San Diego voters will get a chance Nov. 5 to boost the independence and power of the city’s Ethics Commission, which oversees lobbying rules and regulations governing elections and campaign contributions.
The City Council voted unanimously Monday to place on the ballot a measure that would bar elected leaders from eliminating the commission and require them to adequately fund it.
The measure would also change who appoints the commission’s executive director. Instead of being chosen by elected leaders, the executive director would be selected by members of the commission.
The proposed reforms come in response to criticisms that the commission, while a well-intentioned watchdog panel, hasn’t lived up to the expectations supporters had when it was created in 2001.
“Despite the city’s intent, the commission is not truly independent of the officials it is charged with overseeing,” said City Attorney Mara Elliott, who is spearheading the reform effort.
The ballot measure stops short of one key goal Elliott had when she began pursuing the ballot measure: changing who appoints the seven-member commission.
The mayor now selects all members from a pool of nominees submitted by the City Council and city attorney, and anyone the mayor selects must then be confirmed by the council.
Critics say that’s perhaps the greatest weakness of the commission — that it gets appointed by the people it oversees, investigates, fines and disciplines for wrongdoing.
Elliott had proposed creating a three-judge panel to appoint members, but the council’s Rules Committee rejected that proposal and some related proposals.
Elliott decided recently to leave that change out of the measure entirely. But she said Monday that she’s hopeful the council will separately change how the commission is appointed after the election.
Councilmember Joe LaCava praised the ballot measure, which needs support from a simple majority of city voters for approval.
“This action is good governance,” he said, describing it as a series of changes spurred by years of experience and problems. “I believe the voters will also see the value in asserting greater independence of the Ethics Commission.”
LaCava said Monday that he plans to write the ballot argument in favor of the measure.
The measure, which would accomplish its goals by amending the city charter, would also make members of the commission responsible for setting the commission’s rules and policies for who gets investigated and how they get investigated.
Under the current setup, the commission must get council approval to change its rules and policies.
The ballot measure would also commit the city to providing the commission with sufficient resources, including money for independent legal counsel, to perform its responsibilities.
The commission has the power to investigate and take administrative enforcement actions against current and former elected city officials and all candidates for city elected office.
The commission also oversees certain city employees, consultants and members of city boards and commissions who are required to file conflict-of-interest disclosure forms.
In addition, the commission oversees any person required to register as a city lobbyist.
The ballot measure is one of several reform measures Elliott proposed last year to culminate her eight years as city attorney, which will end in December because of term limits.
Another proposed reform, greater protections for whistleblowers, was forwarded by the Rules Committee last week to the full City Council for possible approval this fall.
Originally Published: