HomeMy WebLinkAbout01-20-09 Admin Committee - Campaign Finance - minutesDublin City Council
ADMINISTRATIVE COMMITTEE
Tuesday, January 20, 2009
Minutes of Meeting
Vice Mayor Boring, Administrative Committee chair, called the meeting to order at 6:15
p.m.
Committee Members present: Vice Mayor Boring and Mr. Lecklider. Ms. Salay arrived
at 6:40 p.m., due to a family emergency.
Council Member Keenan was also present.
Staff present: Ms. Readler and Ms. Grigsby.
Vice Mayor Boring stated that the purpose of this meeting is to continue the
Committee’s review of campaign finance issues.
Vice Mayor Boring inquired if there were any correction s to the December 3, 2008
Administrative Committee minutes. There were no corrections.
Mr. Lecklider moved to approve the minutes as submitted.
Vice Mayor Boring seconded the motion.
The December 3, 2008 minutes were approved as submitted.
Mr. Lecklider noted that he believes the Ohio Supreme Court recently reversed its
position to permit judicial candidates to run with a partisan label. In the meeting packet
is a memorandum that states that the Supreme Court “adopted a new Ohio Code of
Judicial Conduct effective March 1, 2009 that permits judicial candidates to identify
themselves as members of political parties during primary and general elections .
Specifically, judicial candidates will now be able to state in person or in advertising that
he or she is a member of, affiliated with, nominee of or endorsed by a political party
throughout a campaign.”
Ms. Readler stated that the memo refers to judicial candidates b ecause they have
typically been non-partisan. However, this change would not affect Legal staff’s
recommendation for the City.
Vice Mayor Boring requested that Ms. Readler review the key points in the information
provided by Legal staff for this meeting.
Ms. Readler stated that the cover memo lists all of staff’s changes per the direction of
the Committee. The first document following the cover memo is the proposed
ordinance, which enacts all of the revisions discussed at the previous meeting. The
next set of documents is the finance disclosure forms for both candidates and political
action committees, which are modeled after the county and state forms. The last
document is the memorandum that Mr. Lecklider referenced that addressed two issues:
(1) what is a non-partisan race and can the City require non affiliation with the parties,
and (2) what campaign finance ordinances exist in other Ohio municipalities and their
enforcement mechanisms.
Vice Mayor Boring inquired if the disclosure form included in the packet is the same that
a Council candidate would use.
Administrative Committee Minutes
January 20, 2009
Page 2
Ms. Readler responded that it is. It was downloaded from the State’s web site.
At the last meeting, Ms. Salay referred to software that could be downloaded. That form
could be slightly different.
Ms. Readler stated that she believes the Committee was in agreement regarding
revising the individual contribution limit to $150.
Mr. Keenan inquired if he could offer a comment on the contribution limit.
Vice Mayor Boring indicated he could do so.
Mr. Keenan stated that there is an issue with the contribution limit in regard to at-large
races versus ward races. Because at-large candidates have four times the area to
cover, they must spend much more money for their campaign. The rule is a little unfair
to the at-large candidate.
Mr. Lecklider responded that he noticed that in the information provided regarding other
communities, one community did have a higher contribution limit for at-large candidates.
Mr. Keenan stated that the major cost difference is reflected in the additional signs and
mailings.
Vice Mayor Boring stated that, typically, a ward candidate does not limit their signage to
the physical boundaries of the ward.
Mr. Keenan responded that they do not, however, cover the entire City, which an at-
large candidate must do. The signs are expensive . There is also the cost of literature
and the mailing costs.
Vice Mayor Boring noted that mailings are not required. She has not used mailings for
her campaigns.
Mr. Keenan responded that although mailings are an option, most candidates believe
they are very important, particularly when mailings with messages opposing the
candidate are occurring.
Vice Mayor Boring stated that one of the reasons Council has the contribution limit is to
ensure that the spending for local campaigns did not get out of control.
