CC MIN 01-07 to 12-15-1980 - Laserfiche WebLink

Browse Search

z g j l AGENDA (continued) ACTION TAKEN (continued) REPORTS OF CITY MANAGER (continued) REPORTS OF CITY MANAGER (continued) 6. (continued) A: All - yes. Q: You are aware that Mr. Spillers has contributed to your campaign? A: All - yes. Q: Have any of you been contacted either by Mr. Spillers or Sacramento Savings Via" & Loan with regard to the proposed action before you? A: All, individually - no. Q: Any attempt been made by either to influence your vote? A: All, individually - no. Q: Any suggestion made that if you voted favorably on the contract, you might receive more campaign contributions? A: All, individually - no +, Q: Are you prepared to base your decision • on the matter solely on the report and recommendation of staff and the ability • of Sacramento Savings & Loan to carry out the requirements of the contract? A: All - individually stated that the con- tribution from Mr. Spillers was a personal check. Councilman Biagi pointed out that Council did not know which proposal staff would recommend nor, indeed, from whom the 14 proposals had been received, until the packets were received by Council members on Friday evening, March 14, or after the contributions were made, in any case. Q: Then are you prepared to make your de- cision freely and without reservation in your own mind that it is made on the merits with no consideration for the `"'" campaign? A: All, individually - yes. Mr. Schricker then described the holdings and the present status of the case known as the Woodlands Hills Residents Association vs. City Council of Los Angeles. The status of the law now is that campaign contributions per se do not negate or disqualify a vote. Discussion followed and it was pointed out that the beneficiaries of the program will be the City employees; that Council members will not even participate in the program; and that em- ployees only participate voluntarily. Reg.Mtg. • 3/17/80 Page 4 P L 1