[00:00:06]
TAKE THEIR SEATS, WE'LL START THIS MEETING. GO AHEAD, CITY CLERK. COUNCIL MEMBER RACHEL CARNAHAN, PRESENT COUNCIL MEMBER DAVID BURKE HERE. COUNCIL MEMBER BONNIE P HERE, MAYOR PRO TEM KYLE CHANG AND MAYOR LEO MEDRANO PRESENT. ALL PRESENT. GREAT. I'D LIKE TO INVITE TO THE TO THE FRONT INVOCATION. BISHOP PETER BYSTROM FROM THE CHURCH OF JESUS CHRIST OF LATTER DAY SAINTS. EVERYONE CAN PLEASE STAND. AS WE APPROACH THE THIS EVENING WITH EXTREME GRATITUDE IN OUR HEARTS FOR THE BLESSINGS WE HAVE RECEIVED AT THY HANDS.
WE'RE GRATEFUL FOR THE PRIVILEGE OF LIVING IN THIS GREAT COUNTRY AND FOR THE BLESSING OF LIVING IN THIS GREAT CITY. WE'RE THANKFUL FOR THOSE WHO ARE WILLING TO SACRIFICE THEIR TIME AND TALENTS TO HELP GUIDE AND DIRECT THE AFFAIRS OF OUR COMMUNITY, THAT WE CAN HELP UPLIFT EACH OTHER AND BUILD GOOD COMMUNITIES AND HELP EACH OTHER FIND LOVE, PEACE, AND JOY IN THEIR LIVING. HERE IN THE CITY OF CYPRUS. WE PRAY THIS EVENING FOR PEACE TO BE WITH US, THAT WE WILL BE ABLE TO DISCUSS THE MATTERS AT HAND WITH CIVILITY AND GRACE, THAT WE MIGHT BE ABLE TO COME TO GOOD DECISIONS THAT WILL BENEFIT THE LIVES OF ALL MEMBERS OF THE COMMUNITY, AND THAT WE WILL BE ABLE TO LEARN HOW TO COOPERATE AND DO SO IN A MANNER THAT WE CAN ALL LEAVE FEELING GRATIFIED THAT THE BEST WAS WAS DONE. WE PRAY FOR THY GUIDANCE IN OUR COMMUNITIES AS WELL, FATHER, THAT WE MIGHT FEEL. A SPIRIT OF UNITY, THAT WE MIGHT COME TOGETHER TO SOLVE THE MOST INTRACTABLE, INTRACTABLE PROBLEMS, THAT WE MIGHT DO SO TOGETHER IN A WAY THAT BUILDS A COMMUNITY FEELING AMONGST ALL IN THE COMMUNITY THAT NONE MAY FEEL EXCLUDED. WE PRAY FOR GUIDANCE IN FISCAL AND FINANCIAL AND LEGAL MATTERS, THAT ALL WILL BE ACCORDING TO THY PLAN. WE OFFER THIS PRAYER IN THE NAME OF OUR SAVIOR, JESUS CHRIST. AMEN. GLAD TO HAND OVER YOUR HEART. READY? BEGIN TO ALLEGIANCE TO THE FLAG OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA AND TO THE REPUBLIC FOR WHICH IT STANDS. ONE NATION UNDER GOD, INDIVISIBLE, WITH LIBERTY AND JUSTICE FOR ALL. THANK YOU.
[ REPORT OF CLOSED SESSION The City Attorney will provide a brief report from closed session.]
CITY ATTORNEY. IF YOU CAN, PLEASE REPORT. THANK YOU, MAYOR, AND MEMBERS OF THE COUNCIL AND ALL THOSE PRESENT. THE CITY COUNCIL MET IN CLOSED SESSION AND HELD A DISCUSSION AS TO BOTH ITEMS LISTED ON THE CLOSED SESSION PORTION OF THE AGENDA, NAMELY PUBLIC EMPLOYEE APPOINTMENT AND CONFERENCE WITH LABOR NEGOTIATOR CONCERNING THE TITLE OF CITY MANAGER CANDIDATE.CITY COUNCIL RECEIVED AN UPDATE AND PROVIDED DIRECTION. NO FURTHER REPORTABLE ACTION WAS TAKEN. PARDON ME. FINALLY, THE COUNCIL MET ON ITEM NUMBER TWO CONFERENCE WITH LEGAL COUNSEL.
ONE ITEM OF EXISTING LITIGATION THE MATTER OF FRANCIS MARQUEZ VERSUS CITY OF CYPRUS AND ADDITIONAL DEFENDANTS. CITY COUNCIL RECEIVED A BRIEFING ON THE STATUS OF THAT LITIGATION MATTER PROVIDED DIRECTION. NO FURTHER REPORTABLE ACTION WAS TAKEN. THAT CONCLUDES THE REPORT. MAYOR. THANK YOU. THANK YOU VERY MUCH. NOW, NEXT ON THE AGENDA, ORAL COMMUNICATIONS.
THIS PORTION OF THE MEETING IS SET ASIDE FOR PUBLIC COMMENTS REGARDING ANY MATTER WITHIN THE JURISDICTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL. COMMENTS ON NON-AGENDA ITEMS WILL BE HEARD AT THIS TIME. COMMENTS RELATED TO A SPECIFIC AGENDA ITEM WILL BE HEARD FOLLOWING THE STAFF REPORT FOR THAT ITEM AND PRIOR TO THE CITY COUNCIL ACTION. UNLESS THE SPEAKER PREFERS TO MAKE THE COMMENT DURING THE GENERAL PUBLIC COMMENT PERIOD, THE CITY COUNCIL CANNOT DISCUSS OR TAKE ACTION ON MATTERS NOT ON THE AGENDA FOR THIS MEETING, BUT COUNCIL MEMBERS MAY PROVIDE BRIEF RESPONSES. PLEASE COMPLETE A SPEAKER CARD TO ADDRESS THE CITY COUNCIL IN PERSON. PLEASE FOLLOW THE INSTRUCTIONS AT THE END OF THE AGENDA AND WAIT FOR THE MAYOR OR CITY CLERK TO CALL ON YOU TO ADDRESS THE CITY COUNCIL VIRTUALLY. SPEAKERS PROVIDING IN-PERSON COMMENTS WILL BE CALLED FIRST TIME ALLOTTED FOR PUBLIC COMMENT IS AS FOLLOWS.
GENERAL PUBLIC COMMENT NOT ON THE AGENDA THREE MINUTES CONSENT CALENDAR ANY OR ALL ITEMS THREE MINUTES AGENDA ITEMS NOT ON CONSENT CALENDAR THREE MINUTES PER ITEM. AND
[00:05:02]
ONCE THE SPEAKER IS AT THE THREE MINUTE MARK, I'LL REMIND THEM THEY'RE AT THE THREE MINUTE MARK AND ASK THEM TO FINISH UP. GREAT. MR. MAYOR, I'VE RECEIVED NO SPEAKER CARDS[ CONSENT CALENDAR All matters listed on the Consent Calendar are to be approved with one motion unless a Council Member requests separate action on a specific item. Council Members voting no or abstaining on a Consent Calendar item may do so without removing the item from the Consent Calendar.]
AND THERE'S NO ONE ON THE LINE WITH THEIR HAND RAISED AT THIS TIME. VERY WELL. THEN WE'LL PROCEED TO THE NEXT ITEM ON THE AGENDA, THE CONSENT CALENDAR. ALL MATTERS LISTED ON THE CONSENT CALENDAR ARE TO BE APPROVED WITH ONE MOTION, UNLESS A COUNCIL MEMBER REQUESTS SEPARATE ACTION ON A SPECIFIC ITEM. COUNCIL MEMBERS VOTING NO OR ABSTAINING ON A CONSENT CALENDAR ITEM MAY DO SO WITHOUT REMOVING THE ITEMS FROM THE CONSENT CALENDAR. SO I'LL TURN THIS OVER NOW TO. I SEE THERE'S ONE SPEAKER REQUESTED TWO SPEAKERS. SO DOCTOR CHANG, THANK YOU. CAN I PULL ITEM NUMBER TWO FROM THE CONSENT CALENDAR, PLEASE? ITEM NUMBER TWO IS PULLED, AND COUNCIL MEMBER PETE MINE IS THE SAME. THANK YOU VERY. SO ITEM NOW IS NUMBER TWO IS PULLED. AND SO IS THERE A MOTION. I'LL MOVE TO APPROVE ITEMS ONE AND THEN THREE THROUGH FIVE. OH I SECOND THE MOTION. GREAT. PLEASE VOTE. THAT MOTION PASSES UNANIMOUSLY.[ ITEMS REMOVED FROM CONSENT CALENDAR]
GREAT. NOW WE'LL GO ON TO THE NEXT ITEM ON THE AGENDA. ITEMS REMOVED FROM THE CONSENT CALENDAR. THAT WOULD BE ITEM NUMBER TWO. SO I'LL OPEN THIS UP FOR THE DISCUSSION UNLESS I'LL OPEN IT UP TO DISCUSSION. THERE'S A NEED TO BE A STAFF REPORT CORRECT? OKAY. IT'S OPEN FOR DISCUSSION. FIRST ONE ON THE LIST IS DOCTOR CHANG. THANK YOU MAYOR. THANK YOU. SO WE'RE TALKING ABOUT THE CAMPAIGN FINANCE REFORMS, ITEM NUMBER TWO. AND I THINK RIGHT BEFORE WE ENDED THE LAST DISCUSSION ON THIS MEASURE, THAT WE MIGHT HAVE HAD THE MAKINGS OF A BROADER COMPROMISE. I BELIEVE THIS IS AN IMPORTANT PIECE OF LEGISLATION. I BELIEVE IT'S A STEP FORWARD IN THE RIGHT DIRECTION WHEN IT COMES TO CAMPAIGN FINANCE REFORM. AND I'M A STRONG SUPPORTER FOR MOST OF IT. IT'S JUST THAT $500 IS JUST A LITTLE BIT TOO LOW FOR ME. IT'S JUST, YOU KNOW, RIGHT THERE, JUST TOO CLOSE TO THE EDGE. AND I THINK A LOT OF A LOT OF CONTRIBUTIONS WILL, YOU KNOW, THAT WE'VE GOTTEN IN THE PAST HAVE GOTTEN HAVE BEEN ABOVE THAT $500 MARK. AND I KEPT THINKING ABOUT HOW HARD IT WOULD BE TO RUN A CAMPAIGN, KNOWING THAT YOU HAD TO RELY ONLY ON, YOU KNOW, WITHOUT HAVING TO RELY ON SELF-FUNDING OR OUTSIDE PACS. AND I HAD SUGGESTED $2,700. THAT'S THE COUNTY LIMIT RIGHT NOW. AND AND I GOT THE FEELING THAT THAT COUNCIL MEMBER PETE, ALTHOUGH SHE WASN'T HAPPY WITH HOW HOW DIFFICULT THE REST OF THE THE ORDINANCE WAS, SHE DID FEEL THAT 2700 WAS BETTER THAN $500.SO I'M GOING TO, YOU KNOW, THROW A NEW RANGE, HOPING YOU GUYS WILL COME UP A LITTLE BIT HIGHER. I WAS THINKING ABOUT THAT 1500 TO $2000 RANGE. I THINK THAT'S WHERE 95% OF OUR CONTRIBUTIONS WILL FALL BELOW THAT AMOUNT. AND I THINK THAT'S WHAT WE'VE SEEN HISTORICALLY IN CYPRUS TO MOST OF THE CONTRIBUTIONS WE'VE SEEN HAVE BEEN BELOW THAT 1500 TO $2000 RANGE. AND ALTHOUGH WE'RE IN DISTRICT ELECTIONS NOW, YOU WOULD THINK THAT BECAUSE WE'VE JUST MOVED TO DISTRICT ELECTIONS, THAT YOU ONLY HAVE TO HIT ABOUT ONE FIFTH OF THE HOUSEHOLDS THAT YOU WOULD ADD FOR A AN AT LARGE ELECTION, THAT 1500 TO 2020, 1500 TO $2000, THAT'S ABOUT THE 25% TO 30% RANGE. SO ALTHOUGH YOU KNOW, IT'S ABOUT ONE FIFTH THE COST, THERE'S ALWAYS THOSE STANDARD COSTS ASSOCIATED WITH RUNNING AN ELECTION. YOU KNOW, GETTING A TREASURER, FILING FEES, THINGS LIKE THAT. SO, YOU KNOW, I'M HOPING THAT WE CAN TALK ABOUT THIS A LITTLE BIT MORE. I WASN'T SURE WHERE YOU GUYS WERE AT AT THE LAST ONE, SO HOPEFULLY YOU GUYS WOULD CHIME IN A LITTLE BIT. THANK YOU. VERY WELL. I WANTED TO COMMENT ON THAT. AND THEN AFTERWARDS COUNCILMEMBER PETE IS NEXT. I AGREE THAT AT THE LAST MEETING THERE SEEMED TO BE SOME DISCUSSION WANTING TO TALK ABOUT THE LIMITS, AND I JUST WANTED TO PUT IT IN PERSPECTIVE. SO I CONTACTED IRVINE CITY CLERK AND ASKED IRVINE, WHAT IS THEIR LIMIT NOW? IRVINE'S POPULATION, CORRECT ME IF I'M WRONG, IS ABOUT 325,000. OURS IS ABOUT 50,000. SO IRVINE IS ABOUT SIX AND A HALF TIMES OUR SIZE. THEIR CONTRIBUTION LIMIT
[00:10:02]
IS $650. SO IF A CITY SIX AND A HALF TIMES OUR SIZE IS COMFORTABLE WITH HAVING A $650 LIMIT, THEN I THINK A $500 LIMIT IS ABOUT IN THE RANGE OF A CITY. THAT'S ONE SIXTH, ALMOST ONE SEVENTH THE SIZE. SO THAT WAS MY LOGIC OF KEEPING IT AT 500. AND I ALSO CORRECT ME IF I'M WRONG, BUT I THINK THERE'S EVEN GOVERNOR RACES THAT HAVE LOWER CONTRIBUTION LIMITS. AND SO IT SEEMS AS THOUGH A CITY THE SIZE OF CYPRUS, 50,000 PEOPLE, IF IRVINE CAN DO IT WITH 325,000 PEOPLE AT $650, I THINK $500 MAKES SENSE FOR THE CITY OF CYPRUS. SO I'M GOING TO PASS THE FLOOR TO COUNCILMEMBER PETE. THANK YOU, MR. MAYOR. YEAH. LET ME JUST I BELIEVE CLARITY ON THE IRVINE. THEY DO NOT LIMIT THE PACS OR THE INDEPENDENT EXPENDITURES. SO THE PACS AND THE AREN'T LIMITED TO THE 650. AND SO IF YOU LOOK AT ANYBODY'S FOUR 60S WITHIN IRVINE, WHAT YOU WILL SEE IS THEY HAVE LESS I'LL CALL IT PEOPLE DONATING AND MOST OF THE MONIES COME THROUGH SOME OTHER MEANS. OKAY. SO IF YOU LOOK AT THAT, IT KIND OF DROVE THEM TO A DIFFERENT PATH BECAUSE THEY HAD REDUCED THEIR LIMITS TO 650. SO SIX 50TH MAY BE THE RIGHT NUMBER, BUT THEY DIDN'T PUT A LOT OF LIMITS ON THE OTHER INDEPENDENT EXPENDITURES OR PAC CONTRIBUTIONS. SO JUST JUST A GENERAL COMMENT. THAT'S WHY I DON'T THINK 500 IS A AS A REASONABLE LIMIT. SO ONE OF THE THINGS I DID AFTER THE LAST MEETING, WE REALLY DID NOT HAVE A DISCUSSION IN FRONT OF IN FRONT OF YOU GUYS. OKAY. IN TERMS OF WHAT WERE SOME OF THE CONCERNS WE MAY HAVE HAD OR WHAT ARE SOME ALTERNATIVE APPROACHES WE CAN TAKE? AND SO I DECIDED I WAS PRETTY HARD OVER WHERE I WAS, AND I USUALLY AM AT FIRST, AND I DECIDED I WENT THROUGH THE DETAIL. I'M STILL CONFUSED ON SOME OF IT, OKAY, BUT I WENT THROUGH THE DETAIL AND CAME UP WITH A BUNCH OF QUESTIONS. BUT WHAT I DID IS I DID A RED LINE OF THE CONCERNS I HAVE IN THE DOCUMENT. OKAY. AND SO I HAVE A A PACKAGE HERE, WHICH IS THE ORDINANCE. AND PLEASE PASS THAT DOWN. AND WHAT I DID IS I WENT THROUGH AND LOOKED AT WHERE IS THERE CONFUSION, WHERE IS THERE IS THIS FAIR, IS IT KIND OF LIMITING TO ONE SIDE VERSUS THE NEXT? ET-CETERA. SO I'M, I WOULD LIKE TO GO THROUGH THIS.I REDLINED IT AND WELL, AS YOU CAN SEE AND I HAVE A COUPLE OF COPIES UP HERE, IF ANYBODY REALLY IS INTERESTED IN GOING THROUGH TEN PAGES, I DIDN'T MAKE A SIGNIFICANT AMOUNT OF CHANGE, BUT IN MY MIND THEY WERE SIGNIFICANT TO, I'LL CALL IT, ADD A BIT MORE FAIRNESS TO THE ORDINANCE FOR CANDIDATES. NOW, KEEP IN MIND THE CANDIDATES ARE WHAT WE'RE TALKING ABOUT. IT COULD BE 26, IT COULD BE 30, WHATEVER. IN THE FUTURE WE HAVE RUNNING FOR OFFICE IS NOT EASY. OKAY? THERE ARE A LOT OF FORMS. THERE ARE RISKS. THERE ARE THINGS THAT YOU HAVE TO MAKE SURE THAT YOU COMPLY WITH. AND SO WHAT I WAS CONCERNED ABOUT IS WE WERE ADDING SO MANY ROADBLOCKS FOR POTENTIAL PEOPLE THAT IT REALLY POSSIBLY WAS A DETERRENT. SO I WAS TRYING TO MAKE IT, I'LL CALL IT MORE WHAT I CONSIDER MORE FRIENDLY. OKAY. SO AND I'M GOING TO GO THESE FOR MY COLLEAGUES SO THEY CAN WALK THROUGH THEM WITH ME. THE VERY FIRST QUESTION I HAVE IS AT THE END OF THE DAY, WHATEVER ORDINANCE GETS PUT INTO PLACE, WHO'S THE AUTHORITY ON THE THE ORDINANCE? AND I GUESS MAYBE THAT'S A QUESTION FOR THE CITY MANAGER OR CITY ATTORNEY OR CITY CLERK. ULTIMATELY, THE AUTHORITY IS THE CITY. SO OKAY, TO THE EXTENT THAT A VIOLATION IS DISCOVERED, IT WOULD BE UP TO THE CITY TO TAKE ACTION AND POTENTIALLY HAVE THE CITY ATTORNEY GET INVOLVED. SO IF SOMEONE OUTSIDE, YOU KNOW, IT'S A PAC OR WHATEVER, HAS SOME QUESTIONS OR HAS SOME CONCERNS ABOUT SOMETHING AND LOOKING FOR CLARITY, THEY'RE GOING TO COME IN, I WOULD GUESS MORE THAN LIKELY WE'RE GOING TO RESPOND WITH EXACTLY THE WAY THE PARAGRAPH READS AND NOT BE ABLE TO REALLY PROVIDE THEM, MAYBE THE DETAIL THAT THEY'RE LOOKING FOR. I DON'T KNOW THAT FOR A FACT, BUT LET'S JUST ASSUME THAT'S THE CASE. WHAT I HAD RESERVATIONS ON, WHICH IS KIND OF MY SECOND QUESTION, IS I ASSUMED EITHER THE CITY MANAGER OR THE CITY CLERK. OKAY. DOES THE CITY AND OR CITY COUNCIL
