Dear Neighbors,
Our schools are in a serious state of disrepair, causing safety and health problems for students and staff.
Our community responded by passing a $106 million school facilities bond last year. This is a large investment by every homeowner and business in Culver City. Nothing impacts your property values more than the quality of our schools. We have one chance to spend this bond money wisely. Help protect our investment by electing the two candidates who have the greatest expertise on our bond: Anne Burke and Scott McVarish.
The new School Board will decide how this money is prioritized and spent during the next six months.
Ms. Burke and Mr. McVarish have been involved with the bond for the past two years — their opponent has not. This is not the time for someone to learn the complexities of our District and the bond almost overnight.
Ms. Burke and Mr. McVarish have:
- Served on the Bond Campaign Committee.
- Participated in bond study sessions.
- Attended Bond Oversight Committee meetings.
- Attended community/school bond prioritization meetings.
- Conducted independent investigations of modern science labs and education centers.
- Ms. Burke has experience as a project manager.
- Mr. McVarish is an award-winning attorney and former trainer on school district budgets and school law.
Ms. Burke and Mr. McVarish’s opponent in this campaign did not vote in the school bond election, has not attended any bond meetings, and did not come to a School Board meeting until August, when she declared her candidacy.
Considering the major decisions facing CCUSD in the coming months, Ms. Burke and Mr. McVarish are simply better prepared to start working right away.
Signed by:
Laura Chardiet and Steve Levin, School Board members.
Dan O’Brien, Tamika Quillard and Leslie Gardner of the Culver City Education Foundation.
Jeannine Wisnosky Stehlin, president of United Parents of Culver City.
Jim Harris, Community Budget Advisory Committee.
Jon Varsano, Bond Oversight Committee.
*It should be noted that myself & Tamika are FORMER trustees of CCEF, and Leslie Gardner was not a trustee of CCEF but WAS the president of the Culver City Council PTA. All of these organizations listed are done so for identification purposes only and do not reflect an endorsement by those respective organizations.
To the contrary, it appears that the Burke / McVarish Campaign realized that they violated the CAPTA rules & regulations:
“A current or former PTA board member must not use his/her PTA title or the name of the PTA to endorse a candidate even if just for purposes of identification in any print, electronic, or website candidate literature, or interview or letter to the editor.”
http://toolkit.capta.org/?s=political+endorsement
I am sure that’s why they switched Leslie Gardner’s affiliation when they submitted this letter to the editor to this publication. It should be noted that in the original printed version of Laura Chardiet’s letter, and also in a campaign direct mailer, Leslie Gardner is listed as former president of the Culver City Council PTA.
As a sitting board member of the Culver City Council PTA herself, I am surprised that the candidate Anne Burke even allowed this on her campaign literature.
This letter is an edited version of the original letter that was sent out.
The letter that was shared with me has Leslie Gardner listed as PTA President (former), which is a violation of the California PTA rule:
A current or former PTA board member must not use his/her PTA title or the name of the PTA to endorse a candidate even if just for purposes of identification in any print, electronic, or website candidate literature, or interview or letter to the editor.
I do not know if the Education Foundation has the same rule, but given that it is also a non-profit organization (501c3), it must also abide with restrictions relating to election activity, and former trustees should be careful with the appearance of impropriety.
Thank you Dan for promptly pointing out that CCEF and CCC PTA, as non-profit organizations, do not endorse candidates for office.
I’d like to add that the committees are part of CCUSD and consider specific financial areas. CBAC did not even discuss much less make candidate endorsements. I assume the same is true for CBOC.
I stand proudly by the time I have spent supporting our district’s children, teachers and staff, and for me not to be able to display that badge while supporting candidates who are campaigning for the specific cause which I donated many hundreds of hours to, then there is a problem in the system…. Not in the person who is endorsing.
Here is the guidance from the Internal Revenue Service regarding Political Campaign Intervention by Section 501 (c)(3) Tax Exempt Organizations:
https://www.irs.gov/Charities-&-Non-Profits/Charitable-Organizations/The-Restriction-of-Political-Campaign-Intervention-by-Section-501(c)(3)-Tax-Exempt-Organizations
Dan O’Brien may have his own opinion about what should be, but for now, this is the law.
I do not believe that it is in the interest of the Culver City Education Foundation or the Culver City PTA to have its former trustees push the boundaries of what is legal – or to appear to do so by utilizing the organization’s name.
I guess that would also apply to the latest mailer from the Kelly Kent campaign with endorsements from CCUSD committee members and having pictures with CCUSD faculty and staff on campus property?
The regulation applies to organizations that fall under the 501 (c)(3). The Culver City Teachers Union is not a 501 (c)(3). Neither is a committee of the CCUSD.
The best way to get guidance on this issue is to call the Fair Political Practices Commission
You can find them here:
FPPC Toll-Free
1-866-ASK-FPPC (1-866-275-3772)
Monday through Thursday
9:00am – 11:30am
You can also find information here about filing a complaint, if you feel the need to do so.
http://www.fppc.ca.gov/index.php?id=498
The Culver City Education Foundation is a 501 (3) c has the following governing rule. (Standing rule #4).
“CCEF shall not take a position on any candidate for elected office or for appointed office (public or private), or for an employment position.”
Sorry, but the FPPC is no way going to opine and wade into the weeds of the IRS regulations. All they will do is point you to the regulations, if that. Furthermore, I sincerely doubt this is going to rise to the level of a complaint that the FPPC will be wanting to act upon.
Just so our general reading audience is aware, both the IRS and FPPC regulations are continually evolving. As I happen to often find myself serving in the role of campaign treasurer for one candidate (or two, in this cycle its Burke and McVarish) or another in our city, I make it my business to try and keep up with all the changes. I’ve signed up for list serves so I can be aware of changes that may happen mid stream in an election cycle.
