San Fernando council moves to introduce ordinance barring members from nominating immediate family to city commissions

San Fernando — The City Council on Monday moved to introduce Ordinance No. 1741, a staff‑draft rule that would prohibit city council members from nominating their immediate family to city boards, commissions and committees and would require recusal when a relative is nominated by another council member.

City attorney staff presented the draft as an amendment to municipal code section 2‑42 and said it is intended to formalize nomination assignments and add a clear recusal rule. "Tonight before you is consideration to adopt an ordinance prohibiting city council members from nominating immediate family members to serve on boards, commissions, and committees," staff told the council during the presentation. Staff recommended introduction for first reading and waiver of further readings.

The ordinance would bar first‑degree relatives — defined in the draft as a spouse, parent, child or sibling (and the domestic‑partner equivalent) — from being nominated by a related council member; if a related council member is nominated by another member, the related member would be required to abstain from voting on the appointment. Staff said the change would not remove any current commissioners who are related to sitting council members; existing appointees would serve out their current terms.

Council members debated the scope and phrasing. Council Member Solorio asked whether relatives who already serve would be grandfathered; staff confirmed that current commission terms would not be cut short. Other members pressed about the legal threshold for recusal and whether abstention is required only when there is a financial interest. Staff said state conflict‑of‑interest rules focus on financial benefit but that a broadly written local recusal rule would be simpler to administer.

Supporters framed the change as a transparency measure. "California law prohibits public officials from using their position to financially benefit family members," one council member said, arguing the proposed ordinance would help avoid even the appearance of favoritism. Opponents and some who favored a lighter rule asked staff to clarify edge cases — step‑relatives, household partners, stipend waivers — and how the council should handle ties when a member has recused themselves.

After discussion, a motion to introduce the ordinance for first reading passed on roll call. The clerk recorded the roll in the transcript (four votes in favor, one opposed in the roll call as recorded). Staff will return with the ordinance on first reading for formal adoption and with proposed application language so commissioner applicants will see the new nomination policy.

The council made no final policy changes at the meeting other than approving moving the draft forward for formal consideration. If adopted, the ordinance would be added to the municipal code at §2‑42 and would apply to future nominations going forward; staff told the council there would be no budget impact to amend the code.

The council voted to introduce the measure at the meeting; a final adoption vote is scheduled when the ordinance returns for formal readings.