Councilman Stephen Faessel said the “angry confrontation” between himself and Larry Larsen occurred at the event for the proposed veterans cemetery.
By DUANE ROBERTS Editor & Publisher
In an email to The Anaheim Investigator, Councilman Stephen Faessel said the “angry confrontation” between himself and Larry Larsen occurred at the July 1st event for the proposed veterans cemetery in Anaheim Hills. “As an elected official, I welcome hearing from anyone,” he told The Investigator. “But Larry’s abusive language and hostile behavior crossed the line.” “I did not call the police, nor ask anyone to call on my behalf,” Faessel said. “I was contacted by officers just as Larry Larsen was, and happily answered all their questions, as reflected in the police record.” The councilman did say, however, he informed the organizers of the July 4th parade about the incident, who reportedly passed this information on to police.
Below is his account of what transpired:
Larry Larsen stopped me when I arrived at a recent event for a proposed veterans cemetery in far east Anaheim on July 1st. He was yelling at me, clearly still angry about his removal from the Sister City Commission two months earlier.
As an elected official, I welcome hearing from anyone, but Larry’s abusive language and hostile behavior crossed the line. The veterans cemetery event was not the time or the place for an angry confrontation about his removal from a city commission, for comments that sadly speak for themselves.
As I disengaged from him and made my way over to the event, Larry yelled after me, ‘I’ll see you on the Fourth! I’ll see you on the Fourth!’ He was referring to the upcoming Fourth of July celebration where I would be riding in the parade.
A few hours later, Larry sent me an email addressed to myself and Councilmember Trevor O’Neil, full of hostile language and again promising he would see us on the Fourth of July to pick up where he left off. As a precaution, I gave a heads-up to the parade organizers. As the event’s first time back since the pandemic restrictions, I wanted to see the celebration go on without disruption from something that had nothing to do with gathering our community to honor our country.
I shared a reasonable concern in the best interest of seeing the event go on without incident, which I’m glad to say, was the case.
I did not call the police, nor ask anyone to call on my behalf. I was contacted by officers just as Larry Larsen was, and happily answered all their questions, as reflected in the police record.
I would have preferred that the matter be dropped, but the police felt it prudent to follow up with Mr. Larsen. As always, the Anaheim Police handled the matter professionally and carried out their duty with respect for all involved.
As The Investigatorreported last week, Larsen, a longtime community activist who at times has been known to have a brash and acerbic demeanor, made an astonishing revelation at the July 13th meeting of the Anaheim City Council: he openly accused Faessel of sending cops to his private residence to investigate him for being a “terrorist.”
“July 2nd, between 8:30 and 9-o-clock at night, two Anaheim police officers knocked on my front door,” he said. “They were there on the behest of Mr. Faessel. And, in my words, they were there to investigate the possibility of me creating some kind of terrorist diversion or distraction on the July 4th parade,” which takes place in Anaheim Hills.
According to the log, Trapp first sent two officers to Faessel’s house to investigate a possible PC 422–a criminal threat. But the officers quickly ruled that out. Their inquiry shifted toward a “disturbance” on July 1st where Larsen, angry over his removal from the Sister City Commission, confronted Faessel, his wife, and an aide about it.
Though there are no remarks on the log about what was discussed when these policemen later dropped by Larsen’s residence, it should be noted he was not arrested. In fact, the document hints the investigation was “cleared,” strongly suggesting this case was closed and no criminal charges would be forthcoming.
For matter of record, The Investigator did make an earlier attempt to contact Larsen. We were especially interested in getting his side of the story with respect to the “angry confrontation” he had with the councilman. But he never bothered to respond to any of the messages we left on his home and personal phones.
Larry Larsen, a former member of the Sister City Commission, is shown here speaking at a political rally in front of Anaheim City Hall in 2012.
By DUANE ROBERTS Editor & Publisher
At the July 13th meeting of the Anaheim City Council, Larry Larsen, a longtime community activist who at times has been known to have a brash and acerbic demeanor, made an astonishing revelation: he openly accused Councilman Stephen Faessel of using the power of his office to send cops to his private residence to investigate him for being a “terrorist.”
