• Basis to Restrict Campaign Contributions: The only legitimate governmental interests that sustain campaign contribution limits are the (i) prevention of actual cocruption, (ii) prevention of apparent corruption, or (iii) prevention of circumventing legitimate campaign finance restrictions. (See Buckley, 424 U.S. at 26-28; SEIU v. Fair Pol. Pract. th • Comm 'n (9 Cir. 1992) 955 F. 2d 1312, 132 l.)
• Local Restrictions May be More Strict than State Law: State and local campaign finance activity is regulated by the California Political Reform Act (Cal. Govt. Code §§ 81000 et seq.) (the "PRA"). The PRA imposes disclosure (registration and reporting) requirements on local candidates and committees but does not impose contribution limits on candidates seeking local office. 1 The PRA specifically authorizes cities to enact contribution and disclosure laws that are more stringent than state law. (See Cal. Govt.
Code§ 81013.)
• A Pending United States Supreme Court Decision Could Alter the Legal Landscape: The United States Supreme Court is considering a case that may significantly impact state and local government regulation of campaign finance activity. (Citizens United v. Fed.I Elections Comm 'n, Docket No. 08-205, 129 S. Ct. 594.) One question before the Court is whether the U.S. Constitution prohibits a total ban on corporate and union contributions. (Citizens United, Docket No. 08-205, 129 S. Ct. 2893.) The federal government, several states and a number of California cities presently ban corporations and other business entities from making campaign contributions.
B. Analysis of the Proposed Campaign Finance Ordinance
This section summarizes our concerns with specific sections of the proposed campaign finance ordinance. This memorandum follows the section numbering system of the proposed ordinance.
• 2.06.010 Campaign Finance Reform, Purpose: The stated purposes of the proposed ordinance are to (i) limit large contributions from single sources, (ii) prevent corruption and the appearance of corruption and (iii) provide "representative government that is accessible to all citizens."
o The Buckley decision allows restrictions enacted for the purpose of preventing actual corruption or the appearance of corruption. As a result, the proposed ordinance There is one exception to this. The Levine Act (Cal. Govt. Code § 84308) limits local appointed officers (e.g. planning commissioners), but not elected officers, from receiving more than $250 from certain persons (and their agents) who have pending applications before a local agency. This memorandum does not further discuss this limitation. 2156/062266-0134
1050091.01 al 1/12/09
72 Mayor Donchak and Members of the San
Clemente City Council
December 15, 2009
asserts an appropriate regulatory interest for the City. However, we recommend that a revised ordinance include more specific language to justify the governmental purpose for the proposed restrictions.
o We have some concern relating to the expression that the ordinance is meant to provide government that is "accessible to all citizens." This statement may be viewed as an attempt to "level the playing field." Several Supreme Court decisions seem to reject the notion that "leveling the playing field" is a legitimate governmental interest. (See SEIU, 955 F. 2d at 1318 ["[T]he concept that government may restrict the speech of some elements of our society in order to enhance the relative voice of others is wholly foreign to the First Amendment."].) We recommend deleting this language. • 2.06.030 Contribution Limitations: The proposed ordinance limits contributions and loans by a "person" to a "candidate" or "committees controlled by the candidate" to $2,400 for any "election."
o Contribution limits are permissible if the limit does not "burden substantially more speech than is necessary to further the government's legitimate interests." (Ward v.
Rock Against Racism (1989) 491 U.S. 781, 799.) Many cities in California have enacted monetary limits. (See Orange Mun. Code. § 2.10.050 [$1,000 per election cycle]; San Diego Mun. Code§ 27.2935 [$500 per election].) The limit contained in the proposed ordinance ($2,400) is actually much higher than many comparable jurisdictions that have contribution limits (e.g., Dana Point presently has a $590 per election limit; Laguna Niguel has a $1,000 per election limit). As a result, unless the United States Supreme Court in the pending Citizens United case overturns its own Buckley v. Valeo decision and charts an entirely new course with respect to the validity of campaign contribution limitations, the proposed dollar limit is likely permissible. (See, Nixon 528 U.S. at 397.)
o The proposed ordinance does not define "person." The PRA defines person broadly to include entities (companies, partnerships, unincorporated associations, etc.) as well as individuals. (Cal. Govt. Code § 82047.) The proposed ordinance also does not define the term "contribution." The PRA has a comprehensive definition of "contribution." (Cal. Govt. Code§ 82015.) A revised ordinance should define these terms.
o The City Council should consider whether to ban certain entities from making contributions in City elections. California law permits corporations and other business entities to make campaign contributions. However, some cities only permit "individuals" to make contributions. (See San Diego Mun. Code § 27.2950.) Presently, federal court decisions allow bans on certain entities making contributions. 2156/062266-0134
1050091.01 al 1/12/09
73 Mayor Donchak and Members of the San
Clemente City Council
December 15, 2009
(See Austin v. Michigan Chamber of Commerce (l 990) 494 U.S. 652, 659.) As noted above, the Supreme Court may re-consider the constitutionality of banning corporate contributions in the Citizens United case.
o The proposed ordinance impliedly limits a candidate from contributing more than $2,400 in personal funds to his or her candidacy. (See Proposed Ord. at § 2.06.030 ["No person shall make ... "].) The Supreme Court has determined that it is unconstitutional to limit a candidate from using his or her own personal wealth to fund a campaign. (Buckley, 424 U.S. at 53.) Therefore, we recommend clearly indicating that a candidate's personal funds are not subject to limitation. o The proposed ordinance only limits contributions to a "candidate for elective office" or "all political committees or broad-based political committees controlled by the candidate." The proposed ordinance does not limit contributions to other committees that provide contributions to candidates for City elections. The omission of "noncandidate controlled" committees from the contribution limits should be discussed by the City Council, since the proposed ordinance contains a significant "loophole" in this regard.2
• 2.06.030(c) Extension of Credit: The proposed ordinance prohibits extensions of credit beyond 90 days. The proposed ordinance does not indicate whether the extension of credit constitutes a "contribution" that is subject to the $2,400 limit. The Fair Political Practices Commission ("FPPC") has enacted regulations that treat extensions of credit as "contributions" in certain circumstances. (2 Cal. Code Regs. § 18530. 7; see also Cal.
Govt. Code § 85307.) We would recommend that extensions of credit be treated consistently with state law to prevent inconsistency in enforcement. • General Observations
o Many local campaign finance ordinances incorporate the PRA's definitions to prevent ambiguity. As noted above, a number of terms are not defined in the proposed ordinance. We recommend this course of action.
2 Government agencies are subject to "strict scrutiny" if they enact restrictions on "independent expenditures" (i.e., expenditures by persons or committees that are not coordinated with a candidate). (Lincoln Club v. City of Irvine (9th Cir. 2002) 292 P.3d 934.) California law does not limit contributions to independent expenditure committees. Restricting contributions to committees for the purpose making independent expenditures must be carefully reviewed.
However, the City could restrict the dollar amount of contributions to committees that contribute directly to candidates.
2 I 5 6/062266-0 134
1050091.01 al 1/12/09
74 Mayor Donchak and Members of the San
Clemente City Council
December 15, 2009
o The PRA establishes "affiliation rules" that aggregate contributions from multiple sources if the multiple sources are, in general terms, "directed or controlled" by the same person, management structure, or nucleus of persons. (Cal. Govt. Code § 85311.) Section 2.06.0 l O states that a purpose of the ordinance is to limit large contributions from "single sources." [n our experience, often a single source controls several entities. Therefore, the City Council should consider whether a City ordinance should include specific affiliation rules.
