Council Rescission of Spending Cap Questioned

Two City Council members are asking the district attorney’s office to investigate whether the panel broke the state’s open-meeting law this week when it rescinded a voluntary spending cap for the November election.

Although the cap was voluntary and never formally made law, its revocation should have been put on the council agenda, Councilwomen Linda Parks and Elois Zeanah said.

Instead, the spending cap was rescinded as the council approved a landmark campaign-finance reform ordinance, which does not specifically mention ending the voluntary cap.

“I think, as elected representatives, we must always be sensitive to public notification and public participation,” Parks said Friday.

“In this case, it was not on the agenda, and the public was not warned,” she said. “I think it’s clearly a violation of the public’s trust and the Brown Act,” which governs open meetings.

Parks and Zeanah are asking the district attorney’s office to check the legality of the council’s actions, or that the spending cap be reconsidered on its own at a future meeting.

Michael K. Frawley, chief deputy district attorney of special investigations, said prosecutors would only comment on the complaint if they consider it and reach a decision on its legality.

A lawyer specializing in the Brown Act said he believes Parks and Zeanah are correct despite the fact the spending cap was never formally approved.

Because it was approved in concept in January, the spending cap should have been its own agenda item, said Terry Francke, general counsel of the California First Amendment Coalition in Sacramento.

“If it was addressed, deliberated on and voted on separately [in January], it should have been on the agenda as a separate item for discussion this time,” Francke said. “I don’t see what harm there would have been in waiting for the next meeting.”

Councilman Andy Fox and Mayor Mike Markey said they acted on the city attorney’s advice, as well as advice from elections lawyer Craig Steele, who advised the committee that wrote the campaign finance ordinance, approved on a 5-0 vote.

At a meeting Tuesday, Steele voiced two concerns on the spending cap: that it could not be rescinded because it was never formally approved, and that it very likely is unconstitutional.

Fox pointed out that Parks and Zeanah joined others on the council in voting for the end of the spending cap, which was tied to the campaign reform law in the final vote. Parks and Zeanah failed to separate the issues.

City Atty. Mark Sellers “made it clear that we could address the spending cap because it is part of campaign-finance reform,” Fox said Friday. “This is another example of Mrs. Zeanah and Mrs. Parks screaming that the sky has fallen when they don’t get their own way. It’s ludicrous for them to ask the district attorney to investigate.”