Fair Political Practices Commission

AB1234 Ethic Training

08/20/2014

0. Course Introduction

Effective January 1, 2006, state law (AB 1234) requires (among other things) that local officials

who receive compensation, salary, stipends, or expense reimbursements must receive training in

public service ethics laws and principles every two years. The requirement applies not only to the

governing body of a local agency, but also commissions, committees, boards, or other local

agency bodies, whether permanent or temporary, decision-making or advisory.

The bill further requires the Fair Political Practices Commission and the Attorney General's

Office to be consulted regarding the proposed course content. Each entity has adopted standards

concerning trainer qualifications and course content.

Online Ethics Course

To help local officials meet their ethics training requirements, the Institute for Local Government

and the Fair Political Practices Commission have developed the ethics-training course available

on this website. The course has been approved by the Attorney General's Office and the Fair

Political Practices Commission.

To take the course and receive a proof of participation certificate, click the "next" button below

to begin.

Note: Officials should check with their agency regarding specific ethics training requirements

before taking this online course.

1. Begin Course

Navigational Notes:

The certificate at the end of the course is an Adobe Acrobat (PDF) document. You can type in

the "Print Name" line as well as the "Agency Name" line. You will need the Adobe Acrobat

Reader installed on your computer to open and view this certificate. To download the Acrobat

Reader from Adobe Systems, Inc., Click here.

Further Resources:

The Institute for Local Government has created a reference document that provides further

resources regarding ethics laws and principles and directs viewers to which agencies they should

consult. Please click here to view those resources.

Questions about this course?

Contact: ab1234@fppc.ca.gov

2. About This Course

State law requires certain local officials to receive two hours of specified ethics training every

two years.

The requirement applies to elected and appointed officials who receive either compensation for

their public service or reimbursement for their expenses.

This online training is intended to satisfy this two-hour training requirement. Since the law

requires a fixed amount of training, the program includes a time-tracking component that will

report your total time spent on the training. The time is tracked cumulatively - every "next" or

"back" click will result in time being added to the visitor's accrued time. However, if you

accidentally leave the browser open on a certain page in the training, the maximum time allotted

will be only four minutes.

NOTE: This is a self-serve training program. It is your obligation to print a certificate and

provide it to your agency in a timely manner. Please allow enough time to ensure that you are

able to complete the training by the due date. We are not responsible for unexpected technical

difficulties that could occur resulting in this training program on our website being unavailable.

No copies can be retained by the program or the website.

Thanks the state and local agencies and officials who helped develop and test the program.

3. Proof of Participation

When you have completed this course, you will receive a proof of participation certificate. Note

that the certificate will include the amount of time you spent reviewing this online course, so

there is no benefit to hurrying through the material. For your effort to satisfy the training

requirement, your certificate must reflect you spent two hours or more reviewing the materials in

this online course.

Once you print and sign the certificate, make a copy for your own records and provide the

original to your agency's custodian of records.

You may also want to note two years from this date on your calendar as the date by which you

will need to update your knowledge on public service ethics and take either this course or

another if you are still in public service.

The extent to which you have complied with the mandatory ethics education requirements is a

matter of public record.

Note about Minimum Continuing Legal Education (MCLE) Credit for Attorneys: As a special

service, those attorneys who take both the main and supplemental courses can also request an

MCLE certificate at the conclusion of this online course. The MCLE certificate is for general

self-study MCLE credit (since this course does not address the unique aspects of attorney ethics).

4. How This Course Is Intended to Help You

Although you may have a strong sense of personal ethics, the role and responsibility of the

public servant may require different ethical considerations. The laws play a big role in

defining ethical conduct for public officials. Not all of those laws are intuitive; some can be traps

for the unwary.

When you are a public servant, it's not just about your own sense of personal ethics; it's also

about the public's perception of your ethics.

The public's trust in you turns on whether they perceive your actions and decisions as promoting

the public's interests, as opposed to your own personal or political interests.

5. In Good Company

Many other public servants and professionals (including those in the profession of the governing

state) also must take ethics training, including:

State Officials

Judicial Council Members and Judicial Branch Employees

Insurance Agents and Brokers

Attorneys

Lobbyists

Realtors

6. Course Objectives

The objectives of this online course are:

To familiarize you with laws that govern your public service.

To help you know when to ask questions of your agency counsel.

To encourage you to think beyond legal restrictions and provide tools for doing so.

To help you comply with the state mandatory ethics education requirements.

7. The Role of Your Agency Attorney

Your agency attorney is an important resource for information on what the law requires of you.

His or her job is to promote compliance with public service ethics laws, not find ways around

them.

Your agency attorney also wants to avoid a situation in which an agency action could be subject

to challenge because an official participated in a decision that the official shouldn't have.

Note that your attorney represents the entire agency, not you as an individual. For that reason,

the agency attorney is likely to advise others within your agency if you disregard the attorney's

advice on how to comply with the ethics laws.

8. The Role of Your Agency Attorney

(continued)

It's also important for you to know that following your agency attorney's advice may not be

enough to protect you from being the subject of an enforcement action.

For example, in matters arising under the Political Reform Act, only written advice from the Fair

Political Practices Commission can protect you.

The best strategy is to err on the side of caution and stay far away from conduct that may be

legally questionable.

9. Lesson One

Principles of Public Service Ethics

10. Serving the Public Interest

In the fast paced, competitive world of politics, it can be easy to overlook the fundamental fact

that the public expects and deserves its public servants to serve the public's interest- not private

or political interests.

Values are very important to the public. The public is strongly supportive of public officials'

following their sense of "what is the right thing to do" in making government decisions.

The question is: how does the conscientious public official sort through competing

considerations and determine "the right thing to do?" When it comes to being a public servant,

how does one put one's values into practice?

11. "The Right Thing to Do"

There are a number of sources of guidance on what to do in a given situation.

One, of course, is the law. For example, California has a complex array of laws relating to ethics

in public service.

The law, however, only sets a minimum standard for ethical conduct. Just because an action is

legal doesn't mean that it is ethical or that it reflects your or the public's values.

12. The Difference Between Ethics and Ethics

Laws

Ethics laws

Set minimum standards for public officials' conduct.

Establish required conduct - that is, what public officials must do.

Trigger penalties when violated, many of which are quite severe.

13. The Difference Between Ethics and Ethics

Laws (continued)

Ethics is what we ought to do - not just what we have to do.

Just because a course of action is legal, doesn't mean that it is ethical.

Therefore, a person who acts with ethical considerations in mind will often go well beyond the

law's minimum requirements.

14. What One Ought to Do

The key to thinking in terms of ethical behaviors is to think in terms of values.

Then, think what these values mean in the public service context.

15. Universal Ethical Values

Research by the Institute for Global Ethics indicates that we all believe certain values are

worthwhile:

Fairness

Loyalty

Compassion

Trustworthiness

Responsibility

Respect

These values transcend nationalities, cultures and religions.

16. Public Service Values

The next question is:

What do these values mean in the context of being a public servant?

17. What it Means to be Trustworthy in Public

Service

What does it mean for a public official to be "trustworthy"?

Here are some thoughts on things you can do:

Remember that your role is first and foremost to serve the community.

Be truthful with your fellow elected officials, the public and others-even when it involves

speaking hard or unwelcome truths.

Avoid any actions that would cause the public to question whether your decisions are

based on personal interests instead of the public's interests.

Do not accept gifts or other special considerations.

Do not knowingly use false or inaccurate information.

Do not use your public position for personal gain.

Carefully consider any promises that you make (including campaign promises), and then

keep them.

18. What it Means to be Fair in Public

Service

What does it mean for a public official to be "fair"?

Here are some thoughts on things you can do:

Make decisions based on the merits of the issues.

Honor the law and the public's expectation that agency policies will be applied

consistently.

Support the public's right to know and promote meaningful public involvement.

Support merit-based processes for the award of public employment and public contracts.

Be impartial and do not favor those who either have helped you or are in a position to

help you.

Promote equality and treat all people equitably.

Excuse yourself from decisions when you or your family's financial interests may be

affected by your agency's actions.

Credit others' contributions in moving your community's interests forward.

19. What it Means to be Responsible in Public

Service

What does it mean for a public official to be "responsible"?

Here are some thoughts on things you can do:

Work to improve the quality of life in the community and promote the best interests of

the public.

Promote the efficient use of agency resources.

Do not use agency resources for personal or political benefit.

Represent the official positions of the agency to the best of your ability when authorized

to do so.

Explicitly state that your personal opinions do not represent the agency's position and do

not allow the inference that they do.

Take responsibility for your own actions, even when it is uncomfortable to do so.

Do not use information that you acquire in your public capacity for personal advantage.

Do not promise that which you have reason to believe is unrealistic.

Disclose suspected instances of impropriety to the appropriate authorities, and avoid false

charges for political advantage.

Do not disclose confidential information without proper legal authorization.

Be proactive and innovative when setting goals and considering policies.

20. What it Means to be Respectful in Public

Service

How does the ethical value of "respect" affect a public official's actions?

Here are some thoughts on things you can do:

Treat fellow officials, staff and the public with courtesy, even when you disagree with

them.

Focus on the merits in discussions, not personality traits or other issues that might distract

you from focusing on what is best for the community.

Search for value from diverse opinions and build consensus.

Follow through on commitments, keep others informed, and make timely responses.

Be approachable and open-minded.

Listen carefully and ask questions that add value to discussions.

Involve all appropriate stakeholders in meetings affecting agency.

21. The Importance of Public Perception

The interesting -and somewhat unique- aspect of public service ethics is that it is not exclusively

an introspective process.

A public official can be absolutely confident that he or she is able to put personal interests or

relationships aside, but the public may question whether indeed that is so.

Public perception, therefore, matters a great deal in one's analysis of what the "right thing to do"

is in public service. This is because, as public servants, public officials are stewards of the

public's trust in the public's governing institutions.

In short, public service ethics is not only about doing the right thing, but also about the

public's confidence that indeed the right thing has been done. Public servants must

maintain a high standard of ethical conduct that promotes public confidence that public

officials' actions are motivated solely by the public's interests.

22. Ethical Dilemmas

At some point in your service as a public official, you will likely face two common types of

ethical dilemmas:

Personal Cost Ethical Dilemmas. This involves situations in which doing the right thing

may or will come at a significant personal cost to you or your public agency. These also

can be known as "moral courage" ethical dilemmas.

Right-versus-Right Ethical Dilemmas. This type of ethical dilemma involves those

situations in which there are two conflicting sets of "right" values.

Of course, some dilemmas are a combination of both: a conflict between competing sets of

"right" values (right-versus-right) and a situation in which doing the right thing involves personal

or political costs.

23. Personal Cost Ethical Dilemmas

With these kinds of dilemmas, the costs can be political- such as the loss of a political support or

perhaps even one's prospects for reelection.

Or, the cost can be financial, for example a missed opportunity for financial gain or material

benefits. Issues relating to the proper use of public resources fall into the "personal cost" type of

ethical dilemma, inasmuch as these dilemmas typically involve whether one is going to forgo a

tempting political or personal benefit. For public agencies, the personal costs may involve

putting one's job on the line and facing the prospect of losing one's job.

Finally, the cost can be more directly personal, as when a particular course of action may

jeopardize a friendship.

With personal cost ethical dilemmas, the answer is relatively simple, but certainly not easy. The

bottom line is that being ethical means doing the right thing regardless of personal costs.

24. Case Study: Right versus Right Ethical

Dilemma

A campaign contributor wants you to vote a certain way on a controversial issue. You disagree,

because you believe that another approach is better for your community.

This is a "right-versus-right" ethical dilemma because you may feel torn between your loyalty to

someone who has helped you (your campaign contributor) and your responsibility to do what

you believe is in the community's best interests.

In public service, your responsibility to do what you believe is best for your community trumps

the value of loyalty. The ethical approach, and what the public expects you to do, is what is best

for your community.

25. Case Study: Right versus Right Ethical

Dilemma (Continued)

If you do what is best for the community in this example, there may be a personal cost.

You may lose the support of your campaign contributor.

When you are guided by ethical considerations, you do what is right, regardless of the personal

costs.

26. Retention Check #1

1. If a particular course of action is legal, then it is necessarily ethical.

[FALSE] The law creates minimum standards for ethical behavior. These laws are a

floor-not a ceiling-for ethical behavior.

2. A true leader is independent, and doesn't concern himself or herself with the public's

perception of his or her ethics.

[FALSE] Public service ethics is not just about whether you do the right thing, but also

about whether the public feels confident that you put the public's interests above all

others. As stewards of the public's trust, public officials should always consider how their

actions, decisions, and relationships will be perceived by the public.

