Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMINUTES - 02041992 - IO.1 I0-1 TO: BOARD OF SUPERVISORS Contra _r. r : . Costa FROM: INTERNAL OPERATIONS COMMITTEE n� ;s County �� •yam DATE: January 27, 19 92 SUBJECT: STATUS REPORT ON PROPOSED CHANGES TO THE COUNTY'S CAMPAIGN ORDINANCE SPECIFIC REQUEST(S)OR RECOMMENDATION(S)&BACKGROUND AND JUSTIFICATION RECOMMENDATIONS: Request County Counsel to research the following questions and issues, incorporate as many of them as possible in a proposed Ordinance and report this matter back to our Committee on February 10, 1992, with the intent that our Committee will report this matter back to the Board on February 11, 1992, recommending the introduction of an Ordinance incorporating as many of these issues as possible: FAIR CAMPAIGN PLEDGE: 1 . Can the Board of Supervisors include in the voters ' handbook the names of those candidates who did and did not sign the Fair Campaign Pledge? 2 . If a candidate signs the Fair Campaign Pledge and then violates it, can the Board of Supervisors impose penalties or sanctions for the violation, even as an infraction or misdemeanor violation of a County Ordinance? CONTINUED ON ATTACHMENT: RYES SIGNATURE: RECOMMENDATION OF COUNTY A R OR RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMITTEE APPROVE O / SIGNATURE(S): HRODER SUNNE WRIGHT MC PEAK ACTION OF BOARD ON - 43 1992 APPROVED AS RECOMMENDED 2!L_ OTHER VOTE OF SUPERVISORS / �J I HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THIS IS A TRUE UNANIMOUS(ABSENT ) 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. County Administrator CC: County Counsel ATTESTED District Attorney PHIL BATCHELOR,CLERK OFTE BOARD OF County Clerk-Recorder SUPERVISORS AND COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR Assistant County Registrar n �� M382 (10/88) ,DEPUTY I0-1 -2- IN-KIND CONTRIBUTIONS: 3 . The current ordinance limits in-kind contributions from an individual (and cash contributions as well) to $225 in a calendar year when the candidate is not standing for election and $500 for each half of the calendar year when a candidate is standing for election. Can the Board of Supervisors increase only the in-kind contribution limit for space for a campaign headquarters to, for instance, $4000 for an entire election cycle, leaving all other contribution limits in place, pending resolution of the lawsuit over Proposition 73? THIRD-PARTY (UNCONTROLLED) COMMITTEES: 4 . The Board of Supervisors would like to require reporting requirements for such committees which are identical to those already required of candidates in the County' s Ordinance. The County Counsel ' s Office has already indicated that the Board of Supervisors has clear authority to impose such reporting requirements which will be included in the proposed Ordinance. 5 . Can the Board of Supervisors require that a third-party or uncontrolled committee file with the Elections Office (County Clerk) at least 48 hours before distribution, any campaign material which is proposed to be mailed or otherwise distributed, along with a sworn statement outlining the cost of distribution of the material? 6 . If a statement of the cost of distribution can be required per #5 above and it is subsequently violated by a third-party committee, can the Board of Supervisors include in its Ordinance any penalties for violating the sworn statement of the cost of distributing the material? BACKGROUND: On December 17, 1991, the Board of Supervisors referred to our Committee the possibility of changes to the County' s Campaign Ordinance. A number of specific questions were raised with the County Counsel ' s Office, the responses to which are contained in the attached memorandum dated January 22, 1992 . On January 27 , 1992 our Committee met with Mary Ann Mason, Deputy County Counsel and reviewed her January 22, 1992 memorandum in detail . It is important that the Board be aware of the fact that a Federal District Court has ruled that portions of Proposition 73 are unconstitutional and favor incumbents over challengers . The specific provisions declared unconstitutional were those which limited campaign contributions to a fixed dollar amount on an annual basis, rather than on the basis of a complete election cycle. This Federal District Court decision is on appeal to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals in San Francisco. It is unknown when the appellate court may render a decision in this case and whether the case will eventually end up before the U.S. Supreme Court. In the meantime, it is unclear what the rules on campaign contributions are or should be. Since the Board of Supervisors conformed its Campaign Ordinance to Proposition 73, portions of the County' s Ordinance may be either invalidated by a final appellate decision upholding the Federal District Court ruling or may be upheld if Proposition 73 is eventually upheld on appeal . I0-1 -3- In the meantime, however, our Committee believes that some changes are necessary in order to strengthen the County' s Ordinance, regardless of what finally happens with Proposition 73 . These issues are outlined above in the form of questions to County Counsel . We have asked County Counsel to incorporate as many of these points as possible in a proposed Ordinance which we can review on February 10, 1992 . We plan to bring the Ordinance to the Board for introduction on February 11, 1992 and for adoption on February 25, 1992 , permitting the Ordinance to become effective approximately March 25, 1992 .