Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutSS3 - Election RegulationsCiJ_ F WPORT BEACH C STAFF REPORT j. Study Session Agenda / /ss3 March 11, 2003 TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND MEMBERS OF THE CITY COUNCIL FROM: City Attorneys Office Robert Burnham, City Attorney 644 - 3131, rbumham @city.newport- beach.ca.us SUBJECT: Recent Municipal Election Consideration of New Election Regulations ISSUE: Should the City Council consider amending the Newport Beach Municipal Code (Code) and /or the Newport Beach City Charter (Charter) to address issues that have arisen during and after the most recent municipal election? RECOMMENDATION: Provide direction to the City Attorney and Special Elections Counsel relative to which, if any, of the possible regulations governing municipal elections is worthy of further consideration. DISCUSSION: Introduction /Background: In October 2002, Council Member Heffernan asked staff to report on the feasibility of requiring disclosure, on the part of grant or contract applicants, of funds intended to be paid to consultants who had performed services for members of the City Council. This request was expanded to explore the potential for regulation of campaign activities. The November 2002 election sparked charges of campaign irregularities by some of the candidates and /or their supporters. The charges include "phony" phone calls to voters, contributions in excess of the $500.00 limit in the Campaign Contribution Ordinance (CCO), failure of a slate mailer organization (SMO) to file a statement of organization and offering campaign assistance in exchange for commitments to vote in a particular manner if elected. The CCO specifically states that the DA or a special prosecutor has the authority to prosecute violations if the City Attorney is not authorized to do so. This authority of this office to prosecute violations of the CCO is coincident with our authority to enforce the Political Reform Act (PRA) and an appointed City Attorney does not have the authority to enforce the PRA. The City Clerk, as the elections officer, has authority to levy fines for failure to comply with the reporting requirements of the PRA but no specific power to enforce the CCO. The elections officer has confirmed that the SMO did file reports prior to the election but we have not determined if the appropriate reports were filed and have not conducted any investigation of any alleged violation of the Campaign Contribution Ordinance or various provisions of Elections Code. This office, with the assistance of Dana Reed, special elections counsel, reviewed election reform proposals being considered by the Long Beach and Los Angeles, relevant State and Federal campaign law and the efforts of other public entities to regulate political campaigns. We have not (a) evaluated the relationship between each of the concepts discussed in this memo and the provisions of the Political Reform Act (PRA) or related guidelines promulgated by the Fair Political Practices Commission (FPPC Guidelines); or (b) conducted any detailed analysis of these concepts in light of relevant case law. This office and special counsel will conduct a thorough legal assessment of any concept the City Council selects for further consideration. Basic Legal Principles. Political activity is "pure speech" that is protected by the First Amendment. Laws that restrict political activity are subject to "strict scrutiny" by the courts. The following statements represent the basic legal principles that we believe, based on our analysis of relevant case law — are applicable to the regulation of political campaigns: 1. A city can establish reasonable limits on the amount of contributions to candidates or controlled committees; 2. A city can't limit the amount of independent expenditures made by any person or group with respect to any election absent public funding. 3. A city can't regulate the content of campaign material disseminated by the any person or group. 4. A city can require disclosure of campaign material when disseminated. 5. A city may be able to disqualify a member of a city council from voting on matters affecting contributors or persons providing services to a candidate — the relevant issue will be the extent to which the regulation seeks to avoid the appearance of a conflict of interest. While we are not making any recommendations, the potential regulations identified in this memo represent the type of restrictions that are consistent with the legal principles and are likely to survive any legal challenge. Possible Regulations 1. The intent of this requirement is to ensure that the candidate is aware of, and personally responsible for, the content of alt campaign material disseminated to a substantial number of voters. This type of regulation has not been the subject of any court proceeding but we believe it would be upheld and that only a candidate would have standing to file a legal challenge. 2. Require the text of anv publication or communication sent to more than 200 people and intended to influence voters to be filed with the City Clerk concurrently with dissemination. This regulation would not prevent last minute efforts to influence voters with false information but would discourage that activity given the potentially negative impact of disclosure. The disclosure would be limited to "substantially similar' communications and would not prevent candidates /supporters from going "door to door' to discuss issues with voters. 3. Prohibit persons or committees from actinq as intermediaries for contributions in excess of $500.00 to any candidate. The CCO reflects a determination that any contribution in excess of $500.00 represents an appearance of conflict. However, the CCO defaults to the PRA in terms of definitions and reporting requirements. The CCO, as currently drafted, may not specifically prevent persons or committees from acting as intermediaries for others who seek to contribute to a candidate. 4. Require audits of candidates and committees. The audit of candidate and committee receipts and expenditures is probably a prerequisite to any enforcement of the CCO or other campaign reporting provisions. To ensure both objective audits and even - handed enforcement, the Council should consider creation of an independent board or commission with the responsibility to review the audit and initiate civil or administrative prosecution of violations. The estimated cost of each audit is $2500.00 and any such commission or board would require support from staff and /or special counsel. The commission or board would have.the authority to impose fines and penalties that could mitigate the expense of conducting the audit and prosecuting enforcement actions. The City Council would appoint members who would have staggered terms of office top ensure continuity. 5. Require disclosure of campaign solicitations. The PRA contains provisions that require the disclosure of campaign solicitations by non - elected officials (Levine Bill). The Levine Bill does not apply to directly elected officials such as members of the City Council. We believe that a properly drafted ordinance could require applicants for grants or contracts, as well as members of the City Council, to disclose the identity of campaign contribution solicitors in the context of decisions affecting the financial interests of the solicitor. 6. Require disclosure of persons Performing professional services We believe that a properly drafted ordinance could require applicants for contracts and grants, as well as members of the City Council, to disclose the identity of persons who (a) are likely to benefit from the grant or contract and (b) who have performed professional services (for which they received compensation in excess of a monetary threshold) for the member within a defined period of time (generally 12 months before or after a decision). 7. Require candidates and their treasurers to undergo training. We believe that the City can require a candidate and his /her treasurer undergo mandatory training with respect to the CCO and the PRA as a condition to having the candidate's name placed on the ballot. The possible regulations discussed in this memo represent those areas that this office and special counsel have identified as most likely to survive a legal challenge and to address issues that have arisen during and after the recent municipal election. The City Council may want to pursue some of these concepts or ask this office and special counsel�o evaluate other approaches. Burnham "RECEIVED AFTER AGEND Allan Beek Fn; B Splitting the Vote There are often two or more candidates in favor of the same general point of view. But it is not clear which of them is the best standard - bearer. Since the City has no primary election to choose a leader, the vote for that point of view is split and even if most voters subscribe to that viewpoint, they are frustrated in their attempt to elect someone to represent them. This problem is easily and simply solved. Instruct the Registrar to print "Vote for all who are acceptable to you" at the top of the ballot where "Vote for one" now appears. Then the voter who is in doubt as to whether Taylor or Winship is the true Greenlight candidate can simply vote for both. Deceptive phone calls will do their author no good, so they will not be made. This device is called "acceptance voting" and students of voting theory recognize it as having several advantages over the "Vote for one" system. In particular, it eliminates the "If I vote for the best man, I'll be throwing my vote away" phenomenon. It is now being used by some technical societies to elect their officers. C Independent Expenditures The Supreme Court has ruled that we cannot limit independent expenditures. But we CAN prohibit council members from voting financial favors to those who have spent lavishly to put them in office. For some years, Newport Beach had such a law on its books, but it was quietly repealed (with the votes of councilmen who had been the beneficiaries of lavish independent expenditures). This law was tested in the courts, and a minor detail regarding aggre- gating the expenditures of partners was thrown out. But the bulk of the law was unscathed. I am aware that our City Attorney is not in favor of such a law. I have great respect for our City Attorney and we have worked closely together on several matters. But we sometimes disagree, and this is one of those times. I recommend that you reenact the law. If campaign spending is limited to a moderate fifty cents per voter, independent expenditures can play a significant and pernicious role, unless their fangs are pulled. I enclose a rough draft suggestion based on the former law. Sincerely, INDEPENDENT EXPENDITURE CONTROL Purpose It is the purpose of this law to keep a Council member from voting financial favors to entities who have made substantial financial . expenditures to get that member elected to the Council. Definitions "Member" means a member of the Newport Beach City Council. "Major supporter" of a member means an entity that has spent a total of $1000 or more in any one election campaign supporting the election of that member, by any combination of: Contributions to the member's campaign, or independent expenditures supporting the election of that member, or independent expenditures opposing the election of another candidate seeking the same seat as that member. "Entity" means a person, corporation, partnership, proprietorship, or other organization acting as a person. Prohibitions No member shall vote for, support, or use the influence of member of the council to seek approval of any measure which has a favorable financial effect on a major supporter of that member, different in quantity or kind from its financial effect on members of the public in general. No member shall vote against, oppose, or use the influence of member of the council to seek disapproval of any measure which has an adverse financial effect on a major supporter of that member, different in quantity or kind from its financial effect on members of the public in general. Violations No violation shall be deemed to have occurred unless someone writes to the Council or speaks at a City Council meeting, calling attention to the prohibited vote, support, or opposition. If attention is called within thirty days after the prohibited vote, the vote shall be cancelled and the City Council shall re -vote on the matter in question, unless the result was adverse to the major supporter. If attention is called before the vote is taken, but the prohibited support or opposition continues or the prohibited vote is cast, the vote shall be cancelled and the member shall be in violation of this law. Upon conviction, the member shall be removed from office and the seat shall be vacant. Abstention inappropriate This law prohibits votes for or against, rather than requiring that a member abstain, because if it were to require abstention, an entity with a financial interest in a matter before the Council . could silence its opposition by making small, ineffective, independent expenditures in support of its opponents. Greenlight " Post Office Box 319 Corona del Mar, CA 92625 _ o , a�❑❑ Mayor Steven Bromberg and Members of the Newport Beach City CounA AS City of Newport Beach 3300 Newport Blvd. This supersedes the previous version of this letter dated Feb. Newport Beach, CA 92663 25, 2003. The CARE enclosure has been updated and the previous item 3 replaced by a proposed solution to problems Dear Mayor Bromberg: such as the alleged Police /Firefighters Union campaign misrepresentations. This is to provide recommendations for Election campaign Reform in Newport Beach. Evidence is also supplied to show the need for this reform due to the deceitful and in a number of cases alleged illegal campaign practices used by Team Newport during the past election. Greenlight believes that at least one other of its candidates, if not more lost due to deceitful and illegal campaign tactics in the 2002 election. If we don't speak up now, the same sleazy and in some cases illegal practices can be used in the next election. Then the residents would continue to be represented by people that use deceitful and/or illegal campaign tactics instead of campaigning honestly on the issues as Greenlight did. Campaign Reform Issues Greenlight has furnished city Attorney Robert Burnham with a list of generally needed campaign reforms. Some major items remaining are: Adoption of a strong code of ethics. "Greenlight researched and has developed a Campaign Reform and Conduct Code (CARE) for the City of Newport Beach. (Please see attached CARE draft). CARE is the first of a set of citizens' initiatives to promote and maintain the highest standards of personal and professional conduct in the City's government. Greenlight worked closely with the Institute for Global Ethics that led The Project on Campaign Conduct adopted in 8 states. CARE promotes ethical campaign conduct codes for election candidates to encourage voters to pay attention to the way candidates run their campaigns. The codes are signed by candidates. 