City Attorney’s Office
Memorandum
Date: May 10, 2022
To: Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council
From: Luis Martin Haro, Deputy City Attorney
Subject: Conflicts Review – Parks & Recreation Commission Applicants
Background
The City Attorney’s Office has been asked to review applications to City Boards and Commissions regarding potential conflicts of interest. The applications generally do not provide complete information regarding potential conflicts; however, they do occasionally disclose potential confl icts of interest or incompatible offices. The purpose of this memorandum is to highlight areas of potential conflict that are disclosed by the application. In order to analyze potential conflicts, it is necessary to consider the duties of the particular commission for which the applicant is seeking appointment. This review is limited to the information provided on the applications and is not intended to be comprehensive investigation of potential conflicts involving the applicants.
Commission Duties
Pursuant to the City Charter and the City Code, the Parks & Recreation Commission is responsible for the establishment, acceptance and continue supervision of a long-range parks and recreations program for the City; planning and implementing an annual program of recreational and cultural activities for all age groups; recommending and supervising all the City’s contractual relationships with other agencies in the recreational field; and serve as correlating agency between the City and other units of gov ernment on recreational undertakings.
Legal Conflicts that May Preclude Vote or Participation
Certain positions may preclude a commissioner from participating in a commission discussion or from voting if a matter involving the entity comes before the commission. While this list is not complete, these types of conflicts generally fall within one or more of the following situations:
• An applicant has an interest in property the value of which could be affected by a decision coming before the Commission
• An application shows entities that are “sources of income” to a potential commissioner within the 12 months preceding the start of the commission term, as defined under the Political Reform Act, • An applicant is an officer or employee of an entity that could be involved in a matter coming before the commission, or
• An applicant engages in a profession serving the local market that is likely to realize financial benefits or detriments, distinguishable from the public generally, that would result from the work performed by the Commission.
Conflicts Review – Parks & Recreation Commission Applicants May 10, 2022
Appearance of Bias
There may be facts which would not amount to a legal conflict of interest requiring a commissioner to recuse him- or herself from a commission vote or discussion, however the relationship could create an appearance of bias on the part of the commissioner. The Code of Ethics and Values requires that Commissioners “make impartial decisions, free of . . . financial and other personal interests that impair [one’s] independence of judgment or action.” Accordingly, a situation may arise that may require a commissioner to recuse him- or herself if the facts could reasonably lead one to conclude that the applicant would be biased for or against an entity or entities.
Review of Applicants
Set forth below are the applicants and any apparent legal conflicts of interest and/or appearance of bias related to entities that are likely to come before the commission in some manner, as identified on the applications.
• Vannessa Arellanes
o The applicant is employed with Orchard Commercial, Inc. as a Front Desk Coordinator/receptionist. No other sources of income were disclosed. o Orchard Commercial, Inc. currently serves as a property manager for the convention center. Applicant’s employment with Orchard does not preclude appointment to the commission. However, if an action in which Orchard Commercial has a substantial interest comes before the committee and such interest is distinguishable from the public generally, the applicant should recuse from taking action.
• Carl Kalauokalani
o The applicant did not disclose a present employer or any sources of income. o Because neither an employer nor sources of income were disclosed on the application, it’s unclear whether an incompatible office or apparent conflict of interest exists.
• Rebecca McCathern
o The applicant is employed with Samsung as the Director of Human Resources. No other sources of income were disclosed.
o The information disclosed reveals neither incompatible offices nor apparent conflicts of interest.
• Brittany Ricketts
o The applicant is employed with Marble, PC., as a family law attorney. o The applicant currently serves as a board member for Elevate Community Center.
Elevate Community Center (“Elevate”). A review of Elevate’s website shows that its purpose is financial wellness education and service.
o The information disclosed reveals neither incompatible offices nor apparent conflicts of interest.
• Marcelo Trillo
o The applicant did not disclose a present employer or any sources of income. o Because neither an employer nor sources of income were disclosed on the application, it is unclear whether an incompatible office or apparent conflict of interest exists.
• Ali Zargari
o The applicant is employed with Bloom Energy as the Director of Engineering Development.
Conflicts Review – Parks & Recreation Commission Applicants May 10, 2022
o Bloom Energy has active lawsuits against the City. Bloom sued the City when the City adopted a regulation that would have prohibited the use of natural-gas-powered fuel cells, which Bloom installs. The City may consider similar regulations of natural -gas powered energy sources in the future. In addition, Bloom also sued the City in Mid -2021 after the City declined to issue permits for three proposed natural gas-powered fuel cells without use permits and an environmental analysis. Although Bloom is actively engaged in adverse litigation, given that fuel cell regulation and approval of permits fall outside the scope of the Commission’s charge, a conflict of interest is unlikely. However, in the event such a conflict does arise because a matter involving Bloom comes before the Commission, the appropriate action is for the applicant to recuse.
• Elisa Muresan
o The applicant did not disclose a present employer or any sources of income. LinkedIn states that the applicant is self-employed as a private investor. o Because neither an employer nor sources of income were disclosed on the application, it’s unclear whether an incompatible office or apparent conflict of interest exists.
• Maureen Reilly Chu
o The applicant is employed with Todd Groundwater as a Senior Engineer. o Todd Groundwater is a firm that specializes in planning, development, management and protection of groundwater.
o The applicant also holds the position of troop leader for Girl Scouts of Northern California. o The information disclosed reveals neither incompatible offices nor apparent conflicts of interest.
• Edmund Drozek
o The applicant disclosed that he is retired but previously employed by Xerox, Oracle, and the US Navy. No sources of income were disclosed.
o The information disclosed reveals neither incompatible offices nor apparent conflicts of interest.
Conclusion
The City Council may wish to consider the above comments in making its appointments to the Commission.
cc: Rajeev Batra, City Manager
Nora Pimentel, MMC, Assistant City Clerk