You may contact either Jeff Oderman or Michael Houston at 714-641-5100 if you have any questions about this memorandum.
2156/062266-0 l 34
1050091.0l al 1/12/09
75 Memorandum
To: Mayor Dahl and Members of the San Clemente City Council cc: City Clerk
From: John Alpay
Date: December 31, 2009
Re: Alpay Political Reform Act
Introduction
O\/o 5/\.o
l OA
In response to the review and analysis of the Al pay Political Reform Act ("APRA") prepared by Messrs Oderman and Houston of Rutan & Tucker, LLP in their Memorandum dated December 15, 2009 (the "Rutan Memorandum") and in anticipation of Item 10-A of the Council's meeting scheduled for January 5, 2010, this document serves to highlight additional modifications made to the APRA.
Attached to this memorandum as Exhibit A is the most current revised version of the APRA.
The original draft APRA included both campaign finance reform and term limits for candidates. Because the council on November 2, 2009 voted to end debate on the subject of term limits, a revision of the APRA became necessary. In addition, the Rutan Memorandum raises a few minor points and makes some well considered suggestions for the APRA, many of which are now incorporated into this latest version of the APRA.
Please note that to the extent possible, the APRA is designed to be simple and straight forward in its application. Campaign finance laws can be extraordinarily complex given the multitude of campaign financing vehicles available. However given the size of San Clemente and the apparent lack of use of many of the more complex vehicles ( such as independent expenditure committees) in the most recent city council election, the city would be well served to implement simplified campaign finance laws. The APRA, just over one page in length, achieves that goal.
As the city continues to grow and gain additional sophistication in city elections, the council can consider and implement additional restrictions to the extent they are deemed necessary.
For now, it is my recommendation to the council that it impose simplified campaign contribution limits in a manner consistent and complimentary with the California Political Reform Act (Cal. Govt. Code §§ 81000 et seq.) by adopting this latest draft of the APRA. 76 Mayor Dahl and Members of the San Clemente City Council December 31, 2009
Discussion of Key Changes
The Rutan Memorandum raises a few issues which have been addressed by the new revised version of the APRA. To highlight the changes, each item is discussed briefly below·. • Stated Purpose of APRA. The Rutan Memorandum is correct in its analysis of what constitutes legitimate government interests allowing for the imposition of campaign contribution limits, but does suggest that it is not expressed sufficiently in the APRA.
The new Section 2.06.020 of the APRA restates its intended purpose by utilizing the language provided by the majority opinion expressed in Buckley v. Valeo ( 1976) 424 U.S. I and should resolve any remaining legal concerns. • Definition of Person. The Rutan Memorandum correctly points out that certain terms are not defined in the APRA. As the intent of the APRA is to work hand in hand with state law, Section 2.06.050 of the APRA now ties to the definitions set forth in the California Political Reform Act (Cal. Govt. Code§§ 81000 et seq.). • Applicability to Entities. The Rutan Memorandum suggests that the council consider banning entities from making contributions in city elections. I disagree. The San Clemente Municipal Code currently puts no additional restrictions on corporations or other fictitious individuals. To remain consistent with state law and to avoid making enforcement more difficult for the city, the APRA does not treat legal entities differently than individuals. In addition, the potential exists for the United States Supreme Court to make such distinctions unconstitutional. (Citizens United v. Fed.I Elections Comm 'n, Docket No. 08-205, 129 S. Ct. 594).
• Use of Personal Funds. Despite suggestions by the Rutan Memorandum to the contrary, the APRA does not seek to impose restrictions on a candidate's use of his own financial resources. However, to clarify the issue further, the APRA now explicitly states in Section 2.06.040 (b) that the APRA shall not limit the ability of a candidate to directly contribute or loan money to his or her campaign. • Affiliations. Finally, the Rutan Memorandum suggests that the council consider modifying the APRA to include certain affiliation rules that aggregate contributions from multiple sources if the multiple sources are, in general terms "directed or controlled" by the same person, management structure or nucleus of persons. l believe this to be an excellent suggestion. The new Section 2.06.070 of the APRA incorporates the affiliation rules utilized by the state (Cal. Govt. Code§ 85311).
Affiliation rules would serve to prevent multiple donations from one source through numerous entities.
77 Mayor Dahl and Members of the San Clemente City Council December 31, 2009
Recommendation & Conclusion
The APRA is an efficient vehicle for San Clemente to make a policy statement and implement campaign contribution limits. The council would be well served to instruct the city attorney to prepare the necessary resolution to implement the APRA. 78 Mayor Dahl and Members of the San Clemente City Council December 3 l, 2009
Title 2 Administration and Personnel
Chapter 2.06 Elections
2.06.010 Short Title
Exhibit A
This Chapter shall be referred to as the "Alpay Political Reform Act."
2.06.020 Purpose.
The purpose of this Chapter is provide a representative government free from corruption and the appearance of corruption caused by the coercive influence of large monetary contributions on candidates' positions while leaving persons free to engage in independent political expression, to associate actively through volunteeri~g their services, and to assist to a limited but nonetheless substantial extent in supporting candidates with financial resources.
2.06.030 Interpretation.
This Chapter shall be liberally construed to accomplish its purposes.
2.06.040 Application.
(a) City Council Elections. This Chapter shall apply solely to municipal elections for positions on the San Clemente City Council and not to other elected offices within the City. (b) Candidate Contributions. Nothing in this Chapter shall be construed as limiting or otherwise impairing the ability of a candidate to directly make monetary contributions or loans to his own campaign.
2.06.050 Definitions.
Unless the contrary is stated or clearly appears from the context, the definitions set forth in the California Political Reform Act (Cal. Govt. Code §§ 81000 et seq.) shall govern the interpretation of this Chapter.
2.06.060 Contribution and Loan Limitations.
(a) Contributions. No person shall make, and no candidate for elective office, or campaign treasurer, shall solicit or accept any monetary contribution which would cause the total monetary amount contributed by that person to that candidate, including contributions 79 Mayor Dahl and Members of the San Clemente City Council December 31, 2009
or loans to all political committees or broad-based political committees controlled by the candidate, to exceed two thousand four hundred dollars ($2,400) for any election. (b) Loans. No person shall make, and no candidate for elective office, or campaign treasurer, shall solicit or accept any loan from a person which would cause the candidate, including loans to all political committees or broad-based political committees controlled by the candidate, to exceed two thousand four hundred dollars ($2,400) for any election.
2.06.070 Affiliations.
(a) Contributions by Entities. The contributions of an entity whose contributions are directed and controlled by any individual shall be aggregated with contributions made by that individual and any other entity whose contributions are directed and controlled by the same individual.
(b) Contributions by Controlled Entities. If two or more entities make contributions that are directed and controlled by a majority of the same persons, the contributions of those entities shall be aggregated.
(c) Contributions by Majority Owned Entities. Contributions made by entities that are majority owned by any person shall be aggregated with the contributions of the majority owner and all other entities majority owned by that person, unless those entities act independently in their decisions to make contributions. 80 'RUTAN Rutan & Tucker, LLP 611 Anion Olvd., Suite 1400 PO Box 1gso
Ccsta Mesa, CA 92621l--l950
OfU\14Gc COUIHY
PALO Al TO
(65-0) 370.1500
(714) 641-5100 Fax [7,4) 546-.9035
,,ww.rutan.com A PARTNERSKlr INCLUDING PROFESSIONAL COl-!PORAT!Qf'jS
MEMORANDUM
TO: Mayor Donchak and Members of the San Clemente City Council FROM: City Attorney Jeffrey M. Oderman
Michael R.W. Houston, Esq.
