So, just so I understand. The "opponents" of the ballot measure want to block the one non-positional item (not for and not against) related to the ballot measure from appearing on the ballot - i.e. the independent one that objectively helps voters decide how to vote and instead want only the biased positional arguments to appear (the for and against).

Yes, that certainly makes me want to trust their perspective....if I wasn't voting yes before, I certainly would now. Suing the city to keep the impartial analysis from appearing. Brilliant. Not.

1: Hopefully Mr. Connors is feeling better.

2: I realize that Atherton is at its core a small town and doesn't have a team of attorneys; that said, there's got to be a better way for the basic business of the town to proceed while 1 member of the town staff is under the weather.

3: Is the impartial analysis impartial? If it is, then it sounds like the opponents of the measure have no case, since election code leaves this up the the town clerk to make that call.

4: Therefore, opponents have zero case.

#poundsand

1. Mr. Conners knew back in January that an impartial analysis needed to be filed. He had elective surgery. He has a daughter who is an attorney and is supposed to fill in for him if he is not available.

2. The impartial analysis is anything but impartial -- read it.

3. The Clerk can make the rules, but she made the rules, had them printed with her name in the Almanac and then decided on her own to break them. Would she do this for anybody else?

According to the Almanac, Ms. McKeithen is considering a lawsuit to block the city attorney's impartial analysis. What does that analysis say that is so objectionable? I can only assume it is the city attorney's conclusion that Measure L and Measure A are advisory and not binding. Of course, that can be debated, but to manage these political issues with lawsuits rather than dialog is not the way to govern. That's what used to happen in Atherton. Thankfully, the current city council takes a more reasonable approach. I support Measure A. We should supplement the private donations with available general funds and build this civic center, rather than incur more costly delays.

Seems when this issue happened a few years ago over opposition to the parcel tax, the "impartial" city clerk said deadlines are deadlines.

Web Link

Let's just call this what it is. Politics, not policy.

Thanks for the additional information. That was helpful and added some clarity.

I agree there there doesn't seem to be a good reason for the delay, based on the information you provided. It sounds like there was adequate notice and ability to complete the impartial review.

And...OK I've read the impartial review. Its wording is, I'd have to concede, a bit...contorted? It doesn't sound very agnostic, just from my take.

So, I get the objections (though I think the analysis itself is more the problem than the delay, but both are objectionable on their own merits). It does sound like the clerk has the power to have the "impartial analysis" included, so there's certainly nothing illegal about it. But I agree the optics are bad, that the town should apply the same rules it applies to itself, even if it's legally entitled to apply the "impartial analysis" after-the-fact.

OK, you convinced me :)

If the town was smart, it would have that "impartial analysis" removed from the ballot, both because the optics are bad, and IMHO the content of it doesn't really add any clarity to the ballot measure.

Here's the city attorney's impartial analysis:
Web Link

You can judge for yourself whether there is any partiality. I don't personally detect any. Most of it is a recap of the civic center project history. It's not advocating for or against using public funds.

Deja Vu - happened before with ballot arguments NOT the impartial analysis. Reading all the detail and the Elections Code, there is no deadline required for the impartial analysis only for arguments and rebuttals. In this case the Clerk had discretion. The impartial analysis isn't for the pro or con parties - it's for all the other voters. It's the one thing that SHOULD be in the ballot besides the measure itself. A measure can move forward without a pro or con argument but shouldn't without an impartial analysis.

Also - I agree with Apple. The analysis regurgitates earlier info from measure L Tells you that with recent law, measure L was likely non-binding. Then tells you what would happen with either way that you vote on the new measure. Sounds impartial to me. Get over it. Let the community decide without dragging them through the mud with lawyers and other crap.

What sounded like a good idea – measure L – have other people pay for a public building with private money – Who wouldn't have voted for that? But at the end of the day, Atherton residents didn't get wealthy by giving their money away. I'm sure it was a valiant effort by the fundraisers, but in the end – no dice. So find another way. That other way is letting the city use money saved up. Have you been to these buildings? They are absolutely total crap. Get over the childish squabbling and finger-pointing - grow up and move on. Better yet, move out. This city is better without you.

If you don't agree with me, then get the hell out of here. Really bad form. These issues, how much public money should be spent on a project, are well within the scope of civilized debate.

If Kathy feels that the late impartial analysis deprived her group of the ability to create its best statement, then the town should own up to its mistake, behave reasonably, and let her group revise their statement now that they have the impartial analysis.

There's no reason for this to snowball into any type of major issue. Telling her to pound sand, or to get out of Dodge, are not reasonable ways to deal with this.

You're right. I apologize. That was out of line. I simply feel that threatening to go to a judge is no way to act. She is not entitled to revise her argument or rebuttal, because under the law, those are supposed to address the opposition arguments not the impartial analysis. The impartial analysis is irrelevant to her two positions. She seems to be making much ado about something that has no implication to her argument.

If, on the other hand, the impartial analysis is not impartial, that's another question entirely to which I believe she is entitled to her day in court so to speak. But to threaten legal action when none is necessary - that's out of line.

The Town clearly messed up. The appropriate response would be to acknowledge, take responsibility and to have asked those who feel they were wronged by the mistake for their thoughts on how the wrong could be addressed. Unfortunately this did not happen. As with many municipal groups including Councils, Fire Boards and School Boards, and their staffs, the response is just to put their backs up and say we can because we can.