|
The questions were prepared by the League of Women Voters of Butte County and asked of all candidates for this office.
See below for questions on
Open Meeting Law,
Future Development,
Campaign Finance Disclosure
Click on a name for candidate information. See also more information about this contest.
 |
1. In July 2012 the State Budget Act (SA 1464) suspended some sections of the 1953 Brown Act. To assure transparency in local city government, do you support a resolution reaffirming adherence to the "Brown Act" as it was prior to these suspensions?
|
Answer from Richard Flint:
The Brown Act was enacted in 1953; and has been revised many times since by both judicial decisions, and legislative action. This latter change is budgetary, and pertains to State reimbursement to Cities for publication costs, but it does not materially affect previously settled provisions. The City of Oroville publishes the Agenda and Background material on its website, and posts a paper copy of the agenda at City Hall on the Friday preceding the Council meeting; and this is usually well reported by the local media. Since our publication costs are minimal, this legislation is unlikely to have any significant impact.
Answer from David W. Pittman:
The current majority in the legislature in Sacramento is in a desperate mode of conducting the business of the people. This action to suspend was another consequence of such desperate thinking.
I have supported Open Discussion and Public participation which the Brown Act details by law and to suspend that law is a breach of the Public Participation and Trust.
Yes I would support reaffirming adherence to the "Brown Act".
Answer from Alfreda Ann "Freda" Flint:
Yes. The Brown Act was developed to keep local government action public rather than "back room deals" and I do support transparency. The changes were to save the State money on reimbursements to local governments for agendas and publication of same. The whole point of the Brown Act is transparency and should be adhered to.
|
2. With the demise of redevelopment funding, how can the City address future development needs, especially in blighted areas of the community?
|
Answer from David W. Pittman:
Another desperate action by legislators with little knowledge or complete review of the consequence of their actions. The toolbox for local government to remove blighted areas and new development is almost empty by the State's actions. Consequently we are loosing business to other State's that have these tools. Future Development work by City's will be limited in scope and lacking the tools to recruit for success.
Answer from Alfreda Ann "Freda" Flint:
The City Council must be very cautious in spending. Grants are available and are being applied for currently and that should continue when appropriate. Bringing new development, businesses and jobs would be very helpful. Tourism is a market that has not been addressed as fully as it should be. Oroville also has specific areas that can be addressed with Supplemental Benefits Funds.
Answer from Richard Flint:
We have to accept what is, in this moment, and get over it and move on. This will clear our minds to be open to other opportunities or to expanding other revenue. In the meantime, we must protect our existing resources, and be very wary of new budget commitments.
|
3. Should a voter be able to “follow the money” in political campaigns? Do you believe voters have the right to know which large donors are funding which candidates, campaigns and issue advocacy ads? What recommendations would you make to improve disclosure?
|
Answer from Alfreda Ann "Freda" Flint:
I absolutely believe that voters have the right to know where a candidate gets funds. I would like to see that donations of over $50.00 information released to the public. Disclosure forms should be easy to fill out and be readily available at appropriate locations, submitted quickly and with a time limit on the release of information.
Answer from David W. Pittman:
Yes voters should have the knowledge of who is supporting political campaigns.
Answer from Richard Flint:
This is three questions. The answers are (a) Yes; (b)what I believe is immaterial, because the Citizens United decision by the Supremes says we don't have a right to know; and (c) vote for an amendment to reassert the separation of Big Business from Government.
Responses to questions asked of each candidate
are reproduced as submitted to the League.
Candidates' statements are presented as
submitted. References to opponents are not permitted.
The order of the candidates is random and changes daily. Candidates who did not respond are not listed on this page.
| 
League of Women Voters of California Education Fund
