California election watchdog investigating Nevada County over campaign spending

SACRAMENTO, Calif. (CN) — The Fair Political Practices Commission has launched an investigation into claims that Nevada County spent taxpayer dollars on a campaign for a half-cent fire tax that failed at the polls this past November.

John Young claims Nevada County crossed a line by using public money on campaign-related mass mailings. He also accuses the the Yes on V committee of violating campaign disclosure and advertisement disclaimer provisions.

At issue is Measure V, the half-cent sales tax that supporters claimed would raise funds for fire mitigation and prevention. Needing a simple majority to pass, the measure failed with 51.6% of voters opposing.

The nature of the measure is essential to the claim the county misused public money. The county opted to place it on the ballot as a “general” tax, meaning it needed only a simple majority to pass. A “special” tax would have required a two-thirds vote.

However, funds raised from a general tax go into a county’s general fund, though county officials said they’d include safeguards — like a citizen’s oversight panel — to ensure the funds targeted fire mitigation and prevention only.

“So while claiming to appear impartial and claiming to merely inform the public, the county has made claims about restrictions on how the tax monies and expenditures will be handled, which are not possible to guarantee since the funds will go into the general fund,” a summary of the complaint states. “This appears to have crossed the line into political advertising that advocates a passage of Measure V without reporting it as advertising.”

Young couldn’t be reached for comment.

Additionally, a summary of the complaint states that despite a disclaimer claiming the county isn’t advocating a position, its literature about the measure crosses the line into political advertising. Reasonable people would determine the county favored the measure when reading its materials according to the complaint.

One flyer for the measure states that “Measure V is responsive to community priorities such as,” then lists items such as preventing wildfires, enforcing fire safety laws, improving evacuation routes and helping low-income seniors and people with disabilities.

“Since Measure V enriches the county’s general fund, advocating for a yes vote is a natural bias that the county would adopt,” the summary states. “The county’s disclaimer is a weak one under these conditions.”

The summary claims the campaign disclosure and advertisement disclaimer violations are “obvious.” It states the Yes on V group listed a $2,464.33 expense for signs. The signs state, “Vote Yes V / Save Our Homes.” The signs don’t include information about who paid for them or an FPPC number.

Young received notification this past October that the FPPC had received his complaint. Another letter followed in March informing him that it would start an investigation.

Investigations can take months to years, said Jay Wierenga, the FPPC’s communications director, in an email. On average, they take over three months. The investigation sparked by Young’s complaint is ongoing.

The complaint filed against the county is one of two. A second one, filed weeks ago by Nevada County resident Pauli Halstead, is pending before the FPPC. As of Friday, no decision had been made on whether an investigation will occur based on those allegations.

County response

Attorneys for Nevada County have responded to the allegations in both complaints, calling Halstead’s “duplicative.”

The attorneys in a June 27 filing dismiss the argument that the mailing, accused of being pro-tax, leaned in a political direction.

“The mailing neither advocates for the passage or defeat of Measure V or urges a particular result,” the filing stated.

It also stated: “While there are images of the informational materials for Measure V, the mailing expressly states that it is provided ‘for informational purposes only’ and that ‘Nevada County does not advocate a yes or no vote on any candidate or measure.’”

Kit Elliott, Nevada County counsel, said county officials asked people what they wanted when it came to fire prevention. Based on that information, they then crafted a ballot measure and educated them about it.

Elliott said she doesn’t believe the FPPC complaints against the county have merit.

“Just because there’s an investigation does not necessarily mean they will find fault,” she added.

According to Elliott, there has been no further discussion of another ballot initiative in the wake of Measure V’s failure.

The tax could have been used as matching dollars for grants. Despite the measure failing at the polls, the county continues to search for grants it can use for fire mitigation and prevention, Elliott said.

“Fire safety is still a board (of supervisors) priority,” she added.

Opposition

Barry Pruett, a Grass Valley attorney, said he had no involvement in the complaint, other than an opinion piece he wrote posted on sierrathread.com.

“Following the expenditure of well over $100,000 in taxpayers’ dollars by Nevada County for mass mailers and advertisements in support of the County’s Measure V, John Young (part owner of Sierra Thread and opponent of Measure V) warned Nevada County that such expenditures are entirely inappropriate and potentially, illegal,” Pruett’s March post stated. “Nevada County ignored Mr. Young’s warnings, so he filed a complaint with the FPPC.”

Pruett, however, also sent Elliott an email on Oct. 28 — about two weeks after Young filed his complaint — citing what he termed “FPPC violations.” In that email Pruett claimed there was evidence of county officials violating the state’s open meetings act. His email was “a ‘cease and desist’ letter required by the Brown Act and the California Fair Political Practice Act prior to suit.”

Pruett also was involved in an unsuccessful legal effort last year to remove the measure from the ballot. He represented his wife, Audrey, who argued in court filings that the measure should have been “special,” meaning it would have needed a two-thirds vote to pass. She also claimed using the cent symbol, instead of “%”, on the ballot question wasn’t accurate. Additionally, Pruett argued the tax would raise only $9.5 million a year, not the $12 million officials claimed.

This past September, a Nevada County judge denied most of the petition asking to stop the printing of ballots and voter information guides.

However, the judge did agree with Pruett that the phrase “to save lives” should be removed from the ballot question. Also, the judge ruled the cent symbol would instead be a “%” symbol in the language.