Recommendation to request City Attorney to prepare amendments to Long Beach Municipal Code Sections 2.01.380 and 2.01.1020, relating to Officeholder accounts.  (Citywide)
Next item, please. Item 23 is a report from the office of Councilwoman Lena Gonzales, chair of the Elections Oversight Committee. And there's a recommendation to request the city attorney to prepare amendments to the municipal code relating to office holder accounts. Councilman Gonzalez. Yes. So I first wanted to as the chair of the Elections Oversight Committee, I wanted to thank our committee members, Councilmember Muranga and Councilmember Mongo, for their diligence in helping to bring our election finance codes up to law. I'm sorry. Finance laws up to state code. In addition to modernizing a lot of our antiquated policies currently, such as office holder account moneys. And I believe these monies would allow council members to reach out to local nonprofits and participate in a meaningful way in their local communities, such as helping organizations to sustain and grow and bringing up the amounts for the officeholder account still puts Long Beach under the average. For instance, the city of Anaheim has about 1500 dollars contribution limit with no cap on how much to raise. Just to give you an idea. So I would. Like to make the motion, although someone else made the motion to approve. But second, I was like in that, but I'd love to move this forward. There's a motion by Councilmember Ranga and seconded by Councilwoman Gonzalez. That's okay. Thank you. On on the item to Councilwoman Gonzalez makes the motion and Councilwoman Gonzales and Councilmember Ranga has made a second on on this item. Let me first take public comment and then I do have some council questions. Any public comment on the item saying not in closing public comment. Let me go back to Council Councilwoman Price. Thank you. I'm interested in a little bit of background in terms of why we think we need to raise the limit. So I'm hoping that someone on the committee can maybe educate me a little bit on why we need to change the limits at this time. Sure. Well, I know that we had lengthy discussions over 2 hours, I think, in each of our elections oversight committee meetings. But I think the the issue here was that we had still been behind relative to other cities and comparative to other cities actually have a chart, like I had mentioned, City of Anaheim, which is fairly comparative to our city, has a contribution limit of 1500 dollars per person and no spending limits at all. And the city of L.A., some something similar as well. So, you know, this allows us more opportunity to be able to fundraise, but in a way that would give back to our local communities. I mean, officeholders are intended for that. They're not intended for specific campaign purposes. It is to give back to our local communities, which many of us have done already with our officeholder accounts. And I appreciate that. Thank you so much for sharing that. I do. I. I. Respect the work that the members of the committee have done and really do defer to you in terms of the work that you've done and your recommendation that carries a lot of weight with me. My concerns are whether in terms of let me just go first to office holder, whether we really need that. $25,000 seems like a lot of money for us to be raising. And what concerns me is that our service on the council to a municipality will turn focus into fundraising and that much of our term will be committed to trying to fundraise. And that certainly is not an area that we should be focused on during our term of service. I understand that getting elected requires money, and I completely understand that having gone through the process. But I am concerned that our focus as electeds will become more emphasized on raising money that we may not necessarily need. I know that there are a lot of programs that we can do for our district, and I do know that in the past some have raised the maximum amount and some districts haven't raised any money in their officeholder account, and yet they're still able to service their client, their their constituents the best way that they can , given the resources that are available to the city without having to have fundraisers and things. So that's that's my my biggest concern is that it's going to create an environment where fundraising is going to be a priority and something that is going to be an unnecessary focus for all of us. And I just was wondering if that amount came from some some study of maybe what has happened in Long Beach in terms of people reaching the maximum and wanting more or needing more to do certain events. I know that in the third district we haven't always maxed out on the office holder, and there's a lot of pressure when that amount is raised to 25,000 too, to find the money and fundraise. To do that. I just don't want our focus to be on fundraising. I want it to be on doing what we can to serve. So having said that, I you know, that's why I wanted to know kind of what the thought process was, because I do respect the work that the committee has put into this. But some of us may not enjoy fundraising, and so we just want to do our service. And this kind of raises the limits to the point where it makes fundraising an issue. Okay. The other I know you asked