T h e C i t y o f B e l l f l o w e r
Families. Businesses. Futures.
16600 Civic Center Drive, Bellflower, CA 90706
Tel 562.804.1424 Fax 562.925.8660 www.bellflower.org
In compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act, if you need special assistance to participate in this meeting, please contact the City Clerk’s Office at (562) 804-1424, extension 2220 or [email protected]. Notification 48 hours prior to the meeting will enable the City to make reasonable arrangements to ensure accessibility to this meeting.
Agenda Items are on file in the Office of the City Clerk and are available for public inspection during normal business hours. For your convenience, the Agenda is also posted on the City’s Website at www.bellflower.org with links to each Agenda Item (unless they are too lengthy or unavailable at the time of posting). Any supplemental material distributed to a majority of the members of the City Council/Successor Agency after the posting of this Agenda will be made available for public inspection during normal business hours in the City Clerk’s Office at City Hall, 16600 Civic Center Drive, Bellflower. (Privileged documents and Closed Session documents are exempted.)
SPECIAL JOINT MEETING OF THE
BELLFLOWER CITY COUNCIL,
BELLFLOWER FINANCING AUTHORITY,
BELLFLOWER PARKING AUTHORITY,
PARKS AND RECREATION COMMISSION,
PLANNING COMMISSION, AND
PUBLIC SAFETY COMMISSION
MONDAY, FEBRUARY 10, 2025 – 3:00 – 5:00 P.M.
BELLFLOWER CITY HALL - COUNCIL CHAMBERS
1 CALL TO ORDER
2 ROLL CALL:
City Council, Bellflower Financing Authority, and
Bellflower Parking Authority
Mayor/Chair Ray Dunton
Mayor Pro Tem/Vice Chair Sonny R. Santa Ines
Council Member/Director Dan Koops
Council Member/Director Wendi Morse
Council Member/Director Victor A. Sanchez
AGENDA
Bellflower Special Joint Meeting Agenda
February 10, 2025
2 ROLL CALL – Continued
Parks and Recreation Commission
Chair Gerrit J. Byma
Vice Chair Mitch Haack
Commissioner Sophia Partida
Commissioner Margaret Romero
Commissioner Michele Worley
Planning Commission
Chair Robert Wilson
Vice Chair Christina Padilla Birkey
Commissioner Guy Bremer
Commissioner Bill Mendes
Commissioner Mariah Mott
Public Safety Commission
Chair Larry Myers
Vice Chair Rocio Jimenez-Sanchez
Commissioner Marcos Garcia
Commissioner Larry Wehage
Commissioner (Vacant)
3 PUBLIC COMMENTS
Pursuant to Government Code Section 54954.3(a), the public may address the City Council on matters listed on the Agenda. Those wishing to speak on a listed item should come to the podium, be recognized by the Mayor, and state your name for the record. Each speaker will be given three (3) minutes to address the City Council.
4 ETHICS TRAINING
Local Government Ethics Training in compliance with AB 1234 for elected and appointed public officials and city management employees. The training will be conducted by Burke, Williams & Sorensen, LLP, the City’s legal counsel. Public participation in the training will not be allowed.
5 ADJOURNMENT
SPEAKER SIGN -IN SHEET
(Voluntary)
BELLFLOWER CITY COUNCIL SPECIAL MEETING
FEBRUARY 10, 2025
PLEASE PRINT LEGIBLY
NAME
ORGANIZATION
(if applicable)
CITY COUNCIL AND COMMISSIONERS
Ethics Training Sign -In Sheet
Agency: City of Bellflower
Workshop: AB 1234: Ethics in Public Service
Presenter: City Attorney's Office
Date: February 10, 2025
Time: 3:00 p.m. to 5:00 p.m.
NAME
1. Mayor Ray Dunton
2. Mayor Pro Tem Sonny R. Santa Ines
3. Council Member Dan Koops
4. Council Member Wendi Morse
5. Council Member Victor A. Sanchez
6. PRC Chair Gerrit J. Byma
7. PRC Vice Chair Mitch Haack
8. PRC Commissioner Sophia Partida
9. PRC Commissioner Margaret "Peggy"
Romero
10. PRC Commissioner Michele Worley
11. PC Chair Robert Wilson
12. PC Vice Chair Chrissy Padilla Birkey
13. PC Commissioner Guy Bremer
14. PC Commissioner Bill Mendes
15. PC Commissioner Mariah Mott
16. PSC Chair Larry Myers
17. PSC Vice Chair Rocio Jimenez -
Sanchez
18. PSC Commissioner Marcos Garcia
19. PSC Commissioner Larry Wehage
rNATURE
g_d
cyVick(ucoi v�
V/�
EMPLOYEES & CONSULTANTS (A -L)
Ethics Training Sign -In Sheet
Agency: City of Bellflower
Workshop: AB 1234: Ethics in Public Service
Presenter: City Attorney's Office
Date: February 10, 2025
Time: 3:00 p.m. to 5:00 p.m.
Last Name
First
Signature
1 Acevedo
Monique
2 Alvandi
Ali
tf
3 Atkins
James
--
—
4 Baca
Leroy
5 Berger
Karl
7 6
Brun
Kathryn
'
7 Castillo( '< , ii )n
Virginia
8 Chacon
Joseph
9 Cook
Alan
10 DellaLonga
Jim
11 Dudar
Mazen
12 Erdelyan
Esmeralda
13 Fawcett
David
14 Garan
Anna
- ii G'Vl
15 Garcia
Elias
16 Genilo-
Concepcion
Rowena
L
17 Gonzalez
Kimberly
K' wS f
` 'k
18 Gorecki
Len `
19 Gose
Steve
Vim_
20 Ho
Sarah
21 Lee
Wangsu
a
,t,
L � -
[M — Z CONTINUED ON NEXT PAGE]
EMPLOYEES & CONSULTANTS (M -Z)
Ethics Training Sign -In Sheet
Agency: City of Bellflower
Workshop: AB 1234: Ethics in Public Service
Presenter: City Attorney's Office
Date: February 10, 2025
Time: 3:00 p.m. to 5:00 p.m.
Last Name
First
Signature
22 McNerney
Brian
23 Mellana
P.J.
ir�--
24 Miyashiro-
Ruiz
Annika
r
L, `
25 Oba
Elizabeth
26 Ochiqui
Mayra
�e
27 Paz
Melanie
28 Pineda
Karla
"
t'a("
(
Ile ,-
29 Porras
Maria
30 Preciado
Frank
31 Reynaga
Jaliza
32 Rhee
Tae
33 Rincon
Ignacio
34 Rodriguez
Richard
35 Russell
Jennifer
36 Smith
Kristen
37 Smoot
Ryan
—1
38 Todorov
Sergiu
_/
39 Wallace
Dakota
01 40
Yates
Veronica
41 Zamora
William
[A — L ON PREVIOUS PAGE]
AB 1234 ETHICS TRAINING
City of Bellflower
By: Justin A. Tamayo, Assistant City Attorney
February 10, 2025
Today’s Agenda
•Introduction: Games, Scared Straight
and Goals
•Transparency Laws -Brown Act
•Public Records Act
•Personal Advantages and Perks of
Office
•Personal Financial Gain
•General Ethics Principles
•New in 2025 -Throughout
2 Part I - Introduction
•In this part, we will
cover:
•Scared Straight
•Game
•Goals
AB 1234 adopted in
2006 in response to
City of Bell scandal
5 “I’m Not Like Those Officials”
•Know the rules to make sure your name does
not show up in the FPPC’s “Hall of Shame”…
Summaries of Past Enforcement Cases A-Z
www.fppc.ca.gov
CALIFORNIA FAIR POLITICAL PRACTICES COMMISSION
FPPC “Heat Map”
The FPPC
prosecutes
hundreds of cases
every year. This map
details the location
FPPC cases
prosecuted.
6 Let’s Play a Game
How much was the Fine?
7 FPPC Penalty
Ranges
What kinds of penalties can
FPPC impose?
Late Statements of Economic
Interests (Form 700)
•$200 to $1,200 per violation
Unreported Economic Interests
•$100 to $1,600 per violation
Gift Limit Violations
•$200 to $1,200 per violation
8 Game Q1
FPPC
Enforcement Case
A member of an
agricultural pest control
district failed to timely
file a 2019 SEI, in
violation of Government
Code§87300 (1 count).
How much was the
Fine?
Late SEI: $200-$1,200
per violation
9 Question 1 Answer:
$200 Fine
Game Q2 –
FPPC
Enforcement
Case
How much
was the Fine?
Development Services Director failed to report
meal gifts from developer valued at $139.64 on
2008 SEI, and $263.05 on 2009 SEI, in violation of
Government Code §87207 (2 counts).
How much was the Fine?
Gift Limit Violations: $200-$1,200 per violation
11 Question 2 Answer:
$400 Fine
Ethics Laws
California law promotes
ethics:
•by requiring public
disclosure
•by prohibiting certain
actions
•by punishing violations
13 14
Let’s be SAFE
That’s a lot of law to
cover in one
session…
Spot the Issues
Ask for Help
Failure has Consequences
Ethics in Practice
Goals
•Familiarize you with laws that
govern your service and when to
ask questions
•Encourage you to think beyond
legal restrictions
•Satisfy your AB 1234
requirement 15
Attorney Advice
•The sooner you speak to legal counsel the
better, but remember…
•The City Attorney represents the City, not
you personally.
•Reliance on advice from legal counsel is
not a defense if your actions result in a
violation.
•Only a formal advice letter from the Fair
Political Practices Commission protects
you from violations of FPPC regulations.
16 Be
Hypothetical
Because violations are personal
to you, the best practice is to ask
questions in the hypothetical
No Confessions Please!
17 Part II: Transparency Laws
18 The Brown
Act
•All meetings of the
legislative body of a
local agency must be
open and public
•All persons must be
permitted to attend any
meeting
19 Brown Act-What is a
Meeting?
Basic Rule: Meetings of the City Council,
Boards, Commissions and Committees are
subject to the Brown Act.
What is a Meeting?
any gathering
of a majority of the members of a
legislative body
at the same time and location
Including teleconference locations
to hear, discuss, deliberate or take
action upon any item
which is within its subject matter
jurisdiction 20
Improper Meetings
•“A majority of the members of a
legislative body shall not...use a
series of communications of
any kind, directly or through
intermediaries, to discuss,
deliberate, or take action on any
item of business that is within the
subject matter jurisdiction of the
legislative body.”