3. It's difficult to define what constitutes an ethical course of action because ethics are so

subjective.

[FALSE] Actually research indicates that humanity tends to share certain core values.

They are: trustworthiness, respect, fairness, compassion, responsibility and loyalty.

4. Ethics laws are generally a matter of common sense.

[FALSE] The public service ethics laws are very complex. They are not necessarily a

matter of intuition or simple common sense. This is why it is important for local officials

to familiarize themselves with these laws, and to seek the help of agency counsel when

they are unsure.

5. Being ethical means being willing to do the right thing even when there will be a personal

cost.

[TRUE] The hard truth is that ethics and being ethical sometimes involves very difficult

choices. But the ethical course of action always involves doing the right thing,

irrespective of personal costs.

6. In resolving an ethical dilemma, one can take the personal costs of doing "the right thing"

into account and still claim to have made an ethical decision.

[FALSE] Ethics sometimes involves making decisions that result in some kind of

personal cost to you. These also can be known as "moral courage" ethical dilemmas. The

bottom line is that being ethical means doing the right thing regardless of personal costs.

7. In politics and government, worthy ends (or goals) may sometimes justify questionable

means (or ways of accomplishing those goals). When this is the case, one can still claim

to be ethical even if the process of getting to the worthy goal involve questionable ethics.

[FALSE] As both Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. and Gandhi have observed, the means are

the ends in a democracy and good ends cannot come from questionable means. Public

officials must consider whether their actions themselves are ethical, and not only whether

the goal is desirable.

27. Lesson Two

Scope of Public Service Ethics Laws

28. Understanding Ethics Laws

Ethics laws are extraordinarily complex.

The purpose of this training program is not to teach you the law, but to teach you when you need

to ask your agency counsel about a particular situation.

Thus the goal of this training module is to alert you to the kinds of situations that raise potential

issues under ethics law principles.

29. Understanding Ethics Laws (continued)

As you learn about ethics laws, keep in mind that:

Ethics laws can vary in their complexity.

Some kinds of situations can implicate more than one ethics law.

Some actions can be prosecuted under both state and federal law

Let's look at a few examples of each phenomenon.

30. Same Kind of Law, Different Levels of

Complexity

The law prohibiting receipt of bribes is fairly simple and straightforward.

On the other hand, the law relating to disqualifying yourself because of a financial interest in the

decision before you (known as conflict of interest laws) is very complex. These laws are

interpreted in regulations, Fair Political Practices Commission decisions, Attorney General

Opinions and publications, and in judicial decisions.

Attorneys look to all of these sources in determining how the law might apply to a particular

situation- simply looking at the language of a statute is not enough.

This is why it can be very risky to try to interpret and apply the law without assistance.

An example of how the complexity of ethics laws can vary occurs in the next lesson, which

relates to personal-financial-gain laws.

31. Same Situation, Multiple Laws

Another challenge is knowing all the laws that might apply to the same kind of situation or

conduct.

Sometimes attorneys and the courts will analyze how several different laws apply to a situation.

32. Case Study: More Than One Law Forbids

Self-Dealing

A city attorney found this out the hard way. An appellate court concluded that a city attorney

violated two different laws prohibiting self-dealing when the attorney negotiated a contract with

a law firm to handle certain kinds of litigation for the city. The misstep occurred when the city

attorney's agreement with the law firm involved paying the city attorney a percentage of the fee

paid to the law firm.

The city attorney was receiving a personal benefit as the result of the contract with the law firm.

Because of this, the public could reasonably question whether the city attorney had negotiated as

hard as he might have to keep the law firm's fees down. This is a classic kind of conflict of

interest: a conflict between one's own financial interests and the financial interests of the public.

The city refused to pay the portion of the law firm's bill that would go to the city attorney

($420,000). The court determined that the city attorney violated prohibitions in both the Political

Reform Act (adopted by the voters in 1974) and an older law prohibiting public officials from

having an interest in contracts their agencies enter into. The court upheld the city's refusal to pay

the $420,000.

33. Federal Law Also Prohibits Breaches of

the Public's Trust

Although the primary focus of this course is state ethics laws, there are also a number of federal

laws that prosecutors can use to hold officials accountable for breaching the public's trust that

public officials act only with the public's interests in mind.

For example, federal law gives the public the right to "honest public service" from their officials.

The concept is that public servants owe a basic duty of loyalty and honesty to the public.

This duty is violated when a public official makes decisions or takes actions that are motivated

by the official's personal interests, as opposed to the interests of those the official serves.

The "honest services" laws are found in the federal laws against mail and wire fraud.

The penalties for honest services fraud include up to 20 years in jail and a $250,000 fine.

34. Examples of Prosecutions under Honest

Services Laws

Examples of activities that can be prosecuted as a violation of the public's right to honest

services from its public officials are:

Receiving a bribe

Receiving kickbacks (for example, money from companies with business relationships

with your agency)

35. Other Federal Anti-Corruption Laws

Public officials have been prosecuted for income tax fraud for failing to report bribes and other

ill-gotten gains on their income tax forms.

Threats that a public agency will not do business with someone who does not give money, gifts

or political or charitable contributions can be prosecuted as extortion.

If a group of individuals is involved in corruption-related activities, they can be charged under

the laws designed to punish those involved in organized crime (the Racketeering-Influenced and

Corrupt Organizations Act or RICO).

36. Conclusion

The main message is that these ethics laws are not to be taken lightly.

When you find yourself in a situation in which one of these laws may apply, consult with an

attorney knowledgeable about state and federal ethics laws or, in the case of laws that are part of

the Political Reform Act, the Fair Political Practices Commission.

37. Lesson Three

Personal Financial Gain

38. Personal Financial Gain Issues:

Underlying Principles

The principle underlying the personal financial gain laws is that public service is just that: public

service.

Public servants should not benefit financially from their positions.

39. Examples of No-Personal-Financial-Gain

Laws

The following laws relate to the prohibition against personal financial gain for public servants:

Bribery prohibitions

Financial interest disqualification requirements

Prohibition against having an interest in an agency contract

Employment-related restrictions, including revolving door prohibitions and

disqualification requirements relating to future employers

This lesson will address each of these areas.

40. Part A: The Laws Against Bribery

Laws against bribery are well known examples of laws restricting personal financial gain.

It is a crime for public officials to solicit (ask for), receive or agree to receive a benefit in

exchange for one or more official actions.

Note that the notion of receiving a "benefit" under the bribery laws goes beyond receiving cash

that goes in your pocket.

It can include things like campaign contributions, jobs, gifts and special considerations not

available to others.

Be very wary if someone is proposing that you do something for them in exchange for their

doing something for you -- a concept sometimes referred to as a quid pro quo (which is Latin for

"this for that").

Keep in mind that juries may have a very different sense of what should occur in politics,

particularly as it relates to campaign fundraising.

Speaking of situations in which one agrees to do this for that, keep in mind that state law also

prohibits public officials from trading votes with one another (if you vote yes on my issue, I will

vote yes on yours).

41. The Laws Against Bribery (continued)

The penalties for bribery are severe. Those convicted of bribery or bribery-related crimes can

expect to lose their office, be forever disqualified from seeking office, spend time in prison and

pay fines (including repaying the value of whatever benefit was received).

The attorneys' fees associated with mounting a defense against bribery charges are likely to be in

the hundreds of thousands of dollars.

The embarrassment factor for you, your family, friends and supporters is also high if you are

accused of betraying the public trust for personal financial gain.

42. Case Study: Campaign Contribution

Request Ends Up

as a Federal Prosecution

In one Southern California community, investigation into the activities of strip club owners led

to the strip club owners' cooperation with federal law enforcement officials.

The strip club owners had a series of conversations with candidates for city council relating to

campaign contributions as well as the club owners' desire for modifications to the city's "no

touch" rules at strip clubs. A number of these conversations were recorded, unbeknownst to the

candidates, who were elected to city council.

Three city council members were charged with various counts of federal corruption which

included: extortion and deprivation of "honest services."

One council member was convicted and sentenced to 21 months in federal prison, another was

convicted (the judge later reversed the verdict against that council member), the third councilman

died during the proceedings.

Both living council members resigned from office immediately following the jury's verdict.

43. Case Study: Campaign Contributions

(continued)

Lessons:

Public officials can be prosecuted for linking their actions to the receipt of benefits.

At the press conference after the one council member was acquitted, that council member

indicated that the process was extraordinarily painful. He indicated that he has been financially

ruined and he and his family have been emotionally devastated. Even if you prevail, the costs can

be extremely high.

The council member who was sentenced to jail observed that he already knew that this would be

something that would be included in his obituary-something he would always be remembered

for.

It can take years and lots of money for attorneys' fees to resolve these cases. This particular case

took over seven years to get resolved.

Walking close to the line can be a very risky practice. Defense attorneys note that jurors tend to

be skeptical of even lawful campaign fundraising practices.

44. Part B: Disqualification Rules

California's Political Reform Act was adopted by the voters in 1974.

It says that when a public official has a financial interest in a decision before him or her, the

public official must step aside from the decision-making process.

This is referred to as a "conflict of interest" because the public official must put the public's

interests in a decision first and foremost, but may be tempted to have one's personal financial

interests influence the decision.

Since it is hard for the public to be assured that a public official's personal financial interests did

not influence a decision, the law requires the public official simply to step aside from the

decision-making process. This way, the public is assured that official's personal financial

interests do not influence their decisions.

45. Key Thing to Determine: Could a

Governmental Decision Affect

Your Interests?

Determining whether you have a conflict of interest is a complex legal analysis which in most

cases requires legal assistance. The Fair Political Practices Commission requires attorneys to go

through multi-step analysis to determine the answer.

The key thing for public officials to be alert to is whether they have an interest in a matter.

There are six types of interests. Ask yourself whether the matter involves:

1. Someone who pays you income

2. Property that you own, lease or have another interest in

3. Your employer

4. One of your investments

5. Someone who has given you a gift

6. Your family's finances

Let's discuss the first two at some length so you can get a sense of how the requirements apply.

46. Type of Interest to Worry About #1:

Sources of Income

The theory here is that people have an allegiance and possible dependency on those who pay

them income.

A public official may not be able to put that dependency and allegiance aside, so if a decision

involves a source of income to a public official, the public official must step aside from the

decision-making process.

The threshold to be concerned about is if someone has paid you $500 or more in the last year.

This includes sources of income to any for-profit business in which you or your spouse or

registered domestic partner own a 10 percent or more interest.

It may also include someone who has lent you money.

47. Case Study: Clients as a Source of Income

for Realtors

Sulemma is a local realtor who also serves on the county board of supervisors.

A client of Sulemma's comes before the board of supervisors seeking a permit to operate the

client's business. Sulemma sold property for the client in the last year, which earned her a

$20,000 commission.

The client is a source of income of more than $500 for Sulemma. Sulemma should step aside

from the decision-making process and seek advice about how the conflict of interest laws apply

to her.

48. Case Study: Customers as a Source of

Income for Car Dealers

Carlos owns the local electric vehicle dealership and also serves on the reclamation board.

Mailyn's marketing firm is a bidder for a contract to do a public education campaign about the

importance of the reclamation districts efforts.

Mailyn bought an electric car from Carlos six months ago.

Carlos should step aside from the decision-making process and seek advice about whether he can

be involved in discussions about the public education contract, since Mailyn's purchase of a car

may well make Mailyn a source of income for Carlos.

49. Case Study: Advertisers as a Source of

Income for Publishers

Taj operates a website that promotes the Town of Turista. Taj sits on Turista's town council. One

of the ways Taj's website promotes itself is through paid advertising.

Alfred advertises his auto-detailing business on Taj's site. Alfred is also seeking a variance from

the town's set-back requirements, so Alfred can do an addition to his home.

If Alfred has purchased $500 or more in advertising from Taj, Taj should step aside from the

decision-making process and seek advice on whether Taj can participate in the decision on

Alfred's request for a variance.

50. Case Study: Relatives with No Financial

Ties

The county administrator's brother, Bob, is employed by the local cable operator as a mid-level

manager. Bob is financially independent from the county administrator and neither brother has

ever been financially dependent on the other or has any other kind of financial relationship.

The county administrator is concerned about upcoming negotiations relating to the cable

company's franchise.

The county administrator should check with his county counsel's office or the Fair Political

Practices Commission, but it appears that he doesn't have a financial interest in the cable

company that would legally require him to step aside from the upcoming negotiations.

The county administrator may, however, want to evaluate the public's perceptions about how

aggressive the administrator is likely to be in negotiating with his brother's employer. If the

county administrator wants to set his sights above the minimum requirements of the law, he may

want to assign someone else in the office the responsibility for the negotiations.

