Acosta Expects His Reform Plan to Die : Santa Ana: Councilman says colleagues will refuse to put measure limiting campaign finances on the ballot.

The sponsor of a new package of campaign and electoral reforms presented to the Santa Ana City Council predicts that his colleagues will refuse to put the measures to the city’s voters on the November ballot.

Councilman John Acosta, the author of the proposed reforms, remarked: “I have not gotten anything approved on this council in I don’t know how long” and “this will not be an exception.”

Several council members appeared to confirm Acosta’s pessimistic prediction, noting that there was an ongoing review of campaign finance limits at the state level, and there was no need to enact a local ordinance that might soon be preempted by state law.

“Term limits is the common denominator that keeps popping up” elsewhere,” Councilman Miguel A. Pulido Jr. said, “and that’s something we have had for a long time.”

Councilwoman Patricia A. McGuigan said: “We have too many other important things that we need to take a look at at the present time,” and suggested that the ethics package should first be studied by a charter review committee.

Councilman Robert L. Richardson refused to comment on the proposal that was distributed to the council a month ago, stating he had not had a chance to “noodle through it.”

Mayor Daniel H. Young said the council has a “general interest in campaign reform,” and predicted some of Acosta’s proposals would eventually win approval at the state level, if not locally.

But the sponsor of the proposed measures said there is no good reason not to let the voters decide the issues in November.

“Why should we be afraid to let the voters tell us what they want?” Acosta asked.

As one of two council “outsiders” who generally find themselves on the wrong side of 5-2 votes, Acosta predicted his colleagues will vote Monday to reject placing the measures on the ballot because he is the one proposing them.

The reform package that Acosta has proposed as a ballot measure includes:

* Limiting the mayor to two four-year terms, as council members are limited under present law. Currently, the mayor runs every two years and is not limited as to the number of terms.

* Limiting campaign contributions to council members to $1,000 per source per four-year term. Exceptions would be allowed if the council member is facing a recall campaign or is seeking another office.

* Capping campaign expenditures by a mayoral candidate at $50,000 and by council candidates at $30,000 per election cycle, with adjustments based on the cost-of-living index.

* Placing stricter limits on the amounts of money political action committees can raise and spend in local elections.

* Electing council members from districts, instead of the current system under which they are required to live in wards but are elected citywide.

* Reducing the city manager’s severance pay package to six months, instead of relying on the current contract, in which City Manager David N. Ream would be entitled to three years’ pay.

The mayor said he has told council members to study proposed state legislation calling for comprehensive reforms, including the same contributions limit recommended by Acosta.

“There’s no sense putting something together in a local ordinance if it’s just going to be preempted by the state,” Young said in an interview.

But the state Assembly rejected the bill this week, state officials said. A companion bill in the Senate to be voted on Thursday would ask for a statewide vote in November on a constitutional amendment requiring the Legislature to consider public financing of elections and set contribution limits.

California Common Cause Executive Director Lisa Foster said that if approved, the amendment would apply only to campaigns for state office, not city councils. The Legislature could, on its own, attempt another campaign reform measure similar to the one just rejected in the Assembly, Foster added.

So if Santa Ana relies on state legislation, she said, it is offering a “poor excuse for not wanting to enact campaign finance reform.”

Young has also rejected other major proposals, such as the election of council members by districts, because that proposal was rejected by voters in 1983, and twice in 1986. A 1990 charter review committee reopened the debate, but the item was not returned to voters.

On the measure limiting the city manager’s severance package, Young added that “it’s a shame that (Acosta) takes his personal vendetta against the city manager and embarrasses the community by putting it out in public. People don’t realize that he refuses to meet with the city manager and has not met with the city manager in over two years.”