• GC§ 54952(b)(1)
21 Improper Serial Meeting
•Daisy Chain: If Member A
contacts Member B, and
Member B contacts Member
C, and so on, until a quorum
has been involved, this type of
“serial meeting” may result in
a violation of the Brown Act.
22 Improper Serial
Meeting
•Hub and spoke: An
intermediary -- such as a
City staff member or even
an applicant -- contacts at
least a quorum of the
members to develop a
collective concurrence on
action to be taken by the
legislative body.
23 Individual Meetings - OK
•A City employee or official may:
•engage in “separate conversations or
communications” outside of a meeting
•in order to “answer questions or
provide information”
•so long as that person “does not
communicate to members of the
legislative body the comments or
positions of any other member or
members.”
• GC§ 54952.2(b)(2).
24 Brown Act
“Meeting”
exceptions
•Individual contacts
•Attendance at community meetings,
meetings of other agencies
•Meetings of “ad hoc” subcommittees –
temporary advisory committees of less
than a quorum of the board, with a
limited purpose, dissolved when the
purpose is completed
•Conferences or seminars
•Social and ceremonial gatherings
•Observation of advisory committee
meetings
•1 on 1 with staff
Hypothetical
You are unsure how to vote at an
upcoming meeting and request
information from staff. Should you:
a) Be transparent and copy the
entire Commission on your email
to staff.
b) Wait until after staff responds to
you and hit “Reply All” with your
position.
c) Only email staff.
d) None of the above.
26 Brown Act
Violations
•“Informal” meetings that are not noticed
•“Serial” meetings
•A series of individual contacts that
results in a majority of the members
reaching a collective concurrence on
an item of business
•Can occur by use of technology, such
as email or social media
•Discussion of non-agendized items
(other than brief response/direction to
staff to agendize a future item)
•Improper noticing on the agenda –
agenda must substantially comply with
requirements
Technology
“Meetings”
•Use of e-mail or other
technology/media by a
majority of a legislative
body to discuss,
deliberate, or take action
on items within the
body’s jurisdiction
violates the Brown Act.
28 E-mail/Technology
Avoid sending e-mails to the whole body.
If necessary, provide information only to
less than a quorum.
Do not solicit a response.
Be careful replying to e-mails.
Do not communicate your position or
make a commitment on a pending matter.
Do not direct a reply to a majority of the
body.
Think carefully before sending any e-mail.
Remember, your e-mail can be forwarded
by others to a majority of the body.
The Internet has a long memory.29
Social Media – AB 992
•Amends Government
Code section 54952.2 to
add new provisions
•Applies from January 1,
2020 through January 1,
2026
Direct Response Prohibited
•AB 992 prohibits even one member of the legislative body from responding in any manner to any other member’s social media posts: “A member of the legislative body shall not respond directly to any communication on an internet-based social media platform regarding a matter that is within the subject matter jurisdiction of the legislative body that is made, posted, or shared by any other member of the legislative body.”
•No exceptions.
•Applies to just one response, making it a violation of the Brown Act regardless of whether a majority of the legislative body read the response.
Emojis = Discussion
•AB 992 prohibits a majority of the members of the
legislative body from using social media to “discuss
among themselves” business of a specific nature that is within the subject matter jurisdiction of the legislative body.
•Prohibits “communications made, posted, or shared on
an internet-based social media platform between
members of a legislative body, including comments or
use of digital icons that express reactions to
communications made by other members of the
legislative body.”
•The prohibition against members “discussing among
themselves” specifically includes emojis.
Hypothetical
Which of the following is a violation?
a) You post on social media and only one other member responds with comments.
b) One member “likes” your post.
c) One member posts “ _ ” in response.
d) All of the above.
e) None of the above.
33 Normal Teleconferencing
Meetings may be conducted by
teleconferencing (i.e., any electronic
audio or video connection) under the
following conditions:
A quorum is within the jurisdiction;
Agendas must be posted at
teleconference locations specifying all
teleconference locations;
There is public access to teleconference locations;
There is public opportunity to speak at
each teleconference location; and
All votes are taken by roll call.
34 AB2449 (2022): New Remote
Teleconferencing Rules
Allows less than a quorum of local officials to participate remotely if •at least a quorum participates
•in-person
•at a single location identified on the agenda that is open to the public,
•and the legislative body follows certain procedural and substantive requirements
Procedural
Requirements
•Regular noticed meeting
•Regular agenda posting
•Officials attending remotely
must:
•participate through both
audio and visual technology
•disclose, before any action,
adults present in room and
relationship to member
More Procedure
•Allow public to access meeting and provide comments, including by teleconference with instructions
•Pause meeting when there is any teleconference disruption for the public •Real-time public comments must be allowed
•Submission of comments in advance cannot be required
•Access requirements for requests for reasonable accommodations •Give notice of procedure
AB2449 Substantive
Requirements
•Member must need to participate
remotely
•for just cause or
•emergency circumstances
What is just cause?
•Caregiving need for child, parent,
grandparent, grandchild, sibling,
spouse, or domestic partner requires
remote participation
•Contagious illness that prevents in
person attendance
•Need related to physical or mental
disability not otherwise
accommodated
•Travel on official business of the
legislative body or another state or
local agency
What are the
limits for just
cause?
•Member must notify legislative
body
•at the earliest opportunity
possible, including at the
start of a regular meeting, of
need to participate remotely
for just cause
•include a general description
of the circumstances relating
to need to appear remotely
•Shall not be used for more than
two meetings per calendar year
(AB 2302)
What are emergency
circumstances?
•Physical or family medical
emergency that prevents a
member from attending in
person
•Cannot be used for more
than:
•5 meetings per year (AB
2302)
What are the requirements?
•Member must request to participate remotely due to emergency circumstances •Made ASAP
•Separate request for each meeting
•General description of circumstances
•Need not exceed 20 words
•Not required to disclose medical diagnosis or disability •Legislative body must approve request
•At earliest opportunity
•May take action at beginning of meeting
•Even if not sufficient time to post on agenda
Rules on Public Participation:
•Place must be open and accessible (ADA)
•Access to agenda materials
•Opportunity to speak on agenda items and on matters within the body’s jurisdiction •Opportunity to record meetings (if non-disturbing)
•Additional time for non-English speakers
43 Avoid These Headlines
Did [Agency] Violate California’s Open Meeting
Laws?
Six of seven agency members attended a private, fee-
based luncheon held by a stakeholder, and allegedly
discussed agency policies at the luncheon.
(August 2023)
44 Sometimes we
need thick skin
In 2015,City sued longtime critic of City
Council and lost and was ordered to
pay resident’s legal fees of $117,741.
City argued use of snippets of Council meetings that were critical of Council violated copyright law and caused irreparable harm.
Court stated lawsuit was “meritless”
In 2018, the City was still having issues with video: Mayor Accused of Telling Activist to ‘Go Choke Yourself,’ But Video Evidence Disappears. (Aug. 2018) 45 Brown Act: Agenda
Requirements
•Rule: Brief description of
item (20 words or less)
•Substantial compliance is
the test.
•Courts will look at whether
the agenda language,
considered as a whole, gives
the public more than a
"clue."
46 Brown Act:
Internet Agenda
Posting
•Govt. Code §54954.2
•An online posting of an
agenda shall be posted on
the primary Internet Web
site homepage…that is
accessible through a
prominent, direct link to the
current agenda.
47 Non-Agendized Items
Action or discussion on any item not appearing on the posted agenda is generally prohibited.
Officials may only:
Briefly respond to public statements or questions.
Ask a question for clarification.
Make a brief announcement.
Make a brief report on his/her activities.
Provide a reference to staff or other sources for factual information. Request staff to place the matter on a future agenda and report back to the legislative body in a subsequent meeting.
GC § 54954.2(a)(2)
48 Public Comment
During public comments on non-
agendized items a Member may:
a) Have a 5-minute conversation
with a member of the public.
b) Approve a $5,000 grant to the
School District if they ask and
really need it.
c) Request donations to his/her
political campaign.
d) None of the above.
49 Hypothetical
A local community organization sends an email to a
Councilmember asking the City to take a position in
support of some upcoming legislation. You should:
a) Forward the email to the City Manager to have a draft letter prepared for the Councilmembers to sign and send. b) Give direction to staff during a public meeting to draft a letter on behalf of the City Council providing support for the Councilmembers to sign.
c) Make a request to return with the item on the Agenda at the next meeting.
50 Closed Sessions
Closed sessions are an exception to the
rule that agency meetings must be open
and public.
The disclosure of confidential
information is prohibited unless the
legislative body authorizes the
disclosure of the information.
“Confidential information” means
communication made in closed session
that is specifically related to the basis
for the closed session meeting.
51 Avoid These
Headlines
City Council, Councilwoman Violated Open
Meeting Law,
County DA Says
(May 2023)
A City Council and councilmember were issued
a cease-and-desist letter from the local County
DA for discussing items in closed session that
were not included in the closed session agenda
and were beyond the scope of the closed
session. A councilmember further violated the
law by later discussing closed session items in
open session.
The City Council was required to adopt a pledge
in open session that it will comply with the
open meeting laws.
52 Brown Act
Violations –
Consequences
Request to Cure/Action Invalidated
Civil Action to prevent future violations
Costs and Attorney’s Fees
Criminal Charges
Each member of a legislative body
who attends a meeting of that
legislative body where action is
taken in violation of any provision
of this chapter, and where the
member intends to deprive the
public of information to which the
member knows or has reason to
know the public is entitled under
this chapter, is guilty of a
misdemeanor.
Gov. Code §§ 54959, 54960, 54960.1
53 Part III: Public Records Act
What is a Public
Record?
•Any writing
•Containing information relating
to the conduct of the public’s
business
•Prepared, owned, used or
retained by any state or local
agency,
•Regardless of physical form or
characteristic.
55 Access to
Public Records
Access to public
records is a
constitutional right in
California
56 Public Records
Rule: All of the City’s public records
must be disclosed to the public, upon
request, unless there is a specific
exemption.
•As described by one court: “Islands of
privacy floating in a sea of disclosure.”
57 Avoid These Headlines
[City] is Paying Hundreds of Thousands of Dollars to Settle Public Records Lawsuits (Dec. 2022)
The City paid more than $240,000 in attorneys’ fees and costs for wrongfully withholding documents. This resulted from about 11 lawsuits filed over five years. The City lost three of the cases and settled the remaining eight cases out of court. At trial, the deputy city attorney explained that PRA lawsuits “are becoming a drain on city resources.”
58 Avoid These Headlines
L.A. County has repeatedly violated state open records laws, L.A. Times lawsuit alleges
(Mar 21, 2018)
The Los Angeles Times has sued L.A. County, accusing it of repeatedly and routinely flouting laws designed to ensure government transparency.
