VANGUARD ANALYSIS: Mr. Randall’s Complaint Represents His Own Abuse of Process – Thomas Randall has filed yet another complaint against the Davis Joint Unified School District over what he is calling their campaign on Measure E.
In a press release actually sent out on Friday, October 19, he writes: “Thomas Randall, Jr. coordinator of the NO School Board Taxes Political Action Committee, a PAC that is campaigning against Measure E, has filed a complaint with the Fair Political Practices Commission Against the Davis School Board of Education and specifically against its President Ms. Susan Lovenburg. for their role in using taxpayer’s money for campaign materials produced at taxpayers’ expense and disseminated in print and on the internet with the purpose to pass Measure E.”
“The issues in this complaint are based on violations of the Political Reform Act.,” says the press release.
The five complaints are: 1. Campaign piece printed, mass distributed and produced at public expense. 2. Public Entity involved in campaigning without registering as a Political Action Committee. 3. Failure to file required campaign statements and reports. 4. Publication of campaign materials at taxpayers’ expense on the internet, equivalent to large mass mailed communication. 5. Conflict of interest of the board president Ms. Susan Lovenburg in her campaign for reelection, and use of campaign material produced at taxpayers’ expense on the School District stationary.
“It is urgent that the FPPC act on this complaint immediately before the election on November 6, 2012 to avoid irreparable damage to the voters in the Davis. The School Board members are not above the law. The exercise of democracy needs to have a fair and honest process instead of ramming Measure E on us breaking campaign laws” said Thomas Randall.
Board member Susan Lovenburg responded, “Though I have not formally been notified of this complaint filed with the FPPC, I welcome the agency’s ruling on this issue.”
“In the case of a similar complaint filed by Thomas Randall regarding Measure A, the FPPC determined the District and Board members did not act improperly,” Ms. Lovenburg continued.
A year and a half ago there was a complaint that a letter to seniors crossed the line from information to advocacy. The letter was sent to seniors to explain their right to take a senior exemption and also offer factual information about the initiative.
However, officials from the school district apologized for the timing and the appearance of impropriety.
Superintendent Roberson 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.”
In this case, the fact sheet is simply a listing of facts without any sort of advocacy.
Mr. Randall apparently objects to several claims from the district.
The statements in question are the following:
- Funding for Davis schools remains uncertain.
- The 2012-13 California state budget assumes passage of Proposition 30: Temporary Taxes to Fund Education to maintain current funding levels for schools. Successful passage of Prop 30 requires the approval of a majority of California voters.
- Failure of Prop 30 will result in a $3.7 million cut this year. This amounts to approximately 5% of total revenue to the Davis Joint Unified School District.
- Measure A, a local Davis parcel tax, sunsets in June 2013. If not renewed/ the District will lose another $3.2 million.
- The District must prepare for the loss of $6.9 million in revenue for the 2013-14 school year.
- The Davis School Board placed Measure E on the local November ballot to renew Measure A and to protect schools from further reduction in state funding. Passage of Measure E requires the approval of two-thirds of Davis voters.
- If California voters approve Prop 30, Measure E only renews Measure A.
Mr. Randall argues, “Although the title is “FACTS ABOUT MEASURE E”, it hardly contains any “FACTS” but rather contains inflammatory language with false and misleading information deliberately calculated to produce the outcome of a YES vote.”
Susan Lovenburg responds: “The fact sheet in question is consistent with neutral information provided by the District whenever a parcel tax is placed on the ballot.”
“As such, I have preferred to distribute it at campaign events in favor of materials produced by the Yes on E campaign,” she continues. “This fact sheet is freely available on the District’s website and in paper copy to all candidates and any member of the public. It contains the actual ballot language of the measure and indicates voters will be asked to vote ‘yes or no on Measure E.’ “
An analysis of both the language of the flyer and Mr. Randall’s claims demonstrates that this is largely a political ploy.
For instance, he disputes the contention that “funding for Davis schools remains uncertain.” He argues, “Not true. California has always funded schools. It is certain that the Davis School District will receive at least $65 million dollars in revenues to fund the schools even if the State Proposition 30 fails. California has always funded schools even in light of budget reductions.”
He calls this false and inflammatory, somehow assuming that the district means that any funding for schools is uncertain rather than the more accurate interpretation that the school district does not know how much they will be funded for the upcoming school year.
Mr. Randall falsely argues that Proposition 30 would “provide very large amounts of money in new funding to schools.” Proposition 30 in fact will simply maintain the same level of funding from last year and its passage will prevent the implementation of the trigger cuts which would result in $3.7 million less in funding for the school district.
