Sacramento City Hall: We informed voters about Measure C. It’s legally on the ballot | Opinion

Editor’s Note: The author asserts that The Bee Editorial Board published “inaccuracies” in our work. We stand by our words but, as the author suggests, we look forward to further dialogue with the city.

Dear Sacramento Bee Editorial Board,

The Bee has editorialized repeatedly over the past week regarding Measure C, the city’s proposed business operations tax modernization that is on the March election ballot.

I am concerned that inaccuracies in your reporting will mislead voters. These articles misrepresent facts and omit significant information.

As the city clerk, I serve as the city’s election official and take great pride in our efforts to ensure a clear and transparent election process. This includes assisting interested persons to navigate the argument process.

Opinion

I hope that this letter prompts a dialogue between the city and The Bee on how we can ensure that Sacramento constituents receive accurate, balanced information such that they can make their own informed decisions.

These editorials suggest that the city compromised the ability of opponents to file a ballot argument against Measure C because the full text of the proposed ordinance was not published within 10 days in the city’s official paper of record, the Sacramento Bulletin. That assertion is untrue because the publishing of the ordinance and notification of arguments periods are separate and distinct functions — as I will clarify below.

Ordinance publishing

In its editorials, The Bee suggests that had the ordinance been published within the 10-day period, the public would have had a greater understanding and would have been more informed about the opportunity to write argument(s). That is pure speculation, as the text of the ordinance itself (the only text that would have been published) makes no reference to the argument periods.

The Bee also suggests (through its reliance on an “expert”) that the delayed publication of ordinance could give rise to a lawsuit, as it was past the timeline set forth in the city charter. However, the law has been settled on this point for decades: failure to publish according to that timeline does not affect the validity of the ordinance (see City of Sacramento v. Dillman (1894) 102 Cat. 107; Hollander v. Denton (1945) 69 Cal.App.2d 348).

The Bee further criticized the city for publishing the ordinance in an “obscure” news publication — the Sacramento Bulletin. Each year, the city chooses its official paper of record through a formal bidding process. For 2023, the lowest bidder was Metropolitan News, which publishes as the Sacramento Bulletin. The Bee did not submit a bid for consideration this year, nor has it done so for at least the past 10 years.

Regardless of any media coverage or noticing the city does, the best way to ensure that a copy of the full text of the ordinance is available to the public is through the Voter Information Guide. There, the ordinance is published in full for all voters to read and consider before casting their vote.

Argument periods

As soon as the council voted on November 14 to place the measure before the voters, the city’s website was updated in real-time to provide the public with information about the ordinance, the argument process and deadlines. The following day, the notice of arguments was physically posted at city hall (as required by law).

The city clerk has a long-standing practice of allowing 10 days for initial arguments. This matches the number of days legally required for rebuttal period if one is held. Taking the holiday into consideration, the city clerk set the deadline for the Monday after the Thanksgiving holiday. This gave argument authors a total of 13 days to file initial arguments. During the 13-day argument period, the city’s webpage pertaining to measures was visited 99 times.

A rebuttal argument period is permitted only when an initial argument is received both in support and opposition of the measure, prior to the initial argument deadline. As there was no initial argument in opposition to the measure, there was no rebuttal period.

Notification to the public

The city took numerous steps to ensure the public was informed about the proposed tax modernization and had a chance to weigh in before the council vote, and that any opponents had the opportunity to submit an opposing argument within the deadline.

City staff held several outreach meetings in the community to educate interested groups and those potentially affected by the proposed measure. The measure was heard and properly noticed at three public meetings: the Law and Legislation Council Committee and two Sacramento City Council meetings. These meetings were noticed in accordance with the city’s Sunshine Ordinance and streamed on the city’s website. The two council meetings were also televised on access cable and radio. Members of the public were present and commented on the proposed ordinance during the meeting.

Some local media outlets (not including The Bee) covered this item both before and during the argument period when interested parties could have submitted an opposing argument.

In one article, Mary-Beth Moylan was quoted as your legal expert. I have great respect for Moylan, as she was instrumental in establishing the Sacramento Ethics Commission and served as chair on our inaugural commission, putting in place foundational policies and procedures. However, I am concerned that she may have stated general practice but was not asked to do a full legal analysis of this specific issue and may not have had all the facts.

I look forward to engaging with you to discuss how the city and The Bee can work together to provide accurate and complete information to your readers and our constituents.

Regards,

Mindy Cuppy

Sacramento City Clerk

Sacramento City Attorney Susana Alcala Wood, who reviewed the letter and approved legal statements made by Cuppy, also signed on.