Over the last year alone, county officials have refused to release information about the status of homicide investigations, allegations of misconduct against prosecutors and even mundane information such as email addresses for Sheriff’s Department employees, the lawsuit says.
59 New(ish): PRA Renumbering
•AB 473 & 474
•Effective January 1, 2023
•No substantive changes
•Recodifies and reorganizing PRA moving it to Government Code section 7920.000, et seq.
•For example, former GC 6254(c) (which exempts “personnel, medical, or similar files, the disclosure of which would constitute an unwarranted invasion of personal privacy”) is relocated to GC 7927.700
Pop Quiz
Which of the following is a public record
subject to disclosure:
a) A message sent from a City email
account.
b) A message about City business sent from
your personal email account on your
personal device.
c) A message about City business sent from
your personal email account using a City
device.
d) All of the above.
e) B & C
61 Personal Devices/Public
Records
City of San Jose v. Superior Court
City employees or officials’
communications about official
agency business may be subject to
disclosure as “public records”
retained by the agency under the
CPRA, even if the employees used
personal e-mail or text message
accounts in their preparation or
transmission
62 Avoid These Headlines
‘Disgraceful’: [City] Struggles with Records Law Years
After Landmark Case
(Jan. 2024)
News investigation discloses that the City faces at least six lawsuits for wrongfully withholding public documents. City has already paid $650,000 in judgments and is still involved in litigation. The $650,000 figure does not account for legal costs.
The City was a losing defendant in a prior case that went up to the California Supreme Court, and which cost the City more than $1 million in attorneys’ fees. 63 What is a Public Record now?
Not every document is a “public record.”
New Test:
Does it relate in some substantive way to the conduct of the public’s business?
Or is it primarily personal?
Factors: content; context; purpose; audience; was the individual acting within the scope of their employment or office.
Official decides if personal.
64 Part IV:
Personal
Advantages
& Perks
Legal Limitations on Official Benefits and Perks
65 Elected Officers
Compensation
•Generally fixed by statute.
•Cannot be acted on at a special
meeting.
•Automatic increases not
permitted.
66 Expense Reimbursement
•General Rule: Actual and Necessary Expenses
•Policy: Agencies must have a written policy
specifying reimbursable activities and rates
•Reporting: Timely use of report forms (with
receipts documenting the expenses); oral report at
subsequent meeting in some cases
•Penalty: Loss of reimbursement privilege;
restitution; civil penalties and 3x value of misused
resources; jail; ban from public office
67 Pop Quiz
If you take your spouse on official business,
you can charge the following to the City:
a) Room.
b) Spouse’s meals.
c) Mileage.
d) Both (a) and (c).
e) None of the above.
68 Remember…
•Your expense report forms are
PUBLIC RECORDS
69 GIFTS
•What is a Gift?
•Anything of value you receive for
which you do not provide
monetary or other consideration
of equal or greater value.
•May include discounts and
rebates if not also given to the
general public.
•Report –
•$50 or more in a year/source
•Limit –
•$630/year/source
70 Options when you receive a gift
over $50:
Decide if you want to report it
on your Form 700.
-If yes, report on your Annual
Form 700
If not, then within 30 days:
Reimburse the donee for the
fair market value,
Return the gift unused, or
Donate the gift to charity (no
deductions).
If the gift exceeds $630, you
have a duty to:
reject it or “buy down” the
value.71
Disclosure of Gifts
•Must report gifts on your Form 700 if:
•Total value of all gifts from that
source during the calendar year is
greater than $50.
•Gifts are reportable regardless of
the location of the donor.
•Tip: If the amount is unknown, you
must make a good faith estimate of
the item’s fair market value.
72 Pop Quiz
When are meals not considered “gifts”?
a) If provided at a party at a personal
residence.
b) You don’t know any other attendees at
the event.
c) You take turns paying for the meal.
d) You get food poisoning.
73 Gifts
74 Other Gifts
There is a rule for everything:
Gifts through family members
Attendance at Invitation-Only Events
Wedding gifts
Dating exception
Behested payments
Travel
See FPPC Guide: Limitations and Restrictions on Gifts, Honoraria, Travel and Loans https://www.fppc.ca.gov/learn/public-officials-and-employees-rules-/gifts-and-honoraria.html 75 New Behested Payment Rules
•Applies to elected officials
•Covers fundraising activities
•Payment is considered "behested" if it is made for a legislative, governmental or charitable purpose at the request, suggestion, or solicitation of, or made in cooperation, consultation, coordination or concert with an elected official •Must be reported to FPPC within 30 days of receipt if they total more than $5,000 per year from a single source
•Reporting forms are available at https://www.fppc.ca.gov/learn/public-officials- and-employees-rules-/behested-payment-report.html
GiftsFPPC Enforcement Decisions:
A County Supervisor failed to disclose, and under-disclosed, gifts from a concert promoter between 2011 and 2015 valued at $7,200. The Supervisor also voted for a resolution before the Board of Supervisors to extend a permit for a concert on county property within 12 months after he had received the gifts from the concert promoter. (6 counts) Penalty: $9,500 An Assistant City Manager failed to report gifts exceeding reporting limits from 2007 through 2009. (2 counts) Penalty: $2,000
City’s Chief Financial Officer failed to report several gifts from a single source in 2008, and then participated in making and approving a City contract with the source of the gifts. (3 counts) Penalty: $6,500
City Councilmember failed to report gifts in the form of parking privileges at local airport from 2004 through 2005. (1 count) Penalty: $1,500
Director of City’s Library Services Department failed to disclose a gift of travel from a foreign embassy valued at $1,641. (1 count) Penalty: $200
77 Avoid These Headlines
[City] Will Consider New Ethics Guidelines; Effort Follows Times Report of Lobbyist’s Undisclosed 2016 Gift to Councilwoman
(Los Angeles Times, August 2021)
The City established an ethics commission in 2021 after news broke that a councilmember accepted $1,100 in gifts to help pay for breast augmentation surgery and failed to disclose the gift. The gift was from a lobbyist with business before the City. The District Attorney was reviewing the complaint filed by a rival councilmember.
78 Game Q 3
Gifts
How much was the fine?
FPPC Enforcement Decision
General manager of a municipal water district,
failed to report 31 gifts of golf games and
parties, totaling $3,500, received between 2009
and 2012, and used his official position to
approve district contracts with the gift-giver.
79 Question 3 Answer:
$30,000 Fine
POP QUIZ
Can public officials accept “tips”
for a job well done?
a) Never.
b) Always.
c) Only if you do an extra good
job.
d) Yes, if you have a performance-
based contract.
81 Prohibition on
Gratuities or Rewards
It is a misdemeanor to
receive any kind of gratuity
or reward for performing
one’s duties.
82 83
Honoraria
Receipt of honoraria (e.g., any
payment for a speech, article,
attendance at a conference, event
or similar gathering) is prohibited
Exception: Speech or article in
connection with private business
Tip: You can return or donate the
honoraria within 30 days of
receipt.
Avoid These Headlines
84 [Councilmember] Waited Two Months After She Was
Elected to Ask State Agency About Speaking Fees She Was Collecting
(Oct. 2023)
A city councilwoman waited two months from when she was elected to ask the FPPC if she could still get paid for public speaking while in office. The FPPC told the councilmember that she had to reduce the share of her income that came from public speaking to below 50%, or she would be violating the Political Reform Act. The FPPC’s answer jeopardizes the councilmember’s ability to legally work and be on the city council at the same time.
The councilmember writes books and gives talks about parenting, race and youth development. Appealed. FPPC amended interpretation of rule to income over 3 years.
85 Misuse of Public Resources
Rule: No use of public funds or resources for personal, non-public purposes, including campaigns.
“Public Resources” includes staff time, office equipment and supplies, but excludes incidental or minimal uses.
Penalties: disqualification from office, jail, civil penalties up to $1000/day plus 3x the value of the unlawful use.
Gifts of Public Funds
•Local agencies are prohibited
from making a “gift” of public
money or anything of value.
•Expenditures for public
purposes are not considered
gifts even if a private party
incidentally benefits.
86 Avoid These Headlines
Misuse of Public Resources
87 [City] Workers Charged with Misusing Public
Funds After Corruption Probe
(Aug. 2023)
The director of a City grants program conspired with a
former city employee to award contracts to the
company owned by the former employee. The former
employee’s company was awarded $1.4 million worth
of contracts and paid the program director about
$215,000 in return. The program director was
receiving payments during the time she was awarding
the contracts. Both employees were served warrants
for their arrest by the district attorney.
QUIZ TIME
Which are not permitted:
a) Making a few personal copies
on the City copy machine.
b) Calling your spouse from City
phone.
c) Using a City vehicle to pick up
a new mattress.
d) All of the above.
88 Misuse of Public
Resources
•Top fire officials suspected of driving county vehicles while collecting $1,000 monthly personal car allowance.
SAN BERNARDINO - San Bernardino County Fire Chief was
placed on unpaid administrative leave Wednesday after
county supervisors evaluated a human resources report
alleging he and a Deputy Fire Chief improperly drove county vehicles for personal use. They reportedly used a county trailer to move personal belongings between 2 cities. The two may have also violated county policy by driving county
vehicles while collecting a roughly $1,000 monthly personal car allowance.
89 Mass Mailing
Prohibition
•Rule: No newsletter or other mass mailing
may be sent at public expense.
•Purpose: Conserve resources, no
advantages for incumbents
•Application:
•200+ items/month
•official “featured”
•Penalties: Criminal liability; restitution.
90 Avoid these Headlines
Happy Holidays! Here’s a $2,000
Fine in Your Stocking
(Feb. 2019)
Community College District was fined $2,000 by
the FPPC for sending out more than 200 holiday
cards featuring photos of elected officials, two of
whom were running for re-election. The holiday
cards were designed, printed, and distributed
using public funds.
91 Avoid these Headlines
The Public Eye: City fined
$2,000 for newsletter
containing prohibited photos
City was fined $2,000 by the California
Fair Political Practices Commission last
week for blanketing households with a
newsletter that contained photos of City
Council members, a violation of the
Political Reform Act.
The State considers such activities a
prohibited form of campaigning with
taxpayer funds that gives incumbents an
unfair advantage.
92 Restrictions on
Loans
•Officials cannot receive loans:
•from anyone within the official’s
jurisdiction or with whom the
City contracts; or
•greater than $500 (except in
writing and with clear terms)
•Exceptions: loans received by the
official’s campaign committee;
normal bank and credit
indebtedness; and loans from family
members
93 Solicitations of
Political Support
•Soliciting campaign funds from City
officers or employees is unlawful
(except when included as part of a
communication to a significant
segment of the community).
