Summary of Issues, Findings and Recommendations In the November 2012 general election, City of Sacramento voters

The Grand Jury finds that the council members authorized by the City Council to author arguments in favor of Measures M, T, and U did not author those arguments submitted to the City Clerk, and did not publicly disclose their intention not to author the arguments before submitting the arguments to the City Clerk. The council members’ failure to author the arguments deprived the City Council of statutory priority for its arguments in the event other arguments in favor of each measure had been submitted to the City Clerk. The council members’ failure to author the arguments and to disclose their intention not to author the arguments was contrary to the City Council’s intent in authorizing the members; contrary to the California Elections Code, City Code, and City Elections Guidelines provisions for obtaining priority; and contrary to the best practices for transparent election procedures.

The Grand Jury finds that the Mayor failed to timely file a ballot argument in opposition to Measure U because his assistants who were assigned to prepare and submit the argument to the City Clerk misunderstood the filing requirements. This failure to timely file the argument was negligent, not intentional. 18

The Grand Jury finds that the City Council authorized council members to author arguments both in favor of and in opposition to measures it approved for placement on the ballot. Given the statutory preference accorded arguments authorized by the City Council, the Council’s authorization of arguments both in favor of and in opposition to a measure it has approved for placement on the ballot can preclude the filing of other opposition arguments to a measure or, at minimum, may discourage the submission of other opposition arguments, creating the possibility that the City Council could effectively limit legitimate opposition to a measure, either by submitting a token opposition argument or failing to submit an opposition argument.

The Grand Jury finds that the City Clerk’s Office staff advised a council member authorized to author arguments in favor of measures placed on the ballot by the City Council, to delay submitting the arguments to the City Clerk’s Office until just before the filing deadline and until after the opposition argument had been submitted (informing the council member of the date and time a measure opponent was scheduled to submit its opposition), in order to prevent the media and measure opponents from reviewing the argument in advance of the opposition’s submission. In response to the staff’s advice, the council member delayed submitting arguments to the City Clerk’s Office until just before the filing deadline and after the measure opponent had submitted its argument. The staff’s communication with the council member was inconsistent with the non-partisan role of the City Clerk’s Office with respect to municipal elections.