Should council members have a say?

Glen Becerra 'I want a transparent government that the people believe is working for them and not for themselves.'

At the City Council meeting Nov. 17, a routine item to review the Simi Valley Code of Ethics and Conduct sparked a debate about the right of an elected official to speak to city boards and commissions on issues that affect the official as a private resident.

Council members Glen Becerra and Steve Sojka spoke in favor of the code as written, while Councilmember Barbra Williamson endorsed changes that would not muzzle public officials from speaking on issues that impact them.

"I, as an individual, have the right to form an opinion and to tell other people what that opinion is as long as (I) don't do it under the guise of a City Council member," Williamson said. "I shouldn't be punished because I am an elected official by not being able to sit out in the audience and address the planning commission of a concern that I might have."

Sojka said that while it can be legal to do so in certain circumstances, it is not appropriate for council members to weigh-in on issues outside of regular meetings.

Michelle Foster 'There are certain responsibilities and certain things we give up—the price we pay, if you will—to be an elected official.'

"There's a line," he said. "You're a City Council member, and that carries with it some weight and limitations on what you can do."

The code of ethics, which was unanimously adopted in 2002, is reviewed every two years by the city's boards, commissions and committees after the general municipal election. Comments for revision are made to city staff, which then recommends changes to the City Council.

This year a number of revisions were suggested, but they were mostly clarifying in nature. Typically, agenda items on the consent calendar are passed en masse, but Sojka pulled the item for discussion.

He stated that before rereading the document he was unaware that some parts of the code prohibit elected (and appointed) city officials, acting as private citizens, to give input to the planning commission, neighborhood council or other board even though it is legal to do so.

City Attorney David Hirsch explained that the council can choose to have its own rules that hold members to a higher standard.

"It's a standard that goes beyond legal requirements but certainly is within the authority of the City Council to establish as far as avoiding the appearance of impropriety or influencing the process inappropriately," Hirsch said during the Nov. 17 meeting.

During the meeting, Mayor Paul Miller brought up an example, asking hypothetically if he would be allowed to speak at that week's planning commission meeting on an item involving the Bridle Path since he is a member of the homeowners association. Becerra and Sojka gave a resounding no, saying that the code as written wouldn't allow it.

Miller told the Simi Valley Acorn he understands why that would not be appropriate.

"How can we, as elected officials, divorce ourselves from that situation?" he said. "Yeah, I can get up and say I'm not here as the mayor, I'm here as a Bridle Path resident, but still, I am the mayor."

Though the code applies to elected and appointed officials alike, Sojka said there is a difference in what is appropriate for him and what is appropriate for a member of a committee like the neighborhood council, since the City Council's purpose is "quasijudicial."

Speaking before the planning commission was of particular concern because of the fact that each City Council member appoints a commissioner and the council can appeal decisions made by the commission.

Becerra said that going before a body that one helps appoint and asking it to vote a certain way could be seen as crossing a line or exerting undue influence.

"I want a transparent government that the people believe is working for them and not for themselves," he said. "And when you go and speak on an issue that you can't legally speak on as a council member but say you are speaking on it as a private citizen . . . it gets very cloudy."

Both Becerra and Sojka disagreed with Williamson's decision in June to speak before the planning commission on behalf of her HOA in support of a proposal to turn Oakridge Athletic Club into a retail development, since she would not have been allowed to vote on it as a council member because of her home's proximity to the project.

"That's just one example of why we need to look at our code of ethics and everyone needs to understand what we're agreeing to," Sojka said.

Williamson, however, told the Acorn that she doesn't think it was a conflict of interest for her to speak because of the fact that she couldn't vote on it.

Mayor Pro Tem Michelle Foster—who just completed her ethics training, which is required every two years by state law—said council members must be aware of the influence they have and acknowledge that the public will always see them first as elected officials.

"There are certain circumstances that as a council member I am no longer the same as the general public," Foster said. "There are certain responsibilities and certain things we give up— the price we pay, if you will—to be an elected official. We know that going into it, and we have to accept that."

She added that at council meetings, when a member has a conflict of interest, they do not sit at the dais during the discussion or even sit in the audience. They leave the room to avoid any appearance of influence.

All the council members agreed that it is healthy to reevaluate the code periodically to make sure that everyone understands what is expected of them as city officials.

Still, like Becerra and Sojka, Miller told the Acorn he stands by the code of ethics as is.

"I think the code of ethics, the way we have it written, is good, and I think our members need to abide by it," he said. "I just think people need to read through it more often."

Per Williamson's request, the item will be brought before the City Council at its Dec. 15 meeting for further discussion.

The meeting starts at 6:30 p.m. in city hall.