Filing Disclosure Gives Answer To Perpetual Question As to Who Bankrolled the Referendum Drive
One of the most persistent questions of the petition drive to roll back the Davis City Council’s decision on September 6, 2011 to increase water rates by at least 14% and to move forward with the surface water project was who was funding the referendum drive. The answer is that they were who we were thought they were.
There were no surprises – a few small donors and three principals accounted for the entire funding mechanism that we now know raised a total of $9248.57, $4738.57 of which came after October 1. They spent nearly $7000 to gain the $3800 signatures that ended up with the council rescinding the rate hikes three months to the day of having passed them.
The group ends with a closing cash balance of $2298.
That money includes three $100 donations from Ronald Clement, Paul Brady and Brian Johnson.
The bulk of the money comes from the three principals – Michael Harrington who appears to have shelled out nearly $9000, $2000 from Ernie Head and $500 from retired Judge Jim Stevens.
Nearly all of the money went to Momentum Political Services, which handled the signature collection process.
CLICK ON THE IMAGE TO SEE THE DISCLOSURES
Last week, the City of Davis voted to put the matter of the surface water project on the ballot. They did not decide at that time what form the measure would take.
They could have an advisory vote on the water rates hikes and the surface water project itself, coupled with a Prop 218 notification process.
The problem with that is that, politically, only putting an advisory vote on the ballot puts the council in a tough position. Can they put a vote on the ballot on such a critical issue that is only advisory, and that in theory the public would not trust without having some kind of assurance?
Any binding vote that would include a water rate hike, however, puts the council in a different quandary, as it requires a two-thirds vote.
Councilmember Dan Wolk said, “I’m wholeheartedly in support of having it on the November 2012 ballot. I’m not prepared today to say it should be an advisory measure.”
“My understanding is that if the council wants to initiate it and not have it be an advisory vote – it has to be a two-thirds vote,” he said.
“If the measure included the financing and the approval of the special financing mechanism then it would require a two-thirds vote,” City Attorney Harriet Steiner clarified. “Putting a regular binding initiative type action on the ballot, it’s not my recollection that it would take more than a majority of the voters.”
She then clarified, “One of the questions that came to us was whether you could go straight to the voters to set the water rates. And it seems to us that you cannot go straight to the voters to set the water rates.”
According to Ms. Steiner, the city would have to first go through the Proposition 218 process and then go to the voters and under those conditions it would be a two-thirds vote requirement to set the water rates.
The answer is that the council could set a vote that dealt with the project, and not the rates, at majority, but any ballot measure that actually set the rates would require a two-thirds vote.
Mayor Joe Krovoza said, “We’re going to put this on in November and if we’re going to put it on I don’t want the community thinking that it’s kind of this advisory thing and then we’ll decide what we’ll do afterwards based upon their advice.”
“We’re going to queue this up so that we do that Prop 218 process through the fall or ending sometime in October,” he continued. “That’s going to be the rate setting but then there will be a vote of the people in November to tell to go forward with the project and that will be binding in some way.”
But at this time, the council has not made the decision as to whether the vote in November would be advisory – only that the vote will be in November.
“I’m not necessarily committing to a non-advisory vote,” Councilmember Wolk clarified. “The two-thirds issue is an important consideration.”
The other question is, with the vote scheduled for November, whether the water project opponents will even wait that long.
—David M. Greenwald reporting
Wow, what a groundswell of grassroots activism!
An attorney and a landowner representing Davis. I feel so privileged.
Thank you Ernie, Michael, Judge Jim and all other donors for standing up for the rights of the people in Davis.
“There were no surprises – a few small donors and three principals accounted for the entire funding mechanism that we now know raised a total of $9248.57….”
No surprises? Only if you didn’t believe Michael’s contentions that he was not the initiator and the financer and the spokesman! If he shelled out $9,000 to cover the initiative’s $7,000 in expenses, this turns out to be pretty much a one man operation. And, an effective one at that.
Do we know what Momentum did other than collect signatures? Again, the success of the campaign really depended on Michael’s doggedness (and dogginess).
Direct democracy strikes again !
Private wealth of a few strikes again!
“Water Foes Raised Nearly Ten Grand…we now know raised a total of $9248.57…”
If Michael’s contribution to direct democracy was $9,000 and Ernie kicked in $2,000 and Judge Jim shelled out $500, somebody must be skimming some off the top. This doesn’t add up. Scandal in Davis city politics?
[quote]The other question is, with the vote scheduled for November, whether the water project opponents will even wait that long.[/quote]
Meaning what exactly?
Erm: you shall see
Amazing … Less than $10k slowed down the water gang from fraudulently lifting more than $500 million out of the pockets of Davis and woodland ratepayers I love this town !