He then nitpicks some numbers when the district claims, “Failure of Prop 30 will result in a $3.7 million cut this year. This amounts to approximately 5% of total revenue to the Davis Joint Unified School District.”
He argues, “This is inaccurate and misleading. If $3.7 million is 5% of the revenues, then the revenues are $74 million. The district received in 2011 exactly $70,306,825 in revenue. The $4 million dollar error here is very significant because this is not a small error.”
The district did say “approximately,” which indicates that it’s not exactly. But even weirder is that the actual percentage is higher not lower. The $3.7 million represents 5.26% of the districts total revenue which represents a larger impact than the 5% figure might imply. What is Mr. Randall’s point here and why does it necessitate his filing a legal complaint?
Mr. Randall also calls false and misleading that the District would lose another $3.2 million as Measure A sunsets. He argues that this is false because the district passed Measure A as an emergency measure. He writes, “That they would ‘lose’ another $3.2 million is completely false. How can they ‘lose’ something they do not have? They knew it was for two years and most certainly two years ago they knew when it will expire.”
One definition of lose is “to be unsuccessful in retaining possession of…” If Measure E does not pass, the district will be unsuccessful in retaining possession of $3.2 million that was funded under Measure A. That seems to work.
A complaint filed with the FPPC should be based on actual and clear violations of the law, not hairsplitting and subjective interpretations of the definition of words. A reasonable person can understand that if Measure A sunsets, the district will have $3.2 million fewer dollars to work with next year. They can then decide on their own if they wish to fund that money.
Likewise, Mr. Randall takes issue that the district claims it must prepare for the loss of $6.9 million, arguing that it’s apparently inappropriate for the district to add $3.2 million to $3.7 million.
He writes, “Since the statement is on a separate bullet, the reader has to question. Are these $6.9 million another ‘loss?’ Are these parts or separate from the $3.7, and the $3, 2 million above?”
And finally, he once again takes issue that Measure E is a renewal of Measure A. He argues, “Measure A was an ’emergency’ measure presented to the voters for two years at a cost of $6.4 million. Measure E is a new more expensive tax at a cost of $12.8 million, twice the cost of Measure A and it is for four years.”
The bottom line is that Mr. Randall is using the complaint with the FPPC to campaign against Measure E when the purpose of the FPPC complaint process should be to flag violations of process.
The Sacramento Bee and Davis Enterprise dutifully gave Mr. Randall the free press that he desired, even though it is quite clear that this actually represents an abuse by Mr. Randall of the FPPC process, and one hopes that the FPPC nails Mr. Randall for abuse of process.
—David M. Greenwald reporting
You seem to miss, or at least gloss over, the dirty politics involved in naming Lovenburg. Don’t forget that Lovenburg is running for re-election against a group of opponents that includes Jose Granda. Granda and Randall have worked together to oppose additional local funding for the schools, yet oddly, Granda does not have the courage to sign on to the complaint and leaves the dirty work to Randall.
I don’t think I missed or glossed over it. She was given a full chance to respond and did. I focused my attention then on the absurd claims made by Mr. Randall.
He makes the error of conflating his political beliefs with the issue here – whether the school district has violated the law by moving into advocacy. The previous complaint had more validity to it because the district went beyond simply restating the facts.
The district simply explains the facts of why they are asking for the money from the voters – they are permitted to do that. Mr. Randall differs in his interpretation of the facts, but he’s basically splitting a lot of hairs.
The voters can decide whether or not they agree with the district or Mr. Randall, but that’s a political not a legal issue.
Randall has a point in calling funding that could never be budgeted for as “lost”, and your spin on the definition of lost is pretty funny. But I would agree the compaint is rather silly, except for the fact it has received free publicity from the Bee, Enterprise, and Vangaurd. For a campaign that surely has no money, this is pretty effective at getting sorely needed attention.
I pulled the definition from the dictionary, but regardless, you think it is objectively false that the district loses $3.2 million if Measure E doesn’t get renewed? I guess you could phrase it, “the district would have $3.2 less in revenue if Measure E is not passed.” Does that phrasing difference really matter?
D. Enophile: [i]Randall has a point in calling funding that could never be budgeted for as “lost”, and your spin on the definition of lost is pretty funny.[/i]
This is excessive parsing of the definition. Sort of follows the example of, “depends on what the definition of ‘is’ is.” Mr. Granda likes to say “how can you cut something that you never had.” Measure E is about whether to continue funding at the described levels or not. If Measure E is voted down, then many teachers will get laid off who were employed 2-3 years ago.
Mr. Granda also likes to delve into the meaning of renew, saying that if you change the term of the school parcel tax, then it somehow isn’t a renewal. Currently I’m trying to decide whether to renew my subscription to National Geographic for one or for two years. I guess I’ve been mis-using that word in my decision.
In all it’s a distraction from the larger philosophical issue of whether or not to maintain the quality of K-12 education in Davis schools. The quality of education cannot be maintained with further cuts (or reductions) in funding.
“In all it’s a distraction …”
Yes, a distraction because they don’t feel they can win on the merits of whether or not to continue the parcel tax. Of course, the distraction techniques have never worked.
less vs. lose – of course that change in phrasing makes a difference. You can’t see that it makes a difference? As to whether it really matters, I’m sure that depends on your worldview.
I don’t see that it makes a functional difference. The meaning of the words is understood.
D. Enophile: [i]less vs. lose – of course that change in phrasing makes a difference. You can’t see that it makes a difference? As to whether it really matters, I’m sure that depends on your worldview.[/i]
If this were a genuine issue, they could have raised the issue with the school district earlier, and requested that any future copies of district information have proposed changes. From everyone I’ve asked, they did not. This info sheet is similar to what has been provided with past parcel taxes. They made no such complaint at those times.
Susan Lovenburg shared with me that Granda actually did raise the issue with her, that the sheet was a campaign piece. Susan responded offering to see about changing whatever wording he suggested. His response was, “no, don’t change anything.” That tells me that he wasn’t sincere in looking for a change.
This is a publicity stunt for the opposition to portray themselves as aggrieved victims, instead of children being the victims of less funding in education.
I think it’s worse than just a publicity stunt WDF. I think it’s an abuse of the complaint process. I don’t know to what extent Mr. Randall could be sanctions for a frivolous complaint, but it ought to be considered here. The FPPC has limited resources and they are wasting it on this.
On Oct. 18 Dunning raised the question that he thought the Measure E ballot wording was inappropiate:
“I don’t know about you, but it strikes me as odd, not to mention inappropriate, when the actual language of a ballot measure attempts to sway your emotions … thus we have the Measure E parcel tax asking “To offset the continued loss of significant state funding, shall the Davis Joint Unified School District be authorized to continue a special tax for a period of 4 years not to exceed the base annual rate of $20.00 per dwelling unit for multi-dwelling parcels and $204 per parcel for all other parcels, and levy up to an additional $242 to over State funding shortfalls ONLY if the November 2012 Temporary Taxes to Fund Education initiative does not pass?” …
The part about offsetting “the continued loss of significant state funding” is best left for the official ballot arguments that come out in the sample ballot sent out by the county clerk’s office … if you wish to claim this tax is necessary to offset “the continued loss of significant state funding,” save it for the “Argument in Favor of Measure E.” … that is, after all, what it is: an argument … the measure itself should be presented as neutrally as possible, with no attempt to lead the witness …
What it should say, very simply and very neutrally, is “Shall the Davis Joint Unified School District be authorized to continue a special tax for a period of 4 years …” and so on … let the voters decide why they wish to support or reject this measure …”
So you think the district should not be able to explain within the ballot language why they need the tax?
As Dunning says the ballot should just state “Shall the Davis Joint Unified School District be authorized to continue a special tax for a period of 4 years …” and so on … let the voters decide why they wish to support or reject this measure …”
There shouldn’t be any advocacy involved on the ballot. I wonder if this also could be challenged?
You didn’t answer my question.
Dunning’s wrong.
No it can’t be challenged and if it had, it would have been thrown out just like it was earlier this year.
BTW, it would appear the FPPC has bigger fish to fry.
[quote]Editorial: FPPC must unravel $11 million mystery ([url]http://www.sacbee.com/2012/10/25/4936572/fppc-must-unravel-11-million-mystery.html[/url])
By the Editorial Board – Published: 12:00 am
In a campaign sullied by shadow money, the California Fair Political Practices Commission is seeking to unveil hidden donors. In the process, the FPPC is heading into an area where the Internal Revenue Service has failed to tread.
Read more here: http://www.sacbee.com/opinion/#navlink=navbar#storylink=cpy%5B/quote%5D
“Susan Lovenburg shared with me that Granda actually did raise the issue with her, that the sheet was a campaign piece. Susan responded offering to see about changing whatever wording he suggested. His response was, “no, don’t change anything.” That tells me that he wasn’t sincere in looking for a change.”
