HomeMy WebLinkAbout03-21-2017 Item 14, RiceCOUNCIL MEETING: 3 - 2 ► - 1
ITEM NO.: ISE f I V
FMAR 2 O2017
SLO CITY CLERK
From: Kevin P. Rice <
Sent: Saturday, March 18, 2017 11:38:14 PM
To: E-mail Council Website; Dietrick, Christine; Johnson, Derek; Lichtig, Katie
Cc: Gallagher, Carrie
Subject: LETTER OF CAUTION: Election Advocacy - RHIP (Tues 3/21, Item 14)
Hon. Council and Staff:
I wish to caution the City against its participation in election advocacy, which is a violation of law (Gov. Code §
54964).
On Wednesday, the City issued a news release
(hqp://www.slocity.orgZHome/Co=onents/News/News/4922/17) pertaining to the Initiative to repeal and
replace the Rental Housing Inspection Ordinance.
The City's news release contains several false statements of fact and appears to "urge a particular result in an
election" (FPPC Regulation 18225(b)(1)(D)(2)) which constitutes "express advocacy" (Ibid.).
FACTUAL INACCURACIES IN THE NEWS RELEASE
(1) The news release inaccurately claims the Council has already "voted to repeal the City's Rental Housing
Inspection Program [sic]" (ordinance, not 'program'). In fact, the City Council has merely voted to introduce a
repeal amendment. A final adoption vote will take place March 21, or later, or never. Even upon adoption,
repeal will not take effect until 30 days later, subsequent to publication of the amended ordinance in a
newspaper of record.
(2) The news release inaccurately claims the Initiative Proponents "collected 7,112 signatures to qualify the
initiative". In fact, the Proponents gathered 9,282 signatures to qualify the initiative. The Proponents
implemented very labor intensive technical quality assurance processes to strike certain signatures from
consideration. The fact is 9,282 signatures were "collected" and 7,112 signatures submitted.
(3) The news release, a second time, inaccurately claims "[t]he Council unanimously repealed the Rental
Housing Inspection Program [sic] on March 7, 2017." Again, the ordinance (not 'program') has not been
repealed and remains in full effect.
ELECTION ADVOCACY (UNLAWFUL CITY EXPENDITURES)
The City may not expend taxpayer funds "to support or oppose the approval or rejection of a ballot measure"
(Gov. Code § 54964). Such expenditures include "communications that expressly advocate the approval or
rejection of a clearly identified ballot measure". (Gov. Code § 54964(B)(3).) FPPC Regulation 18225 defines
"expressly advocate" as including a communication which "taken as a whole, unambiguously urges a particular
result in an election."
The City's March 15, 2017 news release employs political "spin"—a special point of view, emphasis, or
interpretation controlling a presentation (Merriam -Webster's Unabridged)—in a purposeful and methodical
manner which taken as a whole, unambiguously urges rejection of the Initiative Measure, to wit:
(1) The news release begins with it's false claim: "A week after the Council voted to repeal..." This opening
volley clearly intends to confer the Initiative Measure is both redundant and moot, and that the Initiative
Measure came about subsequent to the City Council's lead. None of these false advocations are true. The
Initiative Measure is nearly six months antecedent to any City Council action, a Notice of Intent to Circulate
having been filed August 30, 2016. The Initiative Measure is neither redundant nor moot in that it additionally
mandates non-discrimination in housing and enshrines the People's voice (because an ordinance adopted by
initiative may only be amended by the People.) The Initiative Measure would provide and end to discriminatory
housing policies by the City of SLO and would place future discrimination out of reach of future City Councils.
(2) The news release continues its spin (¶ 4): "The proponents submitted the petition the same day the City
Council held a community workshop [... ]"; then restates it's false claim, "the Council unanimously repealed the
RHIP [sic] on March 7, 2017." Once again, this political spin infers redundancy, mootness and that the Council
is the vanguard of repeal when, in fact, the Council only took action in reaction to the Initiative Measure's
impending pendency.
(3) The news release asserts capricious unsubstantiated speculations regarding potential conflicts with federal,
state or local laws and other impacts.
The City's news release further employs the Fallacy of Omission to induce spin:
(1) The news release fails to admit the present City Council interest in repeal is solely the result of the
Initiative's pendency, public participation, litigation, and outcome of the November General Municipal Election.
Prior to these influences, the (current and former) City Council repudiated and ignored multiple pleas and
warnings:
• The full City Council was publicly warned of a possible initiative effort as early as May 17, 2016 during
public comment on the rental inspection ordinance.
+ A Notice of Intent to circulate the Initiative Petition was filed August 30, 2016.
■ The City was fully aware of the Initiative's strong progress as early as October 2016 when thousands of
petitions were mailed to city residents and when the Initiative's ballot measure committee disclosed
thousands of dollars of contributions equaling the strength of the mayor candidates' campaigns.
■ Independent election advocacy resulted in the Initiative being a strong issue in the November General
Municipal Election.
• Litigation was filed against the City challenging the Rental Inspection Ordinance.
• Several public pleas to Council took place --during public comment in closed session pertaining to the
litigation, and a general public comment appeal to (former) mayor to place rental inspections on the
Council agenda prior to the November election. All pleas were ignored.
(2) The news release fails to mention the Initiative Measure's timeline, especially the date the Notice of Intent to
Circulate was filed and date title and summary was issued; and fails to disclose the City's absolute refusal to
acknowledge the Initiative Measure's existence until the date the petition was submitted.
(3) The news release imbues the City is leading the repeal effort sua sponte and that the Initiative Measure is
complicating and interfering with the City's forward progress. Exactly the opposite is true.
The City's March 15 news release constitutes improper "express advocacy". I will be scrutinizing
future communications and expect accuracy without "spin", completeness and facts.
Kevin P. Rice
(