DATE: December 15, 2009
JrJLE NO.: 062266-0134
RE: Proposed Model Ordinance Imposing Campaign Contributions Limitations I. Introduction
This memorandum reviews_ a proposed campaign finance ordinance prepared by Mr. -John Alpay that would limit the amount of campaign contributions to candidates for the San Clemente City Council. (Mr. Alpay's proposed ordinance also addresses term limits, which subject the City Council has already addressed and is not further discussed in this memorandum.) IL Recommendation
If the City Council desires to further consider a campaign finance ordinance, theri the Council should direct the City Attorney to re-draft Mr. Alpay's proposed ordinance consistent wjth the recommendations noted below, along with any other items directed by the City Council.
III. Analysis
A Legal Overview
• Campaign Contributions are Protected by the First Amendment: Campaign contributions are a type of "core" First Amendment speech and are therefore subject to significant protection. Restrictions on campaign contributions are subject to a "rigorous" standard of judicial review. (Nixon v. Shrinkkfissouri Gov't PAC (2000) 528 U.S. 377, 87-88.) • Standard for Upholding Restrictions on Contributions: Campaign contribution restrictions are constitutional only if the government agency demonstrates a sufficiently imp01tant interest and employs means closely drawn to avoid unnecessary abridgement of associational freedoms. (Buckley v. Valeo (1976) 424 U.S. 1, 25.) 2156/062266-0 ! 34
1050091.0l al i/J2/09
81 Mayor Donchak and Members ofth_e San
Clemente City Council
December 15, 2009
Page2
• Basis to Restrict Campaign Contributions: The only legitimate governmental interests that sustain campaign contribution limits are the (i) prevention of actual corruption, (ii) prevention of apparent corrupt1on, or (iii) prevention of circumventing legitimate campaign finance restrictions. (See Buckley, 424 U.S. at 26-28; SE!U v. Fair Pol. Pract. th
Comm'n (9 Cir. 1992) 955 F. 2d 1312, 1321.)
• Local Restrictions May be More Strict than State Law: State and local campaign finance activity is regulated by the California Political Reform Act (Ca]. Govt. Code §§ 81000 et seq.) (the «PRA"). The PRA imposes disclosure (registration and reporting) requirements on local candidates and committees but does not impose contribution limits on candidates seeking local office. 1 The PRA specifically authorizes cities to enact contribution and disclosure laws that are more stringent than state Jaw. (See Cal. Govt.
Code§ 81013.)
• A Pending United States Supreme Court Decision Could Alter the Legal Landscape: The United States Supreme Court is considering a case that may significantly impact state and local government regulation of campaign finance activity. (Citizens United v. Fed.I Elections Comm 'n, Docket No, 08-205, 129 S.,Ct. 594.) One question before the Court is _ whether the U.S. Constitution prohibits a total ban on corporate and union contributions. (Citizens United, Docket No. 08-205, 129 S. Ct. 2893.) The federal government, several states and a number of California cities presently ban corporations and other husiness entities from making campaign contributions.
B. Analvsis of the Proposed Campaign Finance Ordinance
This section summarizes our concerns with specific sections of the proposed campaign finance ordinance. This memorandum follows the section numbering system of the proposed ordinance.
• 2.06.010 Campaign Finance Reform. Purpose: The stated purposes of the proposed ordinance are to (i) limit large contributions from single sources, (ii) prevent cmruption and the appearance of corruption and (iii) provide "representative government that is accessible to all citizens."
o The Bucfcley decision allows restrictions enacted for the purpose of preventing act,ial cormption or the appearance of corruption. As a result, the proposed ordinance There is one .exception to this. The Levine Act (Cal. Govt. Code § 84308) limits local appointed officers (e.g. planning commissioners), but not elected officers, from receiving more (
than $250 from certain persons (and their agents) who have pending applications before a local i agency. This memorandum does not further discuss this iimitation. 21 56/062266-0 I J4
10500910111I 1/12/09
82 Mayor Donchak and Members of the San
Clemente City Council
December 15, 2009
asserts an appropriate regulatory interest for the City. However, we recommend that a revised ordinance include more specific language to justify the governmental purpose for the proposed restrictions.
o We have some concern relating to the expression that the ordinance is meant to provide government that is "accessible to all citizens." This statement may be viewed as an attempt to "level the playing field." Several Supreme Court decisions seem to reject the notion that "leveling the playing field" is a legitimate governmental interest. (See SEW, 955 F. 2d at 1318 ["[Tihe concept that government may restrict the speech of some elements of our society in order to enhance the relative voice of others is wholly foreign to the First Amendment."].) We recommend deleting this language. • 2.06.030 Contribution Limitations: The proposed ordinance limits contributions and loans by a "person" to a "candidate" or "committees controlled by the candidate" to $2,400 for any "election."
o Contribution limits are permissible if the limit does not "burden substantially more speech than is necessary to further the government's legitimate interests." (Ward v.
Rock Against Racism (1989) 491 U.S. 781, 799.) Many cities in California have enacted monetary limits. (See Orange Mun. Code. § 2.10.050 [$1,000 per election cycle]; San Diego Mun. Code § 27.2935 [$500 per election].) The limit contained in the proposed ordinance ($2,400) 1s actually much higher than many comparable jurisdictions that have contribution limits (e.g., Dana Point presently has a $590 per election limit; Laguna Niguei"has a $1,000 per election limit). As a result, unless the United States Supreme Court in the pending Citizens Uniled case overturns its own Buckley v. Valeo decision and charts an entirely new course with respect to the validity of campaign contribution limitations, the proposed dollar limit is likely permissible. (See, Nl~xon 528 U.S. at 397.)
o The proposed ordinance does not define "person." The PRA defines person broadly to include entities (companies, partnerships, unincorporated associations, etc.) as well as individuals. (Cal. Govt. Code § 82047.) The proposed ordinance also does not define the term "contribution." The PRA has a comprehensive definition of "contribution." (Cal. Govt. Code § 82015.) A revised oTdinance should define these terms.
o The City Council should consider whether to ban certain entities from making contributions in City elections. Ca!ifomia law permits corporations and other husincss entities to make campa1gn contributions. However, some cities only permit "individuals" to make contributions. (See San Diego Mun. Code § 27 .2950.) Presently, federal court decisions allow bans on certain entities making contributions. 2156(06226{,-0134
1050091.01 al !/12109
83 Mayor Donchak and Members of the San
Clemente City Council
December 15, 2009
(See Austin v. lvfichigan Chamber cif Commerce ( 1990) 494 U.S. 652, 659.) As noted above, the Supreme Court may re-consider the constitutionality of banning corporate contributions in the Citizens United case.
o The proposed ordinance impliedly limits a candidate from contributing more than $2,400 in personal funds to his or her candidacy. (See Proposed Ord. at § 2.06.030 ["No person shall make ... ").) The Supreme Court has determined that it is unconstitutional to limit a candidate from using his or her own personal wealth to fund a campaign. (Buckley, 424 U.S. at 53.) Therefore, we recommend clearly indicating that a candidate's personal funds are not subject to limitation. (
o The proposed ordinance only limits contributions to a "candidate for elective office" or "all political committees or· broad-based political committees controlled by the candidate." The proposed ordinance does not limit contributions to other committees that provide contributions to candidates for City elections. The omission of "noncandidatc controlled" committees from the contribution limits should be discussed by the City Council, since the proposed ordinance contains a significant "loophole" in this regard. 2 . (
• 2.06.030(c) Extension of Credit: The proposed ordinance prohibits extensions of credit beyond 90 days. • The proposed ordinance does not indicate whether the extension of credit constitutes a "contribution" that is subject to the $2,400 limit. The Fair Political Practices Commission ("FPPC") has enacted regulations that treat extensions of credit as "contributions" in certain circumstances. (2 Cal. Code Regs. § 18530.7; see also Cal. . Govt. Code § 85307.) We would recommend that extensions of credit be treated . consistently with state law to prevent inconsistency in enforcement. • • General Observations
o Many local campaign finance ordinances incorporate the PRA's definitions to prevent ambiguity. As noted above) a numbe1: of terms are not defined in the proposed ordinance. We recommend this course of action.