a question of the committee members, so let me ask, have the other member of the committee also if there's anything else to add, and then I'll go through the speaker's list. Councilman Mongeau. So and Lina knows this very well. I, too, was concerned about potentially raising these limits. On the other hand, there are lots of things that this community needs that I am not comfortable spending our tax dollars on. And so one of the things that this does for us as council members is it empowers us to be able to fund concerts in the park and other things where general fund money that really needs to go to pay the salaries of our employees and pay for the streets and sidewalks and trees. So this this is another opportunity to help in that way. Additionally, from discussions of this fundraising opportunity, I hope to bring before the EDF sponsorship opportunities where those organizations would be able to sponsor the city directly. But recently, when approached by someone and told that they tried to sponsor something in Parks and Rec and they got a a list back that they could buy a park bench, I think that they were looking to be more generous and perhaps sponsor the entire concert in the Park series, and that mechanism does not currently exist. And so this is a tool in the meantime to be able to fund a lot of the programs that Dee does in his community, the concerts in the park that are in both of our communities. And we have a lot of single mom events in our side of town as well. And so this is an interim mechanism until the city is in a position to have greater sponsorship and partnership from nonprofits and corporate businesses. Thank you. Next, we have Councilmember Ranga and then Councilmember Richardson. In regards to the limits, it's that limited. Are there not enough? Basically, when we're looking at what we specifically if you look at that, I'm not getting paid for being on the city council. I am doing my community service here. So the only way that I am able to fund any activities outside of the office is through my office holder account and my office holder account. Basically, right at this point in time, I was fortunate I was able to finish my campaign with a surplus to put into an office holder account that helped me in my first initial weeks and months of office to be able to sponsor a few events. So what this does basically is provides us an avenue as elected officials to use our own officeholder accounts to provide toy giveaways, to sponsor events, in part to donate ads or buy ads or buy programs for community based organizations, for non-profits to help them in their fundraising. It's an opportunity for us to give back to the community that elected us by not using our own office accounts to do that. And like I say, and specifically me, I have no access to that account whatsoever. I'm not getting paid, and I can't use the office to pay for anything other than what I can do myself personally through my officeholder kind of candidate. The other thing you mentioned in regards to changing our focus, the focus is our focus. If we focus ourselves on providing our community service. That is our emphasis. I have not changed my focus in terms of my community in regard to service to them. I am not fundraising. I am not changing my emphasis to community service and to community fundraising. And that is not my purpose here. My purpose is to serve in the city council, to serve my constituents and end the city of Long Beach. If I were to do that, if I were to start changing my focus into solely fundraising so that I could do these other things, then I'm in here for the wrong reason . So I don't take your criticism lightly in that respect. I do respect it, but I don't you know, it's it's something that I think we have to put our emphasis on. What are we here for? And if we're here to serve our communities, we need to be given. Greer it. We have to have the tools for us to do that. And one of those tools is by having an office holder account that will provide us the avenue and the means by which to help our constituents in our non-profits around the city. The other one last item that was brought up, and that's about, you know, being more susceptible to special interests through fundraising. Again, that that that's up to the that's up to the candidate. That's up to the elected official as to who and what they they go after and what they accept. And it's a it's an issue that is personal to every candidate and to every elected official and how they spend those moneys. And I'm sure that I've talked to many potential contributors, not only to me, but to others as well, who say, you know, we're just going to give you your donation, we're going to help you with your officeholder account. But you're free to do with that money as you please. And there's no commitments to it. There's no ties into it. It's so that we can provide and do the work that we want to do for our constituents. So I just want to emphasize that that the officeholder account is ours to use in our discretion. At our discretion, and it's our funds. Thank you. Next, we have Councilman Richardson. Thanks. So I think that the committee's done great work. And I don't want I don't want to justify the need for tremendous need that's really in our community. I think most folks understand the needs of their