•Conditioning employment and
compensation decisions on political
support is also prohibited.
94 Part V:
Personal
Financial Gain
95 Bribery & Extortion
•Requesting, receiving, or agreeing to
receive anything of value, including an
“advantage,” in exchange for official
action, or using an official position to
gain something of value, is a crime.
•Penalties: criminal fines, forfeiture of
office and disqualification from office,
jail time.
96 Bribery & Extortion
Ex-[City] Staffer Pleads Guilty in
Corruption Case (Jan. 2022)
The attorney admitted that he threatened
to fire one of the city’s outside counsel
unless that person paid off someone who
was threatening to reveal damaging
information about City’s handling of a
water department billing scandal.
In the previous month, prosecutors
announced that a former water
department general manager agreed to
plead guilty to bribery, admitting that he
pushed for the department to award a
$30-million contract to a company in
exchange for a $1-million-per-year job and
use of a Mercedes at that company once
he retired.
97 Former Parole Agent Who
Bribed [City’s] Public Works
Head Gets Prison Time
(Nov. 2023)
•A retired California parole agent
who admitted to bribing public
works head to hire a friend-of-
a-friend for a city job was
sentenced in federal court to
six months in prison and a
$10,000 fine.
98 Conflicts of Interest
Rules
•Political Reform Act
•Government Code§87100 et
seq., and the Regulations of
the Fair Political Practices
Commission (FPPC)
•Contractual Conflicts
•Government Code §1090
(FPPC and AG)
99 Purpose of Conflict
Rules
•Public officials owe paramount
loyalty to the public
•Personal or private financial
interests should not be allowed to
enter into the decision-making
process
100
Disclosure of Financial Interests
mjf7001
•Statements of Economic Interests
“Form 700”
•Purpose:
•alert officials of personal
interests that might be affected
•inform the public about potential
conflicts
•As of 1/1/2025, must use FPPC’s
electronic filing system
101
102
The Who, What, When and
Where of Disclosure
Who? All “designated” officials.
What? Interests in real property, investments, business positions, sources of income and gifts. When? Upon assuming office, annually (by 4/1), and upon leaving office. Where? File online. City Clerk will send you a reminder email.
Note: The documents are public records and late filers may face fines or penalties.
Game Q4
Form 700 Reporting
How much was the fine?
FPPC Enforcement Decision:
Director of Draining District failed to
timely file two Annual Statements of
Economic Interests, for 2019 and 2020.
103
Question 4 Answer:
$400 Fine
Can I Participate?
•Conflict-of-Interest Rules
•Political Reform Act
105
General Rule of
Disqualification
•A public official may not:
- make/participate/influence
- a governmental decision
- that will have a reasonably foreseeable
- and material financial effect on
- the economic interests
- of the official or his/her immediate family
members
106
POP QUIZ
The best time to discuss a
potential conflict with the City
Attorney is:
a) At a meeting because it is
convenient and will save money.
b) After the action/decision so
you know all the facts.
c) As early as possible.
d) Never, because it’s not a
privileged communication.
107
Recognizing and
Seeking Advice
•The conflict rules and regulations are
complex.
•Recognizing potential conflicts is
essential.
•Talk early with the City Attorney and
consider seeking advice from the FPPC
when economic interests may be affected
(positively or negatively) by a decision.
108
Five Disqualifying
Financial Interest
Categories
•Source of Income
•Business management,
employment or investment
•Real Property
•Gifts
•Personal Financial Effect
109
Economic Interests
•Sources of Income:
Any source of income of $500
or more during the prior 12
months for you or your
spouse or domestic partner.
110
Game Q5
Economic Interests
How much was the Fine?
FPPC Enforcement
Decision:
City councilmember
participated in discussions
and votes relating to cannabis
dispensaries that had a
material financial effect on his
real property.
111
Question 5 Answer:
$18,000 Fine
Game Q 6
Economic Interests
How much was the Fine?
FPPC Enforcement Decision:
Robert S, a member of a city council, attempted to
use his official position to influence a governmental
decision in which he had a financial interest, by
speaking before the Planning Commission
regarding the approval of an application for the
subdivision of land owned by a client.
113
Question 6 Answer:
$3,000 Fine
115
Economic Interests
•Business management,
employment or investment
•Any business entity in which an
official is a director, officer,
partner, trustee, manager or
employee.
•Any business entity in which an
official has a direct or indirect
investment of $2,000 or more.
Game Q7
Economic Interests
How much was the Fine?
116
FPPC Enforcement Decision:
County Office of Education employee used
her position to influence the award of agency
software contracts to the company owned by
her spouse.
Question 7 Answer:
$5,000 Fine
Game Q8
Economic Interests
How much was the Fine?
FPPC Enforcement Decision:
General Manager of large community services
district participated in awarding and executing
a contract for professional services to a
company that he owned and was the only
manager. As the District’s general manager, he
was familiar with conflict-of-interest rules and
had filed Form 700s for at least five years
preceding the illegal contract.
118
Question 8 Answer:
$4,500 Fine
Game Q9
Economic Interests
FPPC Enforcement Decision:
A City Councilmember violated conflict of
interest laws by voting to approve a permit
for a cannabis facility. The sale of the land
for the cannabis facility was handled by the
brokerage firm where the councilmember
was receiving income as an independent
contractor.
How much was the Fine?
120
Question 9 Answer:
$5,500 Fine
Real Property Conflict Rules
•Regulation 18702.2 provides the
materiality standards for interest in real
property
•“500-Foot Rule”
“500-Foot” Rule
•Under FPPC Regulation 18702.2:
•Different depending on the type of financial
interest
•Ownership
•Leasehold
•For an official’s financial interest (other than
leaseholds), there are 3 categories
•Broken down by where the official’s property
is located in relation to the property that is the
subject of the governmental decision
Within 500 feet
Where the official’s property is located within 500 feet of property that is the subject of a governmental
decision
Presumption that a decision that involves property
within 500 feet of the official’s property will have a
material impact on the official’s financial interest
Public official is disqualified unless there is clear and convincing evidence to rebut the presumption of a
conflict
More than 1,000 Feet Away
Where the official’s property is located more than
1,000 feet from the property that is the subject of a
governmental decision
•Presumption that a decision more than 1,000 feet
from the official’s property will NOT have a
material impact on the official’s financial
interest
•Public official is presumed to not have a conflict
and may participate unless clear and convincing
evidence that shows a substantial effect on the
public official’s property
Between
500 and
1,000 Feet
Under FPPC Regulation 18702.2, a decision
involving property between 500 and 1,000
feet will have a material impact on an
official’s financial interest (other than
leaseholds), if the decision would change:
•The development potential of the official’s
parcel;
•The income producing potential of the
official’s parcel;
•The highest and best use of the official’s
parcel;
•The character of the official’s parcel by
substantially altering traffic levels,
intensity of use, parking, view, privacy,
noise levels, or air quality; or
•The market value of the official’s parcel.
Leasehold Interests
Under FPPC Regulation 18702.2(c), the
reasonably foreseeable financial effects of
a governmental decision on any real
property in which a governmental official
has a leasehold interest as the lessee of
the property is material only if the
governmental decision will:
•Change the termination date of the lease;
•Increase or decrease the potential rental
value of the property;
•Change the official's actual or legally
allowable use of the property; or
•Impact the official's use and enjoyment
of the property.
QUIZ TIME
Interests in real property are:
a) A potential ground for a conflict of
interest.
b) Not a conflict if it is your home because
of the homestead exemption.
c) Not a problem as long as your property is
more than 500 feet away.
d) Always a conflict if the property is within
the jurisdiction, unless it’s a leasehold.
128
Conflicts Created By
Future Employment
Delays on the revolving door…
•May not participate in decisions involving a
prospective employer (includes interviews
and negotiations).
•Officials and senior management may not
represent parties before their former agency
for one year after leaving office.
129
Game Q10
Conflicts Created By Future Employment
FPPC Enforcement Decision:
Director of Water District Board of Directors failed to report income from employers with business before the
District, and voted to waive tax delinquency penalties for a company with which he had negotiated a future
employment contract.
How much was the Fine?
130
Question 10 Answer:
$4,000 Fine
How
did you
do?
Conflicts
Requiring
Disqualification
- Summary
Ask yourself whether the matter
involves:
•Someone who pays you
income
•Property that you own, lease
or have another interest in
•Your employer
•One of your investments
•Someone who has given you a
gift
•Your family’s finances
133
SB1439 (2023)-
New
Disqualification
Rules Regarding
Campaign
Contributions
•Prohibits certain officers from making, participating
in making or influencing decisions on licenses,
permits and other entitlements for use where they
have received a campaign contribution of more than
$500 within 12 months before or after a decision
•Eliminates exception to the Levine Act (GC 84308) for
Councilmembers acting in their elected roles
•Now applies to Councilmembers acting in elected or
appointed roles
•Expands reach from 3 months to 12 months before
and after decision
•Must disclose on record and recuse
•FPPC Opinion: Applies to contributions received
starting in 2023
134
Effects of
Disqualification
If you have a conflict
•Do not participate in any way in the
decision
•Do not talk to staff, Councilmembers or
Commissioners
•Do not attempt to influence the
decisionmakers
•Do not advocate or make public comment
•Do remove yourself from the process
entirely
Penalties
If you do not follow disqualification rules:
•Decision could be invalidated
•Offense can be prosecuted as a
misdemeanor and conviction could result
in loss of office
•Many cases, official faces personal fines
of up to $5,000 to $10,000 per offense,
among other possible penalties
•Attorneys’ fees
•Personal and political embarrassment
Exceptions to Potential
Economic Interest Conflicts
•Two exceptions:
•“Public generally”
•“Legally required participation”
137
Public Generally
Exception
•Decisions that affect a broad range
of persons or interests may be
exempted: 25% of all businesses, all
real property, or all individuals.
•15% if only real property interest is
your home (new 2020)
• Example: City fee decisions
138
Legally Required
Participation Exception
•May apply if a conflict disqualifies so many
officials that there is no longer a quorum
to make a decision.
•Note: Does not apply if quorum could be
met later.
139
Common Law Conflicts:
Personal Interests or
Bias
•Personal interests or biases (positive or
negative) about the facts or the parties
may cast doubt on your ability to make a
fair decision
•Need to exercise power with actual and
the appearance of disinterested skill,
zeal, and diligence
140
Personal Interests or
Bias
Procedural due process requires an
unbiased decision maker:
Personal (non-financial) interest in
outcome
Bias of loyalty/friendship to
individual involved
Informational bias due to receiving
information outside the public
hearing
141
QUIZ TIME
Will campaign
statements disqualify
you from voting on an
issue after the
election?
