Oct 132020
 

Roseville Municipal Code 2.60.020 Findings, Purpose and Intent: requires an effective enforcement mechanism <<< This quote is straight out of the city code.

Hello Aaron,

The City has not identified any additional records responsive to your request as we understand it (communications with Scott Alvord) as previous communication records were recently provided to you in response to your previous records request.

Additionally, we understand, based on your communications, that in addition to contacting the City Clerk’s Office, which independently provides the function of filing officer, you have contacted the most appropriate agency, the California Fair Political Practices Commission (FPPC), concerning your allegations and concerns and that the FPPC is undertaking an investigation of these matters.  Notwithstanding, and pending the results of your FPPC complaint, as a general note, the City has been, and remains more focused on ultimate compliance rather than strict penalty enforcement.

We, as you are, are interested in the outcome of your FPPC complaint.

Thank you,

Sonia Orozco, MMC
City Clerk
City Clerk Department

So there you have it. The City of Roseville has just said, we do not care about putting any teeth in to our own city campaign ordinances. I am pretty sure the FPPC will fine Scott Alvord for what he did, but not only has the City of Roseville displayed apathy – they could very well get fined by the FPPC themselves for not enforcing the city code.

All this and I had to file a PRA to get the date-stamped campaign finance reports.

I will say this again – the City Clerk serves at the pleasure of the City Council. What a huge disincentive for them to do their job. And yes, there could easily be retaliation by a councilmember if they got fined for violating city ordinances. Based on my personality profile of Scott Alvord it is 100% within his paradigm – so is the City in on the cover up? Or are they cowards?

Perhaps the Charter Review Committee should just recommend that the entire body of campaign finance ordinances be repealed since they appear to mean nothing. In the meantime, if a council candidate takes $5K from a donor, what is the City going to do about it? Suppose Alvord donates money out of his campaign account to other democrats running for office, what is the City going to do about it?

Apparently, nothing. Looks like Open Season is upon us.

P.S. Please note that Alvord’s illegal campaign donations included money to Krista Bernasconi, Bruce Houdesheldt and Pauline Rocucci. They represent enough votes to fire the City Clerk. I’d be remiss if I did not put this out there and ask if this is one of the reasons why City Staff are refusing to enforce their own ordinances. Note that none of the aforementioned three have done anything wrong by accepting the donations, (as Scott will get fined and then have to cover them out of his own pocket) nor do I have any evidence they have said a thing to city staff. I have intel that indicates none of them were even aware of Scott’s multiple violations of campaign finance law until your intrepid blogger posted it. The point is that City Run elections are problematic because the enforcement officer (in this case Roseville City Clerk/Attorney who are refusing to do their job), is literally in the position where they would be fining someone that signs their paycheck. This is a reason why elections should all be run by their respective county.

P.P.S. Click here to see the applicable FPPC Codes at the State level that are explicit as to the duties of a filing officer. It is these explicit guidelines that are the basis for why I believe that the City of Roseville is exposing themselves to state sanction for not doing their job.

Stay Informed!

Sign up to receive RightOnDaily updates sent to your inbox.

  5 Responses to “Scott Alvord Update: City of Roseville – We won’t enforce our own City Ordinances. And they wonder why I think they helped Scott Alvord Cover His Tracks…”

  1. Again, hopefully anyone reading this knows this is all fake news designed only to discredit me. Aaron’s pack is reporting expenditures supporting my opponent and clearly this is part of that package deal.
    Other than the city manager and city attorney, none of the staff “serve at the pleasure of the City Council.” We don’t get involved in things like that. I don’t treat staff poorly and I certainly don’t expect (and certainly don’t pressure) them to do things outside normal roles. They are professional and they push back when necessary.
    Donations to other candidates is legal and you’re irresponsible to suggest otherwise. You listed the donations to Republicans and then talked about what if I donate to democrats? Sigh.
    My campaign teams have never accepted or made illegal contributions and your continued accusations that they are illegal are skating on pretty thin ice. But again, you’re getting paid to attack so you’ll continue to create your sinister plots of fictional evil without regards to the people and family members that you tarnish along the way. Half truths, wild exaggerations, and plain lies don’t matter. Yet the lack of ethics and decency you question in your targeted humans, never gets applied to yourself. Buy hey, it’s “just politics,” right? The other electeds who read this are just glad they’re not being targeted, so they won’t say anything. Everyone is afraid of the bully.

  2. Keep spinning Scott, there is more coming. You’ve been caught could and the trap is tightening.

  3. Scott- you really don’t know how to read the Roseville municode, do you?

    The code clearly states that after the designated campaign perios you can only retain <$5,000 in an office holder account. That account has very specific language on its allowed usage:

    2.60.045 Officeholder accounts.
    A. Following the end of the campaign period, any candidate or controlled committee may retain campaign funds in an amount not to exceed $5,000.00 in an account established pursuant to California Government Code Section 85201, subject to the provisions of this title.

    B. All funds so retained shall be expended solely for legal or accounting expenses, charitable events, donations to any bona fide charitable, educational, civic, religious, or similar tax-exempt, nonprofit organization and expenditures associated with holding office, where no substantial part of the proceeds will have a material financial effect on the former candidate or elected officer, any member of his or her immediate family, or his or her campaign treasurer.

    Scott, tell me: just how do those contributions to Krista Bernasconi, Bruce Houdesheldt and Pauline Rocucci fit within these strict parameters?

    You have replied a few times on this blog acknowledging the payments to your colleagues, now reply specifically in regards to this city law that you are subject to.

  4. Your bogus “Election Law Attorney” title, pc, clearly means you aren’t. Section 2.60.045 answered your question that you somehow can’t seem to read yourself. Did you bother to ask the city attorney or city clerk or even a 4th grader who can read the words, “civic,” and “tax-exempt” what it means? Oh wait, if you asked and they said the contributions were not prohibited then you would just be purposefully lying, right? Hint: Your IP address is connected to the post, which is discoverable…but as an attorney, you must know that already, right? #ysi

    Blogger’s Note – the comment poster used a VPN. Good luck trying to sue him (or me).

  5. Scott, perhaps your unaware of what a civic organization is defined as:

    Civic organization means a community-based company, club, committee, association, corporation, or any other organization or group of persons acting in concert which is composed of persons who are members thereof on a voluntary basis and which is primarily established to further educational, charitable, religious, cultural, or local economic development purposes.

    Political Campaign Committees have their own definition in California law – they are not civic organizations.

    Fully read the section, “expenditures associated with holding office.” Campaign contributions are not an expenditure associated with holding office.

    Keep stretching, maybe you’ll find a way to rationalize – or maybe you’d be better off researching cases in which other cities have the same clause and were shown to have made contributions improperly.

 Leave a Reply

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <s> <strike> <strong>

(required)

(required)