More independence, sharper teeth: Elliott's ethics plan would overhaul how campaign, lobbying rules are enforced

More than two decades ago, the city of San Diego established an ethics board to enforce the many rules that govern elected officials' conflicts of interest, campaign practices and lobbying disclosures.

But ever since then, the San Diego Ethics Commission has been constrained by some of the very rules and practices that were written into its governing documents back in 2001.

Now a proposal initiated by City Attorney Mara Elliott to rewrite the way the independent panel does business is set to go before the City Council's rules committee.

If the plan wins approval next week and then from the full council, voters will decide this year whether to give the panel sharper teeth in overseeing hundreds of public officials, political campaigns and the contributors and lobbyists who seek to influence them.

Among other things, the executive director would be selected by the commission and no longer subject to City Council confirmation.

He or she would be empowered to open investigations on their own authority, rather than relying on approval from the commission, and could refer cases to other law enforcement agencies as deemed necessary.

“It’s time to bolster their independence and better define their role,” Elliott said in an interview.

The changes largely would be made through an amendment to the city charter, the controlling document for the San Diego city government that can only be changed by a public vote.

Other tweaks would be pursued through the ordinance process later, including a plan to take appointment authority away from the mayor, council and city attorney.

The proposed reforms, which were first brought forward last fall , would be placed before voters on the November ballot.

For starters, the plan would carve out a new section in the charter specifically designated to the ethics commission, in the same way voters approved charter changes that created the city Commission on Police Practices.

If passed by voters, the existence of the San Diego Ethics Commission would no longer be subject to the authority of the City Council. Under the current charter language, the council could do away with the oversight panel in a single vote if a majority of members saw fit.

The amendment also would more specifically define the role of the ethics board and the qualifications and terms of the volunteer commissioners. It also would require a funding stream and give the commission authority to retain its own lawyers, rather than rely on the city attorney's office.

“I think we’re all on the same page,” Elliott said after weeks of discussions. “I’m very optimistic about it, but there’s still so much more work to be done.”

The elected city attorney, who leaves office later this year due to term limits, introduced a series of proposed reforms last September, saying San Diego needs to bolster its checks and balances to ensure good governance going forward.

In addition to bolstering the ethics panel, Elliott wants to enact a civility code and strengthen whistleblower protections. She also wants to update rules governing the use of personal devices and close a loophole that allows contacts with unpaid lobbyists to go unreported. Under existing rules, only paid lobbyists are required to report their contacts with public officials.

The city attorney also said the city auditor’s office should be given more independence and not report directly to the audit committee, which includes three elected council members. Elliott floated the idea of pursuing an elected city auditor.

But the first changes start with the ethics commission charter amendment — upgrades that commissioners themselves have embraced.

“The commission believes the charter amendments will increase the commission’s independence, better align with the best practices of ethics commissions across the state and help to achieve the commission’s goal of building public confidence through its work,” said Sharon Spivak, the panel’s executive director.

One of the key changes Elliott proposed was not embraced by rules committee members during a presentation last month: the idea of retired judges or other people unaffiliated with the mayor or council choosing commission members.

Instead of being included in the proposed charter amendment this November, that proposed change will be part of ongoing discussions that could eventually result in an update to the municipal code, the city attorney said.

“There’s got to be a model where the regulated elected officials are not appointing their regulators to the ethics commission,” Elliott said.

Carl Luna, the Mesa College political science professor who also directs the Institute for Civil Civic Engagement at the University of San Diego, said getting elected officials out of the appointment process is critical to effective oversight.

“Under the current system, the members of the city ethics commission are essentially selected by (hired and fired) the very mayor and city council the commission is supposed to oversee,” Luna told the rules committee in a letter last month.

“Thus the ethics commission effectively is neither independent or apolitical, at all times subject to the will of the mayor/council, no matter how well intentioned that might be,” he said.

Elliott said she and the commission agreed to tackle changes to the appointment process through updates to the municipal code.

She said her office would also seek to increase the size of the fines the commission can impose through a new ordinance. The biggest fine the panel can now levy is $5,000 per violation — a penalty that does not always dissuade lobbyists or others from violating reporting rules.

Elliott floated the idea of tripling the current limit to $15,000 per violation.

“We’ve seen this is an issue time and again, where those penalties are not sufficient,” she said.

The proposed charter amendment is not guaranteed to pass when the rules committee considers the proposal June 5.

The committee split 3-2 on a motion to direct the city attorney to work with the commission to draft language that could be presented to voters in November.

Council President Sean Elo-Rivera joined Councilmembers Joe LaCava and Raul Campillo in supporting the motion, while Councilmembers Kent Lee and Vivian Moreno voted no.

This story originally appeared in San Diego Union-Tribune .