We know who will be on our ballots in November. Congratulations to all of our citizens who have decided to run for office and try to serve our community in this very special way. One difference in the Chapel Hill elections is that we are engaged in a state experiment with voter owned elections whereby candidates receive tax dollars to finance most of their campaign costs. One argument for this plan is that removing the barrier of money, candidates who might not run for office would now do so.
We have one mayoral candidate of the four participating and one of the eight Council candidates participating. The mayoral candidate participating was a vigorous supported of the plan. One not participating is a Council member who was a vigorous opponent. Nothing surprising there. But on the Town Council ballot the only participant is a second time challenger who finished 6th in 2007. What is puzzling to some is that the three incumbents on the ballot who voted for taxpayer funded elections (let’s call it what it is!) are not participating. Why is that?
I still think we are trying to fix a problem that doesn’t really exist. Money to win a seat is not the problem; time to serve is the challenge. There is no evidence that campaign spending is corrupting our elections. And I do favor publically funding those judicial elections; they give me a choice on giving my money or not. Choices matter and that’s what elections are and should beall about.
Showing posts with label Public Financing of Elections. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Public Financing of Elections. Show all posts
Saturday, August 1, 2009
Thursday, June 18, 2009
SOME HISTORICAL CONTEXT -PUBLIC FINANCING OF ELECTIONS
In May 2008 I wrote the Town Council about my concerns about public financing. I was intrigued by the fundamental assumptions of the ordinance, so I asked the Town Attorney. What follows is the exchange with the Attorney and Councilman Strom that is now part of the public record. Note how my position got personalized in the 7th email, and my response to Mr. Strom in the 8th. Councilman Kleinschmidt concludes the exchange in the 9th email with a very "lawyerly" response.
I still believe that the Town Council would have been wise to allow two elections to come between their approval of the program and the execution for the first time. Doing that would have allowed people to consider any incumbent running for reelection who voted for or against it. Let the people speak and don't penalize them because of their legal contributions to political candidates!
ORIGINAL EMAIL
From: Fred Black [mailto: xxx@xxxxxxxx.xxx]
Sent: Thursday, May 15, 2008 2:56 PM
To: Town Attorney
Subject: VOE Ordinance
Ralph,
I wasn't able to attend the hearing last night because of another commitment, but maybe you can help me with my question. I realize that the State Board of Elections required you to use the purpose language that you did, but it says in the proposed ordinance:
The Town Council of the Town of Chapel Hill finds that:
(a) There is a compelling need to address the detrimental effects of increasingly large amounts of money being raised and spent to influence the outcome of elections for Mayor and Town Council.
(b) These contributions and expenditures may cause corruption or the appearance of corruptions in the election process.
How was this "found?" Has there been any research on this?
Thanks,
Fred
________________________________________
2D EMAIL
From: Toni Pendergraph
Sent: Thursday, May 15, 2008 3:06 PM
To: Ralph Karpinos
Subject: FW: VOE Ordinance
RDK – we received this email from Mr. Black today at our website address.
Toni
________________________________________
3D EMAIL
From: Ralph Karpinos [mailto: xxx@xxxxxxxx.xxx]
Sent: Thursday, May 22, 2008 3:36 PM
To: xxx@xxxxxxxx.xxx
Cc: Bill Strom; Sally Greene; Mark Kleinschmidt; Jim Ward
Subject: FW: VOE Ordinance
Fred,
You may wish to make this inquiry directly to the Council or to the Committee of the Council that worked on this project.
From my perspective, having worked with the Committee and attended their meetings over the last several months, I believe that the ordinance that the Committee has proposed for the Council includes findings that are based on the collective and individual experiences of the committee members and, if enacted by the Council, would be based on the collective and individual experiences of the Council members who chose to vote for the program. This, I believe, would include the numerous campaigns each committee member has been involved with as a candidate, as well as other experiences they have had observing and working in local campaigns, perhaps on behalf of other candidates. In addition, some of the committee members have had conversations with other candidates for other local offices and have had conversations with persons associated with local election administration at the Orange County Board of Elections, as well as conversations with staff at the North Carolina Board of Elections.
Committee members are copied on this response to your inquiry and may wish to respond to you as well.
