Send this story Print this story

Adjust text size

Measure B (BART) opponents cry foul
Valley Transportation Agency disputes complaint alleging campaign impropriety

by Gennady Sheyner

Government entities rarely get slammed for being too transparent and cooperative with information seekers.

So when opponents of Measure B filed a complaint last week with the state Fair Political Practices Commission (FPPC) charging the Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority (VTA) with collaborating too closely with the measure's supporters, the authority found itself in the awkward position of defending itself for being too helpful.

The measure would create a 1/8-cent sales tax to operate, maintain and improve a 16.1-mile extension of BART between San Jose and Fremont. The funds would only be collected if state or federal funds are acquired to match local spending.

In its complaint, the "No on B" campaign refers to about 500 pages of e-mails between officials from the VTA and the Silicon Valley Leadership Group (SVLG), which were obtained through a Public Records Act request. While most were little more than exchanges about transportation information, a few refer to a meeting between officials from the two groups to discuss "media outreach."

Both the "Yes on B" campaign and the VTA dismiss the pending complaint as nothing more than political posturing, engineered to take focus away from the real issues the measure is trying to address. Both note the VTA is a public agency and that its job is to provide information to all seekers, regardless of position or affiliation.

Jennie Loft, spokesperson for the VTA, said the authority did nothing improper.

"The documents cited were reviewed by VTA legal counsel and there was no violation of law," Loft said. "Staff requested guidance on permissible campaign activity once the ballot measures were adopted by the VTA Board of Directors, and we have followed that guidance."

She called the FPPC complaint "nothing more than a PR ploy for free publicity for their cause" and said the authority provides information to "proponents, opponents and the general public."

Phil Yost, spokesperson for the "Yes on B" campaign, also disputed the complaint and said its aim is to take the focus away from Measure B itself, which he claims remains popular.

Yost said SVLG dealt so closely with the VTA because the authority has all the pertinent information about ridership, roads and costs.

Loft also said the Santa Clara County Counsel's Office concurred with VTA counsel that there was no violation of the law. But County Counsel Ann Ravel said she wasn't aware of any talks between the transportation agency and her staff.

"If there was someone in my office they spoke to, I'd like to know who that is," she said.

While the FPPC has yet to decide whether the VTA's actions constitute any violations, the e-mail exchanges cited by Measure B's opponents suggest that the transportation authority was at least eager to please the "Yes on B" campaign. The documents cited by the "No on B" campaign in its complaint include exchanges in which Yost and Loft arrange a meeting to discuss which newspapers and reporters the pro-Measure B campaign should approach. The complaint also cited e-mails detailing how the VTA could assist the SVLG with maps and other presentation materials as evidence of impropriety.

Margaret Okuzimi, a leader of the "No on B" campaign, said the e-mails make clear that VTA was doing more than just providing information.

"Public agencies are allowed to provide information that's unbiased, as long as they're not being partial to one side," Okuzumi said after the complaint was filed.

"The VTA crossed the line to actually collaborate with the campaign."

Staff Writer Gennady Sheyner can be e-mailed at gsheyner@paweekly.com