HomeMy WebLinkAboutMINUTES - 02051991 - IO.1 TO: BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
°f Contra
FROM: INTERNAL OPERATIONS COMMITTEE
Costa
January 28, 1991 ' =�_�' County
DATE:
SUBJECT: AMEND CAMPAIGN DISCLOSURE ORDINANCE TO EXTENT) REPORTING
REQUIREMENTS TO COMMITTEES FORMED TO SUPPORT OR OPPOSE LOCAL
BALLOT MEASURES
SPECIFIC REOUEST(S)OR RECOMMENDATION(S)&BACKGROUND AND JUSTIFICATION
RECOMMENDATIONS:
1. Request County Counsel to prepare an ordinance which would
include within the existing campaign disclosure requirements
each "committee supporting or opposing a candidate for
county office and each committee supporting or opposing a
local ballot measure which is being voted on only in Contra
Costa County. " This proposed ordinance should be available
for review by our Committee on February 25, 1991 .
2. Draft language for an amendment to State law which would, in
addition to current reporting requirements, authorize local
agencies (boards of supervisors and city councils) to
require that:
* not less than 24 hours before beginning to circulate
petitions to qualify a local measure for the ballot, or
as soon as $1000 is collected for the purpose of
financing the qualification of a local measure for the
ballot or to oppose the qualification of a measure for
the ballot, whichever occurs first, the proponent or
opponent of the measure shall file a statement of
organization with the County Clerk, and
* not more than 15 days thereafter shall reveal the
amount and source of all contributions to the
Committee.
CONTINUED ON ATTACHMEIWPS SIGNATURE:
RECOMMENDATION OF CO TY ATOR RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMITTEE
APPROVE O
SIGNATURES: SCHRO ER SUNNE WRIGHT McPEAK
ACTION OF BOARD ON Februar 991 APPROVED AS RECOMMENDED X OTHER
VOTE OF SUPERVISORS
r - 1 HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THIS IS A TRUE
X UNANIMOUS(ABSENT 'r--- ) AND CORRECT COPY OF AN ACTION TAKEN
AYES: NOES: AND ENTERED ON THE MINUTES OF THE BOARD
ABSENT: ABSTAIN: OF SUPERVISORS ON THE DATE SHOWN.
CC: County Administrator ATTESTED
County Counsel
PHIL BATCHELOR, ERK OF THE BOARD OF
District Attorney
County Clerk-Recorder SUPERVISORS AND COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR
Elections Supervisor
24n=',
BY
� ,DEPUTYM382 (10/88)
This language should also be available for review by our
Committee on February 25, 1991.
BACKGROUND:
On October 30, 1990, the Board of Supervisors authorized our
Committee to review the desirability of amending the Contra Costa
County Campaign Ordinance (Ordinance Code Division 530) to extend
the county reporting requirements to committees formed to support
or oppose the passage of local ballot measures.
On January 28, 1991 our Committee met with Assistant County
Counsel Arthur Walenta and Elections Supervisor Robert Delevati
and reviewed the attached report from Mr. Walenta. Mr. Walenta' s
report concludes that the Board of Supervisors can, under current
law, apply its campaign reporting requirements to Committees
formed to support or oppose the passage of local measures which
have qualified for the ballot. The current campaign reporting
ordinance applies only to candidates for office. The ordinance
we are recommending would expand these reporting requirements to
Committees formed primarily to support or oppose the passage of a
local measure. Recommendation # 1 above will accomplish that
objective.
What the Board of Supervisors cannot do under current law is to
require the disclosure of the source or amount of funds which
have been contributed to a Committee for the purpose of
qualifying or opposing the qualification of a local measure.
Thus, there is no way under current law to reveal to the public
what individuals or firms are contributing funds to qualify or
oppose the qualification of a local measure for the ballot. It
is our belief that if the source and amount of such contributions
were a matter of public information it might influence the
willingness of some voters to sign petitions to qualify measures
for the ballot.
We are, therefore, building on the general direction given to the
County Administrator by the Board of Supervisors on October 30,
1991 to seek legislation which would authorize, but not require a
local agency to regulate these Committees prior to the time that
a local measure is qualified for the ballot. It is our
understanding that if the Board had such authority, it would
apply countywide to all "County measures" . It would not,
however, apply to strictly "city" measures unless the City
Council were to so apply it to their measures. Recommendation #
2 above would, if enacted by the Legislature and signed by the
Governor provide such authority to local agencies.
CONTRA COSTA COUNTY
MARTINEZ, CALIFORNIA
Date: January 23, 1991
To: Internal Operations Committee
From: Victor J. Westman, County Counsel
By: Arthur W. Walenta
Re: Local Campaign Reporting Requirements
The committee has requested a report from .County Counsel on
amending the Contra Costa County election campaign ordinance to
impose local reporting requirements on committees formed to support
or oppose local measures which have qualified for the ballot .
Attached is a copy of our July 9, 1990 memorandum which concludes
that the County could impose such requirements .