2. Removing "apparent conflicts of interest" in the handling of Police/Firefighters' Unions compensation. Candidates elected with City Union endorsements and who have been actively supported by them should recuse themselves from all personnel matters pertaining to the Police, Firefighters and any other unions so engaged. As it is now, the "appearances of Conflict of Interest" are evidenced by the fact that Newport Beaches total contributions to Police/Firefighters pensions is double the contributions of any other city. The average compensation of a firefighter is $106,000 per year and there are deluges of qualified applicants applying for every open position. 3. The City needs a self - policing mechanism to stave off deceitful campaign practices. In addition to the adoption of the enclosed voluntary CARE program, it is proposed that the city create an election website and allocate every candidate a page for his/her campaign statements. It is believed that this website will be very popular with voters. If deceitful campaign practices are used, such as alleged against the Police & Firefighters Unions, the "harmed" candidates can expose the alleged deceit or post a rebuttal message on the website. This will keep bureaucratic organizations, such as proposed by the City Attorney, from burdening the taxpayers and will be more effective because of its near instantaneous rebuttal /exposure capability. Changing the election process from citywide votes to vote by district. Ordinary residents, even those endorsed by Greenlight can raise only a fraction of the campaign funding of those sponsored by developers and business interests. In the last election the Four Team Newport Candidates each raised and spent an average of four times the spending of the remaining resident supported candidates. There is no reason why candidates should be spending approximately $50,000 on a campaign in a city this size. By adopting District elections of candidates, the costs of running a campaign will be materially reduced and brought down to a level that is achievable by residents' backed candidates. 5. The City should add more staff to monitor elections. We think the City Elections Officer is understaffed. Mrs. Lavonne Harkless checked every Greenlight and its endorsed candid -ates' Form 460's. She insisted that every "i" be properly dotted and conformed to FPPC guidelines given to Greenlight and the City by Ms. Linda Cassidy, staff section manager of the FPPC consultants. We appreciate her professionalism for keeping us to the straight and narrow. Unfortunately, she was evidently too shorthanded to follow the filings of the Police and Firefighters Unions that revealed violations of the city campaign finance law. Violations of City of Newport Beach Code Section 1.25 and State Fair Political Practices Act: a.) The Police and Firefighters Unions violated the City of Newport Beach campaign contribution law (Ref. 1) by contributing more than the $500 limit to each of the Team Newport candidates. The Unions solicited absentee ballot applications as a "service to the public." The Firefighters Union then paid for entry of what we believe to be the absentee ballot names in a database. The Team Newport candidates were then permitted to use it at the same vendor, Arrowhead Computer Systems without charge. The Team Newport consultant, David Ellis gave the Firefighters Union the use of one of his voice mailboxes at a phone bank. They paid for the mailbox and used it to broadcast messages supporting the Team Newport Candidates. This shows common sharing of facilities and collusion between these various committees as well as excessive contributions. Police Union contributions to each Team Newport candidate were approx. $12190 each; Firefighters Union contributions were approximately $2480 each. Both sums are in excess of the $500 campaign contribution limit. b.) The Team Newport candidates knew of but did not report contributions from the Unions thereby both participating in the violation of the Newport Beach campaign contribution law (Ref 1) and the State Fair Political Practices Act by not reporting the receipt of those contributions. Team Newport candidates used the absentee voter database created by and paid for by the Police & Firefighters Unions without declaring its value as a non - monetary contribution. They did not report non - monetary contributions from the Firefighters Union who used and paid for handbills and a telephone voice mailbox at a phone bank supporting the Team Newport candidates. As the voice mailbox was obtained from Mr. Ellis, the candidates should have known of and reported the non- monetary contribution from the Police and Firefighters Unions on their financial reports. Violations of the State Fair Political Practices Act: u.) Team Newport candidates violated the State Fair Political Practices Act by controlling more than one committee in an election. (See figure "Campaign Organization of Team Newport. ") The four Team Newport candidates (Ridgeway, Adams, Webb & Svalstad) colluded with four other committees: the Police Union, the Firefighters Union, the Team Newport Slate Mailer and the Newport Beach Taxpayers Alliance. They split campaign tasks among them and helped portions of each other's operations. Team Newport did this to hide their true campaign expenditures and deceive the public into believing that separate entities were independently supporting their campaigns. d.)The Team Newport Slate Mailer Organization was not independent of the Team Newport Candidates and their campaign consultant and therefore should have been classified as a campaign committee instead of a slate mailer The purported Team Newport Slate Mailer adopted the Team Newport candidates name, issued four different distinct campaign mailers that reflected the messages and strategies of the candidates and collected money for them. It was used exclusively to publish their campaign mailers. As it was formed the day after the required election - reporting period (October 19) ended, it served to hide their expenditures from the public. This also demonstrates collusion and that it was a campaign committee and not a slate mailer. Links between the Slate Mailer and candidates are evidenced by the fact that the Newport Beach Taxpayers Alliance (NBTA) committee was formed with the aid of Team Newport Campaign Consultant David Ellis. A principal founder of the "Taxpayers Alliance was Mr. James Carvelli. He is also listed as the only person who approved material for the slate mailer thereby connecting the two organizations via Ellis. The Newport Beach Taxpayers Alliance was used to convey a pro -Team Newport message in one of the Team Newport mailers further illustrating the inbreeding of their relationship. e.) Candidates violated the State Fair Political Practices Act by using more than one committee to collect contributions The disputed Slate Mailer organization collected contributions for the Team Newport Candidates. It is believed that this was a violation of the Fair Political Practices Act because a candidate cannot raise money via more than one committee. The candidates did not report these additional contributions therefore hiding the true extent of the money they raised. f.) The expenditures for telephone calls made by Supervisor James Silva to support Gary Adams candidacy have not been reported. These calls were broadcast on the day before the election along with the Adams' campaign's deceptive calls about supporting Mr. Winship and Firefighters calls supporting Mr. Adams. Witnesses are available to testify that they received these calls and Mr. Silva himself has admitted making them. We believe that our American system of government is threatened by campaign tactics and unpunished election law violations as listed above. Reform of the Conflict of Interest, Ethics and Campaign management policies of the city is needed. Thank you for your consideration of these issues, Genlight ering�Committee Philip L. Arst Spokesperson Reference 1: City of Newport Beach Charter Section 1.25 "Municipal Election Campaign Contribution and Expenditures Control" Reference 2. "Table "Campaign Expenditures of NBPA and NBFA" Enclosure: Greenlight CARE Ethics Program Campaign Expenditures of NBPA and NBFA (All data obtained from Form 460 filings by the NBPA & NBFA) Notes Newport Beach Police Association Report Amount Contribution `'_Amount Expenditures to Support Team Period Total ($) Each Cand. ,i xepeding Newport Candidates <SSOOY imit J 1 Campaign Mailer (Sch. D) 7/1 -9/30 $3691 $922.75 "Expenditures Supporting other 4 Candidates" 7/1 -9/30 1000 $250 2 Campaign Mailer (Sch. D) 10 /1 -10/19 $1466 366.50 Expenditure Supporting other 6 Candidates" (Arrowhead CS & 10/1 -10/19 $1549 $387 Picture Perfect) 7 TOTAL NBPA (Properly reported on 10 /1 -10/19 $466 $117 8 Schedule D 10/20 -2/31 1413 $1289.75 Explanation of Notes: 1,2, - Contributions to Team Newport candidates properly reported on Schedule D. Contribution of $1289.75 to each candidate is in violation of $500 limit of Ref. 1. 4,5,6 —This states that data was then entered into a database by Arrowhead Computer Services (Note 6.) It is believed that the data was the returned absentee voter applicant's names and addresses and that it was then used for subsequent mailings used for and paid for by all four Team Newport Candidates. 7,8 - The walk list and handbills /door hangers were used to support the Team Newport Candidates. A copy of the door hanger contains material describing and endorsing all four Team Newport candidates. 9,10 - A number of phone calls were made on behalf of the candidacy of the four Team Newport candidates. The caller identified himself as the head of the Firemen's' Union and stated they were paying for the calls. A tape recording of this call is available. 12 - The total of campaign contributions to each of the four Team Newport candidates by the NBFA was $2481. This is $1981 over the $500 limit allowed by City Charter chapter 1.25 Newport Beach Firefighters Assn Report Amount Contribution .;; rAmount Expenditures to Support Team Period ($) Each Cand. ;; E�c.eeding Newport Candidates .:$500 Limit 3 Voter Registration/AbsenteeVoter 7/1 -9/30 $3657 914 Program 4 Postage 7/1 -9/30 1000 $250 5 Voter Registration (Picture Perfect 10/1 -10/19 $966 $241 Campaigns) 6 Data Entry — (Arrowhead Computer 10/1 -10/19 $1549 $387 Services) 7 Walk List 10 /1 -10/19 $466 $117 8 Handbill/Door Hangers 10/20 -2/31 1413 $353 9 Phone Bank (Sound Media Group) 10/2012/31 $353.73 $353.73 10 Data for Phone Bank (Political Data, 10/20 $282.03 $282.03 Inc. 12/31 9 TOTAL NBFA FOR EACH CANDIDATE (Reported on Schedule E, not Schedule D $9684 $2481 81a` =: Explanation of Notes: 1,2, - Contributions to Team Newport candidates properly reported on Schedule D. Contribution of $1289.75 to each candidate is in violation of $500 limit of Ref. 1. 4,5,6 —This states that data was then entered into a database by Arrowhead Computer Services (Note 6.) It is believed that the data was the returned absentee voter applicant's names and addresses and that it was then used for subsequent mailings used for and paid for by all four Team Newport Candidates. 7,8 - The walk list and handbills /door hangers were used to support the Team Newport Candidates. A copy of the door hanger contains material describing and endorsing all four Team Newport candidates. 9,10 - A number of phone calls were made on behalf of the candidacy of the four Team Newport candidates. The caller identified himself as the head of the Firemen's' Union and stated they were paying for the calls. A tape recording of this call is available. 