Previous Rulings

Lying Politicians and City Officials

The text of Measure Y provides under the heading of "minimum staffing" that the City CANNOT collect Measure Y taxes unless the City appropriates sufficient funds for 739 sworn officers, the authorized strength at the time MY was adopted. Numerous city council members and city officials assured voters that the City would not collect the tax unless the police force was staffed with at least 739 officers. But once MY went into effect, and the size of the police force WENT DOWN, the City continued to collect the tax, its previous promises notwithstanding.

That's when Charles Pine filed his lawsuit, and the City claimed that the language actually meant that all the City had to do was "appropriate" enough money for 739 officers; it didn't actually have to have 739 officers employed. What a bunch of legal gobbledegook.

Worse yet, the City maintained a page on ITS OWN WEBSITE FAQs regarding MY, that interpreted the relevant language in the way any half-literate and logical person would, i.e. it meant the City would not collect the tax unless the City actually staffed the department at 739. The link to the FAQs is right here...
http://measurey.org/index.php?page=measure-y-faq

(Can you believe it is still posted?)

In my lawsuit, I raised the same allegations that Mr. Pine did, and the City filed a "motion to dismiss," on the grounds that all that was required was "appropriation of funds," the posted FAQs and other lies told by politicians notwithstanding. Unfortunately, there is a published case that basically holds that statements made by lying politicians cannot be used as evidence in interpreting ambiguous statutory language, and the judge in my lawsuit dismissed this particular allegation. You can read the story about the hearing on that motion here.
http://www.ktvu.com/news/16923250/detail.html