By Joseph A. Curtatone

(The opinions and views expressed in the commentaries of The Somerville Times belong solely to the authors of those commentaries and do not reflect the views or opinions of The Somerville Times, its staff or publishers)

In September, I vetoed an ordinance that sought to set tough restrictions on campaign contributions from developers and others not because I disagreed with the intentions, but because I believed that as written the ordinance would be unenforceable. We should be grateful that Somerville has such a progressive Board of Aldermen that won’t wait for others to undertake the reforms that our state and nation so badly need. We share the same values: That elected officials should represent everyone, not only the biggest campaign contributors, and that even the appearance of influence can negatively impact our community.

In the case of this particular ordinance, I did not seek to put an end to Somerville’s efforts around campaign finance reform, but only to give us time to work with the Board and put forward a law that is enforceable, effective, and comprehensive. Last week, I submitted a revised ordinance built upon the laudable work already undertaken by the aldermen that aims to achieve our shared goals and reflect our shared values.

The revised ordinance puts in place an enforcement mechanism in the form of a contracted, independent auditor who would collect contribution disclosure forms from all candidates for public office, current elected officials, and anyone defined as an “applicant.” That includes developers seeking approval for projects of 10,000 square feet or more, keeping in place the restrictions put forward in the first draft of this reform. It also includes anyone seeking to enter a contract with the City that isn’t required by law to go to the lowest qualified bidder, anyone looking to buy or sell real state from or to the City, and anyone seeking financial assistance from the City.

Anytime someone puts in an application for a special permit for a large enough project, or seeks a contract with the City, or anything else covered under the ordinance, the auditor would review disclosure forms and campaign finance reports. Anyone who has made a contribution of more than $250 to a sitting elected official in either the current or preceding year will be ineligible to receive the permit, contract or other award or approval from the City.

This keeps in place the intention of the original legislation, while putting the responsibility of enforcing it on appropriate officials—the independent auditor and the City Ethics Commission. Now instead of City staff in our Planning and Zoning Division putting campaign donation information in front of the Planning Board and Zoning Board of Appeals—which under state and case law are required to review specific projects and not applicants themselves—we will have an independent auditor working under the purview of a City commission that already exists to review any potential conflicts of interest in City government. It keeps the Planning Board and ZBA separate from any politics, perceived or otherwise, while creating a way to make sure that applicants are properly reviewed to avoid even the appearance of undue influence.

This legislation is enforceable, and it is comprehensive. It expands the disclosures required of those seeking approval from the City to make sure that others—whether family members or others working for the same company—are not making contributions on their behalf, and doing an end-run around the restrictions we’re putting in place. It requires that neither the applicant nor anyone disclosed in connection with the applicant who is awarded a contract or receives approval for a special permit makes a contribution of more than $250 to any elected official for the next two years.

It puts shared responsibility on elected officials, too, by requiring myself and my fellow incumbents to return donations that exceed what’s allowed under the ordinance, if requested by an applicant who wants to go forward with seeking approval of a permit or awarding of a contract with the City. That way, the people who make political contributions are held responsible—and the people who received political contributions are held responsible.

This revised ordinance is enforceable, comprehensive, and I believe it will be effective. It accomplishes the original goals of the proposed ordinances submitted last year by myself and members of the Board of Aldermen, while adding additional requirements that will allow us to effectively enforce and implement what will be the first campaign finance reform legislation of its kind in Massachusetts. I want to thank the Board of Aldermen for pushing for this kind of reform, and I hope that we can pass an ordinance that reassures the community that our government is accountable to one value, and one value only: What is best for the people of Somerville.