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)
Item 25 Communication from Councilwoman Gonzalez and the Chair of Elections Oversight Committee recommendation to receive a report from the City Attorney regarding proposed amendment to the Long Beach Municipal Code. In regards to the Long Beach Campaign Reform Act and campaign disclosure statement and adopters recommendations. Thank you. I'm going to begin by turning this over to Councilwoman Gonzalez, who chairs the Elections Oversight Committee for a committee update and then some recommendations. Councilwoman Gonzalez. Okay. So first, in general, I want to thank the city clerk for all their work. And in this past election season, I also want to thank the city attorney for bringing this to light with outside perspective. And so as the chair of the Elections Oversight Committee, serving with Vice Chair Turanga and Councilmember Mongo, we've been very busy . Our last meeting took 2 hours, but it was an in-depth discussion around the discussion of campaign finance reform with our city attorney and outside expert perspectives from campaign treasurers from around the city who work daily on campaign finance. Their input offered clarity, updated information, and identified overall deficiencies in our current city of Long Beach campaign finance, municipal codes. It was agreed that the time is now to reform some of these issues, as they are still fresh in our minds, and so that we can better align ourselves with similar cities of our size and again, update our codes for efficiency, clarity and more importantly, wider transparency. After discussing at the Elections Oversight Committee, we directed the city attorney to organize information and determine the following. We identified that each issue fit into one of two categories the first Council approval with two thirds vote items that can be approved tonight. Secondly, pending items. Most of this of these items require more information from our city attorney and or more discussion at the Elections Oversight Committee level to then be brought back to council, as some of these items also may require a ballot measure. So some of these items refer to the following compliance with state campaign campaign finance laws, deletion of information, amendments to the language, equalizing elements to align ourselves with similar sized cities. And so I'll invite any questions and have our city attorney loop in whenever there's a question or an answer or something, he can clarify. But I would certainly like to make a motion to approve the council two thirds vote items and then also refer back the pending items to our Elections Oversight Committee. Second. There's been a motion on a second. We're going to turn this over now to the city attorney who will review some of the documents that he's prepared, and then we'll go from there. Thank you, Mayor, and members of the council. Thank you, Councilmember Gonzales. Actually, just a point of clarity this evening before you is the recommendation from the Election Oversight Committee to make certain changes to the Long Beach municipal code. So procedurally, the recommendation tonight would be to request if if you so choose to request the city attorney to prepare the amendments and bring them back to the city council for first reading, at which time you would be given the language that would be changed, a red line version, and then what the new language would say. So this evening were conceptually talking about multiple changes that can be adopted by the city council. So with that, just real quickly, the Long Beach Campaign Reform Act was passed as Proposition M by the voters in 1994 as an initiative ordinance. The importance of the initiative ordinance is that the act can only be amended by a vote of the people unless the City Council makes a finding that the amendment is consistent with and in furtherance of the purposes of the original act. There has been amendments over the years by the City Council. They have. The major change was the addition of provisions of officeholder accounts, which was amended and added in 1995. And since the officeholder accounts were added by council, the council may change the officeholder rules without a vote of the people. In 99, there was a passage of an ordinance to clarify some of the sections. Clarifying officeholder accounts can't be used for contributions to any campaign. Clarify how acceptance of expenditure ceilings is done and clarify how matching funds are done. It also discussed special elections, which were not included in the original ballot measure. So with that, after the recent campaign, our office met with a group, as the mayor indicated, of treasurers, political advisers and attorneys that are that are truly the experts in the area, not just with Long Beach, and they handle campaigns all over, and those included Mr. David Gould, Mr. Gary Crumpet, Betty Ann Downing, Jane Lederman, Stacy Shinn, Chris Thomas and Ingrid all Alana. Well, they were kind enough to sit down with our office and we went through the municipal code section by section and with input. We made the following recommendations, and I'll just summarize them and then open it up for questions from the Council. But in the definitions section, we were recommending that two changes occur, one to the election cycle, which would amend the term of the election cycle, and second which would require additional information for the reporting of corporate donations. We've had some issues there that we think we can clear up with that under the return of contributions, we're