HomeMy WebLinkAbout20161228_Settlement_MarxAGREEMENT IN LIEU OF CIVIL ACTION
T
This Agreement is entered into this day of , k 20'by and between the
City Attorney of San Luis Obispo on behalf of the People ("City Attorney") and Jan Marx ("Marx"),
collectively referred herein as "Parties" in full and final resolution of allegations raised in the Complaint
as defined below.
RECITALS
A. Marx was elected to serve as Mayor on the City Council of the City of San Luis Obispo
("Council") in 2014 for a two- year term.
B. Marx campaigned to be re-elected to serve as Mayor for another two- year term to begin on
December 1, 2016.
C. The City of San Luis Obispo ("City") adopted Chapter 2.40 of the San Luis Obispo Municipal
Code ("SLOMC"), which sets forth local campaign regulations governing the campaigns of candidates
for Council.
D. The City Attorney, as City Prosecutor, is authorized to enforce Chapter 2.40 of the SLOMC in the
name of the People.
E. On December 21, 2016, the City Attorney received a complaint against Marx alleging that she
violated SLOMC section 2.040.040(B), which prohibits candidates for elective City office from accepting
contributions from any person that would cause the total contributions from that person to exceed $3 00
for that election. The complaint alleged that because Marx accepted a $3 00 personal monetary
contribution from Cory Black ("Black"); as well as a second $300 contribution from a corporation in
which Black did not have a majority interest, but was the Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial
Officer, and he and his wife were sole directors; and also a third $3 00 contribution from a general
purpose political action committee for which Black served as assistant treasurer; the contributions
exceeded the $3 00 campaign contribution limit ("Complaint").
F. Marx admitted that she accepted all three contributions, but disputes that she intentionally
violated local campaign contribution limits. She and her campaign manager both requested information
from Black as to his relationship with the corporation and political action committee, and, based on
information from Black, believed that the contributions were legal. Black stated he did not have a
majority interest in the corporation, and that the treasurer of the political action committee, not Black, was
authorized to make contributions from the political action committee. Marx also sought advice from the
City Clerk.
G. Based on evidence obtained by the City Attorney from Marx, Marx's campaign manager, Black
and the treasurer of the political action committee, it appears that there was a technical violation of the
City's election campaign contribution limit.
H. The City Attorney finds that Chapter 2.40 of the SLOMC is silent on how to determine when
contributions should be aggregated, and therefore, the Fair Political Practices Commission
Regulation 18215.1 ("Regulation 18215.1"), which governs aggregations of contributions, is
applicable in the absence of local regulation.
I. Neither Marx nor Black believe that the contribution from the corporation must be aggregated
with Black's personal contribution if Black does not have a majority interest in the corporation.
J. City Attorney finds that as Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer, Black directed
and controlled the contribution, requiring aggregation of the personal and corporate contributions
under Regulation 18215.1 (b), which provides: "The contributions of an entity whose
contributions are directed and controlled by any individual shall be aggregated with contributions
made by that individual and any other entity whose contributions are directed and controlled by
the same individual".
K. The City Attorney also finds that neither Marx nor Black intended to violate the City's election
campaign contribution limit. Given the intent of Marx and Black, the City Attorney finds that if a civil
action were pursued, under the standard set forth under section 2.40.100(E), it is unlikely that the City
would recover the maximum penalty permitted.
L. The Parties desire to avoid costly litigation and to seek an expeditious resolution of the
allegations set forth in the Complaint consistent with the remedies allowed under the Municipal Code.
Therefore, in consideration of the mutual benefits, promises and agreements set out herein, the parties
agree as follows:
AGREEMENT
1. Recitals. The Recitals are incorporated herein as if fully set forth in the Agreement.
2. Payment of Penalty. Pursuant to SLOMC section 2.40.100(A), Marx agrees to pay the amount of
$3 00 to the City treasury within 10 calendar days of the date of execution of this Agreement.
3. No Further Action. The City Attorney, in her capacity as City Prosecutor, agrees to take no
further action pursuant to Chapter 2.40 arising from the allegations raised in the Complaint; provided,
however, that Marx has satisfied the obligation set forth in paragraph 2.
4. Costs and Attorneys Fees. Each party shall bear his or her own attorney's fees and costs.
5. Successors in Interest. This agreement shall be binding upon and shall inure to the benefit of, the
heirs, assigns and all other successors in interest of the Parties hereto.
IN WITNESS WHE F, the parties hereto have executed this agreement on the day and year first
write&nAabove.
f� r
1
By:
f H
J. C `' tine Dietrick
Qity Attorney for City of San Luis Obispo
As City Prosecutor for the People
i
By:p'J
Jan Marx a 7,