Category Archives: Benicia City Attorney Heather McLaughlin

VIDEO: City Council announcement of legal action on push poll

Excerpt from Benicia City Council video, October 2, 2018

This 7 minute video begins with City Attorney Heather McLaughlin reporting action taken by the Council in closed session to initiate legal action on the recent “push poll” attack, and includes comments by Vice Mayor Steve Young, Council member Tom Campbell and Mayor Elizabeth Patterson. (See transcript and relevant section of Benicia’s Municipal Code below…)

Transcript:

City Attorney Heather McLaughlin announcement on 10/2/2018:
“We also met in closed session on conference with legal counsel regarding anticipated litigation and the initiation of litigation regarding potential enforcement of Benicia Municipal Code Section 140, and this is regarding the push poll that came out in recent days. The Council gave me direction regarding initiating a lawsuit on this. The concern is that the poll did not comply with the disclosure requirements of the ordinance. As follow-up to that, I have been directed to contact the Fair Political Practices Commission regarding enforcement of the disclosure rules. And I’m also to send a letter to EMC and to Research America informing them about our ordinance and demanding that they provide us the questions and who paid for the poll. And then finally, we’re going to provide a press release. And I think some of the Council members would like to add onto that. That was a four-one decision.”

Benicia Municipal Code Section 140
(download PDF or go to City of Benicia website)  Here is a relevant subsection:

1.40.042 Disclaimer requirements for campaign communications funded by independent expenditures.

A. Campaign communications funded by an independent expenditure supporting or opposing city candidates or city measures shall include the phrase “Not authorized by a candidate,” and shall also include the name of any contributor of $2,500 or more made in the past six months to a committee funding the independent expenditure, in the phrase “Major Funding Provided By [Name of Contributor(s)].” Expenditures of $2,500 or more that are earmarked for any other candidate or ballot measure outside of the city of Benicia need not be disclosed.

B. The disclosures required by this section shall be presented in a clear and conspicuous manner to give the reader, observer or listener adequate notice, as specified below:

1. For printed campaign communications that measure no more than 24 inches by 36 inches, all disclosure statements required by this section shall be printed using a typeface that is easily legible to an average reader or viewer, but is not less than 10-point type in contrasting color to the background on which it appears. For printed campaign communications larger than this size in area, all disclosure statements shall constitute at least five percent of the height of the material and shall be printed in contrasting color.

2. For video broadcasts including television, satellite and cable campaign communications, the information shall be both written and spoken either at the beginning or at the end of the communication, except that if the disclosure statement is written for at least five seconds of a broadcast of 30 seconds or less or 10 seconds of a 60-second broadcast, a spoken disclosure statement is not required. The written disclosure statement shall be of sufficient size to be readily legible to an average viewer and air for not less than four seconds.

3. For audio, telephone call or radio advertisement campaign communications, the disclosures shall be spoken in a clearly audible manner at the same speed and volume as the rest of the telephone call or radio advertisement at the beginning or end of the communication and shall last at least three seconds.

C. For purposes of this section, “campaign communication” means any of the following items:

1. More than 200 substantially similar pieces of campaign literature distributed within a calendar month, including but not limited to mailers, flyers, faxes, pamphlets, door hangers, e-mails, campaign buttons 10 inches in diameter or larger, and bumper stickers 60 square inches or larger;

2. Posters, yard or street signs, billboards, supergraphic signs and similar items;

3. Television, cable, satellite and radio broadcasts;

4. Newspaper, magazine, Internet website banners and similar advertisements;

5. Two hundred or more substantially similar live or recorded telephone calls made within a calendar month.

Benicia City Council directs city attorney to take action against push poll

Repost from the Vallejo Times-Herald

Benicia City Council directs city attorney to take action against push poll

By JOHN GLIDDEN, October 3, 2018 at 5:55 pm

BENICIA — Fearing an outside group or person is attempting to negatively influence the City Council elections, councilors took action Tuesday night.

The council in closed session directed City Attorney Heather McLaughlin to contact the California Fair Political Practices Commission in response to a series of calls residents received that some say smeared one of the council candidates.

“When an outside force appears to be engaging in activities that are outside of the ordinance and not disclosing who they are — I think we have no choice but to move forward,” Vice Mayor Steve Young said in the meeting.

Several residents, including Young, have received a phone call from Research America, Inc., asking to conduct a survey about the City Council, senatorial and gubernatorial contests. However, Young says that most of the questions centered on candidates Kari Birdseye and Lionel Largaespada.

“The statements about Mr. Largaespada were uniformly positive and stated how, for example, he would use his small business background to improve the city’s economy and relations with its businesses,” Young wrote in a Sept. 20 letter published by the Benicia Independent. “The statements about Ms. Birdseye were the opposite. Among these statements were ‘She wants to shut down Valero, costing hundreds of jobs,’ and ‘She will bring radical left-wing politics to City Hall.’”

A representative with the data collection company Research America previously confirmed to the Times-Herald that the business was hired to conduct the survey by EMC. Representatives with that group didn’t return calls for comment.

