At issue, according to the meeting’s agenda notes, was a proposal to change the time frame for campaign contributions that fall within the ordinance from two years to four years.
A dozen people who spoke during public comment, including former council member and ordinance co-sponsor Lily Bao, asked that the four-year language to be incorporated for transparency.
A motion by Council Member Shelby Williams to redefine the time limit failed in a 3-5 vote with original ordinance co-sponsor Rick Smith, council member Anthony Ricciardelli and Williams voting in favor of it.
Votes against the motion revolved around the complexities of changing the ordinance.
Williams’ motion would have changed the limit from two years to four years and added language about interim terms.
“If that’s too complicated for folks, you can vote against it, but that’s the precise language I’m asking for,” Williams said.
According to the policy’s original language, all council members who receive more than $1,000 in contributions from an individual or organization will be required to recuse themselves from issues affecting the donating entity’s interests for two years after receiving the donation. However, council members can vote if the recusals mean there are not enough council members in attendance to form a quorum.
Campaign donations for sitting council members are reported to the city secretary every six months. More frequent campaign finance reports are filed by candidates involved in city council elections, according to previous Community Impact Newspaper reports.
“The way that the ordinance is written out is that it specifically says that you are looking back. It is on the person who comes before us,” Mayor Pro Tem Kayci Prince said. “It’s not on the council person. It’s on them to look and disclose if they’ve given to you within the time period before. So, I don’t understand how we’re going to say it’s concurrent with [each person’s] term.
“We’re going to have to reword the whole ordinance to make that work.”
Editor's note: This article has been updated to clarify the amount in campaign contributions that would have required recusal of a council member in the proposed policy.