“July 2nd, between 8:30 and 9-o-clock at night, two Anaheim police officers knocked on my front door,” Larsen said. “They were there on the behest of Mr. Faessel. And, in my words, they were there to investigate the possibility of me creating some kind of terrorist diversion or distraction on the July 4th parade,” which takes place in Anaheim Hills.
“Is this what this city has come to, some kind of a fascist city where each city councilman can use the police to carry out their wishes and demands?” he continued. “I demand that there be an investigation … on the false charges …. I also demand that Mr. Faessel be suspended immediately from the city council until the results … are reported.”
Sgt. Shane Carringer, public information officer for Anaheim Police, told The Investigator that though he didn’t know who Command Staff initially spoke with regarding this matter, he confirmed it was Capt. Eric Trapp who instructed Sgt. Bryan Janocha to make the call to enter it into their CAD system. Indeed, the latter officer is listed as being the “complainant.”
Capt. Trapp orders an investigation.
According to the log, Anaheim Police first sent two officers to Faessel’s house to investigate a “poss 422”–a criminal threat. But that was quickly ruled out. Their inquiry soon shifted toward a “disturbance” on July 1st where Larsen, angry over his removal from the Sister City Commission, allegedly confronted Faessel, his wife, and an aide about it.
During the alleged confrontation, Larsen made statements which not only caused Faessel’s aide to become “upset/scared,” but raised concerns he “may do something at the parade.” “Wait until Sunday,” he reportedly warned. The councilman told police he was “not desirous of prosecution,” but wanted the incident “documented” just in case Larsen “tried to do anything.”
Despite the fact there are no remarks on the log about what was said when these officers later dropped by Larsen’s residence, it does show them preparing for a visit: they conducted a routine criminal background check roughly 32 minutes before they knocked on his door. “Can you run his RAP and see if he has weapons registered to him?” one policeman asked dispatch.
It should be noted this log does not reflect the full story of what transpired. But what information it has undermines Larsen’s claim cops were sent to his home “on the behest of Mr. Faessel.” Furthermore, if he angrily made comments hinting to the councilman about something happening at the July 4th parade, police may have had a legitimate reason to question him.
For matter of record, The Investigator made an attempt to contact Larsen seeking his comments for this article. We were especially interested in getting his side of the story with respect to the alleged confrontation he had with Faessel, his wife, and an aide on July 1st. However, he never responded to any of the messages we left on his home and personal phones.
Councilman Avelino Valencia III gave city-owned Angels tickets to the wife of the president of the Santa Ana Police Officers Association.
By DUANE ROBERTS Editor & Publisher
A careful review of all the Form 802s that Councilman Avelino Valencia III filed in April and May reveals he gave 28 city-owned Angels baseball tickets worth $5,740 to 13 campaign backers who spent $38,938 to help him get elected to his seat. That number reflects 60% of all the tickets the councilman has handed out during those months especially if one takes into consideration the fact a Long Beach supporter got tickets twice.
For example, a Form 802 the councilman filed last month states he gave Serina Serrano two tickets valued at $410 for an Angels vs. Dodgers game on May 8th. Besides the fact Serina works for the Orange County District Attorney’s Office, her husband is Gerry Serrano, president of the Santa Ana Police Officers Association. Public records show Gerry and his union made $2,850 in campaign contributions to Valencia in 2020.
Many recipients of free tickets earn six-figure incomes.
In the article The Anaheim Investigator published on June 1st, we reported about the Form 802sValencia filed in April, pointing out that of the ten people he gave tickets to that month, eight were close friends and campaign backers of his. Five had close ties to unions that each made a $2,100 contribution to his city council campaign last year. Two were top Democratic Party operatives. And most don’t live in Anaheim.
The councilman’s filings for May show a similar pattern of behavior. Out of the 13 people he gave tickets to, ten were also friends and backers. Nine of them–or 70% of all the persons who received tickets that month–either contributed money directly to his city council campaign, or have close ties to unions that did. One is linked to a committee that spent $24,288.20 on his election. And again, most aren’t residents of this city.
