CAMPAIGN `LOOPHOLE' TARGETED COUNCILMAN SEEKS TO LIMIT ADVANTAGES FOR SLATES.

Byline: Cecilia Chan Staff Writer

THOUSAND OAKS - City Councilman Michael Markey - facing re-election in November - proposed Monday amending local campaign laws that he claims give ``slate'' candidates an unfair financial edge.

Markey said the city code that caps donations at $250 encourages candidates to run as a package so they can share printing and other campaign costs. But critics said Markey just wants to sideline the competition.

``It's a big loophole,'' Markey said. ``Another concern I have is the fact that people can get together and run on a slate and collect all this money, and backroom deals are made. It takes away the selection of the people to have fair representation. It's a strong concern I hear.''

Councilwoman Linda Parks, who is also up for re-election and who ran on a slate in 1996, attacked Markey's proposal.

``He wants to knock out the competition,'' Parks said. ``If you want to talk about cleaning up corruption you need to not take developers' money and vote on developers' projects, and not take trash haulers' money and vote on trash haulers' contracts. That is how you stem corruption.''

Markey's proposal, which is going before the City Council tonight, calls on the city attorney to see whether there is a way to regulate spending by slate candidates to ensure a level playing field with those running on their own.

Mayor Dennis Gillette said he is supportive of the idea.

``Anything that levels the playing field for candidates in a municipal election is a good thing,'' Gillette said.

City Attorney Mark Sellers said Markey's intent is not to prohibit slate candidates, and that it has always been the city's desire to have single, independent candidates.

Markey said a candidate with a large treasury could offer to split the cost of campaign expenses with a running mate in return for future commitments.

He said slate candidates became a norm for the city in 1990, and a perception of corruption is created with candidates working together.

The reason the city put limits on campaign contributions in the first place was to make campaigning more equitable for candidates and to eliminate the perception of candidates being bought off, he said.

``It looks like they are circumventing the ordinance by a slate format and comingling funds,'' he said. ``What I am asking the council to do, and they shouldn't have objections, is to have the city attorney take a look at it: Do we need to stiffen up the ordinance to make an equal playing field for everyone?''

And he questioned why Parks was making a personal attack against him.

``I am not afraid of competition. I ran twice against slates,'' he said. ``My question is, Why is she so against it?''

Councilman Dan Del Campo, who ran twice on slates - unsuccessfully in 1996 with Parks and successfully in 1998 with two other candidates who were not elected - said pooling funds is done at all levels of political campaigning and there is nothing corrupt about it.

``If each person is running their own individual committee and follows the FPPC rules . . . I'm not sure I see a loophole in the sense that candidates share the cost of something,'' he said. ``If two candidates believe in the same message in the city and combine their campaigns, and if they call it a slate, fine, and if they choose to combine resources but do it in a legally binding reporting . . . I'm not sure why it's called a loophole and unfair.''

To call a slate corruptive in nature is an accusation painted with a broad brush, he said.

``Any time any council member puts something on the agenda, certainly there is some personal motive involved, either for themselves or the greater community,'' he said. ``If that is (Markey's) belief, improve the electoral process in the city, he is entitled to that belief.''

Laura Lee Custodio, who joined forces with Del Campo and Wayne Posshel on the ``Clean Sweep Team'' during the 1998 election, doubted Markey's intent.

``He is trying to prohibit an activity that every first-year law student knows to be protected,'' she said. ``This is not about corruption. It's about limiting the competition. He must be very afraid.''