CALIFORNIA TAXPAYERS ACTION NETWORK

621 Del Mar Avenue, Chula Vista, CA 91910 619-426-3114

September 13, 2016

VIA ELECTRONIC TRANSMISSION AND U.S. MAIL

Contra Costa County Office of the District Attorney

Steve Moawad, Senior Deputy District Attorney
Special Operations Division Government Corruption Section
900 Ward St.
Martinez, CA 94553
da-commentary-feedback@contracostada.org
Contra Costa Civil Grand Jury
P.O. Box 431
Martinez, CA 94553
gjury@contracosta.courts.ca.gov
Re: Complaint Concerning Contra Costa Clerk-Recorders Office Election-Related Decision;
Violation of Election Code; Abuse of Discretion; Conflict of Interest; Viewpoint-Based
Restriction of Free Speech
The purpose of this letter is to file a formal complaint regarding conduct of the Contra Costa
Clerk-Recorders Office (hereinafter Elections Office) and County Clerk-Recorder Joe
Canciamilla. Specifically, Mr. Canciamilla abused his discretion by failing to follow statutory
guidelines set forth in Election Code 9166 and, instead, used subjective, content-based methods
to select direct ballot arguments against Measure X for publication in the Voter Information
Guide for the November 8, 2016 general election. Further, Mr. Canciamilla used a selection
process that was non-transparent, which deprived us of an opportunity to provide additional
information to assist in his selection decision. Finally, the facts and circumstances surrounding
this decision suggest that Mr. Canciamillas actions may have been motivated by partisan
politics, ethical conflicts and an intent to influence the outcome of the election.
Elections are contests for power and money. The election process requires public trust and
confidence. To safeguard public trust, Election Officials must stay above politics and conduct
themselves in a manner above reproach. Accordingly their decisions must be free from an
appearance of impropriety, bias, partisanship or conflict.
Polling shows Measure X is unlikely to succeed at the ballot box if it faces meaningful
opposition. Election Officials actions had the effect of thwarting such opposition in the form of
opposing ballot arguments. By selecting the ballot argument against Measure X based upon the

Complaint Letter to the Office of the Contra Costa District Attorney and Civil Grand Jury
September 13, 2016
Page 2

viewpoint expressed, Election Officials unlawfully suppressed free speech. Election Officials
may have acted with an intent to influence the outcome of the election.
It is in this context that we make a complaint.
Background
The Contra Costa County Elections Office publicly communicated its 2016 election calendar and
ballot measure argument filing requirements in a publication entitled, Guide to Filing Measure
Arguments for County, Cities, School Districts and Special Districts, 2016.i Regarding
selection of ballot arguments the publication states, in part:
Only one Argument in Favor and one Argument Against any measure will be printed in the Voter
Information Guide. If more than one Argument in Favor or more than one Argument Against any
measure is filed, a single argument will be selected by the Registrar of Voters.
In selecting a single argument, the Registrar gives preference and priority to arguments submitted
by:
1.
2.
3.
3.

Members of the governing board.

The bona fide sponsors or proponents of the measure.
Bona fide associations of citizens.
Individual voters who are eligible to vote on the measure.

Parties are encouraged to collaborate when multiple arguments are submitted.

(Election Code 9166, 9503)

For the November 8, 2016 general election, the Contra Costa County Elections Division
established a direct (primary) argument filing deadline of Wednesday, August 24, 2016.
On Tuesday, August 23, 2016, one of our Board members, Contra Costa resident Wendy Lack,
filed a direct ballot argument against Measure X (copy enclosed).ii Our argument was signed by
two bona fide associations of citizens (including ours), as defined in state election code; and
three Contra Costa residents eligible to vote on the measure, as follows:
1.
2.
3.
4.

