contracostabee.

com

https://contracostabee.com/selling-measure-q-city-government-puts-the-con-back-in-concord/

Selling Measure Q: City Government puts the CON back in

Concord
Bill Gram-Reefer

Despite claims and assurances to the contrary, Concord City Council and top
city administrators have conspired behind closed doors since 2009 to create,
package, market, and sell Measure Q, a half-cent per dollar sales tax increase
that appears on the November 2010 ballot. Through a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request, Halfway To
Concord has obtained documents that show this Manhattan-like Project cost Concord taxpayers hundreds of
thousands of dollars for consultant fees and high-paid city employee work hours. If passed, Measure Q will needlessly
cost taxpayers at least $6,000,000 more.
According to Concord City government (CCG) documents, before any Brown-Acted public hearing with full, impartial
disclosure of all sides of the issue and a public vote by Concord City Council, the only question city leadership was
asking in November 2009 was whether a new tax should be an increasehow much and for how longin the sales
or utility tax, or a $100 parcel tax. Community input was only considered a means of making its actions seem credible.
The record shows that beginning in 2009, CCG transformed the traditional annual public
hearing processto gauge community priorities for its 2011-12 city budget planninginto a
single-minded, full court press to raise taxes. Beginning in 2009 and continuing through
December 2010, CCG contracted with multiple consulting firms to develop and implement plans to carefully design
one-sided push surveys, and recast public hearings, workshops, and discussions with civic leaders into tacit
community support for a tax increase.
Furthermore, since July 27, 2010, when the Concord City Council passed a resolution to place Measure Q on the
November ballot, the CCG continues to meet regularly with its paid consultants to plan City-sponsored campaign
activities for Measure Q through Election Day, in violation of the Californias Brown Act and Fair Political Practices
Committee regulations and state law.
NOVEMBER 2009
Selling Measure Q begins here. Council had already made up its mind. In a memo dated November 12, 2009,
Concord City staff states that, given tough times faced by all, Council wants to broaden its typical community
outreach over the next six months to gain insight into preferences and opinions of the community in methods to close
the Citys $9.7 million budget gap. The structural deficit would be addressed over the next two years.
JANUARY 2010
Council clearly had already made a decision in 2009 to place a tax on the
November 2010 ballot no matter what taxpayers thought. The CCG hired Godbe
Research to create and conduct surveys that would provide credibility for its
actions. By January, city staff had received drafts of a newly repurposed Community Priority Survey that would serve
as the statistical fig leaf for further pro-tax actions and provide cover for the City Council.
The money for Godbe was taken from the typical budget workshop budget allocated the year before, to be used
instead for a different purposeprovide cover for a tax increase.
Records show that by January 11, 2010, Godbe had already sent a draft for an initial survey (Godbe #1) to city staff.
City of Concord Assistant Manager Valerie Barone and Community Relations Manager Leslye Asera corresponded

with Amelia Davidson of Godbe to wordsmith the survey:

Jan -12, 2010 Change wording to In future voters in Concord may be asked to could be asked
In this same e-mail, the City was already conspiring to cover its tracks and hide information about the process by
looking into ways to protect pro-tax collaborators from any public scrutiny. Barone asked Davidson, The question is
fine but it seems we discussed letting people who answered yes to this question (#21 that gives respondents
opportunity to opt into further surveys) know that their name and other information would not be connected to this
survey.
Prior to this, city staff had done considerable research on alternative taxes and ball park figures on how much each
would raise. In an e-mail to Davidson dated Jan 12, 2010, Asera writes

Hi Amelia:
Weve been able to get some numbers for you:
1. Parcel Tax revenue: We have 34,700 taxable parcels, so revenue would be $3,740,000
2. Sales Tax: Our Finance Director estimates that .25 cent sales tax would generate $6 million
3. UUT: We have not been able to estimate this tax precisely. As you probably know, Haywards newly
passed UUT is 5,5% on natural gas, electricity, telecommunications (traditional telephone service, long
distance service, cellular phone service, and data services), and video/cable television services. The
City estimates it will produce $10 million to $13 million in revenue, according to their website.
Haywards population i the 2000 census was 140,000. Concords population was 122,000. Would it be
reasonable to project that Concords UUT revenue would be in the $8 million $11 million range?
Leslye

