 during COVID I came in 95% of the time because my husband before I retired he works from home. We have our city attorney and we have all of our council members so we'll go ahead call the order. Let's go ahead and take a quick roll call vote or a roll call for the council members. Council Member Averaz. Vice Mayor Rogers. Mayor Rogers. Here. Let the records show that all committee members are here. Thank you. Excellent. Before we go to public comment I just wanted to welcome everybody. We are doing this as a Zoom meeting this week and I think we have our now normal time, normal date and time having a regular schedule for the open government committee. So I hope folks will keep an eye on that one. What are we at here? Is it the fourth Monday of each month? Is that what we're trying to do consistently from here on out? So I hope folks will take note of that moving forward. We'll start with public comment for non-agenda items for folks in the public. This is your time to talk to us about anything within the committee's jurisdiction that is not on today's agenda but hit the raise hand feature on your Zoom. There are currently no hands raised at this time. All right. We'll go ahead and keep moving then. So Madam City Attorney, are you going to walk us through item 4.1? Yes, I am. Go ahead and take it away. I'll take it away. The Mayor has suggested that we take a look at our ordinance, our lobbying ordinance. So I have put together a quick power point. I don't know if we can get that up. And then we can talk about what changes if any the committee would like to us to, subcommittee would like us to look at. I'll just walk through this but feel free if you have questions as we're going through it. So the lobbying ordinance is city code chapter 10-35. And next slide. It does include a statement of the policies that it is addressing and that is citizens have the right to know the identity of interests that are attempting to influence city decisions. All lobbyists must be subject to the same rules. There should be a complete public disclosure of the full range of activities and financing of lobbyists and that those disclosures should be adequate and effective. Next slide. So what's encompassed in the lobbying ordinance first? And we really look to the definitions in the, in the, in chapter 10-35. And we did, thank you to Madeleine, did forward copies of each of the ordinances to the council members and also it is uploaded online as well for the public. So what is lobbying? It's any oral or written communication very broadly defined, made directly or indirectly to any city official in an effort to influence the official regarding an action on any municipal question. Next slide. So that raises a question is what is a municipal question? It is a public policy issue, an issue of public policy, general policy of a discretionary nature. That means that the decision making body has discretion as to whether to adopt or modify or repeal a public policy. That the question is pending before a city decision making body and that can be the city council or any of its subordinate bodies or committees or commissions. It does not however include day to day application, administration or execution of city programs and policies. And the prime example for that is a zoning and planning applications that are being heard by decision making body. The individuals that are arguing for or against those applications are not subject to the to the lobbying ordinance. What is included in municipal questions are broader questions of policy. So ordinances, general policy resolutions, general plans, specific plans that more broadly applicable matters. Next slide. So what is a lobbyist? Obviously lobbyist is someone who is engaged in lobbying either directly or through the acts of another again communicating with a city official for a particular result and is doing that for compensation and the compensation can be anything of value. So it can be money or any other item of value and it can include also contingent payments. So if the if the arrangement is that the lobbyists will get paid for the individual get paid only if they are successful that still counts. Next slide. So registration is required for lobbyists. They must register with the city clerk. The registration includes the name, the address, phone number of the lobbyist. Also the name, the address, the phone number of the person or entity that has hired the lobbyist to advocate. And then a third must identify the action, the legislative or administrative action for which the lobbyist has been engaged in is actively advocating. Next slide. The registration must be filed within 15 days of the initial engagement and it must be filed annually thereafter each January between January 1 and January 31. And if there are any changes in the lobbyist's engagement, they get more new clients, they lose a client, they add issues, take away issues, they must update their registration within 15 days of that change. Next slide. There are a whole list of things that are not included and not encompassed within the within the ordinance. So lobbying does not include just a simple request for information from either a decision-making body or any employee. It does not include any communications from a public official or employee acting in an official capacity, public entity employee. It doesn't include news gathering or reporting, doesn't include public speeches, articles for publications. So if someone does a close to home article that is not considered lobbying, someone gives a speech advocating one way or another that is not considered lobbying. Also a formal petition for official action, it's not included. Next slide. Lobbying also doesn't include any information that's provided by an individual in response to a request by a city official. Also doesn't include communications in response to a general public notice that solicits public comment. And those communications go directly to a designated official. So if we post something and ask for a public comment