12 - The total of campaign contributions to each of the four Team Newport candidates by the NBFA was $2481. This is $1981 over the $500 limit allowed by City Charter chapter 1.25 Newport Beach CAMPAIGN REFORM AND ETHICS (CARE) CODE 13 February 2003 Revision 6 Problem Assessment: No one disagrees that all government and especially local government should act in a manner consistent with the shared values of the community represented by the government. The need for an ethical campaign code emerged following questionable campaign activities in recent Newport Beach City Council election campaigns. The "Newport CARE Code" is advocated by concerned citizens of Newport Beach for application to all candidates for City Council. It is the first of a set of citizens' initiatives to promote and maintain the highest standards of personal and professional conduct in the City's govemment. It has, in part, been based on work done throughout the country since 1997 by the Project on Campaign Conduct, Institute of Global Ethics, and has borrowed from the April 2000 Santa Clara Code of Ethics and the June 2002 Long Beach Ethics Task Force Report. It minimizes the excessive influence of big money in city elections making it possible for responsible residential candidates to run an even race against candidates who may be heavily funded by special interests. Oversight reporting mechanisms are provided to insure that the voters and other candidates are fully informed in a timely manner of the campaign practices of each candidate. It promotes positive, honest campaigns by asking candidates to voluntarily sign a certificate agreeing to comply with the Newport CARE Code. 1. PURPOSE: The Newport CARE Code is a set of ethical benchmarks intended to provide ethical campaign conduct by each election candidate who voluntarily certifies his or her promise to comply. It is a declaration of principles intended to keep campaign discourse on a high and relevant plane, making it possible for candidates' messages to be heard with less clutter. It responds to increasing voters' demands for higher ethical campaign standards. Each candidate is asked to explicitly agree to comply with the Newport CARE Code by signing the Certificate. The Newport CARE Code does not require bureaucratic oversight; the voters themselves monitor it. 2. OBJECTIVES: In order to provide truly representative government in Newport Beach, the Newport CARE Code objectives are to: • foster open and honest competition among the candidates; • promote accountability and responsiveness of elected officials and ensure that voters have a recognizable choice among candidates; • promote ethical campaigns and the resultant operations of city government by avoiding even the appearance of conflicts of interest; • promote even competition in campaigns by helping to offset the advantages inherent to incumbents or the wealthy; • prevent any single person, entity, or interest group from unduly influencing elections or the electoral process; • create public trust in candidate campaigns and resultant city government; • make available to the public and opposing candidates, campaign financial operations and campaign messages /literature 24 hr prior to release; • promote accountability for candidate campaign activities; • restrain excessive campaign contribution and expenditures. 3. CONTRIBUTIONS: The amount and source of contributions accepted by a candidate are limited to $500 from any single source, and to sources having no pending business before the city. Contribution reports, identifying contributors and amounts, shall be filed weekly by the candidate with the City Clerk and simultaneously made available to the public via the Internet. 4. EXPENDITURES: Campaign expenditures are limited to $15,000 for each candidate. Expenditure reports by the candidate shall be filed with the City Clerk and simultaneously made available to the public via the Internet 24 hours prior to any expenditure exceeding $250. 5. INCUMBENT CANDIDATES: The incumbent candidate shall not misuse his /her City position or resources for campaign purposes. The use of City resources such as staff time, phones, e-mail, or other City departments and assets provides the candidate an unfair advantage in elections and violates state law. 6. ETHICS: The candidate agrees to ethical campaign practices which are committed to the principles of honesty, fairness, responsibility, respect and compassion. HONESTY AND FAIRNESS • I will emphasize my views, beliefs, experiences and record and the difference between them and the views, beliefs, experiences and record of my opponents. Because I am committed to an open and public discussion of issues, I will present my record with sincerity and criticize without fear and without malice the record and policies of my opponents and their political parties that merit such criticism. • I will not make any statement, nor use or permit the use of any campaign material that distorts, misrepresents or falsifies the facts regarding my opponents. • I will provide the advance notices required by the Newport CARE Code for campaign messages and literature. • I will support claims made by my campaign, about myself, and about my opponents by publicly available, factual documents provided by my campaign office. • I will abide by the contribution and expenditure limits established by the Newport CARE Code. • I will disclose all contributions made to my campaign and will supply my campaign finance reports as required by law and the Newport CARE Code. • I will avoid any activity, contribution, or expenditure that has even the appearance of a conflict of interest. RESPONSIBILITY • I agree to place the best interests of the City above all other interests. • I will present my record and that of my opponents accurately. I will focus on issues relating to the office I seek and will avoid personal attacks on my opponents. • I will immediately and publicly repudiate support from any individual or group who resorts to activities on behalf of my candidacy, or in opposition to those of my opponents, that violate the spirit of this Newport CARE Code, including any tactics designed to manipulate or suppress voter turnout, such as push polling. • I will, should I discover inaccuracies, half- truths, or fabrications in any of my opponents' statements or materials, and can verify them, contact the candidate directly, without malice, requesting that corrections be made or that production or dissemination of the material be discontinued. • I will ensure that my campaign staff and supporters observe these principles of fair campaign practices. I take full responsibility for all advertising or other statements created or used on my behalf by staff and supporters. • I accept, without exception, responsibility for the activities of my campaign staff, managers, and advisors. I will not use city resources of any kind in campaigning. • I will not condone outside -party advertising that does not meet the principles contained in the Newport CARE Code, whether designed to benefit me or harm my opponents. If such practices are used by outside parties, I will repudiate them immediately, forcefully, and publicly. RESPECT AND COMPASSION • I will avoid demeaning references to my opponents and demeaning visual images of my opponents. • I will not participate in, and will condemn the use of personal vilification, defamation, and other attacks that are not truthful, provable, and relevant to the office being sought. • I will remember that my campaign behavior reflects my character and the integrity of the political process of representative democracy, and I will treat all persons with respect. I will show compassion at all times in my campaign for my opponents and for all persons. CERTIFICATE: I, the undersigned candidate for the City Council of Newport Beach, agree on the date indicated, to fully and completely comply with the Newport CARE Code, as described above. (Example: Candidates would sign and date below) Z777777777777 date MPATUMMM Me M__ ;,so 4� eE--� T O 0 .I.y �I LJ .I.y �I Imu w C� O Z w ^C U M--I O N r., i..l r� ti -j O U M i 0 3 '�a �u R F •� I ^C ca a. caa c�a � a ca s, a� �a ^O a R u U ca W a w O U c. ca o, a� u k u a GA G 8 ca u O u u a a� a ca an u U i � ca u u a a� a ov a � u MR u ca a ca a GA a ---------------- •� I G= Q I¢' GA I 0 - C 0 C �"' R � � F i.. CAS � mac• 8 �: w u A a ca s, a� �a ^O a R u U ca W a w O U c. ca o, a� u k u a GA G 8 ca u O u u a a� a ca an u U i � ca u u a a� a ov a � u MR u ca a ca a GA a ---------------- •� I G= Q I¢' GA I I - C w - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Lj -- u tj P60 rC/�� lei �i R I^ � � � � � � •cO+. a s 0 c 0 0 cw _ N r 3.F 5 E� �b a� O M 7� •i. v q N ax �F r Greenlight Post Office Box 319 c orona del Mar, CA 92625 Mayor Steven Bromberg and Members of the Newport Beach City Council City of Newport Beach 3300 Newport Blvd. Newport Beach, CA 92663 Dear Mayor Bromberg: February 25, 2002 This is to provide evidence of the strong need for Election campaign Reform in Newport Beach because of the deceitful and in a number of cases illegal campaign practices used b} =Tzam Neiyport during the past election. J -f� A Greenlight candidate is believed to have lost in the 2000 council election because of deceitful campaign tactics and Greenlight believes that at least one other of its candidates, if not more lost due to deceitful and illegal campaign tactics in the 2002 election. If we don't speak up now, the same sleazy and in some cases illegal practices can be used in the next election. Then the residents would continue to be represented by people that use deceitful and/or illegal campaign tactics instead of campaigning on the issues as Greenlight did. Campaign Reform Issues Greenlight has furnished city Attorney Robert Burnham with a list of generally needed campaign reforms. Some major items remaining are: 1. Adoption of a strong code of ethics. "Greenlight researched and has developed a Campaign Reform and Conduct Code (CARE) for the City of Newport Beach. (Please see attached CARE draft). CARE is the first of a set of citizens' initiatives to promote and maintain the highest standards of personal and professional conduct in the City's government. Greenlight worked closely with the Institute for Global Ethics that led The Project on Campaign Conduct adopted in 8 states. CARE promotes ethical campaign conduct codes for election candidates to encourage voters to pay attention to the way candidates run their campaigns. The codes are signed by candidates. 2. Removing "apparent conflicts of interest" in the handling of Police/Firefighters' Unions compensation. Candidates elected with City Union endorsements and who have been actively supported by them should recuse themselves from all personnel matters pertaining to the Police, Firefighters and any other unions so engaged. As it is now, the "appearances of Conflict of Interest" are evidenced by the fact that Newport Beaches total contributions to Police/Firefighters pensions is double the contributions of any other city. The average compensation of a firefighter is $106,000 per year and there are deluges of qualified applicants applying for every open position. 3. Holding city government officials and emnlovees to a strict standard of honestv. The Police and Firefighters Unions circulated an absentee ballot application mailer. They stated it was done as a part of their service to the public. However, we believe that this was a misrepresentation as the lists of absentee ballot respondents were then turned over to a vender normally used by David Ellis for the construction of a mailing database. The database was used exclusively by Team Newport candidates, giving them an advantage over their opponents. Additionally, the campaign ethics of Councilman Adams have been questioned due to the use of deceitful, allegedly fraudulent phone calls by his campaign. Councilman Adams has reported expenditure, under penalty of perjury, sufficient to pay for approximately 6,000 call attempts. Mr. Adams had previously denied any knowledge of the calls and offered to resign if they were proven to be his. As he has admitted paying for the calls in his sworn campaign statement, that is sufficient proof and we call upon him to keep to his word and resign. We cite the report of Pat Beek, Mayor Bromberg's opponent in 2000, as to his having used similar deceitful calls to defeat her in his campaign. She has commented that despite his denials, he acknowledged paying for those calls in his official campaign report. This is another reason to implement campaign reforms to control this practice. 4. Changing the election process from citywide votes to vote by district. Ordinary residents, even those endorsed by Greenlight can raise only a fraction of the campaign funding of those sponsored by developers and business interests. In the last election the Four Team Newport Candidates each raised and spent an average of four times the spending of the remaining resident supported candidates. There is no reason why candidates should be spending approximately $50,000 on a campaign in a city this size. By adopting District elections of candidates, the costs of running a campaign will be materially reduced and brought down to a level that is achievable by residents' backed candidates. 5. The City should add more staff to monitor elections. We. think the City Elections Officer is understaffed. Mrs. Lavonne Harkless checked every Greenlight and its endorsed candid -ates' Form 460's.She insisted that every "i" be properly dotted and conformed to FPPC guidelines given to Greenlighf and the City by Ms. Linda Cassidy, staff section manager of the FPPC consultants. We appreciate her professionalism for keeping us to the straight and narrow. Unfortunately, she was evidently too shorthanded to follow the filings of the Police and Firefighters Unions that revealed violations of the city campaign finance law. Violations of City of Newport Beach code Section 1.25 and State Fair Political Practices Act: a.) The Police and Firefighters Unions violated the City of Newport Beach campaign contribution law (Ref. 1) by contributing more than the $500 limit to each of the Team Newport candidates. The Unions solicited absentee ballot applications as a "service to the public." The Firefighters Union then paid for entry of what we believe to be the absentee ballot names in a database. The Team Newport candidates were then permitted to use it at the same vendor, Arrowhead Computer Systems without charge. The Team Newport consultant, David Ellis gave the Firefighters Union the use of one of his voice mailboxes at a phone bank. They paid for the mailbox and used it to broadcast messages supporting the Team Newport Candidates. This shows common sharing of facilities and collusion between these various committees as well as excessive contributions. Police Union contributions to each Team Newport candidate were approx. $1290 each; Firefighters Union contributions were approximately $2480 each. Both sums are in excess of the $500 campaign contribution limit. b.)The Team Newport candidates knew of but did not report contributions from the Unions thereby both participating in the violation of the Newport Beach campaign contribution law (Ref. 1) and the State Fair Political Practices Act by not reporting the receipt of those contributions. Team Newport candidates used the absentee voter database created by and paid for by the Police & Firefighters Unions without declaring its value as a non - monetary contribution. They did not report non - monetary contributions from the Firefighters Union who used and paid for handbills and a telephone voice mailbox at a phone bank supporting the Team Newport candidates. As the voice mailbox was obtained from Mr. Ellis, the candidates should have known of and reported the non - monetary contribution from the Police and Firefighters Unions on their financial reports. Violations of the State Fair Political Practices Act: c.