2 Government agencies are subject to "strict scrutiny" if they enact restnct10ns on "independent expenditures" (i.e., expenditmes by persons or committees that arc not coordinated with a candidate). (Lincoln Club v. City of Irvine (9th Cir. 2002) 292 P.3d 934.) California law does riot limit contributions to independent expenditure committees. Restricting contributions to committees for the purpose making independent exp~nditures must be can::fully reviewed.
However, the City could restrict the dollar amount of contributions to committees that contribute directly to candidates.
2156/062266-013~
105009 LOI al 1/12/09
84 Mayor Donchak·and Members of the San
Clemente City Council
December 15, 2009
o The PRA establishes ''affiliation rules" that aggregate contributions from multiple sources if the multiple sources are, in general terms, "directed or controlled" by the same person, management structure, or nucleus of persons. (Cal. Govt. Code § 85311.) Section 2.06.010 states that a purpose of the ordinance is to limit large contributions from "single sources." In our experience, often .a single source controls several entities. TI1erefore, the City Council should consider whether a City ordinance should include specific affiliation rnles.
You may contact either Jeff Odcrman or Michael Houston at 714-641-5100 if you have any questions about this memorandum. •
2156/062266-0 134
1050091.01 ~I t/12/09
85 Revised
Survey Conducted by City Clerk's Office
1/5'/.MIO
/tJ4
22 of 34 Orange County Cities (64.7%) do not limit campaign contributions 12 of 34 Orange County Cities (35.3%) have enacted contribution limits Aliso Viejo
Anaheim
Brea
Buena Park
Costa Mesa
Cypress
Dana Point
Fountain Valley
Fullerton
Garden Grove
Huntington Beach
Irvine
La Habra
La Palma
Laguna Beach
Laguna Hills
Laguna Niguel
Laguna Woods
Lake Forest
Los Alamitos
Mission Viejo
Newport Beach
Orange
Placentia
Rancho Santa Margarita
San Juan Capistrano
Santa Ana
Seal Beach
Stanton
Tustin
45,249
343,973
40,081
82,768
113,011
49,541
37,082
54,797
137,437
173,067
201,993
212,793 .
62,635
16,176
23,727
33,421
67,178
18,442
78,317
12,191
100,242
86,252
138,640
51,727
49,764
33,826
353,184
25,986
39,276
74,128
No
Yes
No
No
No
No
Yes
Yes
No
No
Yes
Yes
No
No
Yes
No
Yes
Yes
No
No
No
Yes
Yes
No
No
Yes
Yes
No
No
No
Currently $1700. Limit is adjusted in odd-even numbered years based on CPI.
Currently $630. Limit~ci_djusted during ejection years based on CPI. $500 Limit.
$500 Limit.
No more than $500.00 per election S_'{cle
$440 for current election cycle 1/1/09-12/31/09 - Based on CPI for Los Angeles/ Anaheim/Riverside Area.
Currently $360. limit is adjusted in even numbered years based on CPI. $1000 limit.
$250 limit.
$1000 limit.
$1000 Limit.
$250 limit.
$1000 Limit
Will consider establishing limits in January
~
86 'Revised
Survey Conducted by City Clerk's Office
22 of 34 Orange County Cities (64.7%} do not limit campaign contributions 12 of 34 Orange County Cities (35.3%) have enacted contribution limits Villa Park 6,259
Westminister 93,027
Yorba Linda 68,312
rrroest CllU~cTfuri~p·o~ rt~if~11:.:~ !~q •~-~ f camP.a1gn,contnbut1on"' i1%'itt?v:t·~ ·- --~ -it .. z. .. 1
No
No
No
c:\documents and settings\essmanv\my documents\termlimitchart.docx 87 To:
From
Subject:
Copies:
0 t /05/10
City Council
Memorandum
City Clerk
January 4, 2010
Joanne Baade, City Clerk/Executive Analyst
Supplemental Material Relating to Campaign Contribution Limits City Manager
City Attorney
John Alpay
lo-A
The issue of campaign contribution limits appears on the January 5, 2010 Council agenda as Item 10-A.
I thought that you might be interested in knowing whether other cities impose campaign contribution limits. I contacted the California League of Cities in an attempt to obtain state-wide statistics, but learned that it does not maintain information of this type. Consequently, my staff surveyed the other cities in Orange County. This survey revealed that 68% of the cities in Orange County do not limit campaign contributions, while 32% do limit contributions . I have attached the results of the survey that includes the monetary limitations that are imposed by those cities that do limit contributions as well as the populations of the various cities.
I have also attached the Campaign Contribution Summary that I prepared a while back that reflects the number of contributions and loans in excess of $2,400 that San Clemente Council candidates received in the past four elections.
Please let me know if you have any questions.
Joanne
City Clerk Memorandum
/ol-/
88 ~
~
~
Survey Conducted by City Clerk's Office
23 of 34 Orange County Cities (68%) do not limit campaign contributions 11 of 34 Orange County Cities (32%) have enacted contribution limits Name of City Population°; f Does. your City imp~se ..
..
• cam·paign contribution·
: . ' '
. limits (Yes/No) [ • . ,
Aliso Viejo 45,249 No
, How does your system work? ..
Anaheim 343,973 Yes Currently $1700. Limit is adjusted in odd-even numbered years based on CPI.
Brea 40,081 No
Buena Park 82,768 No
Costa Mesa 113,011 No
Cypress 49,541 No
Dana Point 37,082 Yes Currently $630. Limit is adjusted during election years based on CPI.
Fountain Valley 54,797 Yes $500 Limit.
Fullerton 137,437 No
Garden Grove 173,067 No $500 Limit.
Huntington Beach 201,993 Yes No more than $500.00 per election cycle Irvine 212,793 Yes $440 for current election cycle 1/1/09-12/31/09 - Based on CPI for Angeles/Anaheim/Riverside Area.
La Habra 62,635 No
La Palma 16,176 No
Laguna Beach 23,727 Yes Currently $360. Limit is adjusted in even numbered years based on CPI.
Laguna Hills 33,421 No
Laguna Niguel 67,178 Yes $1000 Limit.
Laguna Woods 18,442 Yes $250 limit.
Lake Forest 78,317 No
Los Alamitos 12,191 No
Mission Viejo 100,242 No
Newport Beach 86,252 Yes $1000Limit.
Orange 138,640 Yes $1000 Limit.