on a new ordinance, those communications that are directed to the designated official are not encompassed within lobbying. Lobbying also does not include testimony from a fact witness or an expert witness in any official proceeding. And it also does not include any advocacy that's made on behalf when an individual advocates on behalf of themselves or a relative that is not included. Next slide. So this is kind of, this is really parallel. This is that the registration is not required for certain categories of individuals or organizations and it really parallels some of those earlier exclusions and exceptions. So registration is not required to public officials acting in the public capacity, again mirrors the earlier provision, doesn't apply, registration is not required for newspapers, radios or television, not required for persons that are invited by the city to give testimony. This is, this next one is not included in the earlier list and that is registration is not required for professionals that are licensed by state licensing organizations. So that would include lawyers, engineers, and surveyors, anybody else that is licensed at the state level. Next slide. Also registration is not required for an employee of an organization that is appearing and advocating on behalf of the organization's own project. It also does not apply to representatives of our unions or recognized employee organizations and it also does not apply to nonprofit organizations unless they are, the individual or organization is lobbying for a specific project issue or person for which they are receiving, the organization is receiving compensation. The organization is receiving compensation in that situation they do need to register. Next slide. And finally we're to enforcement. The enforcement, if there is a violation of the lobbying ordinance the city clerk sends a notice of registration required and the individual or entity has 15 days to respond and they can respond by demonstrating that by bringing themselves into compliance with the ordinance or by establishing proof that they are exempt from the ordinance. Any continued violation after that is a misdemeanor and it is punishable by up to a thousand dollar fine or six months in jail or both the fine and jail time. And next slide. Questions, as I said, it would be a quick summary of the ordinance. So happy to answer any questions. All right, council member Alvarez. Thank you. Could you give us an example where council member is in violation in regards to lobbying? Well, the council member would not be in violation of lobbying activities. It is the lobbyist that needs to register and keep their registration current. It is the lobbyist that is in violation and not the either individual or body of the city that is receiving, that is hearing that advocacy. In which case, we're approached by a lot of our constituents in acting in our capacity. I, for example, have reached out to my appointee on the planning commission to ask questions about a project. And I imagine that's in the course of my duty I would imagine, right? Yes, yes. Public officials are not subject to the lobbying ordinance. So yes, you can reach out, you can also reach out to other, you know, other boards and commissions, not directly to your own representative, but you would be able to to advocate. So. All right, thank you, sir. Sure. Vice Mayor, any questions? I was wondering, probably because me and Eddie are pretty new at this. When do we know if and when we're being lobbied? Probably would be a good question for us because we don't know when people are just talking with us or when they're actually lobbyists because we have a lot of people that just try to get our ear also. Right. And it is sometimes hard to know. But in general, kind of the rule of thumb, for those generalized, generalized policies, it is very difficult to know because it depends on whether the person is being compensated or not. So it's a little awkward to maybe it's a little awkward, maybe not to ask, are you are you speaking on your own behalf or are you speaking on someone else's behalf? I think you could legitimately ask, you certainly are legitimate to ask that question and whether you're comfortable, but I think you could be comfortable in asking that question. And if they're speaking on behalf of someone else, you know, find out who they're speaking on behalf of. And you know, I think when it's project specific, those project specific applications are generally not subject to the lobbying ordinance. And those, I think, tend to be a little clearer. You don't know whether they're being compensated or not. But if there's a lawyer that's speaking for lawyers on subject to an inquiry, but if there's someone who's speaking on behalf of a project that is not a part of the applicant organization, then they're they're they're likely a lobbyist. You know, the tricky part does become if you're if we're when we're going through the general plan and we're being lobbied this way or that way for the general on an element of the general plan or an element of the specific plan or new ordinance, for example, the, you know, will be coming forward with the vacation rental ordinance. And so to know whether the individuals speaking is speaking on their own behalf or is being paid to speak on behalf of an organization or others that's it can be helpful for you to know that. I don't know if I answered your question, but the question, you know, the answer really is it's difficult to tell. And if you are comfortable asking if the person is speaking on their own behalf on behalf of a client, you're certainly free to ask that question. I was just gonna say you can also reach out to the city clerk's office to see if someone if someone is meeting a point with you, you can check with the city clerk's office to see if they are registered as a lobbyist. That doesn't necessarily, you know, a lot of people don't register. So but if they are registered, that'll tell you that they're they're speaking on behalf of and they'll