Introduction Marco Gonzalez

We are here to denounce the unethical and possibly illegal campaign practices
of the Dalager/Gaspar campaign in violation of Encinitas’ local campaign laws.
We will show how large developers and business interests are misusing the
campaign rules governing slate mailers to funnel large campaign donations, in
excess of the $250 limit placed on individuals, into the Gaspar/Dalager
campaign in an attempt to “buy” the Encinitas City Council Election.

Contribution Irregularities Marco Gonzalez/Bruce Ehlers

The Encinitas Municipal Code clearly limits donations to any committee to $250
per person per election cycle. Furthermore it clearly defines a campaign
committee and makes no exception for slate mailers. We contend, the
donations to slate mailers in excess of $250 per person violate the Encinitas
Municipal Code.

Chapter 2.16 of the Encinitas Municipal Code says:

2.16.010 Application
B As used in this chapter, “ committee” shall include any person or
combination of persons who directly or indirectly receives contributions or
makes expenditures or contributions for the purpose of influencing or
attempting to influence the action of the voters for or against the election of
one or more candidate. Ord 97-24

2.16.020 Limitation and Disclosure

Contribution to Candidates and Committees
1. No contributor shall contribute more than $250 total to any candidate or
their controlled committee for any one election. Ord 2001-19
2. No contributor shall contribute more than $250 total for any one election to
any committee as defined in Section 2.16.010B formed to support or
Oppose a candidate. Ord 2001-19

In addition to this issue, the donations to the Gaspar/Dalager campaign exhibits

several other omissions, apparent errors and misleading filings. They include:

1. Five contributors contributed $6,500 for Prop A and all they got were two
footnotes! Why? Were they supporting Prop A or covertly paying for
Gaspar/Dalager’s flier?
2. No contribution for Dalager was made to VEG, yet VEG printed two “slate”
mailers for Dalager! Who paid? Why was it not reported? If no one paid, why
would they do it for free?
3. Similarly, no one contributed to VEG claiming to oppose Barth, yet a flyer
opposing Barth was printed! Why? Without opposing Barth, the mailer fails to
qualify as a slate mailer.
4. Original VEG filing showing Jane Blair’s contribution was attributed to “Jane
Blair for Encinitas City Council.” She was never a candidate and the papers
were revised after the UT story.
5. Gaspar’s campaign contribution of $500, as reported in her filings, does not
appear in VEG filings. This is an apparent error.
6. Dalager campaign has no reported contribution to VEG, but is credited on
the flier as sponsoring it (with an “*”). Is the payment unreported? If so why?
7. These pseudo “slate mailers” appear more like Gaspar/Dalager mailers and
do not resemble standard slate mailers.
8. Encinitas’ campaign ordinances impose a $250 limit on contributions without
an exception for slate mailers. Is it legal or ethical for the Gaspar/Dalager
campaign to ignore this limit and give greater influence to the large developers
and business interest donors?

The following chart summarizes the large Prop A, Prop 20 and Gaspar donations
and how they were funneled past the $250 donation limit and into the same
groups producing mailers for Gaspar and Dalager.
 2010
Voter Education Group and
Contribution Irregularities with the
$
DCM Properties
$1,000
Gaspar/Dalager Campaign
$
$
Fo
DCM Properties
rP

$2,000
ro
$
p
Fo
20
$ r Pr
Doug Harwood op
A
$2,000 Fo
$ r Pr
op
$ A
J. Whalen Asc. Voter
Fo r Pro
$
$1,000 pA Education Payments of
$
Alice Jacobson
Group $81,390
F or Pr op A for
$
$1,000 (VEG)
p A
$ Pro “Mailers/
Fo
r or
Louis Schooler rf Printing”
$500 s pa *
$ a ci l
r G un
Fo Co
$
Jane Blair
A
p

$5,000 Payments of
ro
P

$
$47,462
r
Fo

$ for
“Yes on A”
$8,793
$ “Slate
Production”

$250
“Kristin
$250 Maximum $250 Gaspar for $17,205
per person City Council for “Literature” and Gaspar
$250 2010” Mailers
per election “Door Hangers”
The San Diego
$250 Group

and Joint
$250 Slate Mailers
$250 Maximum $250 “Dan Tony Turpin
per person Dalager for $16,106
$250 per election City Council” for “Direct Mail” Dalager
$250 Mailers

Each of these and several other irregularities will be submitted as complaints

to the FPPC after the election.
False and misleading mailer claims Teresa Barth

A slate mailer (paid for by Dan Dalager, Kristin Gaspar and Yes on Proposition
A, a San Diego County issue) came to Encinitas mailboxes on October 8th. It
lists a number of issues Dalager & Gaspar support and implies that I do not. Of
course each issue is more complicated than the simplistic manner it is
presented.