Form 460s filed by the “Valencia for City Council 2020” committee report that the Santa Ana Police Officers Association Independent Expenditure Committee (ID# 1255606)made a $2,100 contribution on August 21, 2020.
Form 460s filed by the “Valencia for City Council 2020” committee report that the District Council of Iron Workers Political Action League (ID# 831693) made a $1,000 contribution on June 22, 2020.
Form 460s filed by the “Valencia for City Council 2020” committee report that the Laborers International Union of North America Local 1309 PAC (ID# 851621) made a $2,100 contribution on June 30, 2020.
Form 460s filed by the “Valencia for City Council 2020” committee report that the United Union of Roofers, Waterproofers & Allied Workers Political Education and Legislative Fund (ID# 850568) made a $500 contribution on June 26, 2020.
Form 460s filed by the “Valencia for City Council 2020” committee report that the National Union of Healthcare Workers Candidate Committee (ID# 1318200)made a $1,000 contribution on September 29, 2021.
Between April and May, Valencia gave 28 city-owned Angels baseball tickets worth $5,740 to 13 campaign backers who spent $38,938 on his election–a whopping 60% of all tickets he handed out during those months. We determined this by gathering names from all the Form 802s that he filed, running them through various databases to identify who they were, and cross-referencing them with available campaign finance data.
On June 17th, The Investigator sent out an email to Valencia with a list of names of the 22 people who received tickets from him requesting more information about the type of “volunteer public service” each of them engaged in. “The rationale you gave in all of these cases is that tickets were given ostensibly for the purpose of ‘attracting or rewarding volunteer public service,'” we wrote. But he never responded to our inquiry.
For matter of record, Valencia isn’t the only council member who has hijacked the city’s ticket system for selfish political purposes. His abuses are roughly comparable to those of Councilman Jordan Brandman, whose Form 802 filings this year are also highly questionable. Though Brandman has handed out less tickets than Valencia, both have given them to some of the same people–a matter we’ll report about in the future.
According to a Form 700 Statement of Economic Interests filed on August 8, 2018, Brandmanreported at that timehe was “Vice-President” of the Southern California Group, earning “over $100,000” in salary from them. He listed their primary business activity as “strategic public affairs.”
The ECAdescribes its mission as serving the “infrastructure contractors of Southern California through project-based advocacy, labor-management relations, political action and fair public policy.” Most of its members are heavy construction companies that bid on public works projects.
Sorem and Brandman(both on the left) at an ECA event in 2017.
Last Wednesday, The Investigator sent out an email message to Brandman and Claudia Perez, his Senior Policy Aide, to request more information about the type of “volunteer public service” that Sorem has been involved in. So far neither of them have responded to our inquiry.
Councilman Avelino Valencia III gave $3,280 worth of city-owned Angels tickets to close friends, campaign backers, and top Democrats in April.
By DUANE ROBERTS Editor & Publisher
Before Councilman Avelino Valencia III was elected to his seat, he told a reporter from Anaheim Exclusivo what his main priority would be. “I would like the residents of Anaheim to know that I am dedicating the next four years of my life to improving the quality of life for our residents,” he said. “I will be selfless in those endeavors; I will put the residents’ needs first.”
But there is an old adage about politicians: watch what they do, not what they say. And evidence is mounting that there is a big difference between Valencia’s behavior as a councilman and his rhetoric as a candidate. Thanks to Gabriel San Roman, a former investigative journalist for the defunct-OC Weekly, we know as a fact that this happens to be the case.
In an article San Roman recently posted on his Slingshot blog, he observed that with the reopening of Angel Stadium and Honda Center due to relaxed COVID-19 restrictions, a once “dormant political patronage system” has sprung back to life “with Anaheim city council members able to dole out free tickets to their well-connected friends and political backers again.”
