San Joaquin County supervisors agree to revisit its Code of Ethics
STOCKTON — Tom Patti’s wish for the San Joaquin County Board of Supervisors to rescind its Code of Ethics did not come true Tuesday. But the unanimous vote to consider amendments to the 4-year-old code was enough to satisfy him.
“Excellent,” he said after the votes were cast.
Patti nearly ran afoul of the Code of Ethics earlier this year when he narrowly avoided censure for speaking publicly about the county’s search to hire a chief medical examiner. Since then, Patti has argued that the six-page code violates his right to free speech.
He followed through by placing an item on Tuesday’s board agenda to rescind the code. He cited two paragraphs of the code in making his case.
The first says, “I will not make false charges or misleading statements for political advantage and I will hold those consultants, volunteers and employees under my supervision to these same standards.”
Patti’s argument: “This language essentially is restrictive of the obligation, as an elected official, to speak on behalf of our constituents. Also the ability to speak freely can be challenged and restricted with this provision, which is in direct conflict with the 1st Amendment.”
The second says, “If a Board member violates the Board Code of Ethics the Board shall take immediate action, including a public discussion at the next possible Board meeting and/or move to censure the Board member found to be in violation.”
Patti’s argument: “Note the word ‘Shall’ is troubling. This one word alone can create a rush to judgment, and essentially mandate unnecessary action for anything that can be construed as a minor infraction such as a difference of opinions.”
The Code of Ethics was approved before Patti was elected to the board. In his letter to his board colleagues, Patti proposed the Code of Ethics be rescinded, then revised.
Supervisor Chuck Winn, with whom Patti has frequently sparred, said the medicalexaminer issue was not the only potential Code of Ethics violation by Patti.
Winn questioned why Patti turned up at his first meeting as a supervisor with a black eye. He also mentioned a fight Patti was involved in outside a downtown bar early in 2018, as well as a DUI allegation against Patti last year that is still being adjudicated.
“How do we handle the behavior of a particular supervisor that becomes questionable and maybe embarrassing to this board?” Winn asked. “We all need something by which we can hold each other accountable.”
Winn made a point of saying he did not accuse Patti of ethics violations for any of the instances he listed Tuesday. Not surprisingly, Patti took umbrage to the list of Patti-related incidents recited by Winn.
Patti said he suffered his black eye when his German shepherd accidentally headbutted him; that in the fight he was defending a woman being badly beaten; and he maintained his stance that the DUI occurred because he accidentally took a prescription medication before getting behind the wheel.