Tag Archives: Benicia City Council

KQED News: Benicia considers strengthening campaign finance ordinance against lies and misinformation

Benicia Considers Proposal for City Hall to Fact-Check Political Ads During Elections

KQED News, by Ted Goldberg, October 18
Valero’s oil refinery in the Solano County city of Benicia. (Craig Miller/KQED)

Benicia lawmakers are considering a proposal that could eventually require the city to fact-check political campaign advertisements — a novel response to alleged election misinformation that could face legal scrutiny.

The ordinance comes after a political action committee funded by Valero, the oil giant that runs a refinery in town, tried to influence voters in the last two city council elections. The company’s involvement in city politics also came as the Valero plant experienced two of the region’s worst refinery accidents in the last four years.

The ordinance was co-authored by Mayor Steve Young, whom the Valero PAC opposed in the last election. He said the committee put out ads that manipulated photos of him and distorted his record.

Now, Young said, the city should consider whether its campaign regulations “can be amended to prohibit digital or voice manipulation of images and whether any lying can be prohibited.”

The PAC, dubbed Working Families for a Strong Benicia, raised hundreds of thousands of dollars for the 2018 and 2020 city council elections. Both votes revived debate between some city officials and environmentalists on one side, who want more regulations on the refinery, and oil executives and unionized refinery workers on the other, who say they fear the city’s real motivation is to shut the plant down.

In 2018, two candidates backed by the PAC, which is also funded by several labor organizations allied with the refinery, won seats on the Benicia City Council. Another candidate, an environmentalist who was opposed by the committee, lost.

Last year, Young won the mayor’s race despite the PAC’s opposition to his candidacy. The ads said that he was against affordable housing and that he didn’t need a job because he receives a pension from previous local government work.

The mayor said he does want cheaper housing and there’s nothing wrong with receiving a pension. He said Valero’s opposition to him began in 2016, when the Benicia Planning Commission, which Young was a member of, voted to reject the company’s crude-by-rail proposal.

“Steve Young wants to turn Benicia into a place where young families can’t afford to live and work,” one flier stated. “Who would vote against kids playing at the ballpark? Steve Young did,” another one said.

Young and the proposal’s co-author, Councilmember Tom Campbell, said the ads mean the city should do a better job of making sure future elections are fair and honest.

But turning the government into a fact-checking body would be ripe for a legal challenge, according to Jessica Levinson, a Loyola Marymount University professor specializing in election law.

“We know the First Amendment does in fact protect lies,” Levinson said in an interview. “I think this is absolutely open to a legal challenge the second they pass it, if they do.”

“Who decides what’s an embellishment, what’s misleading, what’s just an omission versus what’s actually a lie?” Levinson asked.

Since the 2016 election and the beginning of Donald Trump’s presidency, misinformation has become one of the biggest issues in American politics, said Levinson.

“We are tackling a situation where there are more lies and there’s more technology that allows us to lie than for sure the framers every dreamed of,” she added.

At the same time, the local news industry, which traditionally acts like a fact-checking body, has been decimated. Benicia gets some news coverage but is often overshadowed by larger Bay Area cities like San Francisco and Oakland.

“One of the things that keeps me up at night is not just misinformation and disinformation and the fact that people believe it, but the fact that we have a dwindling press corps and particularly in smaller jurisdictions,” Levinson said.

The details over how the city would fact-check political ads has yet to be worked out. The proposal, set to go before the city council on Tuesday, would forward the issue to Benicia’s Open Government Commission, a body that would consider changing the city’s election campaign regulations. The commission would work on new rules and forward them to the city council next April.

Valero fought with the city’s last mayor, Elizabeth Patterson, after she called for more regulations to be placed on the refinery following a May 2017 power outage that led to a major release of toxic sulfur dioxide and prompted emergency shelter-in-place orders. Less than two years later, the plant had a series of malfunctions that led to another significant pollution release.

Jason Kaune, the PAC’s treasurer and head of political law at Nielsen Merksamer, a Sacramento-based lobbying firm, declined to comment. Representatives for Valero and unions that supported the committee did not respond to requests for comment.

Benicia will review mask mandate in 6 weeks – here’s how

Benicia COVID cases have risen to the CDC’s most dangerous “High Transmission level” since August 11 – well over the CDC’s “Substantial Transmission level.”

By Roger Straw, August 27, 2021  [UPDATED – note new information about the requirement of 30 days below substantial transmission level.]

Benicia’s new mask mandate refers to the CDC transmission levels as its standard for reviewing whether to continue the mask mandate.

The mandate will remain in place for 6 weeks, after which Council will review the order (on October 5).  The order will “remain in effect until the City is not in a substantial or high transmission of COVID 19 as defined by the CDC for a thirty-day period.” (From Resolution 21-88, adopted August 24)

The CDC’s formula for calculating level of transmission looks complicated, but it’s actually rather simple.  First, here is the CDC’s complicated presentation.  I’ll simplify after that….