recommending that that be deleted the city provision. And uses use a city law which is stricter in that particular case. There's a loan requirement currently. We would we would revise that. All loans are reported on the form for 60. I think it's important to note that since this was passed in 1994, this was a very cutting edge in 94. But state law has caught up in past us in many ways on some of these provisions. So with that, the office holder accounts, we are recommending that you consider increasing the limits of those office holder accounts, eliminate some of the redundant reporting requirements that are required on the state forms and then the city form. Also, the city form asks for less information that's required under the state forms the time period for expenditures. We provide some clarifying language. There's been a couple of different interpretations of those sections. Remove the concept, the contribution limitations which have been found unconstitutional by the Citizens United case and also the Long Beach Chamber cases, specifically as to language, the reproduction of materials. That section is very broad wording and we think we can comply with state law. State law stricter. The notice of IEEE expenditures, we believe is redundant, as the state law requires on form 496, the same information we report, actually more information be reported. So you're causing the treasurers to file two reports. And so we think there's some economies there. The disclosures of occupation and employer state law requires that that the refund, the refund. And if you can't refund it, the money has to go to the state. And the city's ordinance just says it has to be returned within 60 days. Retention of the over officeholder accounts, we're recommending that be consistent if you consider raising those limits. And then the inflation calculation, we're recommending that you move the effective date of the implementation of that inflation calculation so that during the election cycle you don't have two different dollar amounts. We believe that's obviously consistent with the ordinance and it would save both the public and the and the candidates time and would eliminate some confusion and cost expense for everybody. And then we would also add recommend adding a requirement for e-filing and then also consider new language to clarify the intra candidate transfer language to clarify that those are subject to the individual donor rules. With that, I stand ready to answer questions. Thank you, Mr. Parking. I want to just add I think it's important just to note I want to just think also the city attorney, he's actually done extensive amount of work, him and his office on this item with the work of the Elections Oversight Committee. And I know that you've had numerous meetings with all sorts of of treasurers, as well as some legal advice that you've received both internally and externally, on what's unconstitutional that we have in our current code, as well as changes that you in the committee believe would strengthen our municipal code. And just to clarify on the motion as part of the motion, I believe it would essentially it would send back any any items that would require a vote of the people. Those items would all be sent back to committee. So none of those would be would come back to the council. It would go back to committee. And at that point, the committee could further debate or discuss and bring those to the council at a later time. Is that. Correct? Yes, that's correct. Okay. And it would also do the same thing for pending items, is that correct? Yes, that's correct. So the pending and then also that were originally two thirds I'm sorry, a ballot measure and then the pending items would go back to the committee. If I may, that on two of the pending items that could be adopted by council, we could if it's the desire of the council, I think if depending on what council, how they adopt on the other items above it, we could clarify that language and correct those and bring them back. They were pending from my standpoint and from I think from the folks in the public who have been helping us with this to to see and get policy direction from the council on where they wanted to go on these. And so if the desire is to accept the proposals as currently written or drafted, then we could fix two of those and we would recommend that the consideration of a legal defense fund be sent back to your committee for further deliberation. There were questions that we were unable to answer on that that we'd need to do additional research on. That's correct. Okay. That's that's some good clarification there. So with that, I'm going to open this up for any council questions on the issue. And I do want to thank you for for adding the issue about the the dollar amount changing midway an election because that that that's a very difficult for for us midway through. So let me start this off with Councilwoman Price. Thank you, Mr. Parking. And this may have been in there and I missed it, so I don't know. But was there any consideration given? To having a legal and compliance fund that would be exempt from contribution limits and or spending limits. For example, hypothetically speaking, if you are a candidate in an election and you believe that an IEEE has been established and perhaps some of the legal parameters that govern these were not followed. And you wanted to challenge that right now you'd have to use your campaign moneys correct to challenge that. And so that would cut into your spending limits for those who choose to follow a spending