Complaint alleges mailer on school-funding measures failed to include ad disclosure
A Burbank resident filed a complaint with the California Fair Political Practices Commission, or FPPC, accusing the creators of a mailer opposing Measure I and Proposition 13 of allegedly failing to include adequate campaign-ad disclosure.
Measure I is a proposed parcel tax on the March 3 ballot, which would collect a 10-cents-per-square-foot annual fee from local property owners to generate $9.1 million for the Burbank Unified School District annually for 12 years.
While proponents of the measure argue Burbank public schools are at risk of cutting teaching positions and education programs without the parcel tax, opponents argue that taxpayers — especially those who are low-income renters — shouldn’t be responsible for the financial woes of the school district.
Proposition 13 is a $15-billion bond designed to finance construction of facilities throughout the state for K-12 schools, community colleges and universities.
Proponents argue that most schools need financial help with basic maintenance and repairs. However, opponents note the measure puts property owners at risk of paying higher taxes.
Linda Bessin said she submitted a sworn complaint Tuesday night. The letter, postmarked on Feb. 22, doesn’t have a return address but vaguely notes the sender as “N. Clybourn Ave. Neighbors.”
Inside the letter were two fliers Bessin describes as filled with misinformation and many spelling, punctuation and grammatical errors.
“They were trying to tell me how I should vote, and I know enough that when someone is trying to send out political literature like this, they’re supposed to identify who is sending it,” she added.
Bessin is retired and has lived in the area for nearly 30 years.
“It’s really appalling to me that dirty tactics are taking place in this election when it’s about our schools,” Bessin said.
“I understand when there’s a politician running against another politician, but for someone to spend their money like this and no one knows where it comes from is just really horrible,” she added.
Although Bessin’s complaint includes only the mailer, the Yes on Measure I campaign officials also said they have noticed email blasts, fliers and YouTube pre-roll ads opposing Measure I that did not include disclosure information about funding.
“We are deeply troubled that an illegal dark-money campaign is being waged to hurt our schools and students,” said Amy Kamm, spokeswoman for Yes on Measure I.
“Our community faces a clear choice, vote yes for our schools and children or vote no and support cheating and illegal manipulation of our democracy,” Kamm added.
Jay Wierenga, communications director for the FPPC, confirmed the organization received Bessin’s complaint.
“I can say we generally encourage or recommend disclosure even on [campaign ads] that don’t require it. But there are some that don’t require it,” stated Wierenga in an email.
The FPPC breaks down its ad-campaign disclosure chart on its website, fppc.ca.gov.
Complaints are taken under review to determine whether there is enough information and evidence indicating a potential violation to open an investigation.
FPPC reviews can take 14 days and possibly more if needed, according to Wierenga.
