MURRIETA: Ethics training opens eyes

Murrieta officials review rules of conduct

By NELSY RODRIGUEZ - Staff Writer | Tuesday, October 28, 2008 10:30 PM PDT ∞

MURRIETA ---- After city officials spent nearly two hours Tuesday examining the many situations that can put elected officials into compromised and potentially criminal positions, some wondered why anyone would ever run for office.

"It's like golf," said Murrieta Public Safety and Traffic Commission Chairman Ken Nordstrom. "There are more ways to get it wrong than get it right."

Attorneys from the San Diego firm Stutz, Artiano, Shinoff and Holtz held an ethics training session for elected and appointed city officials dealing in public business. Members of the City Council and six commissions reviewed issues of transparency in government, reporting personal financial interests, handling public contracts and the misuse of public funds.

Public officials are required by law to review ethical standards every two years, City Attorney Leslie Devaney said.

"The public's expectations of you are even higher than the law," Devaney told those in attendance. "And avoiding conflicts of interest is your responsibility."

With regard to public meetings, Devaney said new restrictions on serial meetings limit how much discussion of public business can be done outside of a public meeting. If one commissioner e-mails another about an item that they will soon be reviewing, and the second commissioner forwards the e-mail on to another commissioner with the intent of getting a consensus, those commissioners will have violated a law that prevents city business from being conducted without the public's knowledge.

Legal representatives suggested that Murrieta officials should keep personal records of gifts they receive and, while it may seem tacky, they should always ask a giver what the gift they receive is worth. A public official is allowed to receive up to $390 a year in gifts.

When attending parties, the representatives urged officials to go a step further by calculating the total cost of the party and dividing that by the number of invited guests to determine whether that would need to be declared as a gift.

When negotiating with a car dealer, the officials were encouraged to investigate whether a discount was standard for all paying customers or a particularly good one for the public official.

"It would look wrong," said attorney Christina Cameron, regarding financial favors for public officials. "If the public read about it in the paper, they would be sure that (you were) getting a better deal."

Regarding campaign contributions, current officials and even City Council candidates were warned of accepting contributions that might later be suspected of a quid pro quo exchange.

"During the campaign season, promises are going to be problematic, (even) when there is no smoking gun," said attorney Priscilla Dugard.

Murrieta officials have not always been on the right side of conflict of interest allegations. A former city councilman who had also been mayor pleaded guilty in 2007 to criminal counts of submitting a false document and conflict of interest. Jack van Haaster, who was ousted from the City Council in a 2005 recall election, admitted to failing to declare his financial interest in a road paving project when he voted on it.

Councilman Warnie Enochs was admonished by fellow council members in 2006 for helping his son on a contracting job on which Enochs had voted in favor. While Enochs said he did not benefit financially, his colleagues said his action was inappropriate for a public official.

Inadvertent conflicts, those in attendance Tuesday said, are the most tricky. Without knowing, one could wind up in serious trouble.

"It's scary to think what you can innocently and inadvertently get yourself into, even just in perception," Dugard said.

Contact staff writer Nelsy Rodriguez at (951) 676-4315, Ext. 2626, or nrodriguez@californian.com.

Next

More Stories

Tags: CAL News Local Murrieta

Bookmark and Share

Ads by Yahoo!

Advertisement

Pre-Registration Comments[-]Go to Top

Anyone Notice the Common Denominator wrote on Oct 28, 2008 10:42 PM:Anytime an article mentions wrong doings, bad ethic decisions, or felonies when it comes to Murrieta Public Officials, does anyone notice ENOCHS is always the common denominator? I see a trend here that should not continue after this November 4th. DO NOT VOTE FOR ENOCHS.

Motives wrote on Oct 29, 2008 8:57 AM:I say this sounds like it was a scare tactic lecture with the result being that communications between elected officials and individual citizens is smothered and persuasive influence coming from the city management and city attorney's office is virtually unlimited. The result of this kind of "ethics" training could be disasterous for the citizens, and very beneficial for anyone with indirect influence being cleverly routed.

the rest of the story wrote on Oct 29, 2008 9:41 AM:This came off less controversial than the last ethics lecture when the council, planners, etc. were told to beware in very restrictive sounding ways concerning communications with members of the public, the constituents of the very elected officials who were being lectured. Everyone knows the campaign donors should be shut down, as well as the financially motivated endorsements by public employees. But, it's not right when any kind gag or similar impediment of any kind is put on the average citizen who wants to express an opinion to a public official.

