Council adopts code of conduct for elected and appointed officials after contentious debate, 3-2 vote

The Gardena City Council on Tuesday adopted a code of conduct (Resolution No. 66-95) that applies to elected officials and appointed commission and board members, passing the measure 3–2 after a prolonged, often contentious discussion.

Mayor Tasha Serta moved adoption and Mayor Pro Tem Rodney Tanaka seconded. The final roll call was: Serta — yes; Tanaka — yes; Councilmember Mark E. Henderson — yes; Councilmember Francis — no; Councilmember Love — no. Proponents argued the code provides consistent expectations for behavior, supplements existing laws such as the Brown Act and the Political Reform Act, and clarifies onboarding for new officeholders. Henderson said a formal code helps set a professional standard and is similar to practices in other cities and in professional workplaces.

Opponents, led by Councilmember Francis and Councilmember Love, criticized the draft as ambiguous and subjective. Francis said the language includes subjective concepts like “active listening” and “curiosity” that would be difficult to enforce and could be weaponized; Love warned the policy could become a political tool used to discipline dissenting council members. Both said the draft read like a template and urged the council to develop a version tailored specifically to Gardena with clearer, objective enforcement mechanisms or third-party review.

City staff told the council the proposed code draws on model language from the Institute for Local Government and examples from multiple California cities, and that staff had recommended applying the code to both elected and appointed officials. The document sets out four sections: ethics (conflict-of-interest rules, confidentiality and neutrality), conduct (behavior toward colleagues, staff and the public), implementation (distribution and signature acknowledgements for new and current officials) and compliance (potential sanctions and the council’s authority to impose reprimand or censure for violations). The code states that sanctions are to be considered carefully and provides factors the council may weigh in determining whether a violation is “serious.”

Council discussion focused on how enforcement would work, who would judge alleged violations, and whether sanctions could impinge on protected political speech. The city attorney noted established legal limits: disciplinary measures cannot override constitutional protections such as free speech, though the council may consider allegations involving defamation, threats or other recognized exceptions.

The measure passed 3–2. Supporters said the code fills a gap in written conduct expectations for a city that is growing in complexity; opponents said the draft needs more work to avoid vagueness and potential misuse.