By January, the usual community-driven priorities concerning crime, education, jobs, homelessness, and traffic (city
budget was ranked 12th!), would be co-opted into data points for a new tax. City government and its program of public
hearings and surveys from this point on was no longer about what residents wanted, but what City Government
wanted. Community priorities had been subsumed to budget deficits and bad decisions that comprise the status quo
of bloated budgets and out of control government spending.
Godbe #1 was conducted in January, and was designed to test support for a sales tax v a utility user tax and to
identify the rate and duration. The survey of 600 was designed to have respondents express approval of city services
without any discussion of continuing cost or impact on the citys structural budget deficit. The survey guided this
uninformed assent into manufactured sure, why not responses that favored maintenance of current services, thus
trapping respondents into accepting some tax as the only viable alternative to maintain the current structural deficit!
Cutting expenses was never provided as an alternative. Only the Citys carefully crafted narrative concerning how it
had cut and cant cut anymore, was portrayed as truth. This is what the City of Concord passes off as impartial
analysis.
Indeed, the only alternative provided was for either a sales tax or utility tax. The 600 respondents were split into two
groups of 300; one each for kind of tax. The margin of error for the 600 was noted as 4%, and at 5.6% for the two
groups of 300.
The survey results predictably showed that support for the citys version of no-alternative reality fell according to rate
and duration of the tax. One result of Godbe #1 not touted by the City shows more respondents (13%) wanted more
cuts to services and facilities than just a tax increase (11%). 68% wanted a combination of spending cuts and new

tax, but this isnt what the City and consultants were selling.
A full 57% of respondents reported they had no idea what was going on with the City budget deficit, and said the Citys
survey and version of the truth was the first theyd heard. Note to City management: only 5% of respondents
mentioned the City newsletter or website (3%) as sources of information. And, as far as furlough days are concerned,
only 37%, one of the lowest scores, were concerned with limited business hours for City services.
For a full account of Godbe #1 ask City hall for Appendix C: Topline Report dated January 2010, and the February
2010 presentation by Godbe.
MARCH 2010
After the completion of Godbe #1, city staff continued to work the problem of how to raise taxes instead of seriously
cutting expenses and pension costs. On March 5, 2010, Hdl Holding Companies sent Barone estimates on what a
half-cent sales tax could raise. Additional discussion touched on how a half-cent sales tax might work in terms of what
a municipality qua exporter would receive in revenue depending on the nature and location of the purchase.
Lloyd Lamas of Hdl said normal people, dont care what the sales tax is when evaluating whether to buy an item.
Those that would drive to another town to save 50 on a a $100 chain saw probably isnt shopping locally anyway
they are buying over the internet, from thrift shops or through the underground economy.
Thats what the City and its experts think of any resident so bizarre as to question an unnecessary tax or rationally act
to avoid taxation. Besides, Hdl is just plain wrong about the Internet. 92% of shoppers research online and then 95%
buy local (Forrester Research US eCommerce: Five Year Forecast, 10/06). Unfortunately, ignorant Luddites can be
found everywhere, whether in the ranks of City government or its consultants.
APRIL 2010
Further entrenched in its mission to pass a tax no matter what, the CCG hired Lew Edwards Group (LEG) to help
design the spin campaign. On April 28, 2010, Barone asked Jessica Reynolds to send a document that:

wont be a published document, so much as a tool for is to walk through the process with them
(Council) We feel we need to do this prior to asking their help identifying the community leaders
otherwise they will worry about when and who in the community we are going to contact and what we
are going to say

LEG responded April 29, 2010 with a document for Spring and Summer Communications Action Steps, that
identified various phases of the campaign to pass Measure Q. This is months before Brown Acted public hearings and
the July 27, 2010 vote by council.
The document noted the city had completed its preliminary opinion crafting. April through June would be used to
Prepare for and implement Communications. LEG would help craft facts and messages for CCG, develop a
speakers bureau, powerpoint presentations, FAQs, speakers manual, draft the opinion leader update and update
opinion leader lists, and develop a strategy for creating and delivering the message.
LEG also oversaw updates for the city website, scheduled and conducted speaker training, conducted one-on-one
meetings with business and community influencers, and planned op-eds and press releases, while bragging about
Earned Media opportunities from an uncritical traditional media.

The City of Concord continues to conspire regularly with its paid consultants to plan City sponsored

campaign activities for Measure Q through Election Day, in violation of the Californias Brown Act and
Fair Political Practices Committee regulations and state law.

