The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutMINUTES - 11081983 - T.8 THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF CONTRA COSTA COUNTY, CALIFORNIA Adopted this Order on November 8, 1983 , by the following vote: Votes shown below on the various motions NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: SUBJECT: Campaign Reform Ordinance Supervisor Torlakson having noted that the Ad Hoc Committee on Political Reform met on October 20, 1983, and having submitted the recommendations of the Ad Hoc Committee on contribution limits, -seed money, in-kind contributions, administra- tion of the ordinance and review of the implementation of the ordinance; and The Board members having expressed their views on these same subjects; and Supervisor Powers having moved that any subsequently enacted ordinance prohibit candidates from accepting contributions from government entities and that the Board go on record in support of legislation which would prohibit government entities from contributing to the campaign of any candidate for any office and Supervisor Fanden having seconded the motion, the motion was APPROVED unanimously; and Supervisor Fanden having moved that any subsequently enacted ordinance provide for a $250 contribution limit per individual and exempt from that limit $5000 in "seed money" per election, and Supervisor Torlakson having seconded the motion, the motion failed by the following vote: AYES: Fanden, Torlakson NOES: Powers, McPeak, Schroder; and Supervisor Powers having moved that any subsequently enacted ordinance contain a $500 contribution limit per individual with no provision for "seed money", and Supervisor McPeak having seconded the motion; and Supervisor Torlakson having moved a substitute motion that any subsequently enacted ordinance provide for a $350 contribution limit per individual and a $5000 exemption for "seed money", and Supervisor Fanden having seconded the motion, the substitute motion failed by the following vote: AYES: Fanden, Torlakson NOES: Powers, McPeak, Schroder; and The Chairman having then called for the vote on the main motion providing for a $500 contribution limit per individual with no provision for "seed money", the motion PASSED by the following vote: AYES: Powers, McPeak, Schroder NOES: Torlakson ABSENT: Fanden; and Supervisor Torlakson having moved an exemption for in-kind contribution of office space and equipment of $5000, and Supervisor Powers having seconded the motion, and following discussion Supervisor Torlakson having clarified that the intent of his motion was to have the $5000 limit be a cumulative limit which would apply to all contributors; and Supervisor Powers having thereupon withdrawn his second and the Chairman having declared that the motion died for lack of a second; and 294 -2- Supervisor Powers having moved that any subsequently enacted ordinance include an exemption from. the $500 campaign contribution limit per individual for the purpose of allowing a cumulative total of $10,000 in in-kind contributions for office space and equipment from one or more contributors, and Supervisor McPeak having seconded the motion, the motion PASSED by the following vote: AYES: Powers, McPeak, Schroder NOES: Torlakson ABSENT: Fanden; and Supervisor Powers having moved approval of the recommendations set forth in an October 21 ; 1983 memorandum from the County Administrator to the Board (a copy of which is attached hereto and by reference incorporated herein) regarding the respective duties of the District Attorney and Elections Division of the County Clerk's Office in enforcing the ordinance, and Supervisor Torlakson having seconded the motion, the motion PASSED by the following vote: AYES: Powers, McPeak, Torlakson, Schroder NOES: None ABSENT: Fanden; and Supervisor McPeak having recommended that any subsequently enacted ordinance address a method of prohibiting the duplication of petitions in order to provide mailing lists for candidates and a simple mechanism for disclosing all contributors of $50 or more without having to completely duplicate the reports already required for the State; and Supervisor Torlakson having moved that all tentative decisions made by the Board be referred to County Counsel , along with Supervisor McPeak's recommenda- tion, with instructions for County Counsel to draft an ordinance and return it to the Board for their further consideration, and Supervisor Powers having seconded the motion, the motion was APPROVED by the following vote: AYES: Powers, McPeak, Torlakson, Schroder NOES: None ABSENT: Fanden hereby certify that this Is a true and correct copy of an action, taken and entered on the minutes of the Board of Supervisors on th/e date sljownn. 3 ATTESTED: eV4 �------ J.R. OLSSCMI Ct:?ti:ti"f"h' CLEF,,K and ex o 4ie'so C@erk of the Board By 4" , �,Q , Deputy Orig: County Administrator County Clerk--Elections Div. County Counsel Ad Hoc Committee on Political Reform District Attorney Board Members 29.5 TO: BOARD OF SUPERVISORS FROM: M. G. Wingett, County Administrator Contra ra Costa DATE! October 21 , 1983 County SUBJECT: Campaign Reform Ordinance--Enforcement SPECIFIC REQUEST(S) OR RECOMMENDATION(S) & BACKGROUND AND JUSTIFICATION RECOMMENDATIONS: 1 . If the Board adopts a Campaign Reform Ordinance, responsibility for data analysis, ongoing monitoring of the ordinance, and initial resolution of discrepancies should be assigned to the Office of the County Clerk--Elections Division for all offices except the County Clerk. 2. Responsibility for monitoring the declarations of the County Clerk should be assigned to the District Attorney. 3. Enforcement of the Ordinance should be assigned to the District Attorney. BACKGROUND/JUSTIFICATION: Following the Board's last discussion on a Campaign Reform Ordinance, Supervisor Torlakson asked that staff report back to the Board October 25, 1983 on the issue of where the enforcement responsibility for such an Ordinance should properly be placed. My office met with representatives of the County Clerk and District Attorney. We agreed that there will be a need to manually review the contribution data following each reporting deadline in order to insure that all reports have been submitted, that the reports include all data required, and that the reports are arithmetically correct. The data will then be entered into a computer and a report will be generated indicating whether any one individual ' s contributions exceed the contribution limit in the Ordinance. In any instance in which data is incomplete, inaccurate, or violates a provision of the Ordinance, the candidate will be given an opportunity to correct the situation. All of this work should properly be assigned to the County Clerk--Elections Division since they are the permanent repository of all the declarations and are better suited to computerize and review the information. The only exception is for the declarations of the County Clerk himself. To avoid a possible conflict of interest, the District Attorney will review the declarations and filings of all candidates for County Clerk. In any instance in which a candidate is unable or unwilling to correct any data which is incomplete, inaccurate, or violates a provision of the Ordinance, the Elections Division will refer the matter to the District Attorney for whatever action he deems appropriate. In addition, any complaint alleging a violation of the Ordinance will be referred to the District Attorney for whatever action he deems appropriate if the Elections Division cannot readily resolve the complaint. Finally, all ethics statements should be filed with the Elections Division which will take whatever action with them is directed by the Ordinance. The Elections Division will not, of course, be able to evaluate declara- tions for contributions which have not been declared. This will have to be left to individual complaints. The Elections Division believes they can use their existing computer for purposes of storing reported data and generating the necessary reports. The initial programming and testing required will take the time of Mr. Underwood and one employee for about one month. Mr. Underwood is not seeking any additional staff for this purpose. It is estimated that the time to review declarations, generate the report, review and follow up on the report, will require not to exceed $2000 .for each major election. The costs for Primary elections will probably be somewhat higher because of the number of candidates and the cost for General Elections somewhat lower because of the reduced number of candidates. On the basis of two elections every even-numbered .year, the costs should not exceed $8000 for a four-year cycle. 296 3