SAN MARCOS — City Council worked well into the night April 8 revising a battered campaign finance reform ordinance into acceptable condition for adoption.

The ordinance, carried over from the March 11 meeting, was drafted to address a number of perceived deficiencies in the existing code.

Under the new measure, fines collected from candidates who violate the ordinance’s funding rules would go into the General Fund and be administered by the city manager. This would prevent elected officials from allocating their own fine money, which was possible under the old rules.

One big loophole closed by the ordinance involves the extension of credit. Previously, candidates could accept sizable loans, which they could then pay back whenever they wanted. The new rules impose stiff fines if candidates don’t pay the lenders back within 60 days. Exceptions are only made if both parties can show documentation of a longer-term agreement and that the candidate isn’t getting special treatment.

The ordinance also requires candidates to submit a report one week before an election so the public can view their expenditures during the critical last days of a campaign.

Under the old ordinance, any candidate convicted of a violation of the finance law would have their election voided. No one was particularly happy with the possibility of an elected official losing their position over a trivial offense.

“’Jane Brown’ ... gave you $250 dollars ... and then you find out that Jane Brown made a cake for your cake sale that cost $6.11, and you forgot to write that down,” Vice Mayor Hal Martin said in illustration. “Someone (calls you on it), you’re now in violation, and you’re kicked out of office.”

The council addressed this by changing the wording of the clause from “convicted” to “criminally convicted.” In addition, the council added language to the ordinance that states that no candidate would be prevented from remedying an inappropriate campaign contribution pursuant to current state law, which gives candidates the ability to right an oversight before being formally prosecuted.

However, the way the ordinance provided for candidates to be prosecuted was the subject of the hottest debate of the evening.

As presented, the ordinance called for an “Elections Counsel” to be appointed by the City Council at least 90 days prior to an election to review any complaints and prosecute campaign finance law violations.

This provision was strongly defended by Councilman Mike Preston, who said he believed the process encouraged transparency and honesty. Councilman Chris Orlando saw it as a loophole for abuse.

“I still think there is an inherent conflict in the sitting council, who is potentially up for election, to appoint this election’s council,” Orlando said.

Mayor Jim Desmond was also opposed to the idea.

“(This is) $40,000 that we’d have to set aside … we’re not going to be able to spend on parks, roads or anything else,” Desmond said. “To me, we’re trying to fix something that isn’t broke(n).”

The council instead elected to codify the existing informal practice whereby campaign law violations are assessed by the city manager and city attorney and then passed on to a special counsel who handles the matter.

Councilman Mike Preston continued to express his displeasure as his fellow councilmen rebuilt the proposed ordinance from the ground up, section by section, often counter to his suggestions.

“This is bad lawmaking when you wait until 10:30 at night, and you’re making up this stuff as you go along. That’s just not how good laws are made,” Preston said.

In the end, council managed to pass the much-modified ordinance 4-1, with Preston filing the sole “no” vote.