My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
CCMIN 04202021
City of Pleasanton
>
CITY CLERK
>
MINUTES
>
2020 - PRESENT
>
2021
>
CCMIN 04202021
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
6/3/2021 4:17:05 PM
Creation date
6/3/2021 4:16:57 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
CITY CLERK
CITY CLERK - TYPE
MINUTES
DOCUMENT DATE
4/20/2021
DESTRUCT DATE
PERMANENT
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
15
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
View images
View plain text
She expressed support for revisiting the issue. She advised that her preference would be for the City <br /> Council and mayoral election expenditure totals to be the same but conceded the slight difference is not <br /> a big deal. She seconded the motion. <br /> In response to Councilmember Balch's inquiry, Councilmember Arkin reported the mayoral office is <br /> larger than a City Council seat. She advised jumping from $24,000 to $30,000 is extremely insignificant <br /> yet still larger. She explained she does not see the $60,000 argument being valid because it is for two <br /> elections and not just one. <br /> Councilmember Balch remarked he agrees with the two-election component and is not attempting to <br /> minimize the Mayor's role but hopes to convince either Councilmembers Arkin or Testa to tie the sum to <br /> the number of voters instead of a set amount. He noted the FPPC alters the State's contribution limit as <br /> a result of inflation. He noted Pleasanton is a changing community including the number of voters as <br /> the City approaches build-out due to the new Housing Element and believes tying the dollar limit to <br /> inflation and/or the number of voters is an essential element. <br /> Councilmember Balch expressed support for the $1,000 contribution limit and suggested bifurcating the <br /> item into the contribution and expenditure limits. He advised his goal with the spending limit is to <br /> prevent dark money from going into PACs and independent expenditures. He remarked he hopes that <br /> voters could look up a single Form 460 and find every contribution to the candidate with no concerns <br /> about dark money. He suggested an expenditure limit of 75 cents per voter consistent between mayoral <br /> and City Council elections. He reiterated that timely and accurate reporting must be the highest <br /> standard for transparency. He agreed with the public comments about the difficulties faced by a <br /> challenger against an incumbent and noted he would like them to have as equal footing as possible. <br /> Councilmember Narum expressed support for the $1,000 contribution limit and expressed support for <br /> bifurcation so she can vote in favor of the voluntary contribution limit. <br /> Councilmember Narum cited her extensive past Pleasanton political experiences and advised she did <br /> not understand the need for the mayoral race expenditure limit to be higher. She advised yard signs <br /> and advertisements cost the same and the number of voters is the same. She expressed support for a <br /> dollar amount tied to the number of registered voters and expressed appreciation for Councilmember <br /> Arkin moving off of the arbitrary number of $15,000. She questioned why $1 per voter was acceptable <br /> in 2008 but not today. She agreed that $55,000 is too high and stated it should be lower but reiterated <br /> her belief it should be tied to a reasonable amount per voter. She advised 50 cents seemed low to her <br /> but she could compromise at 75 cents. <br /> Councilmember Narum remarked that the question of PACs and individual independent expenditures is <br /> really important and noted the City should not force money out into rogue individuals spending for <br /> candidates out of the public eye. She noted a PAC's Form 460 is much more difficult to digest than an <br /> individual's and they do not meet their residents' desire for transparency. She referenced Mr. Ritter's <br /> comments about spending $40,000 and losing and noted others have spent in the 30s. She reported <br /> her maximum was $22-23,000. She remarked that if the limits were lower that money would have gone <br /> out to PACs and individuals rather than the candidate. <br /> Councilmember Narum remarked that even more than the $55,000 voluntary expenditure limit the <br /> $500-600 cost of having your ballot statement printed in the guide can be even more intimidating. She <br /> noted this is as much of a concern as wherever they land on the dollar figure for an expenditure limit. <br /> Councilmember Narum restated her desire to see the figure tied to a per voter limit and noted the <br /> inflation component is less important. She advised the City is growing and bringing in more registered <br /> voters which should be the benchmark. <br /> City Council Minutes Page 7 of 15 April 20, 2021 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.