It’s no surprise that city officials want us to vote “yes” in June on the proposed half-percent sales tax increase that is mistakenly being billed as a half-cent sales tax increase.
As such, members of the Davis City Council are free to write op-eds or letters to the editor or one-sided ballot arguments or offer their opinions at forums, coffees and neighborhood gatherings. They can even send out glossy, full-color brochures if they wish.
The only thing they can’t do is spend your dime or my dime on such activities.
Some folks are convinced that is exactly what’s happening. One of them is my friend Bill, who writes: “I am a homeowner and resident in the city, and my wife and I just received our water bill.”
I hope yours was less than mine, Bill.
“What surprised us was that tucked in with our city utility bill was what amounted to a piece of campaign mail in favor of Measure O.”
Same story here, Bill, but I must say, I wasn’t surprised. The city wants desperately for Measure O to pass.
Bill goes so far as to suggest that the city’s mailing may violate Fair Political Practices Commission rules against using public money to advocate for ballot measures.
In other words, while the city is free to use public dollars to send out basic information, it can’t advocate on one side or the other for something that people will be voting on.
One of the measuring sticks the FPPC uses in determining whether a public agency has stepped over the legal line is the use of “argumentative” language.
For my money, given that we’re within two months of an election, any mailing from the city detailing what will or won’t happen if Measure O does or doesn’t pass is highly suspect.
If city officials wish to convince us that Davis will become Woodland if we don’t vote “yes” on Measure O, they should form a campaign committee, solicit donations and send out as many doom-and-gloom scenarios as they wish.
While the city will no doubt claim the mailer deals simply in facts, many of those “facts” scream for a rebuttal from those who oppose this measure.
The mailer is titled “Bringing the City Budget to You” and gives the council a serious pat on the back in the opening sentence that begins, “As stewards of public funds, we are committed to maintaining financial responsibility of public services.”
Notice the positive buzzwords — stewards, committed, responsibility, services — in that one short sentence. The council is clearly made up of outstanding, committed, responsible stewards who are trying to bring wonderful services to us all.
Argumentative? If you’re on the other side of this issue, those are fighting words. But I doubt it will do much more than raise an eyebrow or two at the FPPC.
“Despite spending cuts and reductions over the last few years, projections show a budget shortfall for the general fund.”
Naysayers will ask how spending a million dollars to study taking over PG&E represents a cut in spending.
Noting projections that show a $7 million shortfall by 2018-19, the mailer goes on to claim, “While the city continues to improve efficiencies, the city must secure additional revenue streams to avoid cuts to services like police, fire, parks and recreation and infrastructure maintenance.”
Note the words “the city must secure additional revenue streams.” Concentrate on that word “must.” Straight facts or a one-sided argument? Or something between those two extremes?
Adds my friend Bill, “The timing of this piece less than two months before the election makes this city-paid mailer” a campaign piece.
On that we can agree. But I doubt the FPPC will give it more than a wink and a nod while applying its “See No Evil” stamp of approval.

— Reach Bob Dunning at [email protected]

Comments

comments