Best democracy money can buy, eh . OK as long as it isn’t public employees’ money in the game, I guess .
“Water Foes”: A type of person that dislikes water
Looks like Mike Harrinton formed a Davis-sized Super Pac. Too bad the citizens are NOT united.
The California State constitution in its infinite stupidity allows only 31 days for signature gathering on a referendum issue and requires that the gatherers get 10% of the votes cast at the last gubernatorial campaign. (By contrast signatures for an initiative can be gathered over 150 days, or 131 days before the next state election, and only 5% of the votes cast at the last gubernatorial election need to be obtained).
It should thus come as no surprise to anyone that proponents of a referendum did not have time to engage in what is inevitably would have been a time consuming grassroots funding campaign.
By extension, the fact that most of the funding for the referendum drive came from three sources does not mean that there wasn’t much support for rescinding the water rate increases, scrutinizing the water project, as other evidence such as the 218 vote most clearly shows, and a belief that this is an issue of such importance that it should go to all Davis voters.
It may be ironic, but we should just be grateful that three donors have given Davis voters the opportunity to engage in direct democracy despite our council’s efforts to thwart this.
Harrington, when he was on the council, tried to make Davis resemble Chicago… he, in the most part, failed…
Jeff: You are way too funny! Our view was that we faced a political emergency in September and October, and spending from the family rainy day fund was required. You know, it’s far less expensive to participate this way than it is to sit up on that dais for 4 years and listen to hours of testimony as to why a speed bump should not be installed mid-block.
I killed my law firm income for the most part in 2000-04 CC era.
Biddlin: who bought what? You know that the water gang retained a PR firm to sell the project, to the tune of $300,000 (that we know of). Also, they used our rate payer money to set up the Sept 6th debacle that made our wonderful little city government look like idiots. And did you know that not a single staff member, or water consultant, has been fired or disciplined over what happened? So, think: 10+ years theft of millions of public money, as compared to my use of some rainy day money for a few weeks.
“Can we drop a little bit of the pious baloney?” — Newt Gingrich. Best political phrase of 2012, so far.
“Councilmember Dan Wolk said, “I’m wholeheartedly in support of having it on the November 2012 ballot. I’m not prepared today to say it should be an advisory measure.””
The quote above clearly illustrates how Dan Wolk is ready for prime time (and that is of course where he wants to end up). In this short quote Dan Wolk blatantly avoids saying whether he is in favor of making any city initiative on the November ballot advisory or binding.
Dan, I assume you read this blog. If so please can you clarify what your position is? You have had plenty of time to think about this one. ( If “today” is too early, please tell us why this is the case). Failure to do so would confirm the belief of some that you are a slightly right of center moderate who straddles major issues until you have determined which way the wind blows.
Even if this kind of politics is just preferable to those of one of your June rivals, I am tired of the lack of courage and the political expediency of so many our council members and candidates, present and past.
It takes money to have a petition drive, I don’t care if it was funded by just a few people who felt strongly enough to back it. As long as they did not buy signatures, and I would be surprised if they did, I am glad they took the initiative.
Now, what we need is for the information about what we would really be getting for our money, so we can vote responsibly. I do not believe it is responsible to deplete the aquifer but if we are buying rights to water if it’s available, but not water itself because when we need it it won’t be available, that is not a deal I will vote for. It’s a boondoggle if I ever saw one. Where is the information?
[i]”You know, it’s far less expensive to participate this way than it is to sit up on that dais for 4 years and listen to hours of testimony as to why a speed bump should not be installed mid-block.”[/i]
LOL! Mike, you don’t to convince this capitalist about the power of money and the value of time that can be used to make more money.
There was substantial debate back in 1776 about lower house congressional representation being based on states’ wealth or population.
Regardless of whether Mike feels that he sacrificed his life and his income for the City while on the City Council (I don’t know why he thinks we would care), it doesn’t excuse engaging in lies and subterfuge during the initiative drive (and continuing today). Why didn’t he just admit that he was bankrolling the campaign when asked repeatedly? Why be so slimy about the level of his “participation?”
You da man Mr.Harrington, you don’t owe these naysayers nuttin.
The real news of this financial story is not that Mike Harrington and a few others put up most of the money. The real news is that we had to wait 3 months to find out that Mike Harrington and a few others toted the bill.
As far as I know, there is absolutely no reason to question the personal motives of the donors, here. It’s not as if they are offering up a competing proposal from which they hope to make money. They did this–based on their view of the waterworks–as an act of public beneficence.
But it still galls me that we have a campaign finance reporting system which is terribly antiquated. It seems to me the campaigns ought to have to submit their data electronically to the City Clerk, and the Clerk then should have to immediately make the contribution data available to the public on the City’s website.
