Mayor’s Transgression No Small Matter : Questions Still Linger Over Political Conflict Penalty Against Irvine’s Sheridan

Irvine Mayor Sally Anne Sheridan has not been very careful about the possibility that her real estate work will present the appearance of a conflict of interest.

After initial denials of any error on her part, last week the mayor agreed to pay a $2,000 civil penalty to settle a conflict-of-interest complaint. She has acknowledged only a “technical” violation of the State Political Reform Act, declaring, “I simply want this frustration behind me.”

Questions linger about Sheridan’s judgment in this case, and indeed, about her acknowledgement last year that she was involved in the sale of homes for 14 city employees and eight executives of the Irvine Co. while also serving as a councilwoman.

It also remains unclear in this case, involving the city manager, whether she was entirely forthcoming about a controversial real estate transaction.

The complaint, brought by political adversary Mark Petracca, a UC Irvine assistant professor, arose from the sale of one house and purchase of another by her then-business partner and now husband, Donald Sheridan, for Paul O. Brady Jr. Brady, with the subsequent help of Sheridan’s vote on the council, was promoted from assistant city manager to city manager. Petracca alleged that Sheridan’s vote for Brady’s promotion nine months after the transaction constituted a violation of state conflict-of-interest law, which bars elected officials from voting on matters that could financially benefit someone who has given or paid them more than $250.

Last year, Sheridan asserted that she received no commissions from the transactions of her husband, even though property transaction records showed that she split $16,038 in commissions with her husband that he earned in June, 1988, the month of the transaction. Her lawyer, in conceding a technical violation of state conflict-of-interest law, acknowledged that the Sheridans shared the commission under the business arrangement, even though she did not directly represent Brady.

If, as Sheridan now says, she did not lie about receiving money from the Brady sale in her initial statements, and even if she believed that her previous statements were correct, then she at the very least has been careless. She ought to know about the receipts of commission revenue from clients who turn out to be on the city payroll, and whose career advancement she may help decide in her role as a city official.

Sheridan, because of her position on the council, has a special burden to avoid even the appearance of a conflict.