• Official WWW Site

A "public benefit" includes approval or award of any contract, benefit, or arrangement between the city and any "person or entity" having a value more than $25,000 for personal services, the purchase or sale of goods, supplies or equipment, the purchase, sale or lease of real property, an exclusive franchise, or zoning variances, special use permits, or other exceptions to the city's general plan or zoning regulations. Also included are grants of public funds greater than $10,000, or any tax relief greater than $5,000.

A "person or entity" includes an individual, business firm, partnership or corporation, including any person having a 10% equity interest in the entity and every trustee, director, partner, or officer of the entity.

"City officials" include all elected and appointed officials serving in their official capacities, and their deputies. Among these are elected city council members, the appointed city manager and staff members, and volunteer commissioners and board members.

This prohibition is imposed for a period of five years from the date the official approves or votes in favor of the public benefit, or one year after the term of office expires or the official leaves office, whichever is first.

City officials must maintain lists of names of all entities and persons who have received a "public benefit" and produce such lists upon demand of any person. The city must notify everyone doing business with the city of the requirements of the measure.

Any willful, knowing violation of the measure is a misdemeanor, subject to both six months imprisonment and a $1,000 fine. Any resident may allege a violation and file a lawsuit against an official. If successful, the resident may be awarded attorneys fees and costs, plus 10% of the civil penalty imposed on the official.

Unintentional violations are subject to full restitution and civil penalties up to five times the value of the illegal advantage received by the official.

EFFECT ON EXISTING LAW

This measure imposes additional new requirements and will not affect or change any existing requirements or prohibitions already imposed on city officials by the California Political Reform Act.

OPERATION OF MEASURE

The City Manager has estimated additional costs to the city for record keeping under this measure will be in excess of $100,000 per year. Because of its unique prohibitions, the measure also is expected to have a chilling effect on business relationships between the city and local businesses wanting to retain participation in local election campaigns, discourage citizens from seeking office or serving on volunteer commissions and boards, and make recruitment of qualified employees more difficult.

North Coast Times

• Vista races few but fierce - 10/22/00 (via KPBS)
• Oaks Project appeals axed initiative 9/16/00
• Vista council unable to enact measure 9/13/00
• Councilman to try to enact initiative now 9/12/00

• Two campaign-finance measures in Vista - 11/1/00 (via KPBS)
• Backers of Prop. W criticize remarks by councilman - 10/24/00 (via KPBS)

The signatures needed to qualify Measure W were collected by a 100% volunteer force, something unheard of in this age of bought-and-paid-for signature gathering.

This sensible proposal is endorsed by the good-government watchdog group California Common Cause. Politicians should not be allowed to approve multi-million-dollar sweetheart deals from contractors and then take a job, gift or large campaign contribution from that same contractor.

Measure W restores the taxpayers' faith in city government. Three members of the current Council damaged that trust during the 1998 elections. The TOP donor to the three winning Council candidates in 1998 was the proposed developer of downtown Vista Village. That three sitting Council Members would take large amounts of cash from a developer right after voting to approve that developer's multi-million dollar deal shows total disregard for Vista voters.

The Council continues that disregard. A Council majority recently voted to spend thousands of taxpayer dollars on a frivolous lawsuit intended to knock Measure W off the ballot. The Council has also placed a "competing" measure on the ballot to fool voters and kill reform. The Council's measure is poorly written and the Council knows it. The politicians in City Hall only care about protecting their own interests not yours. Reject the Council's phony campaign and its frivolous lawsuit. Support the Vista Taxpayer and Voter. Vote YES on Measure W.

BRAD DRAKE, Small Business Owner and Vista Taxpayer

Measure W has nothing to do with Vista. Vista already has a strong law setting out stringent standards of ethics, and the City Council is supporting a ballot measure this year, Measure V, which makes our local campaign contribution and expenditure laws even stronger. Therefore, we believe "if it's not broken, don't fix it."

Measure W is the brainchild of someone working for a Los Angeles based, Ralph Nader affiliated, fringe group called the "Oaks Project." Little is known about the Oaks Project, and the sole local proponent is not the author of Measure W. In fact, the proponent had a difficult time explaining to the Vista City Council what Measure W would actually "reform."

Measure W is a case of Vista's voters being used as "guinea pigs" by an out of town political action operation.

Measure W is seriously legally flawed. The California courts rejected a similar ordinance in Irvine earlier this year. Similarly, the City Attorney has challenged Measure W in the local courts.

Measure W will create tons of expensive red tape; the equivalent of at least one new employee will be required to manage the paper work, and that's just for the first year!

Vista doesn't need the many costly problems Measure W will create.

Please join with us in voting NO on Measure W.