Reporting this months after the fact does much less good. Reporting it as the campaign happens allows voters or signers of petitions to make more informed decisions.
If any members of the City Council are reading these comments, I would hope they would take up the issue of immediate electronic posting of campaign finance data in all city elections. Once the electronic forms are created, this would certainly save the City some money. It would be far easier for the Clerk to process the information if it came to her in electronic form.
I should expand upon this:
“It seems to me the campaigns ought to have to submit their data electronically to the City Clerk …” the day they get the money.
In other words, if I write a check to the Rowdy Regulars for Rusty49 for Davis City Council campaign today (2-2-12), Rusty49 or his campaign treasuer should have no more than 24 hours to fill out and submit to the Clerk an electronic form which shows who I am, that I gave and how much I gave. Each week during a campaign the Clerk could then automatically upload campaign finance data to the CityofDavis.org website.
Pierce: LOL ! How did you know I am from Chicago ??
David: I’m not a water foe. I’m a lover of good clean and affordable water !
Thank goodness the water rate hikes were rescinded and the school tax has a decent shot at renewal next month
A few thoughts here, folks.
First, a number of the comments here seem to be complaining that “one troublemaker brought down the water rate hike” or something like that. Let’s think about that for a moment. Although Mike Harrington spent a significant chunk of his own change in order to collect signatures within the 30-day window allowed, wouldn’t Mike’s money have been wasted if there hadn’t been several thousand qualified voters willing to sign the petition? It was the signatures – not the money spent to collect them – that brought down the rate hikes.
Second, the rate hikes as imposed (and later rescinded) by the city council really should [i]never[/i] have been passed in that form. They were so misleading that even some councilmembers didn’t realize that the “14% increase” was flat out incorrect. Bob Dunning called it a lie. I don’t normally like to use that word, but I can’t argue with it in this case.
Dan Wolk learned a lesson that Sue Greenwald learned early in her first term: Councilmembers should never take what city staff tell them at face value, they must do their own due diligence. It’s part of the job. If water rates must be raised (and apparently some increase is necessary), let’s do it openly, transparently, and unambiguously.
Finally, I wholeheartedly agree with Rifkin’s contention that political disclosures of all types should be filed electronically and available in near-real time. In a Facebook/Twitter world, the city is still using methods from decades ago. This allows donors who wish to hide the money to time their donations such that they won’t become public at a time of scrutiny.
[b]”The 80s called, and they want their fax machines back.”[/b]
Michael Harrington-I was making a point about who’s money is ok in Davis .
Aw c’mom, give ’em a few days, maybe a week to report it, life is busy. But yes, let’s get rid of the paper heavy system.
Rich and David Suder, I generally agree with much of what you write about, but on this one i have to respectfully disagree.
From having been in the middle of several chaotic campaigns, run by volunteers, I can tell you that these smaller local campaigns lack the energy and skill sets to drop everything whenever a check comes in and send it into the City.
I think the current reporting times are enough. When there is an actual campaign, the reporting snapshots are more frequent the closer to the election you get.
After it qualified in October, the referendum campaign never kicked into action because the CC correctly read the bicycle spokes whirring past their noses and repealed the rates.
So people generally vote based on fairly complete donor and expense information.
[quote]“You know, it’s far less expensive to participate this way than it is to sit up on that dais for 4 years and listen to hours of testimony as to why a speed bump should not be installed mid-block.”[/quote]Michael speaks truth, another inconvenient one, that continues to this very day. The latest example is the hours of investigation required to [u]almost[/u] come to a decision about whether Davis Diamonds have looked long and hard enough for a new business site, thanks partly to inadequate staff work before the meeting.[quote]“The real news is that we had to wait 3 months to find out that Mike Harrington and a few others toted the bill.”[/quote]Rich speaks truth, one that doesn’t make sense these days and results in political secrecy rather than the disclosure for which the rules supposedly were designed.
[quote]It takes money to have a petition drive, I don’t care if it was funded by just a few people who felt strongly enough to back it. As long as they did not buy signatures, and I would be surprised if they did, I am glad they took the initiative.
Now, what we need is for the information about what we would really be getting for our money, so we can vote responsibly. I do not believe it is responsible to deplete the aquifer but if we are buying rights to water if it’s available, but not water itself because when we need it it won’t be available, that is not a deal I will vote for. It’s a boondoggle if I ever saw one. Where is the information? [/quote]
I would strongly suggest you tune in to the WAC meetings via television (or come in person to the City Council Chambers), held twice monthly, on the second and fourth Tuesdays of the month, starting at 6:30 pm. It is my understanding you will be able to access the video footage at any time after each meeting…