Alliance of Contra Costa Taxpayers, by Kenneth Hambrick, Chairman

California Taxpayers Action Network, by G. Rick Marshall, Chief Financial Officer
Richard Colman, Founder and President, Biomed, Inc.
Richard Soderholm, Commander, USN, Retired; Former member, Contra Costa Civil
Grand Jury
5. Wendy Lack, Director, California Taxpayers Action Network; Contra Costa resident
At the time of filing Ms. Lack inquired whether any other opposing arguments had been filed.
Elections Processing Supervisor Rosa Mena informed her that one other opposing argument had
been filed by a bona fide association of citizens called Transdef. Lack asked Ms. Mena about the

Complaint Letter to the Office of the Contra Costa District Attorney and Civil Grand Jury
September 13, 2016
Page 3

likelihood that our argument would be selected for publication, given that it was signed by two
bona fide organizations and three Contra Costa voters; Mena declined to comment.
On Wednesday, August 24th Ms. Lack received an e-mail from Ms. Mena providing notice of the
selection decision. Attached to Ms. Menas e-mail were copies of the selected direct arguments
for and against Measure X. The direct argument against Measure X selected was signed by
David Schonbrunn and Nadine Peyrucain (copy enclosed). Notably, Mr. Schonbrunn signed the
argument under his own name, rather than on behalf of a bona fide association of citizens. The
argument was signed as follows:
1. David Schonbrunn, President, Transdef.org
2. Nadine Peyrucain, MSW, Retired Contra Costa County Employee
Election Code 9166 gives preference and priority to arguments filed by bona fide associations
of citizens. It is unknown how an argument submitted by two individuals (that is, Mr.
Schonbrunn, a resident of Marin County; and Nadine Peyrucain, a resident of Contra Costa
County) came to be selected over ours, which was signed by two bona fide associations and three
Contra Costa county residents.
On Thursday, August 25th, Lack visited the Elections Office and requested a meeting with ClerkRecorder Joe Canciamilla. In response, she was directed to speak with his secretary, Melissa,
who told Lack that Mr. Canciamilla was not in the office that day; that he had no availability to
take meetings until sometime in October. Melissa told Lack she would check the calendar and
call Lack on Monday, August 29th with available meeting dates. Since then, Lack has heard
nothing from Mr. Canciamillas office.
Immediately following her conversation with Melissa, Lack was invited to speak with Assistant
County Registrar Scott Konopasek. Lack then met with Mr. Konopasek and Election Processing
Supervisor Rosa Mena.
At that meeting, Lack requested a copy of Elections Office policies and procedures that specify
how ballot argument selections are made. Mr. Konopasek advised the office has no such policies
because state election code grants election officials discretion regarding such matters.
During the meeting Mr. Konopasek described the selection process used by himself and ClerkRecorder Joe Canciamilla in choosing the Measure X opposing ballot argument. That selection
process is the basis of this complaint.
Complaint
The Measure X ballot argument selection process used by Contra Costa Election Officials
Messrs. Konopasek and Canciamilla (Election Officials) appears improper due to the
following:

Complaint Letter to the Office of the Contra Costa District Attorney and Civil Grand Jury
September 13, 2016
Page 4

