Pay-to-Play Limits and Prohibitions (Section 84308)

Susanne Meyer Brown                                 I-25-004

A governmental decision amending a city’s Residential Tenant Protection Program Ordinance could qualify as an entitlement for use proceeding depending on various factors, including whether the decision targets a small number of affected individuals. In general, however, broad amendments of the Ordinance affecting many and diverse interests, including annual reviews and changes to the rent increase cap and the potential exemption of single-family homes from certain provisions of the Ordinance, do not qualify as entitlement for use proceedings for purposes of Section 84308.

Scott E. Porter                                              A-25-009

Section 84308 restrictions and requirements do not apply to officials who received contributions of exactly $500. Section 84308 potentially applies only to contributions greater than $500.

Rebecca Moon                                               I-25-008

Council approval of payments already made by the City Manager as a consent item, where the City Manager has approved the payments under authority delegated under the City Charter or through obligations previously authorized by the City Council, and there is no process by which the City Council could reverse any of these payments, is an action that meets the definition of a “ministerial” and would not be subject to Section 84308.

Daniel G. Sodergren                                     I-25-026

Section 84308 does not prohibit the city mayor from appointing an individual to a city board, commission, or committee, even where that individual has made a campaign contribution of more than $500 to the mayor in the last 12 months. Appointments to boards, commissions, and committees are a form of employment contract, which is exempt from the definition of “entitlement for use” under the Act. Therefore, Section 84308 does not apply.

Tony Lopresti                                                I-23-177

County’s award of a $1000 “sponsorship” to a non-profit organization is an entitlement for use proceeding under Section 84308. Generally, a county supervisor’s ability to accept a contribution greater than $250 from individuals associated with the non-profit will depend on whether the individual qualifies as a party, participant, agent, or individual whose contributions are required to be aggregated under Section 82015.5.                                                                   

Tyler Haskell                                                 I-24-008

In a contract proceeding between a local agency and a county, the local agency’s employee who makes direct contact with the county is not an “agent” of the party for purposes of Section 84308. Due to the exclusions of government salary and benefits from the definition of “income” under the Act, the local agency employee is not representing the party “for compensation,” as required under Regulation 18438.3.

John Bakker                                                  A-24-004

A proceeding affecting parking rules for an entire downtown specific plan area, affecting many and diverse interests, does not qualify as a proceeding involving a license, permit, or other entitlement for use for purposes of Section 84308. Additionally, under Section 84308, the circumstances in which an officer “knows or has reason to know” about a proceeding include where the officer has actual knowledge of the proceeding, which may predate the publication of a meeting agenda relating to the proceeding.

Andre de Bortnowsky                                  A-24-023

It is not reasonably foreseeable a decision regarding the continuation of an existing contract for law enforcement services between the city and county will have a material financial effect on the law enforcement employees, the law enforcement employees’ union, or non-law enforcement employees.  Accordingly, contributions from these potential contributors will not be restricted under Section 84308 as the potential contributors do not meet the definition of a “participant.”

Shante Sylvester                                            A-24-027

Section 84308 is not applicable to a proceeding affecting a community standards district that was initiated by the agency as a general policy matter prohibiting new oil wells and production facilities, requiring removal of existing oil wells and production facilities after 20 years, and maintaining oil field regulations for all unincorporated areas within the agency’s jurisdiction, where the facts indicate that the change was not applied for, nor was it formally or informally requested by a party, does not involve a contract between the agency and a party, and would affect over 100 persons with property rights or permitted interests as well as all residents within the area.

Ryan O’Connor                                            I-24-035

Under Section 84308 and Regulation 18438.3, where an agent is employed as a lobbyist at a lobbying firm, contributions by the lobbying firm are aggregated with contributions made by the client-party or client-participant. Contributions by an employee of the lobbying firm are only aggregated with the client’s contributions if the employee qualifies as an “agent” or must aggregate their contributions under Section 82015.5 (e.g., the employee directs or controls the firm’s contributions).

Bradley A. Russi                                           I-24-037

Section 84308 prohibits parties, participants, and agents from contributing more than $250 to the elected city attorney as an officer of the agency while the proceeding is pending and for 12 months thereafter. This prohibition applies even if the city attorney establishes a screening process to preemptively recuse himself from taking part in city contracts involving the potential contributor.

Amber Maltbie                                              A-24-063

The restrictions of Section 84308 would not prohibit an officer from participating in the decision that will come before the officer’s agency when more than 12 months have passed from the date of receipt of the contribution, provided the officer had no knowledge of the project or the contributor’s representation of the applicant as an agent at the time the contribution was accepted. 