To give you an example:
Are you aware that the City of Culver City made a major overhaul of its own campaign finance rules (impacts only City Council candidates) that took effect October 15? I am because I took the time to read the proposals and testify on them.
Are you aware of the recent rules that the FPPC voted on, which will go into effect in the next few weeks, that make major changes to assumptions as to when independent expenditure organizations and campaigns are considered to be in coordination, which is a violation of the rules? This is also a major change, important enough that an article appeared about it in the Wall Street Journal.
Are you aware of a recent FPPC rule taking effect that changes the required font size for the “paid by” citations that appear on campaign printed materials?
I could go on but I don’t want to put anyone to sleep. If there were labeling mistakes made, I am confident they were minor mistakes made by people I know to be well meaning, hard working volunteers in our city. If there is anyone out there who likes to play election cop and turn them in, it will cause more hurt and animosity in this community than I or many others want to see. Furthermore, they made disclosure of the error.
Nitpicking at this level is exactly the kind of dialogue that turns people off from wanting to vote or, god forbid, ever decide to represent their community by running for office.
Let’s give this a rest.
Crystal,
I’m a little perplexed at the logic you are using here. Voters will stop voting and candidates will stop running because community members are insisting that campaigns abide by election rules?
I think that on the contrary, the more voters and candidates are clear on what the rules are, the cleaner our elections will be and the more voters will trust and candidates will be encouraged to participate.
“Just so our general reading audience is aware, both the IRS and FPPC regulations are continually evolving…”
Crystal, are you implying that the CAPTA rule against PTA board members (past or present) using their PTA titles when endorsing candidates is a brand new rule, or is one that has recently evolved? If so, then when exactly did that evolution take place? Because the rule (as cited and linked above) appears awfully clear to me.
“Because the rule (as cited and linked above) appears awfully clear to me.”
I disagree, Patrick. As I read the rule: “Under the Internal Revenue Code, all section 501(c)(3) organizations are absolutely prohibited from directly or indirectly participating in, or intervening in, any political campaign on behalf of (or in opposition to) any candidate for elective public office. Contributions to political campaign funds or public statements of position (verbal or written) made on behalf of the organization in favor of or in opposition to any candidate for public office clearly violate the prohibition against political campaign activity. Violating this prohibition may result in denial or revocation of tax-exempt status and the imposition of certain excise taxes.”
It clearly states that “organizations…are prohibited”. We are not an organization unto ourselves. Furthermore, myself, Tamika and Leslie are not currently holding titles as representatives of the organizations in question, and are clearly noted as “former” in the descriptions. So, we could not be representing their endorsement on their behalf. However, to make sure of that distinction, we placed the disclaimer on the bottom of the flyer: “Affiliations are for identification purposes only”.
Regardless, as Crystal says, these complaints are petty. Our names are at the bottom of the flyer because of the time we served as avid volunteer leaders in our district. Otherwise, our endorsements would be as valuable as any person in any home in Culver City. This is why Kelly, Scott & Anne place the titles of City Council Member, or School Board Member, or Commissioner under the names of those who serve in those roles who endorse.
On a side note – how the heck are you able to type in italics on this site?
Dan, the rule that’s crystal clear is the *CAPTA* rule– the one which you accidentally (I certainly take your word for it) violated.
“Our names are at the bottom of the flyer because of the time we served as avid volunteer leaders in our district. Otherwise, our endorsements would be as valuable as any person in any home in Culver City.”
And yet, CAPTA’s rule is CAPTA’s rule. I can assure you that Kelly Kent has been vociferously endorsed (including here on this very website) by many Culver City PTA officers, past and present… a fact I know only because I’m personally acquainted with some of them. And I betcha the Kent campaign would’ve *loved* to’ve listed those PTA affiliations after their names on Kent literature. Because, as you say, otherwise their endorsements would be as valuable as any person in any home in Culver City. And yet those Kent-endorsing PTA officials did *not* have their PTA affiliations listed after their names. Because CAPTA’s rule is CAPTA’s rule.
Look, it’s really not all that big a deal, Dan. You and Leslie and the Burke/McVarish campaign accidentally broke a CAPTA rule. It happens! Good form, in my opinion, would be to simply acknowledge that you broke the rule, and then apologize for doing so. That’s what I try to do when I mess up (which is all the time, believe me!). It’s also what I expect of my kindergartner and my 5th grader. Is it okay for me to also expect it of those who’d seek to represent me on the school board? Or nah?
On a side note – how the heck are you able to type in italics on this site?
It’s easy! Just do this but remove the spaces after the initial carats/parens.
Have a good one!
Okay, my “do this” thing didn’t work. Lemme try this again…
Do what follows, only use the carat (the pointy “greater than, less than” parens) rather than the standard parentheses…
(i)do this(/i)
Hope that shows up better.
For sure, Patrick. I think it’s important to own up to one’s mistakes… I hadn’t seen the CAPTA rule, which is a super-conservative interpretation of the law that I pasted, above. So, yes, I do own that Leslie’s name was improperly connected to the PTA per their guidelines. I do not think that it was intentionally done. It was my belief that if it is so designated that an individual is not representing themselves as speaking FOR the organization, that it was OK to do so…. and I still believe the law allows for that interpretation, though as you stated not by PTA standards.
Now, to test your parantheses instructions….
Right on, Dan. Now good luck with that italicization!
Crystal, check your email from a couple days ago. I have a question about your filings that you haven’t answered yet. You are, after all, an expert and I’d like clarity. Thanks.