Your answer: no

Being an engineer so many levels below the decisionmakers at whatever subsidiary puts her so far out of the loop as to be meaningless. Much like this exercise in straw-grasping.

The law and good governance both require that an elected official recuse themselves from voting on any matter which might have a financial impact on them. The degree of separation from the corporate decision making is irrelevant, the issue is the elected official's decision making.

The MPFPD buys computers with Intel chips inside. You approve the budget which allows them to do so. Just how far removed must you be ?

Most of the links above are not relevant.

However, Siemens is on the list of potential bidders for contracts with the Authority.

The Authority has announced that RFQ (requests for qualification) will be sent out within 90 days. Following that, will be bid requests on various packages very early next year.

Certainly, if Siemen's decides to bid on any contract, Kelly must recuse herself from HSR topics. It really might be best that this is done now. She and Cline represent the City on the PCC. In general she doesn't attend those meetings and she should really be replaced as the alternate council member on that group.

A politician takes contributions from an industry or individual within an industry, shall they excuse themselves when the vote effecting that industry occurs?

A politician hosts a judge on a "hunting" trip, shouldn't the judge not be part of any ruling effecting that politician?

A politician appoints a judge.

The politician's son has a case before a panel of judges, including his father's appointment.

Conflict?

You're worried about a 4th level engineer in a multi-billion dollar company being a councilman?

First, thanks to Whistleblower for a very well researched narrative.

I think the standard should be "an appearance" of conflict. As I've said before, the reason for recusal is for the loser, not the winner. If Siemens is awarded this contract, its competitor will never know if Mr. Fergusson's involvement played a role. For the sake of fair play, Mr. Fergusson should recuse herself. Unfortunately, she's consistently disappointing and I she won't.

With regard to Black & White's cheap shot at Mr. Carpenter for an alleged conflict because the Menlo Fire District buys computers with Intel chips (Mr. Carpenter's wife serves on their board), I seriously doubt that the fire district board is specifying the brand and capability of the district's computer purchases. While I cannot speak for Mr. Carpenter, I'm sure he would have no issues recusing himself in any matters related to those purchases. However, in the case of Ms. Fergusson, she IS involved in lobbying officials regarding the specs and capabilities of our proposed high speed rail system.

Actually, a council member has a duty to consider and vote on every issue that comes before them unless there is an actual financial conflict of interest (not the "appearance" of one, an ACTUAL one.) The point about buying computers with Intel chips inside them is relevant. Terms like "subject matter jurisdiction" are somewhat vague and subject to interpretation. If the decision could clearly DIRECTLY financially benefit the council member and/or his/her family members, then they must recuse themselves. Otherwise they have an obligation to do their job.

So, Former official, should Ms. Fergusson recuse herself or not?

By the way, the ethical standard for recusal is "even the appearance of conflict." Web Link

From: Peter Carpenter
Date: August 3, 2011 12:29:49 AM PDT
To: harold schapelhouman , Fire Board of Board of Directors
Cc: DEANNA RIDING , Jon Hitchcock, Art Hartinger
Subject: Recusal

It has been brought to my attention that there may be a perception that I have a conflict of interest that is not covered by current FPPC standards. Specifically, since my wife serves as the Chair of the Board of Intel and given the ubiquity of Intel chips in most computers any vote which I make to authorize District expenditures which includes computers could be perceived an inappropriate.

I would therefore ask, in an abundance of caution and in deference to the concerns which have been raised by a citizen, that any motions brought to the Board authorizing expenditures be bifurcated to isolate any computer equipment into a separate motion from which I will recuse myself.


Respectfully,


Peter Carpenter

She hasn't broken any law. We could only wish that anyone from Menlo Park had influence on this foolish project! If and when her employer has a relationship with HSR authority, she must recuse herself just as she does on matters involving Stanford (her husband works in information technology). She could distance herself more now, but what she is doing is a far cray from breaking any law.
This inflammatory headline sounds like a witch hunt that our city doesn't need.

Pogo:

I have no opinion, either way, about Ms. Fergusson. I don't even live in Menlo Park. But you are incorrect - the standard for recusal is actual conflict of interest, not "appearance". And this standard is not set by an on-line dictionary, it is set by the FPPC.

Former official - a link to the FPPC text, please. Recusal is an ETHICAL issue, not a LEGAL one. Officials with real conflicts often do not recuse themselves and there are few legal remedies.

Sunshine - You miss the point completely. No one ever said or suggested that Ms. Fergusson broke a law. Some of us have suggested that because her employer is vying for a high speed rail contract, her lobbying efforts on behalf of high speed rail is an ethical issue.

§ 18703.3. Economic Interest, Defined: Source of Income.

(a)(1) For purposes of disqualification under Sections 87100 and 87103, a public official has an economic interest in any person from whom he or she has received income, including commission income and incentive compensation as defined in this regulation, aggregating five
hundred dollars ($500) or more within 12 months prior to the time when the relevant governmental decision is made.

§ 18702.3. Determining When a Public Official is Using or Attempting to Use His/Her Official Position to Influence a Governmental Decision.
(a) With regard to a governmental decision which is within or before an official's agency or an agency appointed by or subject to the budgetary control of his or her agency, the official is attempting to use his or her official position to influence the decision if, for the purpose of influencing the decision, the official contacts, or appears before, or otherwise attempts to influence, any member, officer, employee or consultant of the agency. Attempts to influence include, but are not limited to, appearances or contacts by the official on behalf of a business entity, client, or customer.
(b) With regard to a governmental decision which is within or before an agency not covered by subsection (a), the official is attempting to use his or her official position to influence the decision if, for the purpose of influencing the decision, the official acts or purports to act on behalf of, or as the representative of, his or her agency to any member, officer, employee or consultant of an agency. Such actions include, but are not limited to the use of official stationery.

Web Link