The Vanguard received a letter from the California Fair Political Practices Commission (FPPC), via a records request from the city in which Alan Pryor, the Treasurer of No on Measure L, received a letter from Galena West, Chief of the FPPC Enforcement Division.
The letter states: “Thank you for your response to the complaint received by the Enforcement Division of the Fair Political Practices Commission alleging that you violated the campaign disclosure and use of campaign funds provisions of the Political Reform Act. The Enforcement Division will not pursue this matter further.”
On January 18, 2018, attorney Stephen Boutin sent a letter to the city, following litigation filed against the West Davis Active Adult Community (WDAAC) Measure R ballot measure, in which Samuel Ignacio filed a fair housing lawsuit against the project’s Davis-Based Buyer’s Program. The lawsuit has since been dismissed due to lack of timeliness, and it remains unclear as to whether a suit will be filed in the future.
David Taormino told the Vanguard that attorney Mark Merin received $20,000 for services to represent Samuel Ignacio.
Mr. Taormino told the Vanguard he wants to know how Mr. Ignacio, who does not live in Davis, even became aware of the project. Mr. Boutin maintained that Mr. Ignacio lacked sufficient standing to sue and research showed it was unlikely he had the means to fund the $20,000 needed to initiate the lawsuit.
Mr. Boutin, writing the city, noted that “if No on Measure L funds were used in relation to the Ignacio Complaint, those expenditures would likely violate the PRA [Public Records Act]. At the very least, litigation-
related expenditures would need to have been disclosed by the Campaign.”
Mr. Boutin wrote: “What you do not yet know is that over the course of the Lawsuit, we acquired information that strongly suggests persons connected with the No on L campaign (‘Campaign) expended $20,000 to initiate the Lawsuit likely for the purpose of influencing the election and defeating Measure L. Although those persons were ultimately unsuccessful, Dave and I harbor serious concerns about the credibility of the local election process moving forward.”
In the meantime a few weeks later, the city forwarded complaints against the Yes on Measure L campaign.
In a letter to council, Mr. Pryor noted David Taormino and Stephen Boutin had made “numerous inflammatory statements suggesting the actions by the No on Measure L campaign used ‘dark money’ to ‘influence the campaign’ which ‘presents a direct threat to the integrity of the Davis election process.’”
Mr. Pryor complained, “Those boys sure know how to write a letter when confronted with this full frontal assault on our fledgling, fragile democracy in Davis. However, in my humble opinion, I have been unfairly and slanderously maligned and libeled and subjected to further expense to defend myself by these unwarranted and unsubstantiated allegations.”
He said these allegations are “flat out false.” And said, “This is because according to the FPPC’s own campaign finance and disclosure guidelines, it would actually be illegal if the No on Measure L campaign actually used campaign funds to finance such a lawsuit.”
Mr. Pryor in his letter details a number of what he believes to be campaign violations by the Yes on Measure L campaign.
That complaint is still outstanding and has yet to be resolved.
—David M. Greenwald reporting
1) David Greenwald neglects to mention his role as a private investigator for WDAAC/Measure L.
2) David Greenwald repeats the allegations made by the WDAAC campaign in great detail
3) David Greenwald neglects to provide any detail about the allegations of campaign violations against him and WDAAC that are continuing to be investigated.
1. Evidence that David Greenwald was a “private investigator” for anything?
2. Repeats the allegations or provides context for why an FPPC complaint was filed?
3. Isn’t that the subject more likely to be addressed when the FPPC decides what to do with the other complaint?
Is anyone else sick of Rik Keller’s constant drum beat?
Yep.
Bill Marshall: the other complaint” is not “supposed”. It was filed. As Greenwald ends this article: “That complaint is still outstanding and has yet to be resolved.”
Since this article does not describethose complaints that are still being investigated, here is a summary of some of them:
· – About $70,000 of campaign expenditures which were made by the Yes on Measure L campaign for attorney fees were illegal under FPPC campaign finance regulations as written in the FPPC Disclosure Manuals that provide guidance and requirements for such campaign expenditures.
· – The Davis Vanguard ran daily ads since the inception of the campaign until voting day and for a substantial period beforehand. The payment for these ads is not disclosed on any financial statements filed by the Yes on Measure L campaign, which is a violation of FPPC regulations.
· – A disclosed financial filing of $3,000 to “Froggy’s” for food service for a Vanguard fundraising event is not an allowable campaign expense for the Yes on Measure L campaign under FPPC guidelines.
· – Over $64,000 of non-monetary contributions to the Yes on Measure L campaign for salaries have been disclosed in campaign filings but the recipients of these salaries have been kept secret, and it is not known if these payments were for personal gain, which is prohibited by FPPC regulations or otherwise disallowed under FPPC guidelines.
· – $164,500 of monetary contributions were made by the “West Davis Active Adult Community” to the Yes on measure L campaign. But the “West Davis Active Adult Community” is not even a legally formed entity in the State of California or elsewhere and the sources of money received by the “West Davis Active Adult Community” used for the campaign contributions are unknown. These monetary contributions to the campaign thus constitute “money laundering” according to the FPPC and “Failure to disclose the true source of a contribution is considered one of the most serious violations of the Political Reform Act”
Of course it’s supposed – Rik isn’t an expert on this stuff. BTW, the number of people who care about this you can probably count on one hand.