1. Election Officials selection of a direct ballot argument against Measure X conflicts

with the requirements of Election Code 9166. Election Officials should have
followed statutory guidelines set forth in the Election Code. The argument selected
was signed by two individuals, while the rejected argument was signed by two bona fide
associations and three individual residents. In such circumstances, Election Code 9166
gives preference and priority to arguments filed by bona fide associations of citizens. In
making this determination, Election Officials erred.
2. Election Officials determined the argument filed by Schonbrunn/Peyrucain was
from a bona fide association of citizens, though it was filed by two individuals. Facts
show the Schonbrunn/Peyrucain argument was signed by two individuals. Even if the
Schonbrunn/Peyrucain argument were legitimately filed by a bona fide association,
Election Code 9166 requires its rejection because it had fewer signers including fewer
signers representing bona fide associations of citizens.
Our argument was signed two organizations: Alliance of Contra Costa Taxpayers and
California Taxpayers Action Network and three county residents. The
Schonbrunn/Peyrucain argument was signed by two individuals. Accordingly, our
argument should have been selected per the requirements of Election Code 9166. In
making this determination, Election Officials erred.
While Mr. Schonbrunn signed as President of Transdef.org, it is unclear from his
signature that he was signing for a bona fide organization of citizens for the following
reasons:
a. Mr. Schonbrunn could be president of a website company named
Transdef.org. A website company is not more a bona fide association of
citizens than a newspaper or another business enterprise.
b. California Taxpayers Action Network filed a state identification number with
Election Officials, giving Mr. Marshall permission to sign on behalf of
California Taxpayers Action Network. There is no indication Transdef.org
filed any such paperwork.
3. Four days before signing a ballot argument against Measure X, Ms. Peyrucain
publicly voted to endorse it. This sudden change of heart is suspicious. Witnesses
present at the August 18, 2016 Contra Costa Democratic Party Central Committee
Meeting report Ms. Peyrucain was among those who voted to support the Partys
endorsement of Measure X. Ms. Peyrucain serves as an alternate member of the
Democratic Party Central Committee (an alternate for State Senator Lois Wolk, who
chairs the Senate Budget and Fiscal Review Committees Budget Subcommittee 2 on
Resources, Environmental Protection, Energy and Transportation). Ms. Peyrucain also
co-chairs the Democratic Party issues committee in East Contra Costa County. Ms.
Peyrucains Central Committee vote to endorse Measure X, just four days before signing

Complaint Letter to the Office of the Contra Costa District Attorney and Civil Grand Jury
September 13, 2016
Page 5

the Schonbrunn/Peyrucain argument against Measure X, raises questions about whether

political dirty tricks were involved with the argument against Measure X she signed.
4. The Measure X campaign is linked to the Democratic Party. The judgment of
Clerk-Recorder Joe Canciamilla may be compromised. He is a former Democrat
with continuing ties to the Party. Yes on X campaign contribution reports show most
of its donors are linked to Democratic Party causes and/or have been contractors for the
Contra Costa Transportation Authority. Clerk-Recorder Joe Canciamilla is a former
member of the Contra Costa Board of Supervisors and former Democrat State
Assemblyman and has a history of affiliation with state and county Democrat party
organizations. Canciamillas close relationship with recognized Democratic campaign
consultant Mary Jo Rossi is well-known.iii
5. The Measure X ballot argument selection decision process used by Election Officials
included discussion of their political views. During the August 25th meeting with Ms.
Lack, Mr. Konopasek said he and Mr. Canciamilla discussed their political views
regarding Measure X. This suggests their ballot argument decision may have been
colored by a desire to advance the goals and aims of the Democratic Party.
6. The decision process used by Election Officials was not transparent. It deprived
argument filers the opportunity to provide additional information about our bona
fide association, our argument signers, etc. Election Officials made their decision
behind closed doors, without asking clarifying questions or publishing their decision
criteria and the selection process. In similar circumstances, it is common for California
election officials to notify and consult with the involved parties to gather information
about the signers (e.g., the size and other characteristics of bona fide associations
involved). For example, the Orange County, California ballot argument handbook states,
The authors of a Direct Argument may be asked to provide additional information to the
Registrar of Voters to assist in the selection of an argument for the Sample Ballot
Pamphlet.iv In Union City, California, bona fide associations are evaluated using criteria
identified in advance by the city.v
7. Election Officials rejected our argument because of the views it expressed. Election
Officials made a selection decision based upon a subjective evaluation of ballot
argument content, which unlawfully restricts free speech and discriminates based
upon viewpoint. During the August 25th meeting with Ms. Lack, Mr. Konopasek said he
and Mr. Canciamilla made the decision together and agreed on the quality of the
arguments. He further stated the CalTAN argument was focused on the tax-related
aspects of the Measure X tax measure, while the Schonbrunn/Peyrucain argument
discussed different issues. There was no further explanation offered regarding decision
criteria used.
Election Officials determined the Schonbrunn/Peyrucain argument was more complete
and informative.

