ITEM:		ACTION ITEMS
18.	CONSIDER REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION FROM ADMINISTRATIVE COMMITTEE ON CAMPAIGN FINANCE REPORTING REGULATIONS
Meeting Date:			August 20, 2007	Budgeted:	N/A
From:			David A. Berger,	Program/	N/A
			General Manager	Line Item No.:
Prepared By:			Rick Dickhaut	Cost Estimate:	N/A
General Counsel Reviewed: N/A
Committee Recommendation: On May 14, 2007, the Administrative Committee (with Director Lehman absent) reviewed this item and recommended that no campaign finance ordinance be considered at this time.
CEQA Compliance: N/A

SUMMARY: At the April 19, 2007 Strategic Planning Retreat, the Board identified, but did not discuss, the pros and cons of establishing a campaign finance reporting policy. A summary of the discussion is provided as Exhibit 18-A. At that meeting, the Board reviewed a memo from District Counsel David Laredo (Exhibit 18-B) which describes the campaign reporting ordinance adopted by the City of Pacific Grove in September 2006. That ordinance (Exhibit 18-C) established more stringent contribution limits, recusal reporting and disclosure requirements than are required under state law. The Board referred the issue to the Administrative Committee with a request that the committee make a recommendation to the Board on whether or not to pursue development of a campaign finance ordinance. The Administrative Committee’s recommendation was included on the May 21, 2007 Board agenda, however, the matter was referred to a future Board Meeting when all Board members could be present to consider the item.

RECOMMENDATION: On May 14, 2007, the Administrative Committee (Directors Edwards and Knight; Director Lehman absent) reviewed this item and recommended that no campaign finance ordinance be considered at this time.

BACKGROUND: During discussion of Consent Calendar Item No. 3, Approve Amendments to Conflict of Interest Code for Monterey Peninsula Water Management District, on the December 11, 2006 Board Agenda, several Board Members requested that the District consider adoption of a campaign finance reporting policy. It was also suggested that the District policy could be developed using the campaign finance regulations adopted by the City of Pacific Grove as a model. The matter was referred to the Administrative Committee for further review. The Committee discussed the item on January 18, 2007, and deferred further consideration to its February 12, 2007 meeting so all Committee members and the District’s General Counsel could be present. On February 12, the Committee referred the issue back to the Chair and Vice Chair with the recommendation that it be discussed at the April 19, 2007 Strategic Planning Retreat or at a separate Board workshop with the goal of completion by May 2007. At the Strategic Planning Retreat, the Board discussed the issue and again referred it back to the Administrative Committee. On May 14, 2007, the Administrative Committee (Directors Edwards and Knight; Director Lehman absent) reviewed this item and recommended that no campaign finance ordinance be considered by the Board at this time. At the May 21, 2007 meeting, the matter was deferred to a future Board Meeting when all Board members will be present to consider the item.

EXHIBITS

18-A List of Pros and Cons of Establishing a Campaign Financing Ordinance Developed at the April 19, 2007 Strategic Planning Retreat

18-B March 16, 2007 Memorandum from District Counsel, David C. Laredo, Regarding Campaign Finance Reporting and Recusal Rules

18-C Ordinance No. 06-016 – An Ordinance of the City of Pacific Grove Governing Campaign Finance Reform and Conflict of Interest by Adding Chapter 2.30, Entitled “Campaign Finance Regulations,” to the Pacific Grove Municipal Code

U:\staff\word\boardpacket\2007\2007boardpackets\20070820\ActionItems\18\item18.doc