A Sacramento politician may not have done something illegal, but her judgment? Yikes | Opinion

Did Sacramento City Councilwoman Lisa Kaplan help a former client try to avoid city code enforcement fees on their nuisance property? Tiny favors surely pass all the time between city officials and their friends, but when does it cross a line? Even if those favors aren’t technically illegal, can they still be morally gray or ethically dubious? And what about an elected official’s duty to avoid even the appearance of bias or favoritism?

Kaplan seems to have skirted too close to the edge of these questions when she had her office interfere with a code enforcement case last year on behalf of a derelict business property in Downtown Sacramento — outside of Kaplan’s district.

Opinion

Vanir LLC is owned and operated by Dorene Dominguez, who has donated to Kaplan’s campaign fund and is a previous client of Kaplan’s law firm, the Kaplan Law Group. The company owns a former Bank of the West branch building at 601 J St., a mere 400 feet from the city’s crown jewel: The Golden 1 Center.

Nearly a decade ago, Dominguez’s company had hoped to build a high-rise office building on the property, a plan that has changed direction almost as many times as the Kings have missed easy baskets. The “Vanir Tower” has never risen, and the old bank branch remains a graffitied nuisance to the city — causing at least a dozen visits by city Code Enforcement to clean up over the past several years.

By August 2023, Vanir found itself on the wrong end of a $350 monthly code enforcement fee that it did not care for. That prompted an email to Dominguez’s favorite councilwoman. But instead of referring Vanir’s email to City Councilwoman Katie Valenzuela, who represents the downtown street the property sits on, Kaplan’s office directly contacted City Code and Housing Enforcement Chief Peter Lemos to question the charges.

The lack of concern about a clearly questionable action — and, frankly, the excessive defensiveness on Kaplan’s part when questioned about it — speaks to a behavior unbecoming of a top city official.

And Sacramentans deserve to know just how well Kaplan plays this game of favors when it involves a wealthy donor.

A favor for a friend

After Dominguez’s letter showed up, Kaplan’s District Director Mateo Ramirez-Mercado reached out to Lemos for “clarity on code’s process for fining property owners who are facing the impacts of homelessness on their properties,” citing Dominguez’s email.

Lemos responded later the same day, stating that the case was scheduled to ”go to an administrative hearing on Oct. 11, 2023” because Dominguez had already “filed an appeal in opposition of our notice to begin monthly monitoring of their property.” He also included a representative from Valenzuela’s office on the email; a sign, perhaps, that even city staff knew Kaplan wasn’t the right council member to be asking about this.

Lemos also said the case had been assigned to the city’s “dangerous buildings team” and “had to be secured 11 times in the last couple of years” by city-hired contractors. Properties that are left vacant are subject to a monthly monitoring fee to recover costs, and in addition to this fee, they may incur penalties for not correcting violations “and maintaining a nuisance property within the City of Sacramento.”

According to an email released by Kaplan, Vanir would eventually decide to drop its appeal “and come into compliance with city code.” There is, however, currently an active code enforcement case on the 601 J St. property that was opened in June of last year labeled “Categories: Emergency On Call, Substandard Vacant Building, HSG Boarded.”

Kaplan’s questionable ethics

Sacramento City Code city code 4.02 deals with the ethics of city employees, including city council members.

“City employees are to use the city’s powers and resources ‘for the benefit of the public rather than any city employee’s personal benefit,’” said Mary-Beth Moylan, a professor of law at the University of the Pacific’s McGeorge School of Law.

“If a councilmember is reaching out on behalf of any constituent to navigate the system, that might be for the public benefit (and) it might be for the benefit of the individual they’re trying to help,” Moylan said, speaking generally about the city’s ethics code. “But the key is, they can’t be doing it for their own benefit.”

It’s unclear if this incident constitutes an ethical violation by Kaplan. But since November, I have gotten the run-around from the Sacramento City Clerk’s office as I tried to gain access to documents shared in this column. Once I did get them, Kaplan repeatedly declined to speak with me over the phone.

Among the questions she insisted I send to her only via written communication was: “Can you understand that reaching out on behalf of Vanir for an issue outside of your district could appear as a conflict of interest or as ethically questionable?”

Kaplan didn’t answer the question directly, but she did say this in an email: “As an elected councilmember for the City of Sacramento, I believe it is my obligation to help people that call my office seeking information or assistance no matter where they reside in the city.”

But Kaplan clearly sought favor for Vanir in avoiding fees on a “nuisance property” that has added to the blight of Downtown Sacramento. The problem isn’t necessarily that Vanir got the political favor it was seeking, it’s that Kaplan had no problem being the conduit for that favor.

Perhaps the city’s Ethics Commission should review her behavior. And perhaps she should be compelled to release her firm’s client lists, so we know just how many little favors Kaplan’s actually done?