Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1998/12/21 Board of Ethics Minutes CITY OF CHULA VISTA, CALIFORNIA MINUTES OF A BOARD OF ETHICS MEETING December 21, 1998 Park & Recreation Conference Room 3:35 p.m. MEMBERS PRESENT: Juan Gonzales, Richard Schulman, Joanne Carson, Susan Herney, Ricardo Gibert, Jean Rogers arrived 3:40 p.m. MEMBERS ABSENT: None OFFICIALS/STAFF PRESENT: City Attorney John M. Kaheny Ellen Gross, Deputy City Attorney Elizabeth Wagner Hull, Deputy City Attorney The meeting was called to order at 3:35 p.m. 1. Roll Call Chair Gonzales called roll, all members present. Chair Juan Gonzales advises the Board the only Item on the Agenda is an Item referred to the Board of Ethics from the City Council for review. Richard Schulman notes the Notice should have indicated an Item number for Public Comment and a Public Meeting. City Attorney, John M. Kaheny advises that should someone from the public wish to speak they would have a right to speak. There was no attendance from the public. 2. Soecial Item Referred by Council Chair Juan Gonzales distributed a copy of the transcription of the Council Minutes regarding Item No. 6 and two newspaper articles fro the Board and other attendees for review. Member Richard Schulman inquires as to the term "vote preclusion" as noted in the Council Minutes regarding Item No. 6 John Kaheny advises on its meaning. After review of the materials the Board held an open discussion. Chair Gonzales asks city Attorney John M. Kaheny for an overview of the Council meeting and of the current law. John Kaheny advises the Board of the history and ramifications of the proposed amendment. Board of Ethics Minutes December 21, 1998 Page 2 Mr. Kaheny advised the Board of a comment made by councilmember John Moot regarding candidates taking each other to court in order to attempt to deplete the other's resources as a campaign/political strategy. Due to this and other concerns, the City Attorney I s office was asked by the city Manager to come up with this exception ensuring that any contributions given to a candidate elected to the Council that this is disclosed to the pubic. Member Richard Schulman inquires as to whether Patti Davis would have had any problems had she lost the election in seeking to raise money for the defense fund and questions what limits would have been imposed on her. John Kaheny states that in amending the current ordinance the disclosure aspect is only going to affect the candidate who wins because that person will be the one who is an office holder at the time. He further explains that Council wanted to keep the 100-day exclusion period on both sides of the election so there would be no temptation to commingle funds. Chair Juan Gonzales inquires as to how it compares to other cities within the County. John Kaheny states that many other cities do not have contribution limits and the Chula vista contribution limitation was modeled after San Diego. However, San Diego does not have a "legal defense fund" exception. In response to an inquiry by Member Susan Herney regarding the origin of the ordinance, John Kaheny stated it was adopted by Council and has been amended several times, but to his knowledge it has not been subject to initiative. It is further clarified that the present ordinance does not prohibit the use of campaign contributions to pay legal expenses incurred by the campaign. Member Herney questions an issue in the Agenda Statement" . . . offsetting costs already incurred by that councilperson in the defense of a criminal or administrative prosecutorial action against said councilperson, and not made or used for the purpose of aiding in the election of said councilperson, and not made within ." John Kaheny states it can read ". . used for the purpose of otherwise aiding in the election . " which would otherwise mean going into the general campaign fund. It is further clarified by Mr. Kaheny that the funds would be used for legal expenses only and not for television commercial ads and signs and those types of expenses. Board of Ethics Minutes December 21, 1998 Page 3 Member Richard Schulman mentions the issue that continues to arise is "defense" fund. However, in this particular instance Ms. Davis is the one who initiated the suit. Mr. Schulman presents the question of her eligibility to do so the way this is currently presented. Member Richard Schulman states his concerns that a candidate may try and deplete the funds of another candidate by trying to sue them would also be eligible to use this provision. John Kaheny states Ms. Davis incurred her legal costs attempting to enforce her right under the Code. Member Joan Carson expressed her concern that the people of the City of Chula vista should vote on this issue, rather then the Board of Ethics. The Board is accountable to the Council~)embers who y/' appointed them and who would benefit from the amendment to the ordinance. Member Carson states that she is very opposed to this because she feels that a person makes decisions to run for office and, when things like this come up, one makes the choice to pursue it or not to pursue it and should be financially accountable. Member Herney then notes her concern the amendment to the ordinance may circumvent the intent of the ordinance which is to keep the campaign funding at a small contributor level to keep the big influencer(s) out of the picture. She would really hesitate to make an exception for lawsuits simply because they are another political strategy and may result in making the paying field less even. Chair Gonzales questions the possibilities of this issue going forward as an initiative instead of by city Council vote. John Kaheny states an initiative is very expensive. Chair Gonzales notes that the amendment would be something reasonable to do but questions whether it should apply retroactively or be effective for future campaigns. John Kaheny notes the 100-day period. Member Schulman agrees with Member Carson I s point and that one consideration should be perhaps postponing the effective date. The Board went on to discuss whether Ms. Davis could have used other strategies or methods to publicize her ballot statement without incurring the $23,000.00 debt. The Board inquires as to the history of the issue that led tot he litigation. John Kaheny explains. Board of Ethics Minutes December 21, 1998 Page 4 City Attorney John Kaheny explains to the Board they can make a recommendation to modify the proposed ordinance or simply support or oppose the amendment. Based upon the Board's comments it will go back to Council. Member Gibert recognizes there could be an instance when the candidate might have to be the one seeking to enforce their rights. The Board suggests that since it may not be given to the citizens to vote on, it should become effective for future campaigns and would not be of any benefit to a Councilmember currently sitting on the Council. Some Board members feel amending the ordinance would be appropriate to aid someone in the defense of an action and not in the initiation of an action, and others recognize that there will be times when someone may be compelled to enforce their election rights. Discussions also ensued regarding limitations and placing limits on the amounts of contributions. After lengthy discussions, the Board has several potential recommendations: (1) removing the criminal component from the ordinance; (2) to go forward with the inclusion of civil proceedings to the ordinance, with a later start date so that no current Council member will benefit from it; or (3) address the campaign contribution limits that a candidate could receive for a legal payment fund. MS (Schulman/Carson) Motion to recommend against the adoption of the proposed amendment to the ordinance. Motion carried 4-2 (Gonzales/Gibert opposed). Schulman suggests possibly giving the Council the Board's advice on what other options it may consider. The Board agrees to meet and summarize minutes to forward to Council. Chair Gonzales inquires as Secretary, Carmen Sandoval, members to Chair Gonzales. to the vacant seat on the Board. delivers a list of potential new The next meeting is called for Thursday, January 7, 1999 at 3:45 p.m. in the Park & Recreation Conference Room. Board of Ethics Minutes December 21, 1998 Page 5 The meeting adjourned at 4:50 p.m. Distributions at the meeting: Council Minutes Ordinances (Amending Newspaper Articles c:\cbs\ethics\minutes\122198.min doval