2010-06-24 5-A CorrespondenceXTERNAL CORRESPONDENCE
On June 24,
received the attached
Page 1 of
Lara Weisiger -Item #5a tonight
From: John Knox White <jlcnoxwhite @gmail.com>
To: Beverly Johnson <bjohnson @ci.alameda.ca.us
<Ddehaan @ci.alameda.ca.us Frank Matarrese
<fmatarre @ci.alameda.ca.us Marie Gilmore
<Mgi1more @c1.alameda.ca.L1S Lena Tam
<ltam @ci. alameda. ca.11S>
Date: 6/24/2010 3:02 PM
Subject: Item #5a tonight
CC: Lara Weisiger <lweisiger @ci.alameda.ca.us Donna Mooney
<DMOONEY @ci.alameda.ca.us gretchen Lipow
<gretchenlipow @comcast.net Teresa Highsmith
<THIGHSMI @ci. alalneda. ca.us>
June 24, 2010
Dear Mayor Johnson and Members of the City Council:
RE: Tonight's Agenda Item #5 -A Campaign Finance Reform Referral
As the vice -chair of the Sunshine Task Force, I wish to clarify some points regarding the City
Council's actions of June 15, 2010 in sending the proposed campaign finance reform
ordinance to the Sunshine Task Force for public review and analysis. The Task Force has
scheduled a public workshop in mid -July.
As the Council reaffirmed, the Task Force operates under the Brown Act and because we do,
the campaign finance reform issue was not and could not be legally agendized at our meeting
of Wednesday, June 16, 2010. However, the item was unanimously, and without concern,
added to our July public workshop for full public participation and discussion.
While I respect the beliefs that Ms. Lipow shared with the City Council in her June 1 6 th email,
she was representing only her oven personal position on the matter and in this case it is a
position that is not consistent with the actions of the Task Force itself. To this point, the email
was not sent or shared with members of the Task Force.
Issues surrounding campaign finance reform have been a part of the City Councils 14+ month
open- government discussion that resulted in the creation of the Sunshine Task Force. It is a
concern that such an important item would be slapped onto a last minute special meeting that
has extremely love- public awareness and furthermore the referrals reasoning to look at
reversing a majority -vote of the council starts the City Council down a slippery slope.
The majority of the city council who supported the referral to the Sunshine Task Force
referenced the lack of public awareness and participation in the creation of the proposed
ordinance, and yet the Mayors referral cites a possible misstatement of fact by a random
member of the public which is not germane to the reasoning cited by Council members
Gilmore, Tam and Matarrese in their support of the majority action.
If the council heads down the road of re- hearing items that have been decided because a
member of the minority feels an incorrect, non relevant statement of fact was made during
public comment, the public process is going to bog down.
Personally, I believe that an issue of such import as campaign finance reform must first be
file:X:`Doctinients and Settzngs \cc user \Local Settings\Teiizp\ Pgrpwise14C23737EAla... 6/24/2010
Page 2 of 2
thoroughly reviewed, parsed and vetted by members of the public as it has significant
implications on electoral politics. Any ordinance should not change the rules in the middle of an
active campaign. I support the councils decision that the best vehicle to assist in that process
is the Sunshine Task Force.
Thank you for your time and consideration.
John Knox White
14,000 (66 of Alaniedans supported Measure E, more than voted No on
Measure B.
file:1 /C:'Documents and Settingslcc user\Local Settings\Temp1XPgipw se \4C23737EAI.a... 6/24/2010
Page IofI
Beverly Johnson Fwd: Campaign finance
From: <gretchenlipow c@corncast.net>
To: <bj ohnson @ci. atarneda.ca.us>
Date: 6/22/20 8:44 PM
Subject: Fwd: Campaign finance
Forwarded Message
From: gretchenlipow @comcast.net
To: cbaines @ci.alameda.ca.us
Sent: Wednesday, June 16, 2010 4 :00 :03 BM
Subject: Fwd: campaign finance
Dear Mayor Johnson;
Thanks for your level headed thoughts I was appalled at the direction
of the majority of council.
After watching the council meeting, here is where I stand.
don't know how or why Jon Spangler used nay name ...he made no sense to me.
Most importantly, our Sunshine committee was explicitly instructed
not to cover campaign financing and the lobbyist issue.
Our committee was established to develop a Sunshine ordinance.
