Filing statements in the City of La Palma reveal that funding supporting the public efforts to pass a term-limit ballot measure has been provided by primarily those seeking to benefit from its passage, according to a group opposed to the measure.
In addition, opponents are also claiming promotional pieces presumably funded by the contributions are wholly deceptive and are “disrespectful” to citizens.
According to Bob Carruth, the spokesperson for a group of La Palma residents opposing Measure W, records from the FPPC’s required election disclosures indicate the $21,500 promotional budget for the “Yes of Measure W” committee has been funded by officials and family members of those in position to benefit from the measure’s passage.
Documents released by Carruth this week reveal that the “Yes on Measure W” Committee is registered to an address in La Palma owned by Council member Nitesh Patel. Contributions to the Measure W committee include:
- -$5,000 from Nitesh Patel courtesy of his construction company Devi Construction.
- -$5500 from Niti Patel, courtesy of Ram Tulsi, LLC.
- -$5500 from Vitesh Patel, the brother of Patel and who is an incoming La Palma City Council member, who will soon represent District 3. Patel utilized his campaign committee and passed through a contribution of $5500 from the Orange County Fire IFAA Local 3631 to the “Yes” on “W” committee.
- -$5500 from the campaign committee of Debbie S. Baker, an incumbent Council member who also passed through a contribution made by firefighter’s Local 3631 to the “Yes” on “W” committee.
- Currently, Nitesh Patel is the city’s representative on the Orange County Fire Authority Board.
- The ENE reached out to the Local 3631 management in Tustin, CA but officials there refused to discuss the matter on the record.
Carruth said while there are no legal prohibitions from the firefighter’s union funding a La Palma ballot measure, ethical questions are another matter. More concerning, perhaps, is the “misleading” and “deceptive” information being disseminated to La Palma voters, said Carruth.- “It is obvious that this entire measure (“Measure W”) is by and for the incumbents on the city Council. It’s not from the people but from them,” said Carruth.
- He said the entire campaign has been marked with “deceit and deception,” said Carruth, assailing the “Yes” committee for sending out mailers to residents featuring photos of First Responders under the headline “La Palma’s First Responders urge you to vote “Yes” on “W.”
- In addition, he said, the mail piece presented makes little mention of term limits, said Carruth, using the slogan “Reform Government Now.”
- Carruth said one mail piece is super disingenuous when it claims passage of the ballot measure will “bring greater accountability and transparency” to La Palma officials.
- “We are only one of two local governments in all of Orange County that consistently refuses to provide video access to city council meetings,” he said.
- Further, the mail piece showcases the Local 3631 logo and a La Palma Police badge, and basically fails to explain term limits at all except to mention that Measure W will “maintain term limits.”
- At the heart of the measure is a provision that will elminate the city’s current two-term limit and allow for three, four-year terms, and for incumbents, allow the clock to start fresh in new districts.
Carruth questioned the Council members for invoking the imagery of police and fire officials on the promotional pieces sent to thep ublic, given the measure’s main focus on term limit expansion for Council members.
If approved by voters, some members of the Council could serve for as long as twenty consecutive years, given of course that they run and are chosen by their constituents in the future elections.
“This measure has nothing to do with public safety,” said Carruth, who said he thinks it is highly disrespectful for the “Yes” on “W” Committee to take advantage of the glow of first responders to promote their own selfish interest.
“Nitesh Patel apparently thinks La Palma voters are stupid, that we’re disengaged, that we’re uninformed, that we’re apathetic, that we really don’t look at the issues, that we’re ignorant and that we’re unable to think for ourselves and see through their little scheme.”
The ENE has again reached out to city hall and to the Council for comment, but has not heard back.
“Just because they (“Yes” on “W” Committee) say, well, the police inspire people, and since they love us, so you should vote yes, that everyone’s going to toe the line. That’s really disrespectful and it’s the type of thing that really gives politics a bad name.
Carruth said this is not Patel’s first attempt to dissolve the term limits approved by voters. He said Patel, who terms out in 2025, unsuccessfully tried to amend La Palma’s two term limit in 2019.
Carruth said In 1996, La Palma voters limited Council members to two (2) full terms in office, yet with a cooling off period, officials can again run for two additional terms.
Current Mayor Pro-tem Mark Waldman has done that and is currently back on the Council.
Patel, along with Mayor Marshall Goodman have been urging residents to consider the impacts of districting and other factors to consider altering the city’s term limit provisions.
They held a special “conversation” earlier this year with residents and eventually, spent thousands to draw up the current ballot measure and put it on the ballot.
Goodman has repeatedly questioned the lack of sufficiently motivated or qualified candidates in the city, citing his own run for a new term without opposition. Goodman terms out this year.
“For me, it’s a pretty long-standing issue,” said Goodman during the open session with residents earlier this year. “We have to do something about city leadership,” said Goodman.
“I see things up here on the dais,” said Goodman, who said he feels compelled to bring them forward. “I would love to know why citizens in 1996 decided to impose term limits,” said Goodman. “It really doesn’t make sense to limit it to two terms,” the mayor said.
Carruth said he and other residents have funded their own effort simply to get truthful, accurate interest to citizens who can make an informed vote.
During this campaign, Carruth photographed the city manager personally removing a “No” on “W” sign from a public space and the opposition group recently hired a lawyer to have the city enforce its own temporary sign ordinance, with two weeks left in the campaign, it has yet to do.
“They planned this from the beginning,” said Carruth, noting that even during the so-called “Community Conversation,” city officials have consistently ignored data and feedback to the contrary.
“They knew the community didn’t want it but they knew they were going to put it on the ballot because they had three votes,” he said, “regardless of what the community said.”