Sacramento City Hall closes ranks on Measure C, a tax increase voters should reject | Opinion

In the sunset of his eight years as Sacramento mayor, Darrell Steinberg had a fleeting chance at the end of Tuesday night’s city council meeting to show why being a “strong mayor” — one who hires and fires the top city managers — is the best choice someday for the capital city.

Facing Steinberg was a problem a strong leader could quickly correct: City staff had failed, per the city charter, to adequately notify the public that a big tax increase for local businesses was on the March 5 ballot in the form of Measure C. According to opponents, they did not learn of its existence in time to say anything on the ballot statements already mailed to voters.

In response to this mess, Steinberg admitted the mistake — and that was about it.

“The elected mayor of this city ... takes responsibility, and I accept that,” he said. But structurally, Steinberg has no more responsibility over top management than any other council member. A true apology would come from those in real power in city hall who forgot about the public in the performance of their duties.

Steinberg then all but dismissed the impact of Sacramento violating the city charter when it comes to Measure C, due to “some confusion or conflation.” Those are condescending words. Nothing is confusing or conflated about the city putting a tax measure on a ballot and breaking its own notification rules.

Voters should reject Measure C for process reasons alone. The city hasn’t managed to follow the meager transparency requirements of its charter to increase prospects that the tax proposal could be judged with arguments from both sides on its own merits. The simplest solution is to vote no.

As Steinberg ducked a leadership moment Tuesday night, he essentially lent his voice to a city infomercial. Coming soon, he announced, is a self-serving explanation of why the city’s failure to give formal notice about Measure C doesn’t matter.

“Over the next 48 hours or so, our city attorney and our fine city clerk are going to be putting out a public response to some of the criticisms and concerns that have been raised again by members of the public and the press,” he said.

Here is what Steinberg thinks we are confused about (although we are not):

On Nov. 14, the city council approved placing Measure C on the ballot. In the very same agenda item, the council directed staff to provide public notice of this proposal in the city’s “official” newspaper within 10 days. Instead, the notice didn’t appear until Feb. 7 (and in the Sacramento Bulletin), more than two months late from charter requirements — and only after The Bee Editorial Board had repeatedly requested a copy.

Does timely notice make a real-world difference? According to the city charter, yes. Public notice is what can motivate citizens to oppose the measure in a ballot statement.

As for the Nov. 23 deadlines to file ballot arguments, they “were posted on the city’s website,” Steinberg said. Yet why would an inadequately informed public look for this information?

In a letter to the Bee, City Clerk Mindy Cuppy said it is “pure speculation” that timely notice as the charter requires would have resulted in a citizen stepping forward to write an argument opposing Measure C. All we know is that there are at least two opponents of this measure - the Sacramento County Taxpayers Association and Sacramento attorney Tiffany Clark - who wanted to submit an opposition argument. Clark was told they she was too late (more on that for another day). The bottom line is that a hefty business tax increase ended up on a ballot without anybody opposing it. That is a red flag that something is awry.

Remember that this same city staff admitted it made a noticing mistake when it placed on the Dec. 12 council agenda a fat raise for City Manager Howard Chan with barely 24 hours’ notice. The compensation package included a pay bump of approximately $20,000 and 10 weeks of vacation for a five-figure cash-out at Chan’s discretion. Such short notice violated state law.

When the mistake was brought to the city’s attention by a Bee reporter, it announced a revote for Chan’s raise on Jan. 9. The city council has tabled the matter for now, but it did vote to strip Chan or any future city manager (and any other charter officer’s) of the ability to place his or her raise on any future city council agenda.

Here is why the same staff is so reluctant to admit that it made yet another noticing mistake surrounding Measure C — a mistake that was again unearthed by The Bee. A revote placed on the November ballot would cost the city about $4 million in lost business taxes for the coming fiscal year. City Hall is scrambling to close an estimated $50 million structural deficit for the coming year, and it will fight for every ill-gotten tax dollar it can get.

Steinberg’s only saving grace Tuesday night was a suggestion in passing, saying it “might be sound” for the city to go to court if Measure C passes in March to determine whether the city’s handling of the election was legally valid.

Might? No, must. But that’s not all.

Steinberg and the city council should not assume that Measure C is legal in the meantime. A court proceeding could take months. The next budget starts July 1 and the city should not assume any increase in business operations tax revenues.

Meanwhile, we await official word from our city clerk and city attorney as telegraphed by Steinberg on how the city charter’s noticing requirement for elections isn’t worth a hill of beans. How sad. Consistent with their past performance, perhaps they should sit on this public notice for a couple of months and then publish it in the Sacramento Bulletin.

Steinberg should have made the public’s right to know his only priority on Tuesday night. Sacramentans are justified to feel frustrated and suspicious of the city’s recent pattern of keeping the public unaware of what their elected leaders and key staff are doing with their money.

Instead, Steinberg ended this unfortunate chapter in his tenure by closing ranks, reinforcing why the next mayor needs to be someone who brings a fresh perspective to tough leadership decisions.

In summary: Vote “No” on Measure C.

Next: Why Sacramento needs Mayor Flo Cofer

This story was originally published February 15, 2024 at 5:00 AM.