[00:15:06]
HAVE ANY LIABILITY FOR AMBIGUITY OR SOMEONE'S EXECUTION TO THE ORDINANCE WHERE THEY MISUNDERSTOOD SOMETHING? IS THERE ANY LIABILITY THAT COMES BACK TO US AS A CITY? SO JUST TO CLARIFY THE LAST MY LAST RESPONSE, IF YOU'RE LOOKING FOR AN ACTUAL PERSON OFFICIAL. YEAH. SO I'M CALLING INTO THE CITY. IT'S THE CITY CLERK. IS YOUR ELECTIONS OFFICIAL OKAY. OKAY. SO THE CITY ATTORNEY PRESUMABLY WILL WORK WITH THE ELECTIONS OFFICIAL, YOUR CLERK, YOUR CITY CLERK. OKAY, AS FAR AS LIABILITY. YOU KNOW, AS WE LAWYERS LIKE TO SAY, IT ALL DEPENDS THE THE POINT BEING, IF YOUR QUESTION IS WHETHER THE CITY TAKES SOME ACTION THAT SOMEHOW INTERFERES WITH A CANDIDATE'S ABILITY TO GET ELECTED, FOR EXAMPLE. RIGHT. AND THAT ACTION THAT THE CITY TOOK WAS UNREASONABLE OR NOT WARRANTED. I SUSPECT THE CANDIDATE COULD HAVE SOME BASIS TO BRING A LEGAL ACTION. NOW, THESE ELECTION CASES USUALLY ARE EXPEDITED CASES, BUT IN AN EXTREME SCENARIO, IF THE PERSON LOST HIS OR HER ABILITY TO BE A CANDIDATE, ARGUABLY THERE COULD BE A CLAIM AGAINST THE CITY FOR A CIVIL RIGHTS VIOLATION, FOR NOT FOR INTERFERING WITH A CANDIDATE'S ABILITY TO HOLD OFFICE, WHICH COULD BE IMPACTED. YEAH. AND SO LET ME ASK THE QUESTION A LITTLE DIFFERENTLY THEN. SO MOST OF THE REQUIREMENTS IN HERE ARE PROBABLY MORE RELATED TO PEOPLE OUTSIDE OF THE CANDIDATE'S HIM OR HERSELF. OKAY. AND SO IF SOMEONE COMES IN AND SAYS, HEY, I JUST NEED CLARITY TO WHAT YOU MEAN BY X, WHATEVER X IS. AND WE READ BACK THE PARAGRAPH EXACTLY, HOWEVER IT READS, AND LET'S SAY THAT ORGANIZATION OR WHATEVER TAKES A DIFFERENT DIRECTION OF THEIR INTERPRETATION OF WHAT IT MEANS BECAUSE IT'S AMBIGUOUS OR PEOPLE DON'T UNDERSTAND IT. WHAT HAPPENS IN THAT CASE WHERE SOMEONE COMES AND TRIES TO SUE THEM? THE, YOU KNOW, CITIES ENJOY IMMUNITIES FROM A LOT OF LEGAL ACTIONS. AND IF IT WAS AN INNOCENT MISTAKE, IT WAS AN INTENTIONAL OR AN EFFORT TO DECEIVE A CANDIDATE. MOST LIKELY THE CITY WOULD NOT FACE LEGAL EXPOSURE. OKAY, OKAY. YEAH, THAT'S ONE OF MY CONCERNS, TO BE HONEST WITH YOU, BECAUSE IT THAT WAS WHY I WENT BACK AND WHAT I TRIED TO DO WAS TRY TO MAKE IT LESS AMBIGUOUS AND ALSO MAYBE A LITTLE BIT LESS SUBJECTIVE, IF YOU WANT TO SAY SO ON PAGE ONE UNDER THE. WHEREAS INHERENT IN THE HIGH COST OF ELECTION CAMPAIGNING IS THE PROBABLE PROBLEM OF IMPROPER INFLUENCE, I ELIMINATED REAL OR POTENTIAL.OKAY, I GET CONCERNED WHERE WE HAVE POTENTIAL OF SOMETHING COULD HAPPEN. I, I LIKE CLARITY, I LIKE WHERE IT JUST READS. IS THE PROBLEM OF IMPROPER INFLUENCE EXERCISED BY CAMPAIGN CONTRIBUTORS? DOESN'T HAVE TO BE REAL. BUT I ABSOLUTELY DON'T LIKE POTENTIAL. I DON'T LIKE SOMEONE SUBJECTIVELY COMING IN SAYING, I THINK THIS CANDIDATE DID THIS. I THINK IT NEEDS TO BE EXACTLY LIKE IT IS WITHOUT THE REAL OR POTENTIAL. SO IT'S KIND OF ADDING, IT'S CHANGING THE WORDS AND IT'S REDUCING IN MY MIND SUBJECTIVITY IN TERMS OF, OF OF WHAT'S THERE, WHICH IS THE SAME THING WHEN YOU GO DOWN THREE LINES DOWN. I TOOK OUT POTENTIAL UNDUE OR IMPROPER INFLUENCE. AGAIN, IS IT UNDUE, IS IT IMPROPER? IF SO, THEN ABSOLUTELY. BUT IF IT'S POTENTIAL I'M LIKE WHO WHO'S THE AUTHORITY ON POTENTIAL? AND THAT'S WHERE I HAD SOME QUESTIONS OR ISSUES. AND THAT'S WHERE I THINK SOME THINGS COULD COME IN. GOING TO PAGE TWO UNDER ADVERTISEMENT, I TRY TO MAKE EVERYBODY EQUAL THERE AND SAYING, HEY IT IT'S IT'S EVERYBODY HAS A LEVEL PLAYING FIELD. AND SO I SAID ADDED AND REGULARLY. SO I SAID ADVERTISEMENT EXCLUDES COMMUNICATIONS PAID FOR BY A CANDIDATE OR CANDIDATE CONTROL COMMITTEE ESTABLISHED FOR ELECTIVE OFFICE FOR CONTROLLING CANDIDATE AND REGULARLY PUBLISHED NEWSLETTERS OR PERIODICALS PUBLISHED TO ITS MEMBERS, EMPLOYEES, SHAREHOLDERS OR OTHER AFFILIATED INDIVIDUALS. WHY DID I DELETE AND COMMUNICATIONS FROM AN ORGANIZATION'S TO ITS MEMBERS, OTHER THAN A COMMUNICATION FROM A POLITICAL PARTY, IT DIDN'T SEEM IT WAS ALL INCLUSIVE. IT SEEMED LIKE IT EXCLUDED LABOR UNIONS. OKAY, I THINK LABOR UNIONS SHOULD BE JUST LIKE EVERYBODY ELSE. OKAY. AND SO MY THING IS, IF THEY DO
[00:20:06]
REGULAR ANYBODY DOES REGULAR PUBLISHED NEWSLETTER PERIODICALS, FINE. THOSE THOSE COME OUT, THEY'RE NOT CAMPAIGNING FOR A PERSON OR ANYTHING LIKE THAT. BUT I DIDN'T FEEL THAT IT WAS TOTALLY ENCOMPASSING THAT WE WOULD LEAVE UNIONS IN THERE, BUT WE WOULD PUT A COMMUNICATION FROM A POLITICAL PARTY TO ITS MEMBERS. SO I DELETED THAT AND SAID, HEY, LET'S JUST MAKE EVERYBODY EQUAL WITH REGARDS TO ADVERTISEMENT, GOING TO PAGE.FOUR. ITEM TWO. I CHANGED THIS BECAUSE I DON'T LIKE TALKING ABOUT TRANSPARENCY. OKAY. ONE OF THE THINGS THAT WE AS CANDIDATES HAVE TO DO IS FILL IN A 460. AND IF THERE'S ANY VALUE GREATER THAN $100, DOESN'T MATTER IF IT'S PROFESSIONAL, PROFESSIONAL SERVICE OR WHATEVER, WE HAVE TO BASICALLY DOCUMENT IT. I MADE THE CHANGE BECAUSE PROFESSIONAL SERVICES WAS EXCLUDED FROM HAVING TO ACTUALLY IF IT'S IF IT'S BEING PROVIDED AND IT'S NOT BEING CHARGED FOR, IT WAS EXCLUDED. AND I'M A LITTLE UNCOMFORTABLE WITH THAT. I'D LIKE TO KNOW WHAT PROFESSIONAL SERVICES ARE, HOW MUCH THEY'RE PAYING. I DON'T CARE IF THEY'RE FREE, OKAY. I JUST THINK THEY NEED TO BE DOCUMENTED, ESPECIALLY IF THEY'RE OVER $100.
SO I CHANGED IT, SAYING ANYTHING OF VALUE OF $100 OR GREATER, WHICH IS EXACTLY WHAT IT WAS BEFORE PROVIDED TO OR TO THE BENEFIT OF A CANDIDATE OR COMMITTEE, BUT NOT INCLUDING VOLUNTEER PERSONAL OKAY SERVICES. AS LONG AS THERE IS NO UNDERSTANDING OF REIMBURSEMENT. SO I ELIMINATED THE PROFESSIONAL SERVICES AND SAID, NO, I THINK WE NEED TO DOCUMENT THOSE. AND AGAIN, IT'S FOR TRANSPARENCY PURPOSES. ITEM SIX. THIS GETS DOWN TO, YOU KNOW, MAYOR PRO TEM CHANG MENTIONED IT. I WAS OKAY WITH THE 2700. OKAY. I HONESTLY WAS HOPING WE DIDN'T HAVE TO HAVE ALL OF THE BELLS AND WHISTLES, BUT I'M OKAY WITH THE 2700 PRIMARILY FOR A COUPLE REASONS. ONE IS IT'S LESS THAN HALF OF WHAT WE WERE OKAY WITH BEFORE.
TWO IS WE HAVE SO MANY OTHER LIMITATIONS PUT IN HERE THAT I THOUGHT IT ONLY FAIR, ESPECIALLY FOR NEW CANDIDATES COMING IN AND WANTING TO RUN, THAT IT WOULD MAKE IT, YOU KNOW, I'LL CALL IT A LITTLE LESS CUMBERSOME IF THEY HAD AT LEAST SOME MONIES TO WORK WITH. AND I DIDN'T AGREE WITH THE 500, I THINK 1000 OR EVEN 1500 MAY BE TOO LOW, BUT I CHANGED IT TO 2700. THE OTHER QUESTION AT THE FIRST PART OF THAT PARAGRAPH IS, I THINK, TALK ABOUT AMBIGUITY.
THIS IS MY POSITION. IT TALKS ABOUT NO INDIVIDUAL PROPRIETORSHIP, FIRM PARTNERSHIP, JOINT VENTURE, SYNDICATE BUSINESS TRUST COMPANY CORPORATION LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY, ASSOCIATION, COMMITTEE, ETC. INCLUDING BOTH CONTROLLED AND INDEPENDENT COMMITTEES, LABOR UNION OR ANY OTHER ORGANIZATION. AND THEN IT WAS ADDED OR GROUP OF PERSONS ACTING IN CONCERT. I THINK THAT COULD BE REALLY MISLEADING THAT IF A PERSON WORKS WITH THEIR NEIGHBORS, ARE THEY IN CONCERT TOGETHER SUPPORTING A CANDIDATE? I THOUGHT IT IT COULD REALLY BE MISLEADING. AND ALSO THOSE THAT MAY WANT TO POSSIBLY TAKE ACTION. SO I SAID GET RID OF THE ORG GROUP PERSONS IN ACTION. BUT EVERYTHING ELSE WAS FINE OTHER THAN THE THE I'LL CALL IT CONTRIBUTION. AND THEN AT THE END I THINK I GET TOWARD THE END. WHICH IS ENFORCEMENT.
AGAIN, I UNDERSTAND THE ENFORCEMENT. I READ THROUGH THE GOVERNMENT CODES IN TERMS OF A LOT OF THIS IS CONSISTENT WITH THE GOVERNMENT'S CODES AND OR FPC REQUIREMENTS, SO THAT I DIDN'T HAVE AN ISSUE WITH THE ISSUE I HAD WITH, WHICH IS SOMETHING I MENTIONED A LITTLE BIT EARLIER, IS IS NEGLIGENTLY. AND I HAD AN ISSUE THAT IF A NEW CANDIDATE OR SOME CANDIDATE GOES IN AND DOESN'T REALIZE EXACTLY EVERYTHING THAT THEY NEEDED TO DO, AND MAYBE THERE WAS A LITTLE CONFUSION AND MAYBE YOU COULD SAY IT WAS NEGLIGENT ON THEIR PART THAT SOMEONE CAN COME AFTER ME FOR THAT OR COME AFTER THAT CANDIDATE. I DIDN'T THINK THAT WAS RIGHT. TO ME. IT WAS EITHER KNOWINGLY OR WILLFULLY THAT THEY VIOLATED. IF THEY NEGLIGENTLY DID THEM, YOU CAN TELL THEM AND SAY, HEY, NEXT TIME, MAKE SURE YOU DO THIS, OKAY? CIVIL ENFORCEMENT DID THE EXACTLY THE SAME THING IT TALKS ABOUT INTENTIONALLY. I GOT RID OF NEGLIGENTLY. AND THEN THE THE LAST ONE, WHICH IS INJUNCTION RELIEF. I HAVE A REAL HARD TIME WITH NOT NECESSARILY THE ENFORCEMENT, BUT GIVING AN INCENTIVE FOR RESIDENTS TO GO AFTER EACH OTHER. I THINK THAT'S JUST UNACCEPTABLE. OKAY. AND THE
[00:25:01]
STATEMENT THAT I TOOK OUT SAID, IF A JUDGMENT IS ENTERED AGAINST THE DEFENDANT IN SUCH AN ACTION, THE PRIVATE PLAINTIFF SHALL RECEIVE 50% OF THE ABOVE OF THE AMOUNT RECOVERED, AND THE REMAINING 50% SHALL BE DEPOSITED INTO THE CITY'S FUNDS. I DON'T THINK THERE SHOULD BE ANY MONIES EXCHANGED. WHATEVER THE SETTLEMENT IS, THE SETTLEMENT IS OKAY. I DON'T BELIEVE WE. AND THIS COULD BE TO A PACK. IT COULD BE AN INDIVIDUAL.WHATEVER. I JUST DON'T LIKE INCENTIVIZING OUR RESIDENTS TO GO AFTER EITHER EACH OTHER OR GO AFTER A LOCAL PACK, OR A BUSINESS OR AN ORGANIZATION OR WHATEVER. I JUST THOUGHT IT WAS UNNECESSARY. ALL THE OTHER ENFORCEMENTS I GET, ALL THAT'S ALL PRETTY MUCH TO THE TO THE GENERAL OR TO THE, TO THE GOVERNMENT CODE. SO I DIDN'T NECESSARILY HAVE AN ISSUE WITH THAT. AND THOSE WERE MY COMMENTS. AND WHAT I JUST TO SUM IT UP RIGHT, I DON'T LIKE THIS. OKAY. AND I WAS VERY CLEAR ON THAT LAST TIME. I STILL BELIEVE THAT BEING IN DISTRICTS AND NOT HAVING THE CHANCE TO HAVE A PERSON RUN IN A DISTRICT WITHOUT HAVING TO GO THROUGH ALL OF THIS, I WOULD LOVE TO JUST SAY, HEY, LET'S GO THROUGH ANOTHER DISTRICT. BUT THAT'S NOT WHAT THE OPTION IS AND WHAT THE WHAT THE MAJORITY WANTS. SO I'M TRYING TO LOOK AT HOW CAN WE COME UP WITH SOME ORDINANCE THAT CAN BE MORE MIDDLE OF THE ROAD RATHER THAN ONE SIDED? SO THAT'S WHY I DID THIS. AND I WOULD APPRECIATE DISCUSSION AND CONSIDERATION.
