The San Bruno Beacon

According to the latest numbers published by the San Mateo County Elections Office, the final vote tally for Measure F is:

YES
1,934 (50%)

NO
1,934 (50%)

On another note, last night, before all of the votes were counted, in an article titled:

Burlingame's schools, San Bruno's coffers get a big boost

San Mateo County Times Staff Writer, Christine Morente filed and published a factually incorrect report stating that, "Measure F, a half-cent sales tax that needed only a majority vote to pass, garnered 53 percent". In my opinion, Morente's misstatement of the facts, caused by her failure to wait for all the votes to be counted, was not only a great disservice to Times readers, but an excellent example of embarrassingly bad, inaccurate reporting. "Dewey Wins" style journalism. Journalism students take note.

As Ms. Morente does correctly point out in her article, Measure F needs a majority of votes to win. If this tie remains, Measure F loses.

In Ms. Morante's incorrect article, San Bruno's Mayor, Larry Franzella stated, "I think the voters in San Bruno understood the measure, the need for it and elected to support it". Poor Larry, he is so out of touch with the voters in San Bruno, he actually believes that San Bruno's residents buy the garbage that he, his Council cronies, and San Bruno's City Manager are trying to shove down their throats.

Of course, this is not the the end of the Measure F fiasco. San Bruno's City Council and Manager now know that Measure F has not passed. The question is, how far will they go, how much more San Bruno taxpayer money will they spend, and how much will they put at risk to deal with this present situation?

On another Measure F related note, it appears that the City of San Bruno, under the direction of San Bruno City Manager Connie Jackson, may have violated California Government Code section 8314 which provides in part:

(a) It is unlawful for any elected state or local officer, including any state or local appointee, employee, or consultant, to use or permit others to use public resources for a campaign activity, or personal or other purposes which are not authorized by law.

The City of San Bruno publishes a booklet titled, “FOCUS _ REPORT FROM CITY HALL”. This booklet is created, printed, and mailed to San Bruno residents at taxpayer expense. San Bruno’s City Manager and Council created and are promoting Measure F, which appears on the November 2007 Election Ballot, and will be voted on by San Bruno’s voters in the Tuesday November 6, 2007 election.

The FALL 2007 edition of the “FOCUS” appears to be little more than a thinly veiled campaign brochure promoting Measure F to San Bruno’s voters. It appears to be a more detailed version of the Argument in support of Measure F published by Measure F's supporters in the ballot arguments appearing in the ballot material being sent to voters.

My observation is that the creation, printing, and mailing of this edition of the “FOCUS”, by the City of San Bruno, using taxpayer money, may be construed as an unlawful campaign activity as defined by California Government Code section 8314.

There's more. We also have an unconfirmed report that San Bruno City Council Candidate and Measure F opponent Migueal Araujo and his family's business are being targeted for more harassment by San Bruno City Officials for Mr. Araujo's high profile opposition to Measure F. We certainly hope this is not true. Enough is enough with the harassment of Mr. Araujo, his family, and his supporters.

HAPPY THANKSGIVING TO ALL SAN BRUNO BEACON READERS!

GREAT NEWS............MEASURE F HAS BEEN DEFEATED!

If you were one of the brave people who opposed and helped defeat MEASURE F you should be very proud of yourself. You won a great victory for San Bruno against overwhelming odds. You have helped protect San Bruno's residents from having more financial pain inflicted on them by the San Bruno City Council and Manager, saved San Bruno's business community from financial ruin, and protected San Bruno's tax revenue base. Congratulations on the big win!

From the start, San Bruno's City Council, City Manager, their cronies and minions, engaged in what I believe was a deceptive, costly Pro Measure F campaign in an attempt to mislead San Bruno's voters into destroying San Bruno's business community, increasing San Bruno's budget deficit, and raising the financial pain level on San Bruno's residents.

Although Measure F did not win, the above mentioned group has once again proven that the longer they control San Bruno's City Government, the worse things are going to get for San Bruno's residents and businesses.

I think San Bruno's City Council and Manager are at war against the financial interests of San Bruno's residents and business community. In my opinion, San Bruno's City Council and City Manager are going to destroy San Bruno's business and financial infrastructure and if they are not removed from office.

Here is some information about what happened during the Measure F campaign:

1). The San Bruno City Council and City Manager built their deceptive, destructive Measure F campaign on what in my opinion was a very misleading poll from a company called Godbe Research that holds itself out as an "independent" voter survey firm. We know that the San Bruno City Manager and Council hired Godbe and paid Godbe $48,200 to conduct an "independent" voter opinion survey that came to incorrect "independent" conclusion that San Bruno's residents wanted their sales tax increased. Yet another example of more San Bruno taxpayer money flushed down the proverbial toilet by this City Council and Manager. San Bruno's City Council then used this incorrect data to justify spending tens or what may actually turn out to be hundreds of thousands of dollars of taxpayer money on their Measure F campaign.

According to the City Council, Godbe claimed, based on their Poll, that over 70% of a "representative sample" expressed support of a sales tax measure. Looks like the "representative sample" wasn't too representative of San Bruno's voters considering the fact that less than 50% of the voters voted for Measure F. As it turned out, the "independent" Godbe Research firm was helping the proponents (i.e., the San Bruno City Council and Manger) of sales tax increase Measure F develop election strategy and write their pro sales tax ballot measure presentations.

Considering the fact that the City of San Bruno is running a $500,000 +/- budget deficit, we now need to know how much money the City of San Bruno paid to Godbe and see how much of this money, if any, San Bruno's taxpayers can recover from Godbe for any pro Measure F campaign activities the expenditure of San Bruno taxpayer money can be identified with.

