Remember how the folks over at the Committee Against Measure A (CAMA) filed a claim against Alameda SOS (the pro parcel tax campaign), the Alameda School District, and a bunch of individuals to the FPPC? They claimed that the School District was
“Using public resources, in violation of State law, AUSD has clearly subsidized the ‘Yes on A’ campaign by providing a classroom, equipment, furnishings, artwork and a teacher as a photography model. Without AUSD providing public resources, the ‘Yes on A’ campaign would have had to spend a tremendous amount of money to stage the photographs in this mailer. AUSD has clearly contributed financing to this mass-mailer.”
And used this press release based on their own filings (and therefore their own perception of the piece) to claim that the mailer was “illegal”:
While the press release noted that the FPPC would “promptly evaluate and respond to Traiman’s complaint” the fact that there was no disposition yet didn’t stop CAMA and friends from broadcasting the fact that a complaint was out there to make it appear that the pro parcel tax campaign had done something illegal.
Well, as predicted by the CAMA campaign, after less than two weeks after receiving David Howard and Leland Traiman’s complaint, the FPPC has closed the file on this particular complaint, saying:
Of course, given the track record of David Howard he’ll probably just ignore the part about there being insufficient evidence that a violation occured and attempt to spin the closure as a technicality because the FPPC doesn’t have jurisdiction over violations of the Education Code. So despite the fact that David Howard and Leland Traiman provided no less than 21 pages worth of “proof” that a violation had occured and a special hand written note by David Howard to the FPPC imploring that they:
And even funnier to boot, despite David Howard’s fears that the FPPC staff wouldn’t “read carefully” enough, they pointed out to him that the evidence that he proffered revealed that Alameda SOS had paid the School District for use of their facilities which David Howard was alleging that they had received for free, or rather “subsidized” by the school district.
But again, I’m sure that this letter, as definitive as it is, won’t stop CAMA from making whatever claim out of it that they want to.