Oakland Mayor Brown Exempted From Law

A California appeals court has exempted Oakland Mayor Jerry Brown from a political conflict-of-interest rule that was blocking his participation in the city’s downtown redevelopment efforts.

The decision, made Thursday, ended an eight-month struggle between Brown and the state’s Fair Political Practices Commission.

Brown, California’s former governor, helped write the Political Reform Act of 1974, a landmark government ethics initiative that bars officials from making decisions that could benefit them financially.

In February, the commission ruled that the law barred Brown from participating in downtown Oakland redevelopment projects because he co-owns a live-work compound and converted warehouse in the targeted area. The commission said it was “reasonably foreseeable” that the redevelopment could increase the value of the mayor’s property.

Brown challenged the commission’s decision, saying the city’s charter and laws require his involvement in shaping development decisions for the so-called Lower Broadway Project. He argued that an official with a conflict of interest is not barred from participation if his actions are “legally required.”

The three-judge court agreed.

“We conclude the mayor’s participation in the redevelopment project is legally required in order for the Oakland city charter to function as the voters intended,” Justice Joanne Parrilli wrote for the San Francisco-based court.

The court noted that Brown, elected in 1998, would not vote on any development decisions as a consequence of Measure X, which Oakland voters approved in 1998. Instead, his duty as mayor requires him to “play a significant leadership role in influencing the final decisions,” the decision said.

The ballot measure, approved by 75% of Oakland’s voters, was an outgrowth of concern that there was too much power in the mayor’s office. It barred the mayor from voting on City Council affairs.

It’s not the first time the conflict-of-interest law has been disputed.

In 1986, the appeals court allowed then-San Francisco Mayor Dianne Feinstein to veto a rent-control measure despite the possibility that the veto might benefit her as a landlord. The court found that Feinstein’s “legally required participation” as mayor nullified the conflict law.

Deborah Allison, an attorney for the Fair Practices board, argued to the court last month that if the mayor participates in redevelopment efforts, he is able to “line his own pockets” by influencing the plans.

“The court ultimately disagreed with our conclusion,” the board’s chairwoman, Karen Getman, said in a statement. “We respect its right to do so.”