In a December 16, 2014 memo to the Elections Oversight Committee, the City Attorney's office indicates that in addition to sponsoring district events and community events, LB incumbents could use the increased officeholder sums (like the current sums) to give money to a political party, ballot measure committee, PAC, and to buy political event ads; in addition, for the first time, they could use officeholder funds to attend political events that are not for candidates.

The Council ultimately voted 5-3 (with Austin, Price, Mungo dissenting) to triple the size of officeholder accounts for which they and other citywide elected officials can solicit and accept contributionns of up to $30,000 per calendar year (up from $10,000) for Councilmembers, and up to $75,000 per year (up from $25,000) for citywide electeds (Mayor, City Attorney, City Auditor and City Prosecutor.) The proposal was advanced to the Council by its Elections Oversight Committee whose members (chair Gonzalez, vice chair Uranga, member Mungo) were chosen by Mayor Garcia.

A substitute motion by Austin (who called it a "compromise" seeking a unanimous vote), seconded by Price, would have doubled current officeholder accounts to $20,000 per year for Councilmembers and $50,000 per year for citywide electeds; it failed on a 3-5 vote.

Councilman Richardson supported the larger $30,000/$75,000 annual level and also sought to add a CPI escalator, but dropped the CPI proposal (and settled for a subsequent report on adding the CPI) when City Attorney Charles Parkin indicated adding a CPI provision would require two more Council votes to enact (instead of one more Council vote at the next Council meeting.)

[Scroll down for further]

Specifically, the Council's action on Jan. 20 (which requires a second enacting vote at an upcoming meeting, likely Feb. 3) will let incumbents solicit and accept sums for "officeholder expenses associated with holding office" under CA Government Code sections 89512-89519 but under the LB ordinance excludes uses under sections 89513(e) and (g) relating to loans to candidates, political parties or committees.) Although the ordinance specifies that officeholder expense funds can't be used or expended in connection with a future election for an elective city office, it doesn't preclude incumbents from giving funds to various groups and entities (including advocacy and political groups) whose support might prove useful to an incumbent in a future election.

After seconding a substitute motion to double officeholder annual amassed sums instead of triple them, Councilwoman Price said she was unwilling to automatically accept recommendations of a Council committee, noted that ordinances require two Council votes so that Councilmembers can reflect on and receive public reaction on their initial vote, and added that she won't be "bullied" into voting for something simply because it was approved by committee of which she wasn't a part. Councilwoman Price's comments draw a icy, bristling response from Vice Mayor Suja Lowenthal (who supported the larger officeholder sums.) To hear the exchange, click here.

Mayor Garcia, arguably the biggest beneficiary of increasing officeholder account sums as the most politically active among citywide electeds, wasn't present at the Jan. 20 Council meeting, having travelled to Washington, D.C. for a meeting of the "U.S. Conference of Mayors" (a private non-governmental advocacy group.)

The Council's action amends part of a LB ordinance originally enacted by a 1994 citywide vote of the people (Prop M) as LB's Campaign Reform Act. Prop M included no officeholder accounts, which the Council subsequently added without the voted consent of the public (over the opposition of a number of Prop M advocates.) The Council last raised officeholder account levels in 2007, supported by City Auditor Laura Doud, who argued at the time that the then-proposed increase would let Councilmembers use donated sums to support district events instead of tapping taxpayer resources.

During the Council's Jan. 20, 2015 proceedings in which all Council incumbents sought either to double or triple the 2007 boosted sums, no Councilmembers mentioned LB's voter-approved Prop M which stated in its Findings and Declarations:

"Officeholders are responding to high campaign costs by raising large amounts of money in off-election years. This fund-raising distracts them from important public matters, encourages contributions which may have a corrupting influence and gives incumbents an overwhelming and patently unfair fund-raising advantage over potential challengers.

...The integrity of the governmental process, the competitiveness of campaigns and public confidence in local officials are all diminishing." [LB Muni Code section 2.01.120 (E)]

A second Council vote is required to enact tripled officeholder accounts. It could come at the next regularly scheduled Council meeting on February 3.

Advertisement

Advertisement

Advertisement

Advertisement