CORRESPONDENCE - #25 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

people who pointed out that facts is irrelevant, inappropriate, and inflammatory and below the standard by which a Mayor of a major City should conduct themselves. The code clearly states that to avoid actual bias or the appearance of possible improprieties, a public official with a disqualifying conflict of interest in a government decision must be prohibited from participating in the decision. The FPPC outlines five types of interests that may result in disqualification. Of these, the "income" interest is clearly met by Ramos. "An individual or an entity from whom the official has received income or promised income aggregating to $500 or more in the previous 12 months." Please see the attached Form 700's filed by Commissioner Ramos. The test goes on to see whether the financial impact of the decision is foreseeable and significant enough to material. In this case, the facts speak for themselves. The amendments to the HOO were significant enough to these entities that they spoke at the Planning Commission hearing, obviously aided Ramos in her preparation of a motion, and then spoke in favor of the amendments at the City Council hearing. If the effect wasn't significant, it would be hard to believe that the only advocates of the amendments to the Ordinance just happened to be entities from whom Commissioner Ramos received income. Potential State Law Violations: The actions of Ramos potential violate Government Code Sections 1090-1097.5. Commissioner Ramos should have recused herself from the hearing on the HOO amendments because she has received income from entities who had a significant interest in the municipal issue. If Ramos had recused herself, the amendments would not have been offered in the same manner and the item would not have passed with a one vote margin. Her participation had a significant impact and effect on the municipal question in which these entities have an interest. 2. The City Council and City Attorney erred by not sending the item back to the Planning Commission for a hearing without the disqualified Planning Commissioner. 3. City Councilwoman Thai Phan likely violated the code by voting on the HOO due to the number of economically affected clients who are the sources of income to her employer Rutan and Tucker. Potential City of Santa Ana Violations: 1. The participation by Commissioner Ramos likely violates Santa Ana Municipal Code section 2- 105. First, Ramos should have "absented" [herself] from the room where the meeting was held during debate and voting on the matter. Second, per the code, Ramos should have divulged any "remote interest" before voting. Neither of these occurred and the City Attorney cannot "sweep it all under the rug" by stating that there is no financial interest. This opinion violates the latter part of code section 2-105. 2. Councilwoman Thai Phan's participation in the November 16, 2021 hearing likely violated the municipal code requirements discussed above. all