Placentia 51,727 No
Rancho Santa Margarita 49,764 No
San Juan Capistrano 33,826 No
Santa Ana 353,184 Yes $1000 Limit
Seal Beach 25,986 No Will consider establishing limits in January Stanton 39,276 No
Tustin 74,128 No
Villa Park 6,259 No
Los
89 ~ ~ ~ Survey Conducted by City Clerk's Office 23 qf 34 Orange County Cities (68%) do not limit campaign contributions 11 of 34 Orange County Cities (32%) have enacted contribution limits Name of City . Population Doesyour City,impose campaign :contiibutlon liinits' (Yes/No) . Westminister 93,027 No Yorba Linda 68,312 No c\documents and settings\essmanv\my documents\termlimitchart.docx ( •' ,. ·How,does\y~ur. system work? •. • •• .. '" 90 Campaign Contribution Summary
2004 General Municipal Election
Candidate Single Contributions of $2,400 Loans Received of $2,400 or or More More
Candidate #1 N/A N/A
Candidate #2 N/A N/A
Candidate #3 $4,000 in-kind contribution $2,400 self loan $2,400 self loan
2005 Special Municipal Election
Candidate Single Contributions of $2,400 Loans Received of $2,400 or or More More
Candidate #1 $2,400 self contr[bution N/A
Candidate #2 $2,500 N/A
Candidate #3 N/A $3,000 from other than self
Candidate #4 N/A $26,599 self loan
Candidate #5 $20,000 self contribution $20,000 self loan Candidate #6 $2,800 self contribution $3,473.43 self loan 2006 General Municipal Election
Candidate Single Contributions of $2,400 Loans Received of $2,400 or or More More
Candidate #1 N/A $17,000 self loan
Candidate #2 $4,000 $15,800 self loan
$5,450 $10,000 from other than self
$3,291 (in-kind contribution)
$5,000
Candidate #3 N/A N/A
Candidate #4 $3,500 $9,000 from other than self
$4,500 self loan
Candidate #5 N/A N/A
Candidate #6 N/A N/A
Candidate #7 $4,000 $14,500 self loan
$6,000 self loan
JI; 11-1
91 j •
2008 General Municipal Election
Name Single Contributions of $2,400 Loans Received of $2,400 or or More More
Candidate #1 N/A $5,000 self loan
Candidate #2 $3,000 self contribution $36,086 self loan Candidate #3 $3,000 $25,224 self loan
$5,000
Candidate #4 N/A $30,169.33 self loan
Candidate #5 N/A N/A
Candidate #6 $4,000 in-kind contribution N/A
Candidate #7 N/A N/A
Candidate #8 N/A N/A
Candidate #9 N/A N/A
p :\my doc um ents\my word\ca m pa igncontributio nsum ma ryU 2. docx 92 . .
City of San Clemente
City Clerk
Joanne Baade, City Clerk
Phone: 361-8345 Fax: 361-8309
[email protected]
December 23, 2009
Mr. John Alpay
33 Calle Pelicano
San Clemente, CA 92673
Dear John:
Enclosed is a copy of the Agenda Report regarding Campaign Contribution Limitations, for the City Council meeting of January 5, 2010, to be held in the Council Chambers, located at 100 Avenida Presidio, San Clemente, California. The City Council meeting will commence at 6:00 p.m. This item is listed on the agenda under New Business 10-A.
In order to ensure that the City Councilmembers have adequate time to consider written materials concerning agenda items, it is strongly recommended that such materials be submitted to my office by noon the day preceding the City Council meeting. lf you have any questions prior to the City Council meeting, please contact my office at (949) 361-8345.
Sincerely,
Joanne Baade
City Clerk
Enclosures
City Clerk 100 Avenida Presidio San Clemente, CA 92672
http:// san-clemente. org
910 Calle Negocio
2nd Floor
San Clemente, California
www.san-clemente.org
AGENDA REPORT
CITY OF SAN CLEMENTE
CITY COUNCIL MEETING
CITY OF SAN CLEMENTE
Meeting Date: February 6, 2024 Agenda Item: (13A1)
Submitted By: City Clerk’s Department
-
Subject:
..titl e
VACANCY ..body ON THE HUMAN AFFAIRS COMMITTEE
Fiscal Impact:
None.
Summary:
Jill Schachter submitted her resignation from the Human Affairs Committee effective January 9, 2024. Ms. Schachter’s term on the Human Affairs Committee was set to expire on June 30, 2024.
In May of each year, the City Council authorizes Staff to advertise to fill vacancies on all City Commissions and Committees with terms set to expire in June. City Council then conducts interviews and makes appointments to each Commission and Committee, with terms effective July 1 of each calendar year.
The City Council may wish to direct staff to advertise and recruit to fill one vacancy on the Human Affairs Committee, or, the position may remain vacant and can be recruited in May, along with all of the other vacant Commission and Committee seats.
Council Options:
Direct Staff to recruit for the vacancy on the Human Affairs Committee and set an interview date.
Direct Staff to advertise for the vacancy and interview for the position when all Commission/Committee vacancies are recruited.
Take no action.
Environmental Review/Analysis
This is not a “project” under the California Environmental Quality Act.
Recommended Actions:
Staff Recommendation ..recommendation
1. Accept Jill Schachter’s resignation with regret.
and
1 Meeting Date: February 6, 2024 Agenda Item: 13A(1)
CITY OF SAN CLEMENTE
2. Authorize the City Clerk to advertise to fill 1 vacancy on the Human Affairs Committee with a term to expire on June 30, 2024.
OR
3. Direct Staff to advertise for the vacancy on the Human Affairs Committee when the City advertises for vacancies on all Commissions and Committees in May of this year. ..end
Attachment:
None.
Notification:
None.
2 From: Brad Malamud
Sent: Tuesday, January 30, 2024 3:42 PM
To: Cabral, Victor <[email protected]>; Enmeier, Mark <[email protected]>; Knoblock, Steve <[email protected]>; Loeffler, Rick <[email protected]>; Duncan, Chris <[email protected]>; Elizabeth A. Mitchell <[email protected]>; Hall, Andy <[email protected]>; Campagnolo, Laura <[email protected]>; C. Jayden Smith <[email protected]>
Subject: Brown Act and Government Code violation by City - Correct and Cure Letter To: City Council and City Officials of the City of San
Clemente: Mayor Cabral, Councilmembers Enmeier,
Duncan, Knoblock, and Loeffler, City Attorney Mitchell, City Manager Hall, and City Clerk Campagnolo
To: City of San Clemente, San Clemente City
Councilmembers, City Clerk, City Manager, and City
Attorney:
January 30, 2024
Dear Mr. Cabral, Mr. Enmeier, Mr. Duncan, Mr. Knoblock, Mr. Loeffler, Ms.
Mitchell, Mr. Hall, and Ms. Campagnolo.
This letter is being sent on behalf of multiple residents who wanted me to send this letter to City of San Clemente and its Officials in order to have the City correct its illegal/improper decision to restrict the public’s right to address the City Council on each and every issue listed on the Council’s Agenda. At this time, those members of the public shall remain anonymous.
This letter has multiple purposes.
The first is to point out the problems with the passage of Resolution 24-13 on a technical basis, i.e. no enabling change to Council Policy and Procedure (“Policy and Procedure”) 1201- 11 was included as the Agenda Report failed to include the referenced “Exhibit 1.” The second, assuming the City disagrees and believes it properly implemented changes to Council Policy and Procedure 1201-11, is to issue a Cure and Correct Letter required prior to filing a lawsuit under California law.
1. Failure to Modify Policy and Procedure 1201-11 due to not including the referenced Exhibit 1.
At the outset, given the passage of Resolution 24-13, the City adopted changes to Council Policy and Procedure 1201-11 in spite of the following issue.