Complaint Letter to the Office of the Contra Costa District Attorney and Civil Grand Jury
September 13, 2016
Page 6

Recently the East Bay Times published an editorial that stated:vi

Contra Costa currently has a half-cent sales tax for transportation. Measure X would add
another half cent. The existing tax lasts through 2034. The new one would expire in 2047.
If Measure X passes, total sales tax next year in Contra Costa will range from 8.75
percent to 9.75 percent, with the exception of El Cerrito, which, at 10.25 percent, would
be higher than any current sales tax in California
[The transportation sales tax] stream would essentially double with Measure X. It could be
easily frittered away if the transportation authority doesnt carefully monitor its use.

Evidently, the East Bay Times editorial board considers Measure X to be a tax-related
issue of importance. Election Officials took action to suppress information about taxes
and spending in our argument.
By definition, a subjective selection process unlawfully discriminates based upon
argument content and the views expressed.
Election Officials have a duty to follow statutory guidelines and make content-neutral
decisions. Content-neutral restrictions on free speech are those that are both viewpoint
and subject matter neutral (i.e., do not contain any restrictions on First Amendment free
speech rights based on either the ideology of the message or the topic of the speech,
whereas content-based restrictions are those that endeavor to restrict or prohibit speech
based on either the viewpoint or the subject matter). See, e.g., Boos v. Barry, U.S. 312,
320 (1998). Regulations related to public comment must be neutrally administered. Baca
v. Moreno Valley Unified School District, 936 F. Supp. 719, 728-29 (1996).
We find it difficult to believe that Election Officials could make a content-neutral
decision after reading the arguments filed for and against Measure X.
8. Election Officials selection of a relatively weaker, less persuasive argument could
affect the outcome of the election; their actions may have been motivated to do so.
Our argument focused on Contra Costa Transportation Authoritys (CCTA) management
practices and the impacts of the proposed tax measure on residents. Election Officials
say they considered the content of our argument to be less valuable than the
Schonbrunn/Peyrucain argument, which focused on transportation policies rather than the
tax measure and CCTA practices. Our submission makes a credible and effective
argument against Measure X; the Schonbrunn/Peyrucain argument is disjointed, off-point
and unconvincing.
9. Election Officials chose a subjective decision-making process, although objective,
content-neutral, non-discriminatory alternative methods were available. Why not
flip a coin? When choosing between two or more arguments determined to be equal as
defined by Election Code 9166, California election officials customarily use objective
selection methods, such as a random draw or a coin flip in the presence of the involved

Complaint Letter to the Office of the Contra Costa District Attorney and Civil Grand Jury
September 13, 2016
Page 7