Sean Mill                                                        A-24-083

An attorney hired solely for representation in the trial aspect of litigation involving the attorney’s client and a government agency who is not authorized to engage in settlement negotiations with a government agency on behalf of the client does not qualify as the client’s “agent” in the settlement negotiations for purposes of Section 84308. Consequently, a city councilmember who has received a contribution greater than $250 from the attorney within the preceding 12 months would not be disqualified from taking part in settlement decisions on behalf of the city.

Sally Bemus                                                   A-24-110

Section 84308 does not apply to proceedings permanently closing portions of downtown business areas to car traffic because the proceeding does not involve a license, permit, or other entitlement for use. Based on the facts provided, the changes will affect a diverse set of stakeholders; were not applied for, nor were they formally or informally requested by a party; and do not involve a contract between the agency and a party.

Shante Sylvester & Gary Winuk                 A-24-129

County approval of a city’s issuance of private activity tax-exempt bonds constitutes a decision involving an entitlement for use proceeding for purposes of Section 84308 because the issuance of such bonds involves a contract. The county’s approval is also a new proceeding involving different parties than a previously approved bond issuance. Moreover, an official disqualified under Section 84308 may not take part in a related decision to delegate authority to another county official, and the “legally required participation” exception does not apply where an alternative source of decision-making exists consistent with the purposes and terms of the statute authorizing the decision.

Melissa Blaustein                                          A-24-138        

Councilmember is not disqualified from voting to approve a nonprofit’s lease of city-owned property under Section 84308. Even though the councilmember accepted over $250 in cumulative contributions from multiple members of the nonprofit’s uncompensated board of directors, contributions by the non-compensated nonprofit officers are not aggregated under Section 82015.5, and non-compensated officers do not qualify as agents under Section 84308.

Randall Sjoblom                                            I-23-027

Section 84308 applies to any proceeding or action to grant, deny, revoke, restrict or modify “licenses, permits, or other entitlements for use.” A decision to vacate an irrevocable offer of dedication or a public easement is a proceeding involving an entitlement for use.

Thai Viet Phan                                               A-23-052

Although Section 84308 prohibits officers including city councilmembers from accepting, soliciting, and directing contributions of more than $250 from parties in a proceeding involving “a license, permit, or other entitlement for use,” the statutory definition of that term excludes labor contracts. Accordingly, Section 84308 does not apply to contributions to councilmembers from an organization entering into a labor agreement with the City.   

Matt Strabone                                               I-23-037

Disclosure and disqualification requirements of Section 84308 apply to contributions received as a candidate for county central committee. So long as an official is an officer subject to Section 84308 at the time of the decision, the official will be subject to its provisions.

Jonathan Velasquez                                    I-23-065

In general, contracts are considered entitlement for use proceedings for purposes of Section 84308 regardless of value. Accordingly, small contracts, including purchase orders, are subject to Section 84308’s provisions. Likewise, charter school petitions, which are also contracts, are subject to Section 84308. However, labor contracts, such as collectively bargained project labor agreements, are expressly exempted from Section 84308.

Eric May                                                        I-23-077

When a landowner initiates a process to change the use designation of a specific parcel of property under the County’s general plan, both the pre-application to authorize the filing of a formal application, and the formal application for a general plan amendment, are “proceeding[s] involving a license, permit, or other entitlement for use” under Section 84308. Under the existing regulatory language and the most conservative reading of 84308, the proceeding should be considered “pending” once the pre-application has been submitted.

Amanda Freeman                                         A-23-145

Although the contract never came before the City Council for the Councilmembers’ consideration, a contract for ambulance services executed by the City Manager was a decision “by the agency” for purposes of Section 84308. Thus, the contracting party is prohibited from making any contribution greater than $250 to a councilmember for 12 months following the date the final decision was rendered.

Inna Zazulevskaya                                        I-23-157

The sale of property by Board of Supervisors pursuant to the competitive bidding requirements of Section 25520, et seq. (which include public notice, resolution with a stated minimum sale price,  sale terms, set time for consideration of the bids, and that the contract be awarded to the highest responsible bidder or that all bids be rejected and the property pulled from sale) meets the definition of a “competitively bid contract” that is not subject to the requirements and restrictions in Section 84308.

Phil Pogledich                                               I-23-172

Where a final decision in an entitlement proceeding was reached prior to an official’s appointment to the elected office, and the official did not otherwise have decision making authority over the proceeding or exercise authority or budgetary control over County officials who did, the official does not meet the definition of “an officer of an agency” for the particular proceeding. The Section 84308 prohibition on accepting, soliciting or directing contributions from a party or participant to the proceeding for 12 months following the final decision will not apply to the appointed official for contributions from a party or participant in the proceeding.

Robert Fabela                                              I-23-178

The mandated periodic review of a development agreement by a city council is a proceeding subject to Section 84308, as it is a substantive review of a contract agreement between the city and the applicant (project proponent) that involves a determination of substantial evidence of good faith compliance and may result in modifying or terminating the agreement.