Mr. Lecklider stated that, philosophically, he agrees. At the same time, it is necessary
to recognize over time, the City has changed and the situation is different today. When
this legislation was originally written, the City was probably less than half its current
size. Then, it was possible for a candidate to walk the entire community; today, that is
impossible.
Vice Mayor Boring stated that initially Mr. Lecklider did not favor increasing the limit.
What would be his recommendation at this time?
Mr. Lecklider inquired input from Mr. Keenan.
Administrative Committee Minutes
January 20, 2009
Page 3
Mr. Keenan responded that although an at-large candidate covers four times the area,
he is not suggesting the amount be four times higher than that for a ward candidate. It
should, however, recognize the necessity of greater campaign costs.
Ms. Readler noted that in the City of Akron, the contribution limit is three times higher
for an at-large candidate. However, Akron’s population is much larger than Dublin’s.
Mr. Keenan stated that this issue does not impact him because he has not accepted
contributions for the Council campaign, but it is an issue of fairness that should be
addressed.
Mr. Lecklider suggested raising the limit to $250 for the at-large candidate.
Vice Mayor Boring requested that Legal revise the proposed language to $150 for a
ward candidate and $250 for an at -large candidate. She understands Mr. Keenan’s
point, but she is concerned about providing a greater ability to influence a campaign.
Mr. Keenan responded that anyone wanting to influence a campaign would do it by
means of a political action committee (PAC). He also does not believe that the $150
limit on a PAC contribution will achieve what the committee intends, because there is no
limit on an opposing PAC – they can spend as much money as they want on materials
opposing candidates. During his recent campaign, there were eight PAC mailings
opposing his election. As long as the PAC had no contact with him, they could spend
whatever they wanted. He believes a PAC can similarly promote a candidate without
spending limitations, if they have no contact with the candidate.
Ms. Readler confirmed that is correct. The City cannot limit independent expenditures.
A citizen has a First Amendment right to participate in the electoral process. An
independent expenditure can be made to advocate for a candidate or for the defeat of a
candidate as long as it is not made with the consent of, in coordination , cooperation or
consultation with, or at the request or suggestion of any candidate(s), campaign
committee or agent of the candidate(s). An individual or PAC can spend whatever
money they wish on a campaign. That has never been limited in the existing legislation.
Mr. Keenan noted that the legislation limits the Council candidate’s ability to receive
money from PACs that might be in support of his race while at the same time, an
opposing PAC can spend whatever they want. He does not understand the intent of
this.
Ms. Readler responded that the intent was to achieve disclosure, to have a reporting
requirement for PACs. Any PAC who wishes to participate in a race will have to file a
report. The contribution amount is not limited, but the disclosure will be mandatory.
Mr. Lecklider noted that if it is without the candidate’s input, a PAC can spend the same
amount of money in support of the candidate.
Administrative Committee Minutes
January 20, 2009
Page 4
Mr. Keenan stated that PACs already have disclosure requirements.
Ms. Readler responded that they apply only to State races.
Mr. Keenan stated that the impact of this limitation is that PACs supporting the Council
candidate will be limited to $150 contributions, but PAC s opposing the candidate will
have no limitations. They must simply file a report to disclose what they spent. The
candidate will not be able to counter oppositional efforts. He believes Council races will
become more contentious.
Mr. Lecklider inquired if he is suggesting there be no contribution limits on PACs.
Mr. Keenan inquired if there are other communities limiting them.
Ms. Readler responded that there are not many campaign finance ordinances in the
State of Ohio. Their exhaustive search revealed four. Of those four, some mention a
personal organization and others specifically reference PACs.
Mr. Keenan stated that he is not overly concerned. He simply wanted to point out that
this legislation will not stop PACs from being involved in the local races, if they so
desire.
Vice Mayor Boring noted that the next point to review is “Definitions.”
Ms. Readler responded that the definitions have been expanded regarding to whom the
contribution limitation applies and to include mandatory reporting requirements for
PACs.
Vice Mayor Boring inquired if the “contribution” definition was changed.