A Joke wrote on Oct 29, 2008 10:43 AM:Murrieta...ethics training; I'm confused? It's like teaching good manners in the State Prisons.

FPPC Ethics Training wrote on Oct 29, 2008 11:33 AM:The required Ethics Training for all public officials should also be required PRIOR to filing papers for candidacy in any elected office.

SAFE PASSAGE wrote on Oct 29, 2008 11:55 AM:The safe route to the ear of an elected official in Murrieta is no longer a direct route. So, is the path to power and influence in Murrieta now through the city attorney, the city manager, or ??? Who knows? No me. But I do know this: Let the public beware. There will ALWAYS be a path of least resistance to elected officials, and you can BET YOUR CITY TREASURY that the bigwigs in Temecula city management and Temecula's politically entrenched economic powerhouses will be looking for and using that safe passage, even if nobody else knows it's happening.

diplomatic immunity wrote on Oct 29, 2008 3:05 PM:Yo Murrieta. Ethics? It's not just developer contributions any more. It's legal intimidation and influences on the sly. Are you just now starting to figure out how the strings are pulled? Councilmeisters of Murrieta: When you get staff reports and recommendations, ever think where the influence came from when those items were created? Want some clues? Start by asking. Yeah. Be to the point. Ask the hard questions. Think about whose town is being benefitted by those recommendations. Think about how the traffic goes and tax income flows. Think big, because big influence is the main concern. Not the mom and pop locals who get charged to death with permit and misc of every kind fees to keep the local bureaucrats fed. No. Think bigger. Think malls and attorneys and whole city governments that want all the big toys to be in their own sandboxs. Think outside the office and warehouse box. Get outside your comfort zone.

to Blah...Blah....Blah wrote on Oct 29, 2008 4:18 PM:go look

Huh wrote on Oct 29, 2008 4:47 PM:Why would our elected officials be restricted from talking with the residents? I missed this article, please explain the rational our city staff is using here.

to Huh wrote on Oct 29, 2008 5:15 PM:You have to go back go last year's "ethics" meeting. You can probably find it by digging thru the Californian archives, but I'm not sure. Not forbidden to communicate with residents but red flags all over the place from the legal eagles, more than enough to make elected and appointed officials feel intimidated. For anyone who has been around and observing local governments a long time it was weird to witness. I don't think it's all Temecula influences like some writers seem to think, but I'm not sure who would have been behind it. Bradley was still on the payroll at the time. But I don't quite understand that connection. He lives in Murrieta doesn't he?

blah second wrote on Oct 29, 2008 6:38 PM:blah blah blah is correct. All this bull about Temecula is just jealously in the suburbs. You must be joking (I hope) about RB living in Murrieta. Why in hades would he have moved from Oceanside to Murrieta. Answer me that Grasshopper. Hello, sour grapes? Theres a song called "too late". Murrieta theme song you can sing while dancing on your tarnished triangle. BHAAAAAAAA.

re to Huh wrote on Oct 29, 2008 8:22 PM:Thanks for the explanation. I agree, this is wierd. This has really got my curiosity going. Where does the City attorney get this information from. Something is not right when our Council is advised, or cautioned with red flags to not speak with their constitients. This is a democracy isn't it? I hope our elected officials remeber this. I'm not leaving this one alone.

No hidden agendas wrote on Oct 29, 2008 9:20 PM:Actually, the restricted talk was centered mostly on what the POL's, managers and staff can say within. Otherwise the session had more to do with receipts, whether monetary or other.

to no hidden wrote on Oct 29, 2008 10:28 PM:Intentionally or non, you are missing the point and referring to this year's meeting. That is not what is currently being discussed. Last year's "ethics" lecture was the initial indoctrination, and was as I recall carried out when Bradley was in control, and most certainly, absolutely it did heavily involve fear mongering aimed at discourse on official topics between elected officials and constituents. Don't try to cover this up, please.

Class wrote on Oct 29, 2008 11:31 PM:Would you please bring this ethics
information to the Temecula City Council. They need to go to class badly!

Registered Comments[-]Go to Top

Advertisement

Videos