51. Type of Economic Interest to Worry

About #2: Real Property

Public agencies make decisions all the time that enhance and sometimes diminish property

values.

Public officials need to generally be aware of the effect that their decisions have on property

values, and they should not be involved in decisions that have the potential to either enhance or

diminish their own property values.

For that reason, the Political Reform Act requires public officials to step aside from the decision-

making process if the decision would potentially affect their property values.

The threshold to worry about is real property interests worth $2,000 or more.

52. Type of Economic Interest to Worry

About #2: Real Property (continued)

If a decision could affect property you or your family own, talk with your agency attorney when

1) an action by your public agency 2) may affect (positively or negatively), 3) your property

interests, including:

A direct or indirect interest to you, your immediate family (spouse/registered domestic

partner and dependent children), or your business interests have; and

Such interests as ownership, leaseholds, and options to purchase.

Note that the disqualification rules are especially strict if you have property interests within 500

feet of the subject of your decision.

53. Case Study: The Neighborhood is Up in

Arms!

Arlena was elected to the city council as a strong advocate for her neighborhood.

The neighborhood association is very upset about a proposed group home that would be across

the street from Arlena's home. The association demands that Arlena do everything in her power

to keep the group home from locating in the neighborhood.

Since the proposed use is so close to Arlena's own home, she is significantly limited in her

ability to try to influence the city's actions on the group home. She is likely disqualified from

influencing or participating in the decision.

The concern here is the perceptions of the community as a whole as well as the perceptions of

the group home operator. If Arlena is involved in the city's actions with respect to the group

home, it won't be clear whether her actions reflect her concerns for the community as a whole or

because of her personal interest in not having a group home locate across the street from her.

54. Case Study: Real Property Interests and

Disqualification

Perry is a member of a historic preservation commission. Perry has an option to purchase a two-

acre parcel which contains an historic house in the city. He hasn't exercised the option yet.

The parcel is an integral part of nine acres that the city is considering rezoning for mixed use

development. Perry believes that the rezoning will make the property he's interested in

purchasing much more valuable, but he's worried about the effect of the re-zoning on the

character of the neighborhood.

Perry would like to share his concerns with his colleagues about the proposal to rezone the nine-

acres.

An "interest in real property" includes leasehold, beneficial or ownership interest or, as in this

situation, an option to acquire such an interest in real property. If the option is worth $2,000 or

more, Perry should step aside from the decision-making process and seek advice about whether

the law allows him to talk to his colleagues.

Note that the conflict-of-interest rules prohibit an official from influencing a decision if the

official has a financial interest in the decision. Accordingly, it is very likely that Perry will

receive advice not to talk with his colleagues or otherwise try to influence the decision-making

process with respect to the re-zoning.

Note that it doesn't matter that Perry wants to urge a position that will actually harm his

economic interests. The concept is that, if a decision-maker has some "skin" in a decision, the

public's trust in the decision-making process is promoted if the decision-maker steps aside from

the decision-making process.

55. Type of Economic Interest to Worry

About #3: Your Employer

The law also protects the public's trust in the decision-making process by making public officials

step aside from the process if a decision would have a monetary impact on any for-profit

business where the public official is employed or holds a management position

This avoids questions about whether a public official put loyalty to an employer or a business

ahead of his or her loyalty to the public's interests.

Note that an official would have to step aside if a decision would affect the income of a small

for-profit corporation where the official serves on the board of directors even if the official

receives no pay or benefits from the position. The conflict of interest arises by virtue of his or her

"business position," not income received.

56. Type of Economic Interest to Worry

About #4: Investments

Another issue to be alert to is decisions that would affect your or your family's investments.

You need to concern yourself with investments of $2,000 or more made by you, your spouse or

registered domestic partner or dependent child.

An example would be a decision that will have a monetary impact on a corporation in which you

own $3,500 in stock.

57. Type of Economic Interest to Worry

About #5: Gifts

California law addresses public perception and concerns about people who have given gifts to

public officials. The concern is that such gift-givers may be trying to curry favor with decision-

makers to influence the decision-making process.

A public official may not participate in a decision that involves someone who has given the

official gifts that are worth $ 440 (2013-2014) or more during the previous 12 months.

The next lesson on gifts goes into these issues in more detail.

58. Type of Interest to Worry About #6: Your

Family's Finances

The law also recognizes that it is human for a public official to care about the impact of the

official's decision on family members, particularly family members' finances.

Public officials may not participate in decisions that will have a monetary impact of $250 or

more on personal finances of the official, the official's spouse or registered domestic partner or

dependent child.

An example of this would be an increase of government fees that affect the official or his family.

59. Steps to Take If You Are Disqualified

from Participating in a Decision

Remember that the prohibition is very broad; you cannot attempt to influence the decision in any

way. This includes talking with your colleagues or staff about the matter.

At the meeting, city council members, county supervisors, planning commissioners and top staff

members will typically need to leave the room when the matter is up for decision (unless the

matter is on consent, in which case you need only not vote). This may be good practice for

comparable officials at special districts as well.

60. Steps to Take If You Are Disqualified

from Participating in a Decision (continued)

Officials subject to the leave-the-room requirement will also need to explain why they are

disqualified from participating ("I own property within 500 feet of the subject of this decision").

Though not all officials are required to openly explain at the meeting why they are disqualified

from participation, it is a good idea to do so.

There are narrow exceptions to this requirement, when you may be able to stay in the room or

speak as any other member of the public. Examples include if you own the property or business

that is the subject of the decision. Speak with your agency counsel for more information.

61. Case Study: The Saga of Furious George

George, a member of the City of Santa Guava's Architectural Review Board, realizes that the

application before him proposes a second-story addition to a house on his street. He recognizes

that his neighbor Nola is the applicant and that her property is within 500 feet of his house.

Despite having strong feelings that the second story will be an eyesore on his street and

following the advice of the city attorney, George disqualifies himself from participating in the

decision.

What are George's legal responsibilities under the Political Reform Act? Unlike city council

members and planning commissioners who must declare the conflict and leave the room, George

must not make, participate in making, or influence the decision. The law allows him, however, to

stay in the room.

62. Case Study: The Saga of Furious George

(continued)

Note that George still faces risks. George does not declare his conflict and stays in the room.

When Nola speaks, George rolls his eyes and groans after every statement Nola makes that

George disagrees with. The local press reports that George participated in the meeting and

telegraphed his opposition by his actions even though he did not speak. The press did not know

George was not voting due to a conflict because he did not declare one.

Nola files a complaint with the Fair Political Practices Commission that George was influencing

the decision with his eye rolling and groans.

63. Case Study: The Saga of Furious George

(continued)

Whether legally required to or not, a good practice would have been for George to declare the

conflict of interest. Why not let the public know up front you will not be participating and the

reason why? Do not leave the public and press to speculate or guess.

Similarly, you might want to leave the room to avoid any questions about your behavior during

the meeting. Why take a chance that a nervous tic may be construed as "influencing"?

64. Key Things to Keep in Mind

If your agency counsel says you need to disqualify yourself from participating in a decision, he

or she is not telling you that you have done something wrong.

It just means that you have interests and the public's trust in the agency decision requires that you

not participate in the decision.

Note though that you will violate the law if you do participate in a decision in which you have a

disqualifying financial interest. You do not have a choice of whether to disqualify yourself. The

law makes that decision for you.

Your agency's attorney's duty is to promote compliance with the ethics laws, not try to find ways

around them.

65. Penalties for Not Disqualifying Oneself

The decision could be invalidated (nullified).

The offense can be prosecuted as a misdemeanor (conviction could result in the official

being removed from office).

In many cases the official faces having to personally pay fines of up to $5,000 to $10,000

per offense, among other possible penalties.

The official also faces having to hire an attorney to help defend him or herself. Also, if

the action to enforce the conflict-of-interest laws is brought by a private individual and

that individual wins, the official may have to pay the individual's attorneys' fees.

There is also the personal and political embarrassment factor associated with being

accused or found guilty of violating ethics laws.

66. Examples of Penalties for Not Stepping

Aside

A school board member voted on 15 governmental decisions approving payment of

public funds to the travel agency she owns. This resulted in a $29,000 fine to the official.

A city council member voted to extend a license to a company that was a source of

income to his spouse. This resulted in a $2,000 fine.

A planning commissioner that owned an architectural firm in town participated in

decisions benefiting his firm. This resulted in a $24,000 fine.

A county supervisor took a developer-paid trip to a North Carolina golf course and later

voted on the developer's proposal involving a course in the supervisor's county. This

resulted in a $1,500 fine.

67. Part C: Special Rules for Contracts

Members of public agency decision-making bodies should be especially alert to issues involving

contracts. If you have an interest in a contract that comes before your decision-making body, the

agency cannot entered into unless a specific legal exception applies. The fact that you disqualify

yourself may not be enough.

If you are an employee, the contract can still be made so long as you disqualify yourself from

every aspect of the contract-making process.

68. Case Study: Doing Business with Agency

Creates Problems

Jones Electric, Inc. regularly does work for a reclamation district. The President of Jones Electric

runs successfully for a seat on the reclamation board. To what kinds of issues does the new board

member need to be alert?

There are a number of issues.

First, whenever an issue relating to Jones Electric comes before the board (for example, payment

of Jones Electric bills), the President/board member will likely have to disqualify himself.

Second, because the President of Jones Electric has an interest in his firm's contracts with the

district, there is a strong possibility that the company will not be able to enter into any new

contractual arrangements with the district while its president serves on the board.

Does this unfairly penalize the president and his company? Some might say so, but the way the

law looks at this situation is that the potential damage to the public's trust and confidence in the

district's contracting and spending practices is sufficiently important to impose this limitation on

the company's financial relationships. One can imagine the scandal if the president's purpose in

running for the board was to enhance his company's revenues and shut out his competitors from

doing business with the district. While that undoubtedly was not the president's motivation, the

limitations on his business endeavors with the district is one of the sacrifices one makes as a

public servant.

69. Penalties for Being on Both Sides of a

Contract

The agreement is invalid. This means that the offending official won't be paid for whatever

goods, services or property that were provided under the agreement.

Violations of the prohibition against having an interest in a contract can be prosecuted as a

felony, which can result in fines, imprisonment, and loss of office.

70. Case Study: Council Member Loses Land

A city council member owned land which he sold to a private developer who ultimately

transferred it to the city. The sale was part of a multiple party transaction designed to enable the

developer to satisfy the city's requirement that the developer provide a park and permanent open

space as a condition of the development.

A group of taxpayers in the community sued, arguing that the council member was in essence on

both sides of this transaction.

The court agreed. It concluded that the transaction violated the prohibition against public

officials being on both sides of the contract.

The court ordered the council member to refund the money he received for the land to the city

plus interest.

The city got to keep the property, meaning that the council member basically ended up giving the

property to the city for free.

71. Beyond Legal Minimums

If your agency attorney advises you that you cannot participate in a decision, you must disqualify

yourself or seek the Fair Political Practices Commission's advice regarding how the conflict of

interest disqualification rules of the Political Reform Act apply to you.

If you receive advice that the law permits you to participate in a decision, your analysis is not

over.

Ask yourself whether your constituents will reasonably question your ability to put your personal

interests and relationships aside and put their, the public's, interests first. You can decide to

voluntarily abstain if you are concerned that your constituents would reasonably question

whether you should be involved in the decision-making process.

Remember the law is a floor, not a ceiling, for public service ethics.

72. Best Practices

Be aware of the kinds of economic interests that can trigger a need to step aside from being

involved in a decision.

Talk with your agency counsel early on to enable him or her to perform the complex analysis

required to help you determine whether you will need to step aside from participating in a

decision.

73. Part D: Employment Related Restrictions

There can also be issues when public officials may appear to have parlayed their positions as

public servants into job opportunities.

The specific laws relate to:

Coming back and doing advocacy work before your agency once you have left (this is

known as a revolving door law);

Making decisions on issues that affect someone who is a future employer or will likely be

one.

74. Revolving Door Prohibitions

This kind of personal-financial-gain law prohibits elected officials and top-level managers from,

in essence, trading on the relationships developed in public service.

California law prohibits such individuals from receiving compensation for representing people

before their former agencies. The prohibition applies for one year after leaving the agency.

The penalties for violating this prohibition include: fines, misdemeanor prosecution, having to

pay attorneys' fees and, of course, embarrassment.

75. Case Study: Flora Flies the Flood Control

District Coop

Flora leaves the flood control district governing board on September 1, 2012 and accepts a job

with Acme Construction Company.

On February 1, 2013, the district board proposes new flood protection rules. Acme does not

agree with the new rules.

Flora calls her friend and former colleague on the board (who still sits on the board) Colin, and

lets him know that Acme staunchly opposes the new rules.