THANK YOU. NEXT, COUNCILMEMBER BURKE, YOU HAVE THE FLOOR. OH WELL, THANKS TO MAYOR PRO TEM CHANG FOR YOUR COMMENTS FOR KIND OF PICKING UP THE DISCUSSION WHERE IT LEFT OFF LAST TIME. I GUESS, TO YOUR POINTS. LISTEN, I THOUGHT YOU MADE SOME REALLY GOOD POINTS LAST TIME. I ESPECIALLY LIKE THE IDEA THAT WE DON'T WANT TO HAVE TO COME BACK AND REVISIT THIS ORDINANCE EVERY TWO YEARS AND LIKE, RAISE THE LIMIT. SO I LIKE THE IDEA OF AUTOMATICALLY INCREASING THE LIMITS, WHATEVER THEY ARE FOR INFLATION EVERY COUPLE YEARS. LIKE I SAID, I HAVE DRAFT LANGUAGE FROM LAST TIME THAT WE CAN INCORPORATE IN THERE. REGARDING THE $500 LIMIT.
LIKE, YEAH, I AGREE, IT'S DEFINITELY ON THE LOW SIDE. AND LIKE YOU SAID, EVEN IF WE WERE 1500, 2000, THAT'S STILL 2,030% OF WHAT IT WOULD BE OTHERWISE. SO I THINK THAT'S A BIG IMPROVEMENT. AND I KNOW LAST TIME I MADE A MOTION FOR 1000 ADJUSTED FOR INFLATION, IT DIDN'T GET A SECOND. SO MAYBE WHEN I'M DONE I INVITE YOU. IF THERE'S LIKE A NUMBER YOU THINK MAKES SENSE, YOU KNOW, FEEL FREE TO MAKE A MOTION. AND I UNDERSTAND THE POINTS THERE.
REGARDING COUNCIL MEMBER PETE'S COMMENTS. SO I KNOW IT CAN BE TOUGH. LIKE WHEN YOU'RE GOING THROUGH A ORDINANCE LIKE THIS AND YOU WONDER, LIKE, WHY IS SOME OF THIS LANGUAGE IN THERE? WHY IS IT WORDED THIS WAY? I CAN SAY THAT I KNOW, YOU KNOW, I WORKED ON THIS WITH THE CITY ATTORNEY, AND A LOT OF THE REASON THAT SOME OF THE LANGUAGE IS WORDED THE WAY IT IS, IS JUST BECAUSE OF LIKE PRIOR COURT DECISIONS THAT HAVE GUIDED THE WAY THAT CITIES OR STATES CRAFT THEIR LAWS OR LIKE IN THE CASE OF A LOT OF THIS, I LOOKED AT SOME CITIES THAT ALREADY HAD LAWS ON THE DISCLOSURE REQUIREMENTS BECAUSE I FIGURE, WELL, IF THOSE CITIES HAVE DONE IT FOR A WHILE, YOU KNOW, THAT'S A GOOD MODEL TO FOLLOW. AND SO, I MEAN, SOME OF THE CHANGES YOU SUGGESTED I WOULDN'T OBJECT TO, BUT A LOT OF OTHERS, I'D SAY THEY'RE IN THERE FOR IT'S THE WAY IT IS FOR A REASON. AND I WORRY THAT SOME OF YOUR SUGGESTIONS KIND OF MAKE IT MORE CONFUSING. I KNOW YOU MADE A POINT ABOUT UNIONS IN ONE OF THE SECTIONS.
I DON'T SEE THE WORD UNION IN THAT SECTION, SO I DON'T UNDERSTAND WHY WE'D CHANGE.
YEAH, I GUESS I DIDN'T UNDERSTAND THAT POINT. AND THINGS LIKE, YOU KNOW, WHY DO WHY IS THERE? WHY IS THERE A PUNISHMENT EVEN IF YOU'RE NEGLIGENT, YOU KNOW, IF YOU NEGLIGENTLY BREAK THE LAW? WELL, BECAUSE IT'S REALLY HARD TO PROVE SOMETIMES THAT SOMEONE INTENTIONALLY BROKE THE LAW. AND SO IT'D BE REAL EASY FOR SOMEONE TO SAY, OH, WHOOPSIE DAISY. I GOT A $5,000 DONATION. I DIDN'T KNOW THAT WAS ALLOWED. BUT YOU CAN'T PUNISH ME BECAUSE YOU CAN'T PROVE THAT IT WAS INTENTIONAL. AND SO THAT'S WHY A LOT OF TIMES WHEN LAWS ARE WRITTEN OF ANY KIND, IT SAYS INTENTIONAL, WILLFUL, NEGLIGENT, RECKLESSLY. SO THAT'S THE KIND OF REASON THINGS LIKE THAT ARE IN THERE. I GUESS ON BALANCE, I WOULD BE INCLINED TO SUPPORT
[00:30:07]
THE DRAFT ORDINANCE THAT WE HAVE, ADDING IN LANGUAGE TO ADJUST IT FOR INFLATION AND THEN MAYBE LANDING ON A LIMIT THAT'S MORE AGREEABLE TO THE GROUP AS A PARTICULARLY COUNCIL MEMBER. CHANG. BECAUSE I FEEL LIKE WE WERE CLOSE LAST TIME. BUT, YOU KNOW, I MEAN, I COULD EXPLAIN KIND OF EVERY HIGHLIGHTED SECTION AND LIKE WHY IT'S LIKE THAT. BUT I HONESTLY THINK THAT THE ORDINANCE IS BETTER THE WAY IT WAS. AND. I DON'T I DON'T REALLY I DON'T KNOW I DON'T KNOW THAT I WANT US TO I MEAN, IF THERE'S PARTICULAR QUESTIONS YOU HAVE THAT ARE MORE POINTED, I THINK THAT MAKE MORE SENSE. BUT YOU'VE RAISED SO MANY, YOU'VE ADDED IN NEW LANGUAGE, YOU'VE RAISED SO MANY CONCERNS. I KIND OF LIKE TO NARROW THE FOCUS BECAUSE THERE ARE THINGS THAT I THINK I COULD SEE. YEAH, I CAN SEE WHY THAT CHANGE MAKES SENSE. BUT OTHER THINGS I THINK WOULD JUST LEAD DOWN THE WHOLE RABBIT HOLE. AND WE'RE COMING BACK HERE ANOTHER MONTH AND A HALF GOING THROUGH EACH SECTION. AND I DON'T WANT TO DO THAT. SO THE LANGUAGE YOU ALREADY HAVE, IN MY OPINION, THE CITY ATTORNEY HAS REVIEWED IT, I REVIEWED IT, WE THOUGHT IT LOOKED GOOD. SO I GUESS THOSE ARE MY COMMENTS. THANK YOU VERY MUCH. I KNOW YOU'RE REQUESTING COUNCIL MEMBER PETE TO SPEAK. LET ME GO AHEAD AND MAKE A QUICK COMMENT. THEN I'LL HAND THE FLOOR TO YOU. COUNCIL MEMBER PETE, I AM LOOKING AT THE AGENDA AND ON THIS ITEM UNDER LEGAL REVIEW, IT STATES THE CITY ATTORNEY PREPARED THE ORDINANCE AND REVIEWED THIS STAFF REPORT. I AM VERY HESITANT TO PLAY UP HERE.ARMCHAIR LAWYER THINKING THAT I HAVE THE EXPERIENCE, THAT I CAN MODIFY DOCUMENTS, AND I WOULD BE VERY HESITANT TO HAVE COUNCIL MEMBERS THINK THAT WE ARE BETTER AT CHANGING THINGS THAN THE CITY ATTORNEY WITHOUT GIVING HIM A CHANCE TO DISCUSS THIS, AND SINCE IT HAS BEEN PREPARED AND SO FORTH, AND I KNOW MINOR CHANGES LIKE A DOLLAR AMOUNT DON'T HAVE MAJOR RAMIFICATIONS. BUT WHEN WE TALK ABOUT CHANGING THINGS ON THE FLY HERE, WHAT I AM AFRAID OF IS THIS IS GOING TO POSTPONE THIS QUITE A BIT. WE'RE TALKING A FEW CITY COUNCIL MEETINGS, SO I'M VERY HESITANT TO GO AHEAD AND WORDSMITH THIS UP IN FRONT OF EVERYONE AND KIND OF DISREGARD THE VERBIAGE THAT WAS PUT TOGETHER BY THE CITY ATTORNEY. GO AHEAD IF YOU WANT TO GO AHEAD AND MAKE COMMENT. OTHERWISE, I WAS GOING TO TURN THE FLOOR OVER TO COUNCIL MEMBER PETE. I THINK IT'S FAIR FOR ME TO SAY THAT, YOU KNOW, THIS IS A VERY DETAILED ORDINANCE. THE DIRECTION I RECEIVED FROM THE COUNCIL DID NOT INCLUDE ALL OF THIS DETAIL.
WE CREATED A DRAFT. I DID WORK WITH COUNCIL MEMBER BURKE, WHO ADDED SOME SIGNIFICANT PORTIONS.
AT THE END OF THE DAY, I CAN SUPPORT IT FROM A LEGAL BASIS AS MEETING THE LEGAL REQUIREMENTS, BUT IT'S BY NO MEANS A RECOMMENDED FORM. SO TO THE EXTENT COUNCIL MEMBERS HAVE COMMENTS AND SUGGESTED CHANGES, BY ALL MEANS, THAT'S THE COUNCIL'S PREROGATIVE. OKAY.
VERY WELL. LET'S LET ME TURN THE FLOOR OVER TO COUNCIL. OKAY, GUYS, I'M I'M GIVING YOU GUYS AN OLIVE BRANCH. OKAY. THE LAST TIME WE TALKED, WE DID NOT HAVE A DISCUSSION ABOUT THIS. SO YOU COULD SAY WE ALREADY WENT THROUGH IT. WE DIDN'T. OKAY. I HAD MANY QUESTIONS. THEY WERE NOT ANSWERED. OKAY. SO THIS IS OUR TIME IN MY MIND IS TO HAVE THAT DISCUSSION. I'M SORRY IT TOOK THIS, BUT WE WERE UNABLE TO HAVE THE DISCUSSION IN THE PRIOR MEETING. I DON'T KNOW HOW ELSE TO DO IT OKAY THAN TO HAVE AN OPEN DIALOG AND BE TRANSPARENT FOR THE RESIDENTS.
SO THAT'S WHY I DID. THAT'S WHY I ACTUALLY CAME WITH THE RED LINE RATHER THAN TALKING TO IT.
AND SO, YOU KNOW, COUNCIL MEMBER BURKE, I WOULD APPRECIATE AN ANSWER TO EACH ONE OF THOSE OR OR MR. MAYOR, YOU CAN YOU CAN RESPOND TO THEM AS WELL, BECAUSE YOU AGREED TO THE YOU AGREED TO THE ORDINANCE BEFORE. SO I'M NOT I DON'T CARE WHO GIVES ME THE RESPONSE. I JUST THINK FROM A RESIDENT STANDPOINT, I THINK THEY SHOULD HEAR WHY WE DON'T WANT TO HAVE CERTAIN THINGS IN THERE. OKAY, SO THAT'S MY PERSPECTIVE. THE NEGLIGENTLY I AGAIN, NEW CANDIDATES COMING IN WHENEVER YEAR COULD BE, THIS YEAR COULD BE 28, COULD BE 30 OR BEYOND.
RIGHT. THIS I SAID IT AND I THINK I'M A PRETTY INTELLIGENT PERSON. OKAY, I HAD SAID IT THE
[00:35:06]
FIRST TIME I READ IT. I'M CONFUSED. OKAY. ABOUT WHO DOES THIS INVOLVE, WHY DOES IT INVOLVE THEM AND THINGS LIKE THAT. AND AGAIN, WE WERE UNABLE TO HAVE THE DIALOG. SO I KIND OF FELT LIKE JUST TAKE IT AND LEAVE IT, OKAY, I'M NOT READY TO DO THAT. AND IF IT MEANS WE HAVE TO CONTINUE IT, I SEE ABSOLUTELY NO REASON WHY IT HAS TO BE DONE RIGHT NOW. OKAY. IF WE CONTINUE IT TO THE NEXT MEETING, I'M OKAY WITH THAT. I'M ACTUALLY OKAY HAVING THE DISCUSSION RIGHT NOW. I JUST THINK OUR RESIDENTS DESERVE THE TRANSPARENCY TO HAVE THE DIALOG.AND AS I SAID, I'M TRYING TO DO AN OLIVE BRANCH TO SAY, I TOLD YOU WHAT MY OPINION WAS IN THE LAST MEETING. I RECOGNIZED IT WASN'T POPULAR AND I WENT DOWN WITH A NO. OKAY. BUT I TRIED TO COME UP WITH SOMETHING THAT MIGHT BE MIGHT BE SOMETHING THAT WE CAN ALL AGREE TO. WE MAY NOT NECESSARILY ALL LIKE IT, WHICH IS LIKE, I DON'T LIKE A LOT OF THIS, BUT I'M TRYING TO COME UP WITH SOMETHING THAT HOPEFULLY WE CAN HAVE SOME ALTERNATIVES TO AND AGREE TO.
SO THAT'S MY PERSPECTIVE. LET ME GO AND MAKE A FEW COMMENTS. AND THEN. FOLLOWING ME WILL BE DOCTOR CHANG. DO YOU WANT. OKAY. SO OKAY SO YOU BRING UP REALLY GOOD POINTS. COUNCILMEMBER PETE AND I DO AGREE THAT THIS WE HAVE BEEN DISCUSSING THIS. JUST TO GIVE THIS SOME PERSPECTIVE.
I RECALL IN 2024 THIS WAS A MAJOR ISSUE AND PEOPLE WERE DISCUSSING CAMPAIGN FINANCE REFORM. I REMEMBER IN 2025, SCOTT MINIKUS COUNCIL MEMBER SCOTT MINIKUS, DURING OUR STRAT PLAN, GAVE A PRETTY LENGTHY DISCUSSION. HE CLEARLY SIGNALED THAT MAYOR BURKE WAS DEFINITELY A CONFLICT OF INTEREST. HE WENT AFTER MAYOR BURKE DURING THE STRAT PLAN AND SAID HE IS PROFITING OFF OF THIS AND IT IS INCORRECT AND I DO NOT. HE SAID VERY SPECIFICALLY, MANY PEOPLE IN THE CITY OF CYPRESS DO NOT WANT TO SEE TAX DOLLARS USED TO FUND CANDIDATES. AND AGAIN, COUNCIL MEMBER I'M SORRY, COUNCIL MEMBER MINIKUS SAID. MAYOR BURKE, THIS IS A CONFLICT OF INTEREST. YOU'RE PROFITING OFF OF THIS. THIS IS UNACCEPTABLE. AND HE SUGGESTED THAT CYPRESS WAS GOING ROGUE. SO THIS WAS BACK DURING THE STRAP PLAN IN 2025. WE DID COMPROMISE. WE DID CLARIFY THAT THERE IS NOT A CONFLICT OF INTEREST. WE DID CLARIFY THAT THERE IS NOT PROFITING OF THIS. WE DID IN NOVEMBER HAVE A DISCUSSION AND WE REMOVED THE NO USE OF TAX DOLLARS TO FUND CANDIDATES. WE HAVE BEEN COMPROMISING ON THIS AGAIN AND AGAIN AND AGAIN. WE HAVE BEEN TALKING ABOUT THIS. WE TALKED ABOUT, WELL, LET'S WAIT UNTIL WE ALL GO TO DISTRICTS. WE'VE BEEN IN DISTRICTS FOR OVER, TO MY RECOLLECTION. WE'VE BEEN VOTING IN DISTRICTS THROUGH CYPRESS SCHOOL DISTRICTS FOR ABOUT A DECADE. CORRECT ME IF I'M WRONG. SO WHENEVER WE COMPROMISE AND DISCUSS THIS, IT SEEMS LIKE THE GOALPOSTS KEEP ON CHANGING. AND AT THE 11TH HOUR WE'RE GETTING MORE CHANGES AND MORE CHANGES. AND THEN LET'S GO AHEAD AND WAIT AND LET'S GO AND DO ANOTHER ANALYSIS. WE'VE BEEN TALKING ABOUT THIS FOR YEARS, AND SO I BELIEVE WE HAVE EXTENDED MULTIPLE OLIVE BRANCHES. AND GOING AHEAD AND REMOVING AND CLARIFYING THE CONFLICT OF INTEREST, CLARIFYING WHETHER OR NOT ANYONE IS PROFITING OFF OF THIS, REMOVING THE NO USE OF TAX DOLLARS TO FUND CANDIDATES.
