SANTA CRUZ — This week, two consent calendar items on the Santa Cruz County Board of Supervisors meeting agenda intended to regulate the behavior of officials and members of the public alike passed unanimously with little discussion.
Item 17 on the agenda, an ordinance amending the county’s code, was introduced by supervisors with the intent of protecting the public from any conflicts of interest and harm that could occur if former county elected or appointed officials or even former county employees abused their posts to lobby unethically, according to staff’s report. This includes the classified parties using information inaccessible to the public to influence an outcome for their own private gain.
Item 29 on the agenda, which directs Chair Manu Koenig to write to legislators, supports the concept of permanent virtual casting of meetings and the clarification of what constitutes a meeting disruption.
Keeping it clean
Approved in concept Feb. 15, the ordinance under the county code as described in Item 17 prohibits former county leaders and workers from lobbying the county for one year from their last day of employment, according to the initial memo on the effort sponsored by Supervisor Zach Friend.
This coincides with existing policies held by local, state and federal governments across the U.S., Friend pointed out in his report in February. The one-year post-employment ban exists in the city of San Diego, for example.
“Often referred to as ‘revolving door’ policies, these ordinances recognize that recently departed officials and staff possess unique knowledge and relationships that are unavailable to the public, which can then be used to exert improper influence over decisions affecting the public’s interests,” the report states.
This means that those who used to work or serve the county government will, from Tuesday on, be restricted from communicating with their previous bosses or peers in an effort to sway them in vital proceedings if they are being paid to do so. Those who are not being compensated for their lobbying efforts are welcome to reach out as an unpaid member of the public under the ban.
“It should be noted that this ordinance does not restrict the type of employment a County employee may secure after leaving County employment, nor does it restrict someone from working for a private company after doing business with that company as a County employee,” Friend states.
Santa Cruz County’s one-year post-employment ban is more tame than the two-year post-employment lobbying ban established for U.S. Senators, Miami-Dade County and the New York State Legislature, Friend added. However, it is a step toward the county’s strategic plan under the Operational Excellence: Continuous Improvement element.
Directing participation
As a result of Item 29, Koenig will write two letters: One to the co-sponsors of Assembly Bill 1944 and another to the legislative sponsor and co-author of Senate Bill 1100.
AB 1944 would require local governments to offer virtual participation in public meetings beyond the end of the pandemic, according to a report from Friend and his colleague Supervisor Ryan Coonerty. It already has support from leaders in Gilroy, Seaside, South San Francisco and others.
“This new model has allowed for greater public participation as members of the public no longer need to physically attend a meeting on a weekday morning or evening to express their thoughts on local policy matters,” the duo offered about Zoom and Facebook Live streaming systems.
Beyond allowing for individuals who cannot attend, say, a board meeting in person the opportunity to speak their minds online, AB 1944 also allows local government entities meeting remotely to waive a provision of the Brown Act — the provision that requires public officials to disclose their private addresses if they participate remotely themselves.
“This requirement poses a possible risk to public officials that could be detrimental to their ability to fulfill their civic duties. For example, an official recovering from surgery in a hospital room would be required to reveal the location of the hospital and their room under current state law,” Friend and Coonerty stated in their report this week.
SB 1100, authored by nearby representative Dave Cortese, gives a step-by-step process to de-escalate events at a meeting when things turn ugly — a trend that has grown and toppled over during the COVID-19 pandemic, the supervisors said.
“The Ralph M. Brown Act allows local jurisdictions to remove individuals or groups who are ‘willfully interrupting’ meetings, but the term ‘willfully interrupting’ is vague and needs further clarification. The bill’s text defines willful interruption as an individual or group who is ‘intentionally engaging in behavior’ that ‘substantially impairs or renders infeasible to the orderly conduct of the meeting,’” the report reads.
Upon the passing of SB 1100, the law officer present during any given meeting would be mandated to issue a warning before the removal of an individual or group of individuals.
This comes just one public meeting after Santa Cruz County Board of Supervisors chamber was closed down upon the breaking of the former indoor mask mandate by more than a dozen residents who debated the legitimacy of historically lifesaving COVID-19 preventative measures. Those residents called into the meeting after it became entirely virtual and refused to leave the vicinity.