Campaign changes need more input

The City Council voted 3 to 1 last week to change the voluntary

campaign spending limit and the individual contribution limit.

Councilman Wayne Baglin was absent.

Whether you agree with the change, the method used to get the item

passed is questionable.

Let’s start with the money. The voluntary limit used to be

$30,000, which was OK. Sure, campaigners didn’t have to sign it, but

if they wanted to, it was feasible, and if they didn’t, it was still

a good number to use as an informal guideline.

The new voluntary limit? $15,000.

Sure, that may be enough for an incumbent, but newcomers would

have to fight to get their name recognized. They likely will feel

that amount would not be enough to do it.

If everyone had to abide by a certain amount, fine, but if those

who don’t sign can go as high as they like and the voluntary level is

so restrictive, it seems most will opt not to sign. Of course, that

frees the way for incumbents not to sign without getting a negative

reaction.

And then there’s the increase in the amount by an individual

donator, from $250 to $750. The idea behind the limit is to ensure a

more broad support base. Why cut that base by a third?

Perhaps the most disturbing factor is how sneaky the whole thing

feels. It brings back memories of the Glenneyre affordable housing

switch when the council voted, pretty much out of the blue, to give

seniors priority instead of keeping the development for low-income

workers.

For the campaign contribution item, the agenda description was:

“Campaign proposal to review the campaign contribution limit, the

advisability of retaining the candidate pledge limiting contributions

that will be accepted by the candidate and modifying the amount of

the pledge. Recommendation: Review the $250 candidate contribution

limit and consider any appropriate changes and discuss the

advisability of retaining the candidate pledge limiting contributions

which will be accepted by that candidate and modifying the amount of

the pledge.”

Legally, they are covered. The item was agendized, and the word

modifying does pop up -- after the words review and consider and

discuss.

The election policies are reviewed every four years and

maintained, so it wasn’t until Councilman Steve Dicterow, who

requested the agenda item, suggested the individual contribution

limit be raised to $1,500 that some became alarmed.

Even Mayor Toni Iseman, who knows her way around a council agenda,

said she was surprised: “The agenda looked benign -- a review. Who

would have thought they were going to gut the city’s election

policies?”

Co-chair of the League of Women Voters Linda Brown said she was

devastated. She said she felt they had been “broadsided.”

As in they didn’t see it coming.

The reason agenda items must be publicized before they are voted

on is to give the public the opportunity to weigh in on what their

elected representatives decide.

Just like with the affordable housing changes, not hearing from

opponents doesn’t make it OK.

Once again, just because you don’t hear objections from the

community doesn’t mean it’s OK.

Council members can continue to put benign-looking items on the

agenda, only to make major changes before an unsuspecting audience,

but at some point, they will have to face voters. At some point,

people will have a say in the changes they made and the way they made

them.

The revision to the city ordinance will go before the council

again for a second reading. It deserves to get a second opinion.