142
Public Interest vs.
Personal Interest
City of Fairfield v. Superior Court (1975) 14 Cal.3d 768:
“A councilman has not only a right but an obligation to discuss issues of vital concern with his constituents and to state his views on matters of public importance. . . . Campaign statements…do not disqualify the candidate from voting on matters which come before him after his election.”
Nasha v. City of Los Angeles (2004) 125 Cal.App.4th 470:
Plaintiff was seeking to develop five lots in Los Angeles. While the matter was pending before the Planning Commission, one of the Commissioners authored an article attacking the Plaintiff’s project. The Planning Commission voted to deny the project and, in the lawsuit filed by the Plaintiff against the City of Los Angeles, the Court found that the Planning Commission’s decision should be set aside due to an unacceptable probability of actual bias on the part of the Commissioner who authored the article. 143
What Happens If You Are Disqualified?
•If disqualified:
•Identify the applicable
interest with specificity
•Step down from the dais
and leave the room
•Refrain from any
discussion or participation
144
Due Process and
Ex Parte Contacts
•“Ex parte” communications occur when
decision makers receive evidence outside
of the noticed hearing
•This can include site visits, speaking with
parties/witnesses, conducting outside
research, or reading social media
•Because the affected party has a right to
comment on the basis for the decision,
decision makers should either avoid ex
parte contacts, or should disclose any
facts gathered outside the hearing or ex
parte contacts at the very beginning of the
hearing 145
Let’s Practice
Financial
interest in
development
500 to 1,000
feet Site Visit
Discussion
with
constituent
Personal
relationship
Contractual Conflicts of
Interest
Government Code §1090
•Section 1090 prohibits
officials and employees
from having financial
interests in contracts
made by them in their
official capacities or any
board of which they are
members
147
Contractual Conflicts of Interest
•If a public official or employee
has a financial interest in a
contract, the contract is
prohibited regardless of
whether the official
participates in or abstains from
the actual decision
148
Avoid These Headlines
Top [County] Official Helped Direct Millions to His Daughter’s Center Without Disclosing Family Connection
(Nov. 2023)
Without publicly disclosing his family connection, County Supervisor approved funding $3.1 million in two
subcontracts for a services center led by his daughter. The service center was not a legally registered nonprofit with the state. County spokespeople have not answered whether the supervisors and county staff knew the county was approving millions in funding to a group the state had declared was unable to legally seek or spend funds. The Board of
Supervisors has declined to reconsider the contracts because the County’s ethics code .
149
150
Violations of § 1090
•If contract is made in violation of
§1090, the contract will be
deemed void
•All monies paid under the
contract must be returned to the
local agency
•Willful violations may be
punished by fine, imprisonment
and disqualification from public
office
Contractual Conflicts of Interest
Exceptions
“Remote interests”
•(§1091) (e.g., officer or employee of
nonprofit)
•Effective 1/1/2026: New remote interest –
City may enter into a contact with a
company where official’s child is an officer,
director or holds significant ownership in the
company if disclosed and recuses
themselves.
• Still must disclose and recused themselves
“Non-interests”
•(§1091.5) (e.g., non-compensated officer of
a non-profit)
• May vote
151
Part VI: General
Ethical Principles
Universal Ethical Values:
⚫ Professional/Trustworthy
⚫ Community First
⚫ Respect
⚫ Fairness
152
Ethics Laws vs. Ethics
Law = minimum standards
What we must do
Floor - not the Ceiling
Ethics = What an official should
do
153
Be Professional
This value looks like:
I come prepared to meetings,
having read and studied any
materials and information provided
to me, but with an open mind
I respect confidential information
I follow through and take
responsibility for my actions
I keep my knowledge and skills
current 154
Community First
This value looks like:
I make impartial decisions, free of
narrow political interests and financial
and other personal interests that
might impair my independence of
judgment or action
I comply with both the spirit and the
letter of the law (Constitution, State
law, County/City Codes, Regulations
and Policies)
I do not use City resources or my
position for personal gain.
155
Be Trustworthy
This value looks like:
•I act truthfully with the public, City
officials, and staff
•I use accurate information
•I do what I say I will do
•I use my title only when conducting
official City business, carefully
considering whether I am exceeding
or appearing to exceed my authority
156
Be Respectful
This value looks like:
•I treat people with courtesy and
equitably
•I listen carefully
•I am engaged – I ask questions
•I involve staff and counsel early
•I work towards consensus
157
Fairness
This value looks like:
•I focus on merits not on
personalities
•I promote public involvement
•I provide more process than
required
•I consider all sides
•I apply policies consistently
158
159
Final Questions to
Ask
•What would inspire public
confidence?
•What decision best serve the
interests of the community
as a whole?
Public Perception
•What would you want to read about
on the front page?
•Even if you are confident about the
“right thing to do” – Don’t forget
about public perception
•The public needs to believe that “the
right thing has been done”
dotherightthing
160
161
Public Perception
Resources
•FPPC: 1-866-ASK-FPPC and on
the web at www.fppc.ca.gov
•Attorney General:
www.ca.ag.gov
•League of California Cities:
www.cacities.org
•Institute for Local Government:
www.ca.ilg.org
162
Questions?
Thank You!
SD #4864-2558-3431 v1
08199-0010
4927-5629-1856 v1
AB 1234 (2025) Page 1
OVERVIEW OF CALIFORNIA’S ETHICS LAWS: AB 1234
This booklet1 is a summary of many, but by no means all, of California’s numerous laws pertaining to “ethics,” which agency officials (including designated employees) are required to familiarize themselves with under AB 1234.2 Some of these laws are prohibitory in terms of forbidding certain actions. Other laws, such as those requiring transparency, openness, and fairness in government, place affirmative obligations on officials and their agencies. Regardless of how these laws are framed, their central purpose is to protect the public’s trust in local government institutions and those who serve in them.
I. Transparency Laws
Two key California laws ensure that local government actions are done openly and that records are accessible so that the public can monitor the “people’s business.” A. The Brown Act
General Rule. The Brown Act requires that public agency meetings are open to the public, and all persons are allowed to attend and participate in the meeting.3 A “meeting” is any gathering of a majority of the members of a legislative body to hear, discuss or deliberate about any item that is within its subject matter jurisdiction.4 A meeting is not just a traditional meeting of all members in a room. A meeting can also be any use of direct communications, including technological devices (such as phones or e-mail) or social media platforms5 (e.g., Facebook, Twitter), that a majority of the members use to discuss, deliberate, or take any action on any item of business within the subject matter jurisdiction of the entity.6
Officials should be particularly careful of a serial meeting, which may occur when through a series of communications with one or more other members outside of a meeting, a quorum of the members develops a collective concurrence on action the body will take.7
1 The information in this booklet is for educational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice.
Specific legal questions should be directed to agency legal counsel. 2 Assembly Bill (AB) 1234 became effective on January 1, 2006, and is codified in Government Code sections 53234 to 53235.2.
3 Government Code § 54950 and following.
4 Government Code § 54952.2(a).
5 See Government Code § 54952.2 (codifying rules on interaction with other legislative body members and the public when on social media.)
6 Government Code § 54952.2(b).
7 Government Code § 54952.2(b), 63 Cal. Op. Atty. Gen. 820 (1980).
AB 1234 (2025) Page 2
There are numerous exceptions to the general Brown Act meeting rule such as the attendance of a majority of members of the legislative body at social events and conferences. Members of a legislative body may also attend an open and noticed meeting of a standing committee of the legislative body; provided, however, that the members of the body who are not members of the committee attend only as observers.8
Social Media. From January 1, 2020 through January 1, 2026, stricter rules apply to discussions on social media platforms. For example, AB 992 prohibits even one member of the legislative body from responding in any manner to any other member’s social media posts: “A member of the legislative body shall not respond directly to any communication on an internet-based social media platform regarding a matter that is within the subject matter jurisdiction of the legislative body that is made, posted, or shared by any other member of the legislative body.”9 There are no exceptions to this rule and it applies to just one response, making it a violation of the Brown Act regardless of whether a majority of the legislative body reads the response.
AB 992 also prohibits a majority of the members of the legislative body from using social media to “discuss among themselves” business of a specific nature that is within the subject matter jurisdiction of the legislative body.10 It prohibits “communications made, posted, or shared on an internet-based social media platform between members of a legislative body, including comments or use of digital icons that express reactions to communications made by other members of the legislative body.”11 This prohibition against members “discussing among themselves” specifically includes emojis.
Meeting Location. In general, meetings must be held within the boundaries of the agency’s jurisdiction except under specified circumstances.12 Joint powers authorities (JPAs) may meet within the territory of any member, or if members are located throughout the state, then they can meet anywhere in the state.13
Teleconferencing. There are now three kinds of remote teleconferencing available as exceptions to normal Brown Act meeting requirements. First, under traditional teleconferencing rules, a quorum of the legislative body must meet in person in the same location within the jurisdiction, the address where an official is participating remoting must be included on the agenda, the agenda must be posted regularly and at
8 Government Code § 54954.2(c)(1)-(6).
9 Government Code § 54952.2(b)(3)(A).
10 Government Code § 54952.2(b)(3)(A).
11 Government Code § 54952.2(b)(3)(B)(i).
12 Government Code § 54954(b).
13 Government Code § 54954(d).
AB 1234 (2025) Page 3
the remote location, the remote location must be open to the public and votes must be taken by roll call.14
Second, under new limited remote teleconferencing rules that were effective January 1, 2023, less than a quorum of local officials can participate remotely if at least a quorum participates in-person at a single location identified on the agenda that is open to the public, and the legislative body follows certain procedural and substantive requirements.15 Regular noticed meeting and agenda posting requirements apply. The public must be allowed to access the meeting and provide real-time comments, including by teleconference with instructions.16 Submission of comments in advance cannot be required.17 The meeting must be paused when there is any teleconference disruption for the public and access requirements for requests for reasonable accommodations, including giving notice of the procedure, must be followed.18 Members attending remotely must participate through both audio and visual technology and disclose, before any action, adults present in room and their relationship to the member.19 The member must need to participate remotely for “just cause” or “emergency circumstances” as defined in the statute, and notify the legislative body at the earliest opportunity possible.20 Local officials are prohibited from participating remotely in meetings for more than five meetings in a calendar year for bodies that have regular meetings two times per month.21
Agendas and Action on Agenda Items. Agendas for regular meetings must be posted at least 72-hours in advance, including on the agency’s website if it has an Internet website,22 and must contain a brief description of all agenda items sufficient to allow the public to understand what business will be discussed.23 If an item is not on the agenda, members can only make a short report on activities, briefly respond to public statements, ask for clarification, or ask staff to put a matter of business on a future agenda.24 If a late item is an emergency or a subsequent need item, the body may vote to place the matter on the agenda.25
14 Government Code § 54953(b).
15 Government Code § 54953(f) (AB 2449). AB 361, which allowed legislative bodies to meet remotely for 30 days during a state of emergency expired January 1, 2024. 16 Government Code § 54953(f)(1)(C).