The Agenda Report (10C) was intentionally misleading because the name of one of the two authors was not identified. Mr. Hall and Ms. Campagnolo are listed as co-authors. This is not true. Mr. Hall stated that the Item 10C Agenda Report was not drafted by him, but instead was drafted by Laura Campagnolo and City Attorney Elizabeth Mitchell. I have no way of knowing the truth; but believe Mr. Hall.
This is more than a lack of transparency and is difficult to understand. While Mr. Hall indicated that the software would not allow Ms. Mitchell to be identified in the author field, an explanation of that limitation/restriction along with the proper authors could have been disclosed elsewhere in the Agenda Report. The free-form narrative allows for any comments/statements and clarifications. Thus, there was an intentional decision to mislead and/or lie to the public. Worse yet, it was done with the full knowledge of the City’s City Attorney who by contract is required to review Agenda Reports prior to the Council meeting, and here, was an unidentified author.
The residents are owed a full investigation/explanation of this failure to disclose, and anyone who intentionally misled the public should be considered by the Council for termination, sanctions, or other corrective action.
Moving on to the the passage of Resolution 24-13.
Regardless of whether Item 10C (Agendized and voted during the January 16, 2024, meeting) was a violation of the Government Code and Brown Act, the provision(s), language, or document that are necessary to describe the modification(s) to Policy and Procedure 1201- 11 were missing from the Agenda Report. For that reason, the 3 - 2 vote to approve Resolution 24-13 did not adopt any changes to Policy 1201-11. Below is a further explanation of the failure of Resolution 24-13 to adopt changes to Policy and Procedure 1201-11.
Resolution No. 24-13 states in part:
"... is hereby amended as indicated in Exhibit 1 to this resolution, which is hereby incorporated fully by the reference ..." (emphasis added.) Thus, the Council voted 3 – 2 to approve Exhibit 1 being incorporated into Council Policy and Procedure 1201-11.
Any changes to Council Policy and Procedure 1201-11 were specifically incorporated into the Resolution 24-13 only and specifically via an attachment, "Exhibit 1." Yet, Exhibit 1 does not exist and was not included in Agenda Item 10C.
Therefore, no changes were actually adopted without some fancy explanation by someone. Even then, words have meaning. This mis-reference to Exhibit 1 rather than Attachment 1, was a fatal failure. But for purposes of this letter, it is assumed the City disagrees.
Instead of Exhibit 1, the Agenda Report includes "Attachment 1" beginning on page 4 of the Agenda Report and ending on page 15 (11 pages). Attachment 1 was not approved in Resolution 24-13 as a replacement for Exhibit 1 and on that basis cannot be used in the place of Exhibit 1.
In the Agenda Report, Attachment 1 was placed before discussion of Resolution 24-13, which resolution was described as "ATTACHMENT 2."
On the above basis, the City did not legally adopt any changes to Council Policy and Procedure 1201-11 unless some explanation of why Attachment 1 and Exhibit 1 are interchangeable. To date, no such explanation has been provided by the City to justify adopting Attachment 1 as Exhibit 1.
This letter proceeds on the basis that the City disagrees for purposes of the Correct and Cure Letter. If the City agrees with this analysis, please let me know.
Moving on to the Cure and Correct portion of this letter:
2. Cure and Correct Resolution 24-13 and Policy and Procedure 1201- 11 As stated above, this section of the letter is based on the City taking the position that approval of Resolution 24-13 effectuated changes to Policy and Procedure 1201-11 (based on Attachment 1 being substituted in the place of Exhibit 1).
CURE AND CORRECT:
This letter is a Cure and Correct letter regarding approval on or about January 16, 2024, of Resolution 24-13 and the related modification to Council Policy and Procedure 1201-11.
The changes to Policy and Procedure 1201-11 result in limiting a speaker to a single 3- minute presentation to the Council for all items (there is no debate that more than one item is included in the Consent Calendar for a single vote unless one or more of those items are pulled for separate discussion now for the first time only by Council members rather than the previously allowed pulling of an item by any member of the public) included on the Agenda under the Consent Calendar.
This new limitation is a violation of the Government Code which, as described below in detail, allows a public speaker to address the Council, separately, for each item on the agenda.
No exception appears in the Government Code for Consent Calendar items being combined as a single item.
By way of background, numerous residents and I emailed and/or spoke to Council about this issue in advance of the vote.
A Cure and Correct demand letter is required under the Brown Act when a legislative body has taken an action that needs to be corrected. Government Code § 54960.1(a) provides, in part:
(a) The district attorney or any interested person may commence an action by mandamus or injunction for the purpose of obtaining a judicial determination that an action taken by a legislative body of a local agency in violation of Section 54953, 54954.2, 54954.5, 54954.6, 54956, or 54956.5 is null and void under this section. Nothing in this chapter shall be construed to prevent a legislative body from curing or correcting an action challenged pursuant to this section.
(b) Prior to any action being commenced pursuant to subdivision (a), the district attorney or interested person shall make a demand of the legislative body to cure or correct the action alleged to have been taken in violation of Section 54953, 54954.2, 54954.5, 54954.6, 54956, or 54956.5.
The demand shall be in writing and clearly describe the challenged action of the legislative body and nature of the alleged violation. (c)(1) The written demand shall be made within 90 days from the date the action was taken unless the action was taken in an open session but in violation of Section 54954.2, in which case the written demand shall be made within 30 days from the date the action was taken. (2) Within 30 days of receipt of the demand, the legislative body shall cure or correct the challenged action and inform the demanding party in writing of its actions to cure or correct or inform the demanding party in writing of its decision not to cure or correct the challenged action. (3) If the legislative body takes no action within the 30-day period, the inaction shall be deemed a decision not to cure or correct the challenged action, and the 15-day period to commence the action described in subdivision (a) shall commence to run the day after the 30-day period to cure or correct expires.
(4) Within 15 days of receipt of the written notice of the legislative body's decision to cure or correct, or not to cure or correct, or within 15 days of the expiration of the 30-day period to cure or correct, whichever is earlier, the demanding party shall be required to commence the action pursuant to subdivision (a) or thereafter be barred from commencing the action..
Councilmember Enmeier confirms that the reason for Resolution 24-13 was to prohibit public involvement and limit speech on all Consent Calendar items to only 3-minutes in total, per person. The following email is evidence.
From: Enmeier, Mark <[email protected]>
Date: Wed, Jan 17, 2024 at 9:27 PM
Subject: Re: 10C
To: Ruth Martin
Hello Ruth,
Thank you for your email. All information about all items on consent are available on the website. Councilmembers take it upon themselves to research each item on the Agenda thoroughly, as is our responsibility to our constituents. The information we receive is also readily available to the public. If there is an item on the consent that you are unsure of or would like clarification on you can reach out to any Councilmember or Staff. You are still welcome to make public comments on the consent calendar and request items be pulled for further review or comment. As I see it, the purpose is to avoid a situation like last night where one member of the public pulled 3 items from consent to talk about the same theme of government waste.
Kind Regards,
Mark Enmeier
Councilmember Enmeier was clear.
[T] the purpose is to avoid a situation like last night where one member of the public pulled 3 items from consent to talk about the same theme of government waste.
Please note that Mr. Enmeier correctly stated that “3 items” were pulled. Likewise, during the Council discussion of Agenda Item 10C, both Mr. Cabral and Mr. Duncan stated that each listing under the Consent Calendar is an item. These statements are confirmation by them that each item is a separate item, which is consistent the word item, as used in the Government Code / Brown Act, even when multiple items are included and grouped together for Council discussion on the Consent Calendar.
