May 21, 1999
When is a winner a loser? Apparently when the losers happen to be almost the entire political spectrum of San Diego City and County. On Tuesday March 2, 1999 the powers that be, brought before the electorate PROPOSITION L, the so called "Community Libraries Enhancement Ordinance to improve community and branch libraries". Under the auspices of the San Diego County Regional Library Authority, an Ordinance was crafted that would ostensibly benefit countywide library programs by adopting a five year one quarter cent Transactional and Use tax.
As in most political issues the "devil" was in the lengthy details of the Ordinance.
Though most voters would have been hard put to take the time and waste their energy to plow through the massive details...La Prensa San Diego did. And, what we read in the Ordinance was sufficient to motivate us to oppose the Ordinance even though PR0P L was supported by almost the entire elective and appointive political establishment, the Chamber of Commerce along with the major corporations, business and professional communities. The major media ( print, radio and television) evidently forgot their role of presenting the different sides of an issue and most acted as shills for PROP L. The stage was set for the imposition of yet another tax on the already tax burdened residents of the City of San Diego and County.
Five citizens gathered their courage to publicly take a stand against the mighty forces aligned against them; Steve Green, chairman of the San Diego Libertarian Party, Richard D. Gann, of the Paul Gann's Citizens Committee, Edward M. Teyssier, President, Microwave Solutions, Inc., Steve Baldwin, State Assemblyman 77th District, and Daniel L. Muñoz, Publisher of La Prensa San Diego. With less then $2,000 dollars to fight against the monolithic force against us, we enjoined in battle utilizing our political acumen and our faith that "the truth of the matter would be our strongest ally". We believed that an informed voter would be our strongest weapon and this onerous PROPOSITION would go down in defeat. And, we were right. On Tuesday March 2, 1999 PROP L went down to defeat! The Proponents were not even capable of receiving 50% of the vote much less the required 2/3rds. We had won! Or had we? The triumvirate (Business, Political, and the major Media) did not take well their defeat. They had been trounced by the gang of five and had lost creditability in the City and County.
Retribution
During any election there are any number of Proposals, Initiatives, Constitutional Amendments and\or candidates involved. In most cases, they will draw opposing views. Voters can decide how to vote after reading the actual texts of the Proposal, Initiative or Amendment and the Pro and Con arguments. Whenever there is a statement made either for or against, that is unacceptable to the proponents or opponents, they can call for the offending words, statements or paragraphs to be changed or deleted if they may cause the voter to receive false information. In some cases, the opponents and proponents will confer and come to an agreement to alter or delete the troubling statement. This is done by the filing of a legal action ordering the Registrar of Voters to change the ballot statement. In our case, the Proponents represented by Sullivan, Wertz, McDade & Wallace filed a legal action asking the Registrar of Voters to change a few lines that were included in the Sample Ballot argument against PROP L in December of 1998...."without making any efforts to communicate with the Parties of interest". The opponents offered no rebuttal except for Mr. Teysser. Eventually, the offending statement was deleted well in time for the printing of the Ballot. Normally this is all that happens. The paper work is minimal and of little consequence to most major law firms.
THE LEGAL MONETARY STING
It was not until the Proponents lost the election that the Attorney's filed a Petition with Superior Court Judge William C. Pate requesting Attorney's fees of $40,000 against the opponents. There were no court hearings, no trial by jury, or court appearances. The Judge informed the parties of interest that he would provide a telephonic ruling.
It was apparent that the lawsuit was just a legal device to punish the opponents for having won. We had won so now the system would punish us. Unfortunately, it also sent a message to all community people and all those not in the `loop' that opposing the establishment would be costly.
On May 12, 1999 Judge Pate ruled in favor of the establishment and awarded them attorney's fees. He did acknowledge that Green, Baldwin, Gann and Muñoz, who had not contested the changing of the statement would only be responsible for fees of $705.90 apiece. Teyssier would be responsible for an additional $10,028.00 in fees! In total, the Judge reduced the outrageous attempts of the Prop L Proponents to punish us by levying $40,000 in legal fees!
Implications
The actions of the Pro-Prop L coalition to punish the upstarts who dared to go against the "establishment" might have unanticipated outcomes. A chilling effect will descend on and limit the desire to participate in the democratic process. The knowledge that any ballot argument can become the basis for frivolous law suites that expose you to potentially large fines is not conducive to participation. As a rule, it is only the "well financed" campaigns that will have the attorneys at their side to sue with impunity while community groups or members of the middle class will not have the ability to sue for any misrepresentations that may appear in a Pro-argument for an issue. The weakness in the election law is that those who want to sue do not even have to communicate with you to attempt to resolve differences of interpretations, before the ballot is printed. You do not become aware until the first LAW SUITE is filed. By then the cash register is churning and the lawyers have their machines working overtime churning out the paper work that raises the cost of the suite. There comes a point where you dare not rebut the attacks as each rebuttal escalates the enormous fees that the lawyers are capable of asking for.
The outcome is that your financial security is placed in the hands of a Judge who must determine, without benefit or oral arguments or trial by your peers, whether to side with a large legal firm or with community people and/or organizations. Being what the legal culture is and what it takes to get appointments to higher courts, the simple civic minded individuals are at a decisive disadvantage. Thus participation in the electoral process will now be a very risky venture.
To summarize, the Gang of Five were alleged of having a "false and misleading statement in the "Sample Ballot". The offending statement said: "PROP-L Proponents claim that most local libraries are below American Library Association minimum standards. Only problem is that the A.L..A. has no such standards."
Judge Pate stated in his ruling: "The case did not raise any particularly novel or complex issues, and did not involve public service element such that a multiplier is appropriate..." (Wertz et al had asked for $40,000).
If this was the case why were the "Gang of Five", Gann, Green, Teyssier, Baldwin and Munoz required to pay the law firm for their lawsuit?
Return to Frontpage