Blogging Bayport Alameda

December 1, 2016

Do it yourself

Filed under: Alameda — Lauren Do @ 6:01 am

Sometimes I think that some City Councilmembers think that City Staff are personal assistants or similar.

For example, for the next City Council meeting Trish Spencer, who I guess is super bummed out that Tony Daysog isn’t going to be her wingman moving forward, has a Council Referral asking that the City of Alameda file a complaint with the Fair Political Practices Commission regarding the anonymous mailers going after Tony Daysog.  From her Council Referral:

This past election campaign season, there were two mailers (see attached) against City Council candidate Tony Daysog which failed to include any information identifying who mailed them and using non-traceable postage stamps. The mailers were received by Alameda voters approximately one week before the November 8, 2016 election.

I request that Council direct staff to submit a complaint to the Enforcement Division of the Fair Political Practices Commission (FPPC) alleging a violation of “Unidentified Advertisement or Mailer” and requesting that the matter be investigated. In the past, there have been discussions in Alameda regarding campaign finance reform.

While this was definitely a violation of the FPPC, the City Council and City in general may want to be a little careful about what should rise to a City level action when it comes to determining filing FPPC complaints.  After all, I didn’t see Trish Spencer asking that the School Board file an FPPC complaint against an anonymous mailer that was sent out in 2014 against a School Board candidate.   I guess the difference is that she was happy with the result in the 2014 School Board race, but not in the 2016 City Council race.

Here’s the thing, nothing precludes Trish Spencer as a private citizen from filing the FPPC complaint herself. Attempting to use the cudgel of the City of Alameda is overstepping her position and asking that the City of Alameda make a political determination that would not be appropriate for the City to make.

Also, if you’re going to redact something, perhaps use a darker sharpie:

redact

Trish Spencer’s source appears to be someone who worked really hard to get Jennifer Roloff elected.

Advertisements

20 Comments »

  1. The logical person or entity to file a complaint is Tony Daysog or his campaign. If they can’t be bothered to do it, I fail to see why the city of Alameda should step in and do it.

    Comment by JohnB — December 1, 2016 @ 7:43 am

  2. While they are at it, they can file a complaint against Daysog for not including an FPPC# on his Sun inserts.

    Comment by BMac — December 1, 2016 @ 7:54 am

  3. The objection (“inappropriate”) is probably a good one, but I read it mostly as a conclusion. I am wondering what we should say the objection is based on. Is it the waste of staff time on this endeavor, a desire to move on and for good will to prevail, the hint of authoritarianism (“cudgel”) or perhaps fear of City–endorsed discrimination against the viewpoint expressed in the speech/mailers (keeping in mind that the City has no authority to enforce FPPC regulations; at most it can register a complaint), or perhaps an objection to campaign finance laws or the FPPC regulations generally or as they now exist?

    Comment by MP — December 1, 2016 @ 7:57 am

  4. This short exchange caught my eye yesterday.

    Net payers of taxes:

    Evidently dave not only currently but has always believed that each United States citizen who receives more than fifty percent of their income whether that income be paycheck, goods, services, health care, or anything else that can be translated into an instrument of wealth and is received from a government agency or a combination of government agencies, whether those agencies be federal, state, county or city should not be afforded voting rights at any level.

    This is priceless!

    Adios Democrat party, adios Republican party, adios Bernie, adios public schools, adios public service unions, adios overpaid firemen, adios State University systems with their overpaid left wing professors, adios professional politicians, adios soldiers, sailors, air farce, coastlies Nat Guardians, adios bullet train boondoggle…and the list goes on and on and on…

    Hello Calexit and new armed revolution , hello Trump “upside”

    —I’ve always been in favor limiting to net payers of taxes.

    Comment by dave — November 30, 2016 @ 11:23 am

    Reply
    LOL

    Comment by BMac — November 30, 2016 @ 11:56 am

    Reply
    In case it isn’t clear, this policy is how you legally justify slave labor.

    Comment by BMac — November 30, 2016 @ 12:14 pm

    Reply
    Upside: It neatly excludes Jack from the voting rolls

    Comment by dave — November 30, 2016 @ 12:43 pm-

    Comment by upside — December 1, 2016 @ 9:44 am

    • At risk of taking the bait yet again, here is the number for the Southern Poverty Law Center where you can report Dave’s campaign against the Thirteenth Amendment: (334) 956-8200 or Toll-Free at (888) 414-7752. You might also want to contact Mr., and soon to be Pres., Trump – http://www.donandtrump.com (I would guess) – and http://www.GOP.com, because Dave’s plan would spell disaster for their electoral playbook.

      http://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2014/05/which-states-are-givers-and-which-are-takers/361668/

      Comment by MP — December 1, 2016 @ 4:32 pm

      • You’re conflating states with individuals. As I understand it, dave’s paradigm limits the voting rights to individuals who are net payers of taxes at any layer of government. Receivers of 50+% of total individual income from any level of government eliminates individual voting rights. Personally, I would gladly give up my voting rights (I am a retired DOD veteran) because the results that would occur under dave’s plan would pave Freidrich Hayek’s Road to Serfdom and then we can all look forward to the rise to the American version of Vladimir Ilyich Ulyanov’s NEP.