identify who they're speaking on behalf of as well. And conversely, if you are speaking to somebody and you find out they're a lobbyist, you can all if they aren't, you can always let the city clerk's office know let me know and then I can reach out to that person letting them know of our lobbyist requirements to register. So how does it work for broad interest groups? So like for example, the chamber advocates but not a specific business. Typically, you've got housing groups that advocate for housing broadly but not specific housing policies. Does it literally come down to whether or not that specific project has donated to that group or paid membership dues to that group? No, I think it's a little trickier than that because if they are, yeah, if it gets a little bit tricky because people will donate to those organizations because they speak on their behalf but they may not be donating with respect to a particular item of advocacy. So those are generally going to be exempt. I also would note and I'm looking back at the list of exceptions. So would be nonprofit organizations like I'm thinking, for example, I believe that Gen H is a nonprofit organization. I'm not, I don't know that for a fact, I believe that they are. So they would be exempt from the registration requirements unless they've been paid by someone on a specific project to advocate on that specific project issue or candidate. So okay, you mentioned it's kind of difficult for you to know if that's the case or not unless you ask. So yeah, but then you mentioned that attorneys were exempt. Is that only when they're acting within the capacity of an attorney providing technical, technical direction? No, because part of a lawyer's work is not just providing the technical direction but is also they are advocates. We are advocates in the role of the city attorney. We're only advocates when we're talking to people outside, when we're talking internally, we're just giving you the, trying to give you the framework and the facts and the law. But in general, advocacy is part of an attorney's work for their client. And I'm just looking at because I know they listed yes. So the registration does not apply. The wording of the ordinance is to a person who is a professional licensed by state licensing organization, including but not limited to attorneys, architects and engineers. And as long as their attempts to influence, I didn't get into all of the nuances in the PowerPoint trying to give an overview. But as long as you're appearing at a public hearing, public meeting, public hearing or official proceeding, you are preparing or submitting documents or writing for use in the public meeting. The public meeting obviously is open to the public. And you are or you are contacting city employees or agents working under the direction of the city manager or city attorney. So in general, attorneys can go ahead and lobby without having to register. Is there, what was the thinking behind that, if I can ask? I don't know. I wasn't here at the time that this was adopted. My guess, my gut reaction is that if an attorney is appearing for you, unless they specifically say I'm speaking on my own behalf, they are generally here representing a client. So you would know that they are, it's very likely that the attorney is being paid to make the arguments that they are making. Again, unless I specify that they are speaking on their own behalf or on behalf of family. And then we had an issue just a couple of weeks ago where somebody was accused of having not registered. And if you can point us to, I'm trying to remember what it was. I apologize. I'm going to go back and actually watch that section of the meeting again. I think it was development deals are exempt from the lobbyist ordinance. Yes. I remember that instance clearly because I was not fully attuned to the nuances of the lobbying ordinance. But yes, what that is is that that is the rule that the lobbying ordinance only applies to municipal questions. So the municipal questions are those that are broadly applicable, broadly applicable policies, general plans, specific plans, policies that apply just generally. It does not include, so I'll give you the full list, but it does not include the day to day application, administration or execution of city programs and policies, such as permitting, zoning and planning matters. But it does include the amendment, modification or revision to the C's general planner zoning ordinance. So anything that's on that higher level and is not project specific. That being said, it also the municipal question does include, and I'll just read it, proposed action or proposals for action in the form of ordinances, resolutions, motions, recommendations, reports, regulations, policies, nominations, appointments, sanctions and bids, including the adoption of specification awards, grants or contracts. Now, to me, the approval of a contract seems to be a day to day application, administration or execution of city programs and policies, but the ordinance itself makes that distinction. And the only specific things that they call out as day to day application, administration or execution is permitting, zoning and planning matters. And the case that we had a few weeks ago, it was a individual that was advocating on behalf of a cannabis dispensary. But again, it was in the context of a planning application application for a use permit. And so it was exempt from the, his work was exempt from the lobbying ordinance. Okay. Councilor, are there any other questions on this item? All right, we'll go ahead and go to public comment on it before we bring it back for further discussion and direction to staff. We'll start with Gregory. Gregory, you can go ahead and unmute your mic. You have three minutes to speak. Feel free to state your name for the record. My name is Gregory Farron. I just want you to know that up until about 30 seconds ago, nobody could get into the Zoom. Your staff sent out a new link, and we all know I'm now in Zoom, but Pat's still over