I appreciate the opportunity to talk to you about TIN CUP. How many of you know about this Orange County ordinance (aside from our committee)? I ll do a brief introduction with some personal background Then go over the climate leading up to the TIN CUP Ordinance Cover the key components of the Ordinance Finish with the key issues with TIN CUP Presentation Notes Patty Santry, 9/19/15 1
TERMINOLOGY TIN CUP Narrowly refers to the Orange County Campaign Reform Ordinance. Loosely also includes Gift Ban Ordinance, and Ethics Code (Revolving Door). Board of Supervisors Grindle Team Individuals and groups involved in passage of TIN CUP measures, led by Shirley Grindle Presentation Notes Patty Santry, 9/19/15 2
PERSONAL BACKGROUND Just a bit of background about me: My father is a World War II veteran and was stationed here at El Toro Marine base. He returned to Ohio after the War where he started his family. As a carpenter he suffered during long, cold winters and remembering the mild climate of Orange County and hearing of the housing boom, moved us here in 1959. HOUSING DEVELOPERS RULED ORANGE COUNTY Following WWII many veterans who had been stationed in OC (like my father) decided to locate here. By the mid-50s an increasing number of agricultural fields were being replaced by tract homes. The developers of these tract homes needed the approval of the OC Board of Supervisors == conversely the Supervisors needed money to run their political campaigns: a perfect recipe for corruption. THE DIRTY TRICKS CAPITAL OF CALIFORNIA By 1977, OC was referred to as the Dirty Tricks Capital of California. In referring to that time, SUPERVISOR Harriett WIEDER was quoted in the Los Angeles Times as saying Everybody was being indicted or going to jail. In that year, 43 people (8 elected officials) were indicted for political misdeeds bribery, misreporting of campaign funds or misusing county staffs for political purposes. 3
4
KEY ISSUES OF THE TIME CAMPAIGN FINANCING A pay to play agreement had formed between the developers and the supervisors, a quid pro quo. Developers could not get their projects approved if they did not contribute to Supervisor s political campaigns. Huge amounts of money were being spent by the Supervisors on their election campaigns one source asserts a 20 fold increase since 1960s at that time, often spending over $200,000 for their campaigns WINING AND DINING: In addition to monetary contributions, the Supervisors received wining and dining types of services from the developers, including entertainment through meals as well as tickets to sporting, musical, drama events. REVOLVING DOOR: It was not uncommon for Supervisors to leave office to become lobbyists for various developers. 5
ACTIVISM: The public became increasingly incensed in the early 1970s about these abuses by the Supervisors. Key groups began speaking out including: Grand Jury panels, and yes the League of Women Voters, Common Cause as well as others. SHIRLEY GRINDLE: Aerospace retiree Shirley Grindle stepped forward to organize the grassroots movement to address County corruption and she has remained at the forefront all of these years. (I should have sub-titled this presentation: The Shirley Grindle Show ) This committee came up with the catchy term: TIN CUP Time is Now Clean up Politics for the ordinance which they created. SUPERVISOR ADOPTION: One option would have been to have the Supervisors adopt a Campaign Finance Ordinance a key issue with this would be that they could just as easily weaken or remove it. GRASSROOTS INITIATIVE So instead Shirley & Team began an initiative campaign, collecting signatures to put a Campaign Finance Ordinance in front of the voters. With voter approval, such an ordinance could not be amended or removed without voter input. Needed 52,000 valid signatures collected 100,000 from December to May. At that point, because they had sufficient signatures, the Ordinance could be adopted safely (didn t actually need to be on the ballot) 6
CAMPAIGN REFORM ORDINANCE (TIN CUP I) The key concern at that time was the influence that campaign contributions were having on Supervisor votes on County projects (specifically housing development projects). So this initial ordinance was a Conflict of Interest ordinance: it did not restrict the amount of money that an individual could contribute to a Supervisor s campaign but if it was more than $1,403 over a four year period, that Supervisor had to recuse themselves from voting on that contributor s project. The Ordinance clearly defined a County Influence Broker Only applied to the Board of Supervisors no other County elected officials Monitoring of this ordinance from that time to today was a volunteer role. Was and is performed by Shirley Grindle. 7
EFFECTS OF TIN CUP Initially the results were encouraging: ELIMINATED LARGE CONTRIBUTIONS large contributions were a thing of the past. BROADENED CONTRIBUTION BASE the campaign contribution base greatly expanded small donations from many more people. Up to that time it is estimated that 70-85% of the campaign contributions were from developers; with TIN CUP, this reduced to 40%. DECREASED CAMPAIGN SPENDING BY SUPERVISORS 8
POLITICAL ACTION COMMITTEES LOOPHOLE BUT: a key developer discovered and began exploiting a loophole in TINCUP: the ordinance addressed individual contributions but not contributions from Political Action Committees. There was no limitation on PACS so the pendulum began moving back the other way GRINDLE & TEAM RE-WROTE: TIN CUP II So the Grindle team was resurrected, resulting in TINCUP II This was a Contribution Limit ordinance restricting all contributions greater than $1,000 (with cost of living is now $1900) In addition, the scope was expanded to include all County offices This one was, in fact, on the ballot and won by over 85% of the vote in June of 1992. 9
GIFTS TO PUBLIC OFFICIALS Monetary contributions were now addressed by TINCUP II, but that wasn t the entire problem. Gifts to Orange County public officials continued. This issue culminated when former Anaheim councilman Don Roth was elected to the Board of Supervisors. His flagrant disregard of California s Political Reform Act of 1974 embarrassed the other Supervisors and enraged the public Events caught up with him finally when in March of 1993 he pleaded guilty to seven violations of state campaign laws Seizing the moment, Shirley and Team (along with County Counsel) went to work on a Gift Ban Ordinance something they had been promoting since TINCUP I. In record time, the Ordinance was adopted in May of that year. It is still considered the most restrictive in California during investigation of the December 1994 Orange County bankruptcy scandal, two of the Supervisors were quoted as saying: we can t even take a cup of coffee in Orange County. Public Officials could no longer accept gifts from people doing business in the county. 10
REVOLVING DOOR GRINDLE TEAM WITH COUNTY COUNSEL The third key area of TINCUP was addressed by adoption by the Supervisors of an Orange County Code of Ethics. The one stickler was the revolving door issue. There was a common problem in which County officials left officials, only to show up subsequently as lobbyists for commercial projects. The original proposal was a three year restriction on former officials the Supervisors forced reduction to one year which is how it stands today. 11
GOOD NEWS: GOOD NEWS/BAD NEWS For the most part, TIN CUP achieved its goals Over the years a number of cities (both inside and outside of Orange County) have adopted TIN CUP The vast majority of contribution violations are resolved voluntarily 12
BAD NEWS: The majority of the monitoring of TIN CUP is by the volunteer watchdog Shirley Grindle who will be retiring soon. There is no budget for automating and establishing an electronic solution to replace her. Enforcement of non-complaints is by an elected official (OC District Attorney) Stay tuned for Session II in October when we address options 13