Laserfiche WebLink
<br />City Council Regular Meeting - 12/06/04 <br />Minutes - Page 28 <br /> <br />Councilmember Schroeder questioned the first and second <br />reading dates and publication requirements, and when the <br />ordinance could actually be enacted due to the holidays and in an <br />attempt to make it applicable January 1, 2005, rather than after <br />that date. <br /> <br />Discussion ensued regarding publication and holiday schedules; <br />and campaign contribution report filing for those candidates for <br />the Special Election held last fall. <br /> <br />Councilmember Maschka opined that the proposed ordinance <br />seemed to favor incumbent; while at the same time having a <br />chilling effect on contributions due to disclosure of name, <br />address and employer. Councilmember Maschka may have an <br />unintended consequence to non-incumbents. <br /> <br />Mayor Klausing opined that there should be no advantages or <br />disadvantages to incumbents or non-incumbents, but their ability <br />to raise funds should be directly related to their connections and <br />standing in the community. <br /> <br />Further discussion ensued regarding potential policy judgments <br />and influences and/or conflicts of interest necessitating the need <br />for disclosure. <br /> <br />Councilmember Ihlan opined that this proposed ordinance was a <br />first step; further opining her support of the $100 limit as <br />proposed, or her willingness to compromise at a $50 limit. <br /> <br />Councilmember Kough reiterated his support for contribution <br />disclosure requirements. <br /> <br />Councilmember Schroeder reiterated his question as to whether <br />there was an existing problem or not; and in an effort to achieve <br />the end results or identify a problem, suggested a $25 or $1 <br />disclosure limit. <br /> <br />City Attorney Squires addressed the previous comments of Mr. <br />Roe and suggested amended language for the proposed ordinance <br />as follows: <br />