Ralph
________________________________________
4TH EMAIL
From: Fred Black
To: 'Ralph Karpinos'
Cc: 'Bill Strom' ; 'Sally Greene' ; 'Mark Kleinschmidt' ; 'Jim Ward'
Sent: Thursday, May 22, 2008 3:57 PM
Subject: RE: VOE Ordinance
Thanks Ralph. Maybe a committee member is able to share how this was "found" and any research that was done. I ask only because the SBOE and the ordinance direct the use of this language, but the statement indicates that the Town Council of the Town of Chapel Hill finds that the points are true. So, my question remains, how, other than anecdotally, was this discerned?
Fred
________________________________________
5TH EMAIL
From: Bill Strom [mailto: xxx@xxxxxxxx.xxx]
Sent: Friday, May 23, 2008 10:54 AM
To: Fred Black
Cc: Mark Kleinschmidt; Ralph Karpinos; Sally Greene; Jim Ward
Subject: Re: VOE Ordinance
Thanks for your question Fred. Hope you are well, and we ought to grab a cup of coffee one of these days and catch up. I looked for you yesterday at The Chamber's reception but must have missed you....or you had better things to be doing :-)
Just to be clear about where you stand on this issue - even if the ordinance findings you are concerned about were eliminated you would still be standing in opposition to the V O E program for Chapel Hill - correct? My understanding has been that you simply don't believe this program hold benefits for the community of any sort. Please let me know if I'm misinformed.
My current thought (prior to hearing all the evidence which will be on the record prior to a vote) is that there has been reporting and editorials in the local papers over the years which support the two finding findings - and I will see that some of these articles are entered into the public record when the hearing continues on 6/9. I also believe Ralph's response to your inquiry was a reasonable representation of the feelings and beliefs of the committee members.
I sure hope you can appear at the hearing on 6/9 and make your concern known, or if you wish I will offer your emails for the public record. I expect they will be discussed by council at that time regardless since you clearly raise a good point (or two).
Regards,
Bill
Chapel Hill News Editorial Sunday, February 16, 2003
Mayor's race shows need for reform
Chapel Hill has a campaign-spending law that's better than most.
The law limits contributions to $200 per individual in an election, and it requires disclosure of any donors who give more than $20. That's much more restrictive than state law, which "limits" contributions to $4,000 and has a $100 threshold for disclosing contributors' names.
But even with the tighter restrictions, spending in the last Chapel Hill mayor's race was double the amount from the previous mayoral race in 1999 and more than triple the amount spent in 1995. Democracy North Carolina, the Carrboro-based public interest group, released a report last week calling the trend "troubling" and urging public financing of campaigns in Chapel Hill.
In the 2001 mayoral election, Kevin Foy beat Lee Pavao, 57 percent to 39 percent. They each spent more than $25,000 on the election, for a total of $51,000, or $6 per vote.
The Democracy North Carolina study made several troubling findings about that election:
-- Most of the money - $43,100 - came from 247 people who gave $100 or more. Put another way, 84 percent of the spending came from less than one half of 1 percent of the population.
-- More than a third of Pave's major donations came from people connected to the development industry.
-- Foy did not disclose the occupations of most of his large donors. Pave did, although the descriptions often were vague.
-- Each candidate ended up digging into his own pocket to finance the campaign - Foy $9,800 and Pavao $4,354.
As Democracy North Carolina points out, those kinds of entry fees put the mayor's race out of the spending range of many ordinary citizens. They also subject candidates, when they are elected, to undue pressure from their contributors.
The report doesn't address a key question: Why have campaign costs escalated so much in recent years? Chapel Hill is not a television market, but the costs can be attributed to increasing sophistication of campaigns. Both candidates spent heavily on direct mail - which entails hefty printing and postal expenses - and Foy also employed a paid campaign consultant and polling in his campaign.
Unfortunately, the lesson from the election is that such expensive tactics work, and they thus will become the norm in future elections.
Unless, that is, the town does something to short-circuit the spending cycle. Democracy North Carolina offers a good alternative. The organization is proposing for Chapel Hill a "voter-owned elections" program that would give candidates public funding in exchange for accepting spending limits.
The proposed limits would be $10,000 for the mayor's race and $5,000 for a town council seat. To qualify, candidates would have to raise small donations of $5 to $10 from a minimum number of contributors - 200 for mayoral candidates, 100 for council.
The program would be voluntary, and non-participating candidates would be free to spend as much as they want, within the existing laws.
