Laserfiche WebLink
December 1, 2021 <br /> Fair Political Practices Commission <br /> Enforcement Division <br /> 1102 Q Street, Suite 3000 <br /> Sacramento, CA 95811 <br /> Also sent via email to.c..oinn„I!.g ntj�fl.1I. ;oL2,g2y <br /> Santa Ana City Clerk <br /> 20 Civic Center Plaza <br /> Santa Ana, CA 92701 <br /> Also sent via email to .grainzirt :giroraiwg <br /> Santa Ana City Attorney <br /> 20 Civic Center Plaza <br /> Santa Ana, CA 92701 <br /> �ll�raG����i�t� �i��oraiwg. <br /> Also sent via emailscary <br /> to..............................................................R.................................................................................... <br /> Regarding: Complaint regarding Conflict of Interest by City Councilwoman Thai Phan <br /> To Whom it May Concern, <br /> On November 16, 2021, the Santa Ana City Council considered the first reading of the amendment to <br /> the HOO. <br /> I ttl :...; yp.utu.I „Lll. IWI C /IWIIWIJ C (Santa Ana Council Nov. 16 The video of the hearing can be found at , <br /> 2021-English, published by City of Santa Ana). <br /> At Hour 6, minute 35, Councilwoman Thai Phan dismisses an alleged conflict of interest of a City <br /> Planning Commissioner. A practicing City Attorney herself, Phan apparently doesn't understand that a <br /> conflict of interest is not excused based on an item being legislative rather than quasi-judicial. There is <br /> simply no premise for the concept that legislative acts do not have conflicts of interest and to argue such <br /> is to turn the entire Government Code section on its head. <br /> Councilmember Thai Phan is an attorney at the law firm of Rutan &Tucker which represents many <br /> residential developers directly affected by the HOO amendments. She has an un-waivable conflict of <br /> interest which prohibits her from participating on the HOO item. Conflicts of interest do not say that a <br /> decision maker with a conflict of interest can only participate if they vote against the interests of their <br /> clients, it is a total bar to participation. <br /> It would be unbelievable for Phan to argue that her firm's numerous developer clients would <br /> hypothetically have nothing to do with her cutting the fee to $0 to benefit her clients, but she appears <br /> to believe that voting to increase the fee (and adding a completely illegal condition of mandating "skilled <br /> and trained workforce"for all housing beginning in 2025) has no economic impact on her firm's clients. <br /> Attached to this complaint is a print out of the Rutan &Tucker website showing that Thai Phan is a <br /> member of the firm's "Builders and Land Developers Team" page. Also attached is a copy of her <br /> Statement of Economic Interests form. While it is arguable whether a lawyer may list ONLY their law <br /> firm as a source of income over$10,000 and thus shield their actual clients from disclosure to the public, <br /> 1 <br />