THAT WAS A LARGE CONCERN, AND MANY PEOPLE COMMUNICATED THAT TO ME. THAT WAS ONE THING THEY COULD NOT STAND. DO NOT USE TAX DOLLARS TO FUND ANYONE CAMPAIGN. AND SO WHEN YOU LOOK AT THIS AT THE MACRO LEVEL AND SEE WHAT OTHER CITIES ARE DOING, ESPECIALLY IRVINE, I THINK THAT WAS A MISREPRESENTATION BY PEOPLE SAYING THAT WE ARE GOING ROGUE HERE IN CYPRESS, THAT WE ARE SOMEWHERE OFF IN LA LA LAND DOING SOMETHING SO EGREGIOUS. I THINK THIS IS A COMPROMISE. I DON'T THINK THIS IS PERFECT. I THINK WE'LL BE VISITING THIS AGAIN AFTER THE ELECTION AND POTENTIALLY CHANGING SOME OF THE THINGS, BUT I'M AFRAID THAT THESE ARE IN SOME WAYS DELAY TACTICS SINCE WE'VE BEEN TALKING ABOUT THIS FOR SO MANY YEARS. LET ME GO AND TURN THIS OVER NOW TO I'M SEEING OH, GO AHEAD, LISTEN TO YOU. THAT'S IT. OKAY. I'LL TURN THIS OVER TO COUNCIL MEMBER PETE. YOU HAVE THE FLOOR. YES. SO FOR CLARITY. OKAY, WE'VE BEEN TALKING ABOUT THIS FOR LESS THAN A YEAR. SO WE HAD OUR STRATEGIC SESSION IN SPRING OF LAST YEAR. AND ABSOLUTELY, THERE WAS A DISCUSSION AND THERE WAS A LOT OF THINGS ABOUT IS IT A STRATEGIC ITEM OR IS IT A A PERSONAL ITEM BASED ON IT DOESN'T INVOLVE THE CITY CITY CLERK OR THE CITY MANAGER. IT COULDN'T BE ASSIGNED TO THE THING. SO WE ENDED UP TABLING IT AND WE HAD A DISCUSSION IN JUNE. AND THEN WE WE TABLED IT BECAUSE OF ALL THE STUFF GOING ON IN THE CITY IN AUGUST. AND THEN IN NOVEMBER IT WAS PRESENTED. BUT WHAT WAS PRESENTED IN NOVEMBER WASN'T ALL THE TERMS. IT WAS LET'S GO TO 500 AND LET'S WHATEVER THE OTHER ONE WAS, I DON'T REMEMBER. LET'S GO TO 500 AND LET'S WHATEVER THE OTHER ONE WAS, IT
[00:40:05]
HAD NOTHING TO DO WITH PENALTIES. IT HAD NOTHING TO DO WITH ENFORCEMENT. IT WAS NOTHING. AND SO I WAS LIKE, OKAY, IF IF THIS IS IS WHAT THEY'RE TRYING TO DO, OKAY, MAYBE I CAN GET BEHIND IT. OKAY. BUT WHEN END WHEN JANUARY CAME AROUND IS WHEN A TEN PAGE DOCUMENT CAME IN AND THAT WAS LIKE, WHOA, WHOA, WHOA, WHOA, OKAY. IN NOVEMBER, YOU MENTIONED A COUPLE OF ITEMS THAT WE WERE GOING TO DO, AND I HONESTLY, I THOUGHT, OKAY, THOSE ARE REASONABLE. WE COULD TALK TO THEM. BUT WHEN ALL OF THE TEN PAGES OF RULES AND REGULATIONS AND HOW THESE ARE HANDLED, I'LL BE HONEST WITH YOU, IT WAS OVERWHELMING. OKAY? I WAS HOPEFUL OF WHERE WE WERE GOING TO BE, AND IT TURNED ON ME. OKAY. SO THAT'S ONE THING.THE SECOND THING IS CAMPAIGN FINANCE REFORM. I AND AND COUNCIL MEMBER PERKINS PROBABLY SPEAK BETTER TO THIS. ARE THERE A LOT OF CITIES THAT HAVE PUT REDUCED AMOUNT OF CONTRIBUTIONS? ABSOLUTELY. OKAY. ABSOLUTELY. DID THEY ALL PUT IN EXACTLY WHAT WE HAVE HERE OR SOME FORM TO TO LIMIT WHAT YOU WERE ABLE TO DO, TO HAVE ACTIONS AGAINST YOU, THINGS LIKE THAT? NO. THEY PUT IN A LOWER NUMBER AND SAID, OKAY, IT'S 506 50, WHATEVER IT MIGHT BE. THEY DID NOT PUT IN ALL THE OTHER REGULATIONS. SO DON'T SAY WE'RE JUST LIKE EVERYBODY ELSE. WE ARE NOT LIKE EVERYBODY ELSE, OKAY? THERE ARE SOME CITIES THAT HAVE DONE IT, BUT IN GENERAL, THOSE THAT HAVE REDUCED THE NUMBER ARE MORE THAN LIKELY DID IT ON THEIR OWN THING BECAUSE THEY WANTED TO HAVE SOME LIMITS ON THE CONTRIBUTIONS. AND WHATEVER THE COUNCIL AGREED TO, IT WASN'T A TEN PAGE DOCUMENT OF ENFORCEMENT. SO LET'S NOT MISLEAD OURSELVES IN TERMS OF, WELL, EVERYBODY ELSE IS LIKE THIS, LET'S DO IT OURSELVES. SO THAT'S THAT'S MY COMMENT. I DON'T I DON'T WANT TO MISLEAD RESIDENTS. AND I ALSO DON'T WANT TO MISLEAD OTHER COUNCIL MEMBERS BECAUSE THIS ONLY HAS BEEN TALKED FOR LESS THAN 12 MONTHS. WAS IT ALWAYS ON COUNCILMEMBER BURKE'S AGENDA? NO QUESTION. OKAY. BECAUSE HE HAS A NONPROFIT THAT THAT'S ASSOCIATED WITH IT. SO I THINK WE ALL KNEW THAT, BUT IT WASN'T BROUGHT TO COUNCIL UNTIL, I'LL SAY, SPRING OF LAST YEAR. THANK YOU. DOCTOR CHANG, YOU HAVE THE FLOOR. THANK YOU. AND THANK YOU FOR TAKING THE TIME TO GO THROUGH THIS DOCUMENT AND AND HIGHLIGHT ALL THE CHANGES.
HONESTLY, I A LOT OF THEM, I DON'T SEE THEM REALLY BEING A SIGNIFICANT CHANGE, BUT THERE ARE A FEW THAT I WILL TALK ABOUT LIKE PAGE ONE, A REAL OR POTENTIAL. I DON'T KNOW IF THAT MAKES THAT BIG OF A DIFFERENCE WHEN IT COMES TO THE ACTUAL ORDINANCE. NUMBER TWO, REGULAR PUBLISHED NEWSLETTERS OR PERIODICALS PUBLISHED TO ITS MEMBERS, EMPLOYEES AND SHAREHOLDERS. THAT SEEMS A LITTLE BIT SEEMS A LITTLE BIT MORE SPECIFIC THAN THE COMMUNICATIONS FROM AN ORGANIZATION TO ITS MEMBERS, OTHER THAN A COMMUNICATION FROM A POLITICAL PARTY TO ITS MEMBERS. AND THAT PART I TEND TO, I THINK I WOULD TO BEING MORE INCLUSIVE, YOU KNOW, AND INCLUDING MORE THINGS THAT I THAT FALL OUTSIDE THE REGULARLY PUBLISHED NEWSLETTERS OR PERIODICALLY PUBLISHED JUST MEMBERS. AND I, I IT'S HARD FOR ME TO THINK OF SPECIFIC INSTANCES, BUT I DON'T KNOW WHAT'S A REGULARLY PUBLISHED NEWSLETTER. WOULD IT BE LIKE MONTHLY, WEEKLY OR YEARLY? AND SO THAT IT FEELS A LITTLE BIT AMBIGUOUS TO ME. ON PAGE FOUR, I'M FINE WITH EITHER OR. PAGE SIX. THAT ONE DOESN'T DOESN'T ALIGN WITH EITHER OR. AND PAGE EIGHT. I DO THINK THAT WE SHOULD KEEP THE TERM NEGLIGENT.
I WORRY THAT THAT GIVES AN OUT TO SOMEBODY THAT, YOU KNOW, JUST ISN'T CAREFUL READING THIS, THIS ORDINANCE. SO I DON'T THINK WE HAVE WE SHOULD GIVE THEM AN OUT. AND AS FOR THE THE SECOND PART THAT YOU STRUCK OUT THAT I'M FINE WITH EITHER OR, BUT I DON'T KNOW IF YOU'LL YOU'LL HAVE THE THE SUPPORT FOR THIS IN EITHER WAY. BUT I DO WANT TO HEAR YOUR THOUGHTS OF, YOU KNOW, WHAT DOLLAR AMOUNT YOU'RE, YOU'RE COMFORTABLE GOING AS LOW AS. THANK YOU.
THANK YOU VERY MUCH, COUNCILMEMBER PETE. YOU HAVE THE FLOOR. ALL RIGHT. SO LET ME LET ME JUST RESPOND. MY THOUGHTS HERE ON THE PAGE ONE I THINK REAL OR POTENTIAL IS UNNECESSARY. OKAY. CAMPAIGNING IS THE IS THE PROBLEM OF IMPROPER INFLUENCE EXERCISED BY CAMPAIGN CONTRIBUTORS OR ELECTED OFFICIALS. ANYBODY COULD SAY THAT'S REAL OR
[00:45:04]
POTENTIAL. YOU DON'T NEED THE WORDS IN THERE. AND TO ME YOU'RE ASKING FOR, HEY, IT COULD BE POTENTIAL, SO GO AHEAD AND DO IT. I DON'T LIKE DOING THAT. I'D LIKE JUST LEAVING IT THE WAY IT IS, TAKE IT OUT. AND IT COULD BE REAL OR POTENTIAL THAT IT COULD JUST BE ASSUMED.OKAY. I THINK THE SAME THING IS TRUE OF THE ONE BELOW THAT OKAY. OF THE POTENTIAL UNDUE. I THINK IT COULD BE ASSUMED SOMEBODY COULD SAY POTENTIAL WRITE. I'M GOING TO I'M GOING TO MAYBE HELP A LITTLE BIT MORE WITH THE INCLUSIVITY HERE. I TRIED TO BE INCLUSIVE BY ADDING THE NEWSLETTERS. OKAY. MY CONCERN ON THE ORIGINAL LANGUAGE IN HERE, OKAY. IT SAYS ADVERTISEMENT EXCLUDES COMMUNICATIONS PAID FOR BY CANDIDATE OR CANDIDATE. CONTROL COMMITTEE ESTABLISHED FOR ELECTIVE OFFICE FOR THE CONTROLLING CANDIDATE, AND COMMUNICATIONS FROM AN ORGANIZATION'S TO ITS MEMBERS. OTHER THAN A COMMUNICATION FROM A POLITICAL PARTY TO ITS MEMBERS. MAYBE PROVIDE CLARITY WHY IT HAS TO HAVE, OTHER THAN A COMMUNICATION FROM A POLITICAL PARTY, OR WHY IT HAS TO HAVE AND COMMUNICATIONS FROM AN ORGANIZATION. THAT'S WHERE I THINK IT SEEMS UNCLEAR FOR ME WITH REGARDS TO YOUR ACCEPTING THE COMMUNICATIONS FROM A LABOR UNION, BUT YOU WON'T ACCEPT CERTAIN THINGS FROM A POLITICAL PARTY. AND THAT'S WHERE MAYBE WHERE I GOT A LITTLE CONFUSED, NOT CONFUSED. I ADDED THIS IN TO SAYING, HEY, ANYTHING THAT'S A NEWSLETTER, PERIODICALS. THAT'S ALL FOR THE GOVERNMENT CODE. SO THAT'S ALL STANDARD LANGUAGE. I JUST WONDER ABOUT WHY. AND COMMUNICATIONS FROM AN ORGANIZATION'S TO ITS MEMBERS, OTHER THAN COMMUNICATION FROM A POLITICAL PARTY TO ITS MEMBERS.
THIS IS I JUST HAVE AN ISSUE MORE FROM A WHY ARE YOU EXCLUDING LABOR UNIONS, BUT YOU'RE NOT EXCLUDING A PUBLIC. BUT IT DOESN'T. BUT IT COULD BE. IT'S AN ORGANIZATION. IT'S AN ORGANIZATION. OKAY. WITH REGARD. YEAH. I DON'T HAVE ANY MORE COMMENTS THERE. I DON'T THINK I HAVE ANY MORE COMMENTS THERE. THE NEGLIGENTLY. I'M NOT HARD OVER. I THINK MY CONCERN IS WE'RE GOING TO HAVE A DIFFERENT POPULATION OF CANDIDATES COMING IN POTENTIALLY 26, 28, 30 AND BEYOND. THEY WON'T KNOW ALL THE RULES. SO IT COULD BE THEY HAVE TO HIRE A CAMPAIGN MANAGER TO HELP THEM AND MAKE SURE THAT THEY UNDERSTAND. BUT A NEGLIGENT THING COULD BE I GO TO A PRINTER, THEY PRINT IT. IT'S A 99 POINT FONT, RIGHT? AND SOMEBODY COMES IN AND TRIES TO TAKE ACTION BECAUSE IT WAS A NINE POINT FONT VERSUS A TEN. NOW YOU COULD SAY, OH, THAT COULD BE JUST A NEGLIGENT THING. THEY COULD HAVE GIVEN THE REQUIREMENT TO THE PRINTER, BUT THE PRINTER MADE AN ERROR SO NEGLIGENTLY THEY DIDN'T GO IN, THEY DIDN'T SPEC IT. THEY DIDN'T GO IN AND SAY, OH, I THINK THAT'S A NINE POINT FONT. I THINK YOU NEED TO CHANGE IT.
I'M A LITTLE WORRIED ABOUT HOW PEOPLE MIGHT USE NEGLIGENT, BUT AGAIN, NOT HARD OVER ON IT IF WE WANTED TO. IF THAT'S IF THAT'S THE ONLY ISSUE THAT'S ON HERE. AND THEN YEAH, I JUST HAVE A HARD TIME WITH INCENTIVIZING RESIDENTS TO SUE. SO THAT'S THAT'S MY LAST THING.
SO I WOULD APPRECIATE WHY REAL OR POTENTIAL AND MAYBE IT'S A LEGAL QUESTION. MAYBE THIS IS FOR FRED. WHY REAL OR POTENTIAL HAS TO BE IN THAT. TO ME IT WOULD BE ASSUMED IT'S IN THERE.
BUT IT COULD BE. IT COULD BE JUST LEGALISM. I COULD CERTAINLY RESPOND. I DON'T KNOW IF THAT ACTUAL LANGUAGE CAME FROM MY INITIAL DRAFT, OR MAYBE THE INSERT FROM. I WORKED WITH COUNCIL MEMBER BURKE ON. SO I DON'T KNOW IF COUNCIL MEMBER YOU'D LIKE TO RESPOND. DO YOU HAVE ANYTHING ELSE? COUNCIL MEMBER PETE. IF NOT, I'M GOING TO GO AHEAD AND PASS THE FLOOR TO COUNCIL MEMBER BURKE. OKAY? OKAY. COUNCILWOMAN BURKE, YOU HAVE THE FLOOR. THANK YOU. SO I'M GOING TO TRY AND BRING THIS HOME. THEN MAYBE OR TRY AND ANSWER QUESTIONS AND LEAVE IT TO COUNCIL MEMBER CHANG TO BRING US HOME, OR MAYOR PRO TEM CHANG TO BRING US HOME. AND I APOLOGIZE TO THE MEMBERS OF THE AUDIENCE. I KNOW, I MEAN, WE'RE REVIEWING A DOCUMENT WORD BY WORD THAT YOU CAN'T EVEN SEE, SO I'M I OKAY, WELL, I GUESS YOU WERE GIVEN COPIES. THAT MAKES IT MARGINALLY BETTER. BUT I KNOW THIS ISN'T, YOU KNOW, GREAT THEATER BECAUSE I'M A NICE GUY. I WILL GO THROUGH THESE HIGHLIGHTED CHANGES REAL QUICK AND EXPLAIN WHY I THINK MOST OF THEM DON'T MAKE SENSE. OKAY, THE REAL OR POTENTIAL ISSUE ON PAGE ONE. THIS IS JUST PREAMBLE LANGUAGE. IT'S NOT LEGALLY BINDING IN ANY WAY, AND THE REASON IT'S FRAMED THIS WAY IS BECAUSE OVER THE YEARS, THE SUPREME COURT, IN ITS DECISIONS ON CAMPAIGN FINANCE LAW, HAS
[00:50:05]
SAID IT'S NOT JUST A PROBLEM IF YOU HAVE UNDUE INFLUENCE, IT'S A PROBLEM IF YOU HAVE THE APPEARANCE OF UNDUE INFLUENCE OR CREATE THE POTENTIAL FOR UNDUE INFLUENCE BECAUSE IT UNDERMINES VOTERS CONFIDENCE IN AMERICAN DEMOCRACY. IF A PHARMACEUTICAL COMPANY GIVES $50,000 TO A LEGISLATOR, AND THEN THE LEGISLATOR VOTES TO GIVE THEM A BILL THAT INCREASES THEIR PROFITS, SOMEHOW, THAT MAY NOT BE PROVABLE, UNDUE INFLUENCE, BUT IT SURE AS HECK LOOKS BAD. AND SO THE SUPREME COURT HAS IDENTIFIED THIS AS A COMPELLING INTEREST WE HAVE IN ENACTING CAMPAIGN FINANCE REFORMS. BUT AGAIN, IT'S NOT LEGALLY BINDING. THIS IS JUST THE PREAMBLE LANGUAGE. NO, NO ONE'S GOING TO INVESTIGATE WHETHER THERE WAS REAL OR POTENTIAL UNDUE INFLUENCE. THE DEFINITION SECTION. THIS WILL NEVER, EVER COME UP IN THE CITY OF CYPRESS. PROBABLY THIS IS INTENDED FOR LARGER CITIES WITH THE ADVERTISEMENTS WHERE SOME LARGE ENTITY A BUSINESS, A UNION, SOME ENTITY THAT REGULARLY PUTS OUT MASSIVE COMMUNICATIONS TO 100,000 MEMBERS MIGHT MENTION A POLITICAL CANDIDATE THAT'S PROBABLY NEVER, EVER GOING TO HAPPEN HERE. SO I WOULDN'T WORRY TOO MUCH ABOUT IT. I THINK WE CAN JUST KEEP IT AS IS. AND I AGREE WITH COUNCIL MEMBER CHANG THAT I THINK IT'S MORE OF.IT'S BETTER TO KEEP IT BROAD THAN NARROW IT DOWN. PAGE FOUR. IT ALREADY SAYS $100 OR GREATER IN THE PRECEDING SENTENCE. AND THERE'S ALREADY RULES FOR THE DISCLOSURE THAT YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT REQUIRED BY THE FPPC. SO IN THE INTEREST OF TRANSPARENCY THAT FPPC ALREADY REQUIRES YOU TO REPORT WHEN THINGS ARE VALUE OR CONTRIBUTED TO YOUR CAMPAIGN. PAGE SIX. THAT'S JUST A DOLLAR AMOUNT. I DON'T THINK ANYBODY PUT UP TOO MUCH FUSS ABOUT THE GROUP OF PERSONS ACTING IN CONCERT. THE REASON THAT'S IN THERE IS BECAUSE SHADY PEOPLE WILL TRY AND SAY, WE'RE NOT A UNION, WE'RE NOT AN ORGANIZATION, BUT WE'RE STILL GETTING TOGETHER ONCE A WEEK AND POOLING OUR MONEY AND GIVING IT TO CANDIDATES. AND THAT'S YOU JUST WANT TO AVOID PEOPLE DOING STUFF LIKE THAT TO GET AROUND THE LAWS. LAST PAGE WE MADE IT. WE TALKED ABOUT NEGLIGENTLY. WHY IS THERE A MONETARY RECOVERY FOR SOMEONE WHO BRINGS A LEGAL CLAIM? BECAUSE IT TAKES MONEY OFTEN TO BRING A LEGAL CLAIM. AND SO IT'S NOT ABOUT, YOU KNOW, CREATING A BOUNTY. IT'S ABOUT NOT WANTING SOMEONE TO HAVE TO SPEND $20,000 OF THEIR OWN MONEY, WITH NO HOPE OF EVER GETTING A DOLLAR BACK TO ENFORCE ONE OF THE CITY'S LAWS.
