By David L. Johnson and Colin Walsh
In a series of 15 emails improperly sent over several months from his publicly-funded City of Davis email account, Councilmember Dan Carson:
- Campaigned for the Yes on H 2022 ballot measure to approve the Davis Innovation Sustainability Campus (DiSC) development project;
- Sent an invitation to multiple persons for a Yes on H campaign kick-off event to be held at his home;
- Sent emails defending his private lawsuit against Davis residents who wrote ballot arguments against Measure H, even though his lawsuit had nothing to do with city business;
- Provided information to DiSC developer Dan Ramos and Ramos’s campaign associates and attorneys about No on H advocates sending campaign information to city commissions;
- Invited Congressman Mike Thompson for a Yes on H briefing about “this important
project”; - Denigrated a No on H campaign leader about living with his mother;
- Carson’s emails were obtained based on a Public Records Act request to the City of Davis.
- Carson sent these emails from his City of Davis account between March and May 2022, either advocating for Measure H or defending his private lawsuit.
It is a violation of Government Code section 8314 for any elected local officer to use public resources for a campaign activity or personal purposes, except for incidental and minimal use of those public resources.
The following is a sample of Councilmember Carson’s emails from his City of Davis account. The names of some Davis residents have been redacted with three Xs by the authors of this article.
- March 16, 2022, to Lucy Brazil, Field Director for the Mike Thompson for Congress political campaign:
“Our Yes on H campaign is in full swing already. I appreciate Mike has a heavy schedule, with momentous issues unfolding in Washington. But we hope we can find a gap in his schedule soon for him to pay a visit and get a briefing on this important project.”
“If you are able to figure something out, please reach out to Patrick Curzon with our campaign team.”
- March 27, 2022, Carson sent an announcement, probably a mass mailing, for a Yes on Measure H campaign event. The subject was: “Yes on Measure H Campaign Kickoff.”
The email began:
“Dear Friends,
On behalf of the Yes on Measure H campaign, I would like cordially (sic) invite you to join me and XXX for the West Davis campaign kick-off party in support of the DiSC 2022 project. It will be on Sunday, April 3rd from 1pm-2pm at the Private Residence of Dan & XXX Carson at .
The email was signed “Sincerely, Councilmember Dan Carson, Yes on Measure H Campaign.”
- April 1, 2022, to a Davis resident about Measure H:
“We are gearing up big time on all fronts but I am always happy to answer yours and Judy’s specific questions. For example impact on DJUSD of $700k a year at buildout but not counting ADA gain and $2m plus in one/time construction fees.”
- April 2, 2022, to a Davis resident who complained about Carson lobbying for Measure H:
“For more information about our efforts please go to www.DavisforH.com.”
- April 7, 2022, to a Davis resident about Carson’s private lawsuit:
“Thanks for sharing your views about the ballot litigation. I do view things differently. I not only am permitted as any citizen is to fight for truth in the ballot materials that go to the public, but I have an obligation to do so.”
- April 7, 2022, to a Davis resident about Measure H:
“One leading opponent I am told said UC Davis students should have to live in Vacaville instead of Davis and commute by train. This guy gets to live in one of the nicest areas of Davis on a home with his mother. Talk about entitlement.”
In regard to the April 7 email, the mother in question is 83 years old, requires a wheelchair or a walker, has blood pressure and cancer-related medical issues and cannot live on her own. The mother’s son, who opposed Measure H, compassionately lives with his mother to provide elder care.
- May 10, 2022, to Andrew Kim, Wesley Sagewalker and Matt Keasling about Measure H:
“Just making you aware that it appears that Alan and Co. are again using city commission email lists to campaign. No doubt legal. Also easy to respond to since group commission emails are available via the city webpage for each commission. You could create a bundled list to respond to these in a hurry.”
The May 10 email provides a campaign strategy to the principals of the Yes on H campaign. The email recipients were:
o Andrew Kim was the treasurer for the Yes on H campaign and is a managing partner of Spafford and Lincoln, a political consulting firm. Spafford and Lincoln were paid $378,906 by the Yes on H campaign,
o Wesley Sagewalker worked for Spafford and Lincoln and represented the DiSC developer at public meetings,
o Matt Keasling is an attorney at Taylor and Wiley who represented the developer in public meetings. Taylor and Wiley were paid $61,425 by the Yes on H campaign.
- May 17, 2022, to Noah Painter, Andrew Kim, Matt Keasling, Wesley Sagewalker, Jeff Raimundo, Dan Ramos, Gene Endicott about Measure H:
“FYI only. They are again using our publicly available commission email lists (among other lists) to communicate. Social Services Commission as most of you know handles housing issues and reviewed DISC and they are unlikely to be impressed by these arguments.”
The May 17 email is the second message regarding campaign strategy to the Yes on H campaign team. The recipients included:
o Noah Painter, a partner at KMP Strategies, LLC which was paid $225,000 by the measure H campaign,
o Jeff Raimundo, a retired political consultant,
o Dan Ramos, the lead developer for the Measure H project,
o Gene Endicott, president of Endicott Communications, Inc. a Sacramento public relations firm that was paid $20,286 by the measure H campaign.