McLaughlin was also directed Tuesday to contact Research America, Inc. and EMC Research about the survey, and ask for a copy of the questions asked and provide information on who paid for the poll.

At issue is the alleged failure of the companies to disclose who paid for the poll — a violation of the Benicia Municipal Code.

Many have called the survey a push poll. Such polls are meant to sway public opinion instead of recording objective information from those surveyed.

Councilman Tom Campbell also spoke during Tuesday’s meeting stating that residents support having fair elections in town.

Campbell, who spearhead a campaign reform initiative in 2009, said he got 1,200 signatures during that time with only five people expressing doubt about the initiative. The rest supported the item, he said.

“Ninety-nine percent of the people want the same thing. They want to be fairly informed of who is actually backing a candidate. They want the elections to be clean, and they want people, who spend money on elections, to disclose how much money they spent,” he said Tuesday.

Campbell further said that if Research America and EMC won’t provide answers that are necessary for the city to go to court for those answers.

Video highlights – City Council votes NO on industrial safety, June 19, 2018

Video taken from the City of Benicia, edited and reposted by Constance Beutel on YouTube
[Editor: Scroll down for 5 videos on various portions of the Benicia City Council’s June 19, 2018 review of industrial safety.  Council took over 5½ hours that night – here’s a shorter way to stay informed on the ISO decision.  – RS]

1. Presentation to support Benicia Industrial Safety Ordinance Review
City of Benicia video, excerpt by Constance Beutel (32 min.)
On June 19, 2018 the Mayor and a Citizen Group presented a draft Industrial Safety Ordinance to Benicia City Council to recommend that they refer the ordinance to City Staff for expert review and comments. This video captures the presentation and rationale.


2. Citizen testimony to support Benicia Industrial Ordinance
City of Benicia video, excerpt by Constance Beutel (37 min.)
On June 19, 2018 the Mayor and a Citizen Group presented a draft Industrial Safety Ordinance to Benicia City Council to recommend that they refer the ordinance to City Staff for expert review and comments. Citizens who spoke in favor of the review of this ordinance are shown in this video.


3. Valero Opposition to a Benicia Industrial Safety Ordinance
City of Benicia video, excerpt by Constance Beutel (9½ min.)
On June 19, 2018 the Benicia City Council was asked to refer a citizen draft Industrial Safety Ordinance to City Staff for expert review and comment. Valero spokespersons urged Council not to approve this request for review.


4. Council discussion and vote on ISO for staff review
City of Benicia video, excerpt by Constance Beutel (52 min.)
On June 19, 2018 the Mayor and a Citizen Group presented a draft Industrial Safety Ordinance to Benicia City Council to recommend that they refer the ordinance to City Staff for expert review and comments. This video captures the Council discussion and vote to reject the proposal.


5. City approves individual as “organized group” (2½ min.)
Finally here’s a quirky – if not outright stupid – segment of the meeting (taken directly from the City website).  As Larnie Fox put it, “We saw an embarrassing moment” when a citizen claimed to be an organized opposition group.  When asked to define “organized opposition,” the Mayor deferred to City Attorney Heather McLaughlin, whose baffling response (below) allowed the person to speak out of turn as an “organization of one.”  He could have but thankfully didn’t carry on for a full 15 minutes.  It is widely assumed that the City will redefine “organized” support and opposition before this precedent is acted upon again.  – RS, editor

VALLEJO TIMES-HERALD: Valero won’t sue city of Benicia over rejection of crude-by-rail project

Repost from the Vallejo Times-Herald

Valero won’t sue city of Benicia over rejection of crude-by-rail project

By Katy St. Clair, 12/22/16, 4:06 PM PST

BENICIA >> The Valero Corporation announced it will not be suing the city of Benicia for rejecting its controversial crude-by-rail project, which would have allowed the company to transport thousands of gallons of crude oil into town.

The project would have moved up to 70,000 barrels of crude a day to Benicia, passing through places like downtown Sacramento and Davis.

Valero first submitted an application for the project to the city of Benicia in December of 2012, but the Planning Commission rejected the bid in March of this year. Valero then appealed to the Benicia City Council, which also rejected the plan in a unanimous vote in September, citing fears of derailment or spills as its main concern.

“The margin of error was just too small and the risk of catastrophic failure too great,” Councilman Tom Campbell said.

In the wake of the city’s veto, Valero seemed primed to fight the decision in court. Benicia City Attorney Heather Mc Laughlin told the city council on Tuesday night that she had previously “heard word” from the Valero attorney that they were “thinking of filing suit.”

It’s been reported that Valero officials believed Benicia’s rejection of the plan was illegal.

It now appears that Valero is backing off talk of litigation. Mc Laughlin announced that Valero’s attorney contacted her and said they will not be going forward with a lawsuit, after all.

“It’s like the best Christmas present ever,” she said to the council. “Yesterday they called and said that they were not going to file suit against the city because they want to maintain positive relations with the city.”

Valero did not respond to requests for comment.

Mayor Elizabeth Patterson released a statement Wednesday saying she is “pleased” with Valero’s decision not to sue.

“They are a valuable business in our community,” she said. “I look forward to the promise of those good community relations now that we can put this ill-advised project behind us.”