|
Saturday's Internet Edition, March 13, 2010.
City set to sue recall committee
City says PAC violated Galt campaign laws
By Rachael Ackerman
Herald Editor
-
Saying it didn’t come without warning, the city of Galt has announced they will seek civil litigation against a local recall committee for violating the city’s campaign finance limitation ordinance.
Not the first committee to run afoul of the city’s ordinance, which places strict limitations on campaign contributions and requires local committees to file all documents with the city clerk, Citizens for Yes on the Recall: Recall Andrew Meredith and Don Haines is the first committee to challenge the city’s authority to the point of legal action.
Galt city attorney Steven Rudolph announced at the Oct. 21 regular meeting that the city council had voted, in closed session, to proceed with the process of suing the recall committee after repeated demands to adhere to city law were ignored.
“The voters of Galt approved our current campaign finance ordinance by a fairly wide margin when it was placed on the ballot, and carrying that direction from the community requires enforcement when justified,” said Galt Mayor Andrew Meredith, subject of the recall. “The city has tried on numerous occasions to get this group of individuals to abide by the law. They have ignored us. We tried everything to avoid litigation, but at some point you have to act on what the voters wanted, and the lawsuit is the only way to get them into compliance.”
At the heart of the issue is the recall committee’s refusal to file campaign and committee documents with the city, or to adhere to the city’s contribution limitations, which prohibit any individual or entity from contributing more than $100 to any candidate or measure in the city.
Currently the recall committee files all documents with the Sacramento County office of elections, and reports having received contributions well in excess of the city’s $100 limit.
According to Rudolph, upon examination of the recall committee’s activity, he has determined that the committee is a local committee, focused exclusively on local issues and therefore must comply with local campaign law.
“The Citizens for Yes on the Recall committee is designated as a primarily formed ballot committee focused exclusively on the recall of two Galt City Council members and, as such, is active exclusively within the city and must comply with city campaign filing requirements and contribution limitations,” said Rudolph in the final demand for compliance letter sent to the recall committee on Oct. 13.
Attorney for the recall committee Brian Hildreth had responded to the city, saying in his opinion the committee is not subject to local authority as a county filed political action committee.
“Any attempt to enforce the Galt ordinance against my client will necessarily compel my client to seek judicial intervention as to the authority of the city to restrict the activities of a municipal recall committee and the applicability and constitutionality of the various provisions at issue here within,” said Hildreth in a letter to the city responding to demands that the recall committee comply with the Galt ordinance.
Recall committee chair Jim Ferguson said, at this point, the committee is awaiting service of the suit in order to know exactly what the city is asserting.
“Until we are served with the suit, there is really no way to respond,” said Ferguson. “We believe we are in compliance with all the laws and rulings related to our activities and have been acting in accordance with legal advice from our counsel who advised us that, according to court rulings on just such matters, committees such as ours are not subject to ordinances such as Galt’s.”
Champion of the ordinance when it was proposed and passed by the voters, Galt City Councilman Tim Raboy defends the ordinance and says the recall committee is testing the will of the voters and the city’s ability to enforce that will.
“Some kind of action is necessary because the recall committee and the other committees associated with this millionaire landowner believe they are above the law,” said Raboy. “It is wrong that outside special interests that stand to make millions can get away with anything and try to buy this election in this city.”
Ferguson disagrees, saying a lawsuit is a waste of city resources at the behest of certain city council members.
“The Galt ordinance is enforced by the same people who issued a citation for lawn watering to one of their own, so I think you can understand the untenable situation we would be placed in if we were subject to the whims of certain council members, including those who are the subject of the recall,” said Ferguson. “The directed actions of the city attorney appear to be nothing more than trying to waste our resources to try to prevent us from pursuing the recall.”
Meredith challenged Ferguson’s claim, saying that the reason the recall committee needs so much outside financial assistance is due to a lack of support from within the community.
“The reason this group is refusing to adhere to Galt’s voter mandated ordinance is that they have little to no support here in the community and they are relying on tens of thousands of dollars in outside funding to help their cause,” said Meredith. “This is nothing short of an attempted purchase of two city council seats, and this group knows that, without a ton of money, they have no chance of succeeding. They are hoping that, by using money to deceive voters, they might be able to pull a fast one on the community.”
In spite of who, or what committee is in violation of the ordinance, Raboy said the city should seek compliance when it comes to the will of the voters.
“This is no different than the voters of California approving an initiative and then activist judges overruling the will of the people,” said Raboy. “I would like all political committees and candidates that run for office to follow our voter approved campaign finance reform initiative. It’s that simple.”
|
|