THAT'S WHY YOU WANT TO ALLOW THE PLAINTIFF TO HAVE SOME KIND OF REASONABLE RECOVERY IF THEY BRING A SUCCESSFUL CLAIM. SO THAT'S WHY I THINK WE SHOULD STICK WITH THE ORIGINAL ORDINANCE AS DRAFTED. AND I AGREE WITH MAYOR PRO TEM MEDRANO'S THOUGHTS, AND THAT THIS HAS BEEN DELAYED FOR A LONG TIME, AND I DON'T THINK FOR VERY GOOD REASONS. AND SO WE'RE SO CLOSE TO THE FINISH LINE, I'D REALLY LIKE TO, TO GET IT ACROSS. AND SO I PROPOSE WE GO WITH THE EXISTING ORDINANCE, ADD IN ADJUSTMENTS FOR INFLATION LANGUAGE I HAVE RIGHT HERE. AND THEN I'D LIKE TO HEAR MAYOR PRO TEM CHANG SUGGEST MAYBE A MAKE A MOTION WITH A NUMBER THAT HE THINKS WOULD MAKE SENSE GIVEN HIS CONCERNS. THANK YOU. DOCTOR CHANG. YOU HAVE THE FLOOR. THANK YOU. WHEN EVERYBODY'S DONE WITH COMMENTING. YES, I WOULD LIKE TO APPROVE THIS WITH A SMALL AMENDMENT OF CHANGING THE THE LIMIT FROM $500 TO $1500. IF I MAY. TO THE EXTENT, I SHOULD PROBABLY WAIT TO SEE IF THERE'S A SECOND. BUT TO THE EXTENT THIS MOVES FORWARD, THIS IS A FAIRLY SIGNIFICANT CHANGE TO AN ORDINANCE. SO WHAT THE RULES SAY IS YOU HAVE TO DO THE FIRST READING OVER AGAIN. SO THIS WILL COME BACK FOR SECOND READING IF APPROVED BY THE COUNCIL. OKAY. SO SO AS A PRESIDING OFFICER YOU BROUGHT UP A GOOD POINT. AND BEFORE WE DO HAVE A MOTION OR A SECOND, I'M GOING TO ASK THE CITY MANAGER WHEN WE FINALLY GET TO THAT MOTION. SECOND, ASK THE CITY MANAGER TO GO AHEAD AND EXPLAIN WHAT THE CHANGES ARE AND HOW THAT WOULD AFFECT THE TIMELINE AND MECHANICALLY, WHAT'S INVOLVED IN CHANGING THIS MOTION. BUT THAT'S NOT WHERE WE'RE AT RIGHT NOW. RIGHT NOW IS DO YOU HAVE ANYTHING FURTHER CITY ATTORNEY? IF NOT, I'M GOING TO YIELD TO GIVE THE FLOOR TO COUNCILMEMBER PETE. YEAH, I, I MAY STEP ON YOUR CITY MANAGER'S TOES, BUT I'M ONLY HEARING THE CHANGE TO THE NUMBER. IS THAT RIGHT? SO I SUSPECT THAT WON'T TAKE ANY TIME, BUT I'LL LEAVE IT TO YOUR CITY MANAGER. OKAY, THEN I'M COUNCILMEMBER PETE, YOU HAVE THE FLOOR. I'M REALLY DISAPPOINTED, TO BE HONEST WITH YOU. YOU GUYS HAVE ASKED A BODY.
[00:55:04]
YOU'RE NOT A TEAM PLAYER, OKAY? I'M DISAPPOINTED. OKAY? I'VE TRIED TO BE VERY TRANSPARENT IN TERMS OF WHAT I'M WILLING TO GIVE ON SOME OF THESE THINGS, BUT WHAT I HEAR COUNCIL MEMBER BURKE DO. LET'S MOVE ON. WE'VE ALREADY DONE IT. THERE IS NO HURRY FOR THIS. I WANT TO BE ABSOLUTELY CLEAR FOR EVERYBODY. THERE'S A 12 MONTH LOOKING BACK. OKAY? SO JUST KEEP IN MIND, EVEN IF I DO SOMETHING TODAY OR CANDIDATE DOES SOMETHING TODAY, IT'S 12 MONTHS BACK FROM THE ELECTION. SO THERE'S NOT LIKE SOMETHING'S GOING TO HAPPEN. IN THE MEANTIME. THERE IS ABSOLUTELY NO HURRY FOR THIS. OKAY, NOW THAT SAID, I UNDERSTAND CHANGING ALL THE LANGUAGE AND EVERYTHING, BUT I WOULD ASK FOR CONSIDERATION ONCE AGAIN FOR SOME OF THESE THINGS ON HERE FOR BASICALLY CONSIDERATION AND BEING AN OLIVE BRANCH BACK TO ME. THANK YOU. COUNCIL MEMBER BURKE, YOU HAVE BEFORE. THANK YOU. AND COUNCILMEMBER PETE. YOU KNOW, IF YOU SUGGEST A CHANGE TO THE LANGUAGE OF AN ORDINANCE AND I RESPOND THAT THE ORDINANCE AS DRAFTED WAS DONE SO FOR LEGAL REASONS OR BASED ON SUPREME COURT DECISIONS. YOU KNOW, I DON'T CONSIDER THAT, YOU KNOW, IGNORING YOU OR OR I DON'T KNOW WHAT YOU'RE DESCRIBING. I MEAN, I THINK COUNCIL MEMBER CHANG, YOU'VE EXPRESSED YOU OR YOU EXPRESSED ALONG WITH COUNCIL MEMBER CHANG, YOU THOUGHT THE LIMIT SHOULD BE HIGHER. AND HERE WE ARE LIKE ON THE CUSP OF MAKING THE LIMIT HIGHER. I, I MEAN, THAT'S ALL I'M GOING TO SAY. I'M JUST. I APPRECIATE YOU COMING WITH YOUR FEEDBACK AND OFFERING SUGGESTIONS, BUT JUST BECAUSE I DON'T AGREE WITH THOSE SUGGESTIONS DOESN'T MEAN IT DOESN'T MEAN YOU'RE BEING IGNORED. AND I ALSO THINK THAT, FRANKLY, IT'S JUST KIND OF EASIER TO GO WITH AN EXISTING ORDINANCE THAN PICK. OKAY, WELL, AND THIS ONE CHANGE FROM COUNCILMEMBER PETE, THAT MAY NOT EVEN BE THAT CONSEQUENTIAL.I JUST I DON'T KNOW, I FEEL LIKE WE'RE TRYING TO I'M TRYING TO YEAH, I FEEL LIKE WE'RE HAVING A GOOD DISCUSSION ABOUT IT, BUT I'M JUST TRYING TO GO WITH WHAT I THINK IS BEST FOR THE CITY OF CYPRUS. AND THE ORDINANCE THAT I THINK IS THE MOST LEGALLY SOUND. AND SO, COUNCILMEMBER CHANG, I WAS ON THE CUSP OF SECONDING SECONDING YOUR MOTION, BUT I WANTED TO ASK IF YOU'D BE AMENABLE TO ADDING IN THE ANNUAL ADJUSTMENTS FOR INFLATION AS WELL. DEFINITELY. THANK YOU. I, I THOUGHT THAT WAS IN THE ORIGINAL, BUT YOU'RE RIGHT.
THANK YOU. BASED ON THE CONSUMER PRICE INDEX. YEAH, I'VE GOT LANGUAGE I CAN HAND YOU OR READ IT, BUT IT'S JUST A PARAGRAPH I TOOK FROM ANOTHER CITY'S ORDINANCE. BUT YES, IT'S BASED ON THE CONSUMER PRICE INDEX FOR THE ORANGE COUNTY AREA. I WOULD SUGGEST IT BE READ INTO THE RECORD, BECAUSE THE SUGGESTION IS THAT THIS BE THE FIRST READING. OTHERWISE WE'D HAVE TO COME BACK AND DO A FIRST READING SO I CAN DO THAT. AND THEN I KNOW THERE'S MAYBE MORE COMMENTS, BUT JUST FOR THE RECORD, WHAT IT SAYS IS THE CONTRIBUTION LIMITS SET FORTH IN THIS SECTION SHALL BE ADJUSTED EVERY ODD NUMBERED YEAR STARTING IN 2029, THE CITY CLERK SHALL ADJUST THE CONTRIBUTION LIMITS TO REFLECT ANY CHANGES IN THE CONSUMER PRICE INDEX FOR THE ORANGE COUNTY AREA. FOR THE TWO YEAR PERIOD ENDING ON DECEMBER 31ST OF THE PREVIOUS YEAR, ADJUSTMENTS SHALL BE ROUNDED TO THE NEAREST $10. THE CITY CLERK SHALL PUBLISH A PUBLIC NOTICE OF ANY ADJUSTMENTS BY MARCH 1ST OF EACH ODD NUMBERED YEAR, OR AS SOON AFTER AS PRACTICABLE, FOLLOWING THE BUREAU OF LABOR STATISTICS RELEASE OF THE APPLICABLE CONSUMER PRICE INDEX DATA. THE ADJUSTMENT SHALL GO INTO EFFECT AS SOON AS THE PUBLIC NOTICE IS PUBLISHED, BUT SHALL APPLY ONLY TO ELECTIONS HELD IN SUBSEQUENT YEARS. THE ADJUSTMENT SHALL NOT BE CONSTRUED TO RAISE THE CONTRIBUTION LIMITS APPLICABLE TO PAST ELECTIONS OR TO SPECIAL ELECTIONS HELD IN THE SAME YEAR THAT THE LIMITS ARE ADJUSTED.
THE END. SO ARE YOU DONE? OKAY, SO I KNOW WE HAVE ON THE SPEAKER QUEUE. COUNCILMEMBER PETE WANTS TO SPEAK NEXT. HOWEVER, I WANT TO MENTION THAT I DID RECEIVE TWO SPEAKER CARDS AND WHAT I WANTED TO DO WAS HIT PAUSE BEFORE WE GO DOWN THE PATH OF MOTION. SECOND, EVERYTHING AND I WANT TO GIVE THESE TWO PEOPLE A CHANCE TO TALK. NOW, AS PRESIDING OFFICER, I'M ALSO RESPECTFUL OF THE PROCESS WITH THE FELLOW CITY COUNCIL MEMBERS. I WANT TO SEE IF YOU'RE FINE WITH THESE TWO CARDS SPEAKING. ARE YOU FINE WITH IT? FINE. IF THERE'S ANY OBJECTIONS. STEVE MOSS, IF YOU CAN PLEASE COME UP. YOU'LL BE FIRST, FOLLOWED BY MARILYN REAMS. AND DO WE HAVE ANYONE ONLINE? YES, MR. MAYOR, WE HAVE ONE PERSON ONLINE. OKAY, GREAT.
THEN THAT PERSON WILL BE. THANK YOU. JUST FOR THE RECORD, MY NAME IS STEVE MOSS AND I LIVE IN THE CITY OF CYPRESS. HAPPILY, I WE'VE HEARD A LOT OF DISCUSSION ABOUT THIS ISSUE, AND I'M GLAD WE'VE HAD A LOT OF DISCUSSION ABOUT THE ISSUE. IT'S MY UNDERSTANDING THAT THIS
[01:00:04]
IS WHAT COUNCILS DO. YOU DISCUSS THINGS, AND SOMETIMES IT MIGHT SEEM AD NAUSEAM, BUT THESE ARE VERY IMPORTANT ISSUES. THIS PARTICULAR ISSUE IS QUITE IMPORTANT, AND I THINK IT WARRANTS THOROUGH RESEARCH AND DISCUSSION. AND THANK YOU FOR DOING SO, AND FOR THE TRANSPARENCY OF DOING THIS IN FRONT OF ALL OF US. IN TERMS OF THE CONCEPT OF NEGLIGENCE, WHETHER THAT WORD IS IN THERE OR NOT. I'VE BEEN IN BUSINESS FOR OVER 35 YEARS, AND I'VE LEARNED NEGLIGENCE IS NEVER AN EXCUSE OF LIABILITY. OKAY. SO WHETHER IT'S IN THERE OR NOT, IF YOU WERE NEGLIGENT, YOU'RE STILL ON THE HOOK. SORRY. SO I DON'T THINK THAT PARTICULAR WORD IS NECESSARY TO STRIKE BECAUSE IT WON'T MAKE ANY DIFFERENCE IN THE END.COMPARING CYPRESS TO OTHER CITIES BASED PRIMARILY ON POPULATION. I'M SORRY, I'M NOT BUYING IT. THAT'S CONTEXTUALLY DEVOID OF ANY REAL MEANING, AND IT'S NOT REALLY A SUBSTITUTE FOR A DETAILED ANALYSIS, WHICH IS WHAT'S REALLY GOING ON HERE. WE'RE TRYING TO GET TO THE BOTTOM OF ALL THE ISSUES, AND THERE'S NO REASON WHY WE CAN'T. THERE'S NO REASON. AND IT HONESTLY FEELS SOMEWHAT PATRONIZING. I HAVE TO SAY THAT THERE'S OFTEN AN ASSUMPTION THAT WE PLEBS CANNOT UNDERSTAND WHAT'S GOING ON INSIDE OF A TEN PAGE ORDINANCE. WE UNDERSTAND IT QUITE WELL, AND THERE ARE SOME OF US THAT HAVE RUN FOR COUNCIL BEFORE, AND WE UNDERSTAND FULLY WHAT THE IMPACTS OF THESE LIMITATIONS WILL BE, AND THE POTENTIAL JEOPARDY THAT IT PUTS CANDIDATES IN. AND SO, YOU KNOW, I IT JUST I DON'T WANT THE COUNCIL MEMBERS TO SIMPLY DISMISS US BECAUSE THAT IS IS SORT OF THE OPPOSITE OF TRANSPARENCY AND INCLUSION. AND I THINK WE OUGHT TO BE VERY CAREFUL BEFORE WE JUST SAY, HEY, THIS IS ENOUGH. LET'S CUT OFF THE DISCUSSION. LET'S MOVE ON. WE'RE JUST TRYING TO DELAY EVERYTHING. NO, THIS IS SERIOUS. WE NEED TO UNDERSTAND IT. LASTLY. TRANSPARENCY IS HARD AND IT TAKES TIME. AND WHAT MOST OF US IN THIS ROOM PROBABLY CAN'T WRAP OUR HEADS AROUND IS WHAT'S THE RUSH? WHAT IS THE REAL IMPACT? IF YOU SAY, LET'S WAIT TILL AFTER THE NEXT ELECTION WHEN ALL DISTRICTS HAVE GONE, YOU KNOW, DISTRICT WIDE ELECTIONS, THEN WHAT REALLY HAPPENS? NO ONE HAS EXPLAINED WHY THAT'S SUCH A BAD THING. JUST, OH, WE WANT TO GET THIS DONE. THAT'S NOT REALLY A VALID, REASONABLE ANSWER. THANK YOU. THANK YOU VERY MUCH. NEXT, MARILYN REAMS. GOOD EVENING. COUNCIL. MARILYN REAMS, CYPRESS RESIDENT. I WASN'T GOING TO SPEAK. AND I AM NOT EVER RUNNING FOR CITY COUNCIL. GOD HELP US. AND I DON'T UNDERSTAND A LOT OF THE VERBIAGE, BUT WHAT I WANT TO SAY IS I REALLY APPRECIATE COUNCIL MEMBER PETE.
