News

Rail officials wrestle with 'conflict' finding

Legislative Counsel Bureau finds two board members violate state law on 'incompatibility of public offices'

Two members of the California High-Speed Rail Authority board of directors could be serving on the board in violation of a state law governing conflicts of interest, according to a letter from the state Legislative Counsel Bureau.

The letter, which the bureau issued in April and which was obtained this week by Palo Alto-based rail watchdog group Californians Advocating Responsible Rail Design (CARRD) argues that Anaheim Mayor Curt Pringle, who chairs the authority's board of directors, and Richard Katz, a board member who also sits on the Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority, cannot serve on the statewide board while also holding their positions in Southern California.

The fact that both serve on the rail board creates a potential for conflict of interest, the bureau found. Legislative Counsel Diane F. Boyer-Vine, who wrote the letter, wrote that "there is a reasonable potential for a conflict between the local views of the City of Anaheim on the high-speed rail project and the views of a body such as HSRA in a statewide perspective."

The proposed system, for which state voters approved a $9.95 billion bond in 2008, would ultimately run to Anaheim under present plans.

"Unlike the mayor or a city council member of a city substantially removed from the route of the high-speed rail system as currently contemplated, we think the potential for conflict between the HSRA and the City Council of Anaheim is sufficient pursuant ... to create the possibility of a significant clash of duties or loyalties for the Mayor of the City of Anaheim simultaneously serving as a member of the HSRA," Boyer-Vine wrote, citing Section 1099 of the state code. "Therefore, we think a court could reasonably determine that the two officers are incompatible under that section and the common law doctrine of incompatibility of public offices, and that the same individual may not hold both offices simultaneously."

Section 1099 requires individuals who hold two incompatible offices to forfeit the first office as soon as they accept the second.

Katz's service on the Los Angeles board also could create a conflict, she found, particularly because the project is slated to go to Los Angeles County. The two agencies, for example, could have different opinions about right-of-way costs and about who should pay for certain features of the system.

"This creates the possibility of a significant clash of duties or loyalties for a board member of Metro simultaneously serving as a member of the HSRA," Boyer-Vine wrote.

The rail authority has so far been cautious about responding to the conflict-of-interest charges. Board member Quentin Kopp had tried on several occasions earlier this month to bring up the subject and try to integrate Section 1099 into the board's procedures. He was the only board member, however, who advocated changing the board's procedures to bring it into line with state law.

At the Sept. 1 meeting of the rail authority's Executive Committee, Kopp called for the committee to consider revising its policy on conflicts of interest, but his proposal quickly fizzled after neither Pringle nor authority Vice Chair Fran Florez wanted to consider it further.

"If we wished to put every single government code into our board policy and procedures, it would be never-ending," Pringle said in response to Kopp's proposal.

On Sept. 2, Kopp brought up the subject at the meeting of the full board, but his board colleagues did not support his proposed policy change, which Kopp said would require members to "simply not participate in discussion or vote on any item that is within the jurisdiction or affects the interest of the other public office."

Kopp mentioned the counsel's opinion that such a policy would affect two board members.

The board didn't adopt his proposed policy, but appointed a committee to consider possible revisions. Board Member David Crane said he was concerned about creating a new policy without fully knowing its implications and expressed concern about the prospect of any of the present board members being asked not to participate in meetings.

"I want to draw this narrowly so that it works but it's not a sledgehammer," Crane said. "We need good people on this board."

The state Attorney General's office, which is charged with enforcing Section 1099, has also taken interest in the potential conflict. So far, however, it has only gone so far as to ask the rail authority to review its own potential conflicts.

"We urge your potentially affected members to review the relevant law for themselves, in light of any public offices they may hold in addition to their HSRA membership, and to take appropriate steps to clear up any lingering issues," Supervisor Deputy Attorney General Susan Duncan Lee wrote in a July 29 letter to rail authority CEO Roelof van Ark.

CARRD, which has been closely following the rail project, has called for the Attorney General's office to take a firmer stance and restore the public's confidence in the rail project, which has an estimated cost of $42.6 billion.

"This situation is jeopardizing the public's confidence in the integrity of the process and must be resolved as soon as possible," CARRD co-founder Elizabeth Alexis wrote in a statement. "We urge the Attorney General to take immediate action to remedy this situation."

Comments

Like this comment
Posted by Jay Tulock
a resident of another community
on Sep 29, 2010 at 1:19 pm

This is really a case of the Kopp calling the Pringle black. The problem with laws that try to deal with matters such as conflict of interest is that they can only cover specific outright cases of such, while there are numerous conflicts that can all be done behind the scenes without consequences. For an example of possible conflict from another board member not under investigation, google the three words 'rod almighty diridon' and enjoy the first article that appears from 1998.