Because she is compensated by Acme, Flora has made an appearance or communication

prohibited under the one-year ban. Flora's call to Colin violated the law and subjects her to

penalties and other consequences.

76. Prospective Employers

The desire to please a prospective employer is an understandably common feeling. However, the

law prohibits a public official from using his or her official position to affect a prospective

employer.

In this way, the law expands disqualification obligations to situations where the prospective

employer is not yet an economic interest (discussed previously) but the official is "negotiating"

or "has an arrangement" with a prospective employer.

77. Case Study: Paulo Pursues Employment

Opportunities

Paulo, who is a planning commissioner, submits a resume to Highland Architecture. Highland is

representing a permit applicant on a project before the planning commission. May Paulo

participate in the permit decision?

Yes. Paulo has only submitted a resume and this is not enough to legally disqualify Paulo from

participating in the decision.

However, Paulo may want to consider the public's perception of his ability to fairly evaluate the

permit application if the public were aware of Paulo's interest in working for Highland (and

Paulo should not assume that somehow his interest in the position won't be revealed). A helpful

question for Paulo to ask himself is whether he would feel uncomfortable if his employment

application to Highland were reported in the newspaper in connection with Paulo's participation

in the decision.

78. Case Study: Paulo Pursues Employment

Opportunities (Continued)

After receiving Paulo's resume but prior to the planning commission meeting, Highland calls

Paulo to discuss job openings. Paulo need more information about whether this job opportunity

is right for him, so he schedules a lunch appointment with company managers to discuss the

position. May Paulo participate in the permit decision?

No. Paulo at this point is considered to be interviewing with Highland and, therefore, negotiating

prospective employment. Paulo may not participate in any governmental decision directly related

to Highland.

79. Best Practices

Avoid the temptation to look at public service as an opportunity for financial gain.

Look at every decision and ask yourself whether it involves a financial interest for you or

your family.

Imagine how the relationship of your financial interests and your decisions as a public

official could be portrayed by detractors or the media. Would it diminish public trust that

your actions are motivated solely by the public's interests?

80. Retention Check #2

1. Technically, bribery only involves the exchange of an official action for money, not other

items of value.

[FALSE] A bribe involves conferring a benefit on a public official to influence a person's

vote, opinion or action. Asking for a bribe is illegal, of course, but so is receiving one or

agreeing to receive one. Under the state's criminal laws, a bribe includes anything of

value; it also includes receiving advantages. The advantage can be a future one and need

not involve the payment of money. The federal law definition of bribery is even broader.

2. The conflict of interest prohibition is very broad; you cannot attempt to influence the

decision in any way. This includes talking with your colleagues or staff about the matter.

[TRUE] A public official is not allowed to make, participate in, or influence a

governmental decision in which they have a conflict of interest. Remember, the breadth

of the prohibition: it does not just apply to voting, but the entire process leading up to

voting. Also, there may be even more restrictive local requirements.

3. A vote that is clearly adverse to one's interest is not prohibited by conflict-of-interest

laws.

[FALSE] The voters have created an across-the-board, bright line rule: public officials

may not participate in governmental decisions affecting their interests. Disqualification

does not involve a choice. When you have a disqualifying conflict of interest you must

not participate in a decision, even if you believe you can be fair. In short, the law makes

the determination for you. The law presumes the public will doubt your ability to be fair.

This is an example of avoiding the appearance of impropriety as well as the potential for

actual impropriety.

4. There's no risk of going to jail if one violates public service ethics laws.

[FALSE] Many violations of public service ethics laws are criminal acts and the penalties

for violating these laws are severe. For example, receiving or agreeing to receive a bribe

is punishable by a combination of prison time, fines, losing one's office and being forever

disqualified from holding public office. The specified prison sentence is two to four years

in state prison.

5. If city council members and county supervisors have a disqualifying conflict of interest,

they may observe the decision-making process from inside the room as long as they step

down from the dais.

[FALSE] City council members and county supervisors are examples of the kinds of

local officials who must:

o At the meeting, publicly identify the financial interest or potential conflict of

interest in sufficient detail to be understood by the public.

o Not attempt to influence the decision in any way.

o Refrain from discussing or voting on the matter (including asking for the item to

be considered separately if it is on the consent calendar).

o Leave the room until after the discussion, vote, and any other disposition of the

matter, unless the matter is on the consent calendar.

In terms of how one identifies the financial interest or potential conflict "in sufficient

detail to be understood by the public," the Fair Political Practices Commission

regulations say the official must describe the type of economic interest held by the public

official who is involved in the decision.

6. Participating in a contract in which an official has a financial interest may subject the

official to particularly harsh sanctions.

[TRUE] The special rules relating to conflicts of interest in contracts provide for felony

penalties and the voiding of the contract.

7. So long as a member of a board disqualifies himself or herself from consideration of a

contract, the official will be insulated from charges of conflict of interest.

[FALSE] Generally, when a member of a board has a financial interest in a contract, the

contract may not be entered into even if the member disqualifies himself or herself from

the decision. However, the law provides several exceptions to this general rule that will

allow the contract to go forward so long as the official with the financial interest in no

way participates in the decision. Close consultation with the agency's attorney is vital to

understanding the application of the law to a given situation.

8. It is OK to make decisions affecting someone you are negotiating prospective

employment with so long as you have not accepted cash.

[FALSE] If you are negotiating prospective employment with a person, you may not

participate in any governmental decision directly related to that person.

81. Lesson Four

"No Perks" Rules

82. No Perks Rules: Underlying Principles

The principle underlying the "no-perks" laws is the democratic notion that public servants should

be treated just like everyone else.

Public servants should not receive special benefits beyond the compensation provided by law for

being in public service, either from those who may seek to curry favor with them or at taxpayers'

expense.

83. No Perk Rules (continued)

The "no-perks" rules fall into two basic categories:

Perks that others offer you.

Perks that you give yourself because of your access to and decision-making discretion

over the use of public resources.

This lesson will examine the rules that fall into each category.

84. Part A: Perks that Others Offer You

As a public servant, you may find people or firms offering you such things as:

Gifts, which include meals, tickets to sporting or other entertainment events, trips and

items that are more commonly thought of as gifts (holiday gifts, etc.);

Compensation to speak at conferences, write articles or attend meetings (known as

honoraria);

Loans;

Free or discounted transportation or free upgrades on transportation.

This lesson will explain the issues to be alert to with respect to each.

85. General Gifts

Note that, for purposes of the ethics laws, "gifts" are broadly defined and include anything you

might receive that you did not pay for or provide equal or greater value for.

A "gift" includes not only items we would commonly think of as a "present," but also things like

meals, receptions, travel, hotel stays, and tickets to sporting or entertainment events.

Some kinds of items are excluded from the gift rules, including:

Informational materials

Personalized plaques with a value under $250

Gifts of hospitality by a person at his or her home when the person is present

Gifts between family members

Gifts of approximately equal value exchanged on birthdays, holidays and similar

occasions

Tickets to an event where the official is asked by the entity holding the event to perform a

ceremonial role on behalf of his or her agency

Common acts of neighborliness

Personal benefits commonly exchanged on a bona fide date or in a dating relationship

Gifts from an official's long term close personal friend

You should consult with the Fair Political Practices Commission or agency counsel about the

scope of these potential exceptions, since each has specific criteria and limitations that are too

detailed to be covered fully in this training.

86. Gift Rules (continued)

California's ethics laws require you to report on your Statement of Economic Interests all gifts

you receive from a single source that add up to $50 or more over the course of a calendar year.

State law sets annual limits on the value of gifts an official may accept from a single source

during a calendar year. In 2013-2014, the limit is $440.

You may also have to disqualify yourself from participating in a decision involving someone

who has given you gifts that exceed the gift limit 2013-2014, $ 440) in the prior 12 months.

87. Case Study: Car Company Offers a

Discount

A car company offers public officials a special lease rate on vehicles in jurisdictions where its

plants are located. The rate is $4,360 annually; the comparable cost of leasing a vehicle on the

open market is $5,400.

Because the special lease rate is only available to public officials, the discounted rate is a gift in

the amount of $1,040 a year, which significantly exceeds the annual gift limit set by the Fair

Political Practices Commission ($ 440 in 2013 - 2014). A gift includes rebates or discounts in the

price of items unless the rebate or discount is made in the regular course of business to members

of the public and not only public officials.

88. Case Study: Supervisor Needs a Place to

Stay (Long Term Hospitality)

A member of the county board of supervisors is planning an extensive remodel in his home. The

remodel will be so extensive and disruptive that the contractor advised the official to stay

elsewhere. A variety of people the supervisor knows have offered free lodging for the supervisor

and his family for the three to four months the remodel is likely to take. The supervisor wonders

though: Would this constitute a reportable gift?

The supervisor is wise to consider this question and speak with agency counsel. The definition of

"gift" under the Political Reform Act is quite broad and usually includes lodging.

Personal Friends: One question agency counsel will ask is whether the person offering the

lodging is an individual with whom the official has a long term, close personal friendship

unrelated to the official's position with the agency. If so, the offer of free lodging may be exempt

from the definition of "gift." However, this exception would not apply if the person offering

lodging has any business pending before the agency, or foreseeably will have any business

before the agency.

Other Situations: Another question agency counsel will ask is how long the visit would be.

Officials are permitted to receive occasional "home hospitality" which is exempt from the gift

reporting and tracking requirements. Home hospitality includes food, typical home

entertainment, and occasional lodging provided by an individual in his or her home, as long as

the person offering the hospitality (or a member of their family) is present.

However, the Fair Political Practices Commission has interpreted the exception for home

hospitality to apply only to infrequent, friendly visits that are more like a vacation- not living

arrangements. The difference between vacations and living arrangements is that "vacations"

usually are not more than a month.

Thus, under this scenario, receiving free lodging for three to four months would exceed the

bounds of what is considered to be "home hospitality." Given the likely fair market value of such

lodging, accepting such hospitality is likely to put the supervisor well over the annual gift limit.

The official needs either to make other arrangements for lodging during the remodel or otherwise

pay fair market value for his stay.

The complexity of this analysis is one of the reasons it is very important for officials to consult

with either agency counsel or the Fair Political Practices Commission when these kinds of issues

arise.

89. Case Study: Theme Park Invites Official's

Whole Family

A theme park invited all local elected officials in the county and their families to an afternoon at

the park. An official with a large family would like to take her family to the theme park; she

would also like to give one of the passes to her hardworking babysitter. She is concerned about

both how to report the gift and what the public's perception would be if she accepted such a

generous offer.

Let's first address what the law says. Free admission to an amusement park is a gift.

Next, there are a number of questions the official needs to ask in determining her obligations.

One is what the passes are worth. The usual rule is what anyone else would have to pay to get

into the park (a concept known as "fair market value").

Another question is how many tickets will the official need to count as gifts to the official. Gifts

to family members can be gifts to the official. The exception is when (1) there is an established

relationship between the gift giver and the family member and (2) there is no evidence to suggest

the gift giver had a purpose to influence the official.

In this case, there is no indication of an established relationship between the theme park and the

family members, thus the gifts are counted as gifts to the official.

What about the pass to the babysitter? Because the official received the pass and then gave it to

the babysitter, the pass counts as a gift to the official.

As a result, the official needs to multiply the number of passes she, her family, and her babysitter

used by the value of the pass. If the value is $50 or more, the official must report the passes on

her Statement of Economic Interests. She would also need to determine whether she received any

other gifts from the theme park and whether those need to be reported as well. The official also

needs to be mindful of the overall limit one is allowed to accept from a single source in a year

($440 for 2013-14).

90. Case Study: Theme Park Invites Official's

Whole Family (Continued)

Gifts are another area in which the official may also want to think above and beyond the

minimum requirements of the law.

What would the official's constituents think if the official accepted such free admission when the

constituents all have to pay to take their families to the theme park?

Irrespective of what the law says, would the official's constituents think that all the passes are a

gift to the official because the family gets invited only because of the official's status?

Would the public perceive that the theme park is trying to curry special favor with the official?

These are all questions worth pondering before accepting gifts as a public official. It is also why,

if one chooses to accept gifts, it is very important to seek advice from your agency counsel or the

Fair Political Practices Commission about how to make sure that the gifts are properly tracked

and reported.

91. Case Study: Gift Receipt Disqualifies

Official

A local official receives a gift from a gift giver in October 2012 that's just under the gift limit

($415); the official receives a gift of similar value from the same person in January 2013 ($410).

The gift giver then seeks a permit approval before the official's agency in March of 2013.

There are two things to worry about in this situation in terms of the gift limit amount. First, an

official may not exceed the gift limit in a given year. The official has not exceeded this amount

in either year.

