H and I Financings

The arrival of a Measure I postcard that is missing key information about who paid for the mailing is stirring up some questions.  Long time political watcher Bruce Balshone first broached the topic at his blog here.  And today the San Mateo Daily Journal covers the story starting with:

Excess donations to support Burlingame’s successful storm drain fee earlier this year is now funding an effort to change the city clerk to an appointed position, raising concerns for some donors — including former mayor Joe Galligan — who argue their money is supporting a measure they don’t.

Questions around the use of funds donated to Protect Burlingame, which was originally established earlier this year in support of Burlingame’s storm drain measure, resulted in the realization that volunteers had not correctly filed financial paperwork for the group. With papers filed last week, the group is now establishing itself with the state’s Fair Political Practices Commission for general purpose, meaning it can support or oppose multiple measures allowing the money to be used for more than one election.

The City Council put the storm drain measure on the ballot then handed over the campaign to volunteer Kevin Osbourne. Councilmembers supported the cause, some even gave to it.

Osbourne, co-chair of Protect Burlingame, explained the decision to use excess funds from the storm drain measure for the city clerk measure was simple.

“I felt that since the funds were raised for a ballot measure placed before the city residents by the City Council it seemed very appropriate to use the remaining funds to support measures H and I, which were also placed on the ballot by our elected officials,” he wrote in an e-mail response.

However, Galligan is arguing the public was misled.

He argued people gave simply in support of the measure, not for any other reason and now the council majority is using the funds against those individuals in a November campaign for Measure I which, if it gets a majority vote, would change the city clerk from an elected official to an appointed one.

Councilmembers asked for the public’s money and then used it against them, said Galligan, who has been actively campaigning for the clerk position to remain elected.

We will have to see what the ramifications are for each Measure.  There may be more digging to be done.

Comments

[Computer]

Come on folks, calm down.

Whatever side of the ballot measures you are on (and that is the kicker, isn't it?) these monies are being used for city matters not some greasy hot dogs for a block party.

[TJ]

I think there's a lot more digging to be done.
Who was giving the orders? The committee chair? Who was the committee chair?
Who did the fundraising?
Why didn't any of the committee members ask, "Where are we getting donations from?"
How could they be spending money on mailers and not know how much they were spending? Was there no accountability to anyone?
Is anyone going to file a complaint with the Fair Political Practices Commission?
There's much more to this story I am sure. This is simply astounding given the fact that 4 out of 5 council members were members of the Measure I committee. They know the forms to file. They know that in most cases you can't raise money for one measure and spend it on another. Talk about lack of transparency! Wow.

[Computer]

TJ, good luck with the digging and let us know which bones you come up with.

There is plenty of transparency with some of these comments.

[Joanne]

Yes there is transparency with these comments. The folks who donated money for one cause thought it would be used for that cause only. They don't want it to be used for another cause that they don't support. Kind of basic, isn't it?

It may have been a mistake, but it seems to me that it's a little hard to argue that this was the right thing to do.

[Fiona]

Joanne, you should go and ask for your money back if it will make you feel better.

When I donate to a fund that will benefit my hometown, I do not have a problem with any left over monies going to a ballot measure that is also related to the governance and/or financing to benefit my hometown.

If the money was being distributed to something other than city related issues, I too would argue that this was not the right thing to do but I am not looking for the booogeyman under the bed on this one!

[Russ]

Fiona, You are kidding me right? If you donate to a cause you believe in and then the money is used for a cause you don't believe in, it's wrong. Simple. How can you justify that in any way?

Furthermore, it's against the law according to the FPPC.

[Jen]

I disagree. Our family contributed to the Storm Drain measure because we were absolutely behind it. We would not ever have contributed to the Clerk issue (Mieasure I) because we are against it. If we had known it was one size fits all, we would not have bothered to donate at all to the Storm Drain measure, hometown or not.

[online]

Look at this on the city website

http://www.burlingame.org/index.aspx?page=1455

[Fiona]

Too many boogemen and too little time for the important things in life!

[BoogeyMan]

Checks and balances for elected officials and officials spending money the way they say they will are important things in life- unless you live in a monarchy or in a communist state.

[Clifford]

Is this our Watergate, BurlingGate; Where there is a slush fund being used to change the out come of an election?

Protect Burlingame seems to have the same agenda as our council. Is one of our council the driving force behind protect Burlingame ?

[Fiona]

In today's Daily Journal:

Measure H-Burlingame

To preserve funding for general city services, including maintaining public safety, recreation, planning and library services, and repairing and improving city streets and infrastructure, such as the Broadway/Highway 101 interchange, shall the city of Burlingame approve an ordinance amending the Burlingame Municipal Code to increase the transient occupancy tax rate from 10 percent to 12 percent on the rent charged to hotel guests within the city? This is a modest tax increase that will residents will not pay for — YES.

Measure I-Burlingame

Shall the office of Burlingame city clerk be appointive? Doing so will ensure additional requirements for the position and bring the city in line with other Peninsula cities who appoint the clerk and have experienced no problems — YES.

http://www.smdailyjournal.com/article_preview.php?type=opinions&id=118789

[resident]

Since the illegal Measure I postcard went out as the only piece of mail so far this election probably will be thrown out no matter how it ends

We are getting to know what the city clerk does better

[www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=1384395709]

Resident,

I was very active with the residents and tried to get involved with as much as possible in an effort to education the population of what city clerk's do. I feel it's somewhat of an "ombudsman" role, or it should be, at least. MaryEllen Kearney was my excellent assistant, which allowed me time to do some of the "extra's". I'm curious as to her views on Measure I are.

[BGO]

Ann, you know the number - call her

[Ann Musso]

Already did.... She's believes it should remain elected, also.

[Sam]

If this is thrown out, when can we get this measure back to the voters?

No histrionics, please, just a simple answer.

[Ann Musso]

Thought this was an open forum....

The answer is the next scheduled election unless they want to pay for a special election.

[Burlingamer]

This has become an "important" political battering ram for some on the voice and maybe a special election would be an important consideration for them?

The more fiscally responsible among us would question the wisdom of a heckuva lot more dollars being spent on a special election over the present mailing costs.

The costs of a "special election" would be a good argument for an appointed position!

[Ann Musso]

A special election would definitely be a waste of money and not necessary. The measure can be put back on the ballot at the next scheduled election in two years. When MaryEllen is elected next week, the term will be for four years. So, in a nutshell, not a good argument for an appointed position.

[Ann Musso]

Hope that wasn't too much "histrionics"... just facts.

[Two Cents]

How come when you type in the website address of
www.protectburlingame.org it takes you to Anne Keighran's website? Say what?

[Ann Musso]

Yeah, say what?

[alittlebird]

Yeah, what is that all about? Why does Keighran's website pop up? As I have said before, something smells bad in this town.

[Burlingamer]

A humble suggestion to you, your negativity, your suspician and your desperation do not help your candidate's cause when she has already lost so much respect in our town.