Council studies draft code of ethics, debates scope, incompatibility and enforcement

City staff presented a draft code of ethics and conduct at the Costa Mesa City Council study session on July 8, 2025, and council members discussed the policy’s scope, prohibitions on using office for personal financial benefit, protections against retaliation, and how to apply the code to commissioners and senior staff.

“Those are the three additions I would like to made to the draft you’ve prepared,” Council member Marr said, asking that the code add an incompatible‑employment clause, a one‑year cooling‑off period after leaving office, and anti‑retaliation language protecting staff.

Council members traded views about how broad the policy should be and whether it should apply to council members, appointed commissioners and committees, and senior city staff. Several council members said that senior staff and department heads should be covered; the city attorney noted that senior staff are already subject to state ethics training requirements, California Government Code provisions and Fair Political Practices Commission (FPPC) rules that address incompatible employment and post‑employment restrictions.

Council member Bewley raised concerns about vague language in draft provisions governing interference with administrative functions and discouraging public criticism of employees, saying that broadly worded restrictions could be hard to enforce and might chill legitimate oversight. “There’s a fine line between impair and interfere,” Bewley said, and recommended tightening paragraph language so it is enforceable and not subject to ambiguous interpretation.

Public comment echoed those concerns. Fisher Derrarian, speaking during the public‑comment period, said provisions that limit criticism of staff or that sanction perceived “interference” risk silencing necessary public oversight: “I fear that that would be an overstep, and a way in which we can, quiet, I guess, disagreement in some sense.”

Council members also asked staff to consider model documents the packet included — the City of Irvine’s policy, the City of Gardena’s policy and the Newport‑Mesa Unified School District policy — and to draft language that balances prohibitions on misuse of office with protections for robust public and council oversight. Several council members suggested an annual reaffirmation process so the council and senior staff review and acknowledge the protocols regularly.

Next steps: staff will return with revised draft language incorporating council direction on incompatible employment, post‑employment cooling‑off, anti‑retaliation provisions and clearer enforcement language; the council will consider a formal adoption vote at a future meeting.