Mayor Phil Brock set an impressive new standard in Tuesday’s City Council meeting by creating sparks just two minutes into the evening’s proceedings. In conducting some agenda management, Brock requested that Item 10A, the introduction and first reading of an ordinance adding Santa Monica Municipal Code Section 2.32.291 prohibiting providing and acceptance of gifts by Councilmembers be dismissed.
"I'd like to move to continue 10A indefinitely, as I believe the direction to bring this was not as clear and concise as it could have been," he said, adding, "I realize I supported something that I really should have listened better and understood the item better. So I'd like to move to postpone this.
"On a personal note, I think it would be better if something like this were brought by a 16 item so we're all clear on what we're voting on, the direction related to gratuities, and this goes well beyond gratuities. So I'd like us to move that. Do we have a motion?" Brock asked.
In the blink of an eye, Councilmember Oscar de la Torre moved the item and Vice Mayor Lana Negrete seconded it, but Councilmember Gleam Davis wanted clarification on the use of the word "indefinitely."
"The council gave direction, if I recall Mr. City Attorney, to return with this at a meeting, I believe it was unanimous, there was no objection," Davis said with Doug Sloan in full agreement.
"Why continue it indefinitely?" Davis asked. "I mean, I'm not sure what the objection is to it. Council gave this direction, so I'm just not clear what's going on here."
A recent US Supreme Court decision in Snyder v. United States said that absent a clear ban on "gratuities" by a local jurisdiction, such payments to an elected official would be allowed. Gratuities differ from bribes because they are given after, rather than before, an official act.
At the September 10, 2024, meeting, Council approved direction following initial approval of an ordinance prohibiting City officials from accepting gratuities to also bring an ordinance prohibiting Councilmembers from accepting all gifts. The proposed ordinance will prohibit providing or acceptance of gifts, using State law definitions and exceptions, to Councilmembers.
Brock seemed keen to move on to a voice vote, but Councilmember Jesse Zwick, who was having a little technical difficulty also requested to hear a reason as to exactly why council was voting on this.
Brock responded, "On my part … this was a direction after the vote. I thought it was, along with accepting a ridiculous idea the Supreme Court did, which was councilmembers [sic] could accept tips after a vote on something. I surely am never going to put a tip jar on the dais. I don't think any of us ever would.
"This is an all encompassing motion that took me by surprise when I looked at it, and I'd like it to come back at a later date with a more comprehensive approach to knowing what this is and what it does."
Davis was first in the queue to respond, asking firstly for clarification on Brock’s use of the term "postpone it indefinitely" before addressing the association with the Snyder decision from the Supreme Court.
"[That] said that payments made after an action was taken as gratuities, not bribes and we corrected that, as you pointed out with item 5L and that ordinance, but then we said, that only related to favors, monetary payments, etc, made within a year after a particular action was taken," Davis said.
"If council did something and then within a year someone tried to, for lack of a better term, reward a councilmember for his or her vote, that's what was prohibited. This just keeps council from doing things like taking favors, taking money, even if there is no council vote … I don't think councilmembers should be taking large amounts of money … whether it's in the form of cash or goods or free food or whatever … I just don't know what the objection is."
Brock retorted, "This seems overly restrictive, the way I interpret it and we don't want to get into [a] whole discussion on this, because it's about postponing, that possibly the better idea would be coming back with a 16 item that explain [sic] more thoroughly what you were trying to do."
Councilmember Christine Parra made an important distinction regarding events and conferences. "I understand what the basis is for Councilmember Davis [and] what she was trying to achieve. I didn't understand it at the time that we voted after the motion, I thought it was in regards to monetary gratuities … I didn't realize that she was directing the city attorney to come back with this all inclusive," she said.
"When I go to a conference [or] I get invited by the Chamber of Commerce to a reception, can I not go and network and partake in that … without paying for it? Because would that be considered? If I eat the food, drink the drinks, if other people have to pay for admission to attend, but I’m a guest … Because if that's the case, then I would never be able to attend any of the networking opportunities, because I can't pay out of pocket for those opportunities. So those were my concerns," Parra said.
Brock was quick to shut down any further discussion on this and he downplayed previous use of the word "indefinitely." Davis asked when exactly it would be postponed to, to which everyone seemed to agree it was accepted as "whenever it was brought back as a 16 Discussion item."
Voting was predictably along current political lines, with Parra, Negrete, de la Torre and Brock all voting "yes" and Zwick, Davis and Councilmember Caroline Torosis voting "no".
scott.snowden@smdp.com