17 Government Code § 54953(f)(1)(E).
18 Government Code § 54953(f)(1)(D).
19 Government Code § 54953(f)(2)(B) & (C).
20 Government Code § 54953(f)(2)(A).
21 Government Code § 54953(f)(2) & (f)(3).
22 Government Code §§ 54954.2, 54956.
23 Government Code § 54954.2(a)(1).
24 Government Code § 54954.2(a)(2).
25 Government Code §§ 54954.2(b)(1), 54956.5.
AB 1234 (2025) Page 4
Public Participation. A regular meeting agenda must allow an opportunity for members of the public to speak on any item of interest, so long as the item is within the subject matter jurisdiction of the legislative body. The public must be allowed to speak on a specific item of business before or during the legislative body’s consideration of it.
The legislative body may adopt reasonable regulations, including decorum and time limits on public comments (e.g., three minutes per speaker plus at least twice the normally allotted time if language translation is needed).26 The public is also entitled to see copies of all open session documents provided by the agency to the legislative body at the time they are provided to a majority of the legislative body, or promptly after a meeting upon request if prepared and submitted at the meeting by some other person.27
Removing Disruptors. Effective January 1, 2023, a new section of the Brown Act adds authority for the presiding member of the legislative body conducting a meeting (or their designee) to remove, or cause the removal of, an individual for disrupting the meeting.28 “Disrupting” means engaging in behavior during a meeting of a legislative body that actually disrupts, disturbs, impedes, or renders infeasible the orderly conduct of the meeting and includes, but is not limited to, (a) a failure to comply with reasonable and lawful regulations adopted by a legislative body pursuant to Government Code section 54954.3 or any other law; or (b) e ngaging in behavior that constitutes use of force or a true threat of force.29 Prior to removing an individual, the presiding member (or their designee) must first warn the individual that their behavior is disrupting the meeting and that their failure to cease their behavior may result in their removal. The individual may then be removed if they do not promptly cease their disruptive behavior following the warning.30 A warning, however, is not necessary prior to removal if the disruptor’s behavior constitutes a use of force or a true threat of force.31 “True threat of force” means a threat that has sufficient indicia of intent and seriousness, that a reasonable observer would perceive it to be an actual threat to use force by the person making the threat.32
Closed Sessions. Legislative bodies may meet without the public present in closed session, but only for specific purposes that must be clearly stated on the agenda.33 The discussion in a closed session must be limited to the specified subject matter.34 Generally, only authorized attendees, who are necessary for the consideration
26 Government Code § 54954.3(b).
27 Government Code § 54954.1, 54957.5(b).
28 SB 1100; Government Code § 54957.95(a)(1).
29 Government Code § 54957.95(b)(1).
30 Government Code § 54957.95(a)(2).
31 Government Code § 54957.95(a)(2).
32 Government Code § 54957.95(b)(2).
33 Government Code §§ 54954.2(a), 54954.5.
34 See Shapiro v. San Diego City Council (2002) 96 Cal.App.4th 904.
AB 1234 (2025) Page 5
of the closed session item (such as board members, agency counsel, management and support staff, consultants, and other persons with an official role in the closed session item) may attend the closed session.35 Convenience or an interest in the closed session item, by itself, is not enough.36 Moreover, “semi-closed” sessions where certain interested members of the public are admitted while the remainder of the public is excluded are not permitted.37
Disclosure of Closed Session Information. The disclosure of confidential information acquired in a closed session is prohibited unless the legislative body authorizes disclosure of the information. “Confidential information” means communication made in closed session that is specifically related to the basis for the closed session meeting.38 If permitted by a policy or bylaw of a JPA, a member of the legislative body of a local agency that serves on the board of a JPA may disclose confidential information obtained in a closed session of the JPA to: (a) legal counsel of the local agency and (b) other members of the local agency legislative body in a closed session of the local agency.39
Penalties. It can be a misdemeanor to violate the Brown Act if an official takes action and intends to deprive the public of information to which the member knows or has reason to know the public is entitled.40 Moreover, actions taken in violation of the Brown Act are voidable if the legislative body refuses, after notice is given, to cure the violation.41 A court may award reasonable attorneys and costs to a plaintiff who prevails in an action for certain Brown Act violations.42
B. The Public Records Act
General Rule. Under the Public Records Act,43 members of the public have the right to inspect and obtain copies of “any writing containing information relating to the conduct of the public’s business prepared, owned, used or retained by any state or local agency regardless of physical form or characteristics.”44 This right of access extends to electronic data regarding agency business (e.g., emails, texts, etc.), maintained in personal accounts or on personal devices.45 This right is enshrined in the California
35 83 Ops. Cal. Atty. Gen. 221 (2000).
36 82 Ops. Cal. Atty. Gen. 29 (1999).
37 46. Ops. Cal. Atty. Gen. 34 (1965).
38 Government Code § 54963(a).
39 Government Code § 54956.96; see also Government Code § 54954.5(j) providing safe harbor agenda language for local agency closed session on JPA closed session information. 40 Government Code § 54959.
41 Government Code § 54960.1; Education Code §72121(b). 42 Government Code § 54960.5.
43 Government Code § 7920.000 and following.
44 Government Code § 7927.300.
45 City of San Jose v. Superior Court (2017) 2 Cal.5th 608.
AB 1234 (2025) Page 6
Constitution46 and is broadly construed by the courts to further the public’s right of access to public records.
Agency Obligations. The Public Records Act requires public agencies to assist members of the public in making focused records requests and establishes time frames in which to respond to such requests.47
Official’s Access to Records. Except for records within an official’s scope of duties, public officials generally have no greater rights of access to public records than members of the public.48
Exceptions. Similar to closed session meetings under the Brown Act, the Public Records Act recognizes that in some instances a public agency should be able to withhold certain records, particularly where records may contain privileged or confidential information, or where the disclosure may violate a personal privacy interest.
These exceptions are enumerated in the Act or established by case law and are narrowly construed.49
For example, attorney-client privileged communications, containing information such as advice, legal research, or strategy, are exempt from disclosure.50 Personnel, medical, or similar files, the disclosure of which would constitute an unwarranted invasion of personal privacy, are exempt from disclosure.51 Information that may jeopardize law enforcement activities, or endanger the safety of witnesses, is also exempt from disclosure.52 In some cases, the agency may withhold a record if the agency can demonstrate that the public interest in withholding the record “clearly outweighs” the public interest in disclosing the record.53 This includes information related to the “deliberative process” of an agency officials where the courts have recognized that the public interest is furthered by candid internal discussion, such as access to a broad range of opinions that may assist in policymaking, and in certain situations, the exposure of such decisionmaking processes may discourage such candid discussions.54
46 Cal. Constitution, art. I, § 3.
47 Government Code §§ 7922.600, 7922.535.
48 Government Code § 7920.515.
49 See Government Code §§ 7923.600-7930.215.
50 Government Code § 7927.705; Evidence Code § 954; Business & Professions Code § 6149. 51 Government Code § 7927.700.
52 Government Code §§ 7923.600–.625.
53 Government Code § 7922.000; see Michaelis, Montanari & Johnson v. Superior Court (2006) 38 Cal.4th 1065.
54 See Times Mirror Company v. Superior Court (1991) 53 Cal.3d 1325.
AB 1234 (2025) Page 7
Renumbering. Effective January 1, 2023, the Public Records Act was recodified, reorganized and moved to Government Code section 7920.000, et seq.55 For example, former Government Code section 6254(c) (which exempts “personnel, medical, or similar files, the disclosure of which would constitute an unwarranted invasion of personal privacy”) is relocated to Government Code section 7927.700.
There were no substantive revisions to the Public Records Act as a result of this renumbering.
Penalties. If an agency unreasonably denies access to public records, it is liable for a mandatory award of court costs and reasonable attorney’s fees.56
II. Personal Advantages and Perks
California law prohibits acceptance of certain personal advantages and perks associated with public office and service. The general principle underlying the “no perks” laws is that one’s status as a public servant and one’s access to public resources should not afford that person special privileges. There are two categories of “no perks” laws. One relates to perks that others provide public officials (e.g., gifts). The other involves advantages that officeholders provide themselves (e.g., use of public resources).
The laws in this area are designed to promote the general ethical values of fairness, responsibility, and trustworthiness. For example, receipt of perks from others undermines the public’s trust that decision-makers are treating everyone who comes before them fairly and making decisions based on the general public interest.
When officeholders give themselves perks or misuse resources, the public’s trust that these officeholders are being careful and public-minded stewards of taxpayer resources is undermined. To the extent that some of these perks involve political advantages, they undermine the fairness of campaigns and elections. The applicable laws address the following issues:
Compensation:
State law limits compensation for legislative body members. For instance, council members of a general law city to $300 - $1,000 per month, depending on the size of the jurisdiction.57
55 AB 473 & 474.
56 Government Code § 7923.115(a).
57 Government Code §§ 36516, 36516.1.
AB 1234 (2025) Page 8
Expense Reimbursement:
As a general rule, agencies may only reimburse officials for actual and necessary expenses.58 AB 1234 further requires that an agency adopt a written policy specifying reimbursable activities and rates.59 Officials must timely report reimbursable expenses using report forms and must provide receipts documenting the expenses.60 AB 1234 also requires officials to report on “meetings” of other bodies subject to the Brown Act attended at public expense at the next meeting of the official’s legislative body.61
If an official does not comply with the local policy and procedures, the official risks the loss of the reimbursement privilege, having to pay restitution and civil penalties (including penalties of triple the value of the resources) and could be banned from holding public office.62
Gifts:
A gift is anything of value an official receives for which the official does not provide monetary or other consideration of equal or greater value.63 Rebates and discounts provided to officials may also constitute “gifts” unless made in the regular course of business and without regard to the official’s status.64 A meal is considered a gift, unless it is provided at a person’s home as part of an individual’s “home hospitality,” provided as part of a “reciprocal exchange” between an official and a non -lobbyist,65 friend, or a governmental agency pays for it.66 Gifts to family members of public officials are treated as gifts to the official unless the donor and the family member have an established social or work relationship, and the donor does not have business before the official.67
Gift reporting. Certain officials must report gifts on their Statements of Economic Interests, also called Form 700.68 The gifts must be reported if the total value of all gifts from a source during the calendar year is $50 or more.69 If the official does
58 Government Code § 53232.2.
59 Government Code § 53232.2(b).
60 Government Code § 53232.3.
61 Government Code § 53232.3(d).
62 Government Code § 53232.4.
63 Government Code § 82028(a).
64 Id.
65 Lobbyists may not gift more than $10 per month to any official. Government Code § 86203. 66 2 Cal. Code Regs. §§ 18942(a)(7); 18942(a)(8); 18942.2; 18944.3. 67 2 Cal. Code Regs. § 18943.