We think this model, in some form, is a good idea. It would instantly curtail campaign spending, level the playing field for all candidates, lower entry barriers for the non-wealthy and, most important, eliminate influence of special interest groups. There will be objections to the notion of using taxpayer money to fund campaigns - the 2001 election would have cost about $80,000, Democracy North Carolina figures - but that cost is more than offset by the benefits in terms of clean campaigns and better candidates.
Chapel Hill prides itself in being on the cutting edge of progressive government. There is no better place to start than with campaign finance reform.
________________________________________
6TH EMAIL
From: Fred Black
To: 'Bill Strom'
Cc: 'Mark Kleinschmidt' ; 'Ralph Karpinos' ; 'Sally Greene' ; 'Jim Ward'
Sent: Friday, May 23, 2008 3:20 PM
Subject: RE: VOE Ordinance
Bill,
I do not support this program and I was struck by the assertion in the purpose statement that seemed to be anecdotal at best. Are they really findings from some sort of rigorous examination of the issue? I think the Council can do better if serious about making the point. The Council seems to require a much higher standard from others who appear before them, but it doesn't seem to me that in this case the Council is holding itself to that same standard. If my perception is incorrect, remember, many perceptions are but they are still perceptions.
Your write, "My understanding has been that you simply don't believe this program hold benefits for the community of any sort. Please let me know if I'm misinformed." That is not my position. In the email that I sent to each member of the Council, I laid out my concerns about the assumptions that are built into the ordinance. I wrote Ralph about the language of the Ordnance purpose statement, and in particular, the "finding" language. This is not to say that it might not do something beneficial at some point, but in my opinion, it has problems and it just doesn't rank higher than many other important priorities in my mind. I would rather us our limited resources on things other than subsidizing campaigns.
I really think our leaders at all levels of government will be put to the budget test as the economic pressures increase and our available dollars are reduced. When I add potentially $60K for the art position and $50K for this program, I see $110K going to things that are not as high a priority in my mind and the minds of some other citizens. It's sad, but too many are unwilling to bother speaking out because they sense that the majority vote is already there, so why bother they ask.
I just think we can do better as stewards of our limited resources than spending this kind of money on a problem that has not been adequately described.
Fred
________________________________________
7TH EMAIL
From: Bill Strom [mailto: xxx@xxxxxxxx.xxx]
Sent: Friday, May 23, 2008 5:11 PM
To: Fred Black
Cc: Sally Greene; Mark Kleinschmidt; Jim Ward; Ralph Karpinos
Subject: Re: VOE Ordinance
OK Fred - Thanks.
I respect your opinion and I take comfort knowing that you care enough to make your position known to me. You will recall that I was elected in 1999 - and at that time I made a significant issue out of public finance of campaigns in Chapel Hill....so this has been a priority for me for a while which I have made clear to the community.
We have spoken about balance and trade-offs when serving on council in Chapel Hill as well as how important it is to respect diverse opinions in our community. I've heard from many who don't think the aquatic center is a good idea, others who don't like the new Economic Development position, and others who think we ought to stop the library expansion. It just seems that the council must balance interests and provide across the board for the community's very diverse priorities. So you can hack away at Public Art and Voter Owned Elections, but it seems very political and divisive to me given the broad perspectives as well as the scale of the budget in this community. These are things I know you understand.
Again - I hope you come to the public hearing and make your position known.
I will be happy to provide any comments you wish to submit for the public record should you not be able to participate.
Have a great weekend -
Bill
________________________________________
8TH EMAIL
On Fri, May 23, 2008 at 9:17 PM, Fred Black wrote:
Bill,
Thanks for your response. I see no reason to personalize this but I do see a need to compare apples to apples. Those of us who worked on the bonds spent a lot of time informing citizens about their purposes and their cost in future years if approved. As I remember, a very significant majority of the citizens who voted supported the bonds. I see a real difference between decisions made by voters on large capital expenditures that were seen as an investment in our future and decisions made by the Council. As I said before, just stating that there is a problem with money in our elections and that more people would be willing to run with VOEs and demonstrating that it's the case are two different things.
So yes, we elected you to make decisions that include having to balance demands and make trade-offs between competing interests, but please don't make equivalent what voters approved with what the Council itself must decide.
Fred
PS: I had an EmPOWERment Board meeting yesterday during the reception – still haven't figured out how to be in two places at once!
