MEETING SUMMARY
of the
Campaign Finance & Elections Working Group (CFEWG)
Date: March 14, 2018
Location: West Senior Center, 909 Arapahoe, Boulder, Co
The attendees are as follows:
Appointed members: Matt Benjamin, Ed Byrne, Allyn Feinberg, Mark McIntyre, Rionda Osman-Jouchoux, Steve Pomerance, Evan Ravitz, Tyler Romero, Michael Schreiner, John Spitzer and Valerie Yates
City Staff: Lynnette Beck, Tammye Burnette, David Gehr, Kathy Haddock, Joe Rigney and Rewa Ward
Election/Campaign Finance Attorney Advisor: Geoff Wilson Number of citizen attendees: 0
1.Welcome and AgendaReview
The meeting commenced at 5:34 p.m.
Meeting facilitator, David Gehr, welcomed everyone and started the meeting by reminding the attendees of the meeting rules.
Mr. Gehr briefly explained a bit about what the members may be presented with at the meeting. They wouldhear from Geoff Wilson on what he learned from the SOS re access to its signature database, Kathy Haddock would present the draft report to council, look at changes made to Steve’s timeline for municipal initiatives,Allyn would present her explanation of the 1999 Campaign Finance Reform, Lynnette Beck would present on Committee Reporting Requirements and finish with Geoff Wilson’s onCampaign Finance.
2.Review of Meeting Summary and Action Items
All action items from the March 1meeting were included in the March 14meeting packet. No discussion was had at this point regarding these items.
3.Meeting Discussion
Mr. Gehr turned the floor over to Mr. Wilson who spoke a bit about his conversation with the Deputy SOS. The Deputy SOS didn’t think it would be a problem for Boulder to obtain “read only” access to its signature database. Ms. Beck filled everyone in on what she learned regarding signature verification from Boulder County and the City of Denver. A brief discussion followed.
Kathy Haddock was then given the floor to present the Draft Report to Council.
Steve stated the list at the beginning was not accurate as to what didn’t need to be changed. Ms. Haddock explained that the things supplementing 2Q is what she would be starting with. She agreed that a change to the language on verification of signature is needed because what was talked about was literally signatures and what Section 39 is referring to is the signature line which includes everything but the signatures.
Ms. Haddock presented the following:
Designation of Title
Discussion –
Change - Referenda to be part of this.
Change – First or last sentence of Section 48. Submit language “if proposed measure submitted by petitioner and not coming from city council” – language to broaden it so it doesn’t need to be in two sections.
Timelines for review of initiative form and signature verification for city initiatives and city charter amendments
Rule Establishing Timelines comes into play here.
Discussion –
Language change from “Members believe that there is not a problem…” to “members are comfortable to having a specific process” for each or those that we have control over or “members support having two different processes.” Also take out the sentence that states “the idea was to enable the city manager…” (2nd sentence – past history). Take out “conflicting” in the middle of the first sentence and use “different timelines” and take out “conflict” at end of first sentence and add “timeline.”
The sentence (first redlined sentence) “The members further…” not understandable. Take out and use “for non-charter initiatives (correct term municipal when speaking about non-charter) the committee recommends using the attached Rule for dates.
The group discussed the use of non-charter versus municipal. The group feels that municipal is easier to understand. A motion was put forth to use (for discussion purposes) the word municipal instead of non-charter. Vote was 9 for to 2 against.
Reduce the Number of Signatures Required for Initiative [and Referendum?] Petitions
Discussion –
Don’t use registered – use those who voted.
The group wants to usewhat is underOR.
Use language – “the registered electors who voted” or “the average of the number of registered electors that voted in the previous two elections.”
Clarification of Non-Repeal
No discussion was had; this language was agreed upon.
Allow signing of initiative petitions electronically
Discussion –
No drafted Charter language.
Change language to reflect the information received regarding the ability to obtain SOS database.
Take out Options 1 and 3.
Change first sentence under Recommendation: “The working group supports allowing electronic signatures on initiative petitions.” Take out all the other extra stuff. Also add “encourage city council to work with this…to get access to the data base.” Add referendum and recalls – municipal issues.
Draft language that would authorize/transform language in charter – to allow use by human, computer and software. Three Methods - a. Paper and pen and human; b. Process Denver has human circulator and IPad; and c. Totally electronic.
Use Electronic Identity Verification. Convey this to council – alternative use but not limiting ideas of use.
Recommendations (state positively with examples (Denver, SOS registration database):
- Charter Amendment to use Electronic Identity Verification with supporting language in the positive.
- Have council form a working group now to explore this idea (not wait for a vote on it).
A motion to move forward with two recommendations (as listed above) was put forth. Vote was unanimous.
The group wanted to add a description as to how this can be done(for council)andthen principles can be discovered by another working group. It was also added that the next working group would put value on the percentage of use by electronic identity verification and written signature.
Charter Initiative Provisions Application to Charter InitiativesSignature Verification on Petitions
Discussion –
Charter change.
Use percentage of who voted in last two local elections.
Motion put forth - 100% signature verification on all petitions unless prohibited by cost as investigated by city clerk or prohibited by state law.
Vote was unanimous – John was out of the room.
Action Item–Ms. Beck to look into cost of doing this.
Mr. Gehr stated that staff would work on the changes discussed and send a revised draft of the Report to Council to the group via email for comment prior to submittal to council.
The rule establishing timelines was then discussed. The background Steve wrote should be included with the rule when presented to council. The cure period should be defined. The group wants a right to challenge title. A Charter change is needed to be consistent with rule.
Action Item – Ms. Beck to revise and send out to group for final review.
A motion to accept therule establishing timelines as discussed was put forth. Vote was unanimous.
Mr. Gehr turned the floor over to Allyn to provide the group with a foundation to the night’s educational portion on Campaign Finance. Allyn referenced her handout and provided the background for the 1999 Campaign Finance Reform. A brief discussion followed.
The floor was then turned over to Ms. Beck who went through her Committee Reporting Requirements presentation. Discussion followed.
The group would like to see a fix for 2016 amendments: whether candidate and issue committees could be combined; prevents city clerk from revealing findings when a compliant is dismissed when a hearing was not held.
Action Item – Lynnette to talk to Dianne re individuals reporting (webpage).
Mr. Gehr turned the floor over to Geoff Wilson for the educational portion of the meeting.
Mr. Wilson asked the group to reference his memo: Boulder Caselaw Schematic. Mr. Wilson discussed several areas including: disclosure requirements, express advocacy (magic words), limiting contributions, limiting expenditures, regulations and issue committees. Discussion followed.
Mr. Gehr had to end the meeting prior to Mr. Wilson finishing his presentation due to timing. The group will pick up where they left off at the next scheduled meeting.
4.NextSteps
The next meeting will be held on Wednesday, April 11, 2018, from 5:30 p.m. to 8:00p.m. at the West Senior Center, 909 Arapahoe, Boulder, Co.
5.PublicComment
There was no public comment.