At a recent board of supervisors meeting, Supervisors Jerry Muenzer and Anthony Botelho were required to remove themselves from a discussion on the Williamson Act. During the public hearing, the supervisors were asked to consider if the property tax benefit should be lowered by 10 percent and contracts reduced to 9 years as a way to move $230,000 back into the general fund.
At an earlier meeting in which the public hearing was scheduled, Botelho had said he did not think he and Muenzer would have to recuse themselves even though they had property within the Williamson Act – because government officials are allowed to vote on items that have a financial impact on themselves if it has the same impact on the general public.
But after checking in with the Fair Political Practices Commission, the state agency that enforces the Political Reform Act and ensures ethics guidelines are followed by elected officials, he was informed that under the circumstances he and Muenzer were not eligible to vote.
At the heart of any decision by the FPPC is whether the government official has a financial stake in the vote that does not have a benefit to the general public. The FPPC is available to offer advice to local officials to wade through the nuances of the Political Reform Act.
The law can also come up in rare occasions when a spouse serves on a government board, such as a school board, but it doesn’t happen often. In general, board members are not disqualified from taking part in a collective bargaining decision regarding salary schedules that will affect a spouse, so long as the employee does not receive a different salary than others in the same job classification or position.
San Benito High School Trustee Evelyn Muro, who ran unopposed for a third term on the board, served during part of her tenure while married to a school administrator who has since retired.
Muro said the issue was addressed when she first ran for the board and a legal opinion was shared with the board at that time. In the eight years she has served on the school board, she has not encountered a situation that would be considered a conflict of interest. Jennifer Coile, who ran unsuccessfully for the SBHS board this year, also has a husband employed on staff and would have had to consider the related rules.
According to the FPPC, there may be some occasions where a trustee whose spouse works on campus may have to recuse themselves from a vote due to a conflict of interest.
“Other collective bargaining decisions – including, but not limited to, staffing and budgetary decisions that could impact the classes or programs in which the board member’s spouse serves – must be analyzed individually to assess whether specific decisions fall within the exceptions to the personal financial effects rule for decisions affecting governmental salary,” the FPPC stated in a letter.
According to the Political Reform Act, a public official is prohibited from making, participating in making or influencing a governmental decision in which the official has a financial interest. The commission has an eight-step process with formal complaints in which it determines if an official has a disqualifying conflict of interest.
Officials are required to recuse themselves from a governmental decision if it is reasonably foreseeable that the decision will have a material financial effect, distinguishable from its effect on the general public, on the official, or a member of his or her immediate family. The financial impact is considered material if it is at least $250 in any 12-month period, but there is an exception for salary, per diem and reimbursement “unless the decision is to hire, fire, promote, demote, suspend without pay or otherwise take disciplinary action with financial sanction against the official or a member of his or her immediate family.”