Viera, their respective communities were elected to represent. I think that our council and our communities, our city has come through a difficult time over recent years. I remember when council offices were hit with $20,000 budget cuts consecutive consecutive years, staff was diminished from six to 5 to 4, some offices three. And a lot of the expectations that were that our community has, based on previous experience in terms of civic engagement parades and our community involvement in community groups, in nonprofits, we've had to pass that off to the private sector. This is a direct. We cut our budgets, but we didn't live, lift our raise our ability to raise those private dollars. So I think that this is appropriate. Now, that said, I do have a few questions for the city attorney. Just what I know that we're raising the limits today, but is it appropriate for us to talk about raising contribution limits is going to be more difficult to raise the higher number with the same low contribution level. That isn't currently been discussed yet, but it would be. Appropriate. The agenda item. Contemplates looking at that entire section. Which does include the contribution limit, which I believe is currently $500 per calendar year. And it's 500 for City Council and mayor. I believe that is correct. Okay. That said, I would want to offer a friendly that. So it's 500 for both, right? Well, currently it's a 500 and then I believe 754 for City, which I don't. Think is 750. I think I think for Mr. Mays cricket from for for officeholder. I think the seven fifties is certainly for a campaign cycle. It may be 500 officeholder for everyone. Um, I'm not. I don't believe, I don't have a. It's, it's five or 750. It's one of the two. Yeah, I believe it's five. Um, based on the research I follow what the commission, what the committee did. My understanding is that it's 500 across the board. I'd like to offer a friendly to the maker of the motion to change the contribution limits for council members from 500 to 750 and change for citywide. So mayor, city attorney, so on and so forth from 500 to 1000. And then I. Last time this came to the council, I expressed I think if limits are going to raise, they should be the ratio should maintain be consistent. So if we're going to triple citywide elected officials limit, we should triple the city council limit as well. So that would take us to 30,000. So would you be agreeable to those friendlies? Sure, I'd be agreeable to that. Great. Thank you. Okay. So just to repeat the motion on the floor is to raise officeholder limits to for council 2000 for city wide to 75,000 and to raise the level of contribution for council to 750 and for city wide to 1000. That's the motion on the floor. Councilmember Andrews. To me. Thank you, Mayor. What I'd really like to see at this point, I'd really like to thank Counsel Gonzales and the Elected Oversight Committee, you know, for the work that they put into this item. And I, like I said, I see it every day, especially with the district my size and what I'm dealing with every day . And it's really been an asset to us. But I think this is a great, great item that you brought to the floor. And and I think this will, you know, definitely be good for all of us and the changes you plan on putting together. So I want to thank you for that. Thank you. Vice Mayor Lowenthal. Thank you, Mr. Mayor. I wanted to thank Councilmember Price for the questions that she had asked. And I think at times we forget that we have so many new council members, and these are not all issues that they've necessarily been following. There was a time not to suggest that we should go back to this time, but council members had a discretionary fund that was allocated to them. I think several of us remember this. This was Mr. Mayor's laughing. It was $100,000, I believe, if I'm not mistaken. And that was utilized to support organizations, nonprofits, schools, very good causes. And given our budget crisis, that just was not possible anymore. And so what we did is we looked to our officeholder accounts to. Compensate for the loss in that in that amount. But there was no compensation. It was not one for one what we were able to do with $100,000 a year. We now try to do with 1/10 of that, and it wasn't a 10,000 all the time. That was just a recent change as well, and I hope no council member feels pressured to fundraise. I think what this also allows is for those of us who don't have the personal financial means to send ourselves to various events, and I think of the key events which are rightfully fundraisers on their own. Sometimes we get. Com tickets, but really our staff should be there. Our staff is the one that does all the work. And so to send three staff members can cost up to $750 to do so. And these are the things that we use our officeholder accounts for is one to support these nonprofits also the schools. A lot of our schools in our neighborhood, some of our neighborhoods don't have the strong PTA fundraising capacity that some of the other schools do. And that's just a fact of life. And so a lot of us try to make up for that difference, make up for that fundraising difference in the small amounts we're able to contribute through our office holder account. So I cherish this. I don't look at it as a campaign expense. I don't look at it