in YouTube. And so, okay, well, she's saying she's here. I just, I bring that up because earlier you had a public comment on items not on the agenda. Nobody could get in at that time. So that's probably why you had no one who was raising hands. You should just be aware of that error, which caused the public to be frozen out of the system. We can now be in and I guess my comment about what you just described is, it makes no sense to me that lawyers and architects and all the rest should be exempt from registering. They're doing exactly the thing that you're trying to identify lobbyists for. They're being paid to say what they think, being paid to think about a project. And there's no difference between a paid lobbyist in a very narrow sense, someone who's there to make a case and is going to get paid if it's successful. Lawyers and engineers and architects are the same folks. They just evidently got themselves exempted by putting in the ordinance in some oblique way. I think they all, everyone who gets paid, to give you an opinion on a project is, should register. You should know whether the motivation of their words is, you know, from their heart is unpaid volunteers like the rest of us or, you know, corrupted to some degree by the fact that they're going to get paid if they're successful. That's the whole purpose of identifying and registering lobbyists. And that's all. All right. Thank you so much, Gregory. And I apologize for any error that made it so that folks couldn't jump in. We'll add on after our items 4.1 and 4.2, an additional public comment for non-agenda items period so that folks can weigh in at that point as well, just to make sure everybody gets to be able to say their piece. Are there any other hands for this item? There are no hands raised. All right. I'll go ahead and bring it back. So, Sue, this is obviously just the initial discussion. We don't have any language being proposed in front of us. What would be helpful for you and the staff to hear from the subcommittee members in order to move forward? Well, what we'd like to hear is, are there any changes that you would like to make to the lobbying ordinance? And if so, what are the areas that you'd like us to look into and to come back with some proposals? If you have specific changes that you would like, we're happy to hear those as well. But if you just want to say more generally, we're concerned about this provision or that provision, we can come back with some alternatives. Great. We'll start with the vice mayor. Why exactly are there exemptions? And if there's not good cause, maybe we should get rid of those. I'm not sure if that was a rhetorical question. If you were asking staff to actually respond to it. No, no, no. She knows what I'm talking about. I'm talking about like the lawyers being exempt. Why are they, why are they exempt? Exactly if she can look and see if there's somewhere about exactly why they are exempt. And if there is not good cause why they are exempt, then we need to get rid of that. Or I propose that we look into getting rid of that. Yeah. And may I just, may I follow up a little bit on that? Yes. To confirm, we'll look over that list of exemptions. We'll see if there's anything in the, if we can, if we can get ahold of the staff reports and any other explanations of why it was crafted the way it was. And we can report back to you on that. And then if there are particular, we can do that generally for all of the exceptions, I think about eight or 10 categories. But are there particular exemptions that are of concern? You've mentioned the lawyers. And just that also we'll look at licensed professionals in general. And are there other categories that were listed as exemptions? Are there other categories that are of particular concern? Well, I just think that we should be able to justify why we have particular exemptions. Okay. Thank you. Okay. Council Member Alvarez? I do understand the purpose of, of requiring all individuals, whether to be lawyers, whether it be paid, or even on the voluntary who is representing who. Although I may not understand it fully, but for a, for an individual to advocate on behalf of a, of a permit applicant, I do see the difference between the permit application, the permit application, and requiring or asking a lobbying of a chaining of a zone, a changing of a zone. So for me, I think I'll be on the page that all those individuals who are lobbying for another person be required to register, whether they're paid or not. I do see the purpose of identifying individuals who are speaking for others. So I think I would like to see more, more transparency in the process. I think that's what it ultimately comes down to. Okay. So I, I mean, so we talked about this a little bit. Part of why I wanted to put this on for discussion was the exemption section to make sure that we're addressing that. In particular, I personally think that the time where this is the most necessary involves either the approval of contracts or development, approval of development. So I do think that it should extend to those areas as well. So I would be interested in hearing what the interest was in each of the different exemptions. To Gregory's point, we're trying to make sure that the public has a better understanding of who's being paid to do what and why they're influencing. I also am in particular most concerned about the areas that the public can't see. And that applies to lobbying staff. So the ordinance is specifically about people lobbying council members, which oftentimes is far more public than the creation of staff documents and staff recommendations. You know, our staff reports for each of our items. And so my interest is that the lobbyist ordinance should extend to staff as well. But if somebody is going to be, if somebody is being paid to influence and work with staff and is going to influence the staff report, which is going to influence council members, that that should be an extension as well. I also know that based on the state lobbyist ordinance, lobbyists are barred from donating to state legislative campaigns. And I've always thought that that was a fairly good rule for the local level as well, that if you're a registered lobbyist for the city, you should not be donating in the candidate races. And so those are the ones I throw on the table. I'd also point to that state lobbyist ordinance and say that in general, we should review and make sure that we are meeting or exceeding most of what that ordinance is trying, what that state law is trying to accomplish as well. Make sure that there's some congruency there for it as well. And let me clarify with respect to lobbying of staff, it does city officials do include higher level staff, but not lower level staff. So it includes city manager, deputy city manager, ACMs, director, department directors, police chief, police captain, fire chief, city attorney, city clerk, zoning administrator. But we can look at having it apply just across the board to all employees since you are right. The beginning work begins with staff. And then with respect to the state lobbying, the restriction on donations to campaigns to candidates, would that also extend to contributions to measures or just to candidates? I'm most concerned with candidates. I'll leave it up to my colleagues to see what they think about measures. Typically with the measures, the reporting requirements are a little bit different as well. And I'm sure we'll get into this a little bit in our next item. But I was thinking in particular to candidates. Okay. Any other direction from council members? Councilmember Alvarez? More of a question, if I may, mayor. Examples, as Vice Mayor Rogers correctly stated, as being newly elected, we aren't able to identify lobbyists as well as maybe those who have been on the council or those in government longer than us. And I guess right now you brought up staff. If it's possible to bring up a situation where lobbying is happening even to lower level staff, what would be an example of that? I think the best example I could give in the main thing front and center, which is why I wanted to talk about it, was the influencing of the staff reports. Your council members rely heavily on the staff reports, the data, things that are presented to us. And if there are individuals being paid to influence an outcome who are helping by providing information or talking to the staff member who's ultimately going to write the staff report, I think that council members have a right to know that that's happening. And the public has a right to know. Absolutely. Thank you, All right. Sorry, I think I might have a little bit of a delay. Go ahead. Okay, I was just wondering, it's interesting too in the comment that staff may be influenced by lobbyists as they're drafting their staff reports in a certain way that can happen. The lobbying ordinance requires the registrations that are kept at the city clerk's office, so others could, you know, folks can can look at that listing that's public, very public. But the registration, we're not going to necessarily know that they've met with staff. There's not a disclosure requirement. So I just want to note that. Interesting. Then I'd be interested to hear how other cities deal with that issue as well. Okay. Okay, let's go go on to item 4.2. Great. Thank you. So again, it's going to be a quick overview of the campaign finance regulations. They're contained in city code chapter 10 dash 32. And as I'm going through, please again, feel free to ask questions or interrupt. You all having gone through a campaign may have a stronger working knowledge of these regulations than even I do. So I welcome any of your input. Next slide. I've included for this ordinance, the intent and purpose, and I started bulleting it and I realized no, actually the statement itself is probably the strongest and the intent is of the ordinances to avoid corruption and the appearance of corruption by ensuring that the financial strength of individuals or organizations does not permit them to exercise the disproportionate or controlling influence of the election of Santa Rosa City Council candidates. Next slide. The ordinance also goes on to explain that it is intended to reduce the influence of large contributions to ensure that all individuals have a fair and equal opportunity to participate in elections, to maintain the public trust in governmental institutions and the electoral process, and to increase availability of campaign information. Next slide. It is important to note that it is in addition to all of the campaign requirements under state law, so it supplements the California Political Reform Act and all state law requirements, including the California Political Reform Act, and others do continue to apply. Next slide. Our ordinance applies only to council member elections and to ballot measures that are only for Santa Rosa. So where only the Santa Rosa voters will be voting, those ballot measures are also subject to this ordinance. Next slide. Thank you. So the ordinance requires certain disclosure statements and that applies to every city council candidate, committee, or other person who is required under law to file a campaign statement and who has received contributions or made expenditures of $1,000 or more. And once you're in that category, once you're required to file, then you have to continue your regular filings, regardless of the level of contribution or expenditure during those later reporting periods. Next slide. Couple of categories of additional reports, late municipal contributions, and those are contributions that are by the candidate or a committee, controlled committee. Contributions total $100 or more from a single source. They're made or received within 16 days before the election and it does include loans that are made. So if you fit those categories, you're going to be subject to the reporting requirements for late municipal contributions. Next slide. We also have late independent expenditures. So these are expenditures by independent committees and they must be reported if they total 500 or more from a single source. They're made within 90 days before the election. Remember the other one is 16 days. This is 90 days before the election and they must be reported within 24 hours of expenditure. Next slide. Late formed committees must report and the late form committee is one that has solicited, received, or expended $500 or more and has not filed a campaign disclosure statement or report prior to 16 days before the election. So these are committees that are set up shortly within a couple of weeks to an half weeks before the election. And those committees must report expenditures, agreements to make expenditures and receive goods or services valued at $500 or more and they must make that report within 24 hours of the expenditure or the agreement of the AC. Next slide. The ordinance sets forth contribution limits. So contributions are limited to a total of $500 per election cycle, again applicable to candidates and to city ballot measures. Contributions are aggregated over time. Loans are considered a contribution unless the loan is made by a commercial institution at rates and terms that are available to anyone in the public. The $500 limit though does not apply to the candidates own personal funds. Next slide. Then the campaign committee, limitations on the campaign committee. Candidate may have only one controlled committee. The ordinance says per office per election. So if you're running for two different offices, which would be odd, only one controlled committee. And then that controlled committee must have a single bank account out of which all expenditures are made. Next slide. Disclosures. So on the disclosure forms must include the name, address, occupation, or employer of the individual contributor. If the information is not on file by the end of the reporting period, then the contribution must be returned. There is a provision for holding on to it for a brief period of time while you're trying to get a hold of the person. But in general, it has to be returned to the contributor. And any cumulative contributions totaling any contributions cumulatively totaling $100 or more in the reporting period must be itemized. Next slide. The campaign communications that are funded by independent expenditures. So these are mass mailings that go out to 200 folks or more. They must disclose the full name, address, and phone number of the person or committee that is paying for that communication. And robocalls must include verbal disclosure of the person or committee that has authorized or paid for the robocall. And that disclosure must be made within 48 hours of the robocalls. Next slide. Enforcement. The enforcement is by civil action only. There are no criminal penalties for violation of the campaign finance of our campaign finance ordinance. But the potential civil liability is if you make or accept an excess contribution, you'll be liable for three times the amount of the excess or $2,500, whichever is greater. If you fail to include a disclosure on mailers, it's $5,000 for each of those violations. And then all other violations are $1,000 per violation. And next slide. I think we're on to questions. Okay. Council members, do you have any questions? So one of the provisions, and I don't think it's quite in this ordinance, but it's applicable, is the citizen's voter guide and the contribution limit to be able to be in there. Can you discuss that just a little bit? Sure. And I apologize that I did not include that in the presentation. So I'm going to pull it up because I'll not otherwise I'll not know the $1,000 amounts that apply. But the provision is that if you agree to a spending limit, and I'm looking for the total campaign expenditure limit of $45,000 for city council election, if you agree to that, then your information will be published in our city update newsletter that goes out near the time of the voter update that goes out near the time of the election. And if you do not agree to that, you will not be included in that in that voter update. And that I believe goes to all registered voters. And it may be opposed to all residences. I don't know. Maybe Stephanie, she's nodding to all residents. It goes to all residents, not just resident vote, not just registered voters. And if you don't agree to the spending limits, your name is still listed as a candidate. You just don't get to put a statement of qualifications. And your picture does not appear in the voter guide. But on the first page, we do list all the candidates. And then there's just a little note that whoever didn't sign it, that's why they didn't appear. Their statement didn't appear. And we did revise that language. It used to say candidates did not qualify, which suggested that candidates didn't qualify for election. So we did change that language last time around to clarify that it's candidates whose names appear, but not their statements or not their photos. Those are folks that did not agree to the voluntary campaign limitation. Yeah, I remember that issue back in 2016. Yeah. And just to be clear, that voluntary campaign spending limit does change every election. It's based on a formula that I don't remember off the top of my head, but it's with the CPI for the San Francisco Bay Area. There's a formula that we calculate. And then I confirm that with the finance department that that formula and that total amount is correct. And Stephanie, do you know what that amount is? Because I do see it was starting from January 1, 2011, and then based on CPI. I can let me see what it was for this past election. I just have to open up my document here. Yeah, I feel like it was around 54,000 or something. Yes. Yes, I believe so. 54, 56,000, I believe was the total amount. I can confirm that while I open up my form from Ross Steyer from the last election. And I actually asked that question too, just because making no judgment on it, whether or not a change is in order, it does strike me that we've moved into district elections. And yet the threshold to get into the citizen's guide has not changed. And so that threshold was for a citywide election. And that was still at the time, you know, $50,000 for a citywide election was still a scrappy campaign that required a lot of grassroots. Now, it's not that difficult in district elections to stay under that amount. So for 2020, the amount was 59,187. Okay. Yeah. And I think I can speak for other candidates that if you have almost $60,000 to spend in one-seventh of the city, and then you still get into the guide, perhaps that's a little bit too easy, and that we should be striving for more grassroots to the extent that we can. And then I'll just, before we go to public comment on this, some of the other areas that I'm interested in this conversation and part of why I wanted to bring it, one, many elections at the state level allow candidates together signatures to reduce the cost to have their name on the ballot. And so even, I believe that the filing fee for candidates is usually somewhere in the $3,000 to $4,000 range. And again, going back to just grassroots candidates, if you can walk and knock on a door and get enough people to sign your signatures, rather than just the 10 that you need to qualify, but actually reduce your filing fee, that's a benefit to grassroots candidates who can't raise the same amount of money, but then can get on the ballot still. That might be something that we consider. And I want to say it's something like, I'm going to butcher it, it's something like 50 cents of signature off of a $4,000, $5,000 filing fee that folks with the legislature can do that really encourages you to go out and talk to people up front and try to get signatures. So that might be one that I'm interested in. And then the big one is independent expenditures for the city. We've obviously seen a number of them across Sonoma County. I know that Buckley v. Vallejo and Citizens United, they get really difficult for us to do much with independent expenditures because it's protected First Amendment speech. But I am interested in having a discussion about requiring folks who donate more than the $500 to an independent expenditure to have to disclose for the public what their business is before the city, whether it's development projects that they're seeking approval for or permits for or contracts that they have been approved for. I just fundamentally think that the more information we can give the public on why somebody is having an outside influence on the local elections makes it combat the money that comes in because there's that understanding. Is there any questions on those? Okay, I'll go ahead and go to public comment on this item. If anyone is interested, go ahead and hit the raise hand feature on your Zoom. And then we'll bring it back for some additional discussion. And I think Gregory fan. Thanks, Chris. I appreciate especially your calling out the restrictions on getting your statement of qualifications into the voter's pamphlet based on pay. I was the plaintiff in the lawsuit that went to the state Supreme Court that because I was prevented from getting my statement of qualifications into a Marin County, all county trustee election, the court ruled that legislature unfairly treated me and that led to the legislation that allowed signatures. So I'm particularly interested in trying to get statements of qualification, those kinds of statements into regardless of what you do. I totally support the signatures, but there should be no difference between candidates based on money. That's what I fought 50 years ago for and I continue to fight for that. Thank you. Thank you, Gregory. That's super interesting. I had no idea. We'll have to talk about that a little bit more next time I see you. Do we have any other hands on this item? There are no other hands raised. Okay, I'll go ahead and bring it back. Council members, I've given a little bit of direction to staff. Is there anything additional that the two of you would like to add? Council Member Alvarez? Thank you, Mayor. And I appreciate the conversation that's being had today, especially with the stamina qualifications. I recall and Stephanie can definitely correct if I'm mistaken. 10 years ago, 12 years ago, there was a way to actually get the signatures for the city council race opposed to just paying the fee. I know that that changed this time around and I definitely do see the benefit of the grassroots benefits. My one caveat, one concern is COVID. It's a little bit more difficult to approach the constituents now that nobody wants within six feet of themselves. Although moving outside of the COVID, I definitely do see the points of the grassroots efforts opposed to the money just being spent. And I definitely appreciate the statement of what business does an outside lobbyist have to do with our local politics. So with that being said, I do appreciate the conversation that's being had. Thank you, Mayor. Bye, Mayor. Torn with the contribution limits for multiple reasons. So I know why we have them. I know that it allows more of an equal playing field, I guess, to allow for people to gather contributions for their campaign. But if you don't know as many people and not have as large of a circle, it's harder to get $500 from more people or to get as much money from more people. So I don't know. Just see how it plays out. And everyone that gives or people that are willing to get more than $500 aren't always have a motive or are a part of a lobbyist or group. My mom wanted to give me more than $500 because she thinks I'm awesome and she believes in me. But she's not a part of a group. She's just a part of my godmother. She's in my fan club and she loves me. That's why she wanted to give me more than $500. That's it. I don't know. I'm just torn with the $500. I do think it's needed because I think that it allows people to not just, yeah, I can't just go write Chris Rogers a $5,000 check. Right? But then I think that some people need that check for their campaign. So it, I don't know. Makes me kind of