This is the background for the so-called impartial mailers sent to residents as propaganda pieces to sell only the
Citys perspective and no-alternative approach to raising taxes.
The cynicism of city government and its consultants was palpable. The mailers clearly were not meant to inform but to
persuade to one and one only outcome, pass Measure Q. This can be further corroborated by the LEG plan, which
called for design of an additional Godbe survey (Godbe #2) to track effectiveness of the second city mailer to assess
the likelihood of success on the November ballot or not. Despite the claims from CCG, these mailers were not
impartial informational pieces. When taken as a whole and in context, these mailers nothing but partisan campaign
pieces that unambiguously urged voters to a specific outcome.
The LEG plan also called for identification of testifierssuch as those whose names appeared on some of the
mailings as community leaders and influencers representing key constituents, such as fixed-income seniors wary of
funding cuts.
The LEG plan specified post-(ballot)-placement needs and fall education efforts (August-November). This phase
prescribed a third city mailer prior to August 8; creations of rapid response messages as needed to quash any
objections or tough questions (furloughs); update of the (unused) city website; and begin fall schedule of speaker
bureau outreach presentations to unsuspecting community groups.
JUNE-JULY 2010
A Concord Citizen Advisory Group (CCAG) was formed. Its kickoff meeting agenda is dated June 23, 2010. City staff
attending included Concord City Administrator Dan Keen, Barone, and Asera at ready to massage the message.
CCAG was formed as a cadre of pro-tax community collaborators, representatives of captive service organization,
and players whose responsibilities and activities would include listening to city presentations, fingering other
community leaders and organizations, and other patsies (like the highly subsidized Todos Santos Business
Association), that should be recruited; and to potentially lend their good names to the citys programmatic subterfuge.
The list of the members of this group is held secret by CCG. Why can they not stand publicly to defend their opinions
or actions today? Were there any conflicts of interests inherent in this group, like recruiting the president of the
Concord Police Officer Association (chief beneficiary of a new tax) as signer of the Pro Measure Q ballot statement?
The CCAG met continuously thru June through August, with meetings held: June 23, June 30, July 7, July 14, and
July 19. During this time, the CCAG was carefully coached on the city position, received city assessments from
Godbe #2 before the general public, deliberated on a count down of action steps leading up to the July 27 City Council
meeting, the date targeted in advance for passage of the resolution for a tax to be placed on the November ballot.
The group also was privy to the mailers the City planned to promote, and discussed further outreach including its role
in the community during the subsequent highly partisan campaign to pass Measure Q.
During these meetings Concord City Attorney Craig Labadie was tasked with writing the resolution and ballot
statement.
On July 23, 2010, the staff posted its staff recommendation that council, at its July 27 meeting, should pass the
resolution to place what would become Measure Q on the November ballot. Councils vote on July 27 was unanimous
and came just days before the ballot measure filing deadline, so as to avoid public input and review of the proposed
tax measure and preparation of ballot arguments against it. The unelected but appointed Councilmember and Mayor
Guy Bjerke, rushed the ballot argument for Measure Q to the City Clerk.

Councilmember Peterson, candidate for Contra Costa District Attorney, had the stones to brag that he was against the
tax but wanted to make sure Concord voters just got a chance to decide. Please. Just one word from any of the
Councilmembers could have stopped the charade. If Peterson is so against taxes, like he tells every Republican
group that will listen to him as he campaigns for Contra Costa District Attorney. Republicans need to ask: why wasnt
Peterson first in line to work with residents to oppose Measure Q?
AUGUST 2010
City documents and e-mails show that, after the tax measure was officially placed on the ballot, the City of Concord
CONTINUED to illegally organize active political campaigning for the measure with continued mailings, city
communications, and official presentations.

the only question city leadership was asking in November 2009 was whether a new tax should be an
increasehow much and for how longin the sales or utility tax, or a $100 parcel tax. Community
input was considered only a way to make its actions seem credible.

LEG continued to consult with city staff on wordsmithing and planning. Its contract runs through December 2010. In
fact, LEG representatives participated in ongoing teleconference with the City of Concord Revenue Communications
Planning Agenda Team (Agenda Team). Documents show meeting agenda for August 25, September 8, September
22, and a scheduled a meeting for as recent as October 8. These meetings, in concert with city staff, discussed
ongoing propaganda and campaign-related activities. It touched briefly on its scope and sought Labadies opinion
concerning legal limits of its activities.
The Agenda Team created the opinion leader letter and newsletter text and pushed content onto the City website.
Documents were traded back and forth between city staff and LEG. Asera received drafts for the City Newsletter
touting Measure Q from Bonnie Jean von Krogh of LEG on September 3. Drafts for ballot statements were jointly
reviewed. Consideration was given to crafting of preferred (ultimately inane) responses to, e.g. how to handle
questions about why have furlough days instead of simply reducing staff or salaries.
THE LAW
The California Fair Political Practices Commission, Section 18901.1 states (all must be present)
1.) tangible item
2.) Must EITHER
expressly advocates election or defeat of clearly identified measure
OR
when taken as a whole and in context, unambiguously urges a particular result
3.) public monies are paid for EITHER
a. costs of distribution
b) costs to design and prepare are over $50
More than 200 pieces
SUMMARY
City government documents clearly substantiate claims that the City of Concord knowingly violated FPPC regulations
concerning illegal campaign activities on behalf of Measure Q. It contracted and conspired with consultants to prepare
materials that were not impartial but were designed specifically to promote passage of Measure Q to the exclusion of
all other possibilities.

~ Bill Gram-Reefer (BGR) is editor and publisher of Halfway To Concord and president of WORLDVIEW PR. He is
filer and co-author of the Argument Against Concord Measure Q and of the Rebuttal Against the Pro Measure Q ballot
statement.
Concord Measure Q Propaganda Program