> Team Newport candidates violated the State Fair Political Practices Act by controlling more than one committee in an election. (See figure "Campaign Organization of Team Newport. ") The four Team Newport candidates (Ridgeway, Adams, Webb & Svalstad) colluded with four other committees: the Police Union, the Firefighters Union, the Team Newport Slate Mailer and the Newport Beach Taxpayers Alliance. They split campaign tasks among them and helped portions of each other's operations. Team Newport did this to hide their true campaign expenditures and deceive the public into believing that separate entities were independently supporting their campaigns. d.)The Team Newport Slate Mailer Organization was not independent of the Team Newport Candidates and their campaign consultant and. therefore should have been classified as a campaign committee instead of a slate mailer The purported Team Newport Slate Mailer adopted the Team Newport candidates name, issued four different distinct campaign mailers that reflected the messages and strategies of the candidates and collected money for them. It was used exclusively to publish their campaign mailers. As it was formed the day after the required election- reporting period (October 19) ended, it served to hide their expenditures from the public. This also demonstrates collusion and that it was a campaign committee and not a slate mailer. Links between the Slate Mailer and candidates are evidenced by the fact that the Newport Beach Taxpayers Alliance (NBTA) committee was formed with the aid of Team Newport Campaign Consultant David Ellis. A principal founder of the "Taxpayers Alliance was 1\/Ir. James Carvelli. He is also listed as the only person who approved material for the slate mailer thereby connecting the two organizations via Ellis. The Newport Beach Taxpayers Alliance was used to convey a pro -Team Newport message in one of the Team Newport mailers farther illustrating the inbreeding of their relationship. e.) Candidates violated the State Fair Political Practices Act by using more than one committee to collect contributions The disputed Slate Mailer organization collected contributions for the Team Newport Candidates. It is believed that this was a violation of the Fair Political Practices Act because a candidate cannot raise money via more than one committee. The candidates did not report these additional contributions therefore hiding the true extent of the money they raised. f.) The expenditures for telephone calls made by Supervisor James Silva to support Gary Adams candidacy have not been reported. These calls were broadcast on the day before the election along with the Adams' campaign's deceptive calls about supporting Mr. Winship and Firefighters calls supporting Mr. Adams. Witnesses are available to testify that they received these calls and Mr. Silva himself has admitted making them. We believe that our American system of government is threatened by campaign tactics and unpunished election law violations as listed above. Reform of the Conflict of Interest, Ethics and Campaign management policies of the city is needed. Thank you for your consideration of these issues, Greenlight Ste ' g Co ; ttee Philip L. Ars Spokesperson Referenc 1: City o Newport Beach Charter Section 1.25 "Municipal Election Campaign Contribution and Expenditures Control" Reference 2. "Table "Campaign Expenditures ofNBPA and NBFA" Enclosure: Greenlight CARE Ethics Program W O O CC � H 4� 4mo it O Q O ot N •� ~ U O � it a Gd ^I U •i�r u E F c r N N Q w u E F c r Q w ct w _ 0.0 ct F, G tj o tj tj = u fl U tj A o � R, 8 ca u ct----------------------------------- - � --- -- ------------- - - - - - - - N o a�i Q w roan °' �, °' b e o Qj QO QO •�' rA •� Q ej ate. U U U U �' U 'ZS T r +' d (:j C. o aoi A. V c A F °a °u ca rA c�a z u Campaign Expenditures of NBPA and NBFA (All data obtained from Form 460 filings by the NBPA & NBFA) Notes Newport Beach Police Association Report Amount Contribution 4tlt6unt Expenditures to Support Team Period Total ($) Each Cand. Lice4dmg Newport Candidates SSdO Limit 1 Campaign Mailer (Sch. D) 7/1 -9/30 $3691 $922.75 "Expenditures Supporting other 4 Candidates" 7/1 -9/30 1000 $250 2 Campaign Mailer (Sch. D) 10/1 -10/19 $1466 366.50 Expenditure Supporting other 6 Candidates" (Arrowhead CS & 10/1 -10/19 $1549 $387 Picture Perfect) 7 TOTAL NBPA (Properly reported on 10 /1 -10/19 $466 $117 8 Schedule D 10/20 -2/31 1413 $1289.75 $789.75 Explanation of Notes: 1,2, - Contributions to Team Newport candidates properly reported on Schedule D. Contribution of $1289.75 to each candidate is in violation of $500 limit of Ref. 1. 4,5,6 —This states that data was then entered into a database by Arrowhead Computer Services (Note 6.) It is believed that the data was the returned absentee voter applicant's names and addresses and that it was then used for subsequent mailings used for and paid for by all four Team Newport Candidates. 7,8 - The walk list and handbills /door hangers were used to support the Team Newport Candidates. A copy of the door hanger contains material describing and endorsing all four Team Newport candidates. 9,10 - A number of phone calls were made on behalf of the candidacy of the four Team Newport candidates. The caller identified himself as the head of the Firemen's' Union and stated they were paying for the calls. A tape recording of this call is available. 12 - The total of campaign contributions to each of the four Team Newport candidates by the NBFA was $2481. This is $1981 over the $500 limit allowed by City Charter chapter 1.25 Greenlight Enclosure Newport Beach Firefighters Assn Report Amount Contribution '. Antiount 1 Expenditures to Support Team Period ($) Each Cand. 'iFxceeding Newport Candidates ,S500`. Limit 3 Voter Registration/Absentee Voter 7/1 -9/30 $3657 914 Program 4 Postage 7/1 -9/30 1000 $250 5 Voter Registration (Picture Perfect 10 /1 -10/19 $966 $241 Campaigns) 6 Data Entry— (Arrowhead Computer 10/1 -10/19 $1549 $387 Services) 7 Walk List 10 /1 -10/19 $466 $117 8 Handbill/Door Hangers 10/20 -2/31 1413 $353 9 Phone Bank (Sound Media Group) 10/2012/31 $353.73 $353.73 10 Data for Phone Bank (Political Data, 10/20 $282.03 $282.03 Inc. 12/31 9 TOTAL NBFA FOR EACH CANDIDATE (Reported on Schedule E, not Schedule D $9684 $2481 $1181 Explanation of Notes: 1,2, - Contributions to Team Newport candidates properly reported on Schedule D. Contribution of $1289.75 to each candidate is in violation of $500 limit of Ref. 1. 4,5,6 —This states that data was then entered into a database by Arrowhead Computer Services (Note 6.) It is believed that the data was the returned absentee voter applicant's names and addresses and that it was then used for subsequent mailings used for and paid for by all four Team Newport Candidates. 7,8 - The walk list and handbills /door hangers were used to support the Team Newport Candidates. A copy of the door hanger contains material describing and endorsing all four Team Newport candidates. 9,10 - A number of phone calls were made on behalf of the candidacy of the four Team Newport candidates. The caller identified himself as the head of the Firemen's' Union and stated they were paying for the calls. A tape recording of this call is available. 12 - The total of campaign contributions to each of the four Team Newport candidates by the NBFA was $2481. This is $1981 over the $500 limit allowed by City Charter chapter 1.25 Greenlight Enclosure Newport Beach CAMPAIGN REFORM AND ETHICS (CARE) CODE 30 January 2003 Revision 4 Problem Assessment: The need for an ethical campaign code emerged following unethical campaign activities in recent Newport Beach City Council election campaigns. All government and especially local government should act in a manner consistent with the shared values of the community represented by the government. The Newport CARE code is advocated by concerned citizens of Newport Beach for application to the candidates for City Council. It removes the excessive influence of big money in city elections making it possible for responsible residential candidates to run an even race against candidates that are heavily funded by special interests. It promotes positive, honest campaigns by asking candidates to voluntarily sign a certificate agreeing to comply with the Newport CARE code. Oversight reporting mechanisms are provided to insure thatthe voters and opposing candidates are fully informed in a timely manner of the campaign practices of their opponents. It is part of an encompassing Ethics program for all existing and aspiring elected officials. 1. PURPOSE: Newport CARE is a voluntary code intended to provide ethical campaign conduct by election candidates by establishing benchmarks for candidate campaign behavior. It is a declaration of principles intended to keep campaign discourse on a high and relevant plane, making it possible for candidates' messages to be heard with less clutter. It responds to increasing voters' demands for higher ethical campaign standards. Each candidate is asked to explicitly agree to comply with the Newport CARE code. The Newport CARE code does not require bureaucratic oversight; the voters themselves monitor it. 2. OBJECTIVES: In order to provide truly representative government in Newport Beach, the Newport CARE objectives are to: • Foster open and honest competition among the candidates; • Promote accountability and responsiveness of elected officials by ensuring that voters have a recognizable choice among candidates; • Promote ethical campaigns and the resultant operations of city government by avoiding even the appearance of conflicts of interest; • Promote even competition in campaigns by helping to offset the advantages inherent to incumbents or the wealthy; • Prevent any single person, entity, or interest group from unduly influencing elections or the electoral process; • Create public trust in candidate campaigns and resultant city government; • Make available to the public and opposing candidates, campaign financial operations and campaign messages /literature in real time (note: Beek & Heffernan says 24 hr prior notice should be required); • Promote accountability for candidate campaign activities; • Restrain excessive campaign contribution and expenditures. 3. CONTRIBUTIONS: The amount and source of contributions accepted by a candidate are limited to: $500 from any single source; sources restricted to those individuals and businesses having no pending business before the city. 4. EXPENDITURES: Campaign expenditures are limited to $25,000 for each candidate. Periodic expenditure reports shall be filed by the candidate with the City Clerk and simultaneously made available to the public via the Internet. 5. INCUMBENT CANDIDATES: The incumbent candidate shall not misuse his /her City position or resources for campaign purposes. The use of City resources such as staff time, phones, e -mail, or other City departments and assets provides the candidate an unfair advantage in elections and violates state law. 6. ETHICS: The candidate agrees to campaign practices that are committed to the principles of honesty, fairness, responsibility, respect and compassion. HONESTY AND FAIRNESS I will emphasize my views, beliefs, experiences and record and the difference between them and the views, beliefs, experiences and record of my opponents. Because I am committed to an open and public discussion of issues, I will present my record with sincerity and criticize without fear and without malice the record and policies of my opponents and their political parties that merit such criticism. I will not make any statement, nor use or permit the use of any campaign material that distorts, misrepresents or falsifies the facts regarding my opponents. I will support claims made by my campaign, about myself, and about my opponents by publicly available, factual documents provided by my campaign office. I will disclose all contributions made to my campaign and will supply my campaign finance reports as required by law. 1 shall avoid any activity, contribution, or expenditure that has even the appearance of a conflict of interest. I shall abide by the contribution and expenditure limits established by the Newport CARE code. RESPONSIBILITY I agree to place the best interests of the City above all other interests. I will present my record and that of my opponents accurately. 