Amid accusations and counter-accusations, members of Santa Monica City Council voted not to return with ordinance that would prohibit gifts to councilmembers, therefore potentially restricting the amount of gratuities and complementary items received.
One of the items that was guaranteed to create sparks in the last meeting was this one, Item 8C, a request by Councilmember Gleam Davis to direct the City Attorney to prepare and return at the next meeting with an ordinance that would prohibit gifts to Councilmembers, using definitions of gifts and exceptions in the California Political Reform Act, and adding an exception for entry and meals when attending events in an official City capacity.
This is a continued item that Davis has been attempting to push through for some time. The last attempt to hold a discussion on this topic was abruptly shut down by Mayor Phil Brock, early on during the meeting on September 24, 2024.
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 would have prohibited providing or acceptance of gifts, using State law definitions and exceptions, to Councilmembers.
“We read almost every day about elected officials accepting things of value, whether or not they are tied to a particular action, but the effect of whether you want to call them gratuities or tips, in fact, erode trust in government,” Davis said, adding, “It seems to me that what we should do is adopt a policy that basically says, for all intents and purposes, there's no such thing as a free lunch for council members.”
Councilmember Christine Parra was first to open the discussion and she began by making it clear that she supported the idea, but that quickly gave way to a more aggressive line of questioning as to why exactly Davis was bringing this up now.
“I was just very curious why this is coming up now. You know, especially as a councilmember that has been on council for the last 15 years, have you received any gifts?” she asked.
Davis insisted, as she has in the past, that she has declared every gift, like traveling to speak at a conference for example, on the appropriate form within City Hall. However, she went on to break the Magic Circle and spoke openly about some of her experiences.
“I might have accepted an iced tea or something, if someone offered it, if I went to meet with someone at their office or something [but] that's not what this is designed to address,” she said, adding, “I will tell you that I have been in a restaurant in Santa Monica where someone asked me if I wanted the councilmember discount. And I had no idea that there was a councilmember discount.
“These were not organizations that had anything pending before the City, but clearly they thought that they were supposed to give free food to councilmembers … And then the Snyder decision came out … and we adopted something to address that [but] the way we adopted it, was very limited,” she said.
Parra retorted, “The reason why I'm going down this route, is that, as you and I are the outgoing councilmembers, it just feels weird to me for us to make this decision on behalf of councilmembers that are coming in.”
Parra asked City Attorney Doug Sloan what policy was currently in place, to which he responded, “Other than the gratuity, thing that we just did under state law, almost everybody in the City involved with policy is subject to reporting gifts on the Form 700 you have to report all gifts over $50 and you're limited to no more than a value of $590 per year from one source.”
Vice Mayor Lana Negrete also expressed intrigue as to the timing of this item. “We're not talking about people taking million dollar back door deals, we’re talking about coffees and pancakes,” she said, leaving little ground in the middle. Negrete used an example of where she is sent “seasonal socks’ by a resident each year and asked Sloan what the appropriate action would be.
“Were it [the proposed ordinance] in place, you would have several options. You could return it, you could pay for it, or you could donate it to a non profit,” he said, adding that if she kept them, “Technically, it could be a misdemeanor.”
Negrete continued down this rabbit hole, but she made some interesting points including the distinction between being offered tickets to an event that might not even be accessible to the public, thus making the determination of value much more difficult.
Councilmember Jesse Zwick attempted to navigate a course through the turbulent waters, saying, “I hear people on both sides of this. I do think there are some distinctions though to be made in terms of what's allowed now and what's not … We're currently allowed to accept up to almost $600 from any individual source, so long as we report it and [that’s] a considerable gift. So I think there could easily be a way that this could be written to satisfy both parties.
“We could easily establish a threshold that gets rid of some of these examples that are being cited as absurd and really only limits it to larger gifts that we all agree we shouldn't be taking.”
Councilmember Caroline Torosis also seemed to be interested in fine tuning the language. “Just so that we can hopefully move our agenda along here, I could be inclined to reach some sort of compromise where we adopt, like a threshold for this ordinance, if others are so inclined,” she said.
Davis tried to make a friendly amendment that the language be modified to incorporate a $50 threshold, in other words, gifts under $50 would not be prohibited.
However, Parra deemed it not friendly and so the motion remained the original one, as written on the agenda. Zwick voted yes, Parra voted no, Davis voted yes, Negrete voted no, Torosis voted no, de la Torre abstained, Brock also abstained.
“Because even though I understand Councilmember Davis’s spoken rationale for this, I'm so concerned that it's electioneering, I'm going to abstain as well,” Brock said.
Both Brock and de la Torre face reelection in a week and Parra has decided not to run again. Interestingly, Torosis broke with current political lines and voted against it. When the Daily Press reached out to her for comment, she said, “I would like to revisit with a full package of ethics reforms which it’s clear this current council is not willing to entertain.”
scott.snowden@smdp.com
