And Now, the Port

Published: Sunday, July 6, 2008 6:57 PM PDT

E-MAIL STORY

If you missed this Rob Davis story, take a second and read it. The Port of San Diego is doing a little dance on the line between appropriate dissent about a challenge to its authority and the inappropriate use of public funds to oppose a ballot measure.

There are few things more irritating -- and, unfortunately, prevalent -- in San Diego than the use of public funds by its myriad agencies to support or oppose various ballot measure. Long-time readers will remember my angst about Grossmont Healthcare District's 2006 spending on feel-good ads about Grossmont Hospital, which came conveniently at the same time that the entity was asking voters to sign off on a $247 million bond issuance -- a levy of about $40 a year on each East County property owner served by the hospital.

A Grossmont spokesman at the time fully admitted that the taxpayer-funded ads were part of the effort to pass the ballot measure.

There is absolutely nothing wrong with a public agency taking a stand on a ballot measure. Groups from the San Diego City Council to the Community College District have all endorsed or opposed various initiatives. More power to them. But they have to draw the line and avoid spending the public's money to push their efforts.

Officials up and down the state have gotten hammered for crossing that line. But there's a nuance. An agency can legally spend money "educating" the public about its position on an issue.

Too bad the "education" typically goes something like this: "If you want congestion, headaches and a strange foot infection we can't identify yet, you can go ahead and vote against the Initiative to Make Your Life Better Than Ever. If, on the other hand, you want free ice cream every day while you commute, you should vote yes on it."

The San Diego Association of Governments did it with heavy expenditures in 2004 in favor of the Transnet sales-tax extension: You probably won't be able to live in San Diego with all the traffic that will build up unless you approve this sales tax.

The airport authority did it in 2006 with the ballot measure to put a new airport of some kind at Miramar Marine Corps Air Station. You'll be haunted with guilt for years to come because of all the damage you'll do to the local economy if you don't approve this initiative.

And now, the Port. It's so far spent far less on newspaper ads opposing a ridiculously complex initiative that would overhaul the port's planning powers and pave the way for some kind of mega development on the desirable 10th Avenue Marine Terminal.

As Davis writes, the port spent nearly $60,000 on ads opposing the measure:

"Before casting a ballot, the Board urges your careful consideration of this educational message," the advertisement says. "This initiative threatens an important source of regional jobs and well-paying jobs, which we believe you should protect and preserve."

.

If they aren't violating the letter of the law, they're coming close to trampling on its spirit. The power of their arguments should be enough. They needn't spend taxpayer dollars on it.

Davis provided some good context about the reason for the ethical line prohibiting public expenditures in favor or against a ballot initiative:

"Such expenditures raise potentially serious constitutional questions," Justice Mathew Tobriner opined in the 1976 ruling, Stanson vs. Mott, which found that a state official had improperly used public money to advocate for a bond package. "The use of the public treasury to mount an election campaign which attempts to influence the resolution of issues which our Constitution leaves to the 'free election' of the people does present a serious threat to the integrity of the electoral process."

The ruling notes that advertisements can be improper even though they may not specifically tell voters how to vote. The state Fair Political Practices Commission, which regulates campaign finance, defines advocacy as "unambiguously" urging a particular result. It can fine public agencies up to $5,000 for violating that law; the local district attorney can similarly investigate whether public funds were properly used.

The lesson is simple: Every time you see an ad for a hospital and you have no idea what the point of it is, look around for a bond measure. No doubt, they're trying to influence your vote, and they are doing it with your money. The same, apparently, goes for random messages about protecting jobs at the port.

-- SCOTT LEWIS

9 Comments so far on this story...

True, but it would have been nice if you'd have acknowledged that there are sometimes some competing principles, some complexity. (You do realize that, right?) The Port ad is a perfect example. // A developer is funding an initiative to effectively win the right to build a particular commercial development. They can spend as much as they please to sell that to voters. Setting aside our own snap judgment about whether this project is good or bad for San Diego, will some other private community interest rally funds (from who?) to run competing ads? The answer: sometimes. // But is this how we want to make our land use decisions? A developer ponys up $$ for an initiative and waits to see if some community group will find money to correct their spin? I agree, public money is not the answer, but it's a thornier issue than what you described.