68 Government Code §§ 87200, 87207, 89503; 2 Cal. Code Regs. § 18940(a). 69 Government Code § 87207(a)(1).
AB 1234 (2025) Page 9
not know the amount of the gift, he or she must make a good faith estimate of its fair market value.70
Gift limitations. Beginning in 2025 through 2026, an official may not receive gifts from one source of a value of more than $630 in a calendar year.71
Travel gifts. These gifts are particularly fraught with peril for an official. An elected or appointed official must forfeit his or her office if he or she receives free or discounted transportation from transportation companies.72 If travel is provided by anyone other than a transportation company, other rules apply. Generally, the official must report the travel gift on the official’s Form 700 if the travel expense was worth more than $50.73 Like any other gifts, reportable travel expenses are subject to a maximum gift limit. Travel related expenses are not gifts if provided in connection with giving a speech or participation in a program such as admission, refreshments, intrastate transportation for the event, necessary lodging and meals on the day of activity.74
Gratuities and Rewards:
An official commits a misdemeanor if he or she receives any type of gratuity or reward for performing his or her official duties.75
Honoraria:
An official cannot receive an honorarium for giving a speech, writing an article , or attending a public or private conference, convention, meeting, social event, meal or similar gathering in his or her capacity as an official.76 Honoraria are prohibited because such communications are part of an official’s public service. An official may return an honorarium within 30 days of receipt without penalty or may donate the honorarium to a non-profit group.77 Payment for a speech or article in connection with private business is not considered an honorarium.78
Misuse of Public Resources:
70 2 Cal. Code Regs. § 18946(b).
71 Government Code §§ 89503, 89506; 2 Cal. Code Regs. § 18940.2(a). The gift limit is generally adjusted every two years.
72 Cal. Constitution, art. XII, § 7.
73 Government Code § 87207(a)(1).
74 Government Code § 89506; 2 Cal. Code Regs. § 18950–18950.3. 75 Penal Code § 70(a).
76 Government Code § 89502.
77 Government Code § 89501(b)(2).
78 2 Cal. Code Regs. § 18932(a)(1).
AB 1234 (2025) Page 10
Officials cannot use public funds or resources for personal, non -public purposes, including campaigns.79 “Public resources” includes such things as staff time, office equipment (telephones, fax machines, photocopiers and computers), and office supplies (stationary, stamps, and other items), but excludes incidental or minimal uses.80 “Personal” use of public resources includes activities that are for personal enjoyment, private gain or advantage. “Use” means the use of public resources that is substantial enough to result in a gain in advantage for the user and a loss to the local agency that can be estimated as a monetary value. Penalties for violation are severe: they include jail, disqualification from office, civil penalties up to $1,000 per day plus three times the value of the unlawful use.81
Gifts of Public Funds:
Local agencies cannot make a “gift” of public money or anything of value.82 A gift means that the agency receives no consideration for the gift – that it gets nothing in return. Even if a private party incidentally benefits from a public expenditure, however, it is not a gift of public funds if the payment was made for public purposes within the agency’s jurisdiction (e.g., the agency offering discounted rates to a nonprofit organization for the use of its facilities). Courts generally give great deference to an agency’s determination of public purposes.
Mass Mailings:
Officials cannot send newsletters or other “mass mailings” at public expense.83 The rule generally applies to the distribution of 200 or more items “featuring” the official.84 “Featuring” means documents that contain the name or pictures of an elected official except as part of a standard letterhead. While there are some exceptions, no exception applies for someone who is a candidate, 60 days before that election. An official could have criminal liability and be forced to pay restitution if he or she violates this law.85
Loan Restrictions:
An official cannot receive a loan from those within his or her agency or with whom the agency contracts.86 (This does not operate to prohibit bank or credit card
79 Penal Code § 424; Government Code § 8314.
80 Government Code § 8314(b)(1) and (3).
81 Government Code § 8314(c)(1).
82 Cal. Constitution, art. XVI, § 6.
83 Government Code § 89001.
84 Government Code § 89001(a)(2)
85 Government Code §§ 91000, 91002, 91005.5.
86 Government Code § 87460.
AB 1234 (2025) Page 11
indebtedness made in the regular course of the company’s business.) An official also cannot receive a personal loan greater than $500, unless the loan is made in writing, with clear terms, and with the date, amounts and interest payable.87 However, loans are not covered by these rules if they are made to the official’s campaign committee, are normal bank and credit indebtedness, or are loans from family members.88
Solicitations of Political Support:
Soliciting campaign funds from agency officers or employees is unlawful except when included as part of a communication to a significant segment of the community.89 Officials also cannot condition employment or compensation decisions on political support.90
Reporting of Behested Payments:
Elected officials must report payments (i.e., donations) made to a government agency or charity at their request for legislative, governmental, or charitable purposes within 30 days of the date on which the payment or payments exceed $5,000 for a single source in a calendar year.91 Like many of the disclosure requirements, the underlying purpose of this law is to allow the public to know when there might be a potential for influence over a public official.
III. Personal Financial Gain
California law – unsurprisingly – prohibits the use of public office for personal financial gain.
A. General Laws.
Bribery and Extortion:
87 Government Code § 87461.
88 Government Code §§ 87460, 87461.
89 Government Code § 3205.
90 Government Code §§ 3204, 3205.5.
91 Government Code § 82015; 2 Cal. Code Regs. § 18215.3
AB 1234 (2025) Page 12
It is a crime to request, receive or agree to receive anything of value, including money or “advantages,” in exchange for official action.92 The advantage can be a future one and need not involve the payment of money. It is also illegal to receive payments for appointments to public office.93 Extortion is the wrongful use of an official’s position in order to get something of value from someone.94 Penalties for bribery and extortion are harsh: criminal fines, forfeiture of office, and disqualification from office.95 B. Political Reform Act and Other Conflict of Interest Rules.
Conflict of Interest Rules:
The two primary statutory schemes addressing conflicts of interest are the Political Reform Act and supporting Fair Political Practices Commission regulations, along with Government Code section 1090 and following. Conflict of interest rules are based on the idea that public officials owe the highest loyalty to the public, and that their personal or private financial needs should not be part of their political decisions.
Disclosure of financial interests. Public officials report their financial interests in their Form 700 statements. These statements are intended to alert officials to personal interests that might interfere with public duties, and also let the public know about potential conflicts. The disclosure requirements apply to nearly every local elected official, members of commissions, boards, committees and other local bodies with significant decision making authority, and staff members designated by the local agency.96 The forms require the disclosure of interests in real property, investments, business positions, sources of income, and gifts.97 The forms are filed within 30 days of the official assuming office, each year thereafter (by April 1), and within 30 days after leaving office.98 The document is filed online or sometime with the local agency, which will send it to the FPPC if needed, and may be posted on the local agency’s website.99 These forms are public records,100 and late filers may face fines or penalties.101 Finally, as of January 1, 2025, Form 700 statements must be filed through the FPPC’s electronic filing system.102
92 Penal Code §§ 7, 68.
93 Penal Code § 74.
94 Penal Code § 518.
95 Penal Code §§ 68(a), 85; see also Government Code §§ 3060 - 3074. 96 Government Code § 82019.
97 Government Code §§ 87206 -87210.
98 Government Code §§ 87202 – 87204.
99 Government Code §84616.
100 Government Code § 81008.
101 Government Code § 91013.
102 Government Code § 87500 (a)(1).
AB 1234 (2025) Page 13
Economic Interest Conflicts. Generally, a public official may not make, participate in, or influence a governmental decision that will have a foreseeable and material financial effect on the official’s economic interest.103 Such economic interests include those of the official as well as the official’s immediate family.104 The prohibition does not just apply to voting, but the entire process leading up to voting.
The conflict rules are extremely complicated. Officials should seek advice very early if the official believes any of these economic interests may be affected by a decision:
any source of income of $500 or more during the prior 12 months for either the official or his or her spouse or partner;105
any business entity in which the official has a direct or indirect investment of $2,000 or more or where the official is a director, officer, partner, trustee, manager or employee of the business;106
real property interests worth $2,000 or more107 (and look out for any projects that may affect the characteristics of the land use or zoning around the official’s real property, modify the taxes, fees or assessments applicable to the property, or generally affect the market value of properties , especially if it is within a 500 foot radius of the project site or if there are particular facts raising concerns about the effects of the decision on that real property interest);108
sources of gifts to the official worth $630 or more (total) in the past 12 months;109 or
103 See Government Code § 87100 and following.
104 See Government Code § 87103.
105 Government Code § 87103(c); 2 Cal. Code Regs. § 18700(c)(6)(C). 106 Government Code § 87103(a), (d); 2 Cal. Code Regs. §§ 18700(c)(6)(A), 18700(c)(6)(D). 107 2 Cal. Code Regs. § 18700(c)(6)(B).
108 2 Cal. Code Regs. § 18700(c)(6)(B). There may be a conflict of interest if the real property interest is:
(1) within 500 feet of the project site, unless there is clear and convincing evidence that there is no measureable impact on the real property interest; (2) 500 to 1,000 feet of the real property interest, if the decision would affect the development potential, income producing potential, highest and best use, character, or market value of that real property interest; and (3) 1,000 feet or more, unless there is clear and convincing evidence available that the decision will have a substantial effect on the real property. 2 Cal. Code Regs. §18702.2.
109 2 Cal. Code Regs. § 18700(c)(6)(E).
AB 1234 (2025) Page 14
personal finances if the official or officials’ immediate family’s finances would receive a measurable financial benefit or loss of $500 or more in any 12- month period due to the decision.110
Exceptions to disqualification rule. Two exceptions apply that may allow an official to participate in a decision even if he or she has one of the interests listed above.