The second thing to worry about is whether one has exceeded the gift limit in the 12 months

preceding a decision involving a gift giver. When this happens (as in this example), the official

must disqualify him or herself from participating in the permit application and avoid doing

anything to influence the decision-making process relating to the permit.

The combined total of gifts this official received in the preceding 12 months to March 2013 is

$825. That amount is well over the $ 440 threshold (2013-2014) for the official to be able to

participate in the permit-approval process. The official must step aside from the decision-making

process relating to the permit.

92. What to Do About Unwanted Gifts?

Some officials go beyond the requirements of the law and simply decline all gifts, so no one will

ever question whether their receipt of gifts influenced their decision.

Whether you want to take this approach or not, you can also do the following with unwanted

gifts within 30 days of receiving them:

Return the gift unused;

Deliver the unused gift, without claiming it as a deduction on your income taxes, to a

state, local, or federal government agency, or to a nonprofit 501(c)(3) organization, so

long as neither you nor an immediate family member holds a position in the organization;

or

Reimburse the gift-giver the fair market value of the gift (or the amount necessary to

bring the fair market value of the gift to below the allowable annual gift limit).

93. Case Study: Supervisor Puzzles Value of a

Gift

A county supervisor enjoys duck hunting. Every year, a ranch owner who resides elsewhere in

the county, allows the supervisor and his guests to hunt ducks on the ranch which is not open to

the public for hunting.

The ranch is located next to the county landfill, and the county is involved in negotiations with

the ranch-owner relating to toxic contamination. The duck-hunting supervisor wants to know if

he can be involved in these discussions.

At the outset, the supervisor needs to make sure he is reporting the value of a gift of three days of

duck-hunting. The Fair Political Practices Commission says that the supervisor should make a

good faith estimate of the fair market value of the duck hunting access-for example, by looking

at the price one would have to pay for three days of duck or other forms of hunting at an

equivalent commercial facility.

The next question is whether the value of the hunting access exceeds the annual gift limit for

public officials. In 2013-2014, this amount is $440. If the fair market value is over $440 (say

$450), the supervisor needs to determine whether he wants to accept the gift. If he does, then he

must pay down the amount of the gift to at least bring the amount below the annual gift limit.

This must occur within 30 days of receiving the gift. The supervisor must also consider whether

the ranch owner has given him any other gifts that need to be considered in the analysis.

Once these issues are resolved, the next question then becomes whether the supervisor can

participate in the discussions. As long as the supervisor hasn't received a gift or combination of

gifts that exceed the $440 limit over the preceding 12 months, he may participate.

The complexity of this analysis is why it is advisable for the supervisor to contact either agency

counsel or the Fair Political Practices Commission so they can do the analysis of what the

supervisor has to do to stay within the bounds of the law.

94. Case Study: Supervisor Puzzles Value of a

Gift (Continued)

Finally, even if the law allowed the supervisor to participate in the discussions relating to

contamination of the property, the supervisor also needs to evaluate the public's perception of his

doing so given the history of generosity the supervisor has with the landowner.

Will the public question whether the supervisor is motivated by a desire to protect the public's

interest in these discussions or by a desire to protect the interests of a friend?

If the supervisor concludes the public will think the supervisor is motivated by something other

than the public's interests, the supervisor might be wise to sit these discussions out and reflect

upon these appearances in advance of accepting future gifts.

95. Consequences of Disregarding Gift Rules

Those who disregard the gift limits and reporting requirements face a penalty of administrative

sanctions of up to $5,000 per violation, or civil penalties of up to three times the amount of the

unlawful gift.

They also face the prospect of hiring an attorney at their own expense to help them navigate the

Fair Political Practices Commission enforcement process (an estimated $3,000-$30,000).

If the enforcement effort occurs through a private lawsuit, the public official may have to pay the

attorneys' fees of the person who brought the action.

All of this can make receiving gifts as a public servant a very expensive proposition.

96. Compensation for Speaking or Writing

(Honoraria Ban)

Another issue to be alert to is when someone offers to pay you for giving a speech, writing an

article or attending a meeting. Such payments are known as "honoraria."

California public officials generally may not accept payments for making speeches, publishing

nonfiction articles (or doing more than secretarial work in connection with such articles), or

attending public or private conferences, conventions, meetings, social events, meals or like

gatherings.

There are exceptions if the speech or article is made in connection with a bona fide trade or

business unconnected with one's public service (for example, practicing law, medicine,

insurance, real estate, banking, building contracting, and others). However, the exception does

not apply when the business' main activity is making speeches. For more information on the

scope of this exception, consult your agency attorney.

97. What to Do if You Have Received an

Honorarium?

Return or Donate. An honorarium may be either returned unused to the provider or delivered to

the State Controller. Either must occur within 30 days of receiving the honorarium.

Payments to Charitable Organizations. Sometimes an organization will offer to make a

payment to a bona fide charitable, educational, civic, religious, or similar tax-exempt, nonprofit

organization in lieu of an honorarium. This is okay if the payment is sent directly to the nonprofit

(without being first received by the official) and the official is not identified in connection with

the payment. (Note: certain payments such as these may still be reportable (See charitable

fundraising disclosure, below).)

98. Penalties for Violation of the Honoraria

Ban

Missteps in this area can result in an action brought by the FPPC for an amount of up to three

times the amount of the unlawful honorarium.

Violators are also subject to administrative sanctions, which include fines of up to $5,000 per

violation.

99. Special Restrictions on Personal Loans

Loans can also present issues.

One restriction relates to borrowing from those who work for the agency. The restriction applies

to loans from agency contractors or employees (or a contractor or employee of any agency over

which the official has direction and control). A local official may not borrow more than $250

from such folks.

Another rule requires documentation and disclosure of loans over $500. The document must

explain the terms of the loan (including the parties to the loan agreement, loan date, amount and

term, the interest rate, when payments are due and payment amounts. The loan also must be

reported on one's statement of economic interests.

The disclosure rules do not apply to bank loans or credit card debt (which tend to be in writing in

any event). There are other exceptions as well. Consult agency counsel or the Fair Political

Practices Commission for more information.

100. Case Study: Loans from Other

Individuals

Barry owns a restaurant called The Galley in a seaside town. He is also a member of the local

port authority governing board. Barry's restaurant falls on hard times and Barry needs $600 to

pay one of his suppliers.

A friend who owns a boatyard offers to help Barry out. On a handshake and with much gratitude,

Barry agrees to repay the $600 when he can.

Barry reasons that since the friend is not an agency contractor or employee, there is no issue

under the Political Reform Act.

Barry is right that the prohibition on personal loans from those connected with the agency does

not apply. However, since the amount is $500 or more, it must be in writing with all the relevant

terms. In addition, absent an exception, the loan is considered income to Barry and must be

reported on his annual statement of economic interests (Form 700).

If it is evident that Barry will not repay the loan, he will have to evaluate his obligations under

the gift rules. Barry vows next time he finds himself in this situation (which he hopes won't

happen), he'll talk with someone before deciding to borrow money from someone other than a

bank or his credit card company .

101. Gifts from Transportation Companies

Receipt of complimentary transportation from transportation companies is subject to special and

very strict rules.

California public officials may not accept free, upgraded or discounted transportation from

transportation companies. The penalty for violating this prohibition is removal from office.

Free transportation offered to anyone, regardless of their status as public officials, is not subject

to this prohibition (an example would be frequent flyer programs). Another example would

include flight upgrades or vouchers for being bumped from a flight at the airport.

The prohibition/penalty applies to elected and appointed officials, but not to employees.

Wondering why this law is so strict? This prohibition dates back to the early part of the 20th

century when the railroads were perceived as having too much influence over policymakers. The

voters added it to California's Constitution as part of Progressive Era reforms.

102. Best Practices

Decide whether and the extent to which you want to accept gifts.

If you do decide to accept gifts, develop a tracking system to enable you to:

Determine whether and how much to report on your Statement of Economic Interests

(threshold: anything $50 or more from a single source over a calendar year).

Avoid exceeding the annual gift limit of $440 (2013-14) .

Know when you need to disqualify yourself in matters involving a person who has given

you $440 (2013-14) in gifts over the preceding 12 months.

Know what kinds of gifts are prohibited, not just limited. Prohibited gifts include gifts

from transportation companies and, in most instances, speaking fees.

Ask the value of all gifts so you can track and properly report them.

103. Perks Part B: Use of Public Resources

Issues

A second variation on the "no perks" theme relates to your use of public resources, which

includes such things as the kinds of expenses you incur while on agency business as well as the

use of agency equipment, supplies and staff time.

The basic rule to keep in mind is that personal and political use of public resources is strictly

prohibited.

104. Expense Reimbursement

One form of perks that relate to use of public resources is when an official seeks reimbursement

of expenses that he or she incurs as a result of public service.

State law contains certain requirements and restrictions on local agency practices relating to

reimbursing local elected and appointed official's expenses. Local agencies must:

Adopt expense reimbursement policies that specify the kinds of activities that will be

reimbursable;

Identify a reasonable time within which requests for reimbursement must be submitted in

those policies;

Use expense report forms; and

Require that all expenses must be documented with receipts (these documents are public

records subject to disclosure).

105. Expense Reimbursement (continued)

Local reimbursement policies may specify what constitutes reasonable rates for travel, meals,

lodging and other expenses.

If a local policy does not specify reimbursement rates, then the reimbursable rates default to

those in the Internal Revenue Service guidelines.

106. Expense Reimbursement (continued)

There are also certain state law standards on what constitutes reasonable levels of expenses.

For example, lodging costs in connection with conferences may not exceed the maximum group

rates published for the conference.

If those rates are not available at the time the lodging is booked, the lodging rates must be

comparable to those allowed by the Internal Revenue Service or government rates.

Local agency officials must use group or government rates for non-conference-related lodging

and transportation services.

If a legislative body member wants to seek reimbursement for levels of expenses not otherwise

authorized under the agency's reimbursement policy, then the official may seek prior approval

for such reimbursement from the governing body (before incurring the expense).

Officials who spend more than allowed under their agencies' reimbursement policies have the

option of simply paying the extra costs themselves.

107. Use of Agency Equipment, Staff Time,

and Other Resources

Officials also cannot make personal use of an agency's office equipment, office supplies or staff

time. Such resources must be used for the public's benefit only.

How has this issue come up for some public agencies? Some agencies have had unfortunate

experiences with elected officials and staff using agency credit cards for personal expenses.

The same restrictions against personal use of public resources apply to use of agency credit

cards. In fact, the potential for misuse of agency credit cards (even by accident) has caused many

agencies to re-think the practice of issuing individual officials and staff agency credit cards.

108. A Note on Attending Conferences

Public officials deal with many difficult and complex issues. It can be helpful to attend

conferences to learn more about these issues and consult with officials from other jurisdictions

about what they do. There are a number of conferences that offer valuable information to help

local officials better serve their communities.

But what happens if an official says he or she is going to a conference and then the official

misses all or most of the educational sessions? Such a scenario raises both legal and ethical

issues.

The legal issue is that all expenditures of public money must support a public purpose. The

public purpose of sending someone to a conference is for the attendee to acquire new

information and knowledge to help better serve the community. If the official doesn't do this

(and instead uses the trip as a recreational opportunity), the official risks being accused of using

public resources for non-public, personal purposes.

The ethical issue is whether the charge can be made that the official misrepresented his or her

purpose in traveling to the conference location. If the official said it was to attend the conference,

but the official really didn't, then both the official's colleagues and the public's trust in the

official's truthfulness will be diminished.

109. Use of Public Resources for Political

Purposes

The same rules that prevent personal use of public resources also prohibit political use of public

resources.

This means public officials may not use agency equipment, supplies or staff time for political

purposes.

"Political purposes" includes activities to promote or defeat candidates for public office; they

also include campaign activities promoting the passage or defeat of ballot measures.

110. Consequences of Violations

Misuse of public resources for personal or political purposes is punishable by:

Civil penalties of up to $1,000 a day plus three times the value of the resource used.

Criminal penalties including a two- to four-year prison term and being disqualified from

holding public office.

Prosecution for income tax evasion, with associated penalties under federal law.

Administrative or civil penalties under the Political Reform Act for failure to report the

value of the misused resources as a campaign contribution, if the official is running for

office.

Note too that local officials have also been sued by private parties seeking to force the local

officials to pay back the dollar value of the public resources the private parties believe that the

officials misused.

111. Case Study: Water District Abuse

Results in New Law

A whistle-blowing employee reported misuses of public resources at a local water district to the

Sacramento Bee.

The alleged abuses included:

Misrepresenting payments to employees for purposes of income tax reporting (buybacks

for unused sick leave, vacation pay, bonuses, etc.).