JOE GABALDON, Chairman of the Board, Vista Chamber of Commerce

NORM HALUS, President, Shadowridge Owner's Association

PAT SAUNDERS, President and CEO, Vista Economic Development Association

RALPH VAUGHAN, Chairman, Vista Planning Commission

Proposition W does nothing to protect Vista's taxpayers, and it is certainly not the "grass roots" effort the misguided proponents would have you believe. Even its title is meant to mislead you. Proposition W was prepared by a radical organization called the Oaks Project, a Los Angeles based Ralph Nader affiliated operation. This organization attempted to qualify a similar measure on the ballot in six cities in California. According to the Oaks Project, the cities were chosen, not because there were problems in those cities but, "because they represent a geographical and political cross-section of California". Proposition W has nothing to do with Vista. Rather, it is a political experiment being run by a Los Angeles political operation with an unknown agenda. In other words, Vista voters are being treated like "political guinea pigs".

We oppose this measure because:

IT'S VERY EXPENSIVE! The excessive, pointless paperwork required by this measure means that City employees will be spending more time keeping records and less time serving the public.

According to a recent fiscal analysis, the annual cost to Vista for the additional record keeping will exceed $100,000!

IT CREATES A NEW BUREAUACRACY! Proposition W creates a new set of record keeping requirements for our community volunteers. This confusing measure may require anyone serving on a city commission to keep extensive records for five years. Vista has over 130 volunteers that will be subject to this measure.

IT'S CONFUSING AND POORLY WRITTEN! Vista's City Attorney has already taken Proposition W to court contending that sections of the measure are unconstitutional.

Say NO to red tape, paperwork and lawsuits.

Please join us in voting NO on Proposition W.

JOE GABALDON, Chairman of the Board, Vista Chamber of Commerce

NORM HALUS, President, Shadowridge Owner's Association

PAT SAUNDERS, President and CEO, Vista Economic Development Association

RALPH VAUGHAN, Chairman, Vista Planning Commission

The biggest difference between the two is how each got to the ballot. Prop "W" was placed on the ballot by the CITIZENS. 5400 Vistans signed petitions circulated by VOLUNTEERS.

Prop "V" was put on the ballot by cynical politicians. Prop "V" did not receive even one citizen signature. The politicians simply bullied "V" onto the ballot to compete with Prop "W".

The argument against Prop "W" is filled with outright lies.

"W" has no requirement for the City to keep any new records. Period.

"W" does not require 130 volunteers to keep new records. "W" applies to top-level officials who make the final decisions on how to spend your hard-earned tax dollars. Period.

"W" is not "poorly written." "W" was carefully drafted by constitutional experts with decades of experience.

Prop "W" is on the ballot because of City Hall scandals like the one in 1998. City Council members took huge campaign checks from the Vista Village developer right after approving deals for that developer.

We need to restore honesty in Vista government. Vote YES on "W".

BRAD DRAKE, Oaks Project Volunteer

Title 2 of the Vista Municipal Code shall be amended by the addition of the following Chapter:

CHAPTER 2.34. TAXPAYER PROTECTION

Section 2.34.010. Title

This Chapter shall be known as the City of Vista Taxpayer Protection Amendment of 2000.

Section 2.34.020. Findings and Declarations

A. The people of the City of Vista (" city") find that the use or disposition of public assets is often tainted by conflicts of interest among local public officials entrusted with their management and control. Such assets, including publicly owned real property, land use decisions conferring substantial private benefits, conferral of a franchise without competition, public purchases, taxation, and financing, should be arranged strictly on the merits for the benefit of the public, and irrespective of the separate personal or financial interests of involved public officials.

B. The people find that public decisions to sell or lease property, to confer cable, trash hauling and other franchises, to award public construction or service contracts, or to utilize or dispose of other public assets, and to grant special land use or taxation exceptions have often been made with the expectation of, and subsequent receipt of, private benefits from those so assisted to involved public 'decision makers'. The people further find that the sources of such corruptive influence include gifts and honoraria, future employment offers, and anticipated campaign contributions for public officials who are either elected or who later seek elective office. The trading of special favors or advantage in the management or disposal of public assets and in the making of major public purchases compromises the political process, undermines confidence in democratic institutions, deprives meritorious prospective private buyers, lessees, and sellers of fair opportunity, and deprives the public of its rightful enjoyment and effective use of public assets.

C. Accordingly, the people declare that there is a compelling state interest in reducing the corruptive influence of emoluments, gifts, and prospective campaign contributions on the decisions of public officials in the management of public assets and franchises, and in the disposition of public funds. The people, who compensate public officials, expect and declare that as a condition of such public office, no gifts, promised employment, or campaign contributions shall be received from any substantial beneficiary of such a public decision for a reasonable period, as provided herein.