________________________________________
9TH EMAIL--
Mark Kleinschmidt
Chapel Hill Town Councilmember
on the web at: xxx@xxxxxxxx.xxx
Town Hall --
405 Martin Luther King Jr. Blvd.
Chapel Hill, NC 27514
From: Mark Kleinschmidt [mailto: xxx@xxxxxxxx.xxx]
Sent: Sunday, May 25, 2008 8:23 AM
To: Fred Black
Cc: Bill Strom; Sally Greene; Jim Ward; Ralph Karpinos
Subject: Re: VOE Ordinance
Hi all,
Fred,
The ordinance and resolution as presented for public hearing articulate "proposed findings" that if voted on by a majority of council will then become the what the Council finds justifies adoption of the resolution. While you might disagree with the findings as proposed, they were generated by the Committee during the process leading up to the public hearing. The information was gathered from many sources including the originating petitioners, as well as research conducted by NC Voters for Clean Elections and Common Cause. Support was also gleaned from the successful experience the State Board of Elections has had administering the state-wide races for appellate judges. The information presented (both to the committee and through public hearing to date) has been strong evidence in support of approval for these proposed findings and is based on the experience of other jurisdicitions as well as anecdotal information. I believe the committee does not deem it necessary to wait for a time when actual corruption might occur -- which would seem to just invite community harm. And, while corruption is certainly something that we desire to avoid, it is not the only impetus for reform. The evidence does show greater citizen participation in the communities in which it has been enacted both in the numbers of candidates on a ballot as well as actual voter participation.
We are in public hearing on this issue. It is the time during which evidence in support and in opposition to proposed findings is presented. This is not unlike public hearings on other issues such as development projects where proposed "findings" are presented to the Council, and evidence is gathered (both anecdotal and otherwise) in support and in opposition prior to a Council vote. Rarely will all evidence presented be exclusively in support or in opposition
Also, it is the belief of no one that any single program can solve all the symptoms of a particular ill the community may be facing. Sure, some may be put off from running for Council solely because of the time commitments, perhaps they have deep pockets of their own and time is the only barrier. Council has been directing the staff, since the hiring of our new manager, to implement several reforms that we hope will impact the time commitment. For me, the most notable have been the changes in the budget process and agenda preparation. But as is the case with many, I'm sure, the newly found time scavenged from one aspect of the job is quickly put to work doing other things. For example, I've spent a great deal more time doing work on several Council committees and responding to constituent issues. But, admittedly, my experience is anecdotal, other Council members my feel differently.
These kinds of changes don't require ordinance changes and don't involve the kind of work the public usually sees, but just because some reforms aren't accompanied by public hearings and Council votes doesn't mean nothing is being done.
Thank you for the questions.
Mark
I still believe that the Town Council would have been wise to allow two elections to come between their approval of the program and the execution for the first time. Doing that would have allowed people to consider any incumbent running for reelection who voted for or against it. Let the people speak and don't penalize them because of their legal contributions to political candidates!
ORIGINAL EMAIL
From: Fred Black [mailto: xxx@xxxxxxxx.xxx]
Sent: Thursday, May 15, 2008 2:56 PM
To: Town Attorney
Subject: VOE Ordinance
Ralph,
I wasn't able to attend the hearing last night because of another commitment, but maybe you can help me with my question. I realize that the State Board of Elections required you to use the purpose language that you did, but it says in the proposed ordinance:
The Town Council of the Town of Chapel Hill finds that:
(a) There is a compelling need to address the detrimental effects of increasingly large amounts of money being raised and spent to influence the outcome of elections for Mayor and Town Council.
(b) These contributions and expenditures may cause corruption or the appearance of corruptions in the election process.
How was this "found?" Has there been any research on this?
Thanks,
Fred
________________________________________
2D EMAIL
From: Toni Pendergraph
Sent: Thursday, May 15, 2008 3:06 PM
To: Ralph Karpinos
Subject: FW: VOE Ordinance
RDK – we received this email from Mr. Black today at our website address.
Toni
________________________________________
3D EMAIL
From: Ralph Karpinos [mailto: xxx@xxxxxxxx.xxx]
Sent: Thursday, May 22, 2008 3:36 PM
To: xxx@xxxxxxxx.xxx
Cc: Bill Strom; Sally Greene; Mark Kleinschmidt; Jim Ward
Subject: FW: VOE Ordinance
Fred,
You may wish to make this inquiry directly to the Council or to the Committee of the Council that worked on this project.
From my perspective, having worked with the Committee and attended their meetings over the last several months, I believe that the ordinance that the Committee has proposed for the Council includes findings that are based on the collective and individual experiences of the committee members and, if enacted by the Council, would be based on the collective and individual experiences of the Council members who chose to vote for the program. This, I believe, would include the numerous campaigns each committee member has been involved with as a candidate, as well as other experiences they have had observing and working in local campaigns, perhaps on behalf of other candidates. In addition, some of the committee members have had conversations with other candidates for other local offices and have had conversations with persons associated with local election administration at the Orange County Board of Elections, as well as conversations with staff at the North Carolina Board of Elections.
Committee members are copied on this response to your inquiry and may wish to respond to you as well.
Ralph
________________________________________
4TH EMAIL
From: Fred Black
To: 'Ralph Karpinos'
Cc: 'Bill Strom' ; 'Sally Greene' ; 'Mark Kleinschmidt' ; 'Jim Ward'
Sent: Thursday, May 22, 2008 3:57 PM
Subject: RE: VOE Ordinance
Thanks Ralph. Maybe a committee member is able to share how this was "found" and any research that was done. I ask only because the SBOE and the ordinance direct the use of this language, but the statement indicates that the Town Council of the Town of Chapel Hill finds that the points are true. So, my question remains, how, other than anecdotally, was this discerned?
Fred
________________________________________
5TH EMAIL
From: Bill Strom [mailto: xxx@xxxxxxxx.xxx]
Sent: Friday, May 23, 2008 10:54 AM
To: Fred Black
Cc: Mark Kleinschmidt; Ralph Karpinos; Sally Greene; Jim Ward
Subject: Re: VOE Ordinance
Thanks for your question Fred. Hope you are well, and we ought to grab a cup of coffee one of these days and catch up. I looked for you yesterday at The Chamber's reception but must have missed you....or you had better things to be doing :-)
Just to be clear about where you stand on this issue - even if the ordinance findings you are concerned about were eliminated you would still be standing in opposition to the V O E program for Chapel Hill - correct? My understanding has been that you simply don't believe this program hold benefits for the community of any sort. Please let me know if I'm misinformed.
My current thought (prior to hearing all the evidence which will be on the record prior to a vote) is that there has been reporting and editorials in the local papers over the years which support the two finding findings - and I will see that some of these articles are entered into the public record when the hearing continues on 6/9. I also believe Ralph's response to your inquiry was a reasonable representation of the feelings and beliefs of the committee members.
I sure hope you can appear at the hearing on 6/9 and make your concern known, or if you wish I will offer your emails for the public record. I expect they will be discussed by council at that time regardless since you clearly raise a good point (or two).
Regards,
Bill
Chapel Hill News Editorial Sunday, February 16, 2003
Mayor's race shows need for reform
Chapel Hill has a campaign-spending law that's better than most.
The law limits contributions to $200 per individual in an election, and it requires disclosure of any donors who give more than $20. That's much more restrictive than state law, which "limits" contributions to $4,000 and has a $100 threshold for disclosing contributors' names.
But even with the tighter restrictions, spending in the last Chapel Hill mayor's race was double the amount from the previous mayoral race in 1999 and more than triple the amount spent in 1995. Democracy North Carolina, the Carrboro-based public interest group, released a report last week calling the trend "troubling" and urging public financing of campaigns in Chapel Hill.
In the 2001 mayoral election, Kevin Foy beat Lee Pavao, 57 percent to 39 percent. They each spent more than $25,000 on the election, for a total of $51,000, or $6 per vote.
The Democracy North Carolina study made several troubling findings about that election:
-- Most of the money - $43,100 - came from 247 people who gave $100 or more. Put another way, 84 percent of the spending came from less than one half of 1 percent of the population.
-- More than a third of Pave's major donations came from people connected to the development industry.
-- Foy did not disclose the occupations of most of his large donors. Pave did, although the descriptions often were vague.
-- Each candidate ended up digging into his own pocket to finance the campaign - Foy $9,800 and Pavao $4,354.
As Democracy North Carolina points out, those kinds of entry fees put the mayor's race out of the spending range of many ordinary citizens. They also subject candidates, when they are elected, to undue pressure from their contributors.
The report doesn't address a key question: Why have campaign costs escalated so much in recent years? Chapel Hill is not a television market, but the costs can be attributed to increasing sophistication of campaigns. Both candidates spent heavily on direct mail - which entails hefty printing and postal expenses - and Foy also employed a paid campaign consultant and polling in his campaign.
