RSS
Home
Illegal Campaigning in Burlingame?
Print
Email
RSS
Subscribe
.jpg)
City of Burlingame
There is growing confusion over who is funding the campaign in support of Burlingame Measures H and I. It seems the normally required campaign filings for the measures seem to never have been made nor did the required identifying information appear on the flyers sent to voters in early October as required by law.
Confused? So are many Burlingame voters.
The odd sequence of events may be the beginning of a full-fledged scandal or require only a simple explanation.
In early October two campaign flyers landed in the mail boxes of Burlingame voters, one in support of Measure H and the other in support of Measure I.
Measure H is a proposed increase of 2% to Burlingame’s local hotel tax paid by hotel visitors from 10% to 12%.
Measure I is a proposal to end the practice of electing Burlingame’s City Clerk and make it an appointive position.
The mailer in support of Measure H included what appeared to be the appropriate identifying information including the name of the committee supporting the measure, “Protect Burlingame” and what looked a number assigned to the committee via the State’s Fair Political Practices Commission, the quasi-governmental agency charged with enforcing the Political Reform Act of 1974 – the body of law that requires, among many things, disclosure of the source of funding and the organization behind measures and candidates.
The mailer in support of Measure I however lacked any of the identifying information and it was that lapse that first caught the eye of inquiring minds in Burlingame. An inquiry about the matter was made by the Daily Journal Newspaper in a small piece in which City Manager Jim Nantell stated that “…both were paid by the same group, Protect Burlingame, FPPC No. 800317956. It was left off of one flier by mistake.
While that answer sufficed for the Daily Journal, others remained skeptical. For one reason, the FPPC number quoted by Nantell is not an FPPC Number. For starters, most FPPC numbers for committees or candidates range from 6-7 digits, not 9 digits. Secondly, in a quick check of the Secretary of State’s online database of campaign finance records, no such committee number can be verified and no committee under the name “Protect Burlingame” exists.
As of the posting of this column, no forms normally required to form a campaign committee or report the financial activity of such a committee, described as forms 410 and 460 on the Secretary of State’s web site and required by the FPPC, have been filed with the Office of the City Clerk in Burlingame as otherwise required by law.
More peculiar is the fact that the number quoted by Nantell is the same number associated with the May 5, 2009 campaign committee that supported a measure on Burlingame’s ballot in a special all-mail in election for property owners to form a special assessment district to pay for upgrades to the City’s storm drain system.
The identifying number quoted by Nantell and presented as an FPPC-assigned number in the Daily Journal is the same as that listed on the web site for the storm drain measure. But the number actually appears to be some sort of federal tax identification number often associated with a nonprofit or some other such enterprise, not one assigned by the FPPC.
So, all of this begs the questions of who are the members of “Protect Burlingame” and where are the records of the committee’s financial activities? They are not with the City Clerk and there is no trail with the Secretary of State. The signatories on the ballot measures include the entire Burlingame City Council and other local leaders past and present but that is the only clue to the make up of "Protect Burlingame".
And what may be another issue is the use of the same reference number for both the Storm Drain Measure on the May 5, 2009 ballot for the Measure H/I campaigns for the November 3, 2009 campaigns. Again, where are the financial documents for the Strom Drain committee? And are funds that were donated to the Storm Drain measure being comingled with those supporting Measures H and I? If so, there may be more problems to come for those associated with “Protect Burlingame.”
In the case of Measure I, the “I” must stand for irony as the primary argument for maintaining an elected City Clerk is preserving the independence of the city clerk as the clerk serves as the city’s election’s officer charged with ensuring all necessary documents are filed by candidates and local measure committees. Oddly, the supporters of removing the City clerk as an independently elected office may have failed to file the necessary paperwork for that effort and it may be up to the elected City Clerk to then report the sponsors – including members of the City Council and the City Manager – to the FPPC to face enforcement action including potential fines.
This goes to the basic argument of the opponents of Measure I that an independently elected City Clerk is necessary in the case they must take action that could result in penalties for City Council candidates who would then have indirect authority to hire and fire a City Clerk if it was appointive.
Perhaps there is a simple answer or perhaps the elected City Clerk will be forced to turn this matter over to the FPPC for investigation. Either way, many Burlingamers will be watching.
Contact Bruce Balshone at bruce.examiner@gmail.com
Related Articles:
Comments
