pages: RecreationandParkCommission/2018-02-08.pdf, 5
This data as json
body | date | page | text | path |
---|---|---|---|---|
RecreationandParkCommission | 2018-02-08 | 5 | City of Alameda DATE: February 1, , 2018 TO: Chair and Members of the Recreation and Park Commission FROM: Michael Roush, Assistant City Attorney RE: Common Law Conflicts of Interest Background Last week the City Attorney's Office sent out a memorandum to the Recreation and Park Commission, with a copy to others, concerning common law conflicts of interest. That memo advised that a Commissioner has a disqualifying conflict if the Commissioner serves on the board of directors of an organization that would be materially affected by a decision that the Commission makes. Such conflict arises because a Commissioner has the the duty to act zealously on behalf of the City and, at the same time, has a fiduciary duty to act zealously on behalf of the organization. The memo also advised that under those circumstances the Commissioner must not participate in any aspect of the Commission's decision making process. We have been asked to explain in more detail what that means. For purposes of an explanation, we will make reference to the Political Reform Act of 1974 (Government Code, sections 87100 et seq.) and the regulations adopted by the Fair Political Practices Commission to implement the Act. See 2 Code of California Regulations [CCR] 18700 et seq. (concerning conflicts of interest). That Act and those Regulations-to which Recreation and Park Commissioners are subject-prohibit a Commissioner, as a public official, from participating in governmental decisions in which the decision will have a material economic effect on the Commissioner. Here, the common law conflict of interest does not arise out of governmental decisions that affect a Commissioner's economic interests but arises out of the conflicting duties that a Commissioner has when serving on the board of directors of an organization where it is reasonably foreseeable that a decision of the Commission will have a material effect on an organization itself. Although the conflict is not an economic one, it is a conflict of duties which the common law recognizes as giving rise to a disqualification. 1 | RecreationandParkCommission/2018-02-08.pdf |