Unfortunately, the lesson from the election is that such expensive tactics work, and they thus will become the norm in future elections.
Unless, that is, the town does something to short-circuit the spending cycle. Democracy North Carolina offers a good alternative. The organization is proposing for Chapel Hill a "voter-owned elections" program that would give candidates public funding in exchange for accepting spending limits.
The proposed limits would be $10,000 for the mayor's race and $5,000 for a town council seat. To qualify, candidates would have to raise small donations of $5 to $10 from a minimum number of contributors - 200 for mayoral candidates, 100 for council.
The program would be voluntary, and non-participating candidates would be free to spend as much as they want, within the existing laws.
We think this model, in some form, is a good idea. It would instantly curtail campaign spending, level the playing field for all candidates, lower entry barriers for the non-wealthy and, most important, eliminate influence of special interest groups. There will be objections to the notion of using taxpayer money to fund campaigns - the 2001 election would have cost about $80,000, Democracy North Carolina figures - but that cost is more than offset by the benefits in terms of clean campaigns and better candidates.
Chapel Hill prides itself in being on the cutting edge of progressive government. There is no better place to start than with campaign finance reform.
________________________________________
6TH EMAIL
From: Fred Black
To: 'Bill Strom'
Cc: 'Mark Kleinschmidt' ; 'Ralph Karpinos' ; 'Sally Greene' ; 'Jim Ward'
Sent: Friday, May 23, 2008 3:20 PM
Subject: RE: VOE Ordinance
Bill,
I do not support this program and I was struck by the assertion in the purpose statement that seemed to be anecdotal at best. Are they really findings from some sort of rigorous examination of the issue? I think the Council can do better if serious about making the point. The Council seems to require a much higher standard from others who appear before them, but it doesn't seem to me that in this case the Council is holding itself to that same standard. If my perception is incorrect, remember, many perceptions are but they are still perceptions.
Your write, "My understanding has been that you simply don't believe this program hold benefits for the community of any sort. Please let me know if I'm misinformed." That is not my position. In the email that I sent to each member of the Council, I laid out my concerns about the assumptions that are built into the ordinance. I wrote Ralph about the language of the Ordnance purpose statement, and in particular, the "finding" language. This is not to say that it might not do something beneficial at some point, but in my opinion, it has problems and it just doesn't rank higher than many other important priorities in my mind. I would rather us our limited resources on things other than subsidizing campaigns.
I really think our leaders at all levels of government will be put to the budget test as the economic pressures increase and our available dollars are reduced. When I add potentially $60K for the art position and $50K for this program, I see $110K going to things that are not as high a priority in my mind and the minds of some other citizens. It's sad, but too many are unwilling to bother speaking out because they sense that the majority vote is already there, so why bother they ask.
I just think we can do better as stewards of our limited resources than spending this kind of money on a problem that has not been adequately described.
Fred
________________________________________
7TH EMAIL
From: Bill Strom [mailto: xxx@xxxxxxxx.xxx]
Sent: Friday, May 23, 2008 5:11 PM
To: Fred Black
Cc: Sally Greene; Mark Kleinschmidt; Jim Ward; Ralph Karpinos
Subject: Re: VOE Ordinance
OK Fred - Thanks.
I respect your opinion and I take comfort knowing that you care enough to make your position known to me. You will recall that I was elected in 1999 - and at that time I made a significant issue out of public finance of campaigns in Chapel Hill....so this has been a priority for me for a while which I have made clear to the community.
We have spoken about balance and trade-offs when serving on council in Chapel Hill as well as how important it is to respect diverse opinions in our community. I've heard from many who don't think the aquatic center is a good idea, others who don't like the new Economic Development position, and others who think we ought to stop the library expansion. It just seems that the council must balance interests and provide across the board for the community's very diverse priorities. So you can hack away at Public Art and Voter Owned Elections, but it seems very political and divisive to me given the broad perspectives as well as the scale of the budget in this community. These are things I know you understand.
Again - I hope you come to the public hearing and make your position known.
I will be happy to provide any comments you wish to submit for the public record should you not be able to participate.
