san_mateo measure j notice and demand 2018 03 19

NOTICE AND DEMAND

TO:

Mark Church, Assessor-County Clerk-Recoder-Chief Elections Officer
Michelle Yue, Elections Official
555 County Center, 1st Floor, Redwood City, CA 94063-1665

John C. Beiers, County Counsel
400 County Center, 6th Floor, Redwood City, CA 94063-1662

Sandie Arnott, Treasurer/Tax Collector
555 County Center, 1st Floor, Redwood City, CA 94063


RE: San Mateo County Measure J, June 5, 2018 Election

March 19, 2018


BACKGROUND

On February 6, 2018, the governing board of Jefferson Union High School District met to approve, as if pre-ordained, Agenda Item 15.A.1 - Workforce Housing Bond Election.

Earlier on February 6th, I served every board member and the superintendent with a Notice and Demand to reject the underlying, proposed resolution.

As corrupt government officials are wont to do, the governing board ignored the Notice and Demand and adopted the resolution.

On February 9th, a district official filed the resolution with a request to you to place it on the June primary election ballot. You stamped it filed and are going through the motions to place the measure before the voters of the District.

You grant county counsel 10 days longer (March 26th) to file its, allegedly, impartial analyses than you grant your voters to file arguments against (March 16th - a separate violation of the mandatory 10-day public examination period which began on March 9th). As a result, I don't have the benefit of county counsel's authoritative, brilliant, concise, finely-honed, in-depth, insightful, lucid, on-point, thorough, unimpeachable legal analysis. Based on prior impartial analyses of bond measures emanating from the legal brain trust of county counsel's office, however, I expect the same pro forma, banal, blathering, fill-in-the-blank, unenlightening, useless analysis that is the hallmark of county counsel in every county in California. I guess county counsel is not getting paid enough to actually read the measure as the contract that California courts agree that it is, and compare it to the law (Proposition 39) when hundreds of millions of dollars of property taxes might be in jeopardy.

What is it that you call a contract where one party can do anything it pleases and the other party is forced to pay for it? Can you even call it contract without mutually enforceable obligations? Can you explain what the required "certification that the [District] has evaluated safety, class size reduction, and information technology needs in developing that list [of specific school facilities projects]" means in connection with an employee housing project?

On March 5th, I raised the issue that the District's measure doesn't qualify for the ballot with Michelle Yue. She asked me what statute makes it illegal. I told her that Proposition 39 (the California Constitution) disqualifies it. She told me to put it in writing and she'll check with her boss.


ISSUE

Briefly, Measure J does not qualify to be placed on the ballot under Proposition 39. The District has no authority to invoke Proposition 39 for anything other than the school facilities it was intended to fund.

Proposition 39 is an exception to Proposition 46 (1986), which itself is an exception to Proposition 13 (1978). Courts consistently rule that exceptions are to be construed narrowly -- doubly narrowly in this case.

The District made false findings in Resolution 2017-18/13 with respect to the Smaller Classes, Safer Schools and Financial Accountability Act (Proposition 39) as it amended Article XIII-A and Article XVI of the California Constitution.

The District made false findings with respect to the mandatory certifications.

Employee housing is nowhere to be found as a purpose of Proposition 39, in the operative language of the proposition, in the Attorney General's official summary, or in the ballot arguments.

To the contrary, "school facilities" is specified no less than five times in the proposition's Purpose and Intent, five more times in the amended language of Article XIII-A, and three more times in the amended language of Article XIV. Words not defined in the Constitution are presumed to have their ordinary meaning. (See litany of California Supreme Court cases.)

Clever legal gymnastics like "facilities needs of the District to provide affordable rental housing" are clearly self-serving statements without any basis in law or fact.

Even if the district had a duty to provide housing, which it doesn't, it is prohibited from using Proposition 39 bonds to finance such housing.

The expenditure of funds from Proposition 39 bonds for any purposes other than those stated in Section 1(b)(3) is a prosecutable offense under Proposition 39's companion act, the Strict Accountability in Local School Construction Bond Act of 2000.

In addition, despite the resolution referring to Education Code 15100, this measure does not even qualify under Section 1(b)(2) (Proposition 46). Education Code 15100(a) lists the finite purposes for which the District may issue bonds. Employee housing is not one of those purposes.

Making false statements in securities disclosure documents is a federal offense.

Using bond proceeds for unlawful purposes will likely jeopardize the tax-exempt status of any bonds that might get issued.

Intentionally deceiving voters with lawyer tricks and legal mumbo-jumbo is fraud in the inducement.

The District can only accomplish its prospective scheme to defraud the people through your acquiescence and participation, commonly known as aiding and abetting. Granting the District's request is an act in furtherance of its scheme. I'm certain the District didn't give you, its agents, notice of my Notice of Demand. Nevertheless, you are now on actual notice.

Measure J can only appear on the ballot as a result of your grant of the District's request.


DEMAND

I demand that you deny the district's request (it's merely a request, after all) to order an election to place Measure J on the ballot. If you feel incapable of reversing your implied grant, then I demand that you file a writ of mandate, sua sponte (as lawyers like to say), to remove Measure J from the ballot.

Do the job you're being paid to do. Serve the people that pay your exorbitant salaries and pensions. Honor your oaths to support and uphold the laws as they are written.


Sincerely,


Richard Michael, Government Accountability Advocate
California School Bonds Clearinghouse (www.bigbadbonds.com)

P.S. I deem the failure of public officials to respond in writing to legitimate public concerns a marker of a culture of public corruption.

cc:
Jon Coupal, President
Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association