My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
CORRESPONDENCE - #08
Clerk
>
Agenda Packets / Staff Reports
>
City Council (2004 - Present)
>
2022
>
01/18/2022 Regular & Special SA
>
CORRESPONDENCE - #08
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
1/18/2022 4:02:40 PM
Creation date
1/11/2022 11:20:32 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
City Clerk
Date
1/18/2022
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
68
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
View images
View plain text
So, Councilwoman Phan does apparently understand what a conflict of interest based on her <br />employment at Rutan & Tucker is. It is hard to ascertain how she believes she still has the right to <br />participate on the HOO item under any circumstances. <br />At Hour 4, minute 46, Councilwoman Phan makes a motion on Item 17, the HOO <br />1 would move to continue it. <br />As previously stated, the proper procedure for Councilwoman Phan would have been to recuse herself <br />from the item completely and, if the City Attorney felt that a continuance was in order, for the City <br />Attorney to provide the option to the City Council to continue the item until a response of the conflict of <br />interest was received. IT IS A SEPARATE AND ADDITONAL VIOLATION OF THE STATE LAW AND <br />MUNICIPAL CODE FOR COUNCILWOMAN THAI PHAN TO MAKE A MOTION TO CONTINUE ON A VOTE <br />WHERE SHE HAS A CONFLICT OF INTEREST. There is no exception in the law for participation in a matter <br />where an official has a conflict of interest to obtain a continuance of the item and certainly no ability to <br />make a motion of any kind where a conflict exists. The common sense reasoning for this would be if <br />Councilwoman Phan wanted to block the HOO amendment from being adopted for the benefit of her <br />Rutan & Tucker builder and developer clients, she could continually make motions to continue the item <br />thereby preventing the adoption of the item. The fact that the City Attorney requested an opinion from <br />the FPPC does not create a safe harbor for the conflicted official to continue to participate in the matter <br />in any way, even to continue it. <br />We ask the Fair Political Practices Commission to take this blatant disregard into consideration when <br />considering the investigation against Councilwoman Phan. As a professional municipal lawyer, she <br />knows the law and cannot plead ignorance. She has clearly let her political aspirations cloud her <br />professional judgement. Councilwoman Phan and the Santa Ana City Attorney are acting with a blatant <br />disregard for the public by continuing to allow her to participate on this item. <br />Sincerely, <br />a e�-� <br />Alex Lee <br />On behalf of numerous concerned Santa Ana <br />residents <br />alexleel212@protonmail.com <br />Enc: Package dated 12/1/2021 <br />Package dated 12/8/2021 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.