        Comment by jack — December 1, 2016 @ 7:14 pm

        • Easier to measure at the state rather than individual level. Think of the trouble we’ve already had trying to figure out whether Mr Trump would qualify.

          Comment by MP — December 1, 2016 @ 8:13 pm

        • I’m responding to dave’s comment which separates and isolates individual voting rights. The State’s total vote has no bearing on his argument.

          Comment by jack — December 1, 2016 @ 8:31 pm

        • Understood. I was digressing because, by chance, the first voter that came to mind a few weeks after Nov. 8 was Mr. Trump and I wondered how said paradigm would apply to said individual. I could give an answer for Clinton, Bush, Obama, Romney, McCain, and others who have released tax returns. But as to Mr. Trump, I don’t know. It was a choice between misapplying the paradigm to known data about states versus getting the paradigm right but no data about our new First Voter.

          Comment by MP — December 1, 2016 @ 9:22 pm

        • You’d have to ask dave if he thinks his fifty plus or minus income level voting rights would apply to the recipient of the votes. Regarding your federal level example, my own belief is that dave’s law should not apply to either the elected President or Vice President of the Republic because decisions made by the President can be overturned by the legislative branch of government and legislation passed deemed unconstitutional can be overturned by the third branch and the Vice President is the tie breaker in the senate.

          Comment by jack — December 1, 2016 @ 10:38 pm

        • It was just a smart ass off hand comment but I must say it has been quite amusing to see how worked up it’s gotten you.

          Comment by dave — December 2, 2016 @ 6:13 am

        • Aren’t they all smart ass and off hand? I find it very amusing to contemplate ‘what ifs’…a few things I’d add to your 50+%ers is that in order to have the right to vote a citizen must pass a written test based on the origin and motivation behind the Constitution and the political concept in the forming of a Democratic Republic limited by the Constitution, be able to speak and understand English, have proof of citizenship and pass a bio metric identification proving the person voting has completed all the above requirements and is who she/he/it says it/she/he is and is indeed a citizen of this country.

          Comment by jack — December 2, 2016 @ 10:13 am

  5. Asking city staff to spend time on this is akin to, and in fact much worse than, allowing campaign signs on public property.

    (Which is not allowed)

    (And which the Daysog campaign and others did during this last election, at the corner of Lincoln and Constitution by the Ralph’s, and I assume elsewhere)

    Comment by brock — December 1, 2016 @ 10:41 am

  6. brock, my old friend Ralph Appezatto would tell us on election night that he wanted all of his signs down by noon the next day. He would be right there with us canvasing Alameda to get them down. candidates should think about that.

    Comment by John Piziali — December 1, 2016 @ 12:56 pm

    • That Appezatto would make sure to have his campaign debris picked up was due to his military training. Candidates now days think they’re above all that trivial stuff.

      Comment by jack — December 1, 2016 @ 8:15 pm

      • Not so, Jack. In Election 2014, I had a Trish sign and a Frank sign in my front yard. The morning after the election, the Trish sign was removed. Alas, Matarrese never removed his.
        However, after this Election 2016, none of the candidates removed the signs from my yard. But then again, my trash hasn’t been picked up for the second week in a row, and the 12th time this year.

        Comment by vigi — December 2, 2016 @ 9:27 am

        • That Appezatto would make sure to have his campaign debris picked up was due to his military training. Some candidates now days think they’re above all that trivial stuff.

          Satisfied vigi?

          Comment by jack — December 2, 2016 @ 10:17 am

  7. I would love to see the City charge $5 for every sign the Department of Public Works picks up off public property. Maybe the over jealous supporters of their candidate/measure would think twice about placing sign all over the City.

    Comment by Mike McMahon — December 1, 2016 @ 6:15 pm

  8. With the amount of money that the firefighters union and developers paid on behalf of the Vella and Ashcraft campaigns, I think they can afford the FPPC’s $5,000/incident penalties for the two hit piece mailers against Daysog without identifying information.

    Comment by Alan — December 5, 2016 @ 6:01 pm

    • Alan- Regardless of who published the anonymous mailers, Mayor Spencer should;d not be asking the City of Alameda to officially complain or ask city staff to spend time on it. She is an attorney and is supposed to already possess the skills to file a complaint herself, and I would encourage her to do so.

      Comment by Jon Spangler — December 6, 2016 @ 4:37 pm


RSS feed for comments on this post.

Say what you want

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

Blog at WordPress.com.