California Code of Regulations › Title 2 - Administration › Division 6 - Fair Political Practices Commission › Chapter 7 - Conflicts of Interest › Article 1 - Conflicts of Interest; General Prohibition › Section 18701 - Determining Whether a Financial Effect is Reasonably Foreseeable

Current through Register 2024 Notice Reg. No. 28, July 12, 2024
(a) Financial
				  Interest Explicitly Involved: A financial effect on a financial interest is
				  presumed to be reasonably foreseeable if the financial interest is a named
				  party in, or the subject of, a governmental decision before the official or the
				  official's agency. A financial interest is the subject of a proceeding if the
				  decision involves the issuance, renewal, approval, denial or revocation of any
				  license, permit, or other entitlement to, or contract with, the financial
				  interest, and includes any governmental decision affecting a real property
				  financial interest as described in Regulation 18702.2(a)(1)-(6).
(b) Financial Interest Not Explicitly
				  Involved in Decision: A financial effect need not be likely to be considered
				  reasonably foreseeable. In general, if the financial effect can be recognized
				  as a realistic possibility and more than hypothetical or theoretical, it is
				  reasonably foreseeable. If the financial result cannot be expected absent
				  extraordinary circumstances not subject to the public official's control, it is
				  not reasonably foreseeable. In determining whether a governmental decision will
				  have a reasonably foreseeable financial effect on a financial interest other
				  than an interest described in subdivision (a), the following factors should be
				  considered. These factors are not intended to be an exclusive list of all the
				  relevant facts that may be considered in determining whether a financial effect
				  is reasonably foreseeable, but are included as general guidelines.
(1) The extent to which the occurrence of the
				  financial effect is contingent upon intervening events, not including future
				  governmental decisions by the official's agency, or any other agency appointed
				  by or subject to the budgetary control of the official's agency.
(2) Whether the public official should
				  anticipate a financial effect on the official's financial interest as a
				  potential outcome under normal circumstances when using appropriate due
				  diligence and care.
(3) Whether the
				  public official has a financial interest that is of the type that would
				  typically be affected by the terms of the governmental decision or whether the
				  governmental decision is of the type that would be expected to have a financial
				  effect on businesses and individuals similarly situated to those businesses and
				  individuals in which the public official has a financial interest.
(4) Whether a reasonable inference can be
				  made that the financial effects of the governmental decision on the public
				  official's financial interest might compromise a public official's ability to
				  act in a manner consistent with the official's duty to act in the best
				  interests of the public.
(5)
				  Whether the governmental decision will provide or deny an opportunity, or
				  create an advantage or disadvantage for one of the official's financial
				  interests, including whether the financial interest may be entitled to compete
				  or be eligible for a benefit resulting from the decision.
(6) Whether the public official has the type
				  of financial interest that would cause a similarly situated person to weigh the
				  advantages and disadvantages of the governmental decision on the official's
				  financial interest in formulating a position.