The City Attorney did not outwardly address that Resolution 24-13, as drafted, or approved is legal or if it violates the Government Code. Why? Given the public’s comments and concerns, it is odd that no legal analysis was provided to the public or Council (as there is no indication this went to Closed Session, and if the City Attorney did so in the MondayTuesday meetings with the Councilmembers, that is a Brown Act violation (potential), and as I have admonished Scott Smith, Ms. Mitchell, former City Managers, and Mr. Hall, these meetings are clear “Hob and Spoke” violations of the Brown Act. Ms. Mithcell’s attempt to justify these meetings between her and Council members individually the day before of the day of Council meetings, are problematic given that group meetings of more than 2 members are always avoided. No minutes are kept. No notes are retained. Why are these meetings even needed, as the City Manager and City Attorney can provide written public explanations rather than meeting behind closed doors to side-step the Brown Act? Yet, this is not the issue for this Correct and Cure letter. But is is necessary to clarify how we got here.
For purposes of this letter, moving forward, it is agreed that if changes to Policy and Procedure were, at least according to the City, adopted on or about January 16, 2024, via Resolution 24-13, those changes are contained in Attachment 1.
The Attachment 1 changes would effectively combine each Item in the Consent Calendar together as a single item, resulting in a restriction on public speakers each to a single comment opportunity (3 minutes) for all combined items, even though the Government Code specifies that each member of the public is entitled to speak (3 minutes) for each item on the Council’s Agenda.
The restrictions, newly adopted in Resolution 24-13 described above is/are violations of a central provision of the Ralph M. Brown Act; the ability of the public to address its governmental entity separately on each item before that body.
In its meeting of January 16, 2024, the City Council, by a 3 – 2 vote, approved item 10C; Resolution 24-13. In so doing, the City Council took an action as defined in Government Code § 54952.6 because Council members approved by a vote of 3 – 2 Resolution 24-13 amending Policy and Procedure 1201-11.
The amended and modified Council Policy and Procedure 1201-11 limited members of the public from speaking individually to each item on the Agenda by restricting comments on all Consent Calendar items to one 3-minute communication. No legal basis for overriding the Government Code’s permission to address each item on the Agenda is included anywhere before, during, or after the vote.
Yet, the Government Code requires a city and/or city council to allow separate communications by every member of the public for each item, and the Government Code does not have an exception for items included on a Consent Calendar. The Councilmembers’ approved.
In particular, Government Code Section 54954.3(a), states, in part:
(a) Every agenda for regular meetings shall provide an opportunity for members of the public to directly address the legislative body on any item of interest to the public, before or during the legislative body's consideration of the item, that is within the subject matter jurisdiction of the legislative body … (emphasis added.)
The City is required to allow each member of the public to address the council “on any item of interest to the public.” It appears the problem is the City’s interpretation of the word any.
Dictionary.com defines any:
one, a, an, or some; one or more without specification or identification: If you have any witnesses, produce them. …
A review of Merriam-webster.com leads to similar definitions of “any.” It is difficult to determine any basis under which the City can argue the items in the Consent Calendar are a “single item,” as combined therein, in light of the word “any” contained in the applicable Government Code(s) relevant here. Any item is not “all items in the Consent Calendar.” Resolution 24-13 adoption of this new restriction on public comment flies in the fact of longstanding City procedures, but more importantly here, the Government Code requirement to allow public discussion of “any” item on the Agenda.
This requirement to allow public comment is being denied because under new Policy and Procedure 1201-11, each member of the public can comment only once on multiple items combined under the heading Consent Calendar included in the San Clemente Council Agenda.
The format of the Council Agenda makes clear that every item included under the Consent Calendar is listed and designated separately by letter. It would take more than Harry Houdini to magically convert many to one. Here, Houdini is not present to solve the City’s mistake(s).
The reason for making this change is not essential to overturn the City’s decision. But it is clear that newly appointed Mayor Cabral and members Duncan and Enmeier have no desire to hear the public’s comments and/or their desire to limit those comments. Yet, in running for election, they knew in advance that Council meetings can last, twice a month, well into the night. More relevant, shortening meetings is easily accomplished if these members simply stop cross-talking in violation of Rosenberg’s Rules of Order, and stop having staff and others who are not subject to time limits from incessant and long-winded presentations. Similar time savings can legally be implemented for public awards, staff and outside agency reports, and incessant questions by members of obvious points where they ask staff for an explanation of the obvious. Point being, those wasteful encounters/statements can be rolled-back. Instead, the City illegally rolled back limited 3-minutes presentations by the public.
Limiting each member of the public to a single 3-minute address for all items included on the Consent Calendar violates the terms of Government Code Section 54954.3(a). There are other cures for long meetings. For example, a city council can limit unduly repetitive comments or irrelevancies. Groups can be limited. Council is permitted, in some circumstances, to limit comments. But none of the above legal restrictions were adopted by Resolution 24-13.
RECAPPING:
Pursuant to Government Code Section 54960.1, this letter is a demand that the City Council Cure and Correct the illegal actions taken by the City Council and request the following:
Eliminate the changes made by the vote on Agenda Item 10C, on January 16, 2024, to Policy and Procedure 1201-11.
In the alternative, and to the same effect, Council can approve modification to Policy and Procedure 1201-11 to allow members of the public to address the Council on each item on the Agenda including, but not limited to, each item included on the Consent Calendar individually whether the item is pulled by a Council member(s).
As provided by Government Code § 54960.1, the City has 30-days from the receipt of this demand to either cure or correct the challenged action, or inform me of your decision not to do so.
If the City fails to cure or correct, as demanded, such inaction may leave no recourse but to seek a judicial invalidation of the challenged action(s) pursuant to Section 54960.1 and or other provisions of the law, in which case the City will be asked to pay court costs and reasonable attorney fees pursuant to Section 54960.5 and other provisions of the law.
Attorneys’ fees and costs are owing if the City decides to comply with the request(s) herfein to cure and correct at any future Council meeting. The City does not get a free pass.
REQUEST FOR CONFIRMATION OF RECEIPT:
Because the Government Code has strict guidelines for compliance, I ask that each of the recipients respond to this email and include a statement of receipt and the date he/she received the email.
I also ask for a specific City response within the statutory 30-day period.
Respectfully yours,
Brad Malamud
Sent by email to each of the persons listed above.
--
Brad Malamud
Sent from my gmail account:
From: Brad Malamud
Sent: Tuesday, February 6, 2024 10:34 AM
To: Brad Malamud ; Cabral, Victor <[email protected]>; Duncan, Chris <[email protected]>; Elizabeth A. Mitchell <[email protected]>; Enmeier, Mark <[email protected]>; Hall, Andy <[email protected]>; Knoblock, Steve <[email protected]>; Campagnolo, Laura <[email protected]>; Loeffler, Rick <[email protected]>; Ruth Martin
Cc: C. Jayden Smith <[email protected]>;
Subject: Failure to post my letters including correct and cure the city began posting letters to council and yet my correcting care letter was not posted online for the public. Why? It appears to be the policy that letters to the cat to the city will be posted. Well mine was sent before the agenda was created, it was directed at the specific agenda item that is included Because of item 10 C’s illegal decision to prohibit the public from speaking to each item on the agenda, which is a violation of the government code. this new item has a staff report, which does not indicate who wrote the staff report. This is again against city policy, which has always provided the Author of a staff report.
Finally, I’d like to point out that it appears that the staff report was written by the city attorney, and the statement by her that all items on the calendar calendar are a single item is not supported by case, law, statutory law, or even an interpretation by her.