Personal purchases made with water district credit cards.

Sloppy expense reimbursement practices.

The paper's investigative reports led to revelations of similar practices at other districts.

Ultimately, the situation prompted the Legislature to adopt AB 1234's provisions relating to

ethics training and expense reimbursement practices.

Two members of the water district staff ultimately were sentenced to prison for income tax

evasion.

112. Examples of Prosecutions for Misuse of

Public Funds for Personal Purposes

A city official improperly used a city car, entrusted to him for use in connection with

official business, to take a pleasure trip from Los Angeles to Great Falls, Montana and

back.

A city commissioner improperly used official government discounts to purchase items for

himself and others. This was a misuse of public resources, even though those receiving

the discount paid for the items with personal funds.

A county supervisor improperly used her staff and office facilities for her law practice.

Another county supervisor improperly used his county-paid staff to work on his political

campaign for lieutenant governor.

Another problem occurred when a county official furnished staff and a county vehicle to

transport a political candidate, and the candidate's staff and family.

113. Use of Public Resources for Political

Purposes Mass Mailing Prohibition

Another example of a law that prohibits misuse of public resources for political purposes is the

prohibition against mass mailings.

The mass mailing restriction prohibits elected officials from using public dollars to advertise

their names and accomplishments to voters.

The rationale for this prohibition is to eliminate practices that favor incumbent elected officials

and to create a level playing field in elections.

The easiest way to avoid violating this law is to make sure that any communication being

produced by your agency does not mention or feature an elected official.

There are a number of exceptions to the prohibition, such as mailings that are considered

essential in order for government to function properly and the use of the name of the official is

required; contact your agency attorney for more information.

114. Case Study: Annual Report Leads to

Fine

A school district prepared and mailed approximately 36,000 copies of an annual report which

contained photographs, names, and biographies of the elected school board members.

The superintendent was fined $1,500 for violating the mass mailing prohibition.

115. Case Study: Ads in Chamber Newsletter

The Fair Political Practices Commission has ruled that the mass mailing prohibition means a city

council member's business could not run an ad in a chamber of commerce newsletter.

The city council member was an accountant, whose firm name included his last name (as well as

two others). The problem was that the chamber of commerce was partially funded with city

funds, and the ad would have included the firm name as well as a picture of all 12 members of

the firm.

The Commission has been consistent in its view that the fact that an elected official is paying for

an ad in a mailing does not matter.

In another case, the Commission nixed a paid ad by a councilmember's business in a city

newsletter when the business and Web address for the business included the councilmember's

last name.

This is in part because these ads are paid for in consultation with the city councilmember, so any

inclusion of the councilmember's name, office, photograph or other reference is enough to trigger

the prohibition.

Lesson: Elected officials should watch out for mailings sent by other organizations that received

public funding from your agency.

116. Penalties for Violating the Prohibition on

Mass Mailings

These restrictions are part of the Political Reform Act, which means administrative, criminal and

civil sanctions apply.

These sanctions include criminal misdemeanors for knowing or willful violations, fines of up to

three times the amount of government funds spent on the unlawful mailing or $10, 000

(whichever is greater), administrative fines of up to $5,000 per violation, and possible

reimbursement for the costs of any litigation initiated by private individuals, including

reasonable attorneys' fees.

117. Retention Check #3

1. A meal provided free of charge to an official cannot be a gift if government business is

discussed at the meal.

[FALSE] The Political Reform Act broadly defines gift to include any payment or other

benefit received (including meals) by a public official unless the official provided

something of equal or greater value in return. It does not matter if government business is

discussed at a meal; if the meal is paid for by someone other than the official or the

official's agency, the cost of the official's meal is considered a gift to the official.

2. If an airline upgrades a county supervisor to first-class, the supervisor faces having to pay

triple the value of the upgrade as a penalty.

[FALSE] The penalty for violating the prohibition against accepting free or discounted

travel from transportation companies is severe - an immediate forfeiture of office.

3. Public officials may use public resources for personal or political purposes as long as the

use occurs after hours and does not interfere with the conduct of the government's

business.

[FALSE] There is no such exception to the prohibition against using public resources for

personal or political purposes. Public resources include such things as 1) staff time, 2)

office equipment (telephones, fax machines, photocopiers, and computers), and 3) office

supplies (stationery, stamps, and other items).

4. Tokyo, Japan declared a sister-city relationship with your city. It would be lawful for a

Tokyo company to pay for the mayor to fly to the sister city, as long as the mayor reports

the gift.

[FALSE] Gifts of travel expenses (for example, airfare, lodging, meals and

entertainment) from non- transportation companies are generally subject to the gift rules.

An official may not accept gifts from any one source totaling more than a certain amount

(in 2013-14: $440) in a calendar year. The challenge with this question is the likelihood

that the cost of an international flight may well exceed the annual gift limit from a single

source.

118. Lesson Five

Governmental Transparency Laws

119. Transparency Laws: Underlying

Principles

Fundamentally, what public officials do is transact the public's business.

Conducting oneself and transacting the public's business in a transparent fashion gives the public

an opportunity to monitor and participate in the government agency's decisions.

Also, the public trusts a process it can see.

120. Examples of Transparency Laws

The following laws all relate to the goal of transparency:

Economic interest disclosure laws;

Charitable fundraising disclosure laws;

Open meeting laws; and

Public records disclosure.

This lesson will explain each.

121. Part A: Economic Interest Disclosure

There is an adage about one's life being an open book. Nowhere is this truer than for public

officials and their finances.

The bottom line is when you become a public official, the public gets to learn a great deal about

your financial life. The voters created these disclosure requirements when they approved the

Political Reform Act in 1974.

The disclosure requirements apply to nearly every local elected official and department head.

Members of commissions, boards, committees and other local agency bodies with significant

decision-making authority are also subject to disclosure requirements.

An agency may require additional staff positions to disclose their economic interests under the

agency's local conflict of interest code. Such employees are known as "designated employees."

Generally, public officials must file these statements when assuming office, annually while in

office, and upon leaving office.

122. Economic Interest Disclosure

(continued)

The following kinds of economic interests must be disclosed if they meet certain minimum

thresholds:

Sources of income;

Interests in real property;

Investments;

Business positions; and

Sources of gifts.

This disclosure is made on a form called a "Statement of Economic Interests." It may also be

referred to by the acronym "SEI" or its number "Form 700." Local agencies may adopt electronic

filing procedures, and provide paper copies of the form as well. . Interactive versions of the

forms are available from the Fair Political Practices Commission website:

http://www.fppc.ca.gov.

123. Part B: Charitable Fundraising

Disclosure

The disclosure laws are not limited to an official's personal economic interests.

There are extensive disclosure requirements relating to an official's campaign fundraising

activities.

A sometimes-overlooked disclosure obligation relates to an official's charitable fundraising

activities. This obligation is referred to as the "behested payments" disclosure requirement. The

theory is that the public has a right to know who is contributing to an elected official's favorite

charities and other causes at the official's behest.

The disclosure requirement is triggered when, at the behest of the official:

A person or business donates $5,000 or more (in a calendar year).

The donation will be used for a legislative, governmental or charitable purpose.

124. Non-Disclosure Penalties

The offense can be prosecuted as a misdemeanor (conviction could result in the official's being

removed from office).

In many cases the official faces having to personally pay fines of $5,000 to $10,000 per offense,

among other possible penalties. The official also faces having to hire an attorney to help defend

him or herself. If the action is brought by a private individual and that individual wins, the

official may have to pay the individual's attorneys' fees.

Additionally, there is the personal/political embarrassment factor associated with being accused

or found guilty of violating the law.

125. Part C: Conducting the Public's

Business in Public

California's open meeting laws require that boards and commissions be open to the public.

Decision-making bodies- which include the governing board as well as many committees and

advisory bodies- must conduct their business in an open and public meeting to assure the public

is fully informed about local decisions.

126. Conducting the Public's Business in

Public (continued)

The following are some things to keep in mind:

Meetings. A "meeting" is any situation involving a majority of the governing body in which

business is transacted or discussed. In other words, a majority of the governing body cannot talk

privately about an issue that is before the body no matter how the conversation occurs, whether

by telephone or e-mail or social media or at a local coffee shop.

Serial Meetings. One thing to watch for is unintentionally creating a "serial" meeting- a series of

communications that result in a majority of governing body members having conferred on an

issue.

For example, if two members of a five-member governing body consult outside of a public

meeting (which is not in and of itself a violation) and then one of those individuals consults with

a third member on the same issue, a majority of the body has consulted on the same issue.

Note the communication does not need to be in person and can occur through a third party. For

example, sending or forwarding e-mail can be sufficient to create a serial meeting, as can a staff

member acting as an intermediary in facilitating communications among a majority of the body.

127. Purpose of Open Meeting Laws

Operating under the requirements of open meeting laws can sometimes be frustrating for local

officials. Confining discussions among decision-makers to public meetings can seem inefficient

and an unnatural way to communicate with colleagues.

It may be helpful to acknowledge that the goal of open meeting laws is not efficiency. If efficient

decision-making were the priority, one wouldn't even need a multi-member decision-making

body.

Having a multi-member decision-making body suggests a different set of values. This includes

the value of having a group of individuals with a variety of experiences, backgrounds and

viewpoints come together to develop a consensus. Consensus is developed through debate,

deliberation and give and take. This process can sometimes take a long time and is very different

in character than the individual-decision-maker model.

128. Purpose of Open Meeting Laws

(continued)

The open meeting laws reflect another value judgment, the value of having the public present to

monitor and participate in the decision-making process. This doesn't occur if decision-makers

reach decisions when the public isn't present. Therefore, absent a specific (and legally

authorized) reason to keep the public out of the meeting, the public should be allowed to monitor

and participate in the decision-making process.

If one accepts the philosophy behind the creation of a multi-member body and the reservation of

a seat at the table for the public, many of the particular open meeting rules become much easier

to accept and understand. Simply put, some efficiency is sacrificed for the benefits of greater

public participation and trust in public agency decision-making processes.

129. Case Study: Open Meetings and

Electronic Devices

During a recent board of supervisors meeting, members of the board were seen typing furiously

on their tablets and smart phones. At one point three members of the five member board were

observed lifting their heads, looking at each other, and nodding knowingly.

If the three members were sending text messages among themselves during the meeting, would

they be violating the law? If the three members were receiving messages from a permit applicant

in the audience, would they be violating the law?

When a quorum of a body (three in the case of a five-member body) participates in

communications through an intermediary or technological device, they are participating in a

meeting. If that meeting is not properly noticed and accessible to the public, it is in violation of

the law. In this example, three members of the board are conducting a text-message conversation

about an item on the meeting agenda in a way that does not involve traditional forms of spoken

communications that the public can hear and observe. As such, we think a court would likely

conclude the board members are violating both the letter and the spirit of the open meetings

laws.

What if a permit applicant was communicating simultaneously with the supervisors? The law

regarding third-party contacts with elected officials is quite technical and esoteric, but such a

situation is questionable at best.

In any event, secret text-message conversations in the course of an open, noticed, public meeting

are inconsistent with the fundamental purpose of open meeting laws. The goal of an open airing

of ideas in a public forum is totally undermined if simultaneous secret conversations are

occurring in the very midst of a public meeting.

130. Case Study: Open Meetings and

Electronic Devices (Continued)

Perhaps more importantly, the general ethical value of respect suggests that such text-messaging

should not occur. During a public meeting, the public's expectation is that its decision-makers

will listen to the information being presented at public meetings. Focusing instead on smart

phones, cell phones, tablets or even other unrelated reading materials is inconsistent with this

expectation.

131. Conducting the Public's Business in

Public (continued)

More things to keep in mind:

Permissible Gatherings. Not every gathering of governing body members is a problem. For

example, a majority of the governing body may attend the same educational conference or a

community meeting not organized by the local agency. Nor is attendance at a social or

ceremonial event in and of itself a violation.

Closed Sessions. The open meeting laws include provisions for closed discussions under very

limited circumstances. Any closed session must be specifically permitted by these laws; closed

sessions cannot occur merely because a subject is "confidential" or "sensitive." Because of the

complexity of the open meeting laws, close consultation with an agency's legal advisor is

necessary to ensure that the requirements relating to and the limitations on closed sessions are

observed.

132. Case Study: Closed Session Discussion

Creeps into Other Issues

A local agency governing body conducted a closed session relating to a lawsuit; the purpose of

the closed session was to receive advice from the agency's attorney. The notice for the closed

session referred to the lawsuit. The agency attorney okayed the closed session under the pending

litigation exception to the open meeting laws.

