« Celebration Ale | Main | Movie Maybe Not So Good After All »
December 18, 2006
Is Chamber Unique In Running a PAC?
 |
| I've heard
complaints about the Chamber of Commerce receiving City funds while also
operating a PAC and endorsing candidates. Jim Goodwin at the Chamber has
stated that
the City money goes to man
a tourism office, and other money that's raised
from independent member donations
goes
to fund the political activities. There are more than a dozen organizations that receive money from the same pool as the Chico Chamber of Commerce (TOT funds, a tax on hotel stays: public art organizations are also funded from this pool). The leaders of many of these organizations contribute money to various PACs or candidates directly. They can also be found on candidate endorsement lists. It is ridiculous to think that in a town as small as Chico groups feeding at the government trough wouldn't also spend money to take part in political "free speech". But is the Chico Chamber a unique or extreme example of this? |
| I think those pointing a finger at the Chamber are being
specious and political in their criticisms. It took very little research
on the matter to come to this conclusion. Here are a couple of criticisms
as I understand them, and why I don't think they have any merit. 1. No other community organization takes city money and then endorses candidates in local elections: This is simply not true. Chico spends roughly $11million annually to pay local firefighters out of its General Fund. That's 90% of the Fire Department budget. City of Chico employees deduct monthly payments from firefighter paychecks and pay them directly to firefighters local 2734 as specified in the Memorandum of Understanding (section 1 subsection 3.2 DUES DEDUCTION). The union also operates a "time bank" where firefighters can spend up to 56 hours per year on union business while the City pays for the activity (section 5 subsection 7 UNION TIME BANK). So it's clear to me that union local 2734 receives General Funds directly from the City to operate. The firefighters union endorses local candidates and operates the Chico Firefighter Legislative Action Group PAC. And although they seem to fit the same mold as the Chamber, they seem to be immune from the same criticisms. While I didn't look into it I assume the same could be said for the police union. 2. The Chamber of Commerce related CHICOPAC is overtly conservative and not representative of all of its members: The conservative part is probably true today. But lets not forget that this PAC has previously endorsed both Maureen Kirk and Dan Nguyen-Tan for Chico City Council. Not pinnacles of conservatism. They could endorse moderate left-leaning politicos in the future. On whether or not the PAC's politics are representative of all Chamber membership, that's really beside the point. I doubt that all of Chico's firefighters supported candidates endorsed by firefighters local 2734 either. In the last election it would have been highly unusual for a business PAC to endorse three candidates who work for public agencies (two outside of Chico), versus three candidates employed locally in the private sector. I guess statement #2 is true. But as a criticism it ignores the history of the PAC. And nobody levels this criticism at the other organization that is similar but was ideologically opposite in the last election. |
| Conclusion: I'm not
a member of the Chamber of Commerce. And I don't have anything at stake
whether they continue to operate a PAC or continue to receive City TOT
funds. I do think people should use intellectually honest arguments. The Chamber is not alone in receiving public funds, running a PAC, and endorsing candidates. There is at least one other organization with much larger financial connections to the City purse that does the same. If the Chamber should forgo public funds on an ethical basis where does that leave firefighters union 2734? |
Posted by Lon at December 18, 2006 08:44 PM
Comments
Yo Lon,
I think you meant to say Community Arts Organizations are funded in part by Transient Occupancy Tax. There are no Public Arts Organizations.
The TOT Funds come from a small extra tax on visitors. The idea is that this dough will be used to increase the desirability of Chico and attract more tourism which then builds even more TOT Funds. This includes performance groups, theater, choirs, etc. as well as a few visual arts like Crux, Chico Art Center and 1078. These Arts groups get 9% of the TOT funds. The Economic Development folks, like the Chamber, CEPCO, and DCBA, get 31%. The other 60%, about a million dollars this year, goes into our General Funds. I'm sure it's a matter of opinion about who gives us the most bang for the buck to increase Chico's attractiveness to visitors. It would be good to discuss it, though.
Public Art is funded with RDA Funds. It sounds kind of similar but there really is a huge difference. Public Art is our permanent projects. The Hands, the Plow, Chess Playing Area, Fish Fountain, etc.
The City's process for selecting these projects is now being reviewed and revised by an ad hoc committee of a few citizens and arts commissioners. Our existing Policies and Procedures have become a confusing accumulation of different programs that have been borrowed from other cities over the years and tried out here in Chico with varied degrees of success. People are very welcome to post their ideas, or e-mail me, and voice their thoughts about projects they like and don't like.
New Art Commissioners will soon be appointed by the City Council. It would be very helpful for our Public Art Program if the commission could get more experienced participation with more visual artists. Especially those qualified in fabrication with permanent outdoor art media, collaborating on projects with groups of other artists, and those who have been involved with selection processes as public artists or selection committee members.
Of course, it would be even better to require similar experience and qualifications from a City Staff person that could help out with all this.
Come on Santa, I've tried to be nice!
Posted by: Gregg Payne at December 19, 2006 10:58 AM
Gregg,
Thanks for the correction. I didn't go into whether the money is well spent (or fairly divided) by the City on any of the community organizations (art or economic). I suspect that there is a wide array of opinion on that. And you're right, that would be a valuable topic of discussion.
It is interesting to note that at least one community organization shifted its focus from "arts" to "economic" development in order to have a shot at the bigger pie. I think that also gets them out from under the funding ceiling the Art Commission has on funding organizations.
Lon
Posted by: Lon at December 19, 2006 12:06 PM