I APPRECIATE SO MUCH THAT YOU TOOK THE TIME TO GO THROUGH THIS ORDINANCE. YOU TOOK THE TIME TO TALK ABOUT THE THINGS THAT YOU WERE CONCERNED ABOUT. AND I WAS SITTING THERE THINKING, HOLY COW, IF SHE WAS QUESTIONING STUFF, MAN, NO WONDER, NO WONDER SOME OF THIS DOESN'T MAKE SENSE. WHAT I WANT TO SAY TO EVERYBODY ON THAT DAIS. IS PEOPLE ARE WATCHING YOU. PEOPLE ARE WATCHING YOUR FACES. PEOPLE ARE WATCHING YOUR MOUTHS. PEOPLE ARE WATCHING AS OTHERS ARE SPEAKING, AND YOU ARE GLANCING OFF AT SOMEONE ELSE ON THE DAIS WITH AN ARROGANT SMIRK. I'M SEEING IT. AND ANYONE THAT'S WATCHING THIS MEETING IS SEEING IT. AND I DON'T THINK THAT YOU ARE SEEING IT. IT IS UNPROFESSIONAL. IT IS CONDESCENDING. YOUR TONE OF VOICE, MORE THAN ONE OF YOU, HAVE HAD A TONE OF VOICE THAT IS CONDESCENDING, AND I DON'T THINK YOU EVEN REALIZE IT, BUT IT'S OFFENSIVE. IT IS NOT THE WAY THIS COUNCIL IS SUPPOSED TO RUN. WE'VE DEALT WITH THIS FOR YEARS. I'VE STOOD AT THIS PODIUM AND I HAVE TALKED ABOUT
[01:05:02]
THIS, THIS ARROGANT AND MEAN SPIRITED AND NOT WILLING TO LISTEN TO ANOTHER PERSON BECAUSE YOU JUST ASSUME AND THE COMMENTS ABOUT WE'RE ESSENTIALLY TOO STUPID TO UNDERSTAND, AND THERE'S NO POINT IN GOING OVER ALL THIS STUFF IN DETAIL BECAUSE WE'RE TOO DUMB TO GET IT. I WILL ADMIT, THERE'S A LOT I DON'T UNDERSTAND, BUT I SURE AS HECK DON'T WANT TO BE SPOKEN TO LIKE I'M AN IDIOT BECAUSE I'M VERY WILLING TO LEARN. I WANT TO, I JUST WANT TO THANK COUNCIL MEMBER PETE AND I AGREE, FOR HEAVEN'S SAKES, WHAT THE HECK? WHAT THE HECK IS THE IS THE SPEED THAT THIS NEEDS TO BE DONE TONIGHT? SHE IS BRINGING UP EXCELLENT POINTS. THERE IS NO REASON ON GOD'S GREEN EARTH THAT THIS CANNOT BE DELAYED WITH THOUGHTFUL CONSIDERATION. AND FOR ALL OF US TO BE ABLE TO LEARN WHAT WE NEED TO LEARN AND AND APPRECIATE THE COMMENTS THAT SHE'S MADE THE THE ABSOLUTE TO ME, BRILLIANT POINTS THAT HAVE BEEN BROUGHT UP. THEY NEED TO BE ANSWERED AND AND ANSWERED RESPECTFULLY.THANK YOU. AND WE DO STILL HAVE JUST ONE CALLER ON THE LINE. IT'S GLENN BUTTON. BEFORE I UNMUTE HIS MIC, I'D LIKE TO READ A DISCLAIMER. I WILL ASK THE SPEAKER TO KINDLY MUTE HIS TELEVISION OR ANY STREAMING DEVICE HE MAY BE PLAYING IN THE BACKGROUND, SO THAT YOU CAN HEAR WHEN YOU ARE CUED TO SPEAK IN REAL TIME. THIS WILL HELP AVOID ANY DELAYS CAUSED BY THE MEETING'S TEN SECOND BROADCAST DELAY. MR. BUTTON, I AM UNMUTING YOU. PLEASE GO RIGHT AHEAD. THANK YOU. WELL, AND GOOD EVENING. I'M GLENN BUTTON, 31 YEAR RESIDENT OF THE CITY OF CYPRESS AND A FORMER CITY COUNCIL CANDIDATE. AND SO I BRING THAT PERSPECTIVE TO MY COMMENTS. ALL OF THE CURRENT MEMBERS OF OUR CITY COUNCIL WHO WERE SUCCESSFULLY ELECTED, HAVE ACCEPTED CONTRIBUTIONS LARGER THAN THE 500 THAT WAS ORIGINALLY PROPOSED. SO I STRONGLY SUPPORT MAYOR PRO TEM CHANG'S REVISION TO THE 2700. I THINK THAT'S A MOVE IN THE RIGHT DIRECTION. IT REDUCES THE MAXIMUM CONTRIBUTION FROM THE CURRENT STATE LIMIT WITHOUT CAUSING WHIPLASH TO HOW OUR CAMPAIGNS ARE FUNDED WITHOUT LIMITS ON PAC DIRECT CONTRIBUTIONS, UNION DIRECT CONTRIBUTIONS, POLITICAL PARTY DIRECT CONTRIBUTIONS, THE REDUCTION OF PERSONAL CONTRIBUTIONS ACTUALLY WILL CAUSE CANDIDATES TO RELY MORE HEAVILY ON THOSE SOURCES ABLE TO GO OUTSIDE OF THESE LIMITS, AND THOSE SOURCES ARE OUTSIDE OF CYPRESS. AND I THINK THAT HAVING A A SMALL LIMIT IS BAD FOR OUR CITY. I STRONGLY ENCOURAGE AT LEAST THE 2700, IF NOT MORE. AND THE DRACONIAN FINANCIAL PENALTIES. I'M NOT CLEAR IF THAT WILL APPLY TO ALL ASPECTS OF CAMPAIGNS OR JUST THE FINANCIAL ASPECTS, BUT I KNOW THAT SIGN PLACEMENT WAS A SIGNIFICANT PROBLEM IN THE 2024 CITY COUNCIL ELECTION. THERE WAS ONE CANDIDATE THAT I RECALL SPECIFICALLY THAT PUT THEIR SIGNS ALL ALONG CERRITOS AVENUE, WHERE THE RIGHT OF WAY, THAT NARROW GRASS PATCH NEXT TO THE RESIDENTIAL AREA, IT WAS A VIOLATION OF CITY REGULATIONS, OF CITY ORDINANCES, AND SO WILL THE FINANCIAL PENALTIES APPLY TO ALL ASPECTS OF CAMPAIGNS? I WAS NOT CLEAR ON THAT. IN ADDITION TO MAYOR PRO TEM CHANG'S RECOMMENDATION, I STRONGLY SUPPORT COUNCIL MEMBER PETE'S CHANGES TO PROVIDE IMPROVED CLARITY AND TRANSPARENCY IN OUR ELECTION CAMPAIGNS. I AGREE THAT PENALTIES FOR UNINTENTIONAL VIOLATIONS SHOULD START SMALL, PERHAPS $100 FOR THE FIRST VIOLATION WITH AN ESCALATION IF IT'S REPEATED, HAVING A $10,000 PENALTY WILL HAVE A STRONGLY CHILLING EFFECT ON THE POOL OF PEOPLE WHO WILL EVEN CONSIDER RUNNING FOR OUR CITY COUNCIL.
AND THAT'S BAD FOR OUR CITY TO REDUCE THAT POOL. INCENTIVIZING CITIZENS TO BRING A CLAIM AGAINST ANY CANDIDATE WITH WHOM THEY DISAGREE, AGAIN, WILL HAVE A CHILLING EFFECT ON THE PEOPLE
[01:10:05]
WHO WILL BE WILLING TO RUN, REGARDLESS OF HOW MUCH TIME ANY ONE MEMBER, ONE CITY COUNCIL MEMBER, THREE MINUTES 15 SECONDS ON. OKAY, JUST I'LL WRAP UP QUICKLY. BUT REGARDLESS OF HOW MUCH TIME ONE MEMBER SPENT WITH THE CITY ATTORNEY, THIS MASSIVE CHANGE DESERVES CAREFUL CONSIDERATION. EMOTIONAY TIED UP WITH THAT, WE NEED TO REMEMBER THAT THE ORDINANCE BELONGS TO THE CITY, NOT TO A CITY COUNCIL MEMBER. THE BROWN ACT, AS YOU KNOW, IS IN THREE MINUTES AND 45 SECONDS. MR. BUDDEN, THANK YOU VERY MUCH. CITY CLERK. DO YOU HAVE ANY? NO FURTHER SPEAKERS? OKAY. GREAT. AND SO I SEE ON THE SPEAKER QUEUE, COUNCILMEMBER PETE. YEAH, I WANTED TO FIRST OF ALL, THANK EVERYBODY FOR YOUR COMMENTS. I APPRECIATE IT. AND WE ARE GOING THROUGH A LOT OF DETAIL, BUT CONSISTENTLY WHAT WE'VE HEARD FROM OUR RESIDENTS IS IF WE HAVE OPEN DIALOGS, IT'S MUCH MORE APPRECIATED, EVEN THOUGH IT MAY BE DETAIL AFTER DETAIL AFTER DETAIL. SO I APPRECIATE ALL THE COMMENTS THAT CAME IN. SECOND OF ALL, I WANTED TO THANK MAYOR PRO TEM CHANG FOR GOING THROUGH AS I WOULD HOPE WE WOULD HAVE IS GOING THROUGH.HEY, I COULD DO THIS, BUT I DON'T THINK WE SHOULD DO THIS. I THINK WE SHOULD LEAVE THIS THE SAME, AND I APPRECIATE THE CONSIDERATION FOR DOING THAT. BEYOND THAT, I THINK EVERYTHING GOT DISCOUNTED AND THAT DISAPPOINTS ME BECAUSE THAT JUST REALLY LEAVES US OPEN AND WE'RE NOT WORKING AS A TEAM. SO. SO WITH THAT, YOU KNOW, I'M JUST GOING TO HAVE TO VOTE NO IF WE DON'T MAKE SOME OF THE CHANGES. THANK YOU. COUNCIL MEMBER STRONG. YOU HAVE THE FLOOR. THANK YOU. SO FIRST OFF, I JUST HAVE A QUICK QUESTION. WE JUST HEARD A CALLER, MR. BUTTON, REFERENCE PUNISHMENT IN THE AMOUNT OF $10,000. CAN I GET SOME CLARITY ON ON WHAT SPECIFICALLY THAT IS ADDRESSING? CAN YOU SHOW ME IN THE ORDINANCE WHERE WE CAN FIND THAT? ARE YOU DONE? BECAUSE I'LL NOW PASS THIS OVER TO. NO, I DO HAVE OTHER QUESTIONS. OKAY.
SO GIVE THEM ALL NOW UP TO YOU IF YOU WANT TO GO BACK AND FORTH ONE OR IF YOU WANT TO DO IT, THAT'S BEEN ANSWERED. THANK YOU. THANK YOU BONNIE. I ALSO JUST WANT TO, FOR THE SAKE OF CLARITY, TO POINT OUT, I APPRECIATE THE PUBLIC COMMENTS HERE, AND I APPRECIATE THE PUBLIC BEING SO INTERESTED IN THIS AS A TOPIC. CAMPAIGN FINANCE REFORM. REFORM IS INCREDIBLY IMPORTANT. I AGREE, AND I WANT TO APOLOGIZE IF IT'S BEEN INTERPRETED THAT IT'S BEEN MADE TO SOUND LIKE PEOPLE HERE CANNOT UNDERSTAND WHAT WE'RE DISCUSSING. I THINK THE CONCERN IS MORE FROM THE STANDPOINT OF WE HAVE VISIBILITY TO DOCUMENTS THAT YOU DON'T, WHICH I THINK IS A LITTLE PROBLEMATIC. SO MY QUESTION WOULD BE, IS THERE A GREAT WAY TO PROVIDE A LITTLE MORE VISIBILITY TO THE PEOPLE WHO TOOK THE TIME TO COME AND BE PART OF THIS DISCUSSION, AND MAYBE TABLE IT FOR MORE DISCUSSION WHEN WE CAN PROVIDE MORE CLARITY TO THE PEOPLE, WE'RE RESPONSIBLE TO THE CONSTITUENTS. THAT'S MY ONLY OTHER QUESTION. I'M HAPPY TO RESPOND TO THE FIRST QUESTION, PLEASE. CITY ATTORNEY. THE $10,000 FIGURE IS LISTED ON THE LAST PAGE OF THE ORDINANCE AT SUBPARAGRAPH TWO. SO IT IS ACTUALLY SUBPARAGRAPH E TWO.
THE LAST PAGE. THANK YOU VERY MUCH. CITY ATTORNEY COUNCILMEMBER BURKE, YOU HAVE THE FLOOR. YES. COUNCILMEMBER STRONG CARNAHAN'S QUESTIONS. WELL, THANKS. YEAH. THANK YOU, COUNCILMEMBER STRONG CARNAHAN. AND YEAH, I YOU KNOW, I AGREE WITH A LOT OF WHAT YOU SAID. I DON'T I MEAN, I DON'T KNOW WHO WAS ASKED TO ME. I THOUGHT, YEAH, I DON'T KNOW WHO ACCUSATIONS ARE BEING MADE ABOUT, BUT I GUESS I KNOW THERE'S KIND OF A CHORUS OF WHAT'S THE RUSH? I MEAN, WHEN I DID THE PRESENTATION, ORIGINALLY, CYPRUS HAD THE KIND OF HISTORY OF ILLEGAL MONEY LAUNDERING AND HEAVY INDEPENDENT EXPENDITURE MONEY SPENDING IN ELECTIONS. THIS IS, I MEAN, THE KIND OF ORDINANCE I WANTED TO ENACT IN CYPRUS FOR YEARS. IT'S JUST BEEN EXCRUCIATINGLY DIFFICULT. PEOPLE DELAYED IT. PEOPLE MADE WILD ACCUSATIONS AGAINST ME, AND I APPRECIATE LIKE THE QUESTIONS ABOUT THE VISIBILITY IN MY TIME ON THE COUNCIL. I GUESS THIS IS PROBABLY MORE VISIBLE THAN MOST ITEMS WE'VE GONE THROUGH. WE HAD THE ORDINANCE DRAFT LANGUAGE AVAILABLE FOR EVERYBODY TO SEE LAST TIME. IT'S AVAILABLE FOR EVERYBODY TO SEE. THIS TIME. THERE WILL BE AT LEAST ONE MORE
[01:15:08]
READING AGAIN. AND SO I THINK WE'VE I MEAN, I CAN THINK OF ITEMS THAT WERE INCREDIBLY IMPORTANT TO ME IN THE PAST THAT WE DIDN'T DISCUSS FOR A FRACTION OF THIS AMOUNT OF TIME.SO I PERSONALLY THINK ALL THE INFORMATION IS OUT THERE. AND SO I'D LIKE TO MOVE FORWARD BECAUSE I JUST GIVEN THE PAST A MORE. AS MAYOR MEDRANO SAID BEFORE, THAT IT'S JUST GOING TO KEEP GETTING DELAYED AND DELAYED AND SO SO YEAH, WITH THAT SAID, I'D LIKE TO AS I SAID, I WAS PREPARED TO SECOND COUNCILMEMBER CHANG'S MOTION, BUT I, I KNOW WE HAVE OTHER SPEAKERS. SURE. THANK YOU VERY MUCH. I'LL JUST MAKE A COUPLE OF COMMENTS. CAMPAIGN FINANCE DISCUSSIONS HAVE HAPPENED NUMEROUS TIMES. I REMEMBER KNOCKING ON DOORS AND PEOPLE ASKING ME MANY QUESTIONS ABOUT THIS. HOW ARE YOU BEING FUNDED? WHO'S FUNDING WHAT? THERE'S NOT TRANSPARENCY. HEY, ARE YOU TAKING MONEY FROM PACS? NO. ARE YOU TAKING MONEY FROM CORPORATIONS? NO. ARE YOU TAKING MONEY FROM SPECIAL INTERESTS? NO. PEOPLE ASK THESE QUESTIONS AND THEY WANT CLARITY. AND ALL YOU HAVE TO DO IS WATCH THE NUMEROUS ARTICLES GO TO OUR STRAP PLANS. THIS DISCUSSION HAS HAPPENED NUMEROUS TIMES. SO THIS IS NOT ALL OF A SUDDEN AT THE 11TH HOUR BEING BROUGHT UP. THIS IS DISCUSSED MANY TIMES AND I'M SURE COUNCIL MEMBER AND I RECALL IN 2022 CANDIDATE FORUM, I THOUGHT IT WAS DISCUSSED AND IT'S BEEN DISCUSSED SO MANY TIMES. THAT BEING SAID. I AM OPEN TO IF WE GO AHEAD AND AMEND THIS TO $1,000 WITH THE CPI AND THE WAY IT IS, I WILL LIKELY VOTE YES ON IT BECAUSE I THINK THOUSAND DOLLARS IS A GOOD COMPROMISE BASED UPON SOME OF THE OTHER CITIES. I REMEMBER PEOPLE AT THE LAST MEETING SAYING $500 IS JUST TOO LOW. THEY CITED CYPRUS. I'M SORRY. THEY CITED IRVINE RELATIVE TO CYPRUS. THEY CITED TRYING TO REMEMBER THE OTHER ONE, SEAL BEACH, OTHER CITIES.
AND SO THAT IS WHY, EVEN THOUGH SOME PEOPLE MAY SAY, HEY, WE SHOULD NOT COMPARE OURSELVES TO OTHER CITIES, IT'S NATURAL TO GO AND SEE AND LOOK AROUND AND SEE WHAT OTHER CITIES OUR SIZE ARE DOING. SO LET ME GO AHEAD AND PASS THE FLOOR ON TO COUNCILMEMBER PETE. YEAH, I MEAN, LET ME AND AGAIN, I APOLOGIZE FOR REPEATING MYSELF, BUT I JUST WANT TO MAKE SURE IT'S ABSOLUTELY CLEAR WHEN WE STARTED TALKING ABOUT THIS AND COUNCIL MEMBER BURKE CAME IN IN NOVEMBER, HE PROPOSED TWO THINGS. ONE WAS A $500 LIMIT, AND THEN THE OTHER ONE WAS.