To extend local reporting requirements to. committees formed to
support or oppose qualified local ballot measures, the Board of
Supervisors could amend Ordinance Code sections 530-2 . 802, 530-
2 . 804, and 530-2. 806 to cover each "committee supporting or
opposing a candidate for county office and each committee
supporting or opposing a local ballot measure which is being voted
on only in Contra Costa County. "
AWW/jf
cc: Steven L. Weir, County Clerk-Recorder
Robert Delavati, Elections Supervisor
aww:a:\aww\memos\intopco.f
• - _ Cpl. V
COUNTY COUNSEL'S OFF/CE
CONTRA COSTA COUNTY
MARTINEZ, CALIFORNIA
Date: July 9, 1990
To: Board of Supervisors
From: Victor J. Westman, County Counsel
By:. Arthur W. Walenta, Assistant County Counsel
FW: Campaign Statement Requirements re Ballot Measures
For your information and review this office has prepared the
following discussion of basic campaign reporting requirements
applicable to committees which support or oppose local ballot
measures .
A. State Requirements
A local ballot measure is a 'measure' under the Political Reform
Act (Government Code section 82043 (all statutory references. herein
are to the Government Code] ) . A committee formed to support or
oppose a local county ballot measure which..receives $1000 or more in
contributions within a calendar year must file a statement of
organization within 10 days of such receipt, with the Secretary of
State and the County Clerk (section 84101) . A committee formed
primarily to support or oppose the qualification of a local ballot
measure is required to file semiannual statements under section
84200, but not until after the filing date for campaign statements
required by section 84200.5(f) .
Section 84200.5(f) requires that committees formed primarily to
support or oppose the qualification of. a ballot measure shall file a
campaign statement 21 days after the petitions are filed or 21 days
after the. deadline for filing petitions, whichever is earlier.
If a measure qualifies for the ballot, committees formed
primarily to support or oppose the measure shall also file
preelection statements as provided in section 84200.7 . (Section
84200.5(b) ) .
Additional special statements and reports, including late
contribution reports, are also required (section 84200.6 ) .
The campaign statements of committees formed to primarily support
or oppose local county measures shall be filed with the County Clerk.
(Section 84215(d) ) .
Board of Supervisors -2- July 9, 1990
Semiannual statements shall be filed no later than July 31 for
the period ending June 30 and January 31 for the period ending
December 31 (section 84200) .
Preelection statements for the November election period shall be
filed no later than October 5 for the period ending September 30, and
for the period ending 17 days before the election, shall be filed no
later than 12 days before the election (section 84200.7(b) ) .
The State Campaign Disclosure requirements for committees formed
to support or oppose the qualification or passage of ballot measures
are detailed in Campaign Disclosure Information Manual D (1990 )
published by the Fair Political Practices Commission.
B. Local Requirements
The Contra Costa County Election Campaign Ordinance (Ordinance
Code sections 530-2.202 et, seg. ) does not require local campaign
statements on the part of committees supporting or opposing local
ballot measures. The substantive requirements of the ordinance are
limited to candidates for county offices and committees supporting or
opposing such candidates . Ordinance Code section 530-2.222 mentions
committees formed primarily to support or oppose a local ballot
measure in Contra Costa County. But section 530-2.222 does not
impose reporting requirements. The function of that ordinance
provision is to conform the Ordinance Code to the requirements of
Government Code section 81009.5 (County Counsel memorandum dated
February 26, 1986 from Elizabeth B. Hearey to Lon Underwood) .
. Government Code section 81009.5 limits the additional filing
requirements which local agencies may enact, and the Ordinance Code
provision (Ord. 86-48) was drafted to implement the full authority
granted by the statute, even though the County Election Campaign
Ordinance does not otherwise cover committees supporting or opposing
local ballot measures .
Government Code section 81009 .5(b) prohibits local filing
requirements except as expressly authorized in that statute.:
" (b) Notwithstanding the provisions of Section
81013, no local government agency shall enact any
ordinance imposing filing requirements additional to
or different from those set forth in Chapter 4 for
elections held in its jurisdiction unless the
additional or different filing requirements apply
only to the candidates seeking election in that
jurisdiction, their controlled committees or
committees formed or existing primarily to support or
oppose their candidacies, and to committees formed or
existing primarily to support or oppose a candidate
or local ballot measure which is being voted only in
Board of Supervisors -3- July 9 , 1990
that jurisdiction, and to city or county general
purpose committees active only in that city or
county, respectively. " (Government Code S
81009 .5(b) ) .
The statute permits local filing requirements applicable to
committees formed to support or oppose local ballot measures, and the
Contra Costa County Ordinance could be amended accordingly. But as
to committees formed to support or oppose the qualification of ballot
measures, the law applicable to qualification of state measures also
governs at the local level, and under section 81009 .5 the county may
not enact additional requirements. The campaign disclosure
statements of committees supporting or opposing the qualification of
ballot measures are regulated solely by Government Code sections
84200(a) (4 ) and 84200.5(f ) .