limit. That's correct. And I think one of the things that we want to look at, I'm not sure that legally we can do what as I understand your question, establish a separate committee and I don't have the citation for you or the case law on that. But that's one of the things when we would we were going to send back to the committee on the establishment of a legal defense fund. From that position, we saw it as if, in fact, a candidate is sued and to defend you would be able to have a separate fund to raise money to defend the allegation or lawsuit against you. I use myself as an example. I was sued during the committee, during the campaign, and I had to pay for those either out of my pocket or out of the campaign thing. If there was a legal defense fund. And I don't know if I could ever raise money for it, but you could actually go out and solicit money and pay for those defense costs. So the the idea is we would look at other jurisdictions, the limits and and what they can be used for. And then we would vet that with the Election Oversight Committee to see where they are on that and then come back at a later date with a recommendation of counsel. And I appreciate that answer. I think for me, it wasn't so much a legal defense. It would be for any sort of legal and compliance issues that would come up because that so much of that has to do with the campaign process is just paying all the different compliance officers and things associated with making sure your forms are right. But then again, if you feel you've been victimized by an illegal IEEE, you should also be considered in terms of that same spirit of a legal defense fund. You should also have the tools at your disposal to be able to pursue some sort of remedy. And so I think that I mean, I would ask that maybe that's something that's looked at as well, because those costs can be excessive. You know, lawyers charge a lot of money. So I think that's just one of the things to think about. So and then the other thing I wanted to ask before. We get to the second one, Councilman Price, could I ask Councilwoman Gonzalez if as part of this motion, could we send that a request from Councilwoman Price? Sure. Right back to elections oversight. Well, go. Ahead. And I think that's an a I, I, I totally understand what you're saying there. And so I think those particular discussed by the committee and maybe Mr. City Attorney, we can be prepared for that at the next meeting as well. That issue at least to get a little more information. On our elections over. At the election. Yeah, absolutely. Yes, we will address that. And then back to Councilwoman Price. The the dollar amounts that we're coming up with in terms of the things that we are suggesting as amendments, either office holder, contribution amounts, etc., you know, are those specific dollar amounts. I'm sure there's a process involved in determining what is appropriate for a city of this size. But I am sensitive to making those dollar amounts so high that, you know, the average person really doesn't have a chance if they're if not, our last presenter used a phrase repeatedly that he had friends in high places. So if you happen to not have friends in high places, you should still be allowed to participate in this process. You know, if you just happen to be an average Jane in the neighborhood. So if we're setting the amounts to that, too, to such an extent that it makes it unreachable for people who aren't politically connected, that would concern me. Thank you. The the amounts that we are discussing tonight were amounts that we talked to the committees about. And there is no magic to the numbers that we have placed before you today. This is a policy decision for the council to decide. I believe the last time that the council in 2007 passed Ordinance 070037 increased the amounts which can be raised annually for officeholder accounts to 25,000 for citywide and 10,000 for council persons. So those numbers haven't been addressed or adjusted since 2007. And there are it varies from jurisdiction to jurisdiction. For those cities that have officeholder accounts. So clearly, we are here to take direction from you to see if those numbers are where you're you're comfortable at. But clearly, the numbers we're recommending, I think, are in the realm of reality. Not too high. Not too low, but. We it's it's the desire of the Council on on the dollar amounts. The other important thing I think here is in changing the dollar amounts by a council action, I just reemphasize that office officeholder accounts were added by the council, not by the proposition. And so you are free on any Tuesday to change those amounts. But I also think that Councilman Price was referring to election contributions, campaign contributions. And I think correct me if I'm wrong, city attorney, but on that issue, that has to go back to elections oversight because that would actually require a change to the vote of the people. Is that right? That is correct. So so that issue would not be decided today, but it would go back to elections oversight. From what I understand, they're going to review and kind of see what other jurisdictions are at, and then that would eventually come back to the council. Separate of the other items. Yep. Yeah. We asked for specific information for comparable cities as well, so we'll be getting that information among us. Thank you. Councilmember O'Donnell. Yes. With regard to the office holder accounts. Those moneys would not be. Able to be rolled. Into a campaign. Correct. Those would stay as office holder dollars? That is