The article you’re about to read is from our reporters doing their important work — investigating, researching, and writing their stories. We want to provide informative and inspirational stories that connect you to the people, issues and opportunities within our community. Journalism requires lots of resources. Today, our business model has been interrupted by the pandemic; the vast majority of our advertisers’ businesses have been impacted. That’s why The Capistrano Dispatch is now turning to you for financial support. Learn more about our new Insider’s program here. Thank you.

Gary Gossard, San Juan Capistrano

Mechelle Lawrence Adams, executive director of Mission San Juan Capistrano, is a current City Council candidate for District 5. My concern is that if elected, she will have a conflict of interest and not be able to vote on many important City Council matters that impact the downtown and/or the Mission.

Word on the street is that if something benefits a council member’s employer but not the council member personally, then there is no conflict. Looking at the text of the California Fair Political Practices Commission, I reach a different conclusion for someone in an executive position at a business. Here is text from that website:

“Under the Act, a public official has a disqualifying conflict of interest in a governmental decision if it is foreseeable that the decision will have a financial impact on his or her personal finances or other financial interests. In such cases, there is a risk of biased decision-making that could sacrifice the public’s interest in favor of the official’s private financial interests. To avoid actual bias or the appearance of possible improprieties, the public official is prohibited from participating in the decision.”

There are five types of interests that may result in disqualification, including:

“Income. An individual or an entity from whom the official has received income or promised income aggregating to $500 or more in the previous 12 months…”

The Mission is an entity that presumably has paid Lawrence Adams more than $500 in 2016, and is presumably offering her a 2017 salary of more than $500. I think there would be a conflict if she were to vote on policy, zoning, downtown San Juan improvements, parking or anything else from which the Mission might either gain or lose revenue.

Lawrence Adams’ potential conflict of interest would be further aggravated if she receives incentive compensation from the Mission, such as any bonus, goal-meeting-incentive, merit increase or annual raise in pay influenced by the Mission’s financial success or lack thereof. City-funded infrastructure projects, number of visitors per year, gate revenue, membership numbers, gift shop income and dollars received in any way, all contribute to the Mission’s success and could create conflicting scenarios.

Even if there is not a formal performance bonus or incentive-pay contract in place, it stands to reason that, as the executive director, Lawrence Adams’ future income will be influenced by the success of the Mission. Some would say that what’s good for the Mission is good for the city. That is a tricky, maybe even dangerous assumption.

Trustworthy, accurate and reliable local news stories are more important now than ever. Support our newsroom by making a contribution and becoming a subscribing member today.

About The Author Capo Dispatch

comments (2)

  • The fact that she has reported to Tony Moiso who owns Rancho Mission Viejo tells us exactly where her allegiance is.

  • A conflict of interest is defined by this newspaper. As long as special interest money can buy the (lost) trust, the (lost) innocence, the (lost) morality in America’s long history of news reporting, forthright reporters – this long heritage is disgraced; for the all mighty dollar. These three newspapers have taken control of your common sense; another conflict or frailty of Godly Americans. The O.C. Register and L.A. Times is just as bad. My friends ask me, “Can we ever find peace with a thoroughly truthful newspaper? When big business can buy a news article, pretending to be posted by an unbiased editor, then the very gullible public will have their money, land values, peace of mind and inheritance taken away. More so, this scheme digs deep in to your pockets, taking from your family and future generations. The Dispatch family of newspapers sells-out and covets their neighbor, by selling out to both corrupt business and politicians – when they know better; when they know they are spinning-the-truth. Since the CUSD Recall, proof that my allegations still includes the school board, teachers’ union. Teachers are forcing an approximate $1,000 per year tax on the average homeowner – trusting that the David Doomey’s and Superintendent Flemings of the world have learned their lesson? Very sad day we live in, while I don’t think there exists a silver-lining. DB.

comments (2)

Your email address will not be published.

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <s> <strike> <strong>