1 will focus on issues relating to the office I seek and will avoid personal attacks on my opponents. I will immediately and publicly repudiate support from any individual or group who resorts to activities on behalf of my candidacy, or in opposition to those of my opponents, that violate the spirit of this Newport CARE code, including any tactics designed to manipulate or suppress voter turnout, such as push polling. Should I discover inaccuracies, half- truths, or fabrications in any of my opponents' statements or materials, and can verify them, I will contact the candidate directly, without malice, requesting that corrections be made or that production or dissemination of the material be discontinued. I will ensure that my campaign staff and supporters observe these principles of fair campaign practices. I take full responsibility for all advertising or other statements created or used on my behalf by staff and supporters. I accept, without exception, responsibility for the activities of my campaign staff, managers, and advisors. I will not use city resources of any kind in campaigning. I will not condone outside -party advertising that does not meet the principles contained in the Newport CARE code, whether designed to benefit me or harm my opponents. If such practices are used by outside parties, I will repudiate them immediately, forcefully, and publicly. RESPECT AND COMPASSION I will avoid demeaning references to my opponents and demeaning visual images of my opponents. I will not participate in, and will condemn the use of personal vilification, defamation, and other attacks that are not truthful, provable, and relevant to the office being sought. I will remember that my campaign behavior reflects my character and the integrity of the political process of representative democracy, and I will treat all persons with respect. I will show compassion at all times in my campaign for my opponents and for all persons. CERTIFICATE: I, the undersigned candidate for the City Council of Newport Beach, agree on the date indicated, to comply with the Newport CARE Code of Ethics, as described above. (Example: Candidates would sign and date below) Candidate A" Candidate ":B" DAVID ELLIS &ASSOCIATES. LLC GOVERNMENT RELATIONS PUBLIC AFFAIRS •F; -1 rrq 18 P, 9 :14 February sl.g;:20.03 Mayor Steve Bromberg And Members of the Newport Beach City Council City of Newport Beach P.O. Box 1768 Newport Beach, CA 92663 -3384 Dear Mayor Bromberg, 19700 FAIRCHILD ROAD SUITE 280 IRVINE, CA 92612 (949) 442-1777 FAX: (9,19).142-1775 SACRAMENTO (916) 443-2145 FAX: (9i6)443-0938 Date d (E 3 copies Sent TO: _,Erkayor "K,courcil Member Im-anager r�- tto;ne'f As the city council considers reforms to issues related to elections, I hope that all iQues-' will receive a fair and unbiased review. Many of the issues worthy of council's consideration have not been reported in the media. I have outlined some of these issues and hope that the council will review them in a thoughtful and deliberative manner. Any ordinance(s) or policy should address the distinct campaign advantage of self - funding wealthy candidates. If the council determines that post - election audits are necessary, such provisions must be applicable to self- funded candidates. Should post - election audits be imposed, they shoudd include all bank accounts (personal and business) of the self- funded candidate to ensure that all campaign expenditures were reported accurately. If the council decides to create an elections review committee, as has been proposed by one councilman, the city attorney or qualified legal counsel must be a member. Entire law firms specialize in election law because of the complexities and sometimes - contradictory statutes involved. Well- intentioned citizens that might be appointed cannot be expected to remain current on the evolution of election law. They need the guidance of a lawyer. Further, no existing, former councilmember, former candidate, or prospective candidate should be allowed to sit on such an elections oversight committee. They all have their allegiances. Taxpayers should be prepared to allocate significant funds for this committee Litigation will eventually result from this committee's decisions. Any new ordinance(s) or policy should address the issue of residency. You will recall that one Greenlight candidate in the 2002 election resides in Laguna Hills where she claimed her homeowners' exemption. A Calimesa councilman was recently removed from office after it was discovered that he did not live in the city. Gov. Code Sections 82048.3 and 82048.4 generally state that a committee that controls the content and mailings for 4 or more candidates must organize and report as a slate committee. Greenlight mailed numerous fliers and posted signs clearly indicating a slate of four candidates. Greenlight did not file as a slate committee, in possible violation of the statute. If it is determined that Greenlight did violate GC Sections 82048.3 and 82048.4 then they are in violation of GC Sections 84218 — 84219. ■ A Greenlight mailer received on October 24, 2002 entitled "Greenlight News" solicits fiords. Greenlight is organized as a "recipient committee" under the Political Reform Act. Greenlight conducts business only in Newport Beach. Regarding contributions in the disclaimer section the mailer states, " ...there is no contribution limit. [to Greenlight]." Since Greenlight is a Newport Beach specific committee its fundraising should be controlled by Newport's contribution ordinance limiting donors to $500 per individual. As such, this language is required in any fundraising solicitation mail. This is a possible violation of FPPC regulations requiring fundraising disclaimers to advise donors of limitations in the respective jurisdiction. A review of Greenlight's fundraising in excess of the City's ordinance is warranted. Further, a review of Greenlight's fundraising disclaimer in mailers is warranted. ■ Greenlight's financial disclosure does not allocate web site value to any of their candidates. Greenlight's web site was consumed with information on their candidates during the election. A campaign committee is required to disclose the fair market value of goods and services provided to candidates. Further, Greenlight candidates do not report an in -kind donation of web site value. Council should review the disclosure requirements in this area. ■ Richard Nichols campaign report for the period 7/1/02 — 9/30/02 received by the city clerk on October 4, 2002 and signed under penalty of perjury, indicates that he received $1,200 in aggregated donations from the Greenlight Committee, ID #982390. (pages 6 and 7) Further, on the 12/31/02 report (page 4 and 5) Nichols reports aggregated intermediary donations of $623.00 from Greenlight sources. The city's contribution ordinance limits donations to $500 per entity (individual or PAC). This is prima fascia violation of the City's ordinance. A review of the remedy for a candidate violating the ordinance is warranted. • Greenlight drove a truck through the City's campaign contribution ordinance. You might as well repeal the ordinance. If the City is serious about campaign reform you can no longer allow a committee to raise funds in excess of $500 then pass the bundled funds to their candidates. I analyzed all donors to Greenlight and Greenlight candidates. Greenlight candidates received few donations that did not originate from the Greenlight Committee. Greenlight's fundraising requests indicated that they would serve as an "intermediary" and pass - through money to their slate of candidates. A summary of the Greenlight pass - through to candidates, derived from filed campaign reports is as follows: 2 Greenlil;ht Campail;n Statement Breakdown Reporting Period: 7/1/02-9/30/02 Total Contributions Received Schedule A $14,665.00 Total Payments Made to Individual Candidates Schedule E & D $7,544.00 Payments Made Schedule E $6,900.00 Summary of Expenditures (Non- Monetary) Schedule D $644.00 Total Retained by Greenlight Committee $7,121.00 Paid Monetary to Individual Candidates 47% Paid Non-Monetary to Individual Candidates 4% Total Contributions Retained by Greenlight Committee 49% 49% Greenlight Campaign Statement for period 7/1/02- 9/30/02 4% 47% Passed thru to Individual Candidates $6,900.00 ■Total Contributions Received Schedule A $14,665.00 ■Total Payments Made Schedule E & D $7,544.00 ❑ Paid Monetary to Indi,Adual Candidates Schedule E $6,900.00 p Paid Non - Monetary to Individual Candidates Schedule D $644.00 MTotal Contributions Retained by Greenlight Committee $7,121.00 Greentight Campaign Statement Breakdown Reporting Period: 10/01/02 - 10/19/02 Total Contributions Received Schedule A & I $24,052.00 Contributions Received Schedule A $3,002.00 Increases to Cash Schedule I $21,050.00 Total Payments Made to Individual Candidates Schedule E & D $22,083.00 Payments Made Schedule E $21,045.00 Summary of Expenditures (Non- Monetary) Schedule D $1,038.00 Total Retained by Greenlight Committee $1,969.00 Paid Monetary to Individual Candidates 88% Paid Non - Monetary to Individual Candidates 4% Total Contributions Retained by Greenlight Committee 8% Greenlight Campaign Statement for period 10/01/02- 10/19/02 8% 4% Passed thru to Individual Candidates $21,045.00 88% •Total Contributions Received Schedule A & 1 $24,052.00 Contributions Received Schedule A $3,002.00 O Increases to Cash Schedule 1 $21,050.00 (Schedule I passed thru to candidates as reflected in Schedule E) MTotal Payments Made Schedule E & D $22,083.00 O Paid Monetary to Individual Candidates Schedule E $21,045.00 ® Paid Non - Monetary to Individual Candidates Schedule D $1,038.00 MTotal Contributions Retained by Greenlight Committee $1,969.00 Greenlight Campaign Statement Breakdown Renortinu Period: 10/20/02 - 12/31/02 Total Contributions Received Schedule A & I $6,700.00 Contributions Received Schedule A $3,200.00 Increases to Cash Schedule I $3,500.00 Total Payments Made to Individual Candidates Schedule E $3,789.00 Total Retained by Greenli ht Committee $2,911.00 Paid Monetary to Individual Candidates 57% Total Contributions Retained by Green light Committee 43% Greenlight Campaign Statement for period 10/20/02- 12/31/02 Passed thru to Individual Candidates $3,789.00 43% 57% ■Total Contributions Received Schedule A & 1 $6,700.00 p Contributions Received Schedule A $3,200.00 p Increases to Cash - Schedule 1 $3,500.00 (Schedule I passed thru to candidates as reflected in Schedule E) ■Total Payments Made Schedule E $3,789.00 ❑Paid Monetary to IndiHdual Candidates $3,789.00 ■Total Contributions Retained by Greenlight Committee $2,911.00 5 Greenlieht Campaign Statement Breakdown Summary 7/1102 - 12/31/02 (Summarv) Total Contributions Received Schedule A & I $45,417.00 Contributions Received Schedule A $20,867.00 Increases to Cash Schedule I $24,550.00 Total Payments Made to Individual Candidates Schedule E & D $33,416.00 Payments Made Schedule E $31,734.00 Summ of Expenditures (Non-Monetary) Schedule D $1,682.00 Total Retained by Greenlight Committee $12,001.00 Paid Monetary to Individual Candidates 70% Paid Non - Monetary to Individual Candidates 4% Total Contributions Retained by Greenlight Committee 26% Green light Total Campaign Contributions & Expenditures for the periods covering 7/1/02- 12/31/02 26% Passed thru to Individual Candidates $31,734.00 70% ■Total Contributions Received Schedule A & 1 $45,417.00 []Contributions Received Schedule A $20,867.00 []Increases to Cash - Schedule 1 $24,550.00 (Schedule l passed thru to candidates as reflected in Schedule E) ■Total Payments Made Schedule E & D $33,416.00 []Paid Monetary to IndiNdual Candidates Schedule E $31,734.00 ElPaid Non - Monetary to IndiNdual Candidates Schedule D $1,682.00 ■Total Contributions Retained by Greenlight Committee $12,001.00 0. In short, Greenlight was the mothers milk of polities for their candidates. Greenlight presented them with a platform and candidates agreed to it. In return Greenlight raised their money, finmeled the money to them, printed flyers, mailed them, paid for signs, and posted them. Any funds remaining after pass - through were used for voter communication advocating Greenlight's candidates. If the Chamber of Commerce PAC had received almost $32,000 and passed the money through to council candidates the noise level from certain members of the community would be deafening. Greenlight's reporting is cause for concern and needs review. In some cases "pass - through" money is disclosed on Schedule I (Misc. Increases to Cash). In other reporting inconsistencies, donations to Greenlight "passed- through" to candidates is reported on Schedule E (Payments Made). The public has a right to know whether donations intended for candidates were deposited in Greenlight's bank account and reissued to candidates by Greenlight in the form of a donation. If so, a series of campaign reporting issues may be triggered. This warrants further review. A review of "independent expenditure" activity of Greenlight is necessary. Greenlight only operates in Newport Beach. To exceed the city's contribution ordinance Greenlight must be "independent" of the candidates. There can be no coordination. Instead, Greenlight not only passed - through donations; they distributed numerous fliers in support of their slate of candidates. If they were acting as an independent expenditure committee, they probably violated existing law. If Greenlight candidates controlled the mailings the candidates probably have reporting violations. A review of this activity is warranted. It is illegal for an independent expenditure committee to "earmark' donations. For example, if I gave money to the Lincoln Club PAC it would be illegal for me to designate which campaign my donation would be used. Greenlight clearly solicited and "earmarked" donations for their candidates. A review of Greenlight's filing status as a recipient or independent expenditure committee is warranted. Greenlight can't have it both ways. If they are an independent expenditure committee they can raise and spend unlimited amounts. But if they are coordinating with candidates (which clearly occurred) they cannot raise funds in excess of $500 per person. In conclusion, as the city steps on the slippery slope of campaign "ethics" reform you should be aware of the multitude of controlling laws that govern elections. The Lincoln Club of Orange County, Inc. was recently awarded $350,000 in attorney's fees from the City of Irvine because the city's campaign contribution ordinance was held unconstitutional. My point is campaign speech is highly protected and the courts have consistently held against laws that attempt to muzzle free speech. Thank you for your consideration of these issues. I trust the good people of the Newport Beach City cil will deliberate in a bal ced and fair manner. Sincere David L. Ellis GREENLIGHT 2601 Lighthouse Lane Corona del Mar, CA 92625 0491 727 -7272 10: F`E 13 ri / :16 Mrs. Lavonne- Harkless .. City Clerk & Elections Officer,` City of Newport Beach 3300 Newport Blvd. Newport Beach, CA 92663 Dear Mrs. Harkless: evised 2/17/02. Corrects portions of previous etter dated 2/13/03 pertaining to beneficiaries f NBFA phone calls and supersedes it. The nclosures supplied on 2/13 are to be used with his letter of 2/17/03. ELECTIONS OFFICER CITY This is to file a complaint of violations of the provisions of the City of Newport Beach City Charter Section 1.25 "Municipal Election Campaign Contribution and Expenditures Control" during the City of Newport Beach Municipal Elections held on November 5, 2003 The following parties are named as having violated the above -cited law as will be detailed below: 1. Newport Beach Police Association Voter Awareness Committee, 870 Santa Barbara, Newport Beach, CA 92660 (122212 1) 2. Newport Beach Firefighters Association PO Box 1695 Newport Beach, CA 92663 (1243243) 3. Newport Beach Public Safety Association P.O. Box 1695 Newport Beach, CA 92663 (Not registered with the State) 4. Committee to Elect Gary Adams (981794) 5. Committee to Elect Tod W. Ridgeway (981549) 6. Committee to Elect Don Webb (1244460) 7. Svalstad for City Council (1245715) 8. David Ellis (Campaign Manager for the four candidates — 19700 Fairchild Road, Ste 280, Irvine, CA 92612, 949 - 442 -1775) Background: The Team Newport candidates (Ridgeway, Adams, Webb & Svalstad) campaigned in a manner that hid the true extent of their expenditures from the public. This complaint covers only alleged violations of the Newport Beach City Charter Section 1.25 "Municipal Election Campaign Contribution and Expenditures Control by the Police and Firefighters Associations, Team Newport (Adams, Ridgeway, Webb, Svalstad.) and Team Newport's Consultant, Mr. David Ellis. The Newport Beach Police Association Voter Awareness Committee (NBPA) and the Newport Beach Firefighters Association (NBFA) formed a separate committee called the Newport Beach Public Safety Association (NBPSA) to as a letterhead for literature pertaining to the November 5, 2002 Newport Beach Municipal Election. These Unions first published an Absentee Voter Application Mailer that was stated to be a "public service ". However we believe that there was collusion between the Team Newport Candidates, Mr. David Ellis and the Police and Firefighters Unions. (See diagram of division of campaign tasks between them.The Firefighters Union generated a database that we believe was derived from the retuned absentee voter applications and was subsequently used by all four candidates of the Team Newport slate. Both sets of committees used facilities provided by the other further demonstrating collision. Complaint City Pol -Fire Etc- 3- Rev.doc l of 4 2/17/2003 Charges: The following violations of city Charter Section 1.25 are alleged: The NBPA and NBFA reported campaign expenditures that were in violation of Ref. 1 (i.e. campaign contributions were in excess of $500 to each of the Team Newport Candidates) as detailed in the accompanying tables (Campaign Expenditures of the NBPA and NBFA: 2. The campaigns of City Council candidates Ridgeway, Adams, Webb & Svalstad knowingly colluded with the Police and Firefighters Unions, used the absentee voter lists provided by them and did not disclose them in their Form 460s. As the contributions in question exceed the $500 contribution limit of Ref. 1 " the above named parties are in violation of the law. 3. The City of Newport Beach is not enforcing Ref. 1, its own Campaign Finance Law. Analysis A review of the NBPA Forms 460 disclose that they properly reported all of their campaign expenditures as non - monetary contributions to the four Team Newport Candidates on Form 460 Schedule D (Expenditures Supporting Other Candidates.) The total they reported for all the election reporting periods was $1289.75 for each candidate. This is in violation of the Ref. 1 campaign contribution limit of $500. The NBFA supported the Team Newport Candidates via a variety of expenditures. Even though some were a split of mailer expenditures with the NBPA, they were all reported on Schedule E of their form 460's as independent expenditures. However an examination of the use of these contributions discloses that they were all made to support the candidacies of the Team Newport candidates as detailed in the accompanying table and enclosures. In particular note that the enclosed Absentee Ballot Mailer states that it was a part of the services provided by the Unions, however, they used its results exclusively for support of Team Newport. If it were indeed a public service, they should have shared their database with the other candidates in the election, which they did not As such, they should have been reported on Schedule D of their form 460 filings. A total of $2481 each was spent to support the candidacies of each of the four Team Newport candidates. These sums are in excess of the allowed $500 limit. The four candidates of Team Newport used the Arrowhead Computer Service to pay for mailings to the voters. This service is located in a single - family residence that has four apartment units on the back of its lot. Mr. Ellis has used this service over the years, for maintaining and processing the Newport Beach Airport Working Group membership lists and mailings. Via Mr. Ellis, the four Team Newport candidates had to have known that the absentee voter database established by the Police & Firefighters Associations was a non - monetary contribution to them and should have ascertained if the contributions were within the legal limit of Ref. 1 Additionally, these non - monetary contributions should have been reported on their Form 460's. An additional example of collusion is that the NBFA used the voice mailbox of David Ellis, campaign manager for Team Newport to broadcast telephone messages supporting Team Newport. Team Newport employed Mr. Ellis and all had access to this information via their agent, Mr. Ellis. They should have known that the contributions of the Unions were in violation of Ref. 1 and at the least had to also be reported on their own Form 460's. Complaint City Pol -Fire Etc- 3- Rev.doc 2 of 4 2/17/2003 Additionally, as the NBPA violation of city campaign contribution law is clearly spelled out in their Form 460 filings for the periods ending Sept. 30, 2002 and October 19, 2002, a city procedure is needed to enforce its own law. If the NBPA had been notified after their Sept. 30 filing that they were in breach, they might have stopped the additional violation reported in their October 19 filing. If so, the extent of their violation penalty would have been less and importantly, illegal expenditures would not have been made to help defeat the candidates they opposed. The fact that we have filed these charges against the Union leadership should in no way imply that we do not highly respect and appreciate the outstanding people in the Police and Fire Departments. We think their Union leadership is to blame. It is our position that these are serious Campaign Finance law violations, as they carry potential penalties of removal from office for current city councilmen Ridgeway, Adams & Webb plus civil penalties for Mr. Svalstad. The Presidents of the Police & Fire Unions also face possible penalties. Due to the gravity of these charges, we request that the Orange County District Attorney's Office investigate them and take appropriate law enforcement actions per Reference 1. This approach will avoid even the appearance of conflicts of interest, and assure the public that the matter is being impartially handled. We request that we be notified of the expedited action you will take. Regretfully filed, li ht ee ' g Committ ' Wl Philip t Spokesperson CC: Greenlight Steering Committee Reference 1: City of Newport Beach Charter Section 1.25 "Municipal Election Campaign Contribution and Expenditures Control" Enclosure: Table "Campaign Expenditures of NBPA & NBFA" NBFA doorhanger NBPSA mailer A tape of the phone message that the NBFA President made to support Candidate Gary Adams stating that the NBFA paid for the message is available upon request Enclosure; Chart "campaign Organization of Team Newport" Complaint City M -Fire Etc- 3- Rev.doc 3 of 4 2/17/2003 Campaign Expenditures of NBPA and NBFA (All data obtained from Form 460 filings by the NBPA & NBFA) Notes Newport Beach Police Association Report Amount Contribution Amount Expenditures to Support Team Period Total ($) Each Cand. Exceeding Newport Candidates 5500 Limit 1 Campaign Mailer (Sch. D) "Expenditures 7/1 -9/30 $3691 $922.75 4 Supporting other Candidates" 7/1 -9/30 1000 $250 2 Campaign Mailer (Sch. D) Expenditure 10/1 -10/19 $1466 366.50 Supporting other Candidates" (Arrowhead 6 CS & Picture Perfect) 10/1 -10/19 $1 -549 $387 TOTAL NBPA (Properly reported on 7 Schedule D 10/1 -10/19 $466 $1289.75 $7$9.75 Explanation of Notes: 1,2, - Contributions to Team Newport candidates properly reported on Schedule D. Contribution of $1289.75 to each candidate is in violation of $500 limit of Ref. 1. 4,5,6 —This states that data was then entered into a database by Arrowhead Computer Services (Note 6.) It is believed that the data was the returned absentee voter applicant's names and addresses and that it was then used for subsequent mailings used for and paid for by all four Team Newport Candidates. 7,8 - The walk list and handbills /door hangers were used to support the Team Newport Candidates. A copy of the door hanger contains material describing and endorsing all four Team Newport candidates. 9,10 - A number of phone calls were made on behalf of the candidacy of the four Team Newport candidates. The caller identified himself as the head of the Firemen's' Union and stated they were paying for the calls. A tape recordin¢ of this call is available. 12 - The total of campaign contributions to each of the four Team Newport candidates by the NBFA was $2481. This is 19S 1 over the $500 limit allowed by City Charter chapter 1.25 Complaint City Pol -Fire Etc- 3- Rev.doc 4 of 4 2/17/2003 Newport Beach Firefighters Assn Report Amount Contribution Amount Expenditures to Support Team Period ($) Each Cand. Eice'Wing Newport Candidates $500 Limit 3 Voter Registration/Absentee Voter Program 7/1 -9/30 $3657 914 4 Postage 7/1 -9/30 1000 $250 5 Voter Registration (Picture Perfect 10/1 -10/19 $966 $241 Campaigns) 6 Data Entry — (Arrowhead Computer 10/1 -10/19 $1 -549 $387 Services) 7 Walk List 10/1 -10/19 $466 $117 8 Handbill/Door Hangers 10/20 -2/31 1413 $353 9 Phone Bank (Sound Media Group) 10/2012/31 $353.73 $353.73 10 Data for Phone Bank (Political Data, Inc. 10/20 12/31 $282.03 $282.03 9 TOTAL NBFA FOR EACH CANDIDATE (Reported on Schedule E, not Schedule D $9684 $2481 $1981' Explanation of Notes: 1,2, - Contributions to Team Newport candidates properly reported on Schedule D. Contribution of $1289.75 to each candidate is in violation of $500 limit of Ref. 1. 4,5,6 —This states that data was then entered into a database by Arrowhead Computer Services (Note 6.) It is believed that the data was the returned absentee voter applicant's names and addresses and that it was then used for subsequent mailings used for and paid for by all four Team Newport Candidates. 7,8 - The walk list and handbills /door hangers were used to support the Team Newport Candidates. A copy of the door hanger contains material describing and endorsing all four Team Newport candidates. 9,10 - A number of phone calls were made on behalf of the candidacy of the four Team Newport candidates. The caller identified himself as the head of the Firemen's' Union and stated they were paying for the calls. A tape recordin¢ of this call is available. 12 - The total of campaign contributions to each of the four Team Newport candidates by the NBFA was $2481. This is 19S 1 over the $500 limit allowed by City Charter chapter 1.25 Complaint City Pol -Fire Etc- 3- Rev.doc 4 of 4 2/17/2003 O 4� N 4=4 eC o 0 cot � U �..1 C � � � � •o is � ca ... � o C� Q ca ca is a an ° a O a 4 O_____________________ _____ __ i.. G� V� C�j .''"O' Q+ a y 7 • ♦cdl ,s.. •a y- O y p R O �1 0 .,. p +-• u U �C QO cpC a 4" LS a�i a z „ ; a un tj C. caa .. u a�i a�i cpa zs " QO zt — a s. ca : u p:" C/I . Lt z ti k'_ ti -: 1 PRESORT STD >e>e>e>e>e>e>e>e***ECRLOT * *C -008 PAID Margaret & Philip Arst PPG 2601 Lighthouse Ln 92'39 Corona Del Mar, CA 92625 -1313 ;ewport Beach Public Safety Association project of the Newport Beach Firefighters ,ssociation and Police Officers Association t0. Box 1695 ?ewport Beach, CA 92663 Dear Newport Beach Voter, Newport Beach Public Safety Committee Voter Participation Project Your Newport Beach firefighters and police officers want to make sure you have every opportunity to vote in the upcoming election. We have attached two absentee voter applications to make it as easy as possible to cast your vote this November. Simply fill out the highlighted sections, sign the form, and mail it today. We have prepaid your postage for your convenience. As soon as we receive your absentee ballot request we will hand deliver it to the Orange County Registrar of Voters. You will receive your official We view this voter participation program as part of our service to the citizens of Newport Beach. voter turnout last March at an all time low of 47 %, we feel that our contribution to the community should be to give everyone qualified to vote the opportunity to vote by mail. On behalf of your Police and Fire employees that make Newport's quality of life the best in the nation, we thank you for joining in our 2002 Voter Participation Project, Sincerely, 4" �, ,,,4 Steve Martinez President, Newport Beach Police Officers Association Rich Thomas President, Newport Beach Firefighters Association P.S. Please return your absentee voter request form today. We want to make sure you receive your official ballot from the Registrar as soon as possible. z F .