CenterLine Mailer Violates Law, Critics Say

Critics of a proposed light-rail line say Orange County transportation officials ran afoul of laws barring public advocacy by sending a promotional mailer to 40,000 Irvine voters just weeks before a citywide vote on the project.

The mailer, sent last week by the Orange County Transportation Authority, touts the planned 11.4-mile CenterLine project through Irvine, Santa Ana and Costa Mesa. Irvine voters will decide June 3 whether it should run through their city.

Orange County Supervisors Chris Norby and Bill Campbell, who sit on the OCTA board and who oppose the rail line, questioned the legality of the mailing, which cost the agency $28,000.

“This is an advocacy piece,” Norby said Wednesday. “I’ve seen this kind of thing too many times where [public agencies] do this kind of thing before an election and they pretend they’re not influencing the election. But the law is clear.”

Campbell sent a letter Wednesday asking OCTA Chief Executive Officer Arthur T. Leahy to justify the glossy, 11-inch-by-17-inch mailer, created by Forde & Mollrich of Newport Beach.

Attorney Ken Smart, who represents OCTA, said he reviewed the mailing to Irvine in light of the upcoming election and approved it. “It doesn’t violate the law,” he said.

The Irvine mailer included invitations to two open houses on the CenterLine project. Similar mailings are being prepared for residents of Costa Mesa and Santa Ana, where there are no public votes scheduled. A second mailer to Irvine also is planned, according to an April 17 OCTA memo to board members.

Campbell said he’ll ask Leahy at Monday’s OCTA meeting to halt future Irvine mailings. “If this didn’t violate the letter of the law, it violated the spirit of the law,” he said.

The California Supreme Court ruled in 1976 that a public entity cannot use public funds or resources to promote or oppose the qualification or passage of a ballot measure. The court ruled in Stanson vs. Mott that advocacy could be defined as the “style, tenor and timing” of a public-paid message even if it didn’t overtly urge a “yes” or “no” vote. Since then, government officials often have found themselves challenged on informational spending before major public votes.

In December 2001, a San Diego County Superior Court judge suspended Orange County’s $8-million “Just the Facts” program, which provided details on a proposal for a new airport at the closed El Toro Marine base.

Several South County cities, including Irvine, labeled the program improper advocacy in the months before a countywide March 2002 anti-airport initiative, which was passed by voters. In January 2002, a similar lawsuit challenging $3.7 million in spending by Newport Beach was settled.

Similarly, a North Carolina appeals court ruled in 2001 that a city council’s plan to spend $200,000 on multimedia advertisements supporting its “smart growth” and “managed growth” policies was too one-sided and designed to help candidates in an upcoming election. The ads were to run in the two months before a city council election where the city’s growth policies were a contested issue.

Irvine rail opponent John Kleinpeter said he attended OCTA and Irvine council meetings in February and asked officials not to use public funds to promote CenterLine before the June 3 vote.

“They were accusing me of not wanting to inform the public,” he said. “My position is that when you’re using public funds, you have to tell both sides of the story.”

As envisioned, CenterLine would run from UC Irvine to John Wayne Airport through the Irvine Business Complex on the city’s west side. It would continue north to South Coast Plaza, then along Bristol Street to Santa Ana’s Civic Center area, ending at the Santa Ana train station.

Transportation officials are seeking more than $750 million in federal funds for the $1.4-billion project. Construction would begin in 2006, with the line opening in 2009, according to an accelerated scheduled released Wednesday.