Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutcc min 1988/05/19 CI]Y OF CHULA VISTA OFFICE OF THE CITY CLERK NOTICE OF CITY COUNCIL MEETING NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the City Council of the City of Chula Vista, CA will hold a joint meeting with the Charter Review Committee (adjourned regular meeting) on Thursday, May 19, 1988, beginning at 7 p.m. in the Council Conference Room, City Hall, 276 Fourth Avenue, Chula Vista. Specifically, the discussion will be on political contributions and campaign spending and a general discussion of various amendments to the City Charte~ DATED: MAY 13, 1988 c: Charter Review Comml tree 276 FOURTH AVENUE/CHULA VISTA. CALIFORNIA 92010/(619) 691-5041 MINUTES OF A JOINT CITY COUNCIL/CHARTER REVIEW MEETING Thursday, May 19, 1988 Council Conference Room 7:00 p.m. City Hall ROLL CALL MEMBERS PRESENT: Councilmembers Nader, Moore, McCandliss, Malcolm MEMBERS ABSENT: Mayor Cox STAFF PRESENT: City Attorney Harron, City Clerk Fulasz CHARTER REVIEW PRESENT: Bob Campbell, Sharon Reid, Carlos Batara, Jack Blakely, Susan Fuller ABSENT: Bess Pocklington, Charles Smith In the absence of the Mayor, Mayor pro Tempore Malcolm presided over the joint meeting. Mayor pro Tempore Malcolm stated that the purpose of the meeting came about as the result of a letter from CROSSROADS signed by Frank Scott, Chairman and asked Mr. Scott to comment on the letter. Mr. Scott stated that CROSSROADS was concerned about what is being spent in the City of Chula Vista on elections. They believe it has now gotten out of hand and money is coming to the City Council from people who are doing business before the Council. CROSSROADS feels there should be some constraints put on these contributions. There is presently a state law limitation of a contribution to $250. If a Councilman gets that, he should have to abstain from a project coming before him for one year. CROSSROADS is also concerned about the large contributions being made to Councilmembers from people having franchises in the City. CROSSROADS believes there should be no contributions accepted from any franchise people. This happened in t~e past and just recently in the last election. CROSSROADS also feels corporate gifts should be eliminated. Contributions are coming from developers and it gives the appearance that something is wrong with it. Minutes 2 May 19, 1988 Mr. Scott added that San Diego does not allow corporate contributions and reminded the Committee that Councilmen could be guilty of a misdemeanor if they had income of $250 or more and voted on issues/projects coming before them. Councilwoman McCandliss questioned accepting contributions from franchisees, noting that these are long-term contracts with the City. Mr. Scott noted that although it is a long-term contract, issues consistently come before the City, such as with SDG&E, Laidlaw and most recently, with Ultronics. Mayor pro Tempore Malcolm then stated that each of the Councilmembers will present their comments to the Charter Review Committee for consideration. COUNCILWOMAN McCANDLISS: Asked that the Committee consider: 1. The question of the 5250 contribution limit. 2. The question of accepting personal and corporate checks. 3. The question of accepting any campaign contributions from the Political Action Committees (PAC). 4. The limitation on how long a Councilmember can vote after he/she accepts a contributions. 5. The concern over the accounting and disclosure law; who is contributing and how to track the votes after the election. There is now a "bagman" issue. The bagman is someone who can contact 100 people and channel funds from them into the elections official's account without accounting for the funds. She stated that these recommendations do not have to come as in the form of Charter amendments, they could be an advisory vote on the ballot. She also stated that there are other issues that she would like the Charter Review Committee to consider other than what the Council may be giving them tonight - anything which they raise themselves. COUNCILMAN MOORE: The Councilman stated he read the material from all the cities that have contribution or campaign limitations and he summarized the maximum contributions that trigger the name and address disclosures for the cities of Poway, Escondido, Carlsbad, Coronado, Del Mar, San Marcos and Santee. He noted that this material would be given to the Charter Review Committee members. Mr. Moore added that in accepting contributions from developers, they are termed "the bad guy", and if contributions are accepted from them, "the politician must be corrupt." He questioned whether receiving money from a publisher, editor or influential friends should be considered - where ~o "we really draw the line?" Minutes 3 May 19, 1988 COUNCILMAN NADER: Councilman Nader stated that in both of his campaigns he proposed a mutual volunteer spending limit but on both campaigns it has been turned down. His concern is that there are certain candidates that developers will want to contribute to and there are certain candidates that developers will not want to consider contributing to and it is not a matter of corruption or buying votes. The only way to control that would De to limit expenditures. The "bagman" problem is commonplace. He noted the law regarding spending limitations but if there is a voluntary aspect to the law, then it becomes constitutional. He asked that the Charter Review consider: 1. Volunteer spending limit be established by some neutral committee and have the amount flexible so that it could be adjusted from time to time. 2. Have candidates agree before an election as to the voluntary spending and adhere to the limitation that has been established by the neutral committee. 