Ms. Readler responded that the ordinance was cleaned up to make the definitions and
terminologies consistent with the Ohio Revised Code.
Vice Mayor Boring inquired if the in-kind contribution was also clarified.
Ms. Reader responded affirmatively.
Mr. Keenan stated that during the last election, the in-kind contributions were not
adequately policed. People do not seem to understand the difference between a
monetary contribution and an in-kind contribution. All money spent on a fundraiser for a
candidate is considered “in-kind,” so any person holding a large fundraiser for a
candidate would be in violation of that rule.
Vice Mayor Boring responded that, in that case, it would be necessary to have more
than one host involved.
Vice Mayor Boring stated that clarification has also been made regarding campaign
finance disclosure and timing of reporting of receipts and expenses not yet invoiced.
Ms. Readler responded that it has been made consistent with Ohio Revised Code and
provides clarification that an expense must be reported, even if not yet paid. The report
should use the date of the invoice, not the day it was actually paid.
Mr. Lecklider stated that he believes the revised language addresses the Committee’s
concerns.
Administrative Committee Minutes
January 20, 2009
Page 5
Mr. Keenan stated that there are, however, some individuals who do not abide by the
rules. His concern is that this legislation only ties the hands of the honest candidates.
Vice Mayor Boring stated that people are aware of when someone is holding a
fundraiser, and they would have a good idea of how much the party would cost. If the
finance report does not appear to reflect that, the candidate can be asked to show the
receipts backing up that amount. She does not believe the limit should be removed due
to the fear that some will be dishonest in their reporting.
Mr. Keenan responded that even if discrepancies are noticed, there is no body to report
it to.
Ms. Readler responded that this proposal does include an enforcement mechanism,
which should address some of those concerns.
Mr. Keenan stated that these report forms are identical to those the County requires to
be filed. The only difference is the City requires one more report than the County
requires.
Vice Mayor Boring stated that the filing deadline is also different.
Mr. Keenan stated that the dates are close. It would be beneficial to have a common
filing deadline, as the candidate has many details to keep track of.
Vice Mayor Boring stated that she believes the earlier date was used to give the public
time to thoroughly review the information.
Mr. Keenan inquired if the proposed legislation also requires for the reports to continue
to be published in a local paper.
Ms. Readler responded that it does.
Vice Mayor Boring requested clarification of who must file the campaign finance repo rt.
If she supports a candidate and wants to mail a letter expressing her views to a number
of other residents, must she file a report indicating how much money she spent on that
mailing?
Ms. Readler responded that an individual not working with the candidate is not required
to report anything. However, if the candidate received that mailing as an in -kind
contribution, it would be limited to the maximum amount. A PAC would need to file a
finance report.
Ms. Salay arrived at 6:40 p.m.
Vice Mayor Boring inquired if Ms. Salay had any comments regarding the proposed
documents.
Ms. Salay responded that the draft documents appear to reflect the Committee’s
previous discussion.
Vice Mayor Boring reviewed the additional recommendations suggested by the
Committee and inquired if Ms. Salay concurred or had any questions or comments.
Ms. Salay concurred with the additional recommendations as explained.
Administrative Committee Minutes
January 20, 2009
Page 6
Ms. Readler noted that the City’s web site has been added to the “Notifications” section
in addition to the newspaper notification.
Ms. Readler reviewed the new “Penalty and Enforcement” section as proposed.
Vice Mayor Boring inquired how the “misdemeanor 3” degree was arrived at.
Ms. Readler responded that it is consistent with State law. There are two different
penalties in the existing legislation. Because the minor misdemeanor cannot be taken
to municipal court, the higher penalty was used. A civil penalty was used for a PAC, not
a criminal penalty.
Vice Mayor Boring stated that a misdemeanor 4 (M4) was also identified as the penalty
for a campaign disclosure violation.
Ms. Readler stated that it is thought to be more egregious to accept an improper
contribution versus an accidental error in reporting.
