Administrative
Report
N.2., File # 22-3849 Meeting Date: 4/5/2022
To: MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL
From: ELEANOR MANZANO, CITY CLERK MICHAEL W. WEBB, CITY
ATTORNEY ELIZABETH HAUSE, ASSISTANT
TO THE CITY MANAGER
TITLE
DISCUSSION AND POSSIBLE ACTION ON A REPORT REGARDING UPDATES TO THE
CAMPAIGN FINANCE ORDINANCE AND ENFORCEMENT OPTIONS
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
One of the Objectives within the Strategic Plan is a report to the City Council on possible updates to the City’s Campaign Finance Ordinance and a review of enforcement options. The report provides three enforcement options for City Council discussion and consideration:
1) Assign investigatory duties of the Ordinance to the Redondo Beach Police Department; 2) Contract with an outside consultant to provide investigation services; or 3) Rescind the City’s Ordinance, thereby making State limits on city campaign donations applicable to all candidates for elective office within Redondo Beach and passing investigatory duties to the Fair Political Practices Commission (FPPC).
Prosecution responsibility would remain with the City Attorney’s Office for any cases referred under all three options. From an objectivity and consistency of enforcement and an overall operational efficiency standpoint the City Manager, City Clerk, and the City Attorney unanimously recommend the City Council pursue option 3.
BACKGROUND
The City’s Campaign Finance Ordinance (RB Ordinance 3184-18 - Exhibit A) was adopted on January 8, 2019, and placed limits on the amount donors may contribute to political campaigns in municipal elections for the positions of Mayor and City Council. At the time of Ordinance adoption there were no State limits on the amount of political donations that applied to city elections.
However, later that year, in October 2019, Assembly Bill 571 was enacted to amend the California Political Reform Act, creating campaign contribution limits ($4,900 per election) for elective offices not covered by local ordinance (effective January 1, 2020, operative January 1, 2021). For the City of Redondo Beach, this includes the offices of the City Attorney, City Clerk, City Treasurer and the School Board. Table 1 below shows current campaign contribution limits which is a mix of those set by Ordinance 3184-18 and AB 571.
Table 1
Office Regulatory Document Campaign Contribution
Limits
Mayor O 3184-18 (CRB) $2,700.00
City Council O 3184-18 (CRB) $1,050.00
City Attorney AB 571 (CA) $4,900.00
$
N.2., File # 22-3849 Meeting Date: 4/5/2022
Table 1
Office Regulatory Document Campaign Contribution
Limits
Mayor O 3184-18 (CRB) $2,700.00
City Council O 3184-18 (CRB) $1,050.00
City Attorney AB 571 (CA) $4,900.00
City Clerk AB 571 (CA) $4,900.00
City Treasurer AB 571 (CA) $4,900.00
School Board AB 571 (CA) $4,900.00
One important provision of AB 571 is that the FPPC is not responsible for the administration or enforcement of any city’s local campaign finance ordinance if it differs from the limit set forth in AB 571. As an example of this, prior to the adoption of AB 571, the FPPC had investigated and referred to the Torrance City Attorney for criminal prosecution an allegation that a candidate had violated the City of Torrance contribution limits. This method of processing allegations changed with the adoption of AB 571. The Redondo Beach City Council was advised of this change last year and a Budget Response Report (BRR #58, Exhibit B) was prepared by then City Manager Joe Hoefgen and City Clerk Eleanor Manzano. The BRR presented options for investigation of alleged violations of campaign contributions. No action was taken by the City Council at that time.
The City’s Campaign Finance Ordinance provides for enforcement only through criminal prosecution, rather than less punitive potential administrative or civil sanctions, stating “Any person violating any of the provisions of this chapter shall be guilty of a misdemeanor” (Section 2-2.309). However, the enforcement of the Ordinance requires two separate actions take place: investigation and then - if findings deem it appropriate - prosecution.
Currently, the City’s Campaign Finance Ordinance does not specify the method of investigation nor has a method of investigation been established since its adoption. By contrast, under California’s regulations (specifically Government Code § 11180 and 11181), the State has vested investigatory authority in the Fair Political Practices Commission (FPPC) for violations of the Political Reform Act.
For prosecution, the Political Reform Act provides that “(i)n any case in which a district attorney could act as the civil or criminal prosecutor under the provisions of this title, the elected city attorney of any charter city may act as the civil or criminal prosecutor with respect to any violations of this title occurring within the city.” As such, candidates for the offices of City Attorney, City Clerk, City Treasurer and the School Board operate under a clearly-defined and established enforcement framework, whereas candidates for the offices of Mayor and City Council do not.