correct. Thank you. And well, you know, one other question with regard to the timeline. Or the. The period in which one can raise funds for a specific office. What are you contemplating this evening? What would. Is there a change you're suggesting a change that there's. Or if you're referring to the election cycle? Yes, we are. We're contemplating a change to the election cycle. It's the and I use the word consensus. I'm not sure if the entire committee agreed to that, but there is a feeling that the current election cycle for the city of Long Beach is too short when looked at other jurisdictions. I believe the city have lost the time. Period to raise funds. The time period in which the election cycle closes is short when compared to other cities. I believe the city of Los Angeles is 12 months. Post the general election date. So on the back end. On the back end, not. Necessarily the front end. That's correct. At this time. Are certainly seeking to address the back end at the front end. Is that correct? That is correct. Because the the interstate. Good enough. Thank you. Okay. Thank you. Council member asked him. I didn't have. But I'm going to take the opportunity to speak at. I just want to thank the Elections Oversight Commission Committee for bringing these items forward. I think there is great value to having a brand new council here. Most of you are fresh off of a campaign. And so you've dealt with these the aggravation of these. So some of these archaic policies that we have set forth in terms of campaign finance. I do think that it's long overdue to have many of these issues addressed. I commend you all for consulting with some of the best and brightest campaign treasurers in the state. And I know we have one here, Betty, and thank you for for your or Linda, your expertize to this committee as well. I'm unclear about what we are seeking to do here tonight. What is the the the actual ask? Are we approving anything specific? Yes. Let me sure. If you want to me to clarify. Mr. Turner, do you want to clarify what what exactly would happen at the vote and what would that would trigger? Yes. Thank you, Mayor Councilmember. Thank you. The as I understand the direction from the council member in the motion this evening would be to direct the city attorney to prepare amendments to Long Beach Municipal Code Chapter 2.01 and Chapter 2.02. In the Council report, there was a spreadsheet, and then around noon today, I sent to the mayor and council officers an additional report that added some additional language that will come back to you. So tonight, if if, if directed, we would go back our office would go back, draft the language for the amendments to the municipal code and then resubmit that to the city council under ordinances for first reading and then a subsequent second reading. So there'll be two more votes on this item and you'll have all of the language, specific language and dollar amounts in front of you at that time for your consideration. And the second piece of that, Mr. City Attorney, is the motion would also then take any items that would require a vote of the people back to elections oversight. So that that's part of the motion as well as as I heard it from the councilwoman. That's correct. Okay. Councilmember so to clarify, we are we're not taking any action to to raise any limit. No, no, not at all. Not at this time. Okay. Got it. Councilmember Richardson. So thank you, because I was I was unclear on that as well. So I guess what I hear is that they that the city attorney would need direction from the council specific directions so that he can come back with red line examples and something we language that we can approve. So if that's the case, we're talking about section 2.01 and 2.2. These are things that are in the spirit of the campaign finance reform of 90, whatever it was, things that are in that same spirit along with office officeholder stuff. Correct. Those are the two things. We can give direction on today, right? Am I right? You're correct. Okay. So if that's the case, I'll weigh in on certain issues to get some direction from me. I personally didn't have an issue with the adequate time for, you know, for raising money. But I'd like to hear like some anecdotal evidence, you know, let me know. I want to understand how that's been an issue, the time period issue. I mean, I it simply it makes sense. I would imagine if it's if there's like a debt issue and it doesn't give us enough time to raise debt, is that what the spirit of this is? And would it be good if we asked Brian to come up? I know that she. So I'm picking on you, Betty. And but she was really thorough and she was great in our Elections Oversight Committee and giving us some anecdotal information. So good evening, councilors. Betty Ann Downing with California political law. I'm not here representing any of our clients. I'm here just provide any information that might be helpful. With regard to the post-election fundraising window. It occurs, you know, if the election is in June, the fundraising window closes September one. If you've got some debt from your primary election, you wouldn't have had time to fundraise to retire that debt if you got to retire debt and a general election that gives you just a couple of months in which to do that. And during that time, you're competing with candidates for state office and or federal office. So your donor base is going to be pretty tapped. And then after the November election, you run into holiday season, which people don't like to give during that time. So the idea was to