My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
CCMIN020696
City of Pleasanton
>
CITY CLERK
>
MINUTES
>
1990-1999
>
1996
>
CCMIN020696
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
5/26/2010 10:53:45 AM
Creation date
5/13/1999 9:58:28 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
CITY CLERK
CITY CLERK - TYPE
MINUTES
DOCUMENT DATE
2/6/1996
DESTRUCT DATE
PERMANENT
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
20
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
date it goes into a bank account? He then asked for clarification of in-kind contributions and <br />how the existing or proposed ordinance would affect them. <br /> <br /> Mr. Roush indicated receipt of funds is the date it is received by the candidate or <br />committee. Some in-kind contributions (i.e. volunteers who walk precincts) do not count as <br />cash. If an office were provided without rent, however, the value of that would have to be <br /> <br /> Mr. Brandes then referred to contributions from special interest groups. Most of the time <br />he felt this was applied to developers. He felt there were special interest groups such as the <br />Sierra Club and Greenbelt Alliance that have great resources that are provided to certain <br />candidates and he felt there should be economic value placed on political consultations and other <br />services provided. He urged Council to go back to the State requirements. <br /> <br /> Bert Felix, 2860 Garden Creek Circle, agreed that Pleasanton should go back to the State <br />regulations. If the voters are concerned about contributions received after the last disclosure, <br />the voters can express their displeasure at the next election. He did not think it was right to <br />prevent a candidate from using a mechanism to pay off campaign debts after an election. He <br />did not think there was a problem that warranted the proposed ordinance. <br /> <br /> Ms. Michelotti referred to the newspaper article and indicated there were many <br />misstatements in it. After the election, many candidates have campaign debts and sometimes <br />receive offers of contributions to help them. Sometimes donors are merely adding to a <br />contribution and the name of the donor has been disclosed previously, so there are no big <br />surprises. She agreed the $25.00 disclosure is too low and causes a lot of work, but it is <br />something she can work with. She disagreed with denying contributions after the election. <br />There has not been a problem and she did not see a need for the ordinance. <br /> <br /> Angelina Summers, 4750 SuRer Gate Avenue, indicated she was a treasurer for a <br />candidate and felt it was a very difficult and time consuming job. The $25.00 disclosure will <br />prevent some people from serving as treasurer in the future. <br /> <br /> Mr. Tarver felt that even though there seems to be no problem now, there is nothing in <br />the current ordinance that would prevent a $40,000 contribution after the last disclosure. His <br />point is that he wants to know who is contributing to carnpalgns before the election. <br /> <br /> Mr. Roush agreed that was correct. Under the existing ordinance, there would be <br />disclosure, but not before the election. <br /> <br /> Ms. Dennis indicated many committees are on-going and if the proposed ordinance is <br />adopted, when would the committee be able to receive contributions again? <br /> <br />02/06/96 10 <br /> <br /> <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.