Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Ethics Transparency topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Oroville council backs draft ethics, transparency ordinance for further legal refinement
Summary
Councilmembers introduced and extensively debated a draft ordinance to codify disclosures, limit individual negotiating authority, require public notice for asset sales over $50,000, tighten recusal protocols tied to Government Code section 1090 and the Fair Political Practices Act, and add whistleblower protections; staff will refine language and return for formal consideration.
A majority of the Oroville City Council endorsed moving forward with a drafted ordinance this week intended to strengthen transparency and accountability after findings in the Gateway investigation.
Councilmember Weber said the proposal responds to constituent demand for “full transparency and accountability,” and outlined provisions that would require public disclosure of council members’ communications on city business, bar individual contract negotiations by members acting alone, mandate two public meetings and an independent appraisal for city asset sales above $50,000, and create whistleblower safeguards and reporting protocols to be implemented within 60 days of adoption.
Proponents described the measure as a repair to public trust. Weber said the ordinance would “prevent future lapses and rebuild trust,” and recommended eventual codification into municipal code so the rules have enforceable effect. Councilmember Johnstone and others said clear standards would help safeguard public confidence and protect staff and elected officials alike.
Opponents and cautious colleagues asked staff to tighten language to avoid unintended consequences for everyday outreach and business development. Councilmember Thompson and others warned the section on contract negotiations could unintentionally bar benign outreach or informal conversations with prospective developers; he suggested limiting prohibitions to ‘‘formal’’ negotiations. The city attorney agreed there is latitude for council advocacy and said staff would reconcile potential conflicts between the required disclosure language and the negotiation ban.
Councilmembers debated enforcement and remedies. The draft treats violations as potential official misconduct with remedies ranging from public censure to FPPC referral; it would require mandatory consultation with the city attorney when conflicts arise and public disclosure of the consultation’s outcome before deliberation. The draft also calls for an annual transparency report by the city attorney and a secure anonymous reporting system.
Council direction: after lengthy discussion the council asked staff and the city attorney to refine the ordinance language and return it for a first reading — deciding whether to implement the rules through a resolution (policy) for quicker adjustment or as an ordinance inserted in municipal code for greater permanence. No final ordinance was adopted at the meeting; staff will present a revised draft at a future meeting for possible first reading and formal adoption.