� 4V- --TTQd � �k VOTE FOR_PUBLIC SAFETY NOVEMBER .5 Mayor Tod Ridgeway District ] - Mayor Ridgeitay hus.led the charge to revitalize Bu/bcia Peninsula. Wwking with. residents and businesses, MayorRidgrx %to secured 5,Y million to fond the plan (icer,vonr benefits fiuin hluYOr Ridgeway's balanced leadership. "�!alki.n" Don. Webb << District 3 - As an`F-agle Scout. "'Wtilkiri" Don Webb knox.s the - tmp6rtancc of contniluiity'ser-vice. Thirtc.yeui's, ago ,he, started tb'ei� port's 35- rrdle'bike irail'system :`As the iYewport -files« .Aagle, Sco,tet. co f;e's_assisted 200 s'cout�'uttain 3 the Eagle rank-.aver the Past eight year.%. Councilman Gary Adams District 4 - Fami(wriait, father,'and F-agle Scout, Gary Adams has %Yorked to presertie 85 acres of open space and parks fur Ne4ori ,Beach. -As one of tits .top transportation .espc its in the United States,'he saved o1 ' jandmark Traffic - r . Phasing (Jrdinance from legal extinction. Businessman Bernie Svalstad .District 6 -- 18 -Year Corona del Alar resident Bernie Svalstad has:e.tperience bula,rtcm good planning and the need for`o.pen space: As a °:former Mayor and Councilman in Fo'urttain Valley in the 100's, Bernie helped create a 5.i:acre youth and serf or citizen recreation ceiner.ieL Vliles:Squctre. Pcerk. Ia- ABSENT VOTER BALLOT APPLICATION Application musti..be received by Orange GENERAL ELECTION County Registrar of Voters no later than: NOVEMBER 05, 2002 OCTOBER 29, 2002 + 1. Print Name 2. Date of Birth ! !(monih /day /year) 7 Name Middle Name or 3. Residence address in Orange County (Please Print) W Name Number and Street (P.O. Bus, Rural Route etc., not acceptable) (Designate N,S,E,w if used) 4. Telephone Number. Zip Cafe Daytime Evening_ 5. PRINT MAILING ADDRESS FOR BALLOT (If different than above): NOTE: Organizations distributing this fort may not preprint mailing address information. Number and Street/P.O. Box (Designate N,S,E,W if used) City State or County Zip Code 6. THIS APPLICATION WILL NOT BE ACCEPTED WITHOUT THE PROPER SIGNATURE L OF THE APPLICANT. Signature Date WARNING: Perjury is punishable by imprisonment in state prison for two, three or four years. (Section 126 of the California Penal Code). THIS FORM WAS PROVIDED BY: Newport Beach Firefighters and Police Officers F035- (Rl02) Associations, P.O. Box 1695, Newport Beach, CA 92663 ABSENT VOTER BALLOT APPLICATION Application must be- received by Orange GENERAL ELECTION County Registrar of Voters no later than: NOVEMBER 05, 2002 OCTOBER 29, 2002 + 1. Print Name 2. Date of Birth /_ /_(monthiday /year)' 7 First Name Middle Name or initial Last Name + 3. Residence address in Orange County (Please Print) 7 Number and Street (P.O. IIo.e, Rural Route etc., not acceptable) (Designate w if used) City 4. Telephone Number: Zip Codc 5. PRINT MAILING ADDRESS FOR BALLOT (If different than above): NOTE: Organizations distributing this form may not preprint mailing address information. Number and Street/P.O. Box (Designate N,S, E,W If used) State or 6. THIS APPLICATION WILL NOT BE ACCEPTED WITHOUT THE PROPER SIGNATURE OF THE APPLICANT. Signature Date WARNING: Perjury is punishable by imprisonment in state prison for two, three or four years. (Section 126 of the California Penal Code). THIS FORM WAS PROVIDED BY: Newport Beach Firefighters and Police Officers F035- (R/02) Associations P.O. Box 1695 Newport " > wport Beach, CA 9�b63 FOR NOTICE You have the legal right to mail or dehvar this application directly to the local elections OKcial where you reside. This address is REGISTRAR OF VOTERS ORANGE COUNTY P.O. BOX 11180 SANTA ANA CA 92711 -1180 Returning this application to anyone other than your elections official may cause a delay that could interfere with your right or ability to vote U PERMANENT ABSENTEE VOTER Check here to become a Permanent Absentee Voter. If you check the box above and sign Ian aosentee oaliol will automatically be sent to you for future elections. Failure to vote in a statewide election will cancel your Permanent Absentee Voter Status and you will need to reapply, If you have any questions concerning voting by Absentee Ballot, telephone (714) 567- 7600. Elections Code Section 3201. 3206 ALL Individuals, organizations and groups that distribute absentee ballot applications MUST use the format used on this application. Election Code section 3007. Failure to conform to this format may result in criminal prosecution. Election Code section 18402. OFFICE USE ONLY NOTICE You have the legal right to mail or deliver this application directly to the local elections official where you reside. This address is: REGISTRAR OF VOTERS ORANGE COUNTY P.O. BOX 11180 SANTA ANA CA 92711.1180 Returning this application to anyone other than your elections official may cause a delay that could interfere with your right or ability to vote PERMANENT ABSENTEE VOTER Ick here to become a Permanent Absentee er. If you check the box above and sign an ausemCe uduol wiii automancany oe sent to you for future elections. Failure to vote in a statewide election will cancel your Permanent Absentee Voter Status and you will need to reapply. If you have any questions concerning voting by Absentee Ballot, telephone (714) 567- 7600. Elections Code Section 3201, 3206 . Individuals, organizations and groups that nbute absentee ballot applications MUST use format used on this application. Election Code section 3007. ure to conform to this formal may result in final prosecution. 18402. 1111 NECESSARY IF MAILED IN THE UNITED STATES BUSINESS REPLY MAIL FIRST -CLASS MAIL PERMIT NO 1300 NEWPORT BEACH CA POSTAGE WILL BE PAID BY ADDRESSEE NEWPORT BEACH FIREFIGHTERS ASSOCIATION PO BOX 1695 NEWPORT BEACH CA 92659 -9905 x BUSINESS REPLY MAIL FIRST -CLASS MAIL PERMIT NO 1300 NEWPORT BEACH CA POSTAGE WILL BE PAID BY ADDRESSEE NEWPORT BEACH FIREFIGHTERS ASSOCIATION PO BOX 1695 NEWPORT BEACH CA 92659 -9905 II. I.... I. I. II... I. I. I.I..I.I..I.I..Ii....l.l..11..l Cr I NEWPORT BEACH POLICE & FIRE ASSOCIATIONS i rasa Tor oy Newport Beach Firefighters Association PAC #1243243 u L � C o mo c ts Vz r c u j d m i a m ma om ` ta 'E w 0 m m m E m U ' m E a c m m no d In In In ❑ ❑ ❑ E G m I,- J Q U a ~ i 0 Y E m E c E ,`��' � W 1 �; y y w J �. c ¢ a " y y 00 d m y E E d o m CL d A H i i 0 Y G C r C 9 9 C O o 0 q rl T d Q m H O Q a of Cl a m d m r o D E 1� V E V ¢ r 1 a a E h Lo+ a m o o E m ai 0 EL z a o t a 0 w o C c C mOLU' ° m m S E _c N c Y 0 a0 00 �C, a ❑ , w L E m d •- O m ° IU a wd� y w E� E o m i m E d d 0 E a O€ h O E a� .a�oa mLL��a =Q cu m y 2,2 E m y m d w d O g�4 oaUIn E w cc a u I 0 It 000; E E �', ❑ El d w Q' U �i w N �' M 2 0 u� ❑O U s O U N N W H 4f rte. O O O �a ❑ zz p w w w ❑ z O O a W O U N w y w K 0 w F. O E O Fog o E €m`o LL 8 :? a ch LL e a" U L U f O LL m � p > N, 0 u c v ^ v C C ` O c 6 _ a o a v T O `o t 3 ac« T J F- O a L (q L L O C y 1 Q, QO.1 Wes; E °l �Ea v �a a � LL � oa m �n m ci p EA EA H 4 = FLL O U a a LL ¢i m E O N � t N C � O d N c a w m U 0 � o .O 00 N U � C C � w a O d � N O C E o - a 0 o Q O O C_ EH N O O _ C O O O _ � N `m E C" N Ql N N ° t E E C m c C w O O C C N w CL CL C C N 'D 00 C C m o n w N C E C O c m c o 0 d - U U = ~ Z ow - - u v 1 w W m .. .. W 2 W `• 1 t f!} J H L ° m W Z O N D C d C A C C m C A C° y �C B cd O C �C LL a c � E � y � a a C C C m 9p O p o o C C Z W U Z U W 2 U Z U C W U Z U s W cz 00 �U U- N y k) o. n _ '/VT Ld=W owr ^} 0 El W 0 ❑ ( \� iy M 1Q Imo. El °ui ¢ V �J \{ U.. ¢O¢O j z C�v j� '� w o 4 W �n W /) W °W $ CIO D ° ¢ z� o V 1] z 0 D w i w _ 2, T n� v �a a � LL � oa m �n m ci p EA EA H 4 = FLL O U a a LL ¢i m E O N � t N C � O d N c a w m U 0 � o .O 00 N U � C C � w a O d � N O C E o - a 0 o Q O O C_ EH N O O _ C O O O _ � N `m E C" N Ql N N ° t E E C m c C w O O C C N w CL CL C C N 'D 00 C C m o n w N C E C O c m c o 0 d - U U = ~ � Q) f =f \� _ . \| }@} R q =! ƒ £ ; � /\ q \) ( / 2 ! y \ ( m � - �® Q E0 P \ § , ¢ -r ;! +!)f» ) )) w c =� _!_! ! !!) !!!)/ + !®2!!/ 2- 2! B= !c 2! :2 !: t2 r! " 2/ B! Ec 0 \ 20z0C Z0 20 ;3)32& ;3)/2& 4 E E■ E E E E E E E E E \ _! �/_ � . / ES § ! ! ; E \ % < <_ ) / 0 } J /((( T c E E E �§ )�§ ) \)\ Q n = ) _ z§ [ } m ( e F e , : \ : \ 2 t \ § $ \\ [ % ■ \ �« won \ U\ 0 U) �3 ) `0 _ ( \ \\ ¥@o > . (/ \§ /\ �z Lt `o 0 2 o y m U Em a ti 9 .4 mE{ . o i E g `o .o o m m oi.m y E 2 m l(3 n a cc io E i 1° > = m m 2 m m m O 0 3 m b m G •C- U C N w O U O m Em o E aSv �" y t �'v E cmcm6 m i m m m @ m o = o oin ..> N E L° pp JQ NwF m cr N L_ O y m a Z c o m -E U y J m N m v y m m m 0 'o g m y � = q IJ m m p U d m U c W E� m y c Z Z Z mv o =5 E y m J i y D _ aa m >` o m m c v v m m o o y xa'u m= o y 3 N a< m o m rn w y m ac0 E Ed ° =o =yoc J" D T E E`o an°v.n a �5 r O d ,( s O SE N Q) a ti c � N m a a T m N y cc Iv m V � V V O JN y Q o r � C � o y v 3� w E E m y .m E w E c c o v m •a L p m m. y m J a s J C� O pVj W e p a w O C c ._ m C m C da+ �¢ rnm5 om.yc 'ma v'o Amvm Q) w 4 4 C U 9 a m m a t i o W v u coy 'v i4 ,2 c d v w U o CI a a M r . J a O _ e 2 O a U O v 0. Q O w O 0 4 V a� y ai LL� 0= Wz ¢o a _ L L p vl I N Q 0.. - m q E E U) W d a m t U a C LL b + P 10 0 (� hS Xo = a m is is is �f .; •. a = LL IL U a a LL N c J Q G E CL° U N CL C � E O � 0 cc o c a CL C m a N W a) N � N L 'O L N U N L � C cn E W o C,j a =55 �_ N Z E 16% N E O o �Q d O 6% L O O p o o a m N a` E n t E m n E ° N E E C N d T E.E S ma E a) V 9 IL Z) F2 N C'7 V W Q a E C } _c c a d 6 H C11) " N i u e ,!L N e N C c N m C � C (Q C' U U� Q) C O) o AO co d QQQ) Z E > d U cc O c 0�UU�2 m u d Y O C � N C � U C � u L d C d v o N N 0 O 0 � O a O v d r M s M 2N: d 019 a � C C C O � d' � d U E .J w O e u E HLL o 1 U D O O E d m w E o ap 1p C c 1/I lL c m_ c v E C } _c c a d 6 H C11) " N i u e ,!L N e N C c N m C � C (Q C' U U� Q) C O) o AO co d QQQ) Z E > d U cc O c 0�UU�2 m u d Y O C � N C � U C � u L d C d v a o N N 0 O 0 � O O O v d r M s M U d a � C C C O � d' � d U E d w O e u E m o 1 U D O O E d m w E o ap 1p C c 1/I lL c m_ c v o :2 E U C L F w ca` U.�u E u� .. �OOOQ. ao< v E d d _ � E E d C C T m c ' r O d °' E - E U _ C JQ `m m m E E E o M a d N o U - - E _ o m E o m O U E c �r�Qy' fn fn fn N Q) ,i cL O CL c v F` c o m w d c Eia° a o00s 00000 w 1 � J l� O •L U o O m C N C [ C E v E a a c W a w co a rn F¢ o z m 00. CL ❑❑❑ U O r N H Q y Z a u Z N a o N N 0 O 0 � O O v d r M d m U d C C C O � d' � d U E d u E m o 1 d m w E o ap 1p C c 1/I lL c m_ c v o :2 E U C L F a ca` U.�u E u� .. �OOOQ. ao< E d d _ � E E d C u °' E - E E E o ° d '� U N o U - - E _ o m E o m U E c O CL c v F` c o m d c Eia° a o00s 00000 N W w W LL M m V N Z V w U C O Z � LL U w N a QZ CO O L - o m E LL O O_ L C w U (0 U ¢ N y Z m r O E 3 o ZU v w - Z i � M i LL M L W {n � o O U c0 V L W � Y K � a a v rn ++ x w m O � LL N Q] ll W W p n y y o U w N w 5 i w O i L w f0 � � U i m N m LL x r .. 0 m 3� 0 = O a d n Z n N N � O U - C s c a - E d d `o m a m c - t o o d c _ d m 1° 'c L (p mU c_ c v � m m � C L_ N G� O C `m 3 � n m d d n_ C - d � m C � d 1^ d N n c QC N ja d [ C d O d n d � d a L U v �U m c a C LL O dy_ o Q G F � m LL [ N a_n LL LL O [ a o w w w H a LL a 0 N a O N N d r O> > u C � E m E 0 I .Y C c � ' / C O` N ° o `caa ad _' O O L d N ; a c o F E G c w d w a r w C O ao M e j C U � � o E U > ? V) d u ° ICI 0 S- �I N a N O O N O M a N N 0 ms O N y N F- N E E C O 0 N Q L m ii U f0 m m O 3 m Z `o N C 8 a a C ° M N d E v M p - � U N N d N d d a u E a `o c a � c a C p N m U Em a N N O 0 o c m o E 0 T ao.N d o -o O z a ry -Y C_ y 2 N O L d o 3 m m- 3 m d E u d - d d .9.-Co a N N �' 7. V a E° D E m m`m i m N (cp v o U ° D J U — — > C OW N O N u a m 0 U h c C m d C U E d O d E -Q1 p m E d c d m a m h > O m d U Y d U G.0 m C a C �m an d c a m y o E d U C,C an d >. E E v t � ORE d) ,m N C G O Z o z LL °O O O C U) r O N O LL O N G O M 0 m N C a ° c _ 0 E m L m �o � # M C � O s m 0 N Q o :o U N a x d � � c N � o E U � � a N I O a` d O > O d Q C O m m N m N F- O N N m a O �Uco N c N � c m 0 a EQ EEU = c a�z R a C d m` E E N d a n E c d G d C a d a d a c o` C a C 0 u v m L L N I C d 't i ally I C:, I C:, I0 I ..J FQ- m C J Q E O U N m a L, c � E E � E o � U � ° a a N m � w o a> > � L L U N U � C N E w o M a o0 O o c fl E N c E ° O � O a o 69 .? C 'o L O O O L 1 O 7 c N m m c o a d a C LL �y h og e rd O d LL _� a d a= LL 'j tt U a LL Z m z LL °O W c C U) r N Z¢i LL gww° N G O Z m N C a ° c _ 0 E a U � ca.c as -m da'm C N W � O O � _ m U LL ri U 'o 0 LL) N U � Q UI a ° � a 0 � ° a m L m �o � # M C � O s m 0 N Q o :o U N a x d � � c N � o E U � � a N I O a` d O > O d Q C O m m N m N F- O N N m a O �Uco N c N � c m 0 a EQ EEU = c a�z R a C d m` E E N d a n E c d G d C a d a d a c o` C a C 0 u v m L L N I C d 't i ally I C:, I C:, I0 I ..J FQ- m C J Q E O U N m a L, c � E E � E o � U � ° a a N m � w o a> > � L L U N U � C N E w o M a o0 O o c fl E N c E ° O � O a o 69 .? C 'o L O O O L 1 O 7 c N m m c o a d a C LL �y h og e rd O d LL _� a d a= LL 'j tt U a LL a' L O U z LL °O C U) r c m Z¢i 5 3 C m gww° N G m N C a L w m _c o a m m _ 0 ca.c as -m da'm Wu'E° cc 0mE .