Posted by Jeffrey Davis | reply to this comment
July 6, 2008 11:03 pm

It's not a "random" message. Agreed, it's improper for the government to tell us how to vote. In this case their advice happens to be good. This initiative is underhanded, deceptive, bad public policy, and economic stupidity. How should the Port go about telling people this? Who else is going to fight the advertising juggernaught the initiative sponsers plan? The local media is not paying enough attention to it so far. The Port is prompting VOSD to cover this initiative thoroughly, and perhaps not sell the sponsors advertising for the election.

Posted by Fred Williams | reply to this comment
July 7, 2008 8:23 am

Scott, you might want to disclose how much VOSD has received in income from port-related advertising, which as I recall had a tone of "Here's how important we are -- don't mess with us."

Posted by TY | reply to this comment
July 7, 2008 9:24 am

Perhaps it is the duty of local journalism to stake its reputation and integrity in the middle of the political and social arena where clowns and broncos bust around playing fast with the truth and welfare of the community.//The SD-UT is one of the clowns in the ring, so they are a no-go, but the voiceofsandiego.org has the capacity to remain separate from the performers and the onlooking masses.//Here, the Port is chastised for spending the public's money on what may well be in the public's interest. Fine, but then step in and take over for the Port or any other entity that is deemed to be serving the public interest but is perhaps unable to do so without spending the public's money. Get out there and be a ringleader of the point of view that most people will see and agree is in their best interest.

Posted by Christopher Hall | reply to this comment
July 7, 2008 9:29 am

I don't think a public agency can be said to define the public interest when it is controlled by people who are not elected. It's hard enough to get elected agencies to be responsive, much less patronage-based organizations. As to the Port District, their record in protecting San Diego's waterfront for the public is dismal; e.g., car rental companies on the waterfront facing Harbor Island.

Posted by josil | reply to this comment
July 7, 2008 12:21 pm

josil -- true, I agree it's overly optimistic to assume the port would have the best interests of the public in mind, like any political body, appointed, elected or otherwise. But when they do, and I have seen them do, it is OK to cross over and say "good boy/ girl," and pat them on the back.

Posted by Christopher Hall | reply to this comment
July 7, 2008 8:50 pm

Looking at the original post again, this line jumped out at me: "The power of their arguments should be enough." // Well, in debate class, sure. But seriously? In the real world? C'mon, Scott, you owe us better than that.

Posted by Jeffrey Davis | reply to this comment
July 8, 2008 11:13 am

I think the Port does have the right to "inform" the public of an initiative that could damage the employment of many valuable jobs in the maritime industry. The developers cleverly call it a "Port Initiative" to make voters believe it is initiated by the Port. This is wordsmithing at its worst and should be corrected by "educating" the voters that it is not their proposal. The developers force the Port to put this on the ballot if they succeed in getting enough signatures...then who pays...the Port does, and it isn't small change, probably in the area of over $750,000. So which do you prefer, a $60,000 "educational" ad to correct a misleading initiative or the use of public funds to put something on the ballot that will cost more than 10 times that amount in public funds???

Posted by Ann Hammill | reply to this comment
July 8, 2008 6:35 pm

Scott : Nice work. We need all the public watch dogs we can find. This miususe of public funds to influance elections indeed has a long and colorful history in SD, as you point out. Before The Voice was around to blow the whistle the Chamber got into similar problems, FPPC even fined them, for trying to influance School Bd races. There is one key bond between these two events. The chamber then and the Port now are controled by the same person. When honest people abdicate their responsibility, as the Port Commissioners are doing, and the Chamber Directors did, the people who placed their trust in them get hurt. Press-Watch dogs maybe our only protection as long as this "get along mentality" continues with those we place in positions of trust and leadership.

Posted by Sez Me | reply to this comment
July 9, 2008 10:53 am

Reader feedback

Users may post more than one comment, but should not pose as multiple users. Multiple posts from the same IP address but with a different user name on each will be reviewed to determine whether abuse has occurred.
Posts with overly personal attacks or unsubstantiated allegations may be edited or deleted.
Please be patient with the posts -- there may be a delay before they appear on the site -- and make sure to enter the code in the "image verification" box.