Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Ethics Training topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Deputy city attorney briefs commissioners on conflicts, the Levine Act and ex parte communications
Summary
Deputy City Attorney Ashlyn Lutz presented a refresher on the Political Reform Act, the Levine Act (pay‑to‑play) and ex parte disclosure rules, highlighted the $500 contribution threshold effective Jan. 1 and provided examples on abstentions and meeting procedures.
Deputy City Attorney Ashlyn Lutz delivered a training session to the Planning Commission that covered conflict‑of‑interest rules, required disclosures, ex parte communications and basic motion and voting procedures.
Lutz described the Political Reform Act’s core test — whether an official has a financial interest that could be materially affected by a decision — and outlined examples that would create a disqualifying conflict, such as an official's business or real property being explicitly involved in a decision. She emphasized the practical steps commissioners should take when they suspect a conflict and invited commissioners to consult with her for case‑specific advice.
On campaign contributions and pay‑to‑play rules, Lutz explained the Levine Act’s purpose in preventing officials from being influenced by donations from parties with pending land‑use matters. She noted a statutory threshold change that increased the disqualifying contribution amount from $250 to $500 as of Jan. 1 and said the rule applies for one year forward from the decision date in its current interpretation.
Lutz also reviewed ex parte communications (information received outside a noticed hearing) and recommended commissioners disclose any site visits, conversations with parties or outside research so the applicant and public can respond. She covered three common motion types (basic motion, motion to amend, substitute motion) and how the chair manages multiple motions, plus examples of appropriate abstentions (for example, when a commissioner missed an earlier hearing and did not review the record).
"So conflict of interest review is very technical and complex and very fact specific," Lutz said, and she encouraged commissioners to reach out to the city attorney's office for guidance. She concluded by outlining planning application types (ministerial vs. discretionary) and the appeal path from the planning commission to the City Council.
Commissioners thanked Lutz for the overview and asked for the training materials to be circulated.