Have a great weekend -
Bill
________________________________________
8TH EMAIL
On Fri, May 23, 2008 at 9:17 PM, Fred Black
Bill,
Thanks for your response. I see no reason to personalize this but I do see a need to compare apples to apples. Those of us who worked on the bonds spent a lot of time informing citizens about their purposes and their cost in future years if approved. As I remember, a very significant majority of the citizens who voted supported the bonds. I see a real difference between decisions made by voters on large capital expenditures that were seen as an investment in our future and decisions made by the Council. As I said before, just stating that there is a problem with money in our elections and that more people would be willing to run with VOEs and demonstrating that it's the case are two different things.
So yes, we elected you to make decisions that include having to balance demands and make trade-offs between competing interests, but please don't make equivalent what voters approved with what the Council itself must decide.
Fred
PS: I had an EmPOWERment Board meeting yesterday during the reception – still haven't figured out how to be in two places at once!
________________________________________
9TH EMAIL--
Mark Kleinschmidt
Chapel Hill Town Councilmember
on the web at: xxx@xxxxxxxx.xxx
Town Hall --
405 Martin Luther King Jr. Blvd.
Chapel Hill, NC 27514
From: Mark Kleinschmidt [mailto: xxx@xxxxxxxx.xxx]
Sent: Sunday, May 25, 2008 8:23 AM
To: Fred Black
Cc: Bill Strom; Sally Greene; Jim Ward; Ralph Karpinos
Subject: Re: VOE Ordinance
Hi all,
Fred,
The ordinance and resolution as presented for public hearing articulate "proposed findings" that if voted on by a majority of council will then become the what the Council finds justifies adoption of the resolution. While you might disagree with the findings as proposed, they were generated by the Committee during the process leading up to the public hearing. The information was gathered from many sources including the originating petitioners, as well as research conducted by NC Voters for Clean Elections and Common Cause. Support was also gleaned from the successful experience the State Board of Elections has had administering the state-wide races for appellate judges. The information presented (both to the committee and through public hearing to date) has been strong evidence in support of approval for these proposed findings and is based on the experience of other jurisdicitions as well as anecdotal information. I believe the committee does not deem it necessary to wait for a time when actual corruption might occur -- which would seem to just invite community harm. And, while corruption is certainly something that we desire to avoid, it is not the only impetus for reform. The evidence does show greater citizen participation in the communities in which it has been enacted both in the numbers of candidates on a ballot as well as actual voter participation.
We are in public hearing on this issue. It is the time during which evidence in support and in opposition to proposed findings is presented. This is not unlike public hearings on other issues such as development projects where proposed "findings" are presented to the Council, and evidence is gathered (both anecdotal and otherwise) in support and in opposition prior to a Council vote. Rarely will all evidence presented be exclusively in support or in opposition
Also, it is the belief of no one that any single program can solve all the symptoms of a particular ill the community may be facing. Sure, some may be put off from running for Council solely because of the time commitments, perhaps they have deep pockets of their own and time is the only barrier. Council has been directing the staff, since the hiring of our new manager, to implement several reforms that we hope will impact the time commitment. For me, the most notable have been the changes in the budget process and agenda preparation. But as is the case with many, I'm sure, the newly found time scavenged from one aspect of the job is quickly put to work doing other things. For example, I've spent a great deal more time doing work on several Council committees and responding to constituent issues. But, admittedly, my experience is anecdotal, other Council members my feel differently.
These kinds of changes don't require ordinance changes and don't involve the kind of work the public usually sees, but just because some reforms aren't accompanied by public hearings and Council votes doesn't mean nothing is being done.
Thank you for the questions.
Mark
Wednesday, June 17, 2009
PUBLIC FINANCING (WCHL Commentary)
Soon those campaign signs will spring up all over town, but this year something will be different if you are a Chapel Hill taxpayer ― you will have paid for some of the signs, whether you wanted to or not! Under our publicly financed elections experiment, some candidates this year can ask for tax dollars once they qualify as a serious candidate.
One of the goals of the program is to broaden who participates. Another is to reduce the influence of “big money” in our campaigns. I’m not sure that $250 buys a lot of influence and even if special interests bundle contributions, aren’t candidates able to see it for what it is and reject the contribution? But most troubling is the provision that if a publicly financed candidate is outspent by one not participating, then the publicly financed candidate gets even more of our tax dollars in the form of "rescue funds."
This is troubling because to me because I see it as a violation of the First Amendment’s protection of political speech. Note that anyone can spend whatever he or she likes for or against a candidate as long as he or she is independent of the candidate. So what are we really restricting?