Ann M. Evans, a former Mayor of Davis stated,
“In this time of national turmoil and democracy on the decline, we find solace in thinking that Davis is different. Unfortunately, City Councilman Dan Carson used government resources during the recent campaign on Measure H to promote his view for Yes on H, on behalf of the developer.
As a councilperson, he took on the role as Honorary Chair of the Yes on H campaign and forgot he was an elected official, or remembered and abused the role, using public resources to promote the for-profit developer’s project. This is a first in Davis, and hopefully a last.”
In a September 20, 2022, city council meeting, Carson said the following:
“I strive very hard to separate out personal emails from city emails. It looks like there was a couple related to inviting some of my neighbors to a house party at my house related to a campaign matter. Does my sending two emails unintentionally and of course incorrectly, related to a campaign using my city email accounts, would that meet the definition of “incidental and minimal use of public resources?” (Our emphasis)
City attorney Inder Khalsa answered Carson’s question, stating:
“I think that’s exactly what that section was intended to cover, is the sort of inadvertent mistakes that people will make in sending an email or perhaps sending something out on using a city stamp on the envelope when they did not intend to do so.” (Our emphasis)
California Government Code section 8314 states:
“(a) It is unlawful for any elected state or local officer, including any state or appointee, employee, or consultant, to use or permit others to use public resources for a campaign activity, or personal or other purposes which are not authorized by law….(and) (e) incidental and minimal use of public resources by an elected state or local officer, including any state or local appointee, employee, or consultant, pursuant to this section shall not be subject to prosecution under Section 424 of the Penal Code.”
The question attorneys will need to address is: Are at least 15 emails, including one email that was probably a mass mailing, sent over a three-month period “incidental and minimal use of public resources?”
David L. Johnson worked 20 years as a manager of legislation and public information for a state agency in Sacramento. Now retired, he works from time to time as a free-lance journalist in Davis.
Colin Walsh has worked as a litigation consultant for 20 years, is the chair of the City of Davis Tree Commission and has been involved in Davis politics off-and-on since 1988.
This is the Davis version of Hillary Clinton’s email complete with the Russian leak of damaging content.
The bright red line that Carson doesn’t cross is there is no solicitation of campaign money from his city account. If this is such a big deal send it to the D.A., A.G. or PFFC. See what happens.
Like the outrage from the No on H campaign about Carson responding to public comment, where there is also an exemption for limited response to public comment, this is more below the belt campaigning, this time from at least one Fortune campaign supporter who I have observed tabling for her. I wonder if Fortune is okay with this kind of campaigning?
In fairness I’d be pissed too if someone talked smack about me for taking care of my mother.
I saw this when it was submitted, if one of my reporters had come to me with this story, probably wouldn’t have run it. There is a slight political value to it, but a complaint to the FPPC would likely not generate any sort of sanction. As you note, going after the person for taking care of their mother seems below the belt, but that again falls into a political rather than a legal realm.
The question “what was the cost to the City for these e-mails?” is unanswered…
Maybe $0.02? Less?
I know my internet account has $0.00000 cost for even 1000 e-mails…
[edited]
Now, if the CC person used the account “under the color of authority”, that would be a separate discussion…
Yet,
the article “stands”… tres interessant… perhaps because there is a “slight political value to it”…
Also interesting, is someone who uses a forum that uses a 503 (c) 3 medium also using a taxpayer funded (i.e. tax exempt/tax preferred) have ‘clean hands’ when used for personal ‘political’ purposes? Something about ‘pot and kettle’?
If the e-mails were, in demonstrable fact, sent “under the color of authority”, that indeed is another issue…
But as it stands, the article smells like “there is no there, there”…
And for clarity, I am not a supporter of, nor opponent of, any candidate for District 1 (not my district), but might be if I had reason to believe they would “only” represent their district, to the exclusion of the entire community…
Do you mean like contacting congressman Mike Thompson’s office using a City of Davis email account for a “briefing on this important project”?
Or, the mass mailing use a City of Davis email address, to invite others to the “campaign kickoff”?
From someone who worked in State government for his entire career, where similar rules exist?
Do you think this was an “accident”?
Comment edited. No personal attacks on authors, please.
According to the guidance given by City Staff to commission members, this tag line violates the Brown Act:
It implies endorsement on a political issue by a government agency. If this is not a violation, then the City Staff must change its instructions to City commissioners.
The issue here is whether city resources were improperly used. The issue of titles doesn’t apply. In general, as long as one doesn’t attempt to imply or represent the whole council, and in this case, with approval of the project, even that’s probably not an issue.
Tell that to former Mayors/CC folk who try to affect election outcomes… they’d ‘roll their eyes’, then dissemble… they do it all the time… they “use their titles”…
This was interesting, if true…
Many levels… and NOT just the CC member “the hit piece” was intended for…
Also, “interesting” [edits] by Moderator… but of course, “non-political” edits…
It would be wrong to ascribe inherent, other biases, of any nature, to the owner of VG, ‘Moderator(s?)’… yeah… right…
But his emails!!
Really?
It seems to me that the city council more or less gave Carson their blessing to represent them and take the lead of the Measure H Campaign. It’s what’s led to the actual or perceived blurring of Carson’s responsibilities. But I think there’s enough evidence for a case to be made that Carson’s use of emails for the campaign represent the council as well. It’s still all politically stupid. Probably legit but still stupid.
True story… second sentence, true on both opinions… IMO…