Laserfiche WebLink
The City Attorney introduced Todd Masters from Jorgenson, Siegel, McClure and Flegel <br />and noted that he had assisted in the preparation of the agenda items on graffiti and <br />campaign reform. <br />MOTION SECONDED AND CARRIED: Moved by Hubbard, seconded by Dauber and <br />passed unanimously by all members present to waive further reading of ordinance. <br />MOTION SECONDED AND CARRIED: Moved by Hubbard, seconded by Dauber and <br />passed unanimously by all members present to introduce an Ordinance adding Chapter 8 <br />(Graffiti) to Title 5 (Public Welfare, Morals and Conduct) of the Los Altos Hills Municipal <br />Code regarding the abatement of graffiti <br />5.2 Campaign Regulations <br />5.2.1 Adopt Resolution regarding campaign guidelines for the 1998 City <br />Council Election <br />Council discussed campaign guidelines and adoption of an ordinance regarding the <br />requirements for mass mailings in elections. The proposed ordinance on mass mailings <br />would reduce the number of pieces in a mass mailing to 100 and would require the <br />following identification: name, street address and city of the candidate or committee <br />shown on the outside of each piece of mail and on at least one of the inserts. Council <br />did not think that reducing the number from 200 to 100 would make a substantial <br />difference. Dauber asked what a `committee' was and the City Attorney responded that <br />basically it was when a candidate raised or spent over $1,000. Dauber questioned <br />whether this could be reduced to $600 but the City Attorney did not believe this could <br />`, be legally enforced. Dauber also suggested including in the ordinance a requirement <br />that mailing houses identify mailings of over $500. The City Attorney noted that <br />ordinances applied only to the jurisdiction of the Town and would therefore not be <br />binding on mailing houses located in other cities. Siegel cautioned about the Town <br />getting involved in election issues which were now addressed by the Fair Political <br />Practices Commission. Siegel suggested contacting the League of Women Voters to <br />see if they might want to review complaints made about election activities and to issue <br />a statement of their findings. He believed they could deal with the issue of anonymous <br />mailings by reviewing the mailing and determining if it had been sent without the <br />candidate's approval. If so, they could publish this finding in the Town Crier. Council <br />also discussed setting a voluntary limit of $5,000 for campaign expenditures and a $200 <br />voluntary contribution limit per person or group for each candidate. After discussing <br />these two options, Council decided not to include either of them in the campaign <br />guidelines. <br />Dot Schreiner, 14301 Saddle Mountain Drive, asked if the proposal to establish a <br />voluntary ceiling on the maximum amount which could be contributed to each <br />candidate of a maximum of $200 per person or group for each candidate included a <br />candidate's own money. She was advised that it did not. <br />Ralph Vetterlein, 26035 Todd Lane, presented the example of a candidate's party at <br />someone's home and no expenses are reported. <br />Hubbard asked how one would differentiate between parties and coffees but Dauber <br />noted that coffees cost less than $100 and the invitations were usually done by the <br />` candidate. The City Attorney also commented that such expenses were under Fair <br />�r Political Practices regulations. <br />July 1, 1998 <br />Regular City Council Meeting <br />