The legal issue of conflict of interest for city council members has a long history; this most recent chapter has to do with Council member Dan O’Brien’s new position as the President of the Culver City Chamber of Commerce.
At the end of the agenda for April 27, 2026 were two items that took up the problem of sub committee assignments, and how to clarify potential conflicts.
Vice Mayor Bubba Fish offered that “There isn’t a [clear understanding] in the public as to what a conflict of interest is. If we can we make that …. available, it will help the public to understand.” He offered his own job with a Los Angeles County Supervisor’s Office as an example of a situation that could be perceived as a conflict. “If we can offer [a legal definition] to the public, it will help.”
As Culver City resident Greg Maron spoke to the City Council meeting late in the evening, he focused on reminding Council member O’Brien that his primary commitment was to his elected office. He also held that the business community needed to remember that “the customer is always right…your revenue does not magically appear.” Noting that comments made earlier by Council member Albert Vera, Jr. “sounded, to me, like a threat…if the community doesn’t do what business wants, [you are offering] to put a stranglehold on [city] revenue.”
The agenda items discussing the need to reorganize City Council sub-committees on the new kiosks, the minimum wage, and other issues were on the table because of O’Brien’s possible conflict of interest. As the president of a business organization affiliated with a registered political action committee, O’Brien must recuse himself from any discussions or decisions that would be directly impacted.
O’Brien has maintained that because a previous City Council member, Steve Rose, was also the President of the Chamber, this should not be an issue. Rose was the was the leader of the Chamber from 1987 to 2017, and he was on the council from from 2000 to 2008.
City Attorney Heather Baker noted that there was a state entity that held the power to decide. “The response from the FPPC (California Fair Political Practices Commission) was not expected… based on our evaluation of the issues. I think that their advice has broadened over the years, and we have seen it in other letters…The challenge we are having is predicting how the FPPC will look at an issues.”
The FPPC is the same body that had Council member Yasmine-Imani McMorrin recused from voting on an agenda item regarding housing in Fox Hills, as she owns a condo in that area.
McMorrin reviewed the timeline of when O’Brien had taken on the position with the Chamber, and when sub-committee assignments had been allocated. Only City Attorney Baker had been informed that he had taken the job in December of 2025, and so the council’s committee assignments were not created to avoid the conflict of interest.
“[We need to get ahead of this ] because of the way that the FPPC defines conflict of interest…even tonight, one of our consent items spoke to a film [industry] waiver; that definitely impacts members of the Chamber. In my opinion, Council member O’Brien should not have voted on that.”
McMorrin noted “We do have a duty to move forward [on re-assignments] knowing that there are some [red] flags…How do we develop a best practice around these things? How do we stay transparent with the public?”
Baker also offered that the decisions from the FPPC were hard to predict, “We don’t get a response from the same person on these matters…we might ask two questions and get two different [members of the committee] giving decisions.”
The council voted to dissolve the kiosk sub committee, and bring that matter back to the full council. The minimum wage sub-committee was to be blended with the affordability sub-committee.
The kiosks will return to the council on May 11, without a sub-committee recommendation.
The motion passed with four ayes, with O’Brien recused from the dais.
Judith Martin-Straw