parties. In fact, the Contra Costa Elections Office has previously used coin flips to make
certain ballot argument selection decisions. Objective methods ensure selections are free
from the appearance of bias.
Contra Costa Election Officials abused their discretion by ignoring the requirements of
Election Code 9166 and, instead, used a subjective selection method. Election Officials
have provided no explanation regarding why a coin flip was not used to select between
the two Measure X arguments.
10. Election Officials minimize the adverse impacts of their actions. During the August
25th meeting Lack had with Election Officials, Mr. Konopasek said this is just the voter
pamphlet and there are many other ways to communicate in a campaign. Ms. Lack
explained to Mr. Konopasek that the organizations that signed our argument lack
resources to fund a No on X campaign; while our opponents likely would have millions
of dollars in donations from special interests and CCTA contractors, in addition to the
bully pulpit influence of public officials.vii As a non-profit, non-partisan taxpayer group,
we have no such advantages. For this reason, the ballot argument in the voter pamphlet is
of utmost importance to us; its the only way for our message to reach voters. Mr.
Konopasek didnt appear to appreciate or care about the importance of ballot arguments
to organizations such as ours.
11. Election Officials denied discriminating against taxpayer organizations, when no
one accused them of doing so. During the August 25th meeting with Election Officials,
Ms. Lack was told arguments submitted by the Contra Costa Taxpayers Association had
been accepted for publication. Mr. Konopasek cited this fact to demonstrate, as he put it,
taxpayer groups werent singled out. A denial made in the absence of an accusation is
odd and, therefore, noteworthy.
12. Election Officials may have had a conflict of interest (and did have the appearance
of a conflict). Under such conditions, prudence demands use of objective, unbiased
decision-making methods. Its common sense to avoid the appearance of conflict.
Instead, the actions of Election Officials invite controversy. Measure X carries high
political stakes. Measure X is a 30-year, $3 billion sales tax measure that will double
Contra Costas transportation sales tax rate. Proponents, including the Contra Costa
Transportation Authority (CCTA) and many Contra Costa city and county officials, need
Measure X to conceal certain facts about Measure J spending.
Measure J is the current countywide half-cent sales tax effective April 1, 2009 through
March 31, 2034. Measure J was supposed to satisfy transportation needs for 25 years.
Now, just 7 years into the 25-year Measure J tax, Measure X would double the
transportation tax rate.
CCTA spends much Measure J money on debt; about a third of Measure J sales tax
revenues go to pay debt service on borrowed money $27 million last year alone.viii
CCTAs high debt service costs consume Measure J tax dollars promised for capital

Complaint Letter to the Office of the Contra Costa District Attorney and Civil Grand Jury
September 13, 2016
Page 8

projects; many Measure J projects cannot be built because CCTA ran out of money.ix
This is an important reason why Measure X is important to its proponents: an infusion of
new Measure X money could hide the impact of CCTAs borrowing practices from the
public.
Contra Costa residents were promised $691.5 million in capital projects under the current
tax, Measure J.x In truth, only about $268 million is expected to go to projects and, over
the life of the Measure J tax, borrowing costs could total $887 million.xi Public
documents hid Measure J borrowing cost impacts in a footnote, while statements to bond
investors clearly stated the facts.xii
Measure X spending plans could be changed at any time, with a majority vote. CCTAs
Transportation Expenditure Plans (TEP) spending blueprints for its transportation taxes
can be amended by a majority vote of its governing board. The Measure J TEP has
been amended six times so far. Its predecessor, the Measure C TEP, was amended nine
times. In contrast, Alameda County transportation spending plans can be amended with a
2/3 vote of the governing board; in Santa Clara county, amendments require a 3/4 vote
for approval.xiii
In addition, Measure X proponents want more tax revenues to buy BART train cars. On
January 28, 2016 the BART governing board adopted Resolution 5308, which states, in
part:
BART has proposed that the congestion management agencies (CMAs) in the three
BART counties the Alameda County Transportation Commission (ACTA), the Contra
Costa Transportation Authority (CCTA), and the San Francisco County Transportation
Authority (SFCTA) each provide funding, in an estimated amount of $400 million,
to provide approximately 75% of the cost of 102 vehicles . . . The CCTA is considering
placing on the November 2016 ballot a new 25-year, -cent transportation sales tax . . .
BART will seek regional, state and federal funding sources for the remaining 25%
funding needed to complete the purchase of these additional rail vehicles . . . BART
requires committed funding through resolutions from the [Alameda County
Transportation Authority] ACTA, [Contra Costa Transportation Authority] CCTA, [San
Francisco County Transportation Authority] SFCTA, and other regional and local
partners, to purchase additional rail vehicles . . . . (emphasis added)

The Contra Costa Board of Supervisors and the Contra Costa Transportation Authority
Board have adopted resolutions to purchase BART cars, through their approval of the
Measure X Transportation Expenditure Plan.
Other governmental agencies, including the Metropolitan Transportation Commission,
Alameda and San Francisco counties, expect Contra Costa to contribute towards BART
cars. Contra Costa County hopes to satisfy this demand, included in MTCs draft 20172021 Transportation Improvement Program, by using an estimated $300 million in
Measure X funds to buy new BART cars.xiv In the event Measure X is rejected by voters,
Contra Costa County would need to find another way to satisfy these expectations.