torn. So I don't know. I don't know. Especially when you come from a community that is not very versed in the political arena. And so you don't get very many people that contribute to campaigns. And so when you do find people that are willing to contribute to campaigns and if they are willing to give some to campaigns, you kind of want to capture that. And if you can only get $500, it's kind of limiting. Then it is limiting. When you come from the community that is not versed in giving to political campaigns. If that makes any sense. Then it does. We can bring that back for board discussion with some recommendations from staff if that works. Okay. Sue, Stephanie, anything else? Okay. Let's go ahead. We'll schedule for down the road bringing forward this discussion with some more details flushed out and some recommendations and perhaps some language to that we can put in place before the next election cycle. Okay. With that, we'll go ahead and jump back. So as was mentioned in one of the comments, folks weren't able to join us for the public comments for non agenda items. And it sounded like that there was definitely some interest in having that time. So we'll go ahead to open it back up for folks to talk. And I see Pat's hand is up first. Thank you. I'm Pat Cuda and I'm co-chair and representing Santa Rosa together. I don't know if this fits under this item or if the next steps for open government task force that kind of bridges both, but we would like you very much to establish a work plan based on the recommendations of the original open government task force report and critically review the March 17 staff report and update. The staff report focuses on accomplishments and activities of the community engagement department in the main, but there are notable achievements and deficits in other departments. Specific items we'd like you to look at is the revision of the city mission statement recommendation from 2017 that we think is very important. Secondly, we'd like you to review the original task force report's recommendations regarding emergency preparedness and utilization of volunteers. The March report really focuses on the activities that the community engagement department did in that area, but again, we'd like you to look broader on what kinds of activities we could be recommending or accomplishments that we've made. Thirdly, we'd like you to consider discussions around community engagement focused charter amendments that could be processed by this committee and maybe formulated. It looks to us like the sections 10.2 that established the cab does need revision and I think it's an opportunity to discuss that at this setting or to consider removing it all together, not having it in the charter I think would be an opportunity. So I think that, sorry, that you should consider undertaking a work plan that really reflects updating the March 17 staff report for a broader focus and clear identification of future steps from that report and secondly really have a broader view when we're looking at engagement besides putting all the burden and the responsibilities on the community engagement department. I don't think that was ever the intention of the task force report. Thank you. All right, thank you so much Pat. I know Magali will probably agree with you on many of those points as well as I see her nodding her head and smiling. We'll consider those as comments both for this and I think that you're right. I think that also fits with item number five that's coming up. So we'll see if there are any other hands here for public comment for non-agenda item and then we'll go into item number five. There are no other hands raised at this time. Okay, we'll go to item number five on our agenda that is future agenda items. I will make sure that we note Pat's suggestions for discussion when we make our future agendas here. Madam City Attorney, is there anything and Madam City Clerk, is there anything that the two of you are interested in having on the agenda or anything that's sitting that you need a little additional clarity for? I'm not thinking of anything at this time. We will come back with proposals on the lobbying ordinance and the campaign finance and we'll look at the proposals from Pat and Senua's together. Great. Thanks for me too. Okay. Council members, is there anything that you would like to see added to the agenda that's not currently there? Council Member Alvarez? Please correct me if I'm mistaken but we've been having a lot of discussions about the general updates and a lot of involvement from our community into the process. And part of what I believe, this could be my misperception, but part of what I believe open government is really our efforts to involve that community. And I'm wondering how can we strengthen our different departments on being able to successfully achieve their goals, such as Magadi's office. And I'm wondering what can we as City Council do when I am depending on really some guidance on what we could do to further their outreach, strengthen their efforts. And I'm wondering what, and actually I'm leaning on your shoulder here, Mayor, what can we as City Council members do to strengthen them to support them to really, I'm not a lack of words but it definitely comes down to the outreach. How can we get to the community? How can we dedicate resources? How can we, how can we ask Magadi what do you need and how can we make that possible? Yeah, I think that it's a good conversation and I heard it both in Pat as well as in your suggestion. I've got some ideas for you I could throw out right now but let's go ahead and get an agenda item on there for full discussion and invite the public to participate in that so we can also hear from them how they'd like us to move forward on that. Anything, Vice Mayor? Okay, well thank you everybody for joining us and we'll go ahead and adjourn tonight's meeting. We'll work with staff to get some of those things back on the agenda for future agenda items. With that, we're adjourned. See you all tomorrow.