3. Have a "window period" in which anyone can back out and that could be made public. However, once a candidate agrees to the sanction of the voluntary spending limitations and violates it, there should be some kind of penalty, such as the loss of office. Councilman Moore stated he has a problem putting a voluntary provision into the Charter. Councilman Nader stated that just the mechanics need to be in the Charter. 4. Charter Review to consider whether or not the present system of electing officials should be retained. Do they still want the plurality v. the majority and requiring a run-off election. 5. He wants them to look at preferential voting whereby a voter has a choice of designating first and second choice on the ballot. 6. Consider the full-time Council position. MAYOR PRO TEMPORE MALCOLM: Discussed the problem with a developer such as McMillin writing a check for $1,000 or having 10 of his employees write checks for $100 each. He likes the idea and agrees with the limitation of the $250 noting that most of his money came from outside of Chula Vista. Mayor pro Tempore Malcolm then discussed the San Minutes 4 - May 19, 1988 election between Cleator, O'Connor and Hedgecock whereby Cleator and O'Connor both spent over $.25 million of their own money on the election and Hedgecock used J. David's money. What is happening is that the elections are being set up for the rich people to win. He added that this was a complex issue with many loopholes and perhaps something should go to the voters on this. Another issue he would like Charter Review to consider is the full-time Council position. He noted this is now a big City and it needs to be better served. "The Mayor is only one man and he can't do everything." COMMENTS FROM CHARTER REVIEW COMMITTEE NEMBERS: CHAIRMAN CAMPBELL: Chairman Campbell stated that they will be having an organizational meeting this coming Monday, May 23 and will be looking to Attorney Tom Harron for all of the legal aspects and advice. The decisions will be made as to whether or not certain amendments should be put into the Charter or if they could be done by ordinance; full-time Council doesn't have the volatility at this present time as other amendments, as it would be a one-time decision and that could be presented to the voters; the campaign contribution limitations may be better served by an ordinance rather than have it put into the Charter because this is something that could be changed more easily. SUSAN FULLER: In answer to Mrs. Fuller's question, Attorney Harron explained State law requirements on disclosure for abstaining on a project. Attorney Harron noted that campaign contributions are not considered sources of income. It is only in those instances where a Councilmember is prohibited from voting when he/she is serving on another agency, such as the Coastal Commission, MTDB, etc., and if they receive over $250 from campaign contributions, then they must abstain in that capacity. CARLOS BATARA: Charter Review should be considering spending deficits. He noted that: 1. Candidates can bring in a "fancy consultant" when they run a campaign debt and they could have fundraisers which would mean collecting another $250 from some of their contributors. 2. The issue of expenditures and contributions are not really clearly defined and even the Supreme Court opinion notes some confusion on this issue. 3. They should look at the amount of money coming in from non-residents. Attorney Harron noted that they could have no limitation on this; they could not control it, Minutes 5 May 19, 1988 JACK BLAKELY: 1. The issue of a full-time Council. Councilman Nader noted that in order for him to become a full-time Councilman, it would depend on the salary. At one point, he could probably take a cut in salary, but that would be something to be considered. Mr. Scott noted that while he served on the Council, it cost him from $20,000 to $25,000 just to serve on the Council. 2. He would like to know the percentage of what was spent 10 years ago as to what is being spent today on elections. SHARON REID: 1. Thirteen years ago she felt campaign limitations would better the system. She no longer feels that way today. She also believed that educated voters would make the difference, but that is not working either. 2. She is interested in the combination of increased disclosures and abstention. 3. Not sure she is interested in campaign limitations that are voluntary. 4. Once the State initiatives are passed in June, this will have some impact in the local elections and this should be considered. Attorney Harron noted Proposition 68 and 73 that will be put on the primary ballot. Proposition 73 will have an effect on the local elections. 5. Full-time Council positions she feels this may be a disenfranchisement of those now serving and perhaps there would be some other way to do this, like hiring professional staff. Chairman Campbell summarized the issues to be considered by the Charter Review: 1. The campaign contribution limitations and the recommendation as to whether or not they should be made part of the Charter. 2. Full-time Council positions. 3. Preferential voting. Councilman Nader stated that he will get something in writing to Mr. Campbell and to the City Attorney on preferential voting. He also asked that the Charter Review Committee consider the run-off elections and voluntary legal spending limitations. Attorney Harron stated that any information to be placed on the November ballot must be given to the Board of Supervisors by August 12. He would like to have Council have 2 meetings to consider the recommendations of the Charter Review; therefore, all of their work must be completed by the end of July. Mr. Scott asked that he be informed of the recommendations and meetings of the Charter Review. Minutes - 6 - May 19, 1988 Mayor pro Tempore Malcolm asked that the Attorney put him on the mailing list and also submit information to the Chamber and the Board of Realtors. ADJOURNMENT AT 8:25 p.m. to the regular meeting of the City Council scheduled for Tuesday, May 24 at 7 p.m. (~J~nnie'--M. Fulasz, CMC~ City Clerk 1245C