extend the fundraising window to one year after the election to give folks a chance to retire the debt and make sure that their vendors are taken care of. Great. I guess the other question is in terms of. And I would. Having served as a chief of staff, I understand the many uses for an officeholder account. It really opens up your ability to really be involved in engage in the community. And so, you know, I'm hoping to increase in the the the officeholder stuff. But what I mean, I want to understand better. It sounds like this 10,020 5000 now. Right. That's the existing limit. Exactly. Is that correct? That is correct. Okay. So are we talking about doubling it? Are we talking about like what direction have you been given or what what do you need from us tonight? That the direction from the Oversight Committee was to change the amounts. And I'm going to find out. But I believe. And increased them to. 25,000 for counsel and 75,000 for city. Work. Right. Okay. So from 10 to 20 5025 to 75. 10 to 20 5025 to 75000. To me, those the ratios are off now. It goes from two and a half times a margin to a three times margin between the the council office and the citywide elected. So how do we I mean, was there a formula for that or was this a off the cuff number? What did the direction for those numbers come from? I'm a citywide no. I mean, this came from the committee. And again. Between and those. Right. Would you like would you like to weigh in on how you derived those numbers? You want to tell us again, buddy? So it went from again? Yeah, certainly. There are no magic numbers involved here. Just to look at what council members typically spend their money on and how much more they can serve their community by increasing those limits. And as far as a citywide same issue, a citywide program, citywide events to attend. And so those are lots of opportunities to be in the community, make good in the community, and just try to look at the numbers that those that that would be reasonable. That's a strictly a policy decision by the council. Sure. So if I were to give some feedback on that, in my opinion, having been a chief of staff, I would I would think. Now, I've never been a city wide elected or I've never worked for a citywide elected, but from a council office perspective, doubling those numbers, going to the 20,000 or 25,000 range. It's it's enough. That's that's good. The number 75,000 scares me a little bit so that I just want to put that out there. I'd be more comfortable just maintaining the ratio that we have, the 2.5, you know, two and a half, even though it's I don't want to seem like we're creating a larger disparity between two different classes of of elected officials. And then the other thing is we're setting policy not for the people in these seats, but we're setting a standard that people are going to evaluate for the future. So if we have a 2.5 threshold now, we should hold it. We should hold it or equalize it a little more as opposed to to widening it. So that that's that's my feedback also that some of these items I haven't had a chance to really look into and they're very unclear. But the question I have is, would any of this impact of the the past folks who participated in this past election will be voting on anything that directly impact impacted our circumstances from the last election? Or is there a clear firewall that this is moving forward? You know, this is like starting 2016 elections. Mayor, members of the council, Councilmember Richardson, this as the item is before you and as recommended by the election oversight committee, would not be retroactive. So it would not impact anyone from the campaign of 2014 as those periods are closing. And again, the ordinance would would not come back to you probably until after the reporting period in October. You'd have a second reading and then after it's 31 days after the mayor signs it. So and it would be on a go forward basis only. Great. And then lastly, the last thing I have and I think the things we can handle now, let's knock them out. So it's a question about timing. So how soon? So the things that miss the city attorney, the things you've heard tonight, you're going to come back in red, line them for this council to take action on . When should we expect that? I believe we could have something back to you at the October 7th meeting for first. Reading, and that would take those things. So officeholder related things would be in effect as soon as we we pass it. With know there would be at the first reading October 7th second reading. And then, you know, the final reading. Correct. We would it would take the majority of the items off and all of the items that would require a vote of the people would be back at the Election Oversight Committee for further study. Thank you. Thank you. And I think we have councilwoman mango. So to since we are setting direction today, I'm going to propose a friendly amendment to incorporate Councilmember Richardson's thoughts. And so let me ask one quick question of clarity to the city attorney before I make this recommendation. Currently, when you can raise up to $10,000 for your officeholder account, it can carry over, but not to exceed the total limit if that or it can carry over. And each independent year has its own amount. Okay. So to maintain the ratios is that I see Notting Hill. Okay. So to maintain the ratios we could modify the direction to include it to triple. So council would go from 10 to 30 and city wide would go 25 to 75. Is that what you're. Saying. Right now? You want to go? So what you're saying