TABLE. CDC core indicators of and thresholds for community transmission levels of SARS-CoV-2
Indicator Transmission level
Low Moderate Substantial High
New cases per 100,000 persons in the past 7 days* 0–9.99 10.00–49.99 50.00–99.99 ≥100.00
Percentage of positive nucleic acid amplification tests in the past 7 days <5.00 5.00–7.99 8.00–9.99 ≥10.00

* Number of new cases in the county (or other administrative level) in the past 7 days divided by the population in the county (or other administrative level) multiplied by 100,000.
 Number of positive tests in the county (or other administrative level) during the past 7 days divided by the total number of tests performed in the county (or other administrative level) during the past 7 days. https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/lab/resources/calculating-percent-positivity.html

In the Benicia City Council discussions, only new cases per 100,000 was mentioned as a factor for review (unless I missed something).  Councilmember Tom Campbell did the math on the spot, and indicated that Benicia’s number would be 13 cases (later amended to 14) over the last 7 days.

Simply put, >>based on our population, when the County reports 14 or more new Benicia cases over the last 7 days, the CDC classifies us as having a level of “substantial transmission.”  If we see 28 cases over the last 7 days we are in an area of “high transmission.”  The mask mandate will continue until we have been below 14 new cases per week for at least 30 days.

The bad news… Here is a chart showing Benicia’s 7-day case levels per 100K over the past several weeks.  Clearly, we have been in Substantial or High since mid-July.

Solano County COVID-19 Dashboard – ARCHIVE
https://doitgis.maps.arcgis.com/apps/MapSeries/index.html?appid=055f81e9fe154da5860257e3f2489d67 
Date Total Confirmed Cases, Solano County Δ Total Confirmed Cases, Benicia Δ Cases previous 7 days per 100K  (CDC Substantial: Benicia 14+)
Wednesday, June 16, 2021 33,651 15 1,010 3 8
Thursday, June 17, 2021 33,673 22 1,012 2 9
Friday, June 18, 2021 33,707 34 1,015 3 12
Monday, June 21, 2021 33,762 55 1,017 2 11
Wednesday, June 23, 2021 33,797 35 1,021 4 11
Friday, June 25, 2021 33,846 49 1,025 4 10
Monday, June 28, 2021 33,898 52 1,029 4 12
Wednesday, June 30, 2021 33,973 75 1,029 0 8
Friday, July 2, 2021 34,044 71 1,030 1 5
Tuesday, July 6, 2021 34,149 105 1,038 8 9
Friday, July 9, 2021 34240 91 1,040 2 11
Monday, July 12, 2021 34377 137 1,045 5 15
Wednesday, July 14, 2021 34461 84 1,048 3 10
Friday, July 16, 2021 34630 169 1,056 8 16
Monday, July 19, 2021 34761 131 1,062 6 17
Wednesday, July 21, 2021 34885 124 1,070 8 22
Friday, July 23, 2021 35193 308 1,084 14 28
Monday, July 26, 2021 35482 289 1,092 8 30
Wednesday, July 28, 2021 35703 221 1,102 10 32
Friday, July 30, 2021 36004 301 1,110 8 26
Monday, August 2, 2021 36249 245 1,115 5 23
Wednesday, August 4, 2021 36525 276 1,125 10 23
Friday, August 6, 2021 36848 323 1,132 7 22
Monday, August 9, 2021 37056 208 1,141 9 26
Wednesday, August 11, 2021 37350 294 1,153 12 28
Friday, August 13, 2021 37664 314 1,167 14 35
Monday, August 16, 2021 37914 250 1,177 10 36
Wednesday, August 18, 2021 38294 380 1,187 10 34
Friday, August 20, 2021 38764 470 1,205 18 38
Monday, August 23, 2021 39002 238 1,216 11 39
Wednesday, August 25, 2021 39329 327 1,224 8 37
More CDC Resources:

City of Benicia website posts information on new Face Covering Mandate

From the City of Benicia website, August 25, 2021

Press Release, Resolution and Flyer: City of Benicia Takes Action to Require Face Coverings in Indoor Public Places

  •  Press Release City of Benicia Takes Action to Require Face Coverings in Indoor Public Places
    Benicia, CA (August 25, 2021) — At Tuesday evening’s Benicia City Council meeting, Council Members voted 5-0 in support of a resolution requiring that each person, aged 4 years and over, wear a face covering when in any indoor or enclosed space open to the public within the City of Benicia.  [continued…]
  • Resolution 21-88 Face Coverings
    A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF BENICIA REQUIRING THE USE OF FACE COVERINGS IN INDOOR AND ENCLOSED PUBLIC SPACES
    WHEREAS, California Government Code Section 8630 empowers the City Council to proclaim the existence or threatened existence of a Local Emergency when the City is affected or likely to be affected by a public calamity; and  [continued…]
  • Indoor Mask Requirement Flyer (Click image to download PDF version of the flyer)
    Click image to download PDF version of the flyer

ABC7 TV News: Benicia Council passes mask mandate

Benicia passes indoor mask mandate despite Solano Co. health officer’s recommendation

ABC7 News, August 25, 2021

BENICIA, Calif. (KGO) — Anyone aged four and up are now required to wear a mask indoors at public buildings in Benicia. That includes grocery stores, commercial office buildings and restaurants.

City council members approved the mandate yesterday.

Benicia is taking a harder stance than the rest of Solano County — the only Bay Area county without a mask mandate.

Earlier this month, ABC7 News spoke with the Solano County Health Officer who explained why they initially chose not to implement indoor masking.

“The data does not support the need for such a mandate. This disease in our county is very clearly spreading during/through social events, people who are going to parties, barbecues, picnics, campouts,” said Dr. Bela Matyas.

The mandate goes into effect immediately and will be reviewed in six weeks.

See also: