**At its meeting on March 18, 2026, the Board of Ethics addressed a full agenda, but faced public criticism regarding procedural transparency and a lack of documentation for key action items, leading to the postponement of decisions on major ordinances.**
The Wednesday evening session, which began at 5:17 p.m., was marked by pointed public commentary from local resident Robert, who repeatedly highlighted inconsistencies in board procedures and a lack of accessible supporting documents for the public. Key items, including discussions on the draft lobbying ordinance and amendments to the code of ethics, were tabled until the April meeting due to ongoing research and review by the City Attorney's office.
The primary concern raised was the public's inability to engage with agenda items that listed "potential action" without providing any attached reports, red-lined drafts, or background information. "I don't know what you want me to say for any of these items if there's no paperwork on any of it," Robert stated during public comment. "If the point is to make it more difficult for the public here to engage, just keep going." He argued that for the board to fulfill its mission, it must ensure that all relevant materials are made available ahead of time for public review.
In response, Deputy City Attorney Elizabeth Giatonza explained the delay, noting that the research required for the proposed ordinance changes was more extensive than anticipated. "We wanted to keep it on there in the off chance we could have our review done by today, but unfortunately, we just we have not had enough time," she clarified, assuring the board and public that the documents would be available for the April meeting.
The board also received an update from its ad hoc subcommittee on the selection of a Campaign Contribution Enforcement Authority. The subcommittee announced it had interviewed five law firms and selected four to create a panel of legal experts who can be called upon as needed. The process was lauded for its thoroughness, which included accommodating an interview that was delayed due to unforeseen travel disruptions.
In a significant development, it was announced that the board has received a formal complaint and will convene a special meeting on April 8, 2026, at 4:00 p.m. to address it. While details of the complaint were not disclosed, the announcement signals that the board is moving into "new territory," as noted by Chair Sotelo. This upcoming special session, coupled with the public's call for greater transparency, places the Board of Ethics at a pivotal moment, challenging it to balance procedural integrity with its fundamental duty of public accountability.