After the discussion on the lawsuit, one of the elected officials said: Before we break and while

we are all here, I have two additional concerns I would like to discuss:

1. What is the status of our negotiations in that other lawsuit we filed last month?

2. I would like to talk with the attorney about how to draft a policy that gives preference to

local vendors; I want to propose such a policy at our next meeting.

Are these questions appropriate for discussion in this closed session? What should the attorney

and other members say?

133. Case Study: Closed Session Discussion

Creeps into Other Issues (Continued)

An important thing to keep in mind is that a governing body has the same obligations to strictly

follow the published agenda in closed session as it does during the regular meeting in open

session. The body is not free to discuss anything that it wants. The body's ability to discuss

matters in a closed session is strictly limited by the law and the notice that it produces in

connection with the meeting.

Consequently, questions about the other lawsuit can be discussed only if the discussion has been

included in the closed session agenda. Even though the public may not hear or participate in the

discussion, the law says that the public is entitled to know that the discussion is occurring.

Regarding the contracting policy, generally speaking, issues relating to agency policy are matters

that need to be discussed in open session after putting the matter on the agenda.

If there are legal issues relating to a proposed policy, the issue is whether, based on existing facts

and circumstances, the agency has an exposure to litigation. Given that the policy hasn't even

been proposed yet, this is likely to be a tough standard to meet.

If agency policy allows, the better approach may be to have this conversation with the agency

attorney one-on-one, so no group discussion occurs about the pluses or minuses of such a policy

outside an open and publicized meeting.

134. The Public's Right to Participate in

Meetings

General Concept. Another element of open meeting laws is the public's right to address the

governing body. In other words, the law gives the public a seat at the table where the public's

business is being conducted. A public official's role is to both hear and evaluate these concerns.

There are a number of basic rules that govern this right.

Posting and Following the Agenda. The open meeting laws require the public be informed of

the time of and the issues to be addressed at each meeting. This includes posting the agenda on

the agency's website, if it has one.

The Public's Right to be Heard. Generally, every agenda must provide an opportunity for the

public to address the governing body on any item of interest to the public within the body's

jurisdiction. If the issue of concern is one pending before the legislative body, the opportunity

must be provided before or during the body's consideration of that issue.

Reasonable Time Limits May Be Imposed. Local agencies may adopt reasonable regulations

to ensure everyone has an opportunity to be heard in an orderly manner.

135. Case Study: Handling Public Comment

Imagine the following occurring at a public agency meeting:

Chair: Okay, it's now time for public testimony. I have the sign up cards here so when I call your

name, please come to the microphone and make your comments.

The Chair then calls all of the names and the decision-makers listen to their testimony.

Chair: "Thank you all, that concludes our testimony for this evening."

Member of public: "Excuse me, I have something that I want to say."

Chair: "Okay, come to the mic and state your name and address for us."

Public: "I just want to tell you about the mistreatment that I received from the operator of your

animal control office."

Chair: "Now just hold it. First, you have to provide your name and address."

Public: "Why? I don't want to give you my name, and certainly not my address. I live here and

I'm entitled to share my concerns."

Chair: "Not without identifying yourself first."

Public: "My name is John Q. Public and I am here to protest the shoddy and incompetent

treatment I received at the hands of those brutes you call animal control."

Chair: "That's enough. We're through. I'm not going to sit here and listen to some anonymous

malcontent criticize our hard-working employees. We're adjourned."

136. Case Study Analysis

The open meeting laws specifically provide that members of the public do not have to identify

themselves in order to attend a public meeting.

In most instances, people are happy to give their names in order to lend credibility to their views

and to facilitate the distribution of information.

However, the decision to disclose one's name and address lies with the person attending the

meeting.

The open meeting laws also allow the public to criticize elected or appointed officials as well as

staff concerning the performance of their official duties.

What about refusing to give one's name when one speaks?

The law isn't clear on this point, but the better approach is to allow people to share their thoughts

without stating their name.

Decision-makers can factor in the credibility of the testimony from an anonymous speaker, but

there may be strong reasons of privacy or personal security underlying an individual's desire to

shield his or her name and address.

137. Consequences of Disregarding Open

Government Laws

Violating the open meetings laws can have significant consequences, which include:

Invalidating or nullifying any decision made in violation of the open meetings laws.

Criminal sanctions for intentional violations of the open meeting laws (up to 6 months in

jail/$1,000 fine).

The prospect of the agency having to pay for attorneys' fees to defend challenges, as well

as possibly paying for the attorneys' fees of those who successfully sue the agency.

Intense, adverse media attention (remember Mark Twain's advice to not pick fights with

those who buy ink by the barrel!).

138. Best Practices

All governing body members should assist one another in carefully observing the requirements

of closed session meetings.

If a member is concerned about a potential violation of law, the member should make his or her

concerns known and seek assistance from the agency attorney.

This protects both the agency and its leaders.

139. Part D: The Public's Right to Access

Records

Copies of the agenda materials and other documents distributed to the governing body must also

be made promptly available to the public.

In addition to observing the meetings of government boards and commissions, the public has the

right to request public records from any government agency. These materials include any writing

that was prepared, owned, used, or retained by a public agency. They include documents,

computer data, facsimiles, and photographs.

Although there are exceptions to a public agency's duty to disclose records, a safe practice is to

assume that virtually all materials involved in one's service on the governing body-including e-

mails-are public records subject to disclosure.

140. How the Records Request Process

Works

The public can make records requests orally or in writing. Many agencies assist the public by

providing a form to request records.

The request can ask for records having a certain kind of content; the request does not have to

identify a specific record.

However, the request must be sufficiently clear to enable the agency to locate the request. If it is

not, the agency must work with the person making the request to try to make it clearer.

141. How the Records Request Process

Works (continued)

The general rule is that agency records may be inspected anytime during regular business hours.

As a practical matter, the agency may need time to identify and locate the record by:

Consulting records indexes and filing systems

Asking knowledgeable people

Looking in logical places.

Although the agency must provide records promptly, the agency must generally respond within

10 days as to whether the agency was able to find the records and whether any exceptions to the

obligation to disclose the records exist.

The goal is for the agency to provide the records within the 10 days; if it cannot, it must provide

a good faith estimate as to when it can (keeping in mind the general obligation to provide the

records promptly).

142. How the Records Request Process

Works (continued)

There may be exceptions to the duty to disclose records based on considerations of privacy or

other important competing considerations.

For example, in one case, a court said that a city did not have to disclose records relating to

individuals' complaints about a nearby airports noise. The court concluded that requiring

disclosure of such records might intrude on the individuals' privacy and their right to petition

their government to address problems.

Note, however, that exceptions to the obligation to disclose are interpreted narrowly and there is

a presumption in favor of disclosing records.

143. Fees for Duplication of Records

Agencies may charge the direct cost of producing a copy of a record.

The direct cost of duplication includes the pro-rata (proportionate cost) of copying equipment as

well as the pro-rata cost of the person running the equipment (a proportion of their salary and

benefits, for example).

The direct costs of duplication do not include costs affiliated with the research, retrieval, or

redaction of a record. An agency cannot charge a person requesting copies of records for these

costs. The theory is that these costs must be born by the agency as part of its duty to serve the

public.

144. Consequences of Not Providing Records

When One Should

If there is a disagreement about whether the agency satisfied its responsibilities under the records

disclosure rules, a person denied access to records can sue the agency to require that the records

be produced.

If they win, the agency will have to pay the requestor's attorney's fees. These can be expensive.

It can also undermine public trust in the agency if it appears that it is trying to hide information

from the public.

145. Case Study: Be Ready for Media Audits

of Agency Practices

Periodically public interest groups or media nonprofit organizations submit public records

requests for the purpose of measuring the responsiveness of government agencies to the

requirements of the Public Records Act. These so-called "audits" assess the readiness of agencies

to provide records in a proper and timely fashion. Agencies that do not respond in the proper

manner risk receiving public and scathing reviews in the state and local media.

146. Best Practices

Elected officials and members of boards and commissions typically are not on the front lines

when it comes to responding to records requests. However, agency leaders do want to make sure

that the agency has solid procedures in place to properly respond to such requests.

Work with your agency's legal counsel and records custodian to make sure agency staff are

aware of the public's right to access most agency records. In particular, front counter personnel

should not ask individuals making public records requests to provide identification or to give a

reason for the request.

Keep in mind that Statements of Economic Interests filed under the Political Reform Act are

always disclosable records. They must be made available by statute not later than the second

business day following the day on which it was received. Note that these forms are also available

online from the FPPC's website (http://www.fppc.ca.gov/index.php?id=592) and can be linked to

from local agency sites.

As a general matter, elected officials and other leaders within an agency can encourage the

agency to voluntarily make public records available (for example, records and information that

are of potential widespread public interest). Agency websites can be a good tool for this purpose.

This underscores the agency's commitment to transparency.

147. Retention Check #4

1. Economic interest disclosure forms are filed upon taking office, annually while in office,

and then when one leaves office.

[TRUE] The disclosure requirements mandated by the Political Reform Act of 1974

apply to nearly every locally elected official and department head.

2. Disclosure requirements apply to campaign fundraising activities, but not other types of

fundraising activities.

[FALSE] The disclosure laws are not limited to an official's personal economic interests.

There are extensive disclosure requirements relating to an official's campaign fundraising

activities, of course. However, the disclosure obligation also relates to an official's

charitable fundraising activities under certain circumstances.

3. Government transparency laws may be bypassed when compliance would impose a

substantial inconvenience to the accomplishment of a legitimate government action.

[FALSE] A "whatever it takes" approach to pursuing agency objectives can lead to

violations of the law and undermine an agency's commitment to having a culture of

ethics. This is especially true when governmental transparency laws are involved.

4. The act of forwarding an email by an elected official can be a violation of open meeting

laws.

[TRUE] A meeting is any situation involving a majority of the governing body in which

business is transacted or discussed. In other words, a majority of the governing body

cannot talk privately about an issue before the body no matter how the conversation

occurs. This includes through email.

5. Governmental transparency laws promote public trust because the public tends to trust

processes that it can observe and participate in.

[TRUE] The principal underlying the governmental transparency laws is that the public

trusts what it can observe. Moreover, the prospect that actions will be publicly-known

can be a deterrent against actions that might undermine public trust.

6. When conducting government business, you should consider the possibility that every

document you prepare eventually may be disclosed to the public.

[TRUE] The disclosure requirements for public records are very broad. There are limited

exceptions to the requirements that public records be disclosed. This is why it is wise for

public officials to consider the possibility that anything they write may eventually be

disclosed to the public.

7. A public board or commission must allow the public to comment upon an item before it

is voted upon by the body.

[TRUE] Another element of open meeting laws is the public's right to address the

governing body on any issue on the agenda before or during the issue's consideration. A

public official's role is to both hear and evaluate these concerns.

148. Lesson Six

Fair Process Laws

149. Fair Process Laws-Underlying Principles

The principle underlying the fair process laws is the notion that everyone has a right to be treated

fairly by governmental processes, irrespective of whom they are or whom they know.

The public's perception that decisions are made fairly is an important element of the public's

confidence and trust in government and individual public officials.

150. The Obligation to be a Fair and

Unbiased Decision-Maker

Although California statutes largely determine when public officials must disqualify themselves

from participating in decisions, common law (judge-made law) and some constitutional

principles still require a public official to exercise his or her decision-making powers free from

personal bias- including biases that have nothing to do with financial gain or losses.

In addition, constitutional due process principles require a decision-maker to be fair and

impartial when the decision-making body is sitting in what is known as a "quasi-judicial"

capacity.

Quasi-judicial proceedings tend to involve the application of generally adopted standards to

specific situations, much as a judge applies the law to a particular set of facts. Quasi-judicial

matters include variances, use permits, annexation protests, personnel disciplinary actions, and

licenses.

As an example, a court concluded that a planning commissioner's authorship of an article hostile

to a project before the commission gave rise to an unacceptable probability that the decision-

maker had made his mind up in advance of the public hearing about the project. Because the

hostile commissioner participated in the decision, the court overturned the planning

commission's decision as having been tainted by bias.

151. The Obligation to be a Fair and

Unbiased Decision-Maker (continued)

Typically, having the official who may have exhibited bias disqualify himself or herself avoids

legal issues.

If the problem is not addressed though, the agency's decision will be at risk of being overturned

by the courts.

The agency will have to conduct new proceedings free of the influence of the biased decision-

maker.

If the violation rises to the level of a denial of due process under constitutional law, the affected

individual(s) may seek damages, costs and attorneys' fees.

152. Fair and Unbiased Decision Making

Finally, community relations-and the public's views of an official's responsiveness-are seriously

undermined when it appears an official is not listening to the input being provided by the public.

