Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutcc min 1989/01/12 MINUTES OF A JOINT MEETING OF CITY COUNCIL AND THE CHARTER REVIEW COMMITTEE Thursday, January 12, 1989 Council Conference Room, City Hall 7:00 p.m. 276 Fourth Ave., Chula Vista, CA ROLL CALL COUNCILMEMBERS PRESENT: Mayor Cox, Councilmembers McCandliss (arrived at 7:15 p.m.), Nader, and Moore ABSENT: Councilman Malcolm CHARTER REVIEW MEMBERS PRESENT: C. R. Campbell, Jack Blakely, Mary Frances Click, John Dorso, and Sharon Reid ABSENT: Carlos Batara and Susan Fuller ALSO PRESENT: City Attorney Harron and Deputy City Manager Morris Chairman Campbell referred to the proposed ordinance, Chapter 2.52 of the Municipal Code regulating Campaign Contributions. Mr. Campbell stated the ordinance is patterned after that of the League of California Cities model ordinance. The Committee had no strong objections to any portion of the ordinance; all agreed to the $250 campaign limitation; agreed to eliminate all business contributions since the businesses are made up of individuals and the individuals can make their own contributions. ~ayor Cox stated he received a letter from Councilman Malcolm who could not be present at this meeting since he is at a State Coastal meeting in Los Angeles. Mayor Cox read the letter in which Councilman Malcolm stated he believes the $250 limit proposed by the Charter Review Commission was extremely excessive to any campaign and recommended it be limited to a $50 contribution. Councilman Malcolm further stated that campaign reforms include the requirement for abstaining and, therefore, if several employees of the same firm donate to a campaign the total amount received should be added and the Councilmembers required to abstain. (No action was taken by the Councilmembers to change the $250 proposed limitation to $50.) MINUTES OF JOINT MEETING 2 January 12, 1989 Attorney Harron referred to his memorandum dated November 15 regarding the transfer of funds in which he stated that the revision to the ordinance prohibits the transfers from a campaign fund established when seeking election to the City Council to a subsequent campaign fund to be used in a re-election campaign or in a campaign for the Mayor's position and this transfer provision is pursuant to State law (Proposition 73). SECTION 2.52.070 WRITTEN SOLICITATIONS BY CANDIDATES Attorney Harron recommended that the second sentence of the paragraph entitled: "NOTICE" be deleted. The last sentence states: "Each contributor must provide complete identification information, including the complete name, address, occupation, and employer (or name of business if self employed of each donor or intermediary." Attorney Harron stated that there is a $100 limitation which requires this information; however, if the sentence is left in the ordinance, he could foresee people contributing $5 or $10 having to provide this information. (At 7:15 p.m., Councilwoman McCandliss arrived at the meeting.) In response to Councilman Nader's concern regarding the audit on such contributions, Attorney Harron explained that a statement could be put into this paragraph indicating when the cumulative amount reaches $100 or more as required by State law, then the information must be reported. The City Council concurred the new wording should be put into this paragraph. A general discussion was held in which the Councilmembers questioned City Attorney Harron regarding the provisions of the new Proposition 73. Mayor Cox noted that a seminar is being held in San Diego on January 23 and, if there are any proposed changes to be made to the ordinance, it could be done after that time. Mayor Cox asked that the City Clerk provide the Charter Review Members with a copy of the Proposition 73 Workshop Schedule. SECTION 2.52.080 RETURNED CONTRIBUTIONS Councilman Nader questioned returning the donor's contribution within ten days of the receipt but asked what would happen if a candidate received contributions ten days prior to the election and he or she spent the money on the election and then returned the money after the election. City Attorney Harron indicated that would be misdemeanor and subject to prosecution. NOTION NSUC (Nader/NcCandliss) to add under Section 2.52.050 (b) a new sentence stating that the candidate would be the personally liable for any excess funds which this section requires to be paid to the City Clerk. MINUTES OF JOINT MEETING 3 - January 12, 1989 SECTION 2.52.040 - DEFINITIONS Mayor Cox questioned the definition, "City Elected Office", inasmuch as it states that the office is held by members of the City Council "and any other separately elected offices of the City". City Attorney Harron indicated that "the other" was put in so that, in the future, should the City Clerk, City Treasurer or City Attorney be an elected office, that definition would be appropriate. A general discussion was held by the members of the Council, Charter Review and the Attorney concerning business contributions; a boss coercing his employees to contribute to a campaign; violations of the First Amendment; the question of "the bag man who solicits funds from a number of people" as compared to a businessman who has a company whose employees contribute; the concurrence that no ordinance as written would be totally effective; campaign contributions were put solely in the hands of individuals in this proposed ordinance rather than businessmen; the Committee felt they mitigated many problems and the Council should give the ordinance a chance; and the suggestion from Councilman Nader that included in Section 2.52.060 - Prohibition of Contributions by Organization - that somewhere in that section should be a statement indicating the cumulative set of