AWW:fjb
cc: Phil Batchelor., County Administrator
FB-5 a:\aww\memos\BdSup.Req
I .O.-7
TO .. :. BOARD OF SUPERVISORS Contra
l
FROM: - Costa
INTERNAL OPERATIONS COMMITTEE 3: ;'" .• ,°s
County
DATE: October 22, 1990
SUBJECT: REPORT ON CAMPAIGN REPORTING REQUIRffiMENTS APPLICABLE TO
COMMITTEES SUPPORTING OR OPPOSING THE QUALIFICATION OF LOCAL
MEASURES FOR TIM BALLOT
SPECIFIC REOUEST(S)OR RECOMMENDATION(S)8 BACKGROUND AND JUSTIFICATION
RECOMMENDATIONS:
1 . Direct the County Administrator to include in the Board' s
1991 Legislative Program proposed legislation which would
authorize a County to regulate committees supporting or
opposing the qualification of local initiative or referenda
measures for the ballot, including requiring disclosure of
the amount and source of funds which have been obtained in
order to assist in qualifying a local measure for the
ballot.
2 . Authorize the 1991 Internal Operations Committee to review
the desirability of amending the Contra Costa County
Campaign Ordinance to extend the county reporting
requirements to committees formed to support or oppose local
ballot. measures.
BACKGROUND:
In June of 1990 the Board of Supervisors expressed their
concern that they could not find out what individuals or groups
were financing efforts to qualify various local ballot measures
for the ballot. County Counsel has issued an opinion indicating
that the Board of Supervisors does have authority to regulate the
CONTINUED ON ATTACHMENT: Y$13 YES SIGNATURE:
RECOMMENDATION OF COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMITTEE
APPROVE OTHER
SIGNATURE(S): SIIWWP.. WRT(;THT Mr-PEAK TOM POWERS
ACTION OF BOARD ON Qnt nhP r 3 0 ., 1990 APPROVED AS RECOMMENDED OTHER
disclosure of amounts and sources of funding for efforts to
support or oppose local -measures which have already qualified for
the ballot. The Board of Supervisors does not, however, have
authority to require disclosure of the amounts or sources of
funding for committees which may be attempting to qualify or
oppose the qualification of local measures for the ballot.
Our Committee believes that the Board of Supervisors should have
the authority to require the disclosure of the amounts and
sources of funding of committees which are attempting to qualify
or oppose the qualification of local measures for the ballot. In
addition, we believe that the Board of Supervisors should at
least explore the , extent to which it desires to require
additional disclosure of the amounts and sources of funding to
.committees which are supporting or opposing local measures which
have already qualified for the ballot. We are, therefore, making
the above recommendations in order to provide the Board of
Supervisors with the maximum discretion in this regard.
Contra Costa County
THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF �gq&XEEIOSTA COUNTY, CALIFORNIA
JUL 5 1990
Date: June 26 , 1990 Qifla o f MATTER OF RECORD
--------Counry AdminTis-r5Wor-------------------
Subject: Landfill Issues
Supervisor T. Torlakson advised that he would not be present
this afternoon when the Board considered the Keller Canyon
Landfill site and requested that decision on this matter be
deferred for two weeks.
Phil Batchelor, County Administrator, noted that the
applicant of the Keller Landfill proposal has requested that this
matter be continued 'to July 10, 1990, at 2 p.m. to afford him
opportunity to review recent documentation that has been received.
Board members agreed to declare their intent to continue this
matter to July 10 , and requested the County Administrator to so
notify the cities of Concord, Pittsburg, and E1 Cerrito.
Supervisor Torlakson referred' to the recent campaign material
distributed at the June election relative to the Keller site and
the East Contra Costa (Garaventa) site. He noted that some of the
material distributed was misleading.. He referred to a recent
mailer on an initiative effort (scheduled for the November ballot)
to block the Marsh Creek Landfill and estimated the cost of that
mailer to be between $15, 000 and $25,000. He proposed that County
Counsel be requested to review what was disclosed in the campaigns
relative to the landfill issues on the June ballot, and who is
financing the preparation and distribution of this campaign
material on the Marsh Canyon site.
V. J. . Westman, County Counsel, advised that he anticipated
having a report to the Board some time next week as to what are
the reporting requirements on initiatives and referendums. He
noted, however ; that the filing of financial reports on
initiatives and referendums are not required until after the
signed petitions have been filed with the County Clerk.
Supervisor Powers spoke on the need for the public to be
aware of who is sponsoring a petition. He recommended considera-
tion be given to enactment of a local ordinance that requires the
filing of disclosure information pertinent to a local initiative,
i.e. , who is involved. He expressed an interest in obtaining
information to the extent of the financial participation in any
activity of Waste Management and BFI relative to the landfill
sites.
Supervisor McPeak proposed that the questions being asked of
Waste Management and BFI also be asked of local haulers as to what
extent they have participated financially for or against any
ballot measure, any site, any lawsuits related to those sites and
have a full accounting and disclosure to this Board by July 10 ,
1990 .
Board members discussed the matter. . There was agreement that
County Counsel would report on the July 10 , 1990 Board Agenda,
Determination Section, on the issues of disclosure as referenced.
THIS IS A MATTER FOR RECORD PURPOSES ONLY.
cc: County Counsel
,i, county Administrator