HomeMy WebLinkAboutMINUTES - 10231984 - 2.6 P
TO: BOARD OF SUPERVISORS }
Con
FROM: Phil Batchelor, County Administrator lra
It
DATE: October 18 , 1984 County
SUBJECT: Jarvis Mailings Supporting Proposition 36
SPECIFIC REQUEST(S) OR RECOMMENDATION(S) & BACKGROUND AND JUSTIFICATION
RECOMMENDATION
Acknowledge receipt of report from County Administrator relating to
propriety of mailings by Howard Jarvis, Chairman of the "Save Proposition 13
Committee" supporting Proposition 36 .
BACKGROUND
On October 2, 1984 your Board asked for a review and report on the legality
and possible means of restricting the campaign literature being mailed by
Howard Jarvis in support of Proposition 36 on the November 6 ballot. The
campaign literature referred to is in the form of mailings soliciting funds
for Proposition 36 disguised as a 1984 property tax statement. These
mailings have been reviewed by both the Treasurer-Tax Collector and
District Attorney. The District Attorney advises that the literature is
not in violation of state law, but that there may be violations of federal
law pertaining to misuse of the United States Mail . If so, such violations
are within the province of the United States Attorney General.
The Treasurer-Tax Collector expresses the opinion similarly that the
mailings do not violate the California State Revenue and Taxation Code,
but are misleading. He indicates that an issue also is whether the low
postage rate of a non-profit organization or bulk mail rates utilized by
political organizations is appropriate for these mailings.
We have been informed that the State Board of Equalization is also concerned
about these Jarvis mailings. In fact, on August 28 , 1984 , it adopted a
resolution condemning such tactics as deliberately misleading, injurious
to the citizens of the state, and calling upon initiative leaders to halt
any additional such mailings.
The County Counsel is filing a separate report relating to the pending
Marin County litigation being maintained by private parties to enjoin
alleged "false advertising" by Howard Jarvis- and involved committees.
CONTINUED ON ATTACHMENT: YES SIGNATURE:
X RECOMMENDATION OF COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMITTEE
x APPROVE OTHER
SIGNATURES)
ACTION OF BOARD ON C O er 23, 1984 APPROVED AS RECOMMENDED OTHER
VOTE OF SUPERVISORS
X UNANIMOUS (ABSENT I ) 1 HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THIS IS A TRUE
AYES: NOES: AND CORRECT COPY OF AN ACTION TAKEN
ABSENT: I ABSTAIN: AND ENTERED ON THE MINUTES OF THE BOARD
OF SUPERVISORS ON THE DATE SHOWN.
CC: County Administrator ATTESTED October 23 , 1984
District Attorney J.R. OLSSON. COUNTY CLERK
Treasurer-Tax Collector ANP EX OFFICIO CLERK OF THE BOARD
County Counsel j
15'7
M362/7-83
EP�Y
L
THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF CONTRA COSTA COUNTY, CALIFORNIA
Adopted this Order on October 23 , 1984 , by the following vote:
AYES: Supervisors Fanden, Schroder, McPeak, Torlakson
NOES: None .7
ABSENT: Supervisor Powers
ABSTAIN: None
SUBJECT: Report from County Counsel in response to Board
referral pertaining to propriety of mailings by
Howard Jarvis of the "Save Proposition 13 Committee. "
The Board having received a memorandum dated October 18 ,
1984 , from victor J. Westman, County Counsel , with respect to
"Suits to Enjoin Deceptive Proposition 36 Mailings. "
IT IS BY THE BOARD ORDERED that` receipt ' of the afore-
said communication is AKNOWLEDGED.
1 hereby ceritty that this Is a true and correct copy of
an action taken and entered on the minutes of the
Board of Supervisors oonn,the date shown.
ATTESTED:
PHIL BATCHELOR, Clerk of the Board
of Supervisors and County Administrator
By Deputy
Orig Dept: Clerk of the Board
cc : County Administrator
County Counsel
0 158
i
t. �o
COUNTY COUNSEL'S OFFICE
CONTRA COSTA COUNTY
MARTINEZ, CALIFORNIA
Date: October 1.8 , 1984
To: Board of Sunervisors
From: Victor J. Westman; Couk _}=/Counsel
Re: Suits to Injoin Deceptive Proposition 36 Mailings
On October 2, Supervisor PIcPeak informed the Board that
some of her constituents had complained to her that they had
received in the mail some fundraising pieces supporting
Proposition 36 , which were misleadingly labeled to give the
impression that they were property tax notices. Supervisor
IIcPeak told the Board on October 16 that some consumers had
initiated an action in Marin County to enjoin future mailings
of these pieces.
The Board on October 16 ordered County Counsel to look
into the Marin Countv suit and to determine the advisability
of initiating a separate action in this county or filing an
amicus curiae brief in the existing action.
We have obtained a copy of the Marin County complaint.
In it the plaintiffs, who are all private parties, ask that the
court:
(1) declare that the mailings were fraudulent, deceptive,
confusing and misleading;
(2) enjoin further mailings of the same or similar
nieces without a prominent legend on the envelope stating that
the piece is an advertisement and not official mail;
(3) order an accounting of the funds received in
response to the mailings and order deposit of such funds into
an interest-bearing trust account;
(4) order publication of a notice advising the public
that persons who sent money in response to the mailings may
have it returned upon request; and
(5) appoint a receiver to receive requests for refunds
and to disburse funds from the trust account to donors who so
request.
The relief which the plaintiffs seek in that action
would have statewide application, and there is therefore
nothing to be gained by initiating a separate action in Contra
Costa County. 0 159
59
County Counsel has communicated by letter with the
Marin County Superior Court, expressing the Board' s concern
with regard to the problem of political advertisements which
are so packaged as to give the impression that they are, in
fact, official governmental correspondence, and has conveyed
the Board ' s support for the court' s granting appropriate re-
medial relief if the court should find deceptive advertising
has occurred within the meaning of the law.
PM/jh
CC: County Administrator
-2- 0 160