Here are my responses to several of the more egregious false or misleading

statements:

Hall Community Park. I have from the very beginning supported a park on the
Hall property that provides sports and recreational uses for all ages that also
respects the quality of life of the surrounding neighborhoods. The source used
in the mailer was a Union Tribune editorial that also misrepresented my
position.

Scripps Hospital Expansion. I supported the expansion but voted against a city
imposed condition that could require the surrounding property owners to PAY
for future mitigation measures needed to deal with the traffic impacts created
by the hospital. (Source: Minutes May 23, 2009)

Desalination. The council never voted to support or oppose desalination. The

council voted against committing the San Dieguito Water District to a contract
to purchase desalinated water from Poseidon at an UNDETERMINED future
price. Councilman Bond, the city's long time representative to the San Diego
County Water Authority, noted that Poseidon did not have a good track record
of delivering water at a competitive price. The vote was Bond, Barth &
Houlihan to protect the SDWD ratepayers with Stocks & Dalager opposed. The
mailer credits the source of information as the SDWD Minutes, August 22, 2010
which is a Sunday. The correct date of the meeting is August 22, 2007.

I-5 improvements. I support improvements to the I-5 corridor within CALTRANS

current right of way rather than the large expansion currently proposed that
will require the taking of private property.

Performing Arts Center at San Dieguito Academy. I support the Performing Arts
Center and would have voted for a variance to allow that building to exceed
the 30 foot height limit. I did not support the recommendation to spot zone the
entire campus allowing all buildings to be up to 34 feet tall.

Sand Replenishment tax. I voted against a second ballot measure to place a 2%

tax on vacation rentals for sand replenishment. The public had previously voted
for an 8% TOT tax on vacation rentals, similar to the room tax for hotels but did
not support a 2% tax specifically for sand. Councilmember Houlihan & I both
felt that it was not a prudent use of tax dollars to hold another election within
6 months of the first measure. The public did approve the 2% the second time. I
personally support the Sand Replenishment tax.

Fees for Encinitas youth sport teams exclusive use of fields. All groups wishing
to have exclusive use of a city park, recreational facility, conference room,
etc. must pay a fee EXCEPT youth sports teams. At the June 17, 2009 meeting,
in light of declining revenue, a recent fee increase for all other recreational
programs and the need to identify funds for the maintenance and operation of
the future park at the Hall property I recommended a change in the city's
current policy. I suggested a flat rate fee based on the amount of use and those
fees be set aside in a special park development fund. The vote was 3-2 with
councilwoman Houlihan supporting my recommendation.

Credit Card Usage since 2006. I do not know if that dollar amount is correct but
I do attend meetings, workshops and the annual League of California Cities
conference as a means of staying current with changing state laws, urban
planning, transit, and environmental issues. Registration, transportation and
lodging fees are paid by the city. I do not however request reimbursement for
any out of pocket expenses or for per diem.

For the last two years the council voted unanimously to designate me as the
city's official delegate at the League's annual conference. Dan Dalager has had
two opportunities to question the expense of attending the conference but has
not raised any objection.

