RMCSD Election/COI
Great job at the Candidates' Night tonight. I think that they said it would air at 9, 12, 3 and 6.
My question of Mr. Mobley was asked, whether or not he saw any conflict of interest if he were a board member. My answer to that question differs from his answer. I would like to share what I have uncovered.
If there is an individual that works for the SSD, that professionally works closely with the deputies that are supposed to be patrolling our area, that is evaluated and promoted by those that would like to see this SSD presence maintained or even increased (either by contract or otherwise), and as was announced tonight, whose wife also is evaluated and promoted by the same, then there may be an appearance of impropriety if that person also represents the district in matters of security and law enforcement.
I have learned that CSDs are governed by the conflict of interest sections in the government code. These codes are not only concerned with actual impropriety, but also the appearance of impropriety.
I have learned that, if Mr. Mobley were a board member, legally, he would not have an interest in the contract we have with SSD, but would have a remote interest, which would require him to disclose this interest and abstain from any participation in related matters (per AG 00-706).
What would it mean to abstain from any participation? That is answered in the 64 page Grand Jury report (pages 115 through 178). This Grand Jury investigation was regarding a sheriff deputy (two deputies actually), sitting on the Elk Grove City Council, and influencing matters regarding the contract with SSD. It's a scathing report on the actions of the deputies.
The shortest way to describe the consequence, was given in the letter that Then-Sheriff Lou Blanas sent to one of the deputies (included in the Grand Jury report). He admonished the deputy, informing him that participating in any way in the Council's decisions affecting arrangements for law enforcement services, would be a felony. This would include participating in its contract with SSD, and any consideration of alternatives such as contracting with another agency or choosing instead to create its own department. The prohibition extended to discussion of operational issues, including traffic enforcement, law enforcement funding, selection or removal of the Chief, memorandums of agreement with the SSD and proposals for any adjustment in the level of law enforcement services to be
provided.
This letter of admonishment also stated that the SSD administration will have no discussions with this board members regarding the contract, due to the legal limitations - he was to not bring up any issues regarding the City/SSD contract, either directly or indirectly.
In practice, Mr. Mobley would not be allowed to vote on most security issues, and would also have to leave the room in order to not influence the discussion.
It's a bit ironic, as I think a number of people would vote for Mr. Mobley because of his law enforcement background. But it is precisely his current relationship with the SSD that will require him to abstain from influencing most all decisions in this area, and even leave the room when these items are being discussed. Thus, we would have a board member that primarily could only participate in decisions regarding water, drainage, sewer, and garbage.
What Lisa posts would be true, if Rancho Murieta was a city contracting with the sheriff's department for law enforcement services. The key words are city and contract. We are not a city and have no "contract" with my employer. I am not in any way prevented from participating in local politics within the jurisdiction of my employment.
The case Lisa uses was in regards to two sheriff's managers who were elected and served on the city council of Elk Grove, when Elk Grove contracted with the sheriff for law enforcement services. They had to "recuse" themselves from voting on matters related to the contract.
Lisa, will you not stop? You're starting to step over the line and into libelous territory. I suggest you seek legal counsel before continuing on your present path.
Steven Mobley
RMCSD Candidate
The conflict of interest codes do not distinguish between our board of directors and a City Council.
Isn't it true, that by not seeking out in-house alternatives, your solution is to increase the SSD presence out here?
Isn't it true, that if our security has no authority, then we need to continue to hire SSD, and as you often say, increase their presence out here?
Isn't it true, that whenever we hire off-duty deputies, that we sign a contract for their services, probably on a monthly basis?
Have you not previsously stated that you believe that this is important territory that the Sheriff does not want to lose? I believe that you stated that this was your opinion.
Have you officially asked Sheriff McGuinness, or his legal representatives, whether or not this is a conflict?
After consulting with legal counsel regarding Lisa's assertion of a "remote interest", it was learned that it would indeed apply to me if elected as a CSD director. I do not have a "conflict of Interest", but I do however have this "remote Interest" problem by virtue of my present employment. If elected, I would act in the legal and ethical fashion I have always maintained. I would recuse myself from discussing and voting on issues related to security/off-duty sheriffs contracts etc...
This was a revelation to me and took me by complete surprise. A real honest to God October surprise and "Gotcha" moment.
This new development does not prevent me from serving on the board and overseeing the other matters of the district. Water treatment/sewage/drainage/water storage/water supply/solid waste and development are still important and need to be managed properly to preserve Rancho Murieta.
As one can imagine, I'm very disappointed, and quite frankly very frustrated, in that if I am elected I won't be able to have any input into what I'm most passionate about, our security. As a resident/ratepayer and homeowner it just doesn't seem right. Steven Mobley RMCSD Candidate
I would like to commend Steve for his forthright research in order to ensure that his participation in our community's governance is "above the board" and void of any potential "appearance" of a conflict of interest.
