GILROY – Mayor Al Pinheiro didn’t take kindly to comments made by City Councilman Perry Woodward, who last week suggested Pinheiro and the city’s Open Government Commission have tried to boost the 2012 mayoral campaign of Dion Bracco – Woodward’s opponent, for now – by promoting an elections ordinance that would allow candidates to spend more money.
Woodward said last Thursday he believed the Commission – comprised of Bracco, Pinheiro and Councilman Peter Leroe-Munoz – had worked a proposal to raise the city’s voluntary campaign expenditure ceiling from $25,000 to $30,000 because Bracco “thinks he’s going to have to spend more money than allowed now.”
The Council eventually voted 4-3 Monday night to keep election spending limits as they are, but not before a heated exchange on the dais.
Pinheiro chastised Woodward during Monday night’s Council meeting, saying he should apologize for his claims or offer proof of any such conspiracy. He also spoke sternly against Woodward’s comments that the Commission has no business tackling elections issues, while Woodward claimed Pinheiro is unfairly in support of Bracco’s mayoral bid.
Bracco told the Dispatch Thursday he’s not sure if he’ll actually run for mayor.
“Council member Woodward, I just want to reiterate again that you have all the right in the world to disagree with this Commission’s decision of bringing this up. It’s your right, it’s your prerogative. But I think you don’t have the right to insinuate or to point fingers or to charge us with something that we as a Commission certainly did not bring into light under those circumstances,” Pinherio said. “And unless you have some proof, that you can show that this Commission’s reason to bring that up was because we wanted to help Council member Bracco, then I think you need to apologize to this Commission for what you said.”
Woodward refused to apologize, and instead pressed the mayor as to how tinkering with campaign finances related to the city’s Open Government Ordinance, the foundation of the Commission, which seeks to increase transparency of city matters.
“Tell me: What does raising the spending limit for an election have to do with open government?” Woodward said.
Pinherio reiterated that Woodward “had no right” to make his controversial claims about the Commission. He also said Woodward – a former Commission chair who introduced the Open Government Ordinance – didn’t write the document himself but instead lifted it from cities like San Francisco and Milpitas.
Woodward cut in, raising his voice: “What does it have to do with open government?”
“I just told you,” Pinheiro responded.
“You told me nothing,” Woodward said.
Woodward also later said to Pinheiro, “You want to start a fight, but you don’t want to finish it.”
At one point, Councilman Bob Dillon suggested Pinheiro and Woodward step outside for 10 minutes to finish their argument.
Pinheiro explained the Commission should be allowed to handle elections issues because they concern transparency of city matters.
“That’s all it is – transparency,” he said.
Tensions eventually subsided, and the Council returned to discussing the elements of the proposed elections ordinance, including ending all anonymous donations and enacting a six-month ethics program that features $10,000 in citywide mailers and an Election Day-eve forum.
Earlier in the meeting, former Councilman Paul Kloecker – who is running again in 2012 – said the Council should keep its current donation policy that allows anonymous contributions as long as they’re less than $100 because it was an issue of “personal privacy.”
He said donors who typically offer smaller amounts don’t want their names or addresses tied to candidates. He cited single women, single parents and law enforcement officials as three types of residents who would like to keep their anonymity.
“They do not desire to make it own how they make their donations,” Kloecker said.
Councilman Peter Arellano disagreed. He said if people don’t want their names made public, then they shouldn’t donate to campaigns.
“If you don’t want people to know, don’t support them,” he said. “It’s a simple fact.”
Councilwoman Cat Tucker, however, called disclosing even small donations “over the top,” and said the city should protect residents fearful of disclosing their names for very minor roles in elections.
“There are a lot of people who don’t want that,” she said. “I have an issue with the full disclosure of anything under 100 (dollars).”
She also later said the Council was in danger of “over-regulating for the one bad apple.”
Dillon made a motion to keep anonymous donations, but it failed 4-3 with Pinheiro, Bracco, Leroe-Munoz and Arellano voting no.
Leroe-Munoz then motioned to include the complete disclosure of all donations, and it passed with Council members taking the same sides.
It was a different story when the Council voted whether to approve raising the now-much-discussed expenditure ceiling. With no further discussion on the issue, Bracco motioned to approve raising the ceiling, and was seconded by Leroe-Munoz.
But Arellano proved to be the swing vote, and he sided with Woodward, Tucker and Dillon to officially oppose the increase.
The same four closed out the voting by siding against holding the candidate forum, sending out direct mailings and other elements of the community outreach intended to promote the new program, which would begin next May.
The forum was intended to allow candidates one final chance to clear the air over any last-minute disputes, but Dillon claimed it was unnecessary.
He said one reason he voted against holding the forum was because “about 80 percent” of registered voters in Gilroy vote absentee. By the time that night rolls around, “the election’s already in the bag,” he said.
The Council voted unanimously to delay a discussion on how to legally enforce the proposed ordinance because Council members had difficulty hearing City Attorney Linda Callon, who offered her report via a conference call Monday night.
Â
