Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1988/05/19 Charter Review Commission Minutes ( ( MINUTES OF A JOINT CITY COUNCIL/CHARTER REVIEW MEETING ....-..-. ~ Thursday, ~~ay 19,1988 7:00 p.m. Council Conference Room City Hall ROLL CALL MEMBERS PRESENT: Councilmembers Nader, Moore, McCandliss, Malcolm fv1EMBERS 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. r~ayor pro Tempore t.1alcolm stated that the purpose of the meeting came about as the resul t of a 1 etter from CROSSROADS si gned 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 the 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. . ~. .~ ~\.~.~ ~tCC~ir- ~ t.{.\ ~ \,) ~ '{it \~~!a ~. ij ,1:::1. 1i....4 ~ "f.\ ~ ~i'1U~F - J.?':'~ I.'J ',,","'j. I~ ...~. :;j v' iJ. ~ u '"" . ... .- ...., r~i nutes ( - 2 - ( r~ay 19, 1988 . Mr. Scott added that San Diego does not allow corporate contributions and reminded the Committee that Councilmen could be guil ty of a mi sdemeanor if they had income of $250 or more and voted on issues/projects coming before them. Councilwoman McCandliss questioned accepting contributions from franch i sees, not i ng tha t these are 1 ong- term c ontrac ts wi th the ~ity. Mr. Scott noted that although it is a long-term contract, 1 ssues consi stently come before the Ci ty, such as wi th SDG&E, Laidlaw and most recently, with Ultronics. Mayor pro Tempore Malcolm then stated Councilmembers will present their comments Committee for consideration. that each of the to the Charter Revieu COUNCILWOMAN McCANDLISS: Asked that the Committee consider: 1. The question of the $250 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 Council member can vote after he/she accepts a contributions. 5. The concern over the accounti ng and di scl osure 1 aw; who is contributing and how to track the votes after the election. . There is now a IIbagmanll issue. The bagman is someone who can contact 100 peopl e and channel funds from them into the el ecti ons 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 Co mm i t tee me m be r s . ~1 r . ~1 0 0 rea d d ed, t hat i n a c c e p tin g contributions from developers, they are termed lithe bad guyll, and if contributions are accepted from them, "the politician must be corrupt. II He questioned whether receivi ng money from a publ i sher, editor or influential friends should be considered - where do IIwe really draw the line?1I . f.1inutes ( - 3 - ( r~ a y 1 9, 1 9 <3 8 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 candi dates that developers wi 11 want to contri bute to and there are certain candidates that developers will not vi ant to consider contributing to and it is not a matter of corruption or buying votes. The only way to control that woul d be to 1 i mi t expenditures. The IIbagmanll 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 commi ttee and have the amount fl exi bl e so that it coul d be adjusted from time to time. 2. Have candidates agree before an election as to the voluntary spending and adhere to the 1 imitation 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 Revievl 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 Mcr~i11in writing a check for $1,000 or having 10 of his emp18yees write checks for $100 each. He likes the idea and agrees "'lith the limitation of the $250 noting that most of his money came from outside of Chula Vis t a . r~ a yo r pro Tern p 0 r e t1 a 1 c 01 m the n d i s c u sse d the San . 14 i n u te s ( - 4 - ( r~ a y 1 9, 1 98 U . election between Cleator, O'Connor and Hedgecock \'ihereby Cleator and 0' Connor both spent over $.25 mi 11 i on of thei r 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 peopl e to wi n. He added that thi s was a compl ex issue wi th many loopholes and perhaps something should go to the voters on this. Another issue he woul d 1 i ke Charter Revi ew to consi der is the full-time Council position. He noted this is nO~J d big City and it needs to be better served. liThe Mayor is only one man and he can't do everything. II COMMENTS FROM CHARTER REVIEW COMMITTEE MEMBERS: 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: I n an s we r to ilj r s . Full e r 's que 5 t ion, At tor n e y H a r r 0 n ex p 1 a i n e d 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 l1e/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" "Jhen they run a campaign debt and they could have fundraisers which would mean collecting another $250 from some of their contributors. The issue of expenditures and contributions are not really clearly defined and even the Supreme Court opinion notes some confusion on this issue. 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. 2. 3. . . 1. . 5. . Minutes ( ( May 1 9, 1 988 - 5 - JACK BLAKELY: 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. ~1 r . S cot t not e d t hat w h i 1 e 11 e s e r v e don the C 0 u n c i 1, i t c 0 s t 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 feel s that way today. She al so believed that educated voters \'iould make the difference, but that is not working either. She is interested in the combination of increased disclosures and abstention. Not sure she is interested in campaign limitations that are voluntary. 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. 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. 2. 3. 4. Chairman Campbell summarized the issues to be considered by the Charter Review: 1. The campaign contribution 1 imitations 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 ~1r. 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 gi ven to the Board of Supervi sors by August 12. He would like to have Council have 2 meetings to consider tile recommendations of the Charter Review; therefore, all of their work must be completed by the end of July. 1v1 r . S cot t ask e d t hat he be i n form e d 0 f the meetings of the Charter Review. recommendations and . 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. l245C . .