August 7, 2007

Open letter to the Ventura City Council

The other day after speaking to one of the council members about the decision to place Measure C7 on the November ballot I was advised by this council member to write the argument against the measure, I went to the Ventura City Clerks office to acquire the forms to submit my argument. At the time I was given the forms I was told by the city clerks office to make sure I got my papers in quickly because only one argument was allowed and it was "first come, first served."

I went home to my trusty computer and quickly knocked out my argument, I returned it to the city clerks office within 2 hours. They were surprised that I got it back so fast, I again asked if I was the first and was told "yes", I then asked again if "first come, first served" still applied and was given an affirmative answer. This is the wording of my argument.

The city claims they will be decreasing the Communication Services Tax rate. They are asking the voting public to vote yes on Measure "C7" to accomplish this. The wording of the Communication Services Tax says, "The city may make the following changes without voter approval. 1. Reduce the percentage rate, and at any time thereafter increase such rate, so long at the subsequent rate does not exceed the rate previously approved by the voters."

If the City Council really wants to lower the tax rate they don't need voter approval. In fact what they intend to do is reduce the rate and then by adding items to be taxed they will in reality be increasing the total amount of money each person pays in by almost double.

The Council claims that this money is critical for all services such as fire, police, parks, roads, paramedic etc. Once again in fact this money is placed in the cities general fund and can be used by the city council for whatever they desire. Once again the council is using innuendos, fear, and misleading statements to force the citizens to acquiesce to their demands for more tax money.

The city of Ventura is one of only two cities in the county of Ventura that even charges a utilities users tax the other is Pt Hueneme which only charges 4%. The Utilities User Tax is in reality a tax on taxes, you already pay tax on all utilities, the Utilities User Tax is exactly what it sounds like, a tax you pay for simply using your utilities, phone, electricity, gas, sewer. Their next move as I see it is to install a tax for breathing the air. VOTE NO ON MEASURE "C7"

Today, August 7, 2007 I was called by Ms Mabi Plisky, Ventura city clerk. See advised me that there were now (2) two arguments against the C7 measure and she would hold a lottery to see which one would be published. I told her that I was told by her office, not once but twice, that the criteria to decide which would be published was "first come, first served" and my papers were first by a considerable length of time.She then told me that no matter what I was told by her office she had not noticed"first come, first served" in her notice to the public. Her notice did however state: "Additional information regarding the submittal of arguments may be obtained by calling the City Clerks Office at (805) 658-4787." I went to the City Clerks Office and was given additional information verbally. As far as I am concerned that sentence telling the public to go to the City Clerks Office for additional information and then being given verbal information on "first come, first served" was in fact the same as having a written notice.

Myself and the other person that submitted an argument were told to appear at the City Clerks office at 1:30 pm on August 7, 2007. We both appeared and the other person asked if he could at that time withdraw his argument. Ms Plisky told us that if we would have been in her office the day before that could have been done. The fact that Ms Plisky only informed us of the "lottery" on August 7, 2007 eliminated the chance that either of us would have appeared at her office the day prior. It appears to me that Ms Plisky is struggling to correct her own mistake of not wording the Notice of Ballot Arguments correctly.

Ms Plisky at the very least should be reprimanded by the City Council for not using due diligence in performing the duties of her office.

Rellis Smith

res@venturastuff.com