,lete dis- cl osure staternents and fi 1 e them wi i;h thei r i nd i vi dual departr•�ent ;�eads. He further stated that the de�artment heads would not revie�r -c�ie disclosure statements with respect to their completeness; that it tivould be up to t��e individual to determine �,vha� .�las to be disclosed. He indicated that there was a criminal pena1ty for lying. -3-