Print Back to Calendar Return
    6.    
INTERNAL OPERATIONS COMMITTEE
Meeting Date: 07/12/2021  
Subject:    REVIEW COUNTY ANTI-NEPOTISM/ANTI-FAVORITISM POLICY PERTAINING TO APPOINTMENTS TO ADVISORY BODIES FOR POSSIBLE MODIFICATION
Submitted For: Monica Nino, County Administrator
Department: County Administrator  
Referral No.: IOC 21/5  
Referral Name: Advisory Body Recruitment
Presenter: Julie DiMaggio Enea Contact: Julie DiMaggio Enea (925) 655-2056

Information
Referral History:
Referral
At the April 12 IOC meeting, in the context of discussing the County's standard advisory body application form, the Committee directed staff to agendize for further discussion possible revision to Resolution No. 2011/55, which concerns eligibility of family members of County Supervisors for appointment to Board advisory bodies and commissions. Chair Andersen said she understood the context in which the original policy was created but thought the ban on familial relations might be too far reaching and should be reconsidered. She asked Board Chief Clerk Jami Morritt to consult other counties to see what policies they may have in this regard. Vice Chair Burgis suggested that only people with whom one shares a house should be ineligible.

History:
In May 2011, the Civil Grand Jury published a report entitled "Ethics and Transparency Issues in Contra Costa County", attached, alleging ethical breaches and nepotism by certain public officials. Also attached is the County's response to that report.

The grand jury's allegation of nepotism centered on a Board recommendation to appoint the spouse of a sitting County Supervisor to a special district board, making that spouse eligible to retain a seat on the Local Agency Formation Commission (LAFCo), a body which regulates county boundaries. Ultimately, the Board referred a recruitment process to an impartial outside panel, which recommended appointment of a different individual than the Supervisor's spouse.

Subsequently, the Board of Supervisors adopted an anti-nepotism policy (Resolution No. 2011/55) that prohibits appointment by Board members of relatives, domestic partners, and individuals with shared business interests to county advisory bodies, a decision which was lauded by the grand jury. The grand jury further recommended that the County adopt a policy requiring the formation of impartial selection committees in situations where there are conflicts of interest, real or perceived, that cannot be adequately addressed by a normal recusal process. The Board had previously implemented this recommendation with adoption of Resolution No. 2002/377 (later updated to Resolution No. 2020/1), which provides that a screening committee may be selected to assist the Board, or a member of the Board, in the interview and selection of applicants for appointment.

Ten years has elapsed since the anti-nepotism/anti-favoritism policy was adopted, and it is appropriate for IOC to review this policy and adjust it as needed. Following is the text of the policy, as adopted in 2011:

I. SCOPE: This policy applies to appointments to any seats on boards, committees or commissions for which the Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors is the appointing authority.

II. POLICY: A person will not be eligible for appointment if he/she is related to a Board of Supervisors' Member in any of the following relationships:


1. Mother, father, son, and daughter;
2. Brother, sister, grandmother, grandfather, grandson, and granddaughter;
3. Great-grandfather, great-grandmother, aunt, uncle, nephew, niece, great-grandson, and great-granddaughter;
4. First cousin;
5. Husband, wife, father-in-law, mother-in-law, son-in-law, daughter-in-law, stepson, and stepdaughter;
6. Sister-in-law (brother's spouse or spouse's sister), brother-in-law (sister's spouse or spouse's brother), spouse's grandmother, spouse's grandfather, spouse's granddaughter, and spouse's grandson;
7. Registered domestic partner, pursuant to California Family Code section 297.
8. The relatives, as defined in 5 and 6 above, for a registered domestic partner.
9. Any person with whom a Board Member shares a financial interest as defined in the Political Reform Act (Gov't Code §87103, Financial Interest), such as a business partner or business associate.

Candidates shall identify on the standard County application form any of the above-specified relationships with a Board of Supervisors
member.
Referral Update:
Board Chief Clerk Jami Morritt reached out to all the Bay Area counties. San Mateo, San Francisco, Sonoma, Alameda and Marin reported having no comparable policy.

For purposes of avoiding legally cognizable conflicts of interest, sections 2, 3, 4 and 6 could all be omitted for all bodies. These groups are not family for purposes of the Political Reform Act. The Act considers only the spouse and dependent children to be immediate family. In addition, section 8 would still prohibit appointment of a member who had a financial interest with anyone in group 2, 3, 4 or 6.

For purposes of avoiding nepotism or appearance thereof, appointment to County advisory bodies of family members or others who have a close relationship to a County Supervisor is a matter of policy and within the discretion of the Board of Supervisors.
Recommendation(s)/Next Step(s):
Staff recommends:
  1. omitting 3, 4 and 6 for all bodies. Those relationships seem fairly attenuated;
  2. retaining all other restrictions because they represent close family members of Supervisors; and
  3. omitting the same groups across all bodies, for ease of administration and compliance.
Fiscal Impact (if any):
No fiscal impact.
Attachments
GJ Report 1105 re Nepotism/Favoritism
County Response to GJ Report 1105
Board Order Transmittal_Reso 2011/55 Anti-Nepotism Policy
Res 2011-55_AS ADOPTED_POLICY CONCERNING THE ELIGIBILITY OF BOARD OF SUPERVISORS' FAMILY MEMBERS FOR APPOINTMENT TO BOARDS, COMMITTEES AND COMMISSIONS

AgendaQuick©2005 - 2024 Destiny Software Inc., All Rights Reserved