Vice Mayor Boring inquired if $100/day penalty is justified. Shouldn’t there be a cap to
that?
Ms. Readler responded that this penalty applies to a PAC only, not a candidate. The
candidate’s penalty is an M4. In the following Section B, the penalty is removed if the
correction is made within five business days. The key item in this new section is Section
D – Reporting. Any person with personal knowledge can report on a sworn affidavit to
the Director of Law that there has been a perceived violation. The Director of Law’s
office shall transmit the affidavit to Special Counsel. The new section provides for the
Director of Accounting and Auditing to review the finance reports rather than the Clerk
of Council to avoid a potential conflict of interest. The Director can also refer possible
violations to the Director of Law, who would immediately refer them to the Special
Counsel. If Special Counsel determines that there is probable cause to prosecute, then
it is prosecuted in Franklin County Municipal Court.
Vice Mayor Boring inquired about attachment B - Forms.
Ms. Readler stated that these are the forms that are provided to the candidates. The
forms include: a general information questionnaire; a Statement of Contributions
Received; a Statement of In-Kind Contributions Received. Directions for reporting
expenditures are included, as well as the clarification regarding use of the invoice date
rather than payment date.
Ms. Salay inquired if similar clarification has been made regarding the reporting date for
checks received – that the date received must be used, not the depos it date.
Ms. Readler confirmed that clarification has been made.
Ms. Salay inquired if an effort is also included to make candidates new to the political
process very clear about the expectations. Does the Law Director handle that aspect?
Administrative Committee Minutes
January 20, 2009
Page 7
Ms. Grigsby responded that previously they have not been involved with the education
aspect. The Clerk of Council has handled that.
Ms. Salay responded that because there are expectations, deadlines and penalties
involved, she wants to verify that these are explained t horoughly to the candidates so
that they cannot later say that they were not informed.
Ms. Readler stated that someone from the Law Director’s office could handle this. If
adopted, the legislation will be both different and more complicated.
Ms. Salay responded that probably would be helpful.
Vice Mayor Boring inquired if it would be advisable to ask every candidate to sign a
sheet indicating that they understood that the Council race is a nonpartisan race.
Ms. Readler responded that the difficulty is tha t their research revealed that there is no
specific definition for “nonpartisan.” It typically means that there is no party affiliation
designated on the ballot. It does not mean that the candidate cannot identify
themselves as a member of one party or the other, and it does not mean the candidate
cannot receive an endorsement from a party. The cases they reviewed stated that
there would need to be evidence of a very compelling State interest.
Ms. Salay noted that she asked this question in the past , and the Law Director indicated
that the fact that the City Charter states that the elections are nonpartisan simply means
that the City does not have primaries.
Ms. Readler concurred. The accompanying memo does clarify that the fact that the City
Charter states the election is nonpartisan does not mean that there is ability to opt out of
the First Amendment, which protects freedom of speech and freedom of association.
Because nonpartisan means there is no primary, that also means there is no
identification of a party on their ballot.
Vice Mayor Boring inquired if the Committee is agreeable with not further pursuing that
idea.
Committee members concurred.
Ms. Readler noted that Attachment C provides the packet of information for PACs , both
instructions and forms, which are consistent with the State’s forms.
Mr. Lecklider moved to accept the proposed legislation and documents as submitted by
Legal staff with an amendment to increase the contribution limit of $250 for at-large
candidates.
Ms. Salay seconded the motion.
The vote was approved unanimously.
Ms. Readler stated that the recommended change would be made to the proposed
ordinance, and the legislation and disclosure forms submitted for the February 2 Council
meeting. The current cover memo will be included for clarification purposes. She
inquired if any additional information should be included.
Administrative Committee Minutes
January 20, 2009
Page 8
Vice Mayor Boring requested that the changes that have been made in each paragraph
be identified.
Ms. Readler responded that a “comment bubble” would be added in the margin.
The meeting was adjourned at 7:00 p.m.
Deputy Clerk of Council