In reviewing the latest filings for April, he discovered not much had changed. For example, Councilman Jordan Brandman, who is a notorious peddler of city-owned tickets to lobbyists, campaign contributors, and even his former employer, gave two Angels tickets worth $410 to a businessman who appears to have been one of his clients at a previous job.
Even Valencia has gotten tickets.
The most astonishing revelations, however, came from Valencia’s filings. Being a newcomer, one thinks he would have been a bit more circumspect in his actions. But San Roman reported that his Form 802s showed the councilman freely gave away tickets to close friends, trade union leaders who helped finance his campaign, and known Democratic Party operatives.
In response, The Anaheim Investigator launched its own investigation into this matter and carefully scrutinized all of the Form 802s Valencia filed in the month of April. The documents not only corroborate the initial claims San Roman made in his piece, but new information has been uncovered which reveals that what he reported was just the tip of the iceberg.
The Form 802s show Valencia gave tickets to ten people, eight of which could be positively identified. Of those eight, all are “well-connected friends and political backers” of the councilman. Five have close ties to unions that each made a $2,100 contribution to his city council campaign last year. Two are top Democratic Party operatives. And most don’t live in Anaheim.
Below is a list of persons of who benefited from his largess: ERNESTO MEDRANO
Form 460sfiled by the “Valencia for City Council 2020” committee report that the Laborers International Union of North America Laborers Local 652 (ID# 72-151970)made a $2,100 contribution on June 29, 2020.
Form 460sfiled by the “Valencia for City Council 2020” committee report that the Santa Ana Police Officers Association Independent Expenditure Committee (ID# 1255606)made a $2,100 contribution on August 21, 2020.
Form 460s filed by the “Valencia for City Council 2020” committee report that the UA Plumbers & Steamfitters Local Union No. 582 PAC (ID# 890440)made a $2,100 contribution on July 31, 2020.
Form 460s filed by the “Valencia for City Council 2020” committee report that the Laborers International Union of North America Local 1309 PAC (ID# 851621)made a $2,100 contribution on June 30, 2020.
On all of the Form 802s that Valenica filed, he stated he gave away tickets for the purpose of “attracting or rewarding volunteer public service.” Maybe so. Perhaps he wanted to encourage charity work in Irvine, Santa Ana, and Long Beach. And it could be a coincidence half of the recipients of his tickets apparently helped steer large amounts of cash into his city council campaign.
But the evidence speaks for itself. The Form 802s make a mockery of Valencia‘s promise to “put the residents’ needs first.” That he decided to shower close friends, trade union leaders who helped finance his campaign, and top Democratic Party operatives–most of whom don’t live in Anaheim–with $3,280 worth of tickets demonstrate that his priorities lie elsewhere.
Indeed, The Investigator believes he is only using his seat on the Anaheim City Council as a stepping stone to get elected to the state legislature in the 69th State Assembly District. After all, Tom Daly, his boss, is termed out in 2024. But to do that, he’ll need to build a base of support not only in Anaheim, but in Santa Ana. That’s where giving away free tickets comes in handy.
For matter of record, Valencia isn’t the only politician in this town who has taken advantage of the ticket system and exploited it for selfish political purposes. Sometime in the future, The Investigatorplans to publish more in-depth articles like this one exposing how past and present council members, both Democrat and Republican alike, have done similar things.
The City of Anaheim is undergoing planning efforts as part of the Anaheim Connects study to transform transportation and transit solutions in the Platinum Triangle Planning Area. The study seeks to provide opportunities to public/private partnerships, improve pedestrian and bicycle connections along the Santa Ana River, and improve the East/West transit connections between ARTIC and the Anaheim Resort Area. As part of this East/West transit connection, the Applicant is aware the City is studying a Street Car alignment that would provide potential stop(s) within the Project Site. While the City has not made any decisions regarding the alignment, design or system to be employed, the Project can accommodate potential stops in the future, if needed.
The Anaheim Investigator has known for quite some time the streetcar project is part of Anaheim Connects. But the Stadium Master Site Plan is the first “official” document that has made this information public. The link to Anaheim Connects on the city’s website says nothing about streetcars and only talks about mass transit in terms of vague generalities.