> mec Q O 2 J U U U > U LL ri m L m �o � # M C � O s m 0 N Q o :o U N a x d � � c N � o E U � � a N I O a` d O > O d Q C O m m N m N F- O N N m a O �Uco N c N � c m 0 a EQ EEU = c a�z R a C d m` E E N d a n E c d G d C a d a d a c o` C a C 0 u v m L L N I C d 't i ally I C:, I C:, I0 I ..J FQ- m C J Q E O U N m a L, c � E E � E o � U � ° a a N m � w o a> > � L L U N U � C N E w o M a o0 O o c fl E N c E ° O � O a o 69 .? C 'o L O O O L 1 O 7 c N m m c o a d a C LL �y h og e rd O d LL _� a d a= LL 'j tt U a LL A: Ll cz :{ j� w y 2� \ k 2 / E# ! / i §k 22a, t/ =.E > eoo: =003 \_ / : g /} w �y m d {/ \ �~ w E 3 ` f { o I]0 \\ \� «° r; § @f 2 (\ )# }3 »%000 E E e§a§s \j \I fo\ \j # 7 w � ) \ u V) � _\ \/ \ !L )< \Z �� � � ~ \� { \ E \\ CE m )) �! }{ �. / \\ � } \\ �} ! -° E �) /E e {${ \:EE -_ ®, ! r; \ / \\o! 26* }0 0 0w / \E ƒ 7f( ƒ {0 3 ~: 0(\ ) / C EL Cc § /y 75 z ;) 0, ; }/« ///\! $o»\ F�'0 3 # 7 w � ) \ u V) � _\ \/ \ !L )< \Z �� � � ~ \� { \ E \\ CE m )) �! }{ �. / \\ � } \\ �} C C `c W d 7 d t V cn O N C O ' N m N a c m c d m d E H E m p � N H o m E t d d o E c `o p a a m N N 0 N p C d N 0 N m c a E a E °- a_c " 1p a —O o 0 cc j — d O L o 3 m E p N d m c = cam oao, o n d d m E E o a? E° c- c m `o U L_ O N d O `m 1 U N 1 U O L c U C m d' W N U N N d N L7 d a N d d p E'�nN� = a > N O H— T 0 d C a a N x m d.0 N o E d v c c m� m Tf d d_ d 0 o o `o `c E E`o a n an o.a CL �R�6�9Rg N U N C N 'm � n T m N o d 0 U O U A c y N N O n Ooa U . m C A 0 O N 30 H o a c O o 0 d E N m« c 0 = m L C c c o a cJ O n N n d% C m 0- d d 02 0 c c 0 C d mD o.c O m.H c d G �aaaamdam E E c 2 c'o` m m E Wm mo ?m ca c� o 0 o S o? c d 0 E a 0 0 U r I J MMJ 11i L J 1^� k� 111 Z Cl `l Q W � O ° T ° J wm Qa a2 O° �w �r WW , 0 ED 2w W QO 2� I� a NG G Q � 1J iJ t G < ( ^L1 W 1 0 Q) `t P! Q � J O I \I m_ y V Q '&1Z lL L--a V 7 �9. O R d d U c d N E d O N E N a c d C a v v 0 N c 0 a O U m L c d a a _1 co E W N 7 a d i U G N m O _ W a N L U N _ U N O E O O O 64 O a 0 .Q L O R E c U T A IL s3 O �Nl- s3 s> yr J r F O O 64 C _ `o 0 Q N m a E C E T O Q n O E C [moo C E _ a U IL IL m U _ a ° L U E O C _ O E O N C w C N O C O O C CL cc Q N N C C15 C J Q C E O U O) L Gam' E E CO N C O a C m U r N C w ('J C N w O C J a Q a O O CL y E E C m T O. F- �U oaa d LL c �y o �n m Q e E m LL _C U ° a ^' a = LL y lL 0 U LL a ° _ m E a 0 0 U r I J MMJ 11i L J 1^� k� 111 Z Cl `l Q W � O ° T ° J wm Qa a2 O° �w �r WW , 0 ED 2w W QO 2� I� a NG G Q � 1J iJ t G < ( ^L1 W 1 0 Q) `t P! Q � J O I \I m_ y V Q '&1Z lL L--a V 7 �9. O R d d U c d N E d O N E N a c d C a v v 0 N c 0 a O U m L c d a a _1 co E W N 7 a d i U G N m O _ W a N L U N _ U N O E O O O 64 O a 0 .Q L O R E c U T A IL s3 O �Nl- s3 s> yr J r F O O 64 C _ `o 0 Q N m a E C E T O Q n O E C [moo C E _ a U IL IL m U _ a ° L U E O C _ O E O N C w C N O C O O C CL cc Q N N C C15 C J Q C E O U O) L Gam' E E CO N C O a C m U r N C w ('J C N w O C J a Q a O O CL y E E C m T O. F- �U oaa d LL c �y o �n m Q e E m LL _C U ° a ^' a = LL y lL 0 U LL J 0 m A a E c0 N Q a � o J 0 m A a E c0 N cb o c CV UJ Y C_ C C n m —' _d �!5 L m °- N n m O a b M' N W > C m O LA u z m c o _O m C A CI 9 ry O 1 b N b U t c m � d Qm N o T N m _ o y � a N O C � u UC0U Id d d `v ddy E m O b �UU�? N O] 0 L w W w z O w 0 F U Z w h m O 0 o E C 0 L m y � `m N } d t N Q N O E d d m m E m Cf N N VJ �n A0 3 - � o w m E m c L =E m E `—° m n w' c c c o c o m m C C N E m w a w Fm- a CL FT ❑❑❑ ❑ N m m m v v a E d U E �E i $o, O 4 p R b m m O C LL O E c ? ° 8 'ct a 9acUN m000a mo3 ❑ ❑ E E m Q O b a a E m m E « o o m E U E E E °p E0 O m € 0 m U m W E U O o O m C o °� U o U m a n m n T O. U a t E y d 0 tu m m y g E o o u N K c N N R CL 000? cg0�0 ❑ R T L IA O d F K w m f d I' w w r r s 0 U U Z LL s O N Vi� w c O o l 0 U 0 O C w s v E w O U ° ri x m d a LL Y 9 C T m E m O 2 N N a �+ m '6 O �a � t m N m m v � " o � U rn � o ym � m m N c m w`o c C d !a 1 1 N m \No 6 c 0 � � J 9cN y y I m `o c c `o C m B O � y A m U m z 'e m L y a U ^U w a F a b �w w U tae 0 C as LL e LL F a a QI m 0 0 0 v aM�'i u W W W § k \ CD \(a. cu e — l //c \ aaCD j\/ ol \ \ \ 3 ) J !m (( oc } \ ~ } �\ \ \ ( §\ } \� \ �( Oo j= /_ §O \ { « ) ( ( \ ( ( ( ( k ) ) ( ( ( ( ( E L) ) \\ k cc \\ \ \ \ \ L \ ) \ \ \\ j§ §° \ k § ( �! �f �§ m \ ) ; § �): m \ a = & a t \ � / <\ 2! },! �! �} ( ~ \\ �\ \ \ ( §\ _ \{\ � \ \\ } } \u4 �( Oo j= /_ §O \ { « ) ( ( \ ( ( ( ( k ) ) ( ( ( ( ( E L) ) \\ k cc \\ \ \ \ \ L \ ) \ \ \\ j§ §° \ k § ( �! �f �§ m \ ) ; § �): m \ a = & a t \ � / <\ 2! },! �! �} ( � ,a {j � . � / \ « ) 0 \ \� m/ k f E \ \\ �/ /E o/ * ■ )} 0 \ }\ 2)/ 0 \ c ) <;} Q e Q Q E 5 e L) \ \ \ ) § s \ \�\ l: c >< \ \0 { \a\ © 1 _ }! }�!�`� ` SQ \| e e c < > ! 912 5; c 2 [ J� ) / \\\ /§(2| /]`;0 �\ \ \c } i¥ <;} Q e Q Q E 5 e L) \ \ \ ) § s \ \�\ l: c >< \ \0 { \a\ 61z�2gaea � © 1 115 }! }�!�`� ` SQ \| e e c < > ! 912 5; c 2 [ J� / \\\ /§(2| /]`;0 �\ \ \c } i¥ } / / ;! _ _ _ _ _ _ f0 : f <| \ § \\i \)j { }}j /? ; E X ( \j$ B£la..ai; cn §.c LU lo E \ mo \\ N \L)t}(L j \ :E , § \CC . §� § �E LU �`0 cco 61z�2gaea � © 1 115 }! }�!�`� ` SQ \| e e < > ! 912 5; c / \\\ /§(2| /]`;0 \)!\ aa:a } / � \ § \\i \)j { }}j \k /]i} §k72fo k} ( \j$ B£la..ai; 61z�2gaea � Mfg§, �� ~9 %w }! \| / \} / \\\ ' \)!\ aa:a } � LLI ( \j$ : §.c LU ():\: \ mo /) \L)t}(L j \ \\ , § \CC . §� § �E �ady§ �`0 cco c 0 k \j} \§K Mfg§, �� ~9 %w [ \ { \ { ¥ \ $ § \ () § � ,\( A\) /:a \ : >> { ) J gG! m §d }! \| / \\\ aa:a } � ():\: j \ \\ , § \CC . §� § �\)\\ �ady§ [ \ { \ { ¥ \ $ § \ () § � ,\( A\) /:a \ : >> { ) J gG! m §d o w m • b� o. N C m 0 c c Ew b E E w y0 N N V N O N C b o E C o �, U a ry N y C N c C c y o v m n c y 2 - ° T N E p n o. � o g-12 [ j N c v c a c c x c v E y \ > o N v c v c u L E 0 c a v 0.0 O y E o E n o E a c d o c �\ �' V N S O> c �mt1 w L O U n O m C � U O W N V L O U c m v _ m E b0 C c E E 0 m c c m 0 y 9 N d •,p Y T � C b E� °E` zdd c N >> y o m 0, E c a v c ry O 6.0 y o v m y m E v V c E 0 o c a C O T m 0 N O O o m E E o n n nnna F>, m 'U .c � m W d T °1 d � L u a U U C y � o QI n o 0 O rn U C W O N m a cc E „ w 0 0 E v E O � O ' i c m .a m Qi W l t E c c a L ld N CO v 'a -. O n n v n N% y pl N Oy b > y N y c v � ��= c= W c o,c ci N K O c c 9 c v a,2 c m m v m 7 m. C 0 y N O LL E E c cc �c v o f a E 2' F LL 5 > ��pp a OI 5N U OV U U C7 z O w U U T w O U U iG w Sa w O U w cna � z U ����LL g�5 a z O F- z w E Q O O u N O O W O wa Yw Qj ai O� w N W ❑o aj ❑w E z� V• `U �fl IXTS S Z Q i 1 r I� O V l— N 2 J � 3 V1 Cl� J CG N m 9 I U N C O a v E E N L ' 0 R E b r C 6 b v C b 6 b a c O N C 0 a u L c b E I a ^U � vQ a e Q LL � f U a a LL m C J C E 7 O U Ol 1. a C N � E O � N � m L m 'C J n] C � m w O m j pJ L a, U N U C n E w O � w O = C4 u � E N E ° w O O C Q O d O o fA CO O O 0 N 0 O O O + O 'c y aa) E E a t w E O T O W d �o J CG N m 9 I U N C O a v E E N L ' 0 R E b r C 6 b v C b 6 b a c O N C 0 a u L c b E I a ^U � vQ a e Q LL � f U a a LL m C J C E 7 O U Ol 1. a C N � E O � N � m L m 'C J n] C � m w O m j pJ L a, U N U C n E w O � w O = C4 u � E N E ° w O O C Q O d O o fA CO O O 0 N 0 O O O + O 'c y aa) E E a t w E O T O W d Oct 22 02 03:45 E 0 Y C C c a O f O m 7 ^I 0 IpL Wrn 1 L LU o r` m uj n� N W N 6 u o aA n m m � C p O u'E m c 9 O m 4 6 m Q 0 U E m E m w N E o r � d m e 0 Em Ur w= �U a�iII1a / e.a� i d E m'o W w 6 0 N z z Rdams 6 Rssociates m P o EE 0 C ¢ mLL m mr'v `m m a< �a N o C, O Ec m � U Gm O N NN ❑ ❑ L ClC E C p C m m E m N m W Rc o E o c E o m E m Q ■❑❑❑ N mq G w d w m d O E 0 C 0 E E .0 U m 9 t �QQ] yy Q 1 J v O M Q� w7 z 1 N (949) 581 -4771 � m t m m a � E y m U E r E o E mum. v v y 0 €Upn 2 m T i Tv E c oa CgN o E o_u99 m000 a03 U tl 9 L a W E m O L E a m o m 7 U � m m in m E E� m E 0 uo _ m 03 U v w E E m O � Ci o g m o mF 0 L m oin ¢ s G O cN NR ".0001 00*00 F r ❑ mq G w d w m d O E 0 C 0 E E .0 U m 9 t �QQ] yy Q 1 J v O M Q� w7 z 1 N (949) 581 -4771 � w — D m m U 9 a W C m � 3 7 m � O � N Lm r� m m F a m L t a c ¢ W ¢ N W ¢ L m F � O C Fa W C T r � o g r F W N e m y w E m N p a W J o W m N C� V E m E o� W O` W_ O �l N A p O 6 L W W O p m D a a D c a � a E `m E .c m � m E °1 0 m. m OD D m O U cC p a N O a N m S m d N ¢ o m 9 V r w r c m m 0 m S i 8 M � v d LL s b ma c W LL m 6 20 0 0 i 2 O m fir' r 2, 1 U � U p.2 g4 �k �u +m O � W C C LLg y f 6 m m m a kt w E m N b NI a° c c c a o` m a F + N Ecu E da E 15 U U) a� c rnca 0 •(0 a 03 y !9 O a:UU m m E E U m i 5 N 1 m m O � m . � M IC m m E E O U m O C U m a r C i U Y 0 m O r m V i s Q W 0 z U ¢w a ga N O 00 •��� u 1 i» V ... 1 O 1. C J a L Z n Q z L a C r e m c 0 O 6 m m E m O m W v O a 4 C O m � m m O a w o s z `o U e, s 5 0 o JO G x UW U_ m LL O _T 0 C W m � a z i LL 2 U 0 O m m E o � a E 4 a 9 m qa ..m. b y O c t a � C m3 O a m C 4 4 O V 4 N C m 4 o v 2 m° d a O m m m ~ NY E o �a N V � o m c c m tIj4y1 5tl1- 4 1 *11 F E gm ~w ~w ¢w 3 O m 0 m 0 w 0 a n. a 00 00 00 DO S W O O a o 0 0 0 o r _ o y 5i y U U U U E LL LL LL LL C O O O O r J 'z Z Ei o V$ O O O o a ¢ c p w w w w m IL E U U (w) (w) 4 LL LL 4 TN O O O O m` O 0 LL LL O O CL 3 z z z z w W m 0 z w w � O � z O 0 W J 4l o w o � S( m O O z w w r LL O i m c h m N 0 `m u u m Q p.3 gRI Ila �3$ H V 6 LL v I UCL CC uC uJ:4tip Hdams 6 HSSOCi HtES d � N ` d •O G y m O n . w N C m m E w d, O w d z - e a Ey d E v _ N r �p fn .'C.. ei w o �o. m O m m U c m a m % ca `mrW v a a v — m C c U¢ w y V N N d L m E o o L Ego =V 0 Q p 0 0 4 4 m Y c c 0 . y^ c 2 m 6 D �a9 c o QD D o o md3 c °° m o l' ° E J J J m Q ¢ c U m J m C CEm m E w z > m U w N a m w N w N ? c o m ti N c z a O O > y d a Ir a= o m_ m N c j< O ❑ a z o .� o Z O O W cc O O J N O M O m0 O O O m W p J w z r C= m z U r (V (h K N (949) 581 -4771 p.4 ^U m n a n E uXi « z; e ai m O � 55 ~ r E 9 R 69 69 (N (A Nl Nl c m U n n= W ?? Z L U) ? 3 m o E 9 ° E N �m1�1111 E E LL « N m m a0 111111 m X m C m 0 0 Q 0 €¢� Ci?.Doc m Cmm >;m oEm a n''Em o m m m 'b m a m A P O U(�EC m w � CjCSN 0 cc U E E N U c N N V m m J Eoz m c E m cv �n w F-m U ?:Ucm a� o em 0 O P o p O p .9 0 0 Q Q cr r T� v m 3 m m a t c N m� Zi y ¢ J y$ ci N } p C a C � a a E c $ LLJ La m m aa)i ° ` U 'o yE E m u m w ¢ m 6 (a Q¢. N cc m m z y W.. w b +. a € Liu C ^2 m m c < fq L c m m N N < Z L �^ N N C C Z N +m „ = g I<- v LU c V c m c m U a 7 7 c L E `�' OP E Q C c_ ¢ m a z ti z Ul L m S'i m '° m a fi < t b c O. A- w< z r m U 2 U Z _ N U O Ul fG 7 K p 0 h (9 m O Oct 22 02 03:46p Hdams & HssociaLes 1�1�1 — - i' i r. z 1 1 C o 0 N9 M N OO m IL IL Z m N E In o m a r C N O 0 d N � C m B L � C T Vi Ca C � U C E O � O N a fH N O a m n o � N CL E N N N N � L g. E E n N � N C CL n m Ca c � m d N o E cm E v c n m c o O d 7. E v a t 0 n ^U �a C LL � 1C "N LL � 6 = a LL � I=L , U a LL 3w Woo 90^t a3 N 0 � N 0 p z p' Ea m z No N E M M O m �M .� .. N J Fa.. Oo � t { 7 J m v y C c � m m o n a s r w c c? o a- v m o Z o `m Et G r Z• c c— it, 5 cv m a Q�Q 'O ° E 'B d m TO c �C m $ c c Z c U c Vm a o8 Z o U o a Sg uX° l V W U a J ¢z 00 VU D ' ��•111 ��, E _ a z a W ed{ ❑ E sw� —❑ j❑ o� V owo p T _' i bo y z = CI V z 1 ~ N L J N C N •a c W m ¢ ,� o s •� 2 V m L if i L 1C� W l F LL fl.N a) ¢ _ �� WCL 0 O o N 1 _ w Ca E 0 -- CL c r o E CL C Z w 3 3 f4 W 5a 'f U1 MU tiz o 0 N9 M N OO m IL IL Z m N E In o m a r C N O 0 d N � C m B L � C T Vi Ca C � U C E O � O N a fH N O a m n o � N CL E N N N N � L g. E E n N � N C CL n m Ca c � m d N o E cm E v c n m c o O d 7. E v a t 0 n ^U �a C LL � 1C "N LL � 6 = a LL � I=L , U a LL .9I `o ,^1 6 v �il m f O O1 a R S r 0 m .O m i O L O E N E o o r 9 m 9 ]C c C J m C � � m O C � 9 —;d ° E o ° . 3 a0F O E E UL 0'm L Q R d O'N = C b. m C W Q r2 w p:. Ohm R 7cm�v �oEac cn cn c U O w U�5 WO Ijnw ¢ a W c h W 6 ¢¢¢ Oyu W¢o F0- z �¢3 �U U i J � W Oa f zo Ow r a_g ¢w N Q O Fi w f a O w a E I� J Z c r c c m m0 z ms c� m �2 o a a c m n E 5 a m m E m$ cc cc mo, O p o o 9 X 0 0 0 M U Z U 5 w U Z V ■ ■ ■ ■ M ¢z o0 �o N zzo 00 aR L ww , U LL LL <m 0w Q U Z C O¢ w y rqq 0 z v .� zw f a 0 U z mE O , O 0 2 E 6 `< U z 5 W ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■. w Q O F- m Ul ^a gY �N E e LL � d O d _ LL Y ILO U a LL 0 m 6 O 0 a 7 0 0 ❑ D � o C O � 6 6 6 J N N N N w Q O F- m Ul ^a gY �N E e LL � d O d _ LL Y ILO U a LL ck E a d a C C O C � u o a a r abm E ° O L act H 'o E brn d Q 0 t m W N CD 3 c W CD E L cc 3 w V W w cn a N z v 'S _ m = U m m A s m E 5 m o v E o c U yyJQQ 0 C a 5 " C L O m a A m E 2 0 '° T 4 o m d m a m E > rL m �m °��gmmm oE$`v�_mE a1 mm o� m ai m L O ai 0 0 U m r m C m R( E 0 0 T C m E m a CD N m U N a T m m U U m N m O U 0 m O m O cc ��<- a �-P 0 > >� 6 w O 0 U d� U m C d � N � O d U pl U c m m d o b 'L a A m d C d U Q TA U c 75 b a m m m> N c m m a E m m N O— L E E`t m.c���aa. § §1 o� ?gS S 0 m r 0 m c O 2 2 m c A O m a 3 N E`cac y�y N C m 6 U C s c P C B m = G K h ao F- °l O 7 d n 0 9 N O E n a m „E m a c b O x b t d m 6 d a C O n c O 7 a O u m A m C d m a E E cn LU m a m U O fn of U; `m O LU N t m m U C `i 0 O C1 C1 V3 O B d V1 L m m y d m a 0 0 ets x� J Q 0 O f9 c O O VJ m a m E M C E T a m N E D I C E O U L' m CL m m L U) 0 J O m W N C O C O a a `m o_ V) r m N m m C m 12 m m c J Q C E 0 U ai m CL m E E U) r C O C m m a� L c W C m N N m c J Q O L a. N L m N E N m E a m 12 a �Y e e b°. g b a= LL b LL a LL 9 o a i O X17 t t�^ V .04 � �. w Y L a Q • � O F N O Q D. 0 W O U wig M O Qa O U 0 6 M ~ 0 ZL Q� C6 V 3 2 �1 K h ao F- °l O 7 d n 0 9 N O E n a m „E m a c b O x b t d m 6 d a C O n c O 7 a O u m A m C d m a E E cn LU m a m U O fn of U; `m O LU N t m m U C `i 0 O C1 C1 V3 O B d V1 L m m y d m a 0 0 ets x� J Q 0 O f9 c O O VJ m a m E M C E T a m N E D I C E O U L' m CL m m L U) 0 J O m W N C O C O a a `m o_ V) r m N m m C m 12 m m c J Q C E 0 U ai m CL m E E U) r C O C m m a� L c W C m N N m c J Q O L a. N L m N E N m E a m 12 a �Y e e b°. g b a= LL b LL a LL Page 1 of 1 "RECEIVED AFTER AGENDA PRINTED:" �-S 3 Harkless, LaVonne ...... ......... _ .1.111 .. .. ............................... ..........__........ From: Ridgeway, Tod Sent: Tuesday, March 11, 2003 2:29 PM To: Harkless, LaVonne Subject: FW: Your Study Session Please provide for all council members. - - - -- Original Message---- - From: David Ellis - David Ellis & Associates, LLC [mailto:dellis @ellis- assoc.com] Sent: Tuesday, March 11, 2003 9:52 AM To: Webb Don; Steve Bromberg; Tod Ridgeway; Gary Adams Cc: Bob Burnham Subject: Your Study Session Gentlemen, One issue regarding campaign reform that has been missed is the timely filing of campaign reports. Greenlight candidate Allan Beek failed to file his final campaign report (due Jan. 31) until March 6. The fine for this is $10.00 /day (34 days x $10.00 = $340) -- hardly a punitive amount for hiding information from the public. The Council should review the fine for late filing of campaign reports. Upon reviewing the Beek report it is clear why he did not file the report on time. Not only was Beek a prime recipient of the Greenlight "pass through' donations, he apparently parked a large deposit with a printer (Kenney the Printer) for use by the Greenlight slate (Beek report P. 10). Beek subsequently reports receiving the excess funds from Kenney the Printer and allocating the excess funds back to the other 3 Greenlight slate candidates. Arakelian, Tavlor, and Nichols do not report receiving any "deposit refund" from the Beek campaign. David Ellis David Ellis & Associates, LLC 949 -442 -1777 949- 442 -1775 fax dellis cilellis- assoc.cmn 03/11/2003