City to Debate Limits on Officials, Builders Talking

LAKE FOREST —  The City Council will debate a trio of proposals tonight that would regulate--or ban outright--any private communications between city officials and developers doing business with the city.

The strongest version would allow conversations between a developer and members of the council, the Planning Commission or the Parks and Recreation Commission only at open meetings.

A milder one would permit talks if they are reported within seven days.

The third version would make it illegal for council members to disclose information discussed at closed meetings.

Violations of any of the three proposals could result in misdemeanor charges carrying fines of up to $5,000 for both city officials and developers.

“If we pass these ordinances, I believe it would be a first for not only Orange County but the entire state,” said Councilman Richard T. Dixon, who supports the strictest of the proposals.

Only a handful of California cities, including Mission Viejo, Santa Ana and Costa Mesa, have passed ordinances restricting the disclosure of executive-session information.

Some legal experts believe such laws may violate First Amendment free-speech rights.

“There is a very thin line here, a real gray area,” said Councilwoman Ann Van Haun. “It almost gets into freedom-of-speech issues. It’s my personal feeling that (talking to developers) is a judgment call on the part of a city official--in a large way, that’s what you’re elected to do as a public official.”

Haun said the proposals are not in reaction to any specific project in Lake Forest. The council agreed to discuss the proposals because of similar measures taken by the California Coastal Commission and the city of Mission Viejo.

Legal experts have doubted the constitutionality of similar measures taken by a small number of California cities, including Costa Mesa and Santa Ana.

“You’re treading a very sensitive area,” said Mike Jenkins, an attorney for four Southland communities who worked on a recent amendment to the state open-meetings law. “On one hand, you have a councilman’s responsibility to the city, and on the other, their First Amendment rights to speak out as a matter of conscience.”

But Dixon said Lake Forest City Atty. Tom Wood has worked on the proposed measures for several months and is satisfied with their legality.

The proposals, if adopted, would take effect when a developer filed a project application with the city. The firm would be required at that time to list anyone who would be talking with city employees about the project.

Failure to do so would be a misdemeanor. However, the communications ban would not extend to city staff.

Some developers have expressed doubt over the need for such a law and wonder why it has been aimed specifically at the building community.

“My personal view is that more communications between city officials is good,” said Randy Luce, senior vice president with PRP Development Inc., a land company in Lake Forest. “Every time you put a new rule in the book restricting communication, that’s likely to have a negative impact on all of us.”

The proposals could apply to other business situations, such as companies bidding for a city trash contract, or whatever the council deems a “public interest project,” Dixon said.