Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Conflict Of Interest topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
FPPC adopts opinion finding Palo Alto city manager has source-of-income interest in Stanford University
Summary
The California Fair Political Practices Commission voted to adopt staff’s opinion (version one) finding that, under the facts before it, Palo Alto City Manager Shikata has a source-of-income interest in Stanford University because of the university’s control over Stanford Healthcare; the vote signals guidance for future advice letters but leaves broader regulation for later rulemaking.
The Fair Political Practices Commission on Aug. 21 adopted an opinion concluding that, under the specific facts before it, Stanford University constitutes a source-of-income interest to Palo Alto City Manager Shikata because of the university’s authority over Stanford Healthcare’s board.
The commission’s decision, approved unanimously by commissioners present, accepts staff’s “version one” conclusion while adding optional language intended as guidance for future matters. Chair Silver moved to adopt the opinion with language reflecting that the university’s power to remove board members at will was the determinative factor in the conflicts analysis. “Based on Stanford University’s current level of control over Stanford Healthcare, Stanford University constitutes a source of income to City Manager Shakata,” Chair Silver said when moving the measure.
Why it matters: The opinion applies narrowly to the facts in the request from the Palo Alto City Attorney’s Office but provides a roadmap for future advice letters and regulated parties. Staff and multiple commissioners said the optional language could help counsel and local governments understand what bylaw changes would affect conflicts-of-interest analyses, while stopping short of establishing a general rule without formal rulemaking under the Administrative Procedure Act.
What the staff recommended: Senior Commission Counsel Kevin Cornwall told commissioners that staff prepared two versions of an opinion but consolidated the conclusions into a single draft: both would conclude Shikata has a source-of-income interest under the current facts; the optional language explains circumstances (for example, if the university lacked authority to remove healthcare board members) that could change the analysis in later requests.
Commission debate: Commissioners exchanged questions about whether appointment power or removal power is the more persuasive sign of control. Commissioner Ortiz urged the commission to consider limiting appointment power or reducing majority appointment authority in future regulation, saying appointment power can “ensure[] loyalty” that compromises board independence. Several commissioners, including Chair Silver and Commissioner Brandt, emphasized that the removal authority presented the clearest appearance-of-control problem.
Legal limits and next steps: Counsel warned that any general rule would require the commission to proceed via the Administrative Procedure Act. Several commissioners said they favored leaving the determinative-rule work for a later regulatory project and using the adopted opinion as guidance. Commissioner Ortiz added a caveat in her roll-call vote asking staff to pursue appointment-power considerations later during a regulatory rulemaking.
Vote: The motion to adopt staff’s version one passed on a roll-call vote with Commissioners Brandt, Ortiz (with request for later regulation on appointment powers), Wilson, Zettle and Chair Silver voting in favor.
What this does not do: The opinion is narrowly framed to the facts presented and does not automatically change prior advice letters beyond the context of future staff guidance; any binding regulatory standard beyond the opinion would require formal rulemaking.
The commission directed staff to prepare a final, publishable opinion incorporating the adopted language.