is three. You're saying. Well, I didn't want the council not to have the same representation. So if 25 times three is 75, then ten times three is 30. So they would be increasing proportionally. Was that your request? So I was thinking about the gap, the two and a half gap. So if we're going if we're going from ten to to 25, then you would take the 25 and multiply that by two and a half. It still is because 30 plus 30 plus 15 is 75. So this would be something that we can include in our motion as well to be referred back to the Elections Oversight Committee. The way I understand it, there was a friendly amendment on the floor to address the dollar amount of the office holder account. And I think the discussion now is what that ratio should be. So there's that. So let me yes, let me bring it back real quick. So there is a friendly amendment on the floor and the friendly member on the floor is to change the ratio from 10 to 30. And I'm sorry, 10 to 30 from 10 to 30. And keep that 75 number where it's at four citywide. So that's been a friendly amendment to Councilwoman Gonzalez. Do you accept that friendly amendment? Yes. Okay. So that's the motion on the floor council. Bewildered. Ten plus ten plus half of ten is five is 25. You got it. Okay, let me. And then just as a side note to that. So all council offices run very differently and the usage of our funds can be used for staffing or for supplies or streets or sidewalks or trees. And if I was able to raise a little bit more money so that I could replace a few more trees or throw a few more events in the community, this is not for. Personal gain in power. That's not what officeholder accounts are used for. They're used to enrich our communities. And I think that that's been demonstrated by some of our predecessors. And so if we're good at the proportions you're good at. I'm good with the proportions that I want to be clear. 25, which is the existing citywide limit now. Uh huh. Right now. Today. Right. Citywide. It's 25. It's 25. So 25 times two and a half is 62.5, not 75. So we're going from 10 to 25 right now. Four on the like on the council and on citywide, we're going from 25 to 75. So the council is getting 2.5 in the city, in the state, citywide is getting three. So now I'm saying I'm okay taking it to three. But the concern was about increasing increasing it from 2.5 to 2 to three. And it's oh, we're fine, we're okay. I'm okay where we are. But I wanted to be clear because I think it was a little confusion there. I, I will be very impressed with our council if, while doing all of our real jobs and our community service, that any of us has the ability to raise that kind of money. But I wouldn't want it to have to come back to the council year after year after year. So Council Councilwoman Price. I'm. I have nothing but complete, total respect for my council colleagues. I will say I just I think the issue deserves a little bit more study. I really do. I mean, some of you may love fund raising for me. I think it kind of takes away from some of the work that we need to be doing. And frankly, knowing that there's an increased limit puts a lot of pressure to do things for your district that maybe another councilperson is going to be able to do for their district. And if you were just a better fundraiser, you could do for your district, too. I just we're talking about some big dollars here. So I just say let's just proceed with caution. Let's I respect every single person here. I am enjoying the comments I'm hearing. There's a lot of good points being made. I agree with Councilman Richardson's comments regarding proportionality. But I'm just saying before we go there, let's really talk about, you know, what that kind of fundraising entails on an annual basis and whether or not that's a priority that we want to set for us. You know, this is about service, and I don't want to spend a lot of time fundraising. I want to do the work, you know. Council council member Austin. I agree with every point that has actually been been made here. And I don't think any of us relishes fundraising for officeholder or for campaigns or anything like that. But I do think this is a healthy discussion. Just curious for the Madam Committee chair, Councilmember Gonzalez, did you all look at comparable officeholder accounts and how other cities are doing this? And we actually are we where we kind of fit in to it in comparison. We asked for that information, so we're expecting it back in our October 17th meeting because those are some of the questions we we had. Exactly. We didn't get it at that meeting two weeks ago. But October 17th, we're expected to get that information, which hopefully will answer some questions. With that said, I mean, I do see the need to to raise our officeholder limits. I don't know if we necessarily have to do that tonight. I'm okay with would be taking a patient approach and allowing the committee to to do some some further work on on that particular matter. So if I could offer a friendly amendment to table that portion of the recommendation until to the committee. So that the friendly members would take the issue of officeholder limits back to the elections oversight, along with the other items you're going to go back through. Already, correct? Can we accept that from the amendment, Councilwoman? Okay, great. So there is a motion on the floor, as as mentioned by the city attorney, with the items that are going back to elections oversight. Is there any additional council comment? Councilman Richardson. Okay, so half of what we were doing was