"improperly perpetuate themselves, or their allies, in office"

The North Hollywood North East Neighborhood joined the long list of other Councils which took a position in opposition to Prop R-Measure R. This measure would extend the terms of the existing City Council members from two four year terms to three four year terms.

In addition, the NHNE NC voted to allocate funds ($4,000.00) to inform their stake holders of their position. Not to campaign for or against but to insure those in the community were aware of their position.

One condition of the allocation was the clarification of the rules and regulations pertaining to the use of council funds for this purpose.

On Monday September 18, 2006 Department of Neighborhood Empowerment Assistant General Manger Arturo Pina addressed the members of Valley Vote. During the question and answer segment, David Hernandez requested an official DONE clarification on the funding issue.

Attached is the response received from Mr. Pina.

The response is a letter dated December 15, 2000 from then City Attorney James K. Hahn to then DONE General Manager Rosalind Stewart.

Mr. Pina stated there have been no policy changes in this area since the date of the letter.

Then City Attorney Hahn states:


" If you are asking whether a neighborhood council can become involved in political campaigns or use its official status and resources to influence the election or defeat of candidates and ballot measures, our advice is that, with the exception of taking a public position in support of or opposition to a ballot measure, a neighborhood council may not engage in that type of conduct.”

Does this mean, we as council members can take a public position but are barred from using funds to let our stake holders know of our position? Maybe so…

But what is also contained in Attorney Hahn’s opinion is the following:

The courts have repeatedly said that "the use of public funds for partisan campaign purposes is improper. . . ." Stanson v. Mott (1976) 17 Cal.3d 206,218. See also, People v. Nathanson (1 955) 134 Cal.App2d 43; People v. Sperl(1976) 54 . Cal.App.3d 43; People v. Batfin (1978) 77 Cal.App.3d. 635.'

For basically the same reasons that the government may not spend public funds in support of candidates for public office, the government
also may not officially endorse candidates for office. The Court in Stanson, supra, stated that "[a] principal danger feared by our country's founders lay in the possibility that the holders of government authority would use official power to improperly perpetuate themselves, or their allies, in office." id.at 217. Just as the government may not "'take sides' in an election contest" (id.) by using public funds to assist candidates in obtaining office, the government may not 'take sides by endorsing candidates.

So here are my next questions to be answered:

Does the city council action violate Stanson v. Mott? Clearly, by having the term limit extension begin with their terms, it most definitely does “perpetuate themselves”

Has the City Council spent any city funds on the forwarding of the measure? If the City Attorney is in fact representing the city council in order to retain the measure on the ballot, then they are using public funds to perpetuate themselves, also a violation of Stanson V. Mott.

Now I will turn to the City Attorney for an additional attempt to clarify the use of the funds.

Next question: If the City attorney represents the City Council on one side of the issue, is it not a conflict of interest to advise the Neighborhood Councils who are on the opposite side of the issue.
Does this not conflict with the below opinion also contained in Attorney Hahn’s letter?

"Underlying this uniform judicial reluctance to sanction the use of
public funds for election campaigns rests an implicit recognition that such expenditures raise potentially serious constitutional questions. A
fundamental precept of this nation's democratic electoral process is that the government may not 'take sides' in election contests or bestow an unfair advantage on one of several competing factions." Id. at 217.

The prohibition against the use of public funds for political campaign purposes applies to expenditures in support or opposition to both candidates and ballot measures.

Glad to be of service,

David Hernandez
www.termedout.com