DISCLOSURE, THE DISCLOSURE REQUIREMENTS. THOSE TWO THINGS ALONE HAD NO ISSUE, RIGHT? WHEN WE HAD THE DISCUSSION ON JANUARY 26TH, RIGHT. WITH THE ORDINANCE ATTACHED, WE HAD NO DISCUSSION. LET ME BE ABSOLUTELY CLEAR. WE HAD NO DISCUSSION. AND SO THIS WAS HONESTLY THE FIRST TIME THAT WE'VE HAD AN OPEN DIALOG ABOUT SOME OF THE THINGS. SO I KNOW PEOPLE WANT TO MOVE FORWARD. BUT MY THING IS I SOMEBODY SAY, WELL, YOU SHOULD HAVE BOUGHT THIS LAST TIME. THERE STILL WOULDN'T HAVE BEEN A DISCUSSION, RIGHT? I GOT SHUT DOWN WHEN ASKING A LOT OF QUESTIONS. SO I, I AGAIN, I DON'T SEE THE SENSE OF URGENCY. I DON'T SEE THAT IT'S A LEGAL DOCUMENT THAT OUR ATTORNEY PUT TOGETHER. SO THEREFORE WE CAN'T CHANGE IT. I DON'T SEE IT. IT'S OUR DOCUMENT. IT'S SOMETHING THAT CITY COUNCIL IS PUTTING TOGETHER. SO WITH THAT AND AGAIN I'D LIKE TO APPRECIATE COUNCIL MEMBER OR MAYOR PRO TEM CHANG FOR AT LEAST TRYING TO COME UP WITH SOME KIND OF ALTERNATIVE APPROACH ON NOT, NOT JUST THE, THE DOLLAR VALUE, BUT ALSO LOOKING AT THE CLAUSES THAT I HAD OUT THERE AND I APPRECIATE THE RESPECT. THANK YOU. THANK YOU VERY MUCH. JUST HAVE A FEW COMMENTS MYSELF. I JUST WANT TO AND CORRECT ME, AND YOU CAN GO TO THE TAPES AND GO AHEAD AND LOOK AT THE VIDEOS. IN NOVEMBER, THERE WERE THREE THINGS THAT WERE BEING BROUGHT FORWARD IN THE PRESENTATION. ONE WAS DISCLOSURE OF INDEPENDENT EXPENDITURES, TWO WAS A DOLLAR LIMIT, AND THREE WAS, IF I RECALL, TAX FUNDING OF USING TAXPAYERS DOLLARS FOR CANDIDATES. AND I KNOW THAT ONE WAS INCREDIBLY CONTROVERSIAL. AND GOING BACK TO 2025, I RECALL COUNCIL MEMBER MINIKUS TALKING AT GREAT LENGTH DURING OUR STRAT PLAN ABOUT THE CONFLICT OF INTEREST PROFITING OFF OF THIS, AND I REMEMBER NUMEROUS PEOPLE TELLING ME, HEY, THIS IS NOT WHERE WE WANT TO SEE THE CITY OF CYPRUS GO WITH RESPECT TO USING TAXPAYER DOLLARS. SO WE'VE BEEN TALKING ABOUT THIS FROM MY RECOLLECTION, 2025, IN CITY COUNCIL MEETINGS, OPEN SESSION. SO IT'S NOT AS IF
[01:20:05]
THOUGH NOVEMBER WE THEN KNOW THERE ARE THREE ITEMS WE COMPROMISE ON THOSE, BUT THEN WE ALSO COMPROMISE ON. GOT CLARITY FROM THE CITY ATTORNEY WHETHER THERE WAS A CONFLICT OF INTEREST AND WHETHER THERE WAS PROFITEERING. WE'VE BEEN TALKING ABOUT THIS FOR WELL OVER A YEAR, FROM MY RECOLLECTION, AND NUMEROUS PEOPLE HAVE APPROACHED ME AND BEEN VERY CLEAR THAT THEY CANNOT SUPPORT TAXPAYER DOLLARS BEING USED TO FUND CANDIDATES CAMPAIGNS. SO WE DID COMPROMISE. WE DID DISCUSS THIS MANY, MANY TIMES. AND SO FOR PEOPLE TO THINK THAT THIS IS AN 11TH HOUR, WHY NOT? WE 2022? I WANT TO SAY I THINK THERE WAS A BIG DISCUSSION POINT ABOUT IT, 2023 2024. YOU CAN GO AHEAD AND PULL NEWS ARTICLES AND CYPRUS AND CAMPAIGN FINANCING HAS BEEN A CONTINUAL ISSUE HERE AT THIS CITY. AND SO WHAT I'M AFRAID OF IS WE HAVE A LOT OF DISCUSSION. LET'S GO AHEAD AND PERFECT THIS. LET'S GO AHEAD AND HAVE ANOTHER READING. LET'S DO ANOTHER MODIFICATION. LET'S GO AHEAD AND HAVE STUFF BROUGHT UP. I REMEMBER AT THE LAST TIME WE HAD A SPEAKER WHO WAS A LAWYER SAYING, HEY, WE NEED TO STOP EVERYTHING, BECAUSE AT THE 11TH HOUR, BECAUSE THIS NEEDS LEGAL REVIEW. AND I DIDN'T REALLY DISCUSS IT MUCH BECAUSE OUR CITY ATTORNEY DISCUSSED IT. SO IT JUST SEEMS AS THOUGH WHENEVER WE GET TO, OKAY, LET'S ENACTING REFORM AND DOING WHAT WE'VE BEEN CRITICIZED ABOUT NOT DOING AND DOING WHAT OTHER CITIES SEEM TO THINK IS REASONABLE AND MOST PEOPLE BELIEVE IS REASONABLE. WE SAY, WELL, LET'S WE'RE RUSHING. AND THIS HAS BEEN YEARS IN DISCUSSION. MAYBE I'M WRONG AND FEEL FREE TO SAY NO, LEO. IT'S ALL THIS IS ALL. JUST RECENTLY A DISCUSSION. I'M FAIR TO HEAR THAT, BUT I THINK I WILL AGREE TO DISAGREE WITH YOUR ASSESSMENT. COUNCILMEMBER PETE, YOU HAVE THE FLOOR. THANK YOU AGAIN. I THINK WE'RE GOING TO AGREE TO DISAGREE. ALL RIGHT. WHEN WE TALKED ABOUT THIS IN NOVEMBER, THERE WERE THREE THINGS MENTIONED. YOU'RE ABSOLUTELY RIGHT. THE THE FUNDED BY THE THE RESIDENTS NOT GOING TO FLY. AND WE KNEW THAT RIGHT. THERE WAS NO MENTION OF LET'S PUT PENALTIES IN PLACE.LET'S PUT INCENTIVES IN PLACE. LET'S CHANGE THIS LIKE THERE WAS NOTHING. RIGHT. IT WAS $500 AND IDENTIFYING INDEPENDENT EXPENDITURES. AND WHO ARE THE TOP DONORS? I HAVE NO ISSUE WITH EITHER ONE OF THOSE. SO YOU'RE ABSOLUTELY RIGHT. WE'VE BEEN TALKING ABOUT IT FOR A WHILE AND I'M OKAY WITH THOSE THINGS. RIGHT. THEN WE WALK INTO THE JANUARY MEETING AND WE SEE A TEN PAGE DOCUMENT. I WANT TO CLARIFY SOMETHING THAT THAT MAYOR MEDRANO SAID. NOT ALL CITIES HAVE THAT. SO LET'S LET'S BE ABSOLUTELY CLEAR. IF YOU SEE THAT THEY HAVE A $500 LIMIT, A $1,000 LIMIT, THEY DON'T NECESSARILY HAVE A TEN PAGE DOCUMENT THAT'S GOING TO PENALIZE THEM BECAUSE OF BEING NEGLIGENT. LET ME BE ABSOLUTELY CLEAR. THIS IS COUNCIL MEMBER BURKE'S INFORMATION. OKAY. MAYBE SOME CITIES DO AND THAT'S THEIR RIGHT. OKAY. BUT MANY OF THEM BE ABSOLUTELY CLEAR. AND I'LL SAY IRVINE IS ONE DOES NOT HAVE A TEN PAGE DOCUMENT BECAUSE I KNOW FOR A FACT GO LOOK AT THEIR FOUR 60S. THEY GOT FUNDED THROUGH PACS AND INDEPENDENT EXPENDITURES, WHICH IS HONESTLY WHAT I HAD HEARD AT THE VERY BEGINNING THAT WE DON'T WANT. AND NOW WE'RE DRIVING TO THAT AREA. YES, WE'RE GOING TO PUT THE TOP THREE DONORS ALL GOOD AND WELL. BUT WE WERE DRIVING TO A TYPE OF FINANCING THAT WE SAID WE DIDN'T WANT. SO AGAIN, LET'S LET'S NOT MISLEAD OTHERS, JUST SAYING, OH YEAH, WE'VE ALREADY HAD THIS DISCUSSION FOREVER. I STILL DON'T THINK THERE'S A SENSE OF URGENCY. I RESPECT, AND I APPRECIATE THE TIME TO BE ABLE TO TALK. THANK YOU. THANK YOU VERY MUCH. COUNCIL MEMBER STRONG, YOU HAVE THE FLOOR. THANK YOU. SO I DON'T MEAN TO BE RIDING THE FENCE HERE. I WANT TO CLARIFY. I UNDERSTAND THAT THIS IS A DISCUSSION THAT'S BEEN GOING ON FOR A LONG TIME, BUT I THINK WE COULD RECOGNIZE THAT THIS PARTICULAR DOCUMENT IS FAIRLY NEW IN TERMS OF HAVING THIS CONVERSATION EVOLVE. SO I DON'T THINK EITHER OF YOU ARE RIGHT OR WRONG NECESSARILY. I THINK THIS IS JUST DIFFERENT VERSIONS OF THE EVENTS. WHAT I WOULD LOVE TO SEE IS IF WE COULD GET A LITTLE BIT CLOSER TO A COMPROMISE AND HAVE A REALLY GREAT ACCORD HERE AT THE DAIS. SO I'VE BEEN LOOKING AT THIS DOCUMENT. I DON'T REALLY HAVE ANY ISSUES WITH A LOT OF WHAT'S BEEN POINTED OUT HERE AND WHAT'S BEEN REDLINED. I UNDERSTAND THE CONCERNS BY COUNCIL MEMBER PETE. I DON'T DISAGREE THAT THESE THINGS NEED TO BE CAREFULLY READ AND LOOKED AT. I'VE RUN TWO CAMPAIGNS PEOPLE ARE FOND OF POINTING OUT TO ME, YOU WERE APPOINTED, NOT ELECTED, I GET IT, I DID RUN FOR TWO CAMPAIGNS IN THIS TOWN, LARGELY SELF-FUNDED. I ADMIRE PEOPLE THAT CAN GET SOMEBODY TO CONTRIBUTE MORE THAN $500 TO THEIR CAMPAIGN. I SELF-FUNDED BECAUSE I PERSONALLY COULDN'T GET MORE THAN 500 BUCKS OUT OF ANYBODY. BUT NONETHELESS, WE DO WANT TO ENCOURAGE PEOPLE WHO DON'T HAVE UNLIMITED RESERVES TO RUN. I THINK THAT'S IMPORTANT. SO THERE'S GOT TO BE SOME SORT OF ACCORD THAT WE CAN
[01:25:05]
STRIKE HERE AND SORT OF MEET CLOSER TO THE MIDDLE. I WOULD BE IN FAVOR OF MOVING FORWARD WITH THIS. IF WE CAN ADDRESS A COUPLE OF THINGS. ONE IS TO COME TO SOME SORT OF AN AGREEMENT ON THIS DOLLAR AMOUNT LIMIT THAT WE'VE BEEN DISCUSSING. AND COUNCIL MEMBER CHANG, IF YOU CAN, IN JUST A MOMENT REVISIT WHAT THAT NUMBER IS. I DON'T I DIDN'T WRITE IT DOWN I APOLOGIZE, I THINK 500 IS TOO LOW. AND I ALSO DO WANT TO RECOGNIZE COUNCIL MEMBER PETE'S CONCERN ABOUT THE MENTION OF NEGLIGENCE AND THE REALLY STRINGENT SLAP ON THE WRIST OF $10,000 FOR A VIOLATION. I THINK IT'S REASONABLE TO SAY MAYBE RUNNING FOR OFFICE IS CHALLENGING. I PERSONALLY HAD A CAMPAIGN MANAGER BECAUSE THERE'S SO MANY LEGAL DOCUMENTS. I'M NOT AN ATTORNEY, I HAVE A COLLEGE DEGREE, BUT I'M A LAYPERSON IN THESE TERMS, SO PEOPLE MAY NOT HAVE ACCESS TO THAT EITHER. IF WE COULD DO SOME SORT OF A SMALLER PENALTY FOR A FIRST INFRACTION AND THEN MORE SIGNIFICANT, MORE SERIOUS AFTER THAT, I DON'T KNOW IF THAT MATTERS, BUT IF THAT WOULD HELP MOVE THIS FORWARD, I THINK THAT MIGHT BE SOMETHING TO CONSIDER. THANK YOU. COUNCILMEMBER BURKE. THANK YOU. YEAH. THE DOLLAR AMOUNT, I MEAN, SOUNDS LIKE SOMEWHERE BETWEEN 1000 AND 1500 WILL WORK FOR THE MAJORITY OF MEMBERS UP HERE. THE. SO COUNCILMEMBER CARNAHAN, THE I THINK LOWERING THE PENALTY FROM 10,000. I MEAN, IF YOU WANT TO CUT THAT IN HALF, I THINK THAT'S REASONABLE. I WANT TO CLARIFY. WELL, TWO INCORRECT THINGS. ONE, ONE OF THE COMMENTERS SAID THAT THESE LIMITS APPLY TO INDIVIDUALS, NOT PACS OR UNIONS. THAT'S NOT TRUE. THE LIMITS APPLY TO PACS AND UNIONS. THAT'S JUST A FACT. AND REGARDING THE COMPLICATED NATURE OF OR ACCUSATIONS OF THE COMPLICATED NATURE OF IT, LET ME JUST BE SUPER DUPER CLEAR ABOUT HOW WHAT THIS MEANS FOR IF YOU'RE A CANDIDATE, WE'RE GOING TO SET A DOLLAR LIMIT. DON'T ACCEPT CONTRIBUTIONS OVER THAT AMOUNT. THAT'S IT. THAT'S ALL. YOU HAVE TO COMPLY WITH. THE OTHER STUFF IN THIS ORDINANCE IS ABOUT THE INDEPENDENT EXPENDITURE GROUPS FUNNELING MONEY THROUGH PACS INTO OUR ELECTIONS, AND THEY HAVE THEIR OWN CONSULTANTS, AND THEY HAVE THEIR OWN LAWYERS, AND THEY HAVE PLENTY OF MONEY. AND FRANKLY, I'M NOT REAL WORRIED ABOUT THEM. I'M WORRIED ABOUT THE IMPACT THEY HAVE ON OUR ELECTIONS. AND SO IF WE'RE TRYING TO GET LIKE A MORE CONSENSUS AGREEMENT, I THINK THAT THE DOLLAR AMOUNT AND THEN IF YOU WANT TO LOWER THE FINE FROM 10,000 TO 5000, AND AGAIN, THAT'S LIKE THE MAXIMUM ALLOWABLE PENALTY, IT DOESN'T MEAN IT WOULD BE THE PENALTY. BUT I THINK SO. YEAH, YOU HAVE TO MAKE IT HIGH ENOUGH THAT IT MATTERS. BUT I UNDERSTAND. BUT AGAIN, IF YOU'RE A CANDIDATE, IT'S PRETTY SIMPLE. AND I WOULDN'T WORRY ABOUT A CANDIDATE BEING FINED THAT AMOUNT OF MONEY. SO THOSE ARE YEAH. JUST WANTED TO RESPOND. BUT THANK YOU FOR THE SUGGESTIONS. AND YEAH, I'M ON BOARD WITH LARGELY WHAT YOU SUGGESTED. COUNCILMEMBER I'M CORRECTION. DOCTOR CHANG, YOU HAVE THE FLOOR. THANK YOU. AND RACHEL, I MEAN, COUNCILMEMBER CARNAHAN, THE THE DOLLAR AMOUNT I HAD SUGGESTED WAS 1500 AND LEO WAS AT $1,000. AND BUT I ALSO DID WANT TO TAKE THIS TIME TO THANK BONNIE FOR COUNCILMEMBER PETE, FOR, YOU KNOW, BRINGING THESE CHANGES, LOOKING THROUGH THIS AND AND ALSO, YOU KNOW, EXTENDING THAT ALL HIS FRIENDS AND TRYING TO FIND COMPROMISE. AND SO THANK YOU FOR THAT, BONNIE. SO I HAVE A QUESTION HERE. THIS IS FOR EITHER THE CITY MANAGER OR THE CITY ATTORNEY. SO IF WE MAKE THOSE TWO CHANGES TO THIS DOCUMENT, CHANGING IT FROM 500 TO LET'S SAY 1000 PLUS CPI, AND THEN CHANGING THE PENALTY FROM 10,000 TO 5000, CAN YOU PLEASE WALK US THROUGH THE MECHANICS? HYPOTHETICALLY, IF THERE WAS A MOTION WAS SECONDED, WHERE WOULD BE THE NEXT STEPS AND WHAT ARE WE LOOKING AS FAR AS THE TIMELINE. SO YOU KNOW, IDEALLY WHEN SIGNIFICANT CHANGES ARE MADE TO AN ORDINANCE, MY SUGGESTION IS TO BRING IT ALL BACK AND DO A FIRST READING THESE I ACTUALLY COUNT THREE CHANGES. WELL, THE MOTION WAS TO CHANGE IT FROM 500 TO 1500. I KNOW IN YOUR SCENARIO YOU GAVE A DIFFERENT NUMBER, MAYOR, BUT EITHER WAY IT'S A CHANGE OF A NUMBER.COUNCIL MEMBER BURKE READ THE LANGUAGE THAT WOULD IMMEDIATELY FOLLOW THE. THE SECTION THAT ADDRESSES. WELL, THERE ARE ACTUALLY A FEW REFERENCES TO THE $100, SO THERE WILL BE A
[01:30:04]
PROVISION, I WOULD SAY IN SECTION 2-1 28.1 THAT CLARIFIES THAT THAT 1500 OR WHATEVER THE NUMBER IS, IS SUBJECT TO THE CPI ESCALATOR. USING THE LANGUAGE COUNCIL MEMBER BURKE PROVIDED. AND FINALLY, ON THE SUBSECTION TWO OF PAGE FIVE, PAGE EIGHT, WHERE IT REFERENCES THE 10,000 UP TO $10,000 PER VIOLATION THAT WOULD JUST SIMPLY CHANGE TO 5000. THOSE CHANGES, I THINK, CAN JUST BE READ JUST LIKE I DID RIGHT NOW. AND IF THERE'S A MOTION TO DO THAT, THEN WE WOULD COME BACK FOR SECOND READING. AND THE THE ORDINANCE THAT YOU WOULD SEE AT SECOND READING WOULD HAVE THOSE CHANGES INCORPORATED, AND THEN IT BECOMES EFFECTIVE 30 DAYS AFTER THAT. SO YOUR CITY MANAGER HAS DONE THE MATH. MARCH 25TH IS WHEN IT WOULD BECOME EFFECTIVE, BUT YOU WOULD SEE IT ON YOUR SECOND READING AT YOUR NEXT MEETING. THANK YOU, THANK YOU. COUNCILMEMBER BURKE. YOU HAVE THE FLOOR. ALL RIGHT. I'LL TRY AND END THIS THING.NOW, OUR MIND, MY COLLEAGUES, IF I MAKE A MOTION YOU DON'T LIKE, YOU'RE FREE TO MAKE A SUBSTITUTE MOTION. I'M JUST TRYING TO READ THE ROOM. I MOVE THAT WE ADOPT THE ORDINANCE AS DRAFTED WITH THE FOLLOWING THREE CHANGES. CHANGING THE LIMIT FROM $500 TO RIGHT IN BETWEEN YOU TWO $1,250. AND THEN ADDING THE ANNUAL INFLATION ADJUSTMENT STARTING IN 2029 AND LOWERING THE CIVIL ENFORCEMENT PENALTY FROM $10,000 TO $5000. I'LL SECOND THE MOTION.
