Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Public Financing topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Committee advances $1.3M supplemental to Ethics Commission—s public financing fund after debate
Summary
After debate about timing and fund sufficiency, the Budget & Finance Committee voted to advance an ordinance appropriating $1.3 million from the general fund reserve to the Ethics Commission—s public election campaign finance fund; members split over whether the supplement was prudent now or should wait until budget hearings.
The Budget & Finance Committee advanced an ordinance to appropriate $1,300,000 from the general fund reserve to the Ethics Commission—s Public Election Campaign Finance Fund for FY2010-11 after a divided debate and roll-call vote.
Severn Campbell of the Budget Legislative Analyst Office summarized the LAO report: the public financing fund had a balance of about $5.0 million and a $1.3 million supplemental would increase it to approximately $6.3 million. Campbell said prior years included withdrawals and that supplemental appropriations and restorations have been used to restore the fund in recent cycles; without further appropriations and with projected withdrawals for a mayoral race, the fund balance could fall to a few hundred thousand dollars depending on candidate draw.
John St. Croix of the Ethics Commission told the committee the commission—s estimates are uncertain because mayoral public financing had not been used in the last mayoral race; the commission—s working scenarios assumed between six and eight candidates could qualify and drew a conservative estimate of $4.7 million in current-year demands and an upper scenario of roughly $7.2 million if eight candidates fully drew the match limits.
Sponsor Supervisor John Avalos argued for making the appropriation now to sustain the program—s intent to level the playing field and to avoid discouraging candidates from running. Several supervisors, including Chair Carmen Choo and Supervisor Wiener, said the committee already had $5.0 million in the fund and expected another statutory deposit of about $2.0 million, so they preferred to wait for budget hearings and the joint revenue report before using scarce general fund reserve dollars.
Public comment included Thomas Picarello (Tenderloin resident), who urged the committee not to appropriate an additional $1.3 million because the fund—s current balance was adequate and any adjustments could be made at the start of the next fiscal year.
After debate, Supervisor Wiener moved to continue the item to the call of the chair; that motion failed on a roll-call. An alternative motion to advance the ordinance with recommendation was adopted by roll-call and the ordinance was advanced (motion passed at SEG 1578). The committee record shows the motion passed but the roll-call transcript contains transcribing irregularities in some member names; the recorded outcome is that the committee recommended advancing the ordinance to the full Board.
Why it matters: the supplemental restores public financing capacity ahead of an open-seat mayoral election and supervisorial contests, affects the general fund reserve available for other priorities during a major budget shortfall, and illustrates the trade-offs supervisors weigh between policy priorities and near-term fiscal constraints.
Sources: Severn Campbell (Budget Legislative Analyst Office); John St. Croix (Ethics Commission); Supervisor John Avalos (sponsor); public comments.