False implied endorsements Maggie Houlihan

There are well-known protocols for obtaining endorsements to be used on behalf

of candidates and/or propositions. Among other requirements, the endorser
must give written permission to allow his/her name to be used in campaign
materials, and it is absolutely forbidden to use any name without obtaining
express permission first. In addition, it is unethical to imply an endorsement by
wording or association. The Dalager/Gaspar campaign has violated the public
trust with unethical endorsement practices. For example, in a letter sent by
Jerome Stocks on behalf of and paid for by the Gaspar campaign, he states
“Even the mayor at the time, Maggie Houlihan, signed a declaration naming July
2nd Kristin Gaspar Day in Encinitas for her service to Encinitas and the Rotary
Club,” which gives the impression that I was personally acknowledging and
commending Ms. Gaspar for contributions to the City. Not only didn’t I write the
proclamation, but I had never met Ms. Gaspar and would not have been able to
vouch for her in any regard. It appears to me that Mr. Stocks wanted to use my
name to increase the perception that Ms. Gaspar has wide-spread appeal.
In addition, Edward Petersen, President of the The Coastal Dragons Rugby Club,
had a letter read on his behalf at last Wednesday’s Council Meeting in which he
stated that he was upset to find his name and non-profit club on a
Dalager/Gaspar joint campaign mailer. He stated empathically that he did not
ever give permission for his or his club’s name to be used on any mailer and
expressed concern that being presented as an endorser could negatively impact
the club’s 501C3 status. How many other names were used without permission?

What motivates the large donations in Encinitas? Maggie Houlihan /

Tony Kranz

People ask “Why is so much money put into Encinitas Council races repeatedly
by a core group of individuals who use convoluted paths to make it difficult to
“follow the money.” The voters of Encinitas owe a debt of gratitude to Union
Tribune reporter Jonathan Horn for his excellent investigative reports exposing
the players and their donations through campaign reports filed by the Voter
Education Group on the California Secretary of State’s website. It is important to
note, that none of these donations are reported in any City of Encinitas campaign
forms because of the reporting requirements for slate mailers.

2008: DCM Properties (David Meyer, married to Lizbeth Ecke) $6000; Doug
Harwood (realtor who lives in Rancho Santa Fe and works with David Meyer on
development projects in Encinitas) $3000; ACP Olivenhain, LLC (Randy
Goodson, developer of San Elijo Hills with interests in Valley Center and
Olivenhain); $3000 given for slate mater “Go Long for Stocks and Bond.”

2010 DCM Properties $3000; Doug Harwood $2000; Alice Jacobsen; $1000
(2004 Council candidate who’s campaign was supported by David Meyer; Louis
Schooler (developer and large land owner who employs Alice Jacobsen) $500; J.
Whalen Associates (land use/government relations consultant) $1000 for
Gaspar/Dalager joint mailers.

Why these contributions?

1) 130 acres of land designated “agriculture in perpetuity” as part of the
massive Encinitas Ranch Development is under the ownership and control
of Paul Ecke Ranch and Carltas (Ecke development arm). As ag land, it’s
valued at approximately $60K-$70K per acre; rezoned to
residential/commercial, it’s worth skyrockets to between $1 million and $2
million per acre.
2) 3.1 acre Pacific View School site is currently zoned as public/semi public
which gives property values at lower end of spectrum; rezoned to high-
density residential or mixed use, land value skyrockets. David Meyer is
purported to be the developer who expects to be awarded the job.
 3) Approximately 8-9 acres at the northwest corner of Encinitas Blvd. and
Rancho Santa Fe Road. Randy Goodson has periodically presented
requests for substantial upward changes to density on this acreage to
allow very dense mixed use project.
4) All the possibilities for density bonus infill projects in established Encinitas
neighborhoods. Mr. Harwood and Mr. Meyer call themselves the “density
bonus experts” and pride themselves on developing projects that
maximize every rule and loophole at the expense of the character of our
communities and our quality of life.

A four/fifths Council majority could approve all these zoning changes, except
increasing ag zoning to residential which requires a vote of the people. While the
voters defeated one proposal to rezone 38 acres of permanent Ecke ag land in
2005, Mr. Meyers and his cronies continue to plan for a future when they can get
their land-use requests approved and rake in enormous profits at the expense of
the quality of life of Encinitas residents.

Closing Comments Marco Gonzalez

 Appendix A

How to find the Campaign Finance files on the CA Secretary of State website

http://www.sos.ca.gov/

> Political Reform – Campaign Finance

> Committees, Parties, Major Donors & Slate Mailers

Scoll down to VOTER EDUCATION GROUP

The 1307734 is the 2008 version contributing to the Stock, Bond and Long campaigns in
Encinitas, amongst others around the state.

The 1326381 is the 2010 version shown herein.

Double click on the second (1326381) link

Select Electronic Filings and 2009 through 2010

These reports are the currently filed reports. Each contains a link to a PDF version of the
filing. Revised reports replace the older versions. In the case of the original 10/1/2010 –
10/16/10, we saved the original file and have a printed copy attached in Appendix D.