Council votes against gift restriction ordinance, decision that splits floor

Amid accusations and counter-accusations, Santa Monica City Council members voted No come back with an ordinance that would ban gifts to board members, potentially limiting the amount of tips and extra items received.

One item that was guaranteed to cause a spark at the last meeting was Item 8C, Councilman Glim Davis’ request to instruct the city attorney to prepare and return to the next meeting with an ordinance prohibiting gifts to council members. using the definitions of gifts and exceptions in the California Political Reform Act, and adding an exception for admission and meals when attending events in an official capacity of the city.

This is an ongoing point that Davis has been trying to push for some time now. The latest attempt to hold a discussion on the topic was abruptly stopped by Mayor Phil Brock at the start of a meeting on September 242024.

The recent U.S. Supreme Court decision in Snyder v. United States states that, absent an express prohibition on “tipping” in a local jurisdiction, such payments to an elected official will be permitted. Tips differ from bribes in that they are given after an official action, rather than before it.

On September 102024 Meeting, Council approved an ordinance after initially approving an ordinance prohibiting city officials from accepting monetary compensation and also introducing an ordinance prohibiting council members from accepting any gifts. The proposed ordinance would prohibit the giving or accepting of gifts to Council members using state law definitions and exceptions.

“We read almost every day about elected officials accepting items of value, whether they are related to a specific action or not, but the effect of whether you want to call them tips or gratuities actually undermines trust in government ” Davis said. , adding, “I think we should adopt a policy that essentially says there is no such thing as a free lunch for council members.”

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

“I was just really curious why this was happening now. You know, especially as a council member who has been on the council for the last 15 years, have you received any gifts?” she asked.

Davis, as in the past, insisted that she declare every gift, such as a trip to speak at a conference, on the appropriate form at City Hall. However, she broke the magic circle and spoke openly about some of her experiences.

“I might take an iced tea or something if someone suggested it, if I went to meet someone at his office or something (but) that’s not it what it’s for,” she said, adding, “I’ll tell you, I was in a restaurant in Santa Monica where someone asked me if I wanted a council member’s discount. And I had no idea there was a council member discount.

“These were not organizations that had something before the city, but they clearly thought they should give free meals to council members… And then the Snyder decision came out… and we passed something to solve this problem (but) so the way we accepted it was very limited,” she said.

Parra countered, “The reason I’m going down this path is because you and I are outgoing board members, it just seems odd to me that we’re making this decision on behalf of incoming board members.”

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

Vice Mayor Lana Negrete also expressed interest in the timing of this item. “We’re not talking about people doing million-dollar deals, we’re talking about coffee and pancakes,” she said, leaving nothing in between. Negrete gave the example of how a resident sends her “seasonal socks” every year and asked Sloan what the right action would be.

“If it (the proposed ordinance) were to go into effect, you would have several options. You can return them, pay for them or donate them to a nonprofit,” he said, adding that if she kept them, “it could technically be a misdemeanor.”

Negrete continued down this rabbit hole but made some interesting points, including the difference between offering tickets to an event that might not even be available to the public, making it much more difficult to determine the cost.

Councilman Jesse Zwick tried to steer a course through the rough waters, saying, “I can hear people on both sides. I think there are some differences in what is allowed now and what is not… We are currently allowed to accept up to almost $600 from any single source, as long as we disclose it and (it is) a significant gift. So I think it might be possible to write it in a way that suits both sides.

“We could easily set a threshold that would get rid of some of these examples that are being called absurd and actually limit it to just the larger gifts that we all agree we shouldn’t take.”

Councilwoman Caroline Toros also seemed interested in fine-tuning the language. “Just so that we can hopefully advance our agenda here, I might be inclined to reach some kind of compromise that we would accept as a threshold for this ordinance if others are so inclined,” she said.

Davis tried to introduce a friendly amendment that would change the language to include a $50 threshold, meaning gifts valued at less than $50 would not be prohibited.

However, Parra considered this proposal unfriendly, and therefore the proposal remained the original one, as written on the agenda. Zwick voted yes, Parra voted no, Davis voted yes, Negrete voted no, Toros voted no, de la Torre abstained, and Brock also abstained.

“Because while I understand Councilman Davis’ rationale for this, I am so concerned that this is electioneering that I will abstain as well,” Brock said.

Both Brock and de la Torre face re-election in a week, and Parra has decided not to run again. Interestingly, Toros broke the current political line and voted against it. When Daily Press Contacted for comment, she said: “I would like to come back to her with a full package of ethics reforms, which apparently the current board is unwilling to consider.”

[email protected]

Connected