Laserfiche WebLink
Councilmember McGovern said her concern is that new candidates do not have the same benefit of <br /> fundraising over the last year that incumbents likely would and, given the current economic climate, <br /> they could incur personal debt in order to run for office. She said she has met several interested parties <br /> who expressed concerned and were more than a little reluctant to step forward once they learned what <br /> the personal cost would be. <br /> Mayor Hosterman noted that the candidate statement is truly optional and not required as part of the <br /> election. <br /> Mayor Hosterman opened for public comment. <br /> Karla Brown said a candidate statement is a must in order to have any decent chance of being elected. <br /> She reported that the City's filing fees are 3.7 times more than recent Dublin elections and 1.3 times <br /> more than the highest fees ever charged in Livermore, which demonstrates an obvious subsidy on the <br /> part of both cities. Each City requires candidates to provide a $750 deposit against which the Clerk <br /> tracks actual expenses. She stated that from 2000 to 2008, Pleasanton charged candidates between <br /> $200 and $255, a policy changed by the Council in 2010 without any true public vetting. She said the <br /> current fees are disappointing and dramatically affect the ability of many candidates to try and <br /> represent their City. <br /> Mayor Hosterman closed public comment <br /> Councilmember Cook-Kallio asked if any consideration is given to a candidate with demonstrated <br /> financial constraints. City Clerk Diaz stated that the elections code provides for individuals who claim <br /> and can substantiate themselves as being indigent. In these instances, the deposit is waived. <br /> Councilmember Cook-Kallio said it is legitimate to compare Pleasanton to Dublin and Livermore based <br /> on location, but not necessarily population. She said Ms. Brown's point about their subsidies is well <br /> taken, but noted that Fremont's fees are a great deal higher than Pleasanton's. She felt there were a <br /> variety of potential options that could strike a balance between making this more available to people <br /> with limited funds and recouping the cost to the community. <br /> Mayor Hosterman said the issue is about more than individual candidates who wish to run for local <br /> government, it is also about fiscal responsibility. She said it is important for the Council to send a <br /> unified message that it is a responsible steward of the City's budget and of taxpayer dollars. She felt <br /> there could be an opportunity to revisit the idea of subsidy in the future but that the current policy of <br /> cost recovery was a more important message at present. <br /> Councilmembers presented a number of potential scenarios under which funds might be collected and <br /> Mr. Fialho ultimately presented the following three as legally viable options, which must be universally <br /> applied to all candidates: <br /> • Collect the full fee up front; <br /> • Collect a deposit, in an amount to be determined, and bill the candidate for the remaining <br /> balance once all relative information is received from the County Registrar: and <br /> • Authorize a General Fund subsidy for a portion of the fee <br /> Councilmember Cook-Kallio inquired about the circumstances that would allow a candidate to qualify as <br /> indigent and receive assistance. City Clerk Diaz explained that election guidelines require the candidate <br /> to submit an application including a Statement of Worth. Indigence is established at 30% below median <br /> income using Los Angeles County criteria, as established by HUD. <br /> City Council Minutes Page 9 of 10 June 19,2012 <br />