This email is a follow-up to our phone conversations regarding my request for information on the basis for the Elections Department disallowing paid arguments
on the November 2005 ballot measure designated Proposition A (community college bond issue).
According to what you told me by phone, Elections Department Director Jon Arntz told you there was no contact between the Elections Department and Proposition A supporters on the topic of whether paid arguments would be allowed in the Voter Information Pamphlet on this measure. Please confirm in writing that no such communications took place.
I was told (not by yourself or anyone with the Elections Department) that paid arguments *were* allowed on previous similar bond measures, and therefore I and others would like to understand what procedures are now being followed and what procedures have been followed in the past.
I hereby request to be informed as to what rules the department is following for when paid arguments are and are not allowed, when and how these current rules were established, and what rules they replaced or superceded. I also request to see any records that may exist pertaining to the decision not to allow paid arguments on the aforementioned Proposition A, as well as any records that may exist on the broader topic of inclusion of paid ballot arguments in the Voter Information Pamphlet.
Unless it is specifically prohibited from doing so by law, I strongly urge the Elections Department to allow people to submit paid arguments on *all* measures which are to be put before San Francisco voters. I see no reason why *any* type of ballot measure should be exempted from this important means of public input into a process that is otherwise largely determined by government employees and political insiders.
<<< Starchild >>>