First, the public generally exception means that an official may participate in a decision if the decision would affect a “significant segment of the public” and, in comparison, that effect on the public official’s financial interest is not “unique”.111 Second, the legally required participation exception may apply if a conflict disqualifies so many officials that there would not be a quorum to take action.112
Future Employment Conflicts. An official is not allowed to participate in a decision involving a prospective employer.113 This situation arises when an official is negotiating or has “any arrangement” concerning prospective employment with someone with business before the official’s agency. Moreover, revolving door rules restrict an official and senior management from representing parties before their former agency until they have been out of office for at least one year.114 Note that some agencies have adopted even more restrictive prohibitions.
Incompatible Office Conflicts. There can be such a thing as too much public service, particularly where an official holds multiple public offices and the duties of such offices create potentially conflicting loyalties. State law prohibits public officers from simultaneously holding multiple offices that are “incompatible” (e.g., the powers or jurisdiction of the offices may overlap such as a city council member and school board member).115 Acceptance of the second office results in the official automatically vacating the prior office.116 This prohibition does not extend, however, where the simultaneous holding of particular offices is compelled or expressly authorized by law.117 For example, the incompatible office doctrine does not apply to joint powers
110 2 Cal. Code Regs. § 18702.5.
111 2 Cal. Code Regs. § 18703. A “significant segment of the public” is at least 25 percent of the businesses or non-profit entities within the official’s jurisdiction, real property, and all individuals within the jurisdiction; or at least 15% of the residential real property if the only interest at issue is the official’s primary residence. The regulation also has specific rules for certain decisions, including those involving public services and utilities, rental properties, and states of emergency. 112 Government Code § 87101. Note: this exception does not apply where a quorum could later be met with a qualified member who is absent.
113 Government Code § 87407.
114 Government Code § 87406.3.
115 Government Code § 1099.
116 Government Code § 1099(b).
117 Government Code § 1099(a); People ex rel. Lacey v. Robles (2020) 44 Cal.App.5th 804.
AB 1234 (2025) Page 15
agencies where the agreement that created the agency provides for its governing board members to be elected officials from the member agencies.118
Campaign Contribution Conflicts. Beginning January 1, 2023, the disqualification rules under the Levine Act (Government Code section 84308) regarding campaign contributions were expanded.119 Certain officers are prohibited from making, participating in making or influencing decisions on licenses, permits and other entitlements for use (which includes contracts and franchise agreements) where they have received a campaign contribution of more than $500 within 12 months before or after a decision.120 SB 1439 extended the timeframe from 3 months before and after a decision to 12 months and eliminated an exception to the Levine Act for Councilmembers acting in their elected roles; the prohibition now applies to Councilmembers acting in either elected or appointed roles.121 Prior to rendering any decision in a proceeding involving a license, permit, or other entitlement for use, each officer of the agency who received a contribution within the preceding 12 months in an amount of more than five hundred dollars ($500) from a party or from any participant must disclose that fact on the record of the proceeding and recuse themselves.122 The FPPC issued an opinion that SB 1439 applies to contributions received starting in 2023.
Other Personal Interests or Bias Conflicts. An official must be careful to be aware of - and not act on - personal interests or biases about the facts or parties that could cast doubt on the official’s ability to make a fair decision. Such biases may result in disqualification under the common law doctrine.123
What If An Official Is Disqualified? If an official is disqualified due to a conflict of interest, then he or she must take the following steps, immediately before the consideration of the regular or closed session item:124
state the specific nature and provide specific details of each type of financial interest, (it is not enough to simply say “I have a conflict”);
step down from the dais and leave the room125 when the matter is discussed; and
118 78 Ops. Cal. Atty. Gen. 60 (1995); __ Ops. Cal. Atty. Gen. __ (2019) [2019 WL 3523679 (in the Joint Exercise of Powers Act the Legislature has abrogated the rule against holding incompatible offices as to constituent governing board members serving on the governing boards of joint powers agencies). 119 SB 1439.
120 Government Code § 84308(b)&(c).
121 Government Code § 84308.
122 Government Code § 84308(c).
123 See Clark v. City of Hermosa Beach (1996) 48 Cal.App.4th 1152, 1170-1173. 124 2 Cal. Code Regs. § 18707. Partial absence does not excuse the official’s public identification requirement.
AB 1234 (2025) Page 16
do not discuss the issue with staff or other officials or otherwise participate in the decision.126
Even if disqualified, an official can appear before the agency as a member of the public on matters that directly affect the official’s personal interests.127
Penalties. Violations of the conflict of interest rules may result in criminal and civil sanctions, disqualification from office, and administrative fines assessed by the FPPC.
C. Section 1090: Ban on Contractual Conflicts of Interest
Government Code section 1090 bans self-dealing, so that officials cannot personally benefit from contracts with their agency. This law makes it illegal for officials to have financial interests in contracts that they make in their official capacities or any contract made by the board or body of which the official is a member.128 Courts have interpreted broadly what constitutes a contract.129 An official does not actually need to have financial gain in order to trigger this rule.130 Moreover, Section 1090 does not require an officer to have any actual significant personal influence over a contract, but rather the “mere possibility of any such influence.”131 Unlike the Political Reform Act, the prohibited interest does not need to have a “material effect” on the public official’s source of income. “Any interest, except a remote one, which would prevent the official from exercising absolute loyalty and undivided allegiance to the best interest of the state is prohibited under the statute.”132
Simply choosing not to vote (abstaining) does not make the contract acceptable.133 The agency body cannot enter into an agreement if one of its members has a financial interest in it.
Exceptions. There is no problem if the contract existed before the official took office, provided that the contract is not changed while the official is in office.134
125 City Councilmembers and Planning Commissioners are required to leave the room and for other public officials, leaving the room is a best practice.
126 2 Cal. Code Regs. §§ 18704, 18707; Government Code § 87105. 127 2 Cal. Code Regs. §§ 18704(d)(2), 18707(a)(3).
128 Government Code § 1090.
129 Millbrae Assn. for Residential Survival v. City of Millbrae (1968) 262 Cal.App.2d 222, 237. 130 People v. Honig (1996) 48 Cal.App.4th 289, 315.
131 Id. at 325.
132 Id. at 328.
133 Government Code § 1092.
134 85 Ops.Cal.Atty.Gen. 176 (2002); 68 Ops.Cal.Atty.Gen. 337 (1985); see also City of Imperial Beach v.
Bailey (1980) 103 Cal.App.3d 191.
AB 1234 (2025) Page 17
Moreover, contracts may not be prohibited if the official’s interest is terminated before participating in the governmental decision.135 There are also more complicated exceptions for what are designated as “remote” and “non-interests”, which may allow the contract to be executed provided the official a “remote” interest does not participate in the making of the contract.136 An official should speak with the agency’s counsel to get advice about whether these exceptions apply.
Penalties. Severe penalties apply to those who violate Section 1090. First, a contract that violates Section 1090 is void, and the government will get the money back that was paid under the contract.137 A willful violation is punishable by jail, fine, and disqualification from public office.138
IV. General Ethics Principles
Despite the myriad rules and regulations pertaining to ethical conduct, officials and their agencies are often confronted with situations where there are no black and white rules. In addition, many of the ethics laws simply set minimum standards as to what must (or must not) be done, not what should be done. Thus, the question of how high to raise the ethical ceiling is often left to agencies and their officials to determine.
To resolve an ethical dilemma, an official must first determine what type of dilemma he or she is facing. There are two common types of ethical dilemmas: (1) personal costs and (2) right-versus-right.
A “personal cost” dilemma can involve concerns that doing the right thing may jeopardize one’s position or impact a valued relationship. While these decisions are not easy, the answer is relatively straightforward: being ethical means doing the right thing regardless of personal costs.
A “right-versus-right” dilemma can be more difficult to resolve because they typically involve competing positive interests. For example, what do you do when a loyal supporter or employee is competing for a position? Loyalty is a bona fide value, but so is responsibility in terms of selecting the person who will best serve the agency.
When deciding a right-versus-right dilemma, the official must evaluate which ethical values are involved in the decision, whether the values conflict, whether a course of action will meet both values, whether one course of action will better meet a more important value, what decision best benefits the community as a whole, and what decision will promote public confidence in the official’s agency and leadership.
135 86 Ops.Cal.Atty.Gen. 187 (2003).
136 Government Code §§ 1091, 1091.5.
137 Government Code § 1090, 1092.
138 Government Code § 1097.
AB 1234 (2025) Page 18
Members of the board of a separate joint powers agency (JPA) who are appointed by their local agency to the JPA often face the dilemma of voting in accordance with the position taken by the member agency’s board and constituents versus voting in a manner the representative believes may be in the best interests of the JPA. While such representatives to a JPA may exercise discretion in voting, a vote “contrary” to the position of his or her appointing body or constituents may result in the removal of the individual from the JPA board of directors.139
An official must establish his or her own ethical framework to assist in making tough decisions. Important public service values attach to all public officials, including community first, trustworthiness, responsibility, respect, and fairness.
Community First includes compliance with applicable laws and policies, making impartial decisions free of any outside or personal financial influences, and not using agency resources for personal gain.
Trustworthiness includes such behaviors as acting truthfully with the public, staff and other officials, using accurate information to support a position, and reporting suspected improprieties.
Responsibility includes coming prepared for meetings, avoiding representing personal opinions as agency positions, and only making realistic promises.
Respect includes treating everyone with courtesy, listening carefully and asking questions, and making sure to involve relevant staff members with decision making.
Fairness requires that an official focus on the merits of issues, not personalities, promote public involvement, apply agency policies consistently, and consider exceptions when policies have unintended consequences or undue burdens.
Finally, public perception is a good test of whether a decision is ethical or not. If an official would not be comfortable reading about the action on a newspaper’s front page or an internet web portal or social media platform, the official should consider the action carefully with the law and these principles in mind.
139 Harbach v. El Pueblo de Los Angeles etc. Com. (1971) 14 Cal.App.3d 828, 834 (joint powers agency board member may exercise discretion in voting); see also 83 Ops. Cal. Atty. Gen. 267 (2000).
AB 1234 (2025) Page 19
Ethics Resources
An official can turn to several resources for ethics advice.
• The FPPC has a toll free number (1-877-ASK-FPPC) and a website at www.fppc.ca.gov .
• The California Attorney General’s office has resources available online at www.oag.ca.gov .
• The Institute for Local Government has many excellent publications on ethics available at www.ca-ilg.org .
• League of California Cities also has many helpful articles and publication on ethics at www.cacities.org .
Finally, an official may ask his or her own agency’s legal counsel for assistance.