So Granda set up Lovenburg! Whew, that is low ball stuff.
rusty: [i]There shouldn’t be any advocacy involved on the ballot. I wonder if this also could be challenged?[/i]
There were at least two points in time during which the No campaign or anyone from the public could have challenged and potentially changed the ballot language:
1) While the ballot language was being developed in open school board meeting, Granda and Randall could have submitted written complaints/suggestions to school board trustees or administrators, and they could have offered alternative language during public comment.
2) They could have filed a complaint with the county government, asking that the ballot language not be accepted, following Dunning’s argument.
But had they done so, then they would have one less thing to complain about during the campaign, and Dunning would have one less thing to write about in his column.
If they had done so, it would have gone to the court as it did earlier this year, Judge McAdam would have struck down on the basis that there is nothing unlawful about what they did and every ballot language in the state follows the same basic outline.
BTW, I’m curious as to where it’s written that ballot language for a ballot measure be neutral and not advocate? It appears looking at the propositions that every one of them advocate.
David wrote:
> So you think the district should not be able to explain
> within the ballot language why they need the tax?
The ballot language should be as neutral as possible.
If the firefighters union put a measure on the ballot to take money from schools and give it to the firefighters would it be fair to write this?
In order to avoid cuts to the fire department budget that will result in more Davis homes burning down and Davis children dying shall an increase of funds to the department (that will not involve any new taxes) be authorized?
I suggest you look at most ballot language, I just spent some time doing so. Ballot language isn’t neutral because the proposal itself is to pass the language – people can and do reject that proposal, but to act that ballot language is not a form of advocacy I think is to misunderstand the process.
Now, the one thing that is critical is to make sure the claims in the language are accurate.
[quote]This is a publicity stunt for the opposition to portray themselves as aggrieved victims, instead of children being the victims of less funding in education.[/quote]
I agree, and it seems a smart political move on their part. Of course it comes with some risk as well, because this move has been used before and someone like myself can quickly grow tired of it. But please don’t try to argue words don’t matter. The District, in similar clever fashion, specifically chose which words to use, balancing the pros and cons of their choice.
Dunning expresses his opinion about the ballot langage by saying “it is best left to ballot arguments”. I’m sure that if one is opposed to the measure, they will view the choice of words differently than if one is for the measure. No big surprise there.
The ballot should simply read that the School District wants to impose a tax and what Measure E will cost ratepayers if Prop. 30 passes and what Measure E will cost rate payers if Measure E fails. Yes or No
Sorry, if Prop. 30 fails…..
“The ballot should simply read that the School District wants to impose a tax and what Measure E will cost ratepayers if Prop. 30 passes and what Measure E will cost rate payers if Measure E fails. Yes or No”
So again, you don’t believe it should explain why the money is needed?
David wrote:
> So again, you don’t believe it should
> explain why the money is needed?
Only if it is fair and they let the people opposed to the measure write why the money is needed:
“Should the city of Davis take money away from taxpayers who buy food for the poor to give much needed money to the schools”…
That does not appear to make much sense to me. If I ask my father for $1000, he’s going to want to know what I need it for and why I need it.
SOD, great point. There’s two sides to the Measure E debate. Why does it get worded in a pro Measure E slant?
Still haven’t answered my question Rusty
SoD: [i]”Should the city of Davis take money away from taxpayers who buy food for the poor to give much needed money to the schools”…[/i]
Lower income families and the homeless also attend Davis schools. This is a matter of “teaching them to fish.”
“Funding for Davis schools remains uncertain.”
This is advertising language. It is emotive, and not useful for any intellectual consideration. Funding for everything is uncertain.
“Failure of Prop 30 will result in a $3.7 million cut this year. This amounts to approximately 5% of total revenue to the Davis Joint Unified School District.”
How about… [b]“Because of a combination of past government over-spending and lower State and local tax revenue resulting from a recession of the last four years that the Obama Administration failed to sufficiently improve, State government is threatening to cut $3.7 million of funding to the DJUS District unless Prop 30 passes.”[/b]
“Measure A, a local Davis parcel tax, sunsets in June 2013. If not renewed/ the District will lose another $3.2 million.”
How about: [b]“Measure A, a local Davis parcel tax that provides the district another $3.2 million to fund special and enhanced education programs and lower class sizes, sunsets in June 2013. If not renewed, these district education enhancements might be discontinued.”[/b]
This point… “The District must prepare for the loss of $6.9 million in revenue for the 2013-14 school year.” requires explanation. The average voter will not have sufficient background to understand why.