Town Square

Post a New Topic

A Tale of Two Signs

Original post made by Peter Carpenter, Atherton: Lindenwood, on Oct 6, 2014

Here are two yard signs:

Web Link

Web Link


The FPPC requires that "(1) Disclosures shall include “paid for by” in the same manner as, and immediately adjacent to and above, or immediately adjacent to and in front of, the required identification."

Only the No on Measure M sign complies with this disclosure law.

How can the Measure M people be trusted to write a zoning ordinance when they cannot even understand a one sentence disclosure requirement?

Comments (7)

Like this comment
Posted by Peter Carpenter
a resident of Atherton: Lindenwood
on Oct 6, 2014 at 4:50 pm

Peter Carpenter is a registered user.

And to add to their disregard for the law this illegal sign was also illegally placed on CalTrain property at the Oak Grove crossing:

Web Link


Like this comment
Posted by Gern
a resident of Menlo Park: Linfield Oaks
on Oct 6, 2014 at 5:16 pm

Gern is a registered user.

Peter, under section (a) of Web Link there is:

"The disclosure requirements of Sections 84503 and 84506(a)(2) shall not apply to general purpose committees, as defined by Section 82027.5."

The text quoted above precedes by one short paragraph the law which you appear to have quoted -- I'm not at all sure how you could have missed it unless you wished to. Now, we all remember how you famously -- infamously, perhaps -- established SaveMenlo as a general purpose committee (Web Link) but perhaps I'm missing some legal nuance here.

Are you, or are you not dead wrong with this particular accusation?

Gern


1 person likes this
Posted by Peter Carpenter
a resident of Atherton: Lindenwood
on Oct 6, 2014 at 5:29 pm

Peter Carpenter is a registered user.

Gern _ you missed the details - again:
"84506. (a) An advertisement supporting or opposing a candidate or
ballot measure, that is paid for by an independent expenditure, shall
include a disclosure statement that identifies both of the
following:
(1) The name of the committee making the independent expenditure."

Note that is section 84506 (a) 1 , not 84506(a)(2).

Details, details......

And in any case why do Measure M signs omit the phrase "paid for by"?

They have once again chosen ignorance as their ally - SAD.


Like this comment
Posted by Peter Carpenter
a resident of Atherton: Lindenwood
on Oct 6, 2014 at 7:17 pm

Peter Carpenter is a registered user.

Turns out that Menlo Park Deserves Better is also a General Purpose Committee.

Which raises the question why is Save Menlo looking for loopholes to hide in and Menlo Park Deserves Better is bending over to have full disclosure and transparency?

Perhaps because Save Menlo wrote its initiative in secret, never sought public input and refuse to disclose the name of its lawyer and what are the other clients of that lawyer. Hiding is a habit.


Like this comment
Posted by Peter Carpenter
a resident of Atherton: Lindenwood
on Oct 6, 2014 at 8:06 pm

Peter Carpenter is a registered user.

Gern - Why are you hiding?
What are you hiding?


Like this comment
Posted by Peter Carpenter
a resident of Atherton: Lindenwood
on Oct 7, 2014 at 7:28 am

Peter Carpenter is a registered user.

Lo and behold - Thanks to the Almanac's posting of the FPPC filings we discover that Save Menlo filed as a Primarily Formed Candidate/Office Holder Committee, not a General Purpose or , strangely, a Ballot Measure Committee (even though its filing name is Save Menlo, A Committee for Measure M.)


Web Link

Two problems:
1 - They previously claimed to be a General Purpose Committee as an excuse for not filing earlier reports
2 - The disclaimer on there lawn signs does not comply with the law for a Primarily Formed Candidate/Office Holder Committee.

How can we trust these folks to write a complex zoning ordinance when they do not even know what kind of a committee they are?


Like this comment
Posted by Peter Carpenter
a resident of Atherton: Lindenwood
on Oct 7, 2014 at 9:44 am

Peter Carpenter is a registered user.

I filed a complaint with California's Fair Political Practices Commission on May 16 alleging that the Save Menlo improperly claimed to be a general purpose committee when it's really a ballot-measure committee. Save Menlo responded by swearing that it was a General Purpose Committee and the FPPC took them at their word.

Now Save Menlo has filed its required financial report and states that it is actually a Primarily Formed Candidate/Office Holder Committee - which has the same reporting requirements as a Ballot Measure Committee.

Clearly Save Menlo has no problem with lying to the FPPC - either their prior statement was a falsehood or their current filing is a falsehood.

And, given their expenditures, they probably should be filing as a Ballot Measure Committee.

How can we trust someone to write complex zoning laws when they cannot comply with the Campaign Finance Laws?


Sorry, but further commenting on this topic has been closed.

All your news. All in one place. Every day.

Legends Pizza Co. replaces Palo Alto Pizza Co.
By Elena Kadvany | 5 comments | 2,033 views

Premarital and Couples: 10 Tips for the Holidays
By Chandrama Anderson | 0 comments | 1,987 views

What is a "ton" of carbon dioxide anyway?
By Sherry Listgarten | 7 comments | 1,891 views

HIIT
By Cheryl Bac | 0 comments | 786 views

 

The holidays are here!

From live music to a visit with Santa, here's a look at some local holiday activities to help you get into the spirit of the season.

VIEW