THE STOCKTON CITY COUNCIL may be inching toward new ethics rules following a San Joaquin County Civil Grand Jury report in June that said some of its members were “complicit in the deterioration of camaraderie, trust, respect, and ethical governing.”
The Council’s Legislation and Environmental Committee met July 17 and asked staff to bring back sample policy language for updating the city’s ethics creed, last reviewed in 1986, and adopting disclosure requirements for campaign consultants. The latter was one of the recommendations of the grand jury, which took issue with the proximity of 209 Times founder and political consultant Motecuzoma Sanchez to city government.
The committee — composed of Councilmembers Michael Blower and Susan Lenz and Vice Mayor Kimberly Warmsley — reviewed existing language from San Francisco’s rules on campaign consultants during the meeting.
Like all public elected officials in California, Stockton City Council members are required to file statements of economic interest, but very few cities ask the same of campaign consultants.
In San Francisco, campaign consultants that work with local candidates are required to register with the city’s ethics commission and disclose a variety of information, including gifts to local officials, a list of clients, and donations to candidates. Consultants are also required to report if they are awarded city contracts or appointed to public offices by their clients.
Commission appointments a source of friction
Appointments to city commissions has been a particular sticking point in Stockton. Councilmember Michele Padilla tapped Sanchez for two positions after 209 Times endorsed her during her 2022 campaign and ran stories attacking her opponent, incumbent Sol Jobrack.
In March, Padilla nominated Sanchez to the powerful Planning Commission, although his selection failed to get a vote when the motion was not seconded. However, she successfully appointed him in November to the Charter Advisory Review Committee, which is tasked with resolving compliance issues with the city’s charter. Sanchez later stepped down in April ahead of a City Council vote to consider removing him.
Padilla said that Sanchez was “a strong advocate for his community” and that he “resigned due to bullying.” She also raised concerns that “consultants will no longer want to do business with campaigns if they are required to report and disclose information.”
Like all public elected officials in California, Stockton City Council members are required to file statements of economic interest, but very few cities ask the same of campaign consultants.
During the July 17 meeting meeting, Warmsley asked city staff to consider language extending new ethics requirements to planning commissioners, as well as to potentially establish an ethics committee to enforce any new rules. The council committee also briefly discussed updating Stockton’s ethics code, including language regarding the Brown Act, a California law guaranteeing public access to meetings that the grand jury found councilmembers had repeatedly violated.
Stockton’s existing creed generally asks councilmembers to refuse to “approve breaches of public trust” and follow the Brown Act, but does not specifically address political appointments or even conflicts of interest. Several councilmembers audibly winced when hearing that the code had last been looked at in 1986.
Heeding the recommendations
The committee’s consideration of new ethics rules may be the latest sign that city officials are taking the recommendations of the grand jury seriously.
In June, just a week after the grand jury report had singled out Padilla’s use of council stationery for non-city business, the council approved new guidelines for the use of city letterhead, explicitly forbidding councilmembers from using it for press releases or statements to the media. Padilla had issued a lengthy statement in October on city letterhead alleging “continued unprofessional behavior” by City Manager Harry Black; many community leaders subsequently voiced their support for Black.
Other sections of the report have yet to be specifically addressed. The grand jury had also found that councilmembers had repeatedly disclosed confidential information from the closed sessions of meetings, a violation of the Brown Act.
The City Council is currently on summer recess and will next meet again Aug. 20.
