The Fair Political Practices Commission sent a letter to the district informing them that they had closed the file, after a review of the evidence following a complaint “alleging that the Davis School Board sent a mailer to senior citizens that expressly advocated the passage of Measure A, which would be an expenditure for a political purpose.”
In a statement from Superintendent Winfred Roberson, he said, “Concerning the mass mailing of Measure A senior exemption letters, I am pleased to learn that the FPPC has assigned no fault to DJUSD and has closed the file.”
He concluded, “We will remain transparent in our actions.”
The brief advisory letter from the FPPC indicated that the District may qualify as a campaign committee under Section 82013 of the Political Reform Act, which would be subject to campaign reporting provisions “if the District sends a mass mailing that unambiguously urges a particular result in an election.”
The FPPC reminds the district to “ensure that your mass mailings contain only factual information and do not contain inflammatory or argumentative language.”
They further suggest, “In the future, please contact the Commission’s Legal Division prior to sending a mass mailing to ensure compliance with the Act.”
The complaint followed allegations first aired by Davis Enterprise columnist Bob Dunning, who accused the Superintendent of “politicking on the public’s dime.”
After the Vanguard inquired into the matter, it learned that the district had sent the letter out to roughly 1000 seniors who had previously applied for parcel tax exemptions. The letter was sent out after the district had been flooded with inquiries from seniors and requests to fill out paperwork.
“The mailing was done at the requests of seniors who swamp our offices before, during and after the elections. It was sent to current exemption holders only,” Mr. Colby told the Vanguard in April. “From our experience, once a senior gets one exemption, they want them all.”
He continued, “This effort will save the district time and money in processing applications.”
At the time, the Superintendent said, “The district recently sent a letter to senior citizens which confirmed and/or explained exemption status with regard to parcel taxes. I’m sorry that the senior exemption letter was mailed in close proximity to Davis voters receiving the Measure A ballot. This timing gives the appearance that my office has campaigned to senior citizen voters. For this I am regretful.”
“Though approval of Measure A will provide immediate benefits to Davis students, I acknowledge my role as a public official to only provide facts to the Davis voters,” he continued and added, “I apologize if the language is perceived to advocate rather than provide information about the intent and process.”
Critics like Bob Dunning charged, “The letter he sent out to the seniors in this town is advocacy, pure and simple.”
From a strict legal standpoint, it was clear to the Vanguard that the letter followed the law in the sense that it did not expressly advocate for passage of Measure A.
However, it was at the same time clear that the district was overly-sloppy in its language, at one point stating, “The week of April 4th you will receive a ballot in the mail and be asked to approve Measure A.”
The letter should have said “…asked whether or not to approve Measure A.”
Many argued that the timing of the letter made it appear to be advocacy. Board President Richard Harris argued that the letter should have been sent out earlier – in March.
“The letter should have been sent early in March, to talk to people, and give them a heads up,” Board President Harris told the Enterprise. “Our seniors, especially our fixed income seniors, they have questions about how the exemptions work. It’s our job to let them know. Where we made a mistake was we sent out the letter too late, too close to the ballot. I apologize for that.”
He added that he is “confident that the letter meets the standards of the law. It’s clearly not a campaign piece. It’s clearly information for people that wanted it, information that is very helpful to them.”
“Nobody’s trying to pull a fast one. The district’s just trying to get information to seniors,” Mr. Harris told the Enterprise, adding that “I think Dunning blew it out of proportion.”
The matter has now been put to rest by the FPPC, and despite the controversy, the voters approved Measure A by a 67-33 margin.
David, please provide link to the FPPC advisory letter. Thanks.
I don’t have a link, so I created two thumbnails that are posted at the bottom so you can read the letter. The quality of the image is as I received it.
No surprise that the FPPC found no legal violation. However, I am surprised they acted so fast.
In a statement from Superintendent Winfred Roberson, he said, “Concerning the mass mailing of Measure A senior exemption letters, I am pleased to learn that the FPPC has assigned no fault to DJUSD and has closed the file.”
woa!! that is not what the letter said!! the letter said the FPCC is closing the file, but it does not say that the FPPC “assigned no fault” actually, if you read between the lines on the letter, the FPPC is letting the district off with a warning, something it wouldn’t need to do, if there wasn’t an appearance of impropriety. This is total spin by superintendent roberson.
I also take issue with the phrase “sloppy writing”, as if what was in the letter merely had the implications of bad grammar. It came across as a pro-measure A campaign mailer – not merely a grammatical error.
“it was clear to the Vanguard that the letter followed the law in the sense that it did not expressly advocate for passage of Measure A.”
that is the vanguard’s interpretation, not mine, nor does it appear to be the FPPC’s.
the FPPC’s “closing the file” on the case does not mean the FPPC does not think the district was acting above board, nor does the language imply the FPPC thinks what the distict did was legal, if you read the language carefully, they are closing the file, but they said that the district must not continue to do what they did, otherwise they need to classify the mailer as part of a campaign expenditure.
[b]Musser, [/b] anytime an agency puts out a letter this vague (“we are closing our file” followed by specific actions to take in the future), everyone gets the opportunity to spin it toward the direction at which each spinner started on the issue.
I found Superintendent Roberson’s initial apology very appropriate and clear. It may be that the early [u]Vanguard[/u] coverage (and its DJUSD sources’ justifications) had left the superintendent little room by the time he was ready to respond. But, whatever the reason, his regretfulness statement was an excellent response at the time.
So, it’s a little disappointing now to see the superintendent spinning the commission’s letter as an exoneration and the commission’s instruction to request prior approval “to ensure compliance” as a district initiative. (Of course, David doesn’t see this as a requirement but simply as a suggestion.)[quote]”Measure A seeks voter approval of a parcel tax…you will receive a ballot in the mail and be asked to approve Measure A….Thank you for considering the above information, and your involvement as a District voter.”[/quote]I cannot see a thing “overly-sloppy” (or, even a [u]little[/u] sloppy) in this language.
The letter’s wording is very clear and, I’m sure, conveyed the meaning intended by whoever drafted it. It’s obvious someone became a little nervous that the 1,000 Rancho Yolo seniors needed to know they could vote “YES” without any fears that they would have to pay the tax if it passed. Although the letter is said to have had thorough policy and legal reviews, I think those involved just didn’t have an adequate appreciation for the appearance of lobbying that it reflected.
Dunning was correct: the letter was “politicking on the public’s dime.” But, it was such soft politicking that it didn’t meet the “unambiguously urging” or “inflammatory or argumentative language” standards that the commission specifies. I’m not many people thought the commission was interested in going after the DJUSD for this somewhat minor issue, in spite of David’s contention that “Dunning Falsely Charges School District of Election Violations.”
What I saw as “overly-sloppy” was the multiple, accelerating justifications provided for sending out the letter before the election. In spite of all the effort, there never was any half-believable reason offered for sending out an exemption request form for a tax that hadn’t even been approved by voters.
In the end, it may have been a wash. The number of reassured Rancho Yolo voters might have balanced out those who voted “NO” because of the uproar.
This entire issue was blown out of proportion. It never felt like a violation to me in the first place and I had to put my head into a “different” place to see how the letter was a way of influencing senior voters. I supported the tax override for the school district because it’s needed and as a society we have decided, apparently, that the very rich and corporations no longer have any obligations to pay their share like they once did. Very few people who own their own homes cannot afford to pay this tax and, indeed, not a few seniors on fixed incomes wrote letters to the Enterprise saying as much.
There are, however, some folks who view the payment of taxes for public schools as something to be avoided at any cost and who would then logically assume the “senior letter” from the school district to be linked to influencing the vote. Such opinion says a lot more about the real values of those who are “outraged” and not so much about DJUSD motivation. That is what politics is all about: your values and what kind of society you want to live in.
[b]davehart[/b], I agree with most everything you observe here. I encouraged passage of Measure A, discouraged those who saw the letter and the coach firing as reasons to vote “NO” and voted “YES” myself. I’ll also argued, apparently not convincingly enough for David, that Dunning’s columnist observations were not designed to kill Measure A.
There are plenty of reasons to see the letter as inappropriate (language, timing, attaching a form, uncredible explanations) without requiring a predisposition to “assume” that it isn’t proper.
The [u]Vanguard[/u]’s personalizing and if-you’re-not-for-us-you’re-against-us treatment of this story is what blew it “out of proportion.” Attributing “the real values” of avoiding taxes as the reason people criticized the letter just continues along that line.
An interesting item on Esparto USD in today’s Sac Bee:
Hudson Sangree: Small Yolo school district seeks parcel tax
[url]http://www.sacbee.com/2011/05/30/3663299/small-yolo-school-district-seeks.html[/url]