Complaint Letter to the Office of the Contra Costa District Attorney and Civil Grand Jury
September 13, 2016
Page 9

Voter rejection of Measure X could impact County finances. Because Election Officials
are County employees, their livelihoods could be affected. Accordingly, Election
Officials had an apparent conflict of interest in selecting ballot arguments against
Measure X. Under these circumstances it is appropriate to avoid any appearance of bias
or conflict. They could have easily done so by flipping a coin. Instead, Election
Officials made a subjective decision to suppress speech that directed attention to
important issues of public interest.
Remedy
Contra Costa residents deserve a full explanation of the Clerk-Recorders ballot argument
decision process. To date, the Elections Office has failed to provide a complete explanation. We
need to know all the facts regarding the selection of the direct argument against Measure X.
Proposition 59 (California Constitution Article I, Section 3, subdivision b) states:
The people have the right of access to information concerning the conduct of the peoples
business, and, therefore, the meetings of public bodies and the writing of public officials and
agencies shall be open to public scrutiny. (emphasis added)

We recognize there is no time, at this late date, to change the November 8, 2016 Voter
Information Guide. We therefore request an investigation of this complaint; full disclosure of
facts relating to and circumstances surrounding this decision; a written statement of findings and
response to this complaint; and follow-up action, as appropriate based on the findings. Contra
Costa residents deserve to know the facts so they can make informed judgments regarding
Measure X, the reliability of the Elections Office and elected Clerk-Recorder Joe Canciamilla
and, in particular, the integrity of Contra Costa elections.
Time is of the essence so that voters have clarity about these issues before voting.
California Taxpayers Action Network is an all-volunteer, non-partisan, non-profit that promotes
fiscal responsibility, integrity and transparency in local government. Our mission includes the
protection of Californians from fraud, favoritism and corruption in the expenditure of public or
taxpayer funds.
We make this complaint to benefit the public interest by uncovering the truth.
We filed a direct argument against Measure X to ensure Contra Costa voters had the opportunity
to make an informed decision. The actions of Election Officials denied us an opportunity to
provide voters information that is in the public interest. Their actions deprive voters of the
benefits of the information contained in our argument. Prompt investigation of this complaint,
and full disclosure of the facts and circumstances regarding this decision, may partially mitigate
these adverse impacts.

Complaint Letter to the Office of the Contra Costa District Attorney and Civil Grand Jury
September 13, 2016
Page 10

We request action on this matter. We request an investigation into this matter. We stand willing
to assist you in any way. We look forward to receiving your response.
Regards,
/s/
Wendy Lack, Director, California Taxpayers Action Network
FOR: M. Kevin ONeill, President, California Taxpayers Action Network
Enclosures:
1) Direct ballot argument against Measure X filed on 8/22/2015, date-stamped as received
by the Clerk-Recorders Office.
2) Direct ballot argument against Measure X filed by Wendy Lack on 8/23/2016, datestamped as received by Clerk-Recorders Office
cc:
Candace Andersen
Chair, Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors
309 Diablo Rd.
Danville, CA 94526
supervisorandersen@bos.cccounty.us
Jami.Napier@cob.cccounty.us
Joe Canciamilla
Contra Costa County Clerk-Recorder
555 Escobar St.
Martinez, CA
Joe.Canciamilla@cr.cccounty.us
David Twa
Contra Costa County Administrator
651 Pine St.
Martinez, CA
David.Twa@cao.cccounty.us
i

