10-14-74 Council Meeting Minutes

Home Browse Search

REGULAR MEETING OCTOBER 14, 1974 COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE MEETING (CONTINUED) ORDINANCE AN ORDINANCE ESTABLISHING FAIR CAMPAIGN PRACTICES AND DISCLOSURE WITHIN THE CITY OF SOUTH BEND. This being the time heretofore set for public hearing on the above ordinance, proponents and opponents were given an opportunity to be heard. Mr. James Roemer, City Attorney, made the pre- sentation for the ordinance. He stated that he felt the city was faced with a pre - emption problem under Council President Nemeth's ordinance. He felt that the research he had done showed that the Corrupt Practices Law pre - empts. He also pointed out that the administration felt strongly about a section on personal disclosure and this was not covered in Council President Nemeth's ordinance. He could not see the need for the passage of the ordinance at this time because it was too late_ to affect the current campaign. He felt a January lst date should be strived for. He mentioned the Federal Election Campaign Act which would probably be signed by the President soon. He stated that it was the position of the administration that a fair campaign practices ordinance be passed but not in the present format. He asked that the Council give more time to the ordinances. Councilman Horvath felt the pre - emption objection would be covered in Section X of the ordinance. He also stated that the current election was a county election and that the city election took place next year. Mr. Roemer felt that, to pass an ordinance when one of the paragraphs was in violation, was not proper even if it was covered in Section X. He asked if the Council's attorney had agreed with him on pre - emption. Council President Nemeth stated that the Council's attorney had "left that up in the air ". Councilman Kopczynski stated that state law prohibits policemen and firemen from engaging in political activities. He wondered if this had been enforced in South Bend. Mr. Roemer stated that he did not know of any violations, and Councilman Kopczynski stated that he had witnessed some cases of this. He felt personal financial disclosure might be a hin- drance in getting good candidates into office. Council President Nemeth stated that, in the Attorney General's Opinion No. 21, dated September 13, 1973, it was stated that the dollar amounts do not apply to political committees. He felt that, in effect, there were no limitations, and he could not understand how the Council could be pre - empted. Mr. Roemer maintained that the ordinance would be an illegal ordinance if passed as amended. Council President Nemeth wondered if the administration was pre - empted regarding personal disclosure in its ordinance. Mr. Roemer felt the state laws did not cover this. He did not see a pre - emption problem in that area. Councilman Miller felt the legality of things showed up eventually, and he agreed with Councilman Horvath that the severability clause in Section X would take care of anything illegal in the ordinance. Regarding disclosure of personal finances, he felt this could become a political question rather than a factual one. He talked about the problems encountered in Georgia with its "tough disclosure law ". He did not know where the Mayor stood on the issue, and he stated that the Council was aware that the Mayor would veto the ordinance. Mr. Roemer felt there was no question on where the administration and the Mayor stood regarding the fair campaign practices ordinance. Councilman Kopczynski wondered why the Mayor had not incorporated the ending of the one percent club in his ordinance. Mr. Roemer answered that the Mayor had wanted until January 1st to delay abolishment of the one percent club in order to try and come up with another solution regarding contributions. Councilman Kopczynski felt that the Mayor was using political funds if he was not willing to end tl one percent club now. Mr. Roemer indicated that the Mayor was not using political funds illegally, Councilman Kopczynski wondered if the Mayor had filed a disclosure. Mr. Roemer indicated that he had filed a disclosure personally with the County Clerk. Councilman Kopczynski wondered if the money that went to the political committee was not covered in the Mayor's report. Mr. James Barcome, City Controller, stated that he could not answer for the Central Committee. He stated that the Mayor had filed his own one percent report. Councilman Parent commended the City Attorney's staff for drafting a fine ordinance. He felt that ordinance was the best one. Councilman Parent made a motion that the ordinance be recommended favorably to the Council, seconded by Councilman Serge. Chairman Newburn asked for a roll call vote on the motion. The motion carried by a vote of five ayes (Councilmen Serge, Parent, Taylor, Horvath and Newburn) and four nays (Councilmen Szymkowiak, Miller, Kopczynski and Nemeth). ORDINANCE AN ORDINANCE APPROPRIATING $107,000.00 FROM THE FEDERAL ASSISTANCE GRANT FUND, COMMONLY REFERRED TO AS GENERAL REVENUE SHARING, FOR VARIOUS HUMAN RESOURCES PROGRAMS, TO BE ADMINISTERED BY THE CITY OF SOUTH BEND THROUGH ITS DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN RESOURCES. This being the time heretofore set for public hearing on the above ordinance, proponents and opponents were given an opportunity to be heard. Mr. William Hojnacki, Director of the Department of Human Resources and Economic Development, made the presentation for the ordinance. He indicate( that the ordinance had been discussed many times in the past. He stated that there has been a great deal of controversy; however, the controversy did not deal with the issue at hand - -that bein the funding of a worthwhile program in the community. He stated that the location of the treatmen center was very controversial. He stated that the administration would actively seek to find another suitable location. When this was done, relocation would take place. He stated, however, that this was not a guarantee the program would be relocated. Chairman Newburn cautioned the audience on the use of personalities in the presentations. He indicated that he would try to allow one speaker in favor of the ordinance and then give equal tim4 to one speaker against the ordinance, and so forth. Mr. Hojnacki indicated that he desired to have Mr. Geoffrey Newman make a presentation on the budget concerning the appropriation. Mr. Geoffrey Newman, 1955 Brookmede Drive, Chairman of the Metropolitan Drug Abuse Council, indicated that the appropriation ordinance would provide for the continued operation of Delos House. He stated that he could not emphasize the importance of the Delos House because of its comprehensiveness. He asked the support of the Council regarding the appropriation. He talked about the location of Delos House and the controversy it has caused. He felt the issue was having detrimental affects on the program. He stated that the Council must respond to the citizens' wishes and that there were voices to be heard on each side of the issue. He indicated that the petitions submitted (one containing approximately 600 signatures against Delos House and one containing approximately 250 signatures for the program) should be considered seriously. He stated that the petition con- taining signatures against the program contained signatures from a much larger area, and even area; not anywhere near Delos House. He proposed that a Site Location Committee be established after the passage of the ordinance consisting of two members of the Human Resources Committee, two membe: