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

[alittlebird]

Burlingamer,
I don't know what candidate you are referring to, but I do know that you can't spell. You have no idea whom I am voting for, nor do you know if I even live in Burlingame and will be voting. I have good eyes and ears though and I know that I WOULD vote for the candidate(s) with the most integrity and honesty. Please explain why that website goes directly to Keighran's website? Does that strike you as fundamentally right or wrong?

[Burlingamer]

Type in protectburlingame.org. and you will get your answer.

Awww schucks - another bunch of wasted puffed up desperate hot air and conspiracy theory struck done with the birds.

Honesty and integrity is also needed on the Voice.

[alittlebird]

Hmmmmmm..........

[CoCoBird]

Vote yes on Measure I

MORE THAN two-thirds of California cities and 13 of the 20 cities in San Mateo County have switched from the outdated model of an elected city clerk to an appointed city clerk, which allows cities to make appointments using the same thorough process they use to select other department heads. In 1991, Burlingame voters approved making the city treasurer an appointed position.

Here's why we think you should vote yes on Measure I, which would make the office of city clerk appointive:

Although they are technically elected, our city clerks are really appointed. Here's how it has worked in Burlingame for years: First, the city clerk retires before finishing the term, then the City Council appoints someone to fill out the rest of the term, then that person runs unopposed for the office of city clerk in the next election and -- no surprise -- gets elected. Our clerks have been appointed this way for the past 25 years and have run unopposed in elections, with just one exception.

For the past 30 years, all of our city clerks have been well qualified because they have come from the ranks of experienced city employees with proven track records. We might not always be so lucky. State law only requires elected city clerks to be age 18 or older and registered voters in the cities where they serve. If an unqualified person were elected, the public's only recourse is an expensive and time-consuming recall election.

The duties of city clerks have become increasingly complex over the years, requiring professional skills and expertise. We need to make sure our city clerk is qualified, Gherinis, San Mateo

(source: http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qn4176/is_20091021/ai_n39313012/?tag=content;col1