officeholder and half of it was issues that further the spirit and update campaign finance. Yes. So now we're sending everything back to where it just came from. No, no. Just the limit set for. So if that's the case. So so those things are come back and be red line for us to discuss. Yes. I got it. I want to speak against the motion then because I would like to see us discuss. I think we can as a council discuss both officeholder and those issues because it doesn't seem like it's it's it seems like very simply we can have that discussion but not necessarily take action because I'm unclear with this item . There's no specifics in this item. And so we're saying we're going to come back with specifics on half of it, half of the subject matter, instead of coming back with specific. Well, the specifics were in the memo that was provided. So there's specifics on what needs to be deleted, what's redundant, what's out of compliance. Like the genesis we talked about what cities where use this comparables like how we derive that. The information we're requesting to send back to the elections oversight committee so we can review that information and then come back to you. And those are often the things that I'll wrote. Thank you. I'm going to go to council. I'm going to take one or two public comment and a vote. Additional item. In addition to taking the officeholder account back to committee, I'd also like to take back the additional information that was provided regarding a person has changed since the prior meeting. I think, or at least I've received some concerns from individuals who had some specifics related to how this might align with the unconstitutional nature of a previous comment. So if just item de of section 12.01.210 could go back to committee. But the rest of it I would feel comfortable with moving forward because my bigger concern is and I really want to see a direction from this counsel to the city attorney to remove unconstitutional statements from our ordinance. And so that one I'm not completely comfortable with related to some emails I've received. So maybe we could talk about that one more time at committee before that one word comes back. Great. That was 2.01.21. The definition of a person we're adding in. Six additional criteria by which you determine who could or could not give a donation. And there was some the definition of who can give a donation is a person well, a person can be a legal entity. It can be a corporation. It can be a lot of things. And the business community had raised a couple of concerns about what they would need to provide to exercise their freedom of speech, to make a contribution within that limit. And so I'd just like some time on that one component, but I think the rest of it would be would that be a good, friendly amendment you'd be willing to accept today? Sure. Thanks. Okay. So with that, going to go to any public comment on the item. Any members of the public that want to speak before we go to a vote? Councilmember. Okay. There's no public comment. So I just want you to reiterate the motion. So we're going to read the motion one last time before the vote. Mr. City. Attorney. Thank you, Mayor. Members of the Council. As I understand it, the motion would be to direct the city attorney to prepare a amendment to Chapter 2.01 and 2.0 to on those items that can be adopted by the Council with the items that are subject to a vote of the people to be referred back to committee. In addition to that, referred back to committee is 2.01. 210d as in David a 2.01380 contributions to for officeholder expenses. And those are two to changes, one to a and one to see which was the deletion of that entire paragraph. And then with the other items our office would then bring back for first reading, proposed amendments, and then two. I'm sorry. Following the election oversight direction, we possibly return again. Thank you. Also to include information about the legal defense fund as well, I think that was included. But that that's to be done. You're going to work on that at the committee level. We don't need to. That's correct. That business here. Okay. Thank you. Counsel. I think there was a minor error, only that 2.01.630 was also supposed to go back to committee per the election's oversight. We did not forward that to the council yet. We were waiting on information. It's not only has. Actually, I did have that on here. And so we need to make sure that that is referred back then. That would be the friendly amendment because that was the email that we were waiting on that Roberto and I had asked to hold back. Okay. Okay, great. Okay. So we have a motion on the floor and we have no public comment. Members, please raise your hands for all those in favor. And it's unanimous. No opposition. Thank you very much and thanks. Let's also give a thank you to all the the treasurers and the committee that Mr. Parker can help put together as well. So thank you all for for your input on that. And I also I just also want to note that I know there was a lot of information, but I do want to thank the committee and that's why we have committees so that they're able to do this kind of in-depth analysis on on topics. And so I think that's important to know. We all have committees for on on a variety of topics. So I want to thank the members for, for all of their work. And next item, Mr. Clerk. Item 26 Report from Council member Council Member Urunga recommendation to confirm the nomination of Council Member Roberta Ranga to the South Coast Air Quality Management District Governing Board Western Region.