THAT MOTION PASSES WITH FOUR YES VOTES AND ONE DISSENTING VOTE FROM COUNCIL MEMBER PETE GREAT. THANK YOU. NEXT ITEM ON THE LIST IS ITEMS FROM CITY COUNCIL MEMBERS. ARE YOU ON ONE SECOND? OH, NO. SORRY. SEEING NO ITEMS FROM CITY COUNCIL MEMBERS. NEXT.
[ COUNCIL MEMBER REPORTS FROM CITY-AFFILIATED BOARDS AND COMMITTEES AND REMARKS]
COUNCIL MEMBER REPORTS FROM CELIA CITY AFFILIATED BOARDS AND COMMITTEES AND REMARKS. SO WE'LL START WITH COUNCIL MEMBER STRONG. THANK YOU. SINCE OUR LAST MEETING, I HAD THE PRIVILEGE OF ATTENDING THE REGIONAL MILITARY AFFAIRS COMMITTEE MEETING AT THE JOINT AIR FORCE BASE JOINT FORCES BASE IN LOS ALAMITOS, WHICH WAS VERY INFORMATIVE. I LEARNED A GREAT DEAL ABOUT WHAT THE DIFFERENT ARMED FORCES ARE DOING AND INTERACTING IN OUR CITY, AND A LOT OF THEIR DIFFERENT NEEDS AS FAR AS WHAT THEY'RE ASKING FROM THE COMMUNITY. I ALSO HAD THE PRIVILEGE OF ATTENDING THE 46TH ANNUAL BLACK HISTORY PARADE AND UNITY DAY THIS LAST WEEKEND IN THE CITY OF ANAHEIM, WHICH WAS AN AMAZING EVENT. IF YOU HAVEN'T GONE, I SUGGEST YOU GO IN THE FUTURE. IT WAS SOMETHING THAT REALLY CELEBRATED NOT JUST CULTURAL DIVERSITY, BUT UNITY AND THE FACT THAT EVERYBODY HAS SOMETHING GREAT TO BRING TO OUR BEAUTIFUL CITIES. AND IT WAS A WONDERFUL EVENT, REALLY WELL PLANNED, REALLY WELL COORDINATED, AND EVERYBODY HAD A TON OF FUN. SO THANK YOU. NEXT, COUNCIL MEMBER PETE. YEAH, I ATTENDED A COUPLE OF DIFFERENT THINGS. ONE IS THE OC SANITATION BOARD MEETING, BUT AS WELL AS THE OPERATIONS MEETING, WHICH IS ONE OF THE SUBCOMMITTEES I'M ON. AND, YOU KNOW, JUST BE AWARE, RESIDENTS, THERE'S A LOT OF THINGS GOING ON IN CYPRUS WITH REGARDS TO OC SANITATION. AND I KNOW NICK AND YOUR TEAM ARE COMMUNICATING THOSE THAT WILL HAVE PUBLIC SOCIAL MEDIA ON IT. BUT JUST KEEP IN MIND THERE'S SOME THINGS THAT ARE GOING TO BE GOING ON OVER BY LEXINGTON. SO OR AT LEAST THE NEIGHBORHOOD NEXT TO IT. SO JUST BE AWARE OF THAT. I PARTICIPATED IN A PARTNERS IN LOCAL GOVERNMENT, WHICH IS A CALIFORNIA CITY MANAGERS, BUT ALSO CAL CITY CITY MANAGER GROUP, THAT THEY PULLED TOGETHER ABOUT HOW CAN COUNCIL MEMBERS AND AND CITY COUNCIL WORK BETTER TOGETHER. AND SO IT WAS FROM IT WAS PROBABLY 8 OR 10 OF US ON THE PHONE, AND IT WAS FROM NORTHERN CALIFORNIA TO SOUTH AND JUST[01:35:02]
JUST A GOOD DIALOG. MOST OF THEM WERE CITY MANAGERS, BUT THERE WAS ALSO A COUPLE OF COUNCIL MEMBERS AS WELL. SO I EXPECT THAT THAT WILL CONTINUE TO LEAD TO SOMETHING. I PARTICIPATED IN THE SAINT I SOLIDARITY WALK, WHICH WAS LAST WEEK. IT HAD TO DO WITH HUMAN TRAFFICKING. THEY'VE DONE THIS FOR YEARS AND THEY DO A REALLY, REALLY NICE JOB. AND MAYOR PRO TEM CHANG SPOKE AND SO DID OUR CHIEF SPEAK AND DID A NICE, NICE JOB. THERE WAS PROBABLY 7500 PEOPLE THERE AND IT WAS REALLY HEARTWARMING, IF YOU WANT TO SAY, IN TERMS OF WHAT THEY'RE TRYING TO DO AND WHAT THE REALLY PUSHING FOR NO CHILD MARRIAGES LESS THAN, YOU KNOW, 18 AND THINGS LIKE THAT, IT'S ALL GOOD. SO AND THEN THE LAST THING IS I WENT TO THE CYPRUS SOFTBALL GRAND OPENING ON SATURDAY. THIS IS THE SOFTBALL TEAMS AT ARNOLD CYPRESS PARK.FIRST SPRING SEASON AT THE PARK. SO IT WAS A GREAT DAY. I'M GOING TO SAY THOUSANDS OF PEOPLE, BUT MAYBE IT WASN'T THAT MANY, BUT IT SEEMED LIKE A LOT. AND THEY STARTED A NEW TEAM, WHICH IS TWO AND A HALF TO FOUR YEAR OLDS, AND IT ONLY HAD TEN GIRLS, ONLY FROM CYPRUS.
THEY WEREN'T OPENING THE DOORS TO ANYTHING OTHER THAN CYPRUS. SO PRETTY CUTE. THEY HAD LITTLE TUTUS ON AND IT WAS IT WAS PRETTY COOL. PRETTY COOL. BUT THE EXCITEMENT, THE FIELDS LOOK PHENOMENAL. THE WHOLE PARK LOOKED PHENOMENAL. AND THERE WAS EVERYBODY AT THE EVERY, EVERY PLACE ON THE PARK. SO AGAIN, NICE DAY. GO OUT AND SEE A GAME, SEE WHAT THEY DO. SO THANK YOU. THAT'S THE END OF MY MY DISCUSSION. I ALSO ATTENDED THE HUMAN TRAFFICKING WALK AND VIGIL AT SAINT IRENAEUS. AND I WANT TO AGAIN COMMEND MAYOR PRO TEM CHANG FOR HIS REMARKS AS WELL AS CHIEF LAUTERBACH AND I ATTENDED THE VIGIL THE PRIOR YEAR. AND I THINK ONE OF THE THINGS YOU LEARN A LOT, I THINK WHEN PEOPLE THINK OF HUMAN TRAFFICKING, THEY OFTEN THINK OF SPECIFIC INDUSTRIES, YOU KNOW, SEX CRIMES, THINGS OF THAT NATURE. BUT YOU LEARN THE THE DEGREE TO WHICH HUMAN TRAFFICKING CAN PERMEATE ALL SORTS OF DIFFERENT INDUSTRIES, AGRICULTURE, FOR EXAMPLE. AND SO THEY PROVIDED US RESOURCES LIKE, HEY, LOOK AT THIS SCORECARD FOR WHERE YOU BUY YOUR CHOCOLATE AND WHO'S ACTUALLY SOURCING THEIR CHOCOLATE FROM PEOPLE WHO ARE ENGAGING IN, YOU KNOW, LEGAL, ETHICAL PRACTICES AND PEOPLE WHO AREN'T. AND I TOLD ONE OF THE SPEAKERS, I SAID, YOU KNOW, MY SON AND I BUT, YOU KNOW, BOTH OF US, MY LITTLE GUILTY PLEASURE, I LIKE TO ENJOY A LITTLE LIKE DARK CHOCOLATE AS A DESSERT. I'D NEVER REALLY LOOKED AT THE CHOCOLATE SCORECARD. AND SO NOW, YOU KNOW, I TOOK A LOOK AND I'M THINKING, OKAY, WELL, WON'T BE GETTING THAT ONE AGAIN, BUT THAT ONE IS GOOD. AND SO, YEAH, I KNOW WE'RE I KNOW WE'RE ALL BUSY SOMETIMES. YOU DON'T REALLY HAVE THE BANDWIDTH TO LIKE, VOTE WITH YOUR DOLLARS. BUT IF YOU DO, JUST TRY AND BE MINDFUL.
AND THERE ARE RESOURCES OUT THERE LIKE THE CHOCOLATE SCORECARD I'M SURE YOU COULD FIND ONLINE TO FIGURE OUT IF YOU'RE SUPPORTING THE KIND OF INDUSTRY AND COMPANIES THAT YOU WANT TO SUPPORT. AND THEN I WANT TO THANK MY COLLEAGUES FOR, YOU KNOW, THE WORK WE ALL JUST DID ON THE CAMPAIGN FINANCE ORDINANCE. YOU KNOW, I DON'T KNOW IF I CAN RECALL SOMETHING LIKE THAT BEFORE ON THE COUNCIL WHERE WE DID THAT MUCH WORDSMITHING AND BACK AND FORTH DISCUSSION ON AN ORDINANCE. AND ULTIMATELY, I THINK WHAT WE HAVE NOW IS BETTER THAN WHAT WE HAD BEFORE. AND EVERYBODY OFFERED FEEDBACK. AND IT'S PROBABLY NOT ANYONE'S PERFECT ORDINANCE, BUT THAT'S THAT USUALLY MEANS YOU'RE DOING WELL IF YOU'RE INCORPORATING IDEAS FROM EVERYBODY. AND SO I WANT TO THANK EVERYBODY FOR THEIR SUGGESTIONS. YOU KNOW, I APOLOGIZE IF I GOT FRUSTRATED AT ANY POINTS. OBVIOUSLY, I'VE BEEN WORKING ON THIS FOR A WHILE, BUT I JUST WANT TO THANK MY COLLEAGUES FOR HAVING AN OPEN PUBLIC DISCUSSION ABOUT IT.
I THINK ANY RESIDENT WHO WATCHED THE MEETING NOW KNOWS, OKAY, THAT'S WHERE THIS PERSON STANDS ON THE ISSUE, AND THAT'S KIND OF WHAT YOU WANT TO WALK AWAY WITH. SO THANK YOU. AND THAT CONCLUDES MY REMARKS. DOCTOR JANE. THANK YOU. I ALSO WANT TO THANK THE CATHOLIC CHURCH IN THE BRIGID LIGHT MINISTRY. I THINK FOR ME, THE MOST POWERFUL PART WAS WATCHING A VIDEO ON HOW EASY IT IS FOR CHILDREN TO BE SEXUALLY EXPLOITED, YOU KNOW, BY SOCIAL MEDIA. SO SOMETHING FOR US TO ALL WATCH OUT, YOU KNOW, MAKE SURE WE KNOW WHAT OUR KIDS ARE DOING. BUT IT'S A IT'S A GREAT VIDEO. IT'S SOMETHING WORTH CHECKING OUT. THANK YOU. YOU I ATTENDED THE KIWANIS 75TH ANNIVERSARY CELEBRATION, AND I ALSO ATTENDED THE SOFTBALL
[01:40:04]
INVITATION TO THE CYPRUS GIRLS SOFTBALL OPENING DAY. I SERVED PANCAKES THERE AS PART OF KIWANIS. AND FOR THOSE PEOPLE WHO ARE OBSERVING LENT AND RAMADAN LATER ON THIS MONTH, I[ COUNCIL MEMBER ITEMS FOR FUTURE CONSIDERATION]
WANT TO WISH YOU WELL. NEXT ITEM ON THE AGENDA IS COUNCIL MEMBER ITEMS FOR FUTURE CONSIDERATION. I SEE DAVID BURKE, COUNCIL MEMBER BURKE. THANKS. SO A RESIDENT HAD REACHED OUT TO ALL OF US, I BELIEVE VIA EMAIL ABOUT THE LIGHTING AT OAK KNOLL PARK AND SAYING THAT THEY THOUGHT IT WAS NOT SUFFICIENTLY LIT IN THE EVENING. THEY'RE NOT THE FIRST RESIDENT TO DO SO, AND I'VE I KNOW I'VE MADE SIMILAR OBSERVATIONS MYSELF, AND SO I DON'T KNOW WHAT FORM THIS SHOULD TAKE, MR. CITY MANAGER, BUT BASICALLY I'D LIKE US TO DISCUSS AND CONSIDER THAT AT SOME POINT, WHETHER IT'S A WORKSHOP OR STRATEGIC PLANNING OR REGULAR AGENDA ITEM, I JUST THINK IT WOULD BE GOOD FOR US TO UNDERSTAND WHAT'S THE CURRENT LIGHTING SITUATION THERE, SHOULD IT BE IMPROVED? IF SO, WHAT CAN WE DO AND JUST HAVE THAT DISCUSSION? BECAUSE I KNOW A LOT OF RESIDENTS SEEM INTERESTED IN THAT MATTER, SO I'LL KIND OF DEFER TO YOU AS MAYBE THE PATH YOU THINK WOULD WORK WELL, GIVEN WHERE WE'RE AT.THERE'S NO OBJECTION FROM THE COUNCIL. I'LL DO THAT. I'LL DO JUST THAT. VERY WELL. ARE THERE ANY OTHER COUNCIL MEMBER ITEMS FOR FUTURE CONSIDERATION? OKAY. NEXT IS CITY MANAGER REMARKS.
[ CITY MANAGER REMARKS]
VERY PLEASED TO INTRODUCE STEPHANIE SYCAMORE TO CYPRUS RESIDENTS. I KNOW THE COUNCIL MEMBERS HAVE MET STEPHANIE. STEPHANIE JOINED US LAST WEEK. I HOPE SHE'S HERE IN TWO WEEKS.BUT I REALLY DO APPRECIATE HER HER COMING. SHE'S SHE'S ALREADY MADE AN IMPACT. WELCOME, STEPHANIE. I'D ALSO LIKE TO ASK JASON TO ADVISE US OF WHAT'S GOING ON NEXT WITH OUR CITIZENS ACADEMY. THANK YOU. SEAN, WE'RE HAPPY TO ANNOUNCE THAT WE'RE GOING TO HAVE OUR NEXT ITERATION OF THE CYPRUS CITIZENS ACADEMY STARTING ON MARCH 11TH, AND YOU'LL START SEEING ADVERTISING REGARDING THAT STARTING TOMORROW. IT'S THE BEST WAY FOR RESIDENTS AND BUSINESS OWNERS TO LEARN ABOUT HOW LOCAL GOVERNMENT WORKS. WE'VE HAD OVER 50 PEOPLE GRADUATE THAT HAVE BECOME PART OF OUR COMMISSIONS, AND SOME PEOPLE EVEN ENDED UP ON CITY COUNCIL, SO WE'RE LOOKING FORWARD TO GETTING A LOT OF APPLICANTS. AND THANK YOU.
ANYTHING ELSE? OKAY. OKAY. SO THIS IS ADJOURNMENT. THE NEXT MEETING WILL BE AN ADJOURNED REGULAR MEETING TO BE HELD ON MONDAY, FEBRUARY 23RD, 2026, BEGINNING AT 5:30 P.M. IN THE EXECUTIVE BOARDROOM. COUNCIL MEMBERS AND THE PUBLIC SHOULD PROMPTLY EXIT THE MEETING ROOM FO
* This transcript was compiled from uncorrected Closed Captioning.