Guide booklet is available online at: http://www.cocovote.us/wp-content/uploads/2016_Guide-to-FilingArguments-and-Rebuttals1.pdf

ii
Measure X is a Transaction and Use Tax Measure for the Contra Costa Transportation Authority. A description of
Measure X available on the Clerk-Recorders Office website at: http://www.cocovote.us/wpcontent/uploads/MeasWordList_072116.pdf
iii
Witnesses reported that Democratic campaign consultant Mary Jo Rossi was given special after-hours access to
the Elections Office on March 11, 2016, the day of the candidate filing deadline for the June 2016 primary election.
See: http://contracostaherald.com/031803a/. Rossi has reputation for cut-throat politics in Contra Costa County.
See: http://www.eastbaytimes.com/pleasant-hill/ci_29527747/contra-costa-times-editorial-ugly-politics-stainsconcord and https://contracostabee.com/mary-jo-rossi-teaches-cops-to-destroy-opponents/.

Complaint Letter to the Office of the Contra Costa District Attorney and Civil Grand Jury
September 13, 2016
Page 11

iv

See https://www.ocvote.com/election-library/docs/Ballot%20Argument%20Handbook.pdf.
Union Citys publication entitled, Criteria for Selection of Ballot Arguments states, in part: In choosing an
argument when more than one bona fide association of citizens has submitted them, the following criteria will be
taken into consideration:
The length of time the association has been in existence.
Whether an associations membership consists primarily of citizens residing in the City.
The number of members enrolled in the association.
Whether an officer of more than one bona fide association and/or one or more citizens of the city have
signed the argument.
If the above criteria are met and are equal in all arguments, the authors will be asked to witness a random drawing
by the City Elections Official to determine which argument will be published.
http://www.ci.union-city.ca.us/home/showdocument?id=928.
vi
Link to East Bay Times editorial published online on September 9, 2016:
http://www.eastbaytimes.com/2016/09/09/editorial-contra-costa-transportation-sales-tax-has-great-potential-2/
vii
A Yes on X campaign major donor is California Alliance for Jobs Rebuild California Committee, which is
composed of construction interests that stand to benefit from Measure X (http://www.rebuildca.org/about/ourboard/). http://getcontracostamoving.com/ Yes on X campaign finance reports show donations from Contra Costa
Transportation Authority contractors that stand to benefit from Measure X.
http://nf4.netfile.com/Pub2/AllFilingsByFiler.aspx?id=161027692.
viii
See CCTA Measure J Strategic Plan dated 3/16/2016, Table 6, page 20, which states estimated FY 2015 debt
service cost of $27,905,000. This represents 35% of CCTAs Measure J sales tax revenues for FY 2015
($79,454,678). http://www.ccta.net/uploads/572902dd8be32.pdf.
ix
CCTA 2016 Strategic Plan, page 25, states: Funding shortfalls still exist for several projects that have been
included in the Measure J Expenditure Plan. To the extent that Measure J funds are not sufficient to complete the
original Expenditure Plan approved as part of Measure J, the Authority is committed to seeking other
Supplementary funds to implement the vision passed by the voters.
http://www.ccta.net/uploads/572902dd8be32.pdf.
x
CCTAs November 2, 2004 Measure J Transportation Expenditure Plan, page 4.
http://www.ccta.net/uploads/5297b121d5964.pdf.
xi
See Measure J Sales Tax Forecast on page 12; and Debt Service Forecast on page 20 of the 2016 Measure J
Strategic Plan at: http://www.ccta.net/uploads/572902dd8be32.pdf. Of the $ 1,156,117,000 in Measure J revenues
designated for capital projects (42.5% of total projected Measure J revenues), only $ 268,756,000 less than 10% -will be used for projects. Over 90% of these designated funds will go to pay debt service.
xii
See CCTAs November 2, 2004 Measure J Transportation Expenditure Plan, page 5, footnote 1, which states,
Funding is for both capital improvements and costs incurred to accelerate delivery into the early years of the
program (2009-10 through 2015-16). The costs incurred to accelerate delivery into the early years of the
program statement is an opaque way of saying debt service. http://www.ccta.net/uploads/5297b121d5964.pdf
In contrast, CCTA disclosure to bond investors was clear. The Official Statement to Investors dated 9/30/2015 at
(revenue anticipation bonds re Measure J), Page 21 says: Programs receive a total of approximately 57.5% of
annual Sales Tax Revenues. The balance of 42.5% of Sales Tax Revenues is allocated by the Authority, as provided
in the Expenditure Plan, to pay costs of capital projects, including debt service on the Series 2015A Bonds and any
additional Bonds and Parity Obligations. http://emma.msrb.org/ER922063-ER720121-ER1121463.pdf
xiii
The 2016 CCTA TEP, which would govern Measure X spending, says: Expenditure Plan Amendments Require
Majority Support: The Authority may review and propose amendments to the Expenditure Plan and the Growth
Management Program to provide for the use of additional federal, state and local funds, to account for unexpected
revenues, or to take into consideration unforeseen circumstances. Affected Regional Transportation Planning
Committee(s) will participate in the development of the proposed amendment(s). A majority of the Authority Board
is required to approve an amendment and all jurisdictions within the county will be given a 45 day period to
comment on any proposed Expenditure Plan amendment. (Source: 2016 Contra Costa TEP, p. 52, at
(http://keepcontracostamoving.net/site/wp-content/uploads/2016/07/CCTA-TEP-v.6-Singles.pdf). Alameda
County's TEP requires a supermajority 2/3 vote to amend: Amendments require 2/3 Support: To modify and amend
this Plan, an amendment must be adopted by a two-thirds vote of the Alameda CTC Commissioners. All jurisdictions
within the county will be given a minimum of 45 days to comment on any proposed Plan amendment.
v