Even if you disagree with the views being offered, a good practice (legally and ethically) is to

treat the speaker with the same respect you would like to be treated with if the roles were

reversed.

Moreover, at least one court has ruled that officials' perceived inattentiveness during a hearing

violated due process principles.

153. Case Study: Being a Concerned (and

Vocal) Neighbor to a Project Invalidates a

Decision

A tenant opposed the construction of a new, taller, building which would obstruct his view of the

ocean, but still seemed to meet city requirements.

The tenant ran successfully for council.

The council ultimately turned down the permit for the new building. The owners sued, arguing

that the council member/tenant's personal interest in the outcome in the decision constituted a

common law conflict of interest. In other words, the decision-maker couldn't put his personal

interest in seeing the project turned down aside and fairly decide whether the project met the

city's requirements for such buildings.

The court agreed and invalidated the city's decision.

Lesson: Non-financial interests can make participation in a decision improper if one has a

personal interest in the outcome that causes observers to reasonably question the decision-

maker's ability to be fair and impartial.

154. Campaign Contributions and Bias

Generally, the ethics laws with respect to campaign contributions emphasize disclosure rather

than disqualification.

The emphasis on disclosure enables the public to assess for itself the degree an official could be

influenced by campaign contributors who appear before the agency.

Both financial and in-kind support must be disclosed.

However, under limited circumstances, certain local agency officials must disqualify themselves

from participating in proceedings regarding licenses, permits and other entitlements for use if the

official has received campaign contributions of more than $250 during the previous twelve

months from any party or participant. The restrictions (counter-intuitively) only apply if the

official is sitting on an appointed (as opposed to elected) body.

In addition, these officials are prohibited from receiving, soliciting or directing a campaign

contribution of more than $250 from any party or participant in a license, permit or entitlement

proceeding while the proceeding is pending and for three months after the contribution.

155. Case Study: Campaign Contributions to

Appointed Officials

There is a controversial planning item coming up on the city council agenda, but first the issue

will go to the planning commission. One of the planning commissioners made an unsuccessful

attempt to be elected to the city council; she still sits on the planning commission.

The developer involved with the controversial proposal made $500 contributions to all the city

council members and the planning commissioner who ran unsuccessfully for council. Do these

contributions have an effect on who can participate in the decision?

Under the Political Reform Act, the planning commissioner may be disqualified from

participating in the decision if the matter comes before her within 12 months of having received

a campaign contribution of more than $250 from the developer.

However, this restriction does not apply to the city council members, because they are sitting in

an elected capacity.

An issue to ponder for the elected officials is whether to accept campaign contributions from

those who are likely to appear before your agency. Will the public be concerned that your

decision is motivated by the fact that the applicant is a campaign contributor as opposed to the

public's best interests?

156. Holding Multiple Public Offices

There is such a thing as too much public service; the law limits the degree to which public

officials can hold multiple public offices at the same time. The reason is that, when one assumes

a public office, one takes on responsibility to the constituents of that agency to put their interests

first.

When one occupies multiple offices in multiple agencies (for example, membership on the city

council and serving on the board of another local agency), that job becomes more complicated,

both legally and ethically, because of the possibility of conflicting loyalties.

Offices are incompatible if there is any significant clash of duties or loyalties between the offices

or if either officer exercises a supervisory, auditory, or removal power over the other. Note there

can be specific legislative exceptions to general legal prohibitions against incompatible offices.

The penalty for violating this prohibition is forfeiture of the first of the two offices in question. In

other words, the court won't allow you to hold both offices, so as a matter of law, you forfeit the

office you held first and continue to hold the one you assumed second.

157. Holding Multiple Public Offices

(continued)

Frequently, offices are incompatible when one office has power over the other.

For example, the offices of water district director and school board member would be

incompatible when the school district is located partially or wholly within the boundaries of the

water district if the water district has power over the school district concerning new or expanded

access to water.

Similarly, the office of city planning commissioner and state highway commissioner were found

to be incompatible because the best decision for the state with respect to highway location could

be in conflict with the wishes of the city.

158. Competitive Bidding Processes for

Public Contracts

Public contracting laws- including those adopted at the local level- are designed to give all

interested parties the opportunity to do business with the government on an equal basis.

This keeps contracts from being steered to businesses or individuals because of political

connections, friendship, favoritism, corruption or other factors. It also assures that the public

receives the best value for its money by promoting competition among businesses so the public

can receive the best deal.

Many competitive bidding requirements are locally imposed, for example by charter cities as part

of their municipal affairs authority.

State law also authorizes local agencies to adopt procedures for acquisition of supplies and

equipment.

Most of these purchasing ordinances require competitive bids for contracts in excess of

designated dollar amounts.

159. Competitive Bidding Processes for

Public Contracts (continued)

For public works projects, state law defines when general law cities and counties must use

competitive bidding.

For general law cities, public works projects over $5,000 are subject to the state's competitive

bidding requirements.

For county projects, the threshold is based on population: $6,500 (counties with populations of

500,000 or over), $50,000 (counties with populations of 2 million or over) and $4,000 (all other

counties).

Note that it is a misdemeanor to split projects to avoid competitive bidding requirements.

In order to give all interested parties an opportunity to do business with the agency and get the

best price for the public, the agency has to publicize the opportunity.

This is typically accomplished by publishing a notice inviting bids in a newspaper of general

circulation that is printed or published in the jurisdiction, or if there is none, posting the notice in

at least three public places in the jurisdiction. Trade publications can also be a helpful way to

reach a wide segment of the contracting industry.

160. Decisions Involving Family Members

As already discussed, the Political Reform Act generally requires public officials to disqualify

themselves from participating in decisions that will increase or decrease their immediate family's

expenses, income, assets or liabilities. "Immediate family" includes one's spouse, domestic

partner, or dependent children.

The notion is that it is very difficult for any person to be fair and unbiased when one's family's

interests are concerned; it of course is also difficult for the public to perceive the official to be

fair and unbiased about close family members.

Because of this, some jurisdictions have adopted additional restrictions on the hiring or

appointing of relatives of public officials. These are known as anti-nepotism policies.

It can be wise to avoid questions about family relationship by voluntarily not participating in

decisions that affect family members, even if the law or local agency regulations allow you to

participate.

161. Case Study: Directing Agency Contracts

to Your Family Members Can Risk Your

Freedom

Voters recalled a 17-year veteran city council member for alleged misuses of public resources

and cronyism.

Evidence suggested that the council member set up a consulting firm, ostensibly owned by his

sister, which was awarded a series of consulting contracts to his city valued at approximately $6

million.

Evidence showed that proceeds from the business benefited the council member.

The council member ultimately was sentenced to nearly 16 years in federal prison, believed to be

the longest sentence ever issued in a federal political corruption case.

162. Best Practices

Don't take positions on issues that may come before you in your quasi-judicial capacity, until

you hear all the evidence and arguments at the hearing on the issue.

Be guided by principles of fairness and merit-based decision-making in contracting decisions

(not personal relationships).

163. Closing Thoughts on Ethics Laws

Former British Prime Minister Benjamin Disraeli once observed that "... all power is a trust; that

we are accountable

for its exercise; that from the people, and for the

people all springs ..."

As extensive and complicated as they are, the above rules relating to public service ethics are a

reflection of that overarching quest for public accountability and trust.

164. Retention Check #5

1. Under some circumstances, if a decision-maker pre-judges a matter, the decision-maker

could be disqualified from participating in the decision.

[TRUE] Although California statutes largely determine when public officials must

disqualify themselves from participating in decisions, common law and some

constitutional principals still require a public official to exercise his or her powers free

from personal bias, including biases that have nothing to do with financial gains or losses.

2. An aggressive, but nevertheless lawful, strategy for decision-makers at public hearings is

to communicate one's disdain for a speaker's position by simply not paying attention to

the speaker.

[FALSE] A court ruled that decision-makers' inattentiveness during a hearing violated the

permit applicant's due process rights. Although the case is not binding precedent, it does

underscore the risks of this approach legally, as well as in terms of the public's and

applicant's perception of the fairness of the process.

3. Officeholders may not hold offices that would subject them to conflicting loyalties.

[TRUE] The law limits the degree to which public officials can hold multiple public

offices. The reason is that, when one assumes a public office, one takes on responsibility

of the constituents of that agency to put their interests first. When one occupies multiple

offices in multiple agencies that job becomes more complicated.

4. Awarding public agency contracts based on personal connections and loyalties is

considered an accepted practice for public agencies.

[FALSE] Public contracting laws-including those adopted at the local level-are designed

to give all interested parties the opportunity to do business with the government on an

equal basis. This keeps contracts from being steered to businesses or individuals because

of political connections, friendship, favoritism, corruption or other improper factors.

5. An official is wise to be especially sensitive to public perceptions when issues concern

members of an official's family.

[TRUE] The Political Reform Act requires public officials to disqualify themselves from

participating in decisions that will increase or decrease their immediate family's

expenses, income, assets, or liabilities. Moreover, a number of local agencies have anti-

nepotism rules that prohibit the employment or appointment of officials' relatives to

positions within the jurisdiction. Finally, the public is likely to be especially skeptical that

decision-makers can put aside family loyalties and make decisions based on merits when

family is involved.

6. The objective of competitive bidding processes for public contracts is to promote equal

opportunities to compete for government contracts and to try to assure the public that the

work is performed at a competitive price.

[TRUE] The competitive bidding process is designed to give all interested parties the

opportunity to do business with the government and maximize the likelihood that the

agency will get the best price on the goods and services in question.

7. Whenever a board or commission considers a sensitive issue that may expose an

individual to embarrassment or rejection by the community, the matter may be heard in

closed session.

[FALSE] Closed sessions may be conducted only when they are expressly authorized by

the relevant open meeting law. There is no general embarrassment or sensitive closed

meeting exception.

8. When a permit or application is before a board or commission, it must observe fair

process rules that are analogous to those of a court.

[TRUE] Hearings on permits or applications are quasi- judicial in nature. This type of

proceeding must be conducted so as to provide a fair hearing within the meaning of

constitutional due process principles.

165. Lesson Seven

Good Ethics is Good Politics

166. Meeting Public Expectations

Even though understanding and complying with public service ethics laws is a challenge in itself,

the public expects even more of its public servants.

Rather than making decisions based purely on the legal minimum, how can public officials

maximize the likelihood that they will meet or exceed the public's expectations for ethical

conduct?

As already discussed, one analytic strategy is to think in terms of ethical values.

Some important values relating to public service include responsibility, trustworthiness, respect

and fairness. Assess decisions you have to make against these standards.

167. Meeting Public Expectations (continued)

In addition, you can ask yourself these kinds of questions:

What decision, behavior or course of action will best promote the public's trust in my leadership

and that of my agency?

Would I want to read about a certain course of action on the front page of my local newspaper?

How do I want to be remembered as a public official? What would make my family and parents

proud as a legacy?

Again, even if your agency attorney has advised you that a particular course of action is legal,

your analysis as a public official isn't over.

You need to ask yourself whether merely being legal (or meeting the laws minimum standards

for conduct) is going to meet your standards for ethical behavior, as well as your constituents'

standards.

168. Closing Thoughts

In politics, there is a great temptation to engage in ends/means thinking in which one is tempted

to conclude that good or desirable ends justify the means. As both Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. and

Gandhi have observed, the means are the end in a democracy and good ends cannot come from

questionable means.

Public officials are stewards of the public's trust. Consequently, officials' conduct in office

affects both the public's trust in their institutions and in their leaders. Conscientious attention to

laws and principles of public service ethics will help you as a leader pursue both good means and

good ends.

Finally, remember that the information in this online course is designed to acquaint you with the

kinds of ethics laws that affect your service as a public official.

There is much more to understand about the laws and their specific application to particular

situations.

The key goal of this course is to alert you to when you need to consult with either your agency

counsel or the Fair Political Practices Commission to make sure your actions stay well on the

safe side of the line dividing lawful from unlawful behavior.

169. Training Certificate

By clicking on the 'Next' button below, you will print out a proof of participation certificate for

having reviewed the content of this course. In signing the certificate, you will certify that you did

indeed review this entire course.

Once you print out a certificate, make a copy of it for your records and provide the original

certificate to the custodian of records at your agency. These certificates are public records and

disclosable to the public and media, who can then appreciate your familiarity with the laws and

ethics principles covered in this course.

* Note: Your account will be maintained in the system for at least six months from the date of

completion of the training. You may need to recreate your account when you retake the training.

Like all ethics laws, AB 1234 is a minimum standard. We encourage you to do further reading

on these issues by consulting the information on the following pages.

Good luck and thank you for your commitment to both public service and public service ethics.