The “ethics for thee and not for me” City Council strikes again.
Last night, the Santa Monica City Council voted to postpone “indefinitely” an ordinance prepared by staff that banned Councilmembers from accepting gifts after City Council votes (Agenda, Item 5L). The vote was 4-3 to table the motion with Mayor Phil Brock, Vice-Mayor Lana Negrete, and Councilmembers Oscar de la Torre and Christine Parra voting to table the motion. Councilmembers Gleam Davis, Caroline Torosis and Jesse Zwick all voted against the motion to delay.
The ordinance was created in response to an item placed on the agenda by Davis earlier this year.
Following a supreme court ruling that Brock characterized as “ridiculous” that allows elected officials to take money or other gifts after a vote as receiving it after a vote isn’t a bribe, it’s a “gratuity.” The Council quickly passed an ethics rule that Councilmembers could not receive a cash gift within a year after a vote as a direct result of their vote. They also voted unanimously to ask city staff to bring back an ordinance that was even stronger, and barred not just cash gifts but also other gifts, removed the time restriction and extended the ban on items where a vote wasn’t actually taken (for example, a motion that is tabled indefinitely.) The ordinance put forward by staff for last night’s meeting was only three pages long,
But last night when that motion was brought back, the Council majority flinched and left Davis, Zwick and Torosis scratching their heads at what should have been an easy vote.
For their part, Brock argued that it was his fault that the motion was brought back claiming he hadn’t done his research before the previous vote taken on September 10 to direct staff to create the ordinance that was tabled last night. He stated that he felt it would be better if it returned as a “16 item,” one that is submitted not by staff but by a Councilmember.
“It was not as clear and concise as it should have been,” Brock said of the motion on last night’s agenda. “I should have listened better (at the previous meeting)…I think it would be better if something like this were brought as a 16 item. The issue is gratuities, and this motion goes well beyond gratuities.”
But Davis countered Brock’s assertion that the motion was in any way confusing or difficult to follow.
“It’s pretty straightforward,” Davis stated. “I’m not sure why that’s not clear or difficult….The whole idea of this is to create transparency and increase the standing of the Council.”
Parra framed her vote to table as a victory for equity. She reasoned that a Councilmember with fewer financial means would be excluded from networking and other activities that they would be invited to as a City Councilmember such as a conference or meeting. Of course, ethics rules that limit city workers from accepting free tickets to events already exist and Councilmembers have a travel budget that could cover the costs of attending these events.
Councilmembers de la Torre and Negrete made no effort to explain their vote. Councilmembers Torosis and Zwick both voiced their objection and confusion against the vote to table.
During the debate, it became clear that any Councilmember could bring the item back as a “16 item” on a future agenda and Davis seems likely to do that at the earliest opportunity. However, with only two meetings left until the November election; voters may be deprived the opportunity, again, to see how incumbent Councilmembers vote on ethics reforms.The City Council, by an identical 4-3 vote, punted on passing a code of ethics for Councilmembers until next year based on the one that exists for city employees earlier this year. The Council also refused to authorize an investigation into a closed session leak over a legal matter this year, repeating a similar lack of urgency to investigate leaks that was demonstrated over a leak in the hiring process for a new city manager in 2021.
