Two separate articles on Examiner.com and in the San Mateo Daily Journal have appeared recently reporting on errors made by the Measure I and Measure M campaigns. Although these articles alerted voters to some of the issues surrounding the campaign, I’d like to examine the issue further.
Procedures protect the voters.
In politics, procedures are in place for only one reason--Transparency. The public has a right to know where political funding comes from and how it is spent. We, the public, are the stockholders in a sense, of the company, in this case, called Burlingame. As such, we want to easily “follow the money.” These procedures are the government’s way of allowing as much oversight and accountability as possible. Even with Burlingame’s attempt at campaign finance reform, there are loopholes , (like having many employees of one corporation give $100 each in order to go over the $1000 contribution limit or contributing $99 or less—campaigns are only required to make public those donations over $100.) However, we hope that these loopholes are not abused.
What might happen?
Lack of transparency and accountability are why the recent events surrounding the Measure I/City Clerk measure in Burlingame are so disturbing. The ramifications of not following proper procedure could be potentially enormous.
To allow for the most transparency, a campaign committee must file a Form 410 disclosing what kind of committee it is, (general purpose or single measure) and a list of the officers of the committee.
Protect Burlingame has, to my knowledge, never filed such a form with the city clerk and subsequently with the Fair Political Practices Commission, (FPPC). When filed, the FPPC issues a number to the committee—this is the small print you see on mailers that says, paid for by the committee to do such and such. Protect Burlingame does not have an FPPC number and is not registered with the state FPPC.
The errors.
Here is a list of procedural errors that could perhaps put several ballot measures validity into question and cause the FPPC to issue fines into the thousands of dollars.
A.) Form 410 never filed
B.) Form 460 filed without a form 410 makes the 460 invalid
C.) The 460 filed did not list any officer of the committee
D.) The mailer regarding Measure I did not contain an FPPC number nor any identification of the committee or who paid for the mailing and printing
E.) The mailer for the Transient Occupancy Tax (Measure M) had a number listed but it was a tax ID number rather than an FPPC number
F.) The 460, which is posted on the city website for inspection, is incorrect. It does not list any controlling officer of the committee; it does not contain an FPPC number and only covers one month of the committee’s activity—from September '09 through October '09.
G.) The donations listed were in the amount of $100 yet its expenses were listed at more than $3000.
H.) Graphic Design and mailing expenses were listed, yet there was no expense for printing.
The questions.
A.) Who are the officers? According to earlier press coverage, Kevin Osborne and Neil Kauffman were named co-chairs for Protect Burlingame when the committee was formed to help pass the second storm drain fee measure in April of 2008.
B.) Were funds raised for the storm drain measure used to fund the current TOT and City Clerk measures?
C.) Who donated to the flood bond measure after the first attempt failed? How much money was raised and how much was left over?
D.) If the committee named Protect Burlingame was formed back in April of 2008, where are the Form 460’s dating back to April? These documents would answer questions B and C.
E.) Should the Burlingame City Clerk issue fines for late filing? Typically the fine for each day the filing is late is $10. If the filing should have been made in April and was eventually filed—even incorrectly in October—the fine could total close to $2000. Unfortunately for Kevin Osborne, he is the only person listed on the form that was turned in and he might be held responsible for paying the fine
F.) Why didn’t anyone on the committee know that none of the proper procedures were being followed? It seems that none of the members ever asked, "How much money have we raised, from whom did we receive donations and how much are the campaign expenses?" It's presumed by the information provided on the mailer that the Measure I committee members, for the record, are all individuals familiar with government procedure: Council members Terry Nagel, Rosalie O’Mahony, Anne Keighran, Jerry Deal, US Diplomat and candidate, Michael Brownrigg, Former SM County Supervisor John Ward, Former City Clerks Doris Mortensen and Judith Malfatti, President of the SM County Board of Education Jim Cannon.
G.) Will anyone file a complaint with the FPPC? This could result in even further fines. It has happened in several other cities including to my recollection, Redwood City and Half Moon Bay, and fines have been in the thousands of dollars.
H.) Will the legality of the ballot measures, including the storm drain measure that passed last year, be challenged and possibly be invalidated?
I for one am anxiously awaiting the outcome of the election and the results of any ongoing investigation into these serious errors.
Recent Comments