The logo for Anaheim Connects
Nobody should be surprised SRB Management LLC was aware of this study. Representatives from the Angels have been active participants in Mayor Sidhu’s Transit Options Task Force since its inception. For example, records show that Brian Sanders, Senior Director of Ballpark Operations, attended oneof their meetings in February 2020.
Regardless of what the case may be, there is circumstantial evidence that Anaheim Connects will still include a streetcar. At bare minimum, a line may be built that travels east and west along Katella Avenue, from ARTIC to Harbor Boulevard. However, the size and scope of any such project will ultimately be determined by the level of government funding.
Tony Serna, Vice-President of Agency 51, a Santa Ana advertising firm that has been a hidden force behind Anaheim First.
By DUANE ROBERTS Editor & Publisher
Much has been written aboutAnaheim First, the faux grassroots organization which, according to legal documents filed with the California Secretary of State in 2019, is controlled by Todd Ament, President and CEO of the Anaheim Chamber of Commerce. But very little, if anything, has been said about another entity thathas been a hidden force behind it.
If you have ever seen Anaheim First’s full page ads in a newspaper, a slick mailer inviting you to attend one of their town hall forums, or observed members wearing those proverbial blue shirts, you saw the handiwork of Agency 51, an advertising firm located in downtown Santa Ana, literally a block away from the Ronald Reagan Federal Building and Courthouse.
On its LinkedIn page, Agency 51describes itself as a “full-service integrated marketing communications agency with offices in Orange County, CA, specializing in implementing complex, strategic advertising programs.” Founded as a partnership in 2001, it has two offices nationwide: one in Santa Ana and another in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania.
Agency 51 boasting about Anaheim First on its website.
Because of the COVID-19 pandemic, Anaheim First was reinvented as a marketing tool to help local restaurants, microbreweries, wine bars, and other businesses survive the economic downturn. For months, residents have seen ads on social media sites, much like the one on Agency 51’sYouTube page, offering discounts for food, drink, and other items.
However, as more people get vaccinated and life returns back to “normal,” it will undoubtedly revert to its original form. At the March 23rd meeting of the Anaheim City Council, Mayor Harry Sidhu reaffirmed his commitment to the Chamber-backed group. He is up for re-election next year. Given Anaheim First is stacked with his allies, he’ll need all the support he can get.
The Disney Skyliner aerial gondola system at Walt Disney World in Florida connects EPCOT, Disney’s Hollywood Studios, and several large hotels.
By DUANE ROBERTS Editor & Publisher
The City of Anaheim is considering an aerial gondola system that would carry touriststo Walt Disney theme parks and the Anaheim Convention Center, according to a copy of a seven-page document The Anaheim Investigator obtained through a California Public Records Act request. The document in question, entitled “Anaheim Resort Mobility Plan–Key Recommendations,” reflects a radical departure from what was previously reported: that the city was primarily focused on building a network of streetcar lines to connect the Platinum Triangle and Anaheim Resort.
Though this document mostly consists of mundane proposals to ease traffic congestion, it contains a startling revelation. On the first page, under the subheading “Transit,” one key recommendation is to create an “Express Gondola Service–two routes from ARTIC,” the city’s main bus and train terminal. The first route would “align with Disney Way and potentially connect to the proposed pedestrian bridge at Harbor/Disney,” a stop within walking distance of Disneyland and California Adventure theme parks. The second would “provide access to the convention center.”
A map that was included, entitled “Transit Recommendations Overview” and marked “DRAFT,” is also revealing. Not only does it offer a visual representation of where two routes of the proposed aerial gondola system would go, but it mentions “Planned Streetcar Stops” without showing where that line will be. But The Investigator believes, based on circumstantial evidence, that the streetcar is being referred to euphemistically as the “Potential At-Grade Transit Connection.” It would travel east and west along Katella Avenue, from ARTIC to Harbor Boulevard.
Map shows two routes of the proposed aerial gondola system.
The Georgetown-Rossyln Gondola project in Washington, D.C.
