December 10, 1999
San Diego — Today Superior Court Judge Richard Strauss ruled that Ms. Donna Tello, a widowed Poway mother, should have her attorney fees paid for by the proponents of the Poway School District's "Yes on A" tax assessment increase campaign.
Significantly, Judge Strauss found that, by suing to have some of the proponent's statements stricken from their ballot argument, Ms. Tello caused "...the enforcement of an important right affecting the public interest" and that "a significant benefit was conferred on a large class of persons." The judge further ruled that "the necessity and financial burden of primate enforcement were such as to make an award appropriate."
The litigation began after the spokespersons for the school bond campaign filed with the Registrar of Voters a ballot rebuttal argument that included falsehoods and personal attacks against opponents of the tax increase. Ms. Tello said she sued the proponents because she considered their arguments false. "I knew what they were saying was untrue. And to use a taxpayer financed ballot statement to attack personally your opponents is sleazy, to boot!"
Subsequent to going to court, and in an effort to avoid expensive attorney fees for both sides, Ms. Tello strove to settle the matter with the opposition, but to no avail.
"The matter could have been settled before the expense and publicity of a court hearing, but none of their offers were reasonable," she stated.
This resistance forced Ms. Tello to go to court where, in a publicized hearing, the judge struck down most of the contested language as "false and misleading."
Al Rava and Bruce Henderson, Ms. Tello's attorneys, point out that the opposition's unwillingness to settle early may have cost them more than just the attorney fees. "Prop. A was a stealth election. They were trying to get this measure passed now, on a single-issue ballot when there is low voter turnout, rather than wait for the presidential primary election in March when turnout will be higher. By refusing to negotiate a reasonable settlement early on, they increased the level of media attention on Prop. A and, because of the judge's earlier ruling to remove the offending language, the Friends for Our schools campaign suffered a lot of negative publicity," said Henderson.
Henderson thinks the lawsuit may have cost the election for the opponents in other ways. "They raised a lot of money for campaign purposes. But when they lost at the first hearing they then had to hold back a lot of it to cover attorney fees for both sides. Since that money wasn't available to the campaign, that too could have cost them the election."
According to the campaign disclosure statements of the Friends for Our Schools campaign on file with the Registrar of Voters, approximately $70,000 remains in their account after the election. According to documents filed with the court, the proponents' attorneys are claiming over $30,000 in fees and costs. Prop. A required a 2/3 vote but was narrowly defeated — 15,221 to 8,425 (64.37% to 35.64%), according to the Registrar of Voters. Proponents paid a lavish $16 per "yes" vote, and still could not win. If they had used the other $70,000 to target their likely supporters, it is likely that they could have bought the election.
According to Henderson, the bond proponents are forced to pay $5,000 for Donna Tello's attorney fees. For their part, even though the judge found for the proponents on some minor, legal technicalities, these tax hike advocates will take nothing from the judgement — except an election defeat.
Return
to Frontpage