Complaint Letter to the Office of the Contra Costa District Attorney and Civil Grand Jury
September 13, 2016
Page 12

(Source: 2014 Alameda County TEP "Implementing Guidelines," p. 37 at

(http://www.alamedactc.org/files/managed/Document/12934/2014_Transportation_Expenditure_Plan.pdf). The
Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority (VTA) operates under a special statutory scheme than other "self-help"
counties. VTA's taxing authority is at Pub. Utilities Code sec. 100250. General self-help county statute begins
around PUC sec. 180000. VTA Resolution No. 2016.06.17 (passed by Santa Clara VTA Board on June 24, 2016,
pg. 4 Source: http://vtaorgcontent.s3-us-west1.amazonaws.com/Site_Content/Final%20Envision%20Memo%20&%20Resolution%20June%2024.pdf):
If approved by a 3/4 majority of the VTA Board of Directors, and only after a noticed public meeting in which the
County of Santa Clara Board of Supervisors, and the city council of each city in Santa Clara County have been
notified at least 30 days prior to the meeting, VTA may modify the Program for any prudent purpose, including to
account for the results of any environmental review required under the California Environmental Quality Act of the
individual specific projects in the Program; to account for increases or decreases in federal, state, and local funds,
including revenues received from this tax measure; to account for unexpected increase or decrease in revenues; to
add or delete a project from the Program in order to carry out the overall purpose of the Program; to maintain
consistency with the Santa Clara Valley Transportation Plan; to shift funding between project categories; or to take
into consideration new innovations or unforeseen circumstances.
xiv
See page 6 of MTCs June 2016 publication entitled, A Guide to the San Francisco Bay Areas Transportation
Improvement Program or TIP that references BART Railcar Procurement Program, Multiple Counties, $2.03
billion. http://mtc.ca.gov/sites/default/files/TIP_Guide.pdf. Complete TIP draft available at http://mtc.ca.gov/ourwork/fund-invest/transportation-improvement-program.