Because of the COVID-19 pandemic, all discussions about transit options to connect the Platinum Triangle and Anaheim Resort either slowed down or were put on hold. Everything came to a standstill late last year when the U.S. Department of Transportation rejected a request by city staff for $2.379 million in BUILD grant program funds to pay for planning of a streetcar. Nevertheless, as more people get vaccinated and life returns to “normal,” this matter will soon come back to life. But for now, we know that streetcars aren’t the only things being planned for.
The documents in question, all of which were obtained through multiple California Public Records Act requests, consists of dozens of emails, memos, invoices, meeting agendas, maps, and audiovisual presentations which detail a robust discussion about transit options to connect the Platinum Triangle with the Anaheim Resort, mostly emphasizing the use of streetcars to shuttle tourists and workers from one location to another.
Despite the fact the COVID-19 pandemic seriously disrupted the ability of the City of Anaheim to operate, Mayor Sidhu’s Task Forceset up “street car subcommittees” and met online at least until August. Furthermore, city staff submitted a BUILDGrant proposal to the U.S. Department of Transportation in May for $2.379 million in funds to pay for planning of a streetcar, a request that was ultimately rejected by the Trump administration.
One city official The Investigator spoke with regarding these matters said everything has been put on pause due to the coronavirus and nothing has been settled on as of yet. Indeed, recent documents suggest support has wavered for a streetcar system as elaborate as the ill-fated ARC project was. Nevertheless, there still seems to be backing for a line that would travel along KatellaAvenue, from ARTIC to the Anaheim Resort.
Rohan Sidhu (left) stands next to his father, Harry Sidhu, the night he was sworn in as mayor of Anaheim in December 2018.
By DUANE ROBERTS Editor & Publisher
Kevin Cornwall, Counsel for the Legal Division of the Fair Political Practices Commission, has notified City Attorney Robert Fabela that Mayor Harry Sidhu “may take part in the upcoming City Council decisions related to the regulation of cannabis distribution, manufacturing, cultivation, and retail sales” within the City of Anaheim because the “facts” show he currently does not “share his son’s economic interests.”
Cornwall’s opinion, including the legal rationale behind it, is contained within a three-page letter dated May 27th and was issued in response to a “Request for Formal Advice” Fabela sent to the commission twelve days earlier. Fabela wanted to know whether Mayor Sidhu’s adult son’s involvement in the cannabis industry precluded him from voting on related matters coming before the council at the June 9th meeting.
The text of Fabela’s missive is as follows:
As City Attorney for the City of Anaheim, I am seeking an immediate Formal Advice letter from the Fair Political Practices Commission (FPPC) on behalf of Anaheim Mayor Harry S. Sidhu, P.E. This request concerns two related decisions that will be before the Anaheim City Council on June 9, 2020, involving the proposed regulation of cannabis distribution, manufacturing, and cultivation in the City of Anaheim. Cannabis is currently banned in the City of Anaheim for all purposes. Mayor Sidhu’s adult son provides consulting guidance in the cannabis industry in Orange County, California, and the Mayor wishes to take every precaution to confirm that no conflict of interest exists that prevents him from participating in these decisions.
The Mayor’s son, Rohan S. Sidhu, is 23 years old and lives at home in the Mayor’s house, which is located in the City of Anaheim. The Mayor claims Rohan as a dependent, pays for utilities, food, and other amenities for the entire household, including Rohan, and receives no rent or other payments in return. While Rohan has no immediate plans to move out of the house, he is contemplating such a move before the end of the year.
Rohan started a small business in 2018 to provide ‘engineering consulting’ to individuals and businesses working in the cannabis industry. In general, he provides guidance on starting and operating cannabis businesses, with a specialization in consulting on the process of obtaining state licenses issued by the Manufactured Cannabis Safety Branch and Bureau of Cannabis Control, among other licensing agencies. He does not manufacture or distribute cannabis himself, nor does he profit directly from the manufacturing and distribution of cannabis by his consulting clients. Rohan also has no intent to provide any consulting guidance to cannabis businesses which may at any time be authorized to legally operate in the City of Anaheim.
