Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Conflict Of Interest topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Board adopts conflict‑of‑interest policy language after extended discussion; edits to be reviewed again
Summary
The board considered board policy 1.1.6.7 on conflicts of interest, debated Gamut template language about disclosures for entities that manage public investments, and approved a substitute motion to duplicate a managed‑investment disclosure into the conflict‑of‑interest code; the item will return for a first reading where required edits and filing steps will be clarified.
At its Feb. 9 meeting the San Bernardino County Board of Education reviewed proposed revisions to board policy 1.1.6.7 (conflict of interest). The discussion focused on disclosure language, where certain managed‑investment disclosure paragraphs should live in the overall code, and the origin of the draft text.
Member De Leon raised concerns about a passage that requires "publicly identify[ing] each financial interest that gives rise to a conflict or potential conflict of interest in detail sufficient to be understood by the public" and asked why that language was placed in the managed‑public‑investments section rather than in the general code. She said the paragraph had broader relevance and should be duplicated in the main conflict‑of‑interest code so members and the public could find it more easily.
Legal counsel and staff identified the draft as sourced from Gamut (a commonly used municipal policy template) and explained that some sections vary because they apply only to bodies that manage public investments. Counsel said the county board of supervisors is the code‑reviewing authority and that Form 700 filing procedures differ for local filers.
Because the requested duplication would change the text under second reading, Member De Leon moved a substitute motion to approve the policies with the duplication of the managed‑investments disclosure into the conflict‑of‑interest code; another member seconded. Board members acknowledged that the change would require a subsequent first reading (and public notice) to complete the formal process; staff pledged to follow up on filing and notice requirements to the board of supervisors.
The substitute motion carried. No specific sanctions or enforcement actions were imposed during the meeting; staff was asked to provide additional details about filing, the role of the board of supervisors, and who serves as the Form 700 filing officer.
Ending: The board approved the substitute motion related to policy 1.1.6.7 and directed staff and counsel to return with any required procedural steps and the revised language for the next formal reading.