Section 2.34.030. Definitions

A. As used herein, the term public benefit does not include public employment in the normal course of business for services rendered, but includes a contract, benefit, or arrangement between the city and any individual, corporation, firm, partnership, association, or other person or entity to:
1. provide personal services of a value in excess of $25,000 over any 12 month period;
2. sell or furnish any material, supplies or equipment to the city of a value in excess of $25,000 over any 12 month period;
3. buy or sell any real property to or from the city with a value in excess of $25,000, or lease any real property to or from the city with a value in excess of $25,000 over any 12 month period;
4. receive an award of a franchise to conduct any business activity in a territory in which no other competitor potentially is available to provide similar and competitive services, and for which gross revenue from the business activity exceeds $25,000 in any 12 month period;
5. confer a land use variance, special use permit, or other exception to a pre-existing master plan or land use ordinance pertaining to real property where such decision has a value in excess of $25,000;
6. confer a tax abatement, exception, or benefit not generally applicable of a value in excess of $5,000 in any 12 month period;
7. receive cash or specie of a net value to the recipient in excess of $10,000 in any 12 month period.

B. Those persons or entities receiving public benefits as defined in Section 2.34.030( A)( 1)-( 7) shall include the individual, corporation, firm, partnership, association, or other person or entity so benefiting, and any individual or person who, during a period where such benefit is received or accrues,
1. has more than a ten percent (10%) equity, participation, or revenue interest in that entity; or
2. who is a trustee, director, partner, or officer of that entity.

C. As used herein, the term personal or campaign advantage shall include:
1. any gift, honoraria, emolument, or personal pecuniary benefit of a value in excess of $50;
2. any employment for compensation;
3. any campaign contributions for any elective office said official may pursue.

D. As used herein, the term public official includes any elected or appointed public official acting in an official capacity and any deputy, employee or person otherwise duly authorized to act on behalf of the official pursuant to Chapter 2.08.040 of this code.

Section 2.34.040. Prohibitions

A. No city public official who has exercised discretion to approve and who has approved or voted to approve a public benefit as defined in Section 2.34.030( A) may receive a personal or campaign advantage as defined in Section 2.34.030( C) from a person as defined in Section 2.34.030( B) for a period beginning on the date the official approves or votes to approve the public benefit, and ending no later than
1. one year after the expiration of the term of office that the official is serving at the time the official approves or votes to approve the public benefit;
2. one year after the official's departure from his or her office whether or not there is a pre-established term of office; or
3. five years from the date the official approves or votes to approve the public benefit; whichever is first.

B. Section 2.34.040( A) shall also apply to the exercise of discretion of any such public official serving in his or her official capacity through a redevelopment agency, or any other public agency, whether within or without the territorial jurisdiction of the city either as a representative or appointee of the city.

Section 2.34.050. Responsibilities of Vista Public Officials and Advantage Recipients

A. City public officials shall practice due diligence to ascertain whether or not a benefit defined under Section 2.34.030( A) has been conferred, and to monitor personal or campaign advantages enumerated under Section 2.34.030( C) so that any such qualifying advantage received is returned forthwith, and no later than ten days after its receipt.

C. City public officials shall provide, upon inquiry by any person, the names of all entities and persons known to them who respectively qualify as public benefit recipients under the terms of

Sections 2.34.030 and 2.34.040.

Section 2.34.060. Disclosure of the Law

The city shall provide any person, corporation, firm, partnership, association, or other person or entity applying or competing for any benefit enumerated in Section 2.34.030( A) with written notice of the provisions of this Chapter and the future limitations it imposes. Said notice shall be incorporated into requests for 'proposal, ' bid invitations, or other existing informational disclosure documents to persons engaged in prospective business with, from, or through the city.

Section 2.34.070. Penalties and Enforcement

A. In addition to all other penalties which might apply, any knowing and willful violation of this Chapter by a public official constitutes a criminal misdemeanor offense that upon conviction thereof shall be punishable according to the provisions of Section
1.16.010 of this code.

B. A civil action may be brought under this Chapter against a public official who receives a personal or campaign advantage in violation of Section 2.34.040. A finding of liability shall subject the public official to the following civil remedies:
1. restitution of the personal or campaign advantage received, which shall accrue to the General Fund of the City of Vista;
2. a civil penalty of up to five times the value of the personal or campaign advantage received;
3. injunctive relief necessary to prevent present and future violations of this Chapter;
4. disqualification from future public office or position within the jurisdiction, if violations are willful, egregious, or repeated.

C. A civil action under subdivision (B) of this section may be brought by any resident of the city. In the event that such an action is brought by a resident of the city and the petitioner prevails, the respondent public official shall pay reasonable attorney's fees and costs to the prevailing petitioner. Civil penalties collected in such a prosecution shall accrue 10% to the petitioner and 90% to the General Fund of the City of Vista.

D. The provisions of this Chapter are not enforceable under Chapter
1.12 of this code.

Section 2.34.080. Severability

If any provision of this Chapter is held invalid, such invalidity or unconstitutionality shall not affect other provisions or applications which can be given effect without the invalidated provision, and to this end the provisions of this Chapter are severable.