HomeMy WebLinkAbout2000-09-25 CRC MINS ,
MINUTES OF A REGULAR MEETING OF THE
CITY OF CHULA VISTA
CHARTER REVIEW COMMISSION
September 25, 2000 City Attorney' s Conference Room 4 : 30 p.m.
-------------------------------------------------------------------
MEMBERS PRESENT: John Dorso, Harriet Acton, Deric Prescott,
Mark Croshier, and Sergio Feria
MEMBERS ABSENT: Barbara McAllister and David Potter
STAFF PRESENT: City Attorney John M. Kaheny
The meeting was called to order at 4 : 38 p.m. .
1 . Roll Call .
The roll was called and all members were present except Members
McAllister and Potter who asked to be excused.
New members Croshier and Feria introduced themselves and indicated
- they look forward to working with the Charter- Review Commission.
`- 2 . Approval of Minutes .
MSUC .(Acton/Prescott) to approve the minutes of July 17, 2000 as
presented.
3 . Election of Officers for FY 00/01 .
The Chair asked the City Attorney to conduct the election.
Attorney Kaheny asked for nominations for the office of Chairman.
MSUC (Acton/Prescott) to elect John Dorso as Chair. Attorney
Kaheny asked for nominations for the office of Vice-Chair. MSUC
(Dorso/Prescott) to elect Harriet Acton as Vice-Chair.
4 . Campaign Financing Referral .
As part of the discussion on term limits, the issue of campaign
financing was referred to the Charter Review Commission for
consideration. Attorney Kaheny gave a brief history on campaign
financing in Chula Vista starting with the late 1980 ' s when the
Charter was amended to mandate that the Council have a reasonable
campaign finance ordinance. The provisions contained enabling
language because -at that time campaign finance law was complicated.
The subsequent ordinance was amended twice and the final ordinance
was distributed to the members for. review. That ordinance sets a
campaign contribution limit of $250 per election. An election is
defined as one separate election not primary and general combined.
It sets forth maximum limitations over a four-year period for
Charter Review Commission Minutes
September 25, 2000
Page 3
He also did legal research and could not find anything linking the
two. By preventing someone from running for office unless they
voluntarily agree to something would be difficult to enforce . He
believes we should try to reform the ordinance itself . If you have
an incumbent councilmember running against someone with unlimited
resources,. you have a real unfairness issue . He found a website
dealing with recent developments in campaign finance regulation.
He noted two items of interest : (1) in the State of Oregon, there
is an initiative on the November ballot that will provide public
funds to candidates who would agree to forego private contributions
and abide by established spending limits in exchange for receiving
public funds . (2) Chula Vista has a $250 limit, and the City of New
York has a $4, 500 limit .
The City Attorney indicated he did not have any solutions for the
members today. Chair Dorso asked the commissioners to digest the
material and discuss it further at the next meeting.
5 . Report by City Attorney.
Mr. Kaheny noted we need to clean up the oath provision in the
- Charter because it is in conflict with the California Constitution.
Currently, the City Clerk is following the California Constitution.
6 . Public Comments . - None
7 . Members ' Comments . - None
8 . Adjournment .
MSUC (Prescott/Acton) to adjourn the meeting at 5 : 15 p.m. to the
next meeting scheduled for October 16, 2000 at 4 : 30 p.m.
Lorraine Kraker, Secretary
H:\home\lorraine\crc\minute\9-25-00
l
Charter Review Commission Minutes
September 25 , 2000
Page 2
individuals and has a disclosure requirement for those who
contribute more than $1, 000 .
The ordinance was prepared with the concept that appointed City
Attorneys ought not be in the position of investigating their
bosses . Therefore, there is a provision that the City Attorney may
not investigate nor enforce any violations of the campaign
ordinance . In order to enforce it, the Attorney must get the
District Attorney, the Attorney General and/or the FPPC to
investigate violations . Out of courtesy, these offices normally
look at violations, but unless a more serious violation has been
found, eventually would tell the City they were not interested in
enforcing our local ordinance . Council has never appropriated
money for outside counsel to investigate campaign violations . None
of the violations have been serious enough so far.
The big problem with the ordinance is that it has gapping holes
because of overriding constitutional issues and other areas are
pre-empted by state law and issues addressed under Proposition 208
(which is now at the federal court level on a trial on the merits) .
That court indicated a decision is not expected until after the
November election. Therefore, California campaign law is in a
several layered morass . The U. S . Supreme Court has held in Buckley
v. Valeo that individuals can spend money as they wish and if a
candidate is wealthy, no campaign limitation applies to them. They
have held the same for "independent committees" that spend their
own money independently. Because of these constitutional limits,
several jurisdictions around the United States have come up with
"voluntary limits" .
The discussion at Council centered around some way to link the
campaign reform to term limits . After extensive research, the City
Attorney could find no jurisdictions that have linked re-election
to voluntary compliance .
Attorney Kaheny noted a Charter amendment is the best way to go
and it would be good to come up with a mechanism that does not,
require change because of the effect of inflation on dollar
amounts .
John Dorso expressed concern if we do something that could be
rendered moot when a decision comes down from the court . If this
will be on a voluntary basis, Harriet Acton questioned who, how,
when and by whom would it be enforced.
Deric Prescott noted you would be going up against a person' s
fundamental right to run for re-election if they would only be
allowed another term if they agree to limit what they will spend.