 |
|
|
|
|
Judge rules Sunnyvale didn't violate election code
'Opposition had no case,' city attorney says
By Daniel Hindin
Sunnyvale City Attorney Valerie Armento last week successfully defended the City of Sunnyvale against allegations that the city had intentionally abused the state election code.
California Superior Court Judge Conrad L. Rushing ruled that city officials--namely Vice Mayor Jack Walker, Councilmember Tim Risch, City Clerk and Elections Official Linda Kelley and Armento--did not violate provisions of the election code in the preparation and addition of Measure S to the Nov. 7 ballot. If approved by the citizens of Sunnyvale, Measure S would allow the city to accept fluoridated water from the San Francisco Public Utilities Commission. Council added the measure to the ballot on Aug. 8.
Former Sunnyvale Mayor Stan Kawczynski and attorney Gary Wesley on Aug. 25 filed a petition challenging the way the city had handled the ballot process. Kawczynski and Wesley argued that the city violated the Election Code by allowing Greg Loitz, president of the Santa Clara Dental Society and a Los Gatos resident, to sign the argument in favor of Measure S that will appear with the measure on the official ballot. The petitioners argued that only citizens and registered voters in the City of Sunnyvale can sign the ballot argument.
Secondly, Kawczynski and Wesley argued that Armento's 'impartial analysis' of the measure was anything but partial.
In presenting the case to Rushing on Sept. 5, Wesley's argument concentrated on information provided by the city, saying that if Sunnyvale doesn't fluoridate their water, rates will rise by three to six times the existing cost. He also argued about the legality of Lotiz' signature on the argument in favor of the measure.
However, Armento told the court that Wesley was "totally misreading the statute" in regards to the argument against Loitz. She also said, as to the accuracy of the percent rise of water costs, "The Petitioner has to have clear and convincing evidence. The city isn't the one who has to prove itself."
The entire proceeding took no more than ten minutes. Rushing then said that he would take the case under consideration and let the parties know at a later date. However, the Santa Clara County staff in charge of ballots set the deadline for sending out ballot information at 5 p.m. on Sept. 5. Therefore, ballot proceedings were delayed.
When she was finally notified on Friday that the petition had been denied, Armento said, "As I've said already, the opposition had no case from the very beginning."
Wesley said, "Judge Rushing ruled on the basis that we not only had to prove the city's statements wrong, but it was necessary that the court's decision not affect the printing or distribution of the ballots. Because he ruled on the [petition]. . .after the ballot information was due, it was not possible to rule in our favor. We simply ran out of time. We'll now have to take it directly to the voters."
|
|
|
|
Sunnyvale, California Since 1994
