Zeanah Bid to Discuss Finance Reform Rejected : Thousand Oaks: Fox, Lazar shoot down colleague’s proposal to open contributions to a public hearing.

A proposal by City Councilwoman Elois Zeanah to open a public discussion on campaign-finance reform in Thousand Oaks elections was soundly rejected by two of her colleagues.

“I see very little benefit to bringing this issue before the council,” Councilman Andy Fox said late Tuesday night. “I don’t think this community has a problem.”

Prompted by the most costly council race in the city’s history--candidates collectively spent more than $213,000 in the November election--Zeanah delivered a report during the council comment time on various campaign reforms enacted in other California cities.

Council comments usually occur late in the evening, when most members of the public have already trooped home or turned off their television sets. Zeanah asked the council to allow the item to appear on next Tuesday’s agenda as a public hearing during the early part of the meeting.

But Fox and Councilwoman Judy Lazar quickly quashed that notion, saying they might be willing to look at the issue, but not until the June special election and 1996 elections are passed.

“I think we ought to wait on this,” Lazar said. “This last election could have been an aberration.”

Zeanah listed eight ways of imposing stricter regulations on how candidates raise funds, but said she was in no way wedded to any of them.

“I would not personally support adopting all of these,” Zeanah said. “I just wanted to give a report on all the options.”

Two suggestions apply directly to Fox’s fund raising during the 1994 council race, which he won easily, receiving 17,743 votes, compared to Zeanah’s 11,887.

Zeanah pointed out that some cities in the League of California Cities do not allow money to be accepted after the election. Fox received a $11,000 donation from North Ranch businessman Charles Probst two weeks after the election.

He also accepted a $1,000 donation from the Lang Ranch Co. four days after the election. Another of Zeanah’s proposals would restrict contributions from people who do business with the city. The Lang Ranch Co. is engaged in a battle with the city over permits for a flood-control project the developer wants to construct on Westlake Boulevard.

Fox said he was not offended by Zeanah’s suggestions.

“I didn’t take it personally,” Fox said. “I don’t take things personally up there. I stand by the type of campaign we ran.”

Until the debate on campaign reform Tuesday night, the often-combative council members appeared to be turning over a new leaf, as Zeanah, Lazar and Jaime Zukowski, all clad in fiery red, traded jokes, smiles and Valentine’s Day quips.

But when the issue of limiting spending and individual contributions was raised, the mood changed quickly. After Zeanah’s motion to put campaign reform on next week’s agenda failed, she said she would bring it up again during council comments instead.

“Is it your intention to keep bringing this up under council concerns?” Fox asked sharply.

Looking for an alternative, Mayor Zukowski suggested that the next quarterly citizens’ meeting--a community discussion group first led by former Councilman Frank Schillo--be devoted to the topic.

But Lazar protested, saying that the meetings have not resumed since Schillo left office in December and that the council needs to discuss who might head those meetings or choose topics.

A motion by Zukowski to hold a quarterly meeting failed when Fox and Lazar voted against it. Instead, the council agreed to discuss policy issues relating to the quarterly meetings at the Feb. 28 meeting.

Zukowski expressed frustration over the issue Wednesday, saying she received calls from many residents urging reform after November’s bitter election.

“I know there is support for this and I think it was perfectly valid for a council member to bring it up,” she said. “This subject needs a closer look, and I hope the two council members will reconsider their position.”

But Fox disagreed, saying most residents simply want to forget about the last election.

“I don’t think this is a gigantic issue that the council needs to deal with now,” he said. “In my view, I have not seen a problem. I think the problem, if there is one, is the negative campaigning, and you can’t legislate that. You can’t legislate personal character.”