Elected officials have a duty to avoid conflicts of interest, real or perceived.

There’s something that happens in small-town civics. People who get involved in one thing participate in another. The Venn diagrams of local engagement have a lot of overlap.

For instance, before he was a Salinas City Councilmember, José Luis Barajas was a board member for the nonprofit Salinas Valley Pride. He receives no financial compensation for this volunteer role meaning that technically, according to the California Fair Political Practices Commission’s conflict-of-interest rules, he can vote on matters related to the group. But when council was preparing to vote on Sept. 23 on community sponsorships, including $5,000 to Salinas Valley Pride, Barajas recused himself.

“I found there to be no conflict, but in an abundance of caution and being mindful of community sensitivity, I wanted to make a clear delineation,” Barajas says. “This is setting a good example and a good bar.”

It is an example others should follow. While FPPC’s conflict-of-interest rules focus on financial interest – ownership of property, sources of income – there is also the matter of public perception and integrity.

It’s unfortunately not a bar that has been met recently in Carmel. In the ongoing saga of the 13,000-square-foot J.B. Pastor Building proposed for Dolores Street, recusals have been a major issue, standing in as a proxy for perceived opponents or allies of the developer, Esperanza Carmel. (A group of 11 people appealed the Planning Commission’s approval of the project, raising various grievances about land use and parking, kicking the decision up to City Council. Spoiler alert: Council eventually kicked it back to the Planning Commission, so the six-year-long proposal continues.)

Before a first hearing on Aug. 4, two councilmembers announced they had received campaign contributions from an appellant. Mayor Dale Byrne founded the nonprofit Carmel Cares, which received a $100,000 donation from Esperanza Carmel, so City Attorney Brian Pierik advised him to recuse as well.

Those recusals threatened to shrink the number of voting councilmembers from five to two – too small to make a quorum, as Staff Writer Pam Marino reported at the time.

One councilmember returned a portion of the campaign gift, putting him at the FPPC’s allowable threshold to participate in the vote, so a three-member quorum was formed, minus Byrne and Councilmember Bob Delves, who also recused.

“This is setting a good example and a good bar.”

Byrne could have kept it classy and said simply that he wanted to maintain integrity, or at least the perception thereof. Instead he read a prepared speech arguing he should stay. “I have no financial interest in this matter and no legal or ethical conflict,” Byrne said. “It’s disheartening when honest public service is met with suspicion.”

Another way of looking at it: It’s heartening when honest public service is met with expectations of clear, bright lines.

When council revisited the topic on Sept. 8, Byrne read another speech, making the same points. “These tactics may very well succeed in the short term but they erode the trust we need in government,” he said.

I’d argue it’s the opposite: Setting a high bar helps build trust in government.

Carmel Cares is not a problem – in fact it’s a civic gem getting people involved in beautifying and improving Carmel’s infrastructure. The problem is that the same developer whose project was now before council had given a significant gift to the nonprofit; the potential for bias should be obvious.

At a City Council meeting on June 30, council accepted a donation valued at the equivalent of $262,097 from Carmel Cares, plus 8,544 volunteer hours from March 2024-June 2025 on a range of projects making life and infrastructure in Carmel better. That’s to be celebrated.

Pierik told Byrne point-blank then that it was necessary for him to disclose (but not to recuse) whether he served on the Carmel Cares board before voting to accept the gift on behalf of the city. “I am not a board member,” Byrne said.

Byrne says he stepped down from the board last year when he began his campaign for mayor, and has continued on in an unpaid executive director role as Chief Caring Officer for the all-volunteer organization. 

Byrne is frustrated that he is being forced to make a choice between Carmel Cares and his elected position. But the nonprofit does frequent business with and for the city, meaning future questions seem inevitable, even if they do not fall under the FPPC's definitions.

If his interpretation of how to maintain public trust is relinquishing his volunteer role, rather than recusing himself from council votes where it becomes an issue, that’s a shame. 

SARA RUBIN is the Weekly’s editor. Reach her at sara@montereycountynow.com