I ask you to post my letter ASAP.
I ASK council members to revert to policy 1201-11 before the 10-c changes.
I ask this be done to avoid unnecessary and expensive litigation which the city will lose.
Brad Malamud
Sent from my gmail account:
From: Donna Vidrine
Sent: Tuesday, February 6, 2024 2:05 PM
To: Campagnolo, Laura <[email protected]>; Hall, Andy <[email protected]>; Cabral, Victor <[email protected]>
Subject: Public Comments to include in Public Record/ CC mtg 2/6/24
10.C. CONSIDERATION OF A RESOLUTION IN OPPOSITION TO ASSEMBLY CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT resolution no. 24-21
The language proposed in this resolution of opposition to Assembly Constitutional , Amendment 1 (resolution no. 24-21), does not represent the majority of San Clemente Voters, taxpayers and residents.
The intent of this Assembly Bill includes funding for public infrastructure, affordable housing, permanent supportive housing and would require a 55% majority vote to pass.
Voters, taxpayers and residents in San Clemente want to work in partnership with our Federal, State, and County Elected Officials to bring needed resources to our City. San Clemente seeks and needs those partnerships and resources to fund infrastructure and affordable housing for our working class and families.
Language such as: "horrible exceptions it would create to taxpayer protections" and "destructive, money grab attempts" are inaccurate and offensive. We as a City and the 5 of you, 4 elected to represent us on City Council, are better than this proposed oppositional resolution.
Work in partnership on best practices and solutions to our beach erosion and unstable bluffs, lack of affordable housing, mental health care and emergency services in San Clemente.
Tonite VOTE against this proposed oppositional resolution! Donna Vidrine
San Clemente voter, homeowner and taxpayer
10.B. CONSIDERATION OF A RESOLUTION IN OPPOSITION TO ASSEMBLY CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT 13 REGARDING VOTING THRESHOLDS
Vote NO tonite on Resolution No 24-20 entitled a RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SAN CLEMENTE, CALIFORNIA,OPPOSING ASSEMBLY CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT 13 (voting thresholds) You were elected to govern our city effectively and to work in partnership with State & County elected officials. Utilize staff resources and focus on best practices and solutions to our beach erosion and unstable bluffs, lack of affordable housing, mental health care and emergency services in San Clemente, and Public Safety. That is what you were elected to do. These are bipartisan issues that unite/ not divide us. Work collaboratively with our State & County Elected officials.
The language in this resolution is offensive. words & phrases include "defrauds California taxpayers" , "by cunningly increasing "
Vote NO tonite on this Resolution of Opposition and utilize staff resources more effectively.
Donna Vidrine
San Clemente voter, homeowner and taxpayer
All the above were discussed and voted on in public session.
There was no reason to have closed session discussion last night.
No transparency.
Violation of government code.
What is wrong at the city? Why can’t it avoid brown act violations? Why is the public response required to correct these mistakes? See last night’s reversal of 10C.
The city officials need to get their act together. The lawyers should know better. Elizabeth Mitchell should resign. Last night she failed to answer a straight forward question from knoblock as to whether is an item is pulled from the consent calendar a person who already spoke could steak again.
He asked her twice and Mitchell failed to respond. She is paid to provide legal advice to the city not to avoid providing that advice.
Council. Please get a city attorney that will provide answers when you ask questions. Or, at a minimum, keep asking Mitchell your questions until she answers or informs you she does not know but will get back to council with an answer.
Nobody expects a city attorney to know every answer, but obfuscation is not okay.
Nor is holding improper closed sessions or violating the government code’s requirement to allow public comment on every council agenda item. Yet the city attorney failed to comment on the government code violation in adopting item 10C which is required if she disagreed with my analysis.
Best.
Brad Malamud
Sent from my gmail account:
From: Donna Vidrine
Sent: Tuesday, February 6, 2024 5:42 PM
To: Campagnolo, Laura <[email protected]>; Hall, Andy <[email protected]> Subject: Public Comments for CC mtg 2/6
Emergency shelter for San Clemente homeless during inclement weather.
Please include my comments in Public Record. Thank you! Donna Vidrine The OC Board of Supervisors agreed in January to give Anaheim $130,000 to work with nonprofits to make emergency beds available. The shelter program opened this week with limited shelter beds, undisclosed locations, for people with existing ties to their city.
The city's Care Response Team will grant access and transport people to the shelters. Walk-ups are discouraged.
We are in the midst of another severe winter storm, a megastorm. What concern and actions are you, our city leadership, taking for the health & safety for people living on our streets? Where is the leadership and action? Is it a responsible management of resources? Is it ethical and moral to do nothing, take no action while our homeless in San Clemente experience pneumonia, sepsis, injuries from falling requiring transport to the hospital, emergency care, admission to the ICU with followup in after hospital, care facilities for extended stay and services.
Anaheim is the only city to partner with the county so far this winter to provide emergency space for homeless people during this intense, inclement weather. County officials asked all cities last fall to partner on local city-specific shelters.
Doug Becht, director of the county's Office of Care Coordination reported that no other cities are in discussion for opening a cold weather shelter this season but hopes Anaheim can be an example for others.
I ask, you, our elected representatives work in partnership with our city's non profits and the county of orange to provide emergency cold weather sheltering for our city's homeless with ties to San Clemente.
Donna Vidrine
San Clemente resident , homeowner and taxpayer
From: Fuentes, Candy
To: Campagnolo, Laura
Cc: Jimenez, Megan
Subject: FW: public comment: support local campaign contribution limits - agenda Item 10D Date: Monday, February 5, 2024 8:23:54 AM
_________________________________________________________ Candy Fuentes
Office Specialist I, City Clerk
City of San Clemente
910 Calle Negocio | San Clemente, CA 92673
(949) 361-8200 | [email protected]
From: Hoiyin Ip
Sent: Sunday, February 4, 2024 5:34 PM
To: Cabral, Victor <[email protected]>; Duncan, Chris <[email protected]>; Enmeier, Mark <[email protected]>; Knoblock, Steve <[email protected]>; Loeffler, Rick <[email protected]>
Cc: CityClerk Mail <[email protected]>
Subject: public comment: support local campaign contribution limits - agenda Item 10D Dear City Council,
It’s past time for San Clemente to establish limits on local campaign contributions.
I appreciate the comprehensiveness of the staff report that includes the four past discussions between 2010 and 2022. Establishing local campaign contribution limits is one way to hold our elected officials accountable to the will of residents and community members, rather than special interest groups. Such accountability becomes more important every day as San Clemente makes frequent news due to a variety of damages by climate change. We cannot afford more delay of real solutions for quality of life.
Please do not defer to state contribution limits of $5,500. It’s significantly higher than all limits set by Orange County cities, such as Dana Point’s $880, San Juan Capistrano’s $700, and Laguna Beach’s $440.
Take a look at how the state contribution limits have enabled certain industries, and their relationship with our state legislators.
CalMatters reported that in 2023, the oil and gas industry contributed $12,000 to Asm. Davies and $9,000 to Sen. Nguyen.
Sierra Club’s 2021-2022 Tracking the Dirty Dollars report showed oil and gas and allied interests contributed $23,200 to Asm. Davies. This included $1,500 from Dart Container that sued San Diego for its polystyrene foam foodware ban though dozens of municipalities including San Clemente had long adopted such a ban.
We need protection from the industries that work in our community against San Clemente’s goals. Establishing local campaign contribution limits is a small but important action for the community.
Thanks,
Hoiyin Ip