as a way to campaign. But really, for those of you who are out there working hard in your communities to be able to do so by recognizing the neighborhood leaders and their efforts. And so it's not that different from schools that have PTA that have strong fundraising arms. It is really to supplement what the school district is able to do. I view it in the same way, and I thank Councilmember Price for her questions. They they do raise some issues. We don't want the focus to shift, but the focus won't shift. I know each individual on this council and I'm very clear about what each of your focus is, and it really is in your public service. But you also acknowledge that you want to recognize the stakeholders and partners that are working with you and support them in their efforts. So for that, I'm thankful to you, Councilmember Gonzalez, for the hard work. Your committee and I support this motion, including the friendly amendment. Thank you. Thank you. Concern, Austin. Well, a council member or Vice Mayor Lowenthal, you said, took just about every word out of my mouth here. I read your mind. I believe if handled responsibly, these officeholder accounts allow us as council members to have a greater opportunity to serve our communities. It's no secret this isn't done in the dark, that the contributions that we would receive for these officeholders account are part of a very transparent process, that it's open, it's full disclosure to the public. It's our option to raise money or not raise money for this for or for these for officeholder accounts are currently raise money for my officeholder account once a year, and I forget about it after that. And whatever we do, we're able to serve to serve our community better with an optional pot of money to work with. I can assure you, Councilmember Price, and I can assure the entire city as a lobbyist, my focus will not change. Whether or not this passes are not going to be focused on doing a good work in my district and for the city of Long Beach. I think it's very important for us to realize and recognize that Long Beach is a big city, too. It's full of great neighborhoods. It's full of a lot of different issues. We have a lot of different community organizations and they are constantly making request of us as kids city council members to help. Can you help us fundraise? Can you help buy a ticket to our fundraiser? Can you sponsor a few children to go to camp? And we do that a lot, oftentimes out of our own pockets or with the limited resources that we are allowed to raise outside of our city budgets. And so raising these these this limit actually what I think what will help us in our ability to serve our communities, and I will support this along with the friendly amendment as well. And I want to thank the Elections Committee for for doing this great work. Thank you very much. Thank you, Councilman Gonzales. Well, I just want to say thank you collectively to each of you for your thoughtful comments. I know that this wasn't definitely not a fleeting thought for us. This was a really mindful decision. We wanted to make sure that we were invested in in our communities. And I think fundraising is a vital component to what we do. I mean, like Councilmember Austin said, it's not something that we take very lightly. It's it's certainly a very vital component, especially with the city of our size. And so many of us do give back and will continue to give back, and we do so through these officeholder accounts. And so thank you for the friendly amendment, and I'd like to go forward and vote. Okay. And finally, we have Councilwoman Price. I'm gonna go to a vote. I want to thank my colleagues, too, for their informative comments. I do want to I want to especially thank Councilman Richardson, because you do point out something that's first of all, thank you for your very respectful response, because I think we should have a body where we can express concerns. And just to be clear, I didn't criticize anyone. Councilmember Muranga said that with respect to my criticism, I wasn't criticizing anyone or any philosophy. I was just asking questions and raising some concerns. I have no doubt that everybody on this present body is always going to do the right thing. No issues whatsoever. My concern is we set policy moving forward and the decisions we make today stay with this body. Long after that, we are gone. So. Understanding that different districts have different needs and different concerns. I appreciate the thoughtful comments that were made. I think I've raised my concerns in regards to our focus, and Councilman Durango raised a good point about making sure that this is something that is utilized to help our communities and and not as something that is a special interest focus, that it's it's something that's really to broaden and help our communities in general. And I think I definitely believe that this body is mindful of that and would hope that future bodies would be as well. Thank you. Okay. Thank you. And just to clarify the motion, I clarified the motion, but we're also voting on all of 23, just as a reminder. And so it's it's there on your on your screen. We all have that. So, members, please go ahead and cast your votes. Motion carries eight zero. Okay. That was a quick a quick screen. Okay. Thank you for that. Next item is 24.