I’m constantly pounded by a lot of people’s annoying drumming.
Look @ old westerns, and references to “drummers”… not much welcomed…
Some things are timeless…
And, in fairness, Rik is not the only “drummer”… (if he is at all?)…
Guess we’ll wait and look for ‘the other shoe to drop’… the complaint supposedly filed by the opponents to L…
The complaint was never based on facts. By the complainants’ own statements, it was based on nothing more than an admitted ignorance of facts: How Mr. Ignacio knew about WDAAC. How the lawsuit was funded. This appears to have been an effort at intimidation, intended to chill future opposition to development. The complaint was appropriately summarily dismissed.
Do you have an opinion on the counter-complaint? Meant as honest question…
BTW agree pretty much with your analysis, particularly knowing that FPPC spends little (financially/time) “investigating” unless there are clear indications that something egregious transpired… which is, quite frankly, appropriate.
Though you’re not . . .
Correct…
A little crumb for the ‘long timers’ around here . . .
” A little crumb for the ‘long timers’ around here . . .”
Frankly was a big crumb for all of us here…..
I wouldn’t want to predict an outcome; but, unlike the Yes on L complaint (and as summarized in Rik’s 9:52 post), the other complaint alleges specific verified and verifiable facts that are far more likely to be investigated for possible violations of FPPC guidelines and regulations.
Thank you for your response… appreciated…
It’ll be what Dad called, a “wait and see”…
I made the following comment in my response to the FPPC to the allegations by Taormino and the City:
“This complaint was a complete waste of the FPPC’s time and energy and the complainants attorneys (Stephen Boutin of Boutin Jones and City Attorney Harriet Steiner) should have known this before filing the complaint because of the clear disconnect between the allegations and the clear and unambiguous FPPC disclosure guidelines. This disconnect was so obvious that the complainants very likely knew the complaint was meritless but filed it anyway. The $64,000 question is “Why did they even bother to make it?”.
We allege that this complaint was filed not because there was any evidence of any campaign expenditure reporting requirements insinuated by the complaint. Rather, this complaint was a conscious and deliberate act by the complainants for the sole purposes of retribution by Mr. Taormino for aggressively opposing him in this election and an attempt at political intimidation by Taormino and the Davis City Council so as to discourage future electoral and legal opposition to development plans envisioned by the very complainants themselves. These actions by the complainants constitute political thuggery at the very least.”
Thanks for sharing…
Will you do so on the “counter-complaint”? Meant as honest question…
The internet?
Poor people shouldn’t file lawsuits.
Knock me over with a feather!
Quote from HAL the Computer, from the movie “2001: A Space Odyssey”:
HAL : Look Dave, I can see you’re really upset about this. I honestly think you ought to sit down calmly, take a stress pill, and think things over.
Alan… interesting analogy… for those not as long in the tooth (Alan knows this), add 1 to H, A, and L
Possibly, these ‘complaints’ could be parsed as I BM(ed)…
Kubrik had a weird/twisted sense of humor, which I loved/could relate to… hence, naming the computer HAL
re: HAL, was thinking of mentioning that, but is IBM even known by younger people these days, HAH!, does the company still exist? Maybe if we substituted the name “BQQMF”, “HPPHMF”, or “GBDFCPPL”, younger people might get the joke?
“Covers”, as in ‘demonstrable facts’, or “allegations/assertions”? Meant as honest question…
And, did you and/or Alan Pryor compose that “coverage”? Give credit where credit is due…
The actual allegations against WDAAC/Yes on Measure L/Davis Vanguard that are apparently still being investigated by FPPC are covered here…
https://www.davisenterprise.com/local-news/city-forwards-allegations-of-misdeeds-by-yes-on-measure-l-campaign-to-da-fppc/
and…
In your link, you have named the name that cannot be named.
If I knew how to add an emoticon, with grin and wink, I’d have done that, and saved some typing…
Does anyone actually care at this point?
Implicated by who?
K… will assume that is an honest (albeit incomplete) answer…
We’ll see, in time.
Still waiting (although I know it is in vain) for attributions for the ‘reporters’ on the “other source”… not addressed…
But, trained in traffic engineering, I know a “one-way street” when I see one… it is what it is…
Thread cleanup: 6 comments removed.
Nice try, Davis-oids.
That’s a very Davis-ish thing to say.
The fingers on that hand probably includes/represents the developer, unless the other complaint (against the “Yes” side) is dismissed.
Maybe. But it’s not like an FPPC fine invalidates the election, so in the scheme of a project going into 8 or 9 figures, the fine is almost inconsequential.
Ron O.: thanks for quoting Craig Ross since I can’t see his posts after blocking him long ago for his personal attacks against me. A lot of those revolved around this exact issue when he really seemed to care a LOT: Enough to make all sorts of unfounded allegations against me. Funny that he says he doesn’t care now!