The real issue here is Kopp wants to shift the political balance on the High Speed Authority so the board is not dominated by southern Californians. Kopp could not give a C about conflict of interest, but he wants Pringle and Katz gone, as they will vote to send the federal stimulus money for the Los Angeles to Anaheim segment leaving Kopp's buddies high and dry. Peninsula folks fighting the Authority plans should be concerned about this, as if Kopp prevails the Authority will have the votes to put the money into the Caltrain route.

It matters not that they may never have the money to build beyond San Jose and the Peninsula is forever altered by a needless, multi-billion dollar construction project.

Jay Tulock, Vacaville


Like this comment
Posted by Herb Borock
a resident of Professorville
on Sep 29, 2010 at 3:15 pm

The remedy for holding incompatible offices is provided in Government Code Section 1099(b): "When two public offices are incompatible, a public officer shall be deemed to have forfeited the first office upon acceding to the second."

Anaheim Mayor Curt Pringle was elected in November 2002 and reelected in November 2006.

Governor Schwarzenegger announcesd the appointment of Curt Pringle to the High Speed Rail Authority on February 14, 2007.

Therefore, if Pringle is required to vacate an office, it is the office of Mayor of Anaheim. He would still be a member of the High Speed Rail Authority board.

Shortly after his election in June of 2005, Los Angeles Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa appointed Katz to serve with him on the Governing Board of the Metropolitan Transportation Authority.

Richard Katz was sworn in as a member of the High Speed Rail Authorty board by Chairman Kopp on June 4, 2009.

Therefore, if Katz is required to vacate an office, it is his office on the Metropolitan Transportation Authority. He would still be a member of the High Speed Rail Authority board.

Kopp's hot air about Pringle and Katz is related to a competition for limited funds between Kopp and Diridon in the San Francisco Bay Area, and Pringle and Katz in Los Angeles.

I don't see how anyone could believe that Palo Alto will get responsible rail design from High Speed Rail while Kopp and Diridon are on the Authority board.

As long as Kopp and Diridon serve on that board, Palo Alto will be better served if the money goes to Pringle and Katz in Los Angeles.


Like this comment
Posted by Parent
a resident of Charleston Gardens
on Sep 29, 2010 at 8:48 pm

Meanwhile they did continue to operate in both positions for a period of about 2 years - illegally. Therefore ALL the decisions, discussions, certifications, etc, made during that time should be nulled. Bring them back to a legal board. Who can say what kind of undue influence was exerted by this conflicted board? It can't be determined. All decisions need to be null and void. Excellent material for the next lawsuit.


Like this comment
Posted by NONIMBYS!!!!! I
a resident of another community
on Sep 30, 2010 at 8:57 am

NO parent. .. it would be more like the next silly useless worthless lawsuits to be thrown out.. it was well known even on the California high-speed rail website, As all these people's bios clearly stated they were also on the board of these other agencies.. it's just a little Nimby organization throwing up yet another smokescreen of fever and doom!! By the way you would still have your "horrible" Bay Area board of authority members!! To continue voting for the logical and by far best choice of routing high-speed rail along the CalTrain right-of-way


Like this comment
Posted by Paul
a resident of Downtown North
on Sep 30, 2010 at 10:34 am

"it's just a little Nimby organization throwing up yet another smokescreen of fever and doom!!"

Call me NIMBY, but I don't want corrupt government in my back yard. You are free, of course, to welcome it in yours.


Like this comment
Posted by Bill Moisten
a resident of College Terrace
on Oct 1, 2010 at 11:54 am

Parent - nice call. I wonder who will file that suit. I suspect it will be a successful filing given the grave nature of the law that's been broken.

NONIMBY - Regardless of when the bios were stated, they still violated the law. Also, feel free to try to make a point that makes sense. Clearly you're in support of a $100B project that has a very high probability of failure on all levels.


Sorry, but further commenting on this topic has been closed.

He said – she said – who is lying? Justice Brett Kavanaugh or PA resident Christine Ford
By Diana Diamond | 69 comments | 6,856 views

Let's Talk Internships
By John Raftrey and Lori McCormick | 1 comment | 1,081 views

Populism: A response to the failure of the elites: Palo Alto edition
By Douglas Moran | 1 comment | 1,041 views

Couples: Sex and Connection (Chicken or Egg?)
By Chandrama Anderson | 0 comments | 949 views

Zucchini Takeover
By Laura Stec | 2 comments | 833 views