contributions by individuals from employers within that organization who will contribute to a response of solicitation by an officer of that organization. Attorney Harron expressed his fear this would be a violation of the First Amendment rights of those individuals as no one can stop anyone from soliciting but they can be stopped from coercing. SECTION 2.52.70 WRITTEN SOLICITATION BY CANDIDATES City Attorney Harron proposed the following language change: "When contributions cumulatively amount to $100 or more, the complete name, address, occupation and name of the employer (or name of business of self employed) of each donor must be reported on the City campaign statement. MOTION MSUC (Cox/Moore) to accept that substitute language. SECTION 2.52.090 - LOANS In answer to the rlayor's question, Attorney Harron explained a candidate can contribute or donate as much money as he or she wishes to his or her own campaign. Chairman Campbell stated there should not be a prohibition on a candidate making an "unlimited donation to his or her campaign as allowed by Federal law." SECTION 2.52.120 - PROHIBITION ON TRANSFERS MOTION MSUC (Cox/McCandliss) to amend paragraph A to state not to prohibit a candidate from making unlimited contributions from his or her personal funds to his or her candidacy as allowed by Federal Law. MINUTES OF JOINT MEETING 4 January 12, 1989 SECTION 2.52.090 LOANS Councilman Nader questioned the amount of money a candidate can loan to his candidacy stating there should be some language to clarify this stating the sole personal security or guarantee has to be on the liability of the candidate. City Attorney Harron explained that the campaign fund may not be used to either secure or pay off a loan. MOTION MSUC (Nader/Cox) to insert language that the loan would be guaranteed personally and solely by the candidate. SECTION 2.52.100 ~ FAMILY CONTRIBUTIONS Under Section A, Mayor Cox questioned what happens when a husband and wife have a joint bank account and each contribute to the same campaign. Attorney Harron stated the necessity to write individual checks. MOTION MSUC (Nader/Cox) to add the requirement that the checks be signed individually by the person making the contribution; that each check be drawn separately by the signer. SECTION B CONTRIBUTIONS BY CHILDREN Councilman Nader brought up the question of children under the age of 18 that have money of their own and wish to make their own contributions to campaigns and whether this would be allowed under the ordinance. City Attorney Harron stated that he did not believe this restriction on minors is unconstitutional. Member Dorso noted this clause came from the League of California Cities model ordinance and they certainly have addressed the constitutionality of all of their sections. SECTION 2.52.120 - PROHIBITION ON TRANSFERS Councilman Nader questioned whether this would be retroactive. Attorney Harron stated that the section was put in to warn the candidate of the State law. MOTION MSUC (Nader/Cox) to add the statement in the section to state it would be "consistent with State law." Councilman Moore suggested the City Clerk make this a part of her Candidate Manual to advise the candidates of this when they file for office. SECTION 2.52.010 - CAMPAIGN CONTRIBUTIONS Councilwoman McCandliss remarked there should be some definition in the ordinance pertaining to contributions and suggested it be referenced to the Political Reform Act definition. MINUTES OF JOINT MEETING 5 January 12, 1989 SECTION 2.52.190 ENFORCEMENT MOTION MSUC (Nader/McCandliss) to add another finding under H: that violations of this ordinance involving acceptance of more than $2500 in illegal contributions for any one election shall be deemed a crime of moral turpitude for purposes of the City Charter. SECTION 2.52.160 - AUDITS MOTION MSUC (Cox/Moore) to delete the words "either" and "or non-City". Councilman Moore questioned the provision that, at least six months prior to a City election, a special Counsel shall be appointed for that election and asked about the retainer for this particular Counsel. City Attorney Harron stated thec~would charge on an hourly basis so there was no "retainer" charge. SECTION 2.52.050 - LIMITATION ON CONTRIBUTIONS FROM PERSONS Mayor Cox questioned the time element involved noting that this is a four year cycle and that should be made clear. City Attorney Harron stated that language could be put in under the definition in 2.52.040 (D), that the election period means "the entire time period between elections." MOTION MSUC (Cox/McCandliss) to accept the Attorney's language changing 2.52.040 (D). SECTION 2.52.160 AUDITS Councilwoman McCandliss questioned Council authorization given to the Director of Finance to audit campaign statements. City Attorney Harron stated the Council has that authority by acceptance of this ordinance; however, they do not have the authority to empower the Director of Finance to audit campaign statements of officials for non-City elective offices. Councilman Nader recommended that the City Attorney bring back language that would provide when an official or State representative of an organization has accumulated $1200 to a campaign of a member of the City Council, then that City Councilman is prohibited for a period of two years or the length of his term from voting on the financial interest of that organization. Mayor Cox asked that the City Attorney come back with a "clean copy" of the ordinance incorporating the amendments made by the Council this evening and that this be set for the City Council meeting of February 14 at 7:00 p.m. At 9:15 p.m., Council recessed to reconvene as the Redevelopment Agency and, following that, tT, IC~ e M. Fulasz~,~CMC~~'' CLERK