Mayor Sidhu has never held any ownership interest in his son’s business. He has not invested in the business or made loans or gifts of money to his son that were used in the business.
The Anaheim City Council will soon face two decisions that could result in the regulation and taxation of cannabis manufacturing, distribution, cultivation and retail sales within the City. The first is an ordinance that would repeal existing Anaheim Municipal Code chapters banning cannabis use and adding chapters regulating cannabis distribution, manufacturing, cultivation and sales. The second is a City Council Resolution approving a ballot measure that would place a cannabis tax before the voters at the next general election, which requires a two-thirds vote of the City Council under the City’s Charter. If passed, the first item (the regulation ordinance) will only take effect if the voters actually approve a cannabis tax at the November 2020 general election.
Thus, Mayor Sidhu’s request is for immediate advice as to whether his relationship with his adult son, and particularly his provision of financial support to his son in the form of room, board and other amenities, creates a conflict of interest that prevents the Mayor from voting on an ordinance amending the Anaheim Municipal Code to allow regulation of cannabis, or a resolution adding a cannabis tax to the November 2020 ballot.
Because this matter will be on the Council’s June 9, 2020 agenda, we ask that you provide an advice letter before that date…
In the letter that Cornwall typed in response, he carefully reviewed the “facts” as Fabela laid them out, and then gave his opinion as to how the Political Reform Act (hereinafter referred to as the “Act“), the main state law that deals with issues pertaining to conflicts of interest among public officials, would be applied in Mayor Sidhu’s case.
In his analysis, he wrote:
Under Section 87100 of the Act, ‘[n]o public official at any level of state or local government shall make, participate in making or in any way attempt to use his official position to influence a governmental decision in which he knows or has reason to know he has a financial interest.’ ‘A public official has a financial interest in a decision within the meaning of Section 87100 if it is reasonably foreseeable that the decision will have a material financial effect, distinguishable from its effect on the public generally, on the official, a member of his or her immediate family,’ or on certain specified economic interests. (Section 87103.) Among those economic interests is any source of income aggregating five hundred dollars ($500) or more in value provided or promised to, received by, the public official within 12 months prior to the time when the decision is made. (Section 87103(c).)
Section 82029 defines the term ‘immediate family’ to include an official’s ‘spouse and dependent children.’ The term ‘dependent children,’ in turn, is defined by Regulation 18229.1 to mean ‘a child… of a public official who is under 18 years old and whom the official is entitled to claim as a dependent on his or her federal tax return.’ Although Mayor Sidhu claims his son Rohan as a dependent for tax purposes, Rohan is over the age of 18 years old and, thus, is not considered a ‘dependent child’ or ‘immediate family’ for conflict of interest purposes under the Act. Additionally, given that Rohan has not made rent payments or similar payments to Mayor Sidhu, he also does not qualify as a source of Mayor Sidhu’s income.
Accordingly, the provided facts do not indicate that Mayor Sidhu has any economic interest implicated under the Act …
However, Cornwall stated that “in the future, if Rohan were to qualify as a source of income, such as by making rent payments, Mayor Sidhu would have an economic interest in him. In such a scenario, Mayor Sidhu would generally be prohibited under the Act from taking part in governmental decisions that would have a reasonable foreseeable, material financial effect on Rohan.”
Cornwall warned Fabela early on his advice “is limited to the provisions of the Act. We cannot provide any advice regarding other conflict interest provisions that may apply, including common law conflict of interest…” Furthermore, he added “any advice we provide assumes your facts are complete and accurate” and that if those “facts” change, “you should contact us for additional advice.”
Downloadable PDF copies of Fabela’s and Cornwall’s correspondence can be found by merely clicking here and here.
Will you make a small $5 gift today? Your contribution will allow The Anaheim Investigator to keep delivering hard-hitting investigative journalism that’s open for everyone to see! Nobody covers Anaheim City Hall like like we do. That's why your support is so important to us!
anaheiminvestigator.com 