SR-104-088 (9)~/~
~ City of
Santa Monica
City Council Report
City Council Meeting: August 8, 2006
Agenda Item: ~ ~
To: Mayor and City Council
From: Marsha Jones Moutrie, City Attorney
Subject: Resolution Submitting Ballot Measure to the Voters Amending City
Charter Article XXII, the City of Santa Monica Taxpayer Protection
Amendment of 2000
Recommended Action
It is recommended that the City Council adopt the attached resolution placing a
measure on the ballot that would amend City Charter Article XXII.
Executive Summary
The attached resolution and exhibit fulfill the City Council's direction to prepare and
revise a ballot measure and resolution which would amend Article XXII of the City
Charter, adopted by the voters and commonly known as the Oaks Initiative, by replacing
it with new provisions which would effectuate the "clean government" goals of the Oaks
Initiative while protecting individual rights and opportunities.
Discussion
At its last meeting, Council considered a proposed ballot measure which would amend
Article XXII. That proposed measure had been modeled after a clean government
measure adopted by the voters in the City of Vista, modified to meet the Council's
1
directions. At the hearing, public testimony was received from two members of the
public, a proponent of the Oaks Initiative and a well-known expert on conflict-of-interest
and other clean government laws. Their testimony included suggestions and critiques
as to the proposed measure. These included that the proposed measure: (1) did not
cover appointed officials who are City employees; (2) lacked a time limit on restrictions
as to gifts from persons doing business with the City and lacked a"materiality" limit; (3)
excluded restrictions on campaign contributions and future employment; and (4) lacked
thresholds as to the size of benefits conferred by official action which would trigger
restrictions.
Staff has considered each of these suggestions and has revised the proposed measure.
Several of the revisions address the suggestions made at the meeting. Others arise
from staff's review of the Pasadena Task Force report, legal analysis and consideration
of the views expressed at past Council meetings.
In pa~ticular, the proposed measure has been revised to:
• Extend the prohibitions and restrictions to appointed officials, including the
City Manager, City Attorney and City Clerk;
• Incorporate state standards for determining "materiality" unless the Council,
by ordinance, adopts local standards;
• Clarify that the restrictions on gifts from parties doing business with the City
applies only to current or ongoing business (after which the general limit
would apply); and
2
• Provide for automatic adjustments in the monetary limits established by the
measure which would reflect changes in the CPI index but be rounded to the
nearest $5.00.
Staff is not proposing the inclusion of campaign contribution limits in this measure for
three reasons. First, the Municipal Code already establishes a relatively low limit on
campaign contributions of $250.00. For purposes of comparison, it is noted that the
Pasadena Task Force recommended a campaign contribution limit of $1,000 for that
City. Second, the Council has publicly expressed its intent to consider public financing
of campaigns within the next year and will doubtiess consider contribution restrictions at
that time. Third, restrictions on campaign contributions impact an individual's ability to
participate in the political process and First Amendment rights. Accordingly, staff
believes it is preferable not to lump campaign contributions, which must be addressed
surgically to protect First Amendment rights, together with prohibitions against
emoluments and "kick backs" which are much more susceptible to legal restriction.
Staff is also not proposing any additional restrictions on employment. As written, the
proposal prohibits both receiving employment in return for votes and using office to gain
employment advantages. Additional restrictions, such as those contained in the Oaks
Initiative, which automatically prohibit future employment may discourage government
service and unduly infringe on individual rights.
3
Alternatives
The Council could decline to place the proposed measure on the ballot and could
consider different amendments to Article XXII, such as those proposed in Pasadena.
Budget/Financial Impact
The budget impact resulting from the recommended action would be an increase in City
election costs of from $5,000 to $7,000.
Prepared by: Marsha Jones Moutrie, City Attorney
roved: Forwarded to Council:
4
•
•