2). We now come to the publication of the Fall 2007 edition of the "FOCUS". The "FOCUS" is a publication produced by San Bruno's City Government using taxpayer money. As I see it, the Fall 2007 edition of the "FOCUS" is a thinly veiled Pro Measure F campaign flier. I have even heard that the "FOCUS" was being used by pro Measure F supporters as a handout.

San Bruno Municipal Code Section 2.12.060 puts control of the day to day activities of San Bruno’s City Government in the hands of San Bruno’s City Manager. Connie Jackson is San Bruno’s current City Manager. Is Connie Jackson ultimately responsible and potentially liable for the preparation, printing, and publication of the FOCUS which, once again, is an official publication of San Bruno’s City Government?

The text of California Government Code section 8314 provides in part:

8314(a) It is unlawful for any elected state or local officer, including any state or local appointee, employee, or consultant, to use or permit others to use public resources for a campaign activity, or personal or other purposes which are not authorized by law.

Cal. Government Code Section 8314 3(d) provides:

Nothing in this section shall prohibit the use of public resources for providing information to the public about the possible effects of any bond issue or other ballot measure on state activities, operations, or policies, provided that (1) the informational activities are otherwise authorized by the constitution or laws of this state, and (2) the information provided constitutes a fair and impartial presentation of relevant facts to aid the electorate in reaching an informed judgment regarding the bond issue or ballot measure.

We can call 8314(a) the “wiggle room” clause of Government Code section 8314. This is the part of 8314 that government officials and their supporters, who want to promote a ballot measure they support using taxpayer money and resources, may bend, stretch, and twist to fabricate the argument that they are presenting “a fair and impartial presentation of the relevant facts to aid the electorate in reaching an informed judgment”.

Unfortunately, in the case of the FOCUS, in my opinion, it is quite clear that the City of San Bruno’s City Government, led by City Manager Connie Jackson, who has created, supported, and promoted Measure F, did not make any attempt to present a fair and impartial presentation of relevant facts because none of the facts presented in the Measure F opposition ballot argument or any other facts that do not support Measure F appear in the Fall 2007 edition of the FOCUS.

California Government Code Section 8314(c)(1) provides that: Any person who intentionally or negligently violates this section is liable for a civil penalty not to exceed one thousand dollars ($1,000) for each day on which a violation occurs, plus three times the value of the unlawful use of public resources. The penalty shall be assessed and recovered in a civil action brought in the name of the people of the State of California by the Attorney General or by any district attorney or any city attorney of a city having a population in excess of 750,000. If two or more persons are responsible for any violation, they shall be jointly and severally liable for the penalty.

California Government Code Section 8314(2) provides that: If the action is brought by the Attorney General, the moneys recovered shall be paid into the General Fund. If the action is brought by a district attorney, the moneys recovered shall be paid to the treasurer of the county in which the judgment was entered. If the action is brought by a city attorney, the moneys recovered shall be paid to the treasurer of that city.

3). In my opinion, the League of Women Voters of North and Central San Mateo County did irreparable damage to any reputation it might have had as a "nonpartisan organization" by allowing it's name to be exploited in support of Measure F, putting Pro Measure F propaganda online on its web site, and working with the Committee for Measure F to create a LOWV flier that was sent in the mail to San Bruno's voters. In my opinion, this exploitation of the LOWV name for partisan political purposes makes it clear to me the LOWV is a partisan political organization that should not be trusted to provide anybody with nonpartisan information.

In addition, I think that the League of Women Voters of North and Central San Mateo County engaged in clearly partisan political activities at their Smart Voter site by putting detailed campaign statements and propaganda online for incumbent San Bruno City Council candidates Ruane and O'Connell while using, what in my opinion were, specious, hollow arguments to support their outright refusal to put anything online for San Bruno City Council Candidate and Measure F opponent Miguel Auaujo other than his name as a candidate.

As far as San Bruno politics is concerned, every San Bruno voter should disregard all political propaganda spit at them by the League of Women Voters of North and Central San Mateo County, and the LOWV's political cohorts in San Bruno, in all future City of San Bruno elections.

4). I think that the San Bruno Chamber of Commerce double crossed San Bruno's small business owners and residents by supporting the Measure F sales tax increase because Measure F would have reduce the amount of business activity in San Bruno by making the City of San Bruno the most business unfriendly City in San Mateo County or, for that matter, most of the State of California. Measure F was a distinctly anti-commerce tax. Is the San Bruno Chamber of Commerce the San Bruno Chamber of anti-Commerce?

One of the most alarming and disgusting aspects of the San Bruno Chamber of Commerce's support for the Measure F sales tax increase was that this organization, that holds itself out as an ally of San Bruno's business community, was, in my opinion, damaging the interests of the very same San Bruno business community they allegedly serve. The San Bruno Chamber of Commerce was also participating in the destruction of many of the small businesses in San Bruno by supporting Measure F.

No business owner in his or her right mind would vote to put themselves at a competitive disadvantage to their competitors in nearby cities by voting for a sales tax increase that would make the cost of their goods 6% more expensive than those of their nearby competitors.

Measure F would have automatically made the goods that a San Bruno business owner was trying to sell 6% more expensive than the goods of his or her nearby competitors who are not subject to San Bruno's Measure F tax. A business owner adversely impacted by the Measure F sales tax would have had a few choices to make. He or she could have moved their business out of San Bruno, lower the price of the goods they sell by 6 or more percent and absorb the loss, or do nothing a sell fewer or none of the goods they offer for sale.

In my opinion, the San Bruno Chamber of Commerce lost any credibility it may have had as an advocate for San Bruno's business community when it chose to betray the interests of San Bruno's business owners by supporting the Measure F sales tax that would have put many of these business owners out of business and seriously damaged most businesses in San Bruno.