A Clear Signal on Conflicts

It’s refreshing to see an elected official as eager to avoid a conflict of interest as Debbie Rodgers Teasley.

Teasley is a Moorpark City Council member, charged with making decisions that will shape the future of her town. She is also district manager for the city’s largest real estate firm.

Opponents of the proposed Hidden Creek Ranch development have been quick to point out that any vote by Teasley in favor of such projects would directly benefit her colleagues, her company and probably herself.

And so, for more than two months, Teasley has left the council dais each time discussions of the project came up, rather than cast a vote that could be seen as self-serving. She also asked the state Fair Political Practices Commission for advice on whether her occupation should disqualify her from voting on development issues.

It’s a good thing she did.

Based on the hypothetical situations she posed, all of which indicate her intent to take advantage of business opportunities that will arise as a result of the development, the commission advised her that voting on the project could put her afoul of the conflict-of-interest provisions of the state’s Political Reform Act.

Although that ruling was delivered as “informal assistance” rather than more legally rigorous “formal advice,” the message is clear: Public officials must not participate in making decisions when it is reasonably foreseeable that the result could directly benefit them, their partnerships or their employers.

Teasley’s dilemma is not unique. Last year the Fair Political Practices Commission issued advice in 156 cases of this nature, a spokesman said. Others who didn’t ask for guidance should have: Of the 60 violations that came to the commission for fines last year, about a third involved conflicts of interest.

It is an important issue because the controversial Hidden Creek Ranch development would bring up to 3,200 new homes to the area north of Moorpark College, potentially increasing the city’s population by one-third. And this is just the largest of several projects working their way through the approval process in Moorpark now that interest rates are low and the real estate market is rebounding.

Although new homes and residents would add money to the local economy, they would also add to the strain on streets, schools and municipal services. Add the intense public concern about loss of farmland and open space, and it’s clear that City Council decisions about which projects to allow will be tough ones.

It would be preferable to have all five council members helping to make them. But the law is quite clear, and Teasley is doing the right thing by leaving these decisions to her four colleagues.