So that is what we have been doing. After reading several other city
ordinances we are bringing forth an ordinance for Alameda. By the way, there
may be a city Sunshine ordinance out there that covers campaign financing
but I haven't seen it. In fact I can't find reference to this topic in the Brown
Act.
Our ordinance addresses the city's requirement to maintain transparency
and proper notification the public on all government matters.
We are not supposed to inject ourselves into judging what policies the
city may or may not adopt. So now in the middle of our work you are going
to throve this complicated issue in our lap? I don't believe we are properly
prepared to deal with it and I for one will step down from the committee. Sorting
through this apparently hot political issue, in my opinion, is the council's job, not ours.
In fact I think it would transform this committee into something else as each member
would "take sides" etc. we would be placed in the role of lobbyists; fighting amongst ourselves
on ISSUES when in fact we are only to safeguard the transparency /open records matters.
To sum up I think it wrong of the council to pass off this important issue to the Sunshine
Committee. council needs to rethink what they are doing and bite the bullet. If council finds
this controversial how do you think the committee will find it Tossing
this to us puts us in the driver's seat where we don't belong. Yes, we are for transparency
and open records etc. But who is going to codify "more time" or "loopholes?"
It can't be done as these are political matters that belong in the hands that are vested
to do so.
Regards
Gretchen Lipow
file: //C:\Do and Settingslcm user \Focal Settings\ Temp \XPgrpwise \4C212OB9Ala... 6/23/2010
L a elslge e: -wd: ampa gn inan Page
From:
"Lena Tam" <Itam a@ci.alameda.ca.us>
To:
<g retch enlipow a@7comcast.net>
CC:
<katequick @comcast.net>
Date:
6116/2010 4:51 PM
Subject:
Re: Fwd: Campaign finance
Hello Gretchen
I appreciate your concern. I think it is within the purview of the Sunshine Task Force to "relegate" the conducting of public forums
to the League of Women Voters or another good government community group in Alameda to review and offer comments on the
proposed campaign finance ordinance. At last night's meeting, the Council majority wanted to provide more public scrutiny on a
proposed ordinance. It does not make sense to change the rules in the middle of the campaign because it inherently
disadvantages potential candidates. Several councilmembers have already raised significant funds for their campaigns in their
mayoral bid, and this ordinance would not apply to funds that they have already raised. Nor would it apply to the current mayor,
who can transfer funds from her County Supervisor race to her council campaign, where there are no contribution limits. This
inherent conflict of interest is the reason that this particular council should not jam an ordinance through for the sake of having an
ordinance for the November 2010 election. It should be adopted in the calm between campaigns, like 201 The newly seated
council will have the ultimate authority to adopt.
Thank you for your service on the Sunshine Task Force. I appreciate your time constraints. Perhaps you can suggest a
replacement if you no longer wish to serve on the Task Force.
Lena Tam Councilmember, City of Alameda 12263 Santa Clara Ave, Alameda, CA 945011510-747-4722
ltam@ci.alameda.ca.us
<gretchenIipow a@comcast.net> 06/16/10 4:02 PM »y
After watching the council meeting, here is where I stand.
I don't know how or why ,Jon Spangler used my name __.he made no sense to me.
Most importantly, our Sunshine Committee was explicitly instructed
not to cover campaign financing and the lobbyist issue.
Our committee was established to develop a Sunshine ordinance.
So that is what we have been doing. After reading several other city
ordinances we are bringing forth an ordinance for Alameda. By the way, there
may be a city Sunshine ordinance out there that covers campaign financing
but I haven't seen it. In fact I can't find reference to this topic in the Brown
Act.
Our ordinance addresses the city's requirement to maintain transparency
and proper notification the public on all government matters.
We are not supposed to inject ourselves into judging what policies the
city may or may not adopt. So now in the middle of our work you are going
to throw this complicated issue in our lap? I don't believe we are properly
prepared to deal with it and I for one will step down from the committee. Sorting
through this apparently hot political issue, in my opinion, is the Council's job, not ours.
In fact I think it transform this committee into something else as each member
on ISSUES when in fact we are only to safeguard the trans parencyfopen records matters.
To sum up l think it wrong of the Council to pass off this important issue to the Sunshine
Committee. Council needs to rethink what they are doing and bite the bullet. if Council finds
this controversial how do you think the committee will find it Tossing
this to us puts us in the driver's seat where we don't belong. Yes, we are for transparency
and open records etc. But who is going to codify "more time" or "loopholes."
It can't be done as these are political matters that belong in the hands that are vested
to do so.
Regards
Gretchen Lipow