We shall see how the program gets evaluated after the election, but as you move around the community, remember that in these troubling economic times, your hard-earned money will finance candidates that you might not want to support and buy some of those signs. And yes, your political speech rights have been clearly diminished.
One of the goals of the program is to broaden who participates. Another is to reduce the influence of “big money” in our campaigns. I’m not sure that $250 buys a lot of influence and even if special interests bundle contributions, aren’t candidates able to see it for what it is and reject the contribution? But most troubling is the provision that if a publicly financed candidate is outspent by one not participating, then the publicly financed candidate gets even more of our tax dollars in the form of "rescue funds."
This is troubling because to me because I see it as a violation of the First Amendment’s protection of political speech. Note that anyone can spend whatever he or she likes for or against a candidate as long as he or she is independent of the candidate. So what are we really restricting?
We shall see how the program gets evaluated after the election, but as you move around the community, remember that in these troubling economic times, your hard-earned money will finance candidates that you might not want to support and buy some of those signs. And yes, your political speech rights have been clearly diminished.
Wednesday, June 11, 2008
IS THIS RIGHT? (WCHL Commentary)
You’ve heard the old line, “Be careful what you ask for, you just might get it!” On Monday June 9th I appeared before our Town Council and spoke against public financing of elections. In my statement, I asked our elected leaders to consider the state of the economy and the tax increases at virtually every level. I ended by asking them to show citizens where their priorities are.
My bad! They did show it in a pretty dramatic way. They first passed an ordinance granting council members who serve two terms to continue their health insurance with tax dollars paying 75% of the cost. This is the same as what a 15-year full-time employee receives. They did approve public financing of elections, but we have no clue about how much it will cost. And when they approved the budget, it granted council members a 3% cost of living increase too.
I don’t begrudge them their pay and benefits; they work hard for us, but even our Congress passed the 27th Amendment to the Constitution in 1992 to provide that “No law, varying the compensation for the services of the Senators and Representatives, shall take effect, until an election of Representatives shall have intervened.”
Would you believe that this was first submitted in 1789? Maybe one day we will also catch up, because it just appears wrong to increase your own compensation without having an election before it takes effect. The test of the ballot box is one of our great traditions; maybe we should use it in cases like this!
My bad! They did show it in a pretty dramatic way. They first passed an ordinance granting council members who serve two terms to continue their health insurance with tax dollars paying 75% of the cost. This is the same as what a 15-year full-time employee receives. They did approve public financing of elections, but we have no clue about how much it will cost. And when they approved the budget, it granted council members a 3% cost of living increase too.
I don’t begrudge them their pay and benefits; they work hard for us, but even our Congress passed the 27th Amendment to the Constitution in 1992 to provide that “No law, varying the compensation for the services of the Senators and Representatives, shall take effect, until an election of Representatives shall have intervened.”
Would you believe that this was first submitted in 1789? Maybe one day we will also catch up, because it just appears wrong to increase your own compensation without having an election before it takes effect. The test of the ballot box is one of our great traditions; maybe we should use it in cases like this!
Wednesday, May 14, 2008
PUBLIC FINANCING OF CAMPAIGNS (WCHL Commentary)
Yes, we should vote, but should we subsidize the campaigns of those asking us for our votes?
On Wednesday evening, May 14, our Chapel Hill Town Council will hold a public hearing on a proposal to fund a voter owned elections. The details are here on the Town page. The idea is that candidates who voluntarily participate and qualify can receive a $3000 public grant as a council candidate and a $9000 public grant as a mayoral candidate. The Council proposal recommends allocating funding of $50,000 in the 2008-09 Recommended Budget that’s also being considered.
This is the same budget where our Manager recommends an 11% increase in our taxes. I won’t be to attend Wednesday evening, but if I were, I would raise several questions. Are we fixing a problem that really exists? Is campaign spending corrupting our local electoral process? In our last council election, the number one vote getter spent the least amount of money! If this isn’t one of our most pressing problems, should we raise taxes and fund political candidates, or should we address many other pressing needs like maybe using our dollars to add another firefighter or police officer?
We also should know how this program would keep someone from independently spending unlimited funds in support of, or opposition to a candidate or group of candidates. Our recent experience with opposition spending for the transfer tax ballot item shows the power of such dollars.
Finally, will this program result in more people running for office? I believe that our real problem is not raising funds, but folks having the time to serve and still meet their work, family and other obligations. Our Council should study this before implementing taxpayer-subsidized campaigns in Chapel Hill.
What do you think?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