Steve's resolve to do what is best for our community, while "playing by the rules" is exactly the kind of leadership this community needs in these very challenging times.
I know we won't be seeing an Obama sign on his front lawn any time soon, but hopefully over time he will come around on that issue as well 
Steve is the exact candidate we need for election to the CSD Board of Directors. As he stated at candidate's night "he would have no conflict of interest." In reviewing Ms. Taylor's reference to such conflict in the link to Attorney General's opinion, AG 00-706, its not there. In that opinion it is also uncertain whether the term "remote interest" is even contained in the California "conflict of interest" law; it only mentions in passing that the term "remote interest" was used in Legislature deliberations. Even so, Steve has clearly stated he would recuse from CSD Board discussions specifically regarding "law enforcement" requirements and decisions, well within the legal parameters of both law and CSD/SSD policies. By the opinion and law, this is clearly distinct from CSD overall security issues outside of "law enforcement", which the existing Board unanimously decided is adequately handled by our great Security Force. Further the existing Board is determining that portion of Security requirements necessitating the level of dedicated "law enforcement" personnel required, and options to fill that requirement. Can Ms. Taylor explain her analysis on how she arrived at the conclusion that most CSD security issues would require such "law enforcement" action?
"In practice, Mr. Mobley would not be allowed to vote on most security issues, and would also have to leave the room in order to not influence the discussion...it is precisely his current relationship with the SSD that will require him to abstain from influencing most all decisions in this area, and even leave the room when these items are being discussed. Thus, we would have a board member that primarily could only participate in decisions regarding water, drainage, sewer, and garbage."
Why is Ms. Taylor in disagreement with CSD on this; i.e, appears she champions full law enforcement for our Security Force instead of the more cost-effective approach of partial off-duty SSD augmentation to meet quantified and identified real crime in Murieta. Does she herself have a "remote interest"?
In sum, Steve's demonstrated expertise in education, leadership and management can be, and will be well employed in all of RMCSD's functions and dedication to Preserve Murieta! now and into the next generation.
Ryan, its OK- get them McCain-Pailin signs up now.
T. "Joe Plumber" Hanson, remotely interested.
Certainly I can explain how I came to my conclusions. It came from actually reading the Grand Jury report. It is most suscinctly stated in the letter from The Sheriff:
He admonished the deputy, informing him that participating in any way in the Council's decisions affecting arrangements for law enforcement services, would be a felony. This would include participating in its contract with SSD, and any consideration of alternatives such as contracting with another agency or choosing instead to create its own department. The prohibition extended to discussion of operational issues, including traffic enforcement, law enforcement funding, selection or removal of the Chief, memorandums of agreement with the SSD and proposals for any adjustment in the level of law enforcement services to be provided.
*edit to add this paragraph*: Our issues of security and law enforcement are not two separate entities, they are intertwined. If one is affected, then the other is too. Anything whatsoever related to the status and authority of our security officers affects our relationship with SSD. What is also important is that this is not speculation, this is about something that has been confirmed by Mr. Mobley's employer, and openly acknowledged by Mr. Mobley in a very grown-up way. I understand how you, as an RMDCC activist Mr. Hanson, would support Mr. Mobley. But the law is the law. I also find that any current board members that promote that this is "much ado about nothing" are acting irresponsibly.
For example, if the board considers getting their limited law enforcement powers back, that is an alternative, and Mr. Mobley will have to leave the room until that discussion is over. At last night's CSD meeting, in the packet, there was a letter requesting just this action from the board. Mr. Mobley would not be able to discuss this letter, had the board chosen to address it.
The board does not discuss the details of how security is run at the department level. The board is there to discuss the major policy issues. Right now, those major policy issues are how to address the level of crime that we have out here, which is not serious enough to warrant an SSD response, and when it it is, they are typically a distance away. Those are typical issues that arise at the board meetings, particularly at this particular point in time. And when those issues arise, Mr. Mobley will have to leave the room.
At Candidates Night, Mr. Mobley stated that he hoped to get the security issue resolved in the next 6-12 months -- those are discussions where he must leave the room.
Anything related to keeping security as only security, Mr. Mobley cannot participate in. Anything related to increasing security's authority, Mr. Mobley cannot participate in. Depending on what is evaluated, even some security personnel decisions Mr. Mobley cannot participate in.
Btw, I have explained my interest, many times. The legal issues of interests and remote interests are not archaic ideas. They are important laws put into place so that public officials are not placed into situations of competing interests. Mr. Mobley should be proud of his SSD career and association. But a director has to be able to think about the district first, and the law recognizes that there are problems with these situations. This isn't me, this is the law. And I don't think that CSD wants the Grand Jury, or the The Sheriff, in their business out here, and I bet they don't need the headache of possible felony charges if this law isn't followed, particularly now that this remote interest has been fully disclosed.
Joined: 2008-01-10