pages: CityCouncil/2010-06-01.pdf, 8
This data as json
body | date | page | text | path |
---|---|---|---|---|
CityCouncil | 2010-06-01 | 8 | contributions for the election period unless a debt retirement committee provision is added. Mayor Johnson stated that she would be interested into looking at a solution to the issue. The City Attorney inquired what effective date Council desires. Vice Mayor deHaan responded that he would prefer the date of final adoption. Councilmember Gilmore inquired whether Council is satisfied with the election period definition. Councilmember Matarrese stated that he understands the election period would start January 1st following the last General election; every election would have a two year period, which is vastly different from now; campaigns are getting longer; inquired whether there is a way to extend the period for debt retirement and prevent large, single donations that could skew an election after the fact and whether the post election period currently runs from January 1st and the next reporting period would be June. The City Clerk responded a filing would be due the end of January and would cover the end of the last period through the end of December. In response to Councilmember Matarrese's inquiry, the City Attorney stated that she would guess the reason for setting a limit in an election period would be to prohibit ongoing war chest building; stated Oakland has a four-year cycle. Councilmember Tam inquired whether a person would have one month to retire a debt for a $250 contribution per individual and/or corporation. The City Attorney responded in the affirmative; stated "person" means any legal entity. Councilmember Gilmore stated Section 2-71.5 (b) (3) is different from State law and requires a campaign statement be filed the Friday before the election. The City Attorney stated the alternative would be to go with State law. The City Clerk stated State law would still require filing, if there are expenditures over $1,000 during the late period. Councilmember Tam inquired whether there is a majority preference for the $250 limit, to which Mayor Johnson responded that she is comfortable with said limit. The City Attorney summarized the proposed amendments to the ordinance: to correct and possibly eliminate Section 2-71.2 (a) and Section 2-71.4 and stay with State disclosure requirements; Section 2-71.4 would be consistent with the $100 limit; Section Regular Meeting Alameda City Council 8 June 1, 2010 | CityCouncil/2010-06-01.pdf |