There are three options available to the City in the pursuance of investigations of alleged violations of the local Ordinance:
1. Assign investigation duties to the Redondo Beach Police Department, with criminal prosecution falling under the purview of the City Attorney’s office.
2. Contract with an outside consultant to provide investigation services, with prosecution falling under the purview of the City Attorney’s office.
3. Rescind the City’s Ordinance, thereby passing investigatory duties to the FPPC. Should FPPC findings deem a violation was committed, enforcement may take place administratively,
N.2., File # 22-3849 Meeting Date: 4/5/2022
civilly, or by referral for criminal prosecution to the City Attorney.
1. Redondo Beach PD Investigation, City Attorney Criminal Prosecution Under this option, the Redondo Beach Police Department would undertake investigatory responsibility. This new assignment would require the institution of a formal investigatory framework, the establishment of a specialized unit, and training of officers assigned to the unit. Although feasible, the installation of this enforcement program would take time and continual assessments would need to occur to ensure the efficiency and efficacy of the unit. What should also be considered with this option is the prospective repercussions of having an otherwise un-politicized arm of the City’s administration lead investigations of elected officials.
Once an investigation is complete, should a violation be found, the case would be referred to the City Attorney’s office for prosecution.
2. External Consultant Investigation, City Attorney Criminal Prosecution Under this enforcement option, the City would retain the services of a consultant to perform investigations. Once an investigation is complete, should a violation be found prosecution of the case would be referred to the City Attorney’s office.
The cost of this option is largely based on the number of claims filed as well as the extent of investigation demanded by the allegations, and is therefore difficult to estimate. Based on comparable service contracts currently in place, preliminary cost estimates indicate a potential rate of $15,000-$30,000 per investigation. Staff contacted surrounding cities with this particular investigatory framework in place and inquired about costs incurred. Thus far, these cities have not retained consultant services for violation investigations.
3. Rescind City Ordinance, FPPC Assumes Investigative Responsibility, City Attorney Criminal Prosecution
Under this option, the City would rescind its Campaign Finance Ordinance, thereby defaulting to the State’s Political Reform Act for campaign financing parameters and the FPPC for investigation.
Should FPPC findings deem a violation was committed, enforcement may take place administratively, civilly, or - for the most egregious violations - by referral for criminal prosecution by the City Attorney.
This option would have the benefit of candidates for all elected positions in the City being under the same regulatory and enforcement framework. Also, the investigation would be done by an independent State Agency with extensive experience in doing these types of investigations. A review of the FPPC’s authority and methodology is attached to this report (Exhibit D).
The Council should decide which of the three options it prefers. 1) If the Council prefers the first option, the City Manager can task the Police Chief with undertaking investigatory responsibility of any future allegations regarding violation of the City’s Campaign Finance Ordinance. Under this option further budget/organizational assessment will be needed to determine what specific PD personnel would be directed to campaign investigative efforts and the impact that allocation of resources would have on current Department services. 2) If the Council prefers the second option, the City Manager will return with a list of outside consultants who can perform investigations of any future allegations regarding violation of the City’s
N.2., File # 22-3849 Meeting Date: 4/5/2022
Campaign Finance Ordinance.
3) If the Council prefers the third option, the City Attorney will return with an item to rescind the City’s Ordinance at a future City Council Meeting, thereby defaulting to the State’s Political Reform Act for campaign financing parameters and the FPPC for investigation for all candidates for elective office in the City.
Given the adoption of AB 571 and the recent implementation of State campaign limits for local elective offices it is the unanimous recommendation of the City Manager, City Clerk, and the City Attorney that the City Council pursue option 3.
COORDINATION
The City Clerk’s office, City Manager’s office and City Attorney’s office collaborated on the development of this administrative report.
FISCAL IMPACT
Option 1 would incur additional staff and training costs for Police Department personnel assigned to the investigation of allegations of violations of the City’s Campaign Finance Ordinance. This cost has not yet been determined. Option 2 would incur approximately $15,000-$30,000 in consultant fees per investigation, though the ultimate fiscal impact is difficult to determine as it is dependent on the number and scope of future complaints. Option 3 would pass all investigation costs to the FPPC.
APPROVED BY:
Mike Witzansky, City Manager
ATTACHMENTS
Exhibit A: City Ordinance 3184-18
Exhibit B: Budget Response Report #58
Exhibit C: FPPC 2021 Contribution Limits Sheet
Exhibit D: FPPC Presentation on Investigation and Enforcement Methodology