Did Sonoma councilmembers violate disclosure law?

Members of the Sonoma City Council may have violated a state disclosure law when, prior to voting to award a $250,000 contract to the Chamber of Commerce, they apparently failed to announce they were members of that organization.

The April 6 decision created the Sonoma Business and Economic Vitality Partnership, which transfers activity previously managed by the city to the Chamber. The funding covers two years of activity.

At least three members of the panel are members of the Chamber: Gary Edwards, Rachel Hundley and David Cook. According to the California Fair Political Practice Commission, they should have announced that at the meeting, for the record.

Though there is no conflict of interest or hint of financial gain for the councilmembers, their membership in a nonprofit group asking for city funding constitutes a “remote interest,” according to the California Fair Political Practice Commission. A subdivision of Section 1091.5 calls for such a membership be “disclosed to the body or board at the time of the first consideration of the contract, and provided further that this interest is noted in its official records.”

Council watcher David Eichar noted the omission, and plans to alert the council at its April 20 meeting. Conceivably, he told The Sun, the CFPPC could void the city’s contract with the Chamber. More likely is that the council reopens the discussion in a future meeting, giving councilmembers the chance to declare their Chamber memberships for the record.

The documentation of that disclosure, in the form of approved minutes, would satisfy the CFPPC requirements, though an investigation, and fines, would still be a possibility.

The matter cannot be discussed by the council Monday night because it is not on the official agenda. During his three minutes of public comment, Eichar said he will outline his research of conflict of interest laws, and suggest that the City Attorney advise the council on what steps to take now.

“Doing this sooner, rather than later, because with the contract being void, there is the possibility that the Chamber would have to pay back money received,” Eichar said.