20 Sep Was Measure EE really a farce?

Original article posted on The Sun. Written by Tom Murphy on September 16, 2024

“Where people fear the government you have tyranny. Where the government fears the people you have liberty.” – John Barnhill

In politics, to understand what is truly important, simply follow the money. This is particularly true when one takes a look at two initiative petitions presented to county voters in the November 2022 election, Measure EE and Measure D. 

Measure EE, the so-called “Fair Share Analysis” petition, asked voters “Do the people of San Bernardino County want San Bernardino County elected representatives to study and advocate for all options to obtain the County’s fair share of state funding…”. 

Measure EE was ultimately approved by a slight majority of the voters and resulted in the county funding a “Fair Share Analysis” study. The results of that study were (finally) released in mid-August. 

The county spent nearly $200,000 to purchase a report that explains what county residents already know – it is extremely difficult if not impossible to secede from the state. 

The report also provides county supervisors information they should have already known. 

According to county budget documentation there are 23 people employed by the county’s Finance and Administration office. The mission of that office is, in part, to forecast “…requirements and sources for the most stable fiscal outlook possible.” Certainly, part of that mission includes knowing the county’s place in the pecking order of dollars distributed by the state.

On July 26, 2022, when local developer Jeff Burum, who has been on the receiving end of over $150 million in taxpayer-funded legal settlements, stepped to the podium and proposed the “Fair Share Analysis” petition, the answer should have been rapidly and efficiently presented by the County Finance office. 

Which begs the question – why was developer Burum championing Measure EE? 

The Red Brennan Group believes that Measure EE was, from start to finish, a political ploy by the county ruling elite. It was a strategy to bring a certain type of voter to the polls. The county political class wanted anti-tax and small government proponents to visit the polls in hopes of approving what the political class really wanted.

And what the political class really wanted was voters to overturn Measure K, approved by the voters in 2020 by a greater than two-thirds margin, and approve county-sponsored Measure D the “Taxpayer Protection and Government Reform” initiative petition. 

Measure K was a reform initiative that set elected supervisor’s pay at nearly the same rate as the median household income in the county. The measure also set a single, four-year term as the maximum limit to serve as county supervisor. Deftly hidden under the banner of “Taxpayer Protection,” Measure D tricked voters into approving a number of goodies for the incumbent county supervisors:

• Increased supervisors’ salaries nearly three times from what they should have been at the time,
• Granted a three-fold increase in time in service for elected supervisors,
• Reset the baseline for current supervisors’ time in service. (For example, Supervisor Hagman’s final term should have expired in 2022. Under Measure D’s baseline reset and assuming re-election, Hagman could serve until 2034, a total of 20 years as a county supervisor.)
• Included a poison pill designed to remove the “taxpayer protection” should voters ever alter supervisor pay or term limits via a future charter amendment,

At the very same meeting (see video beginning at time stamp 1:32:35) that Burum, followed by a long line of local politicians, proposed the “Fair Share Analysis,” county supervisors were in the process of approving the “Taxpayer Protection and Government Reform” initiative petition (Agenda Item #69) for the ballot. County supervisors later held a highly unusual off-cycle board meeting specifically to approve the “Fair Share Analysis.” This to ward off an impending deadline and ensure Measure EE was on the same ballot as Measure D. We opine that the political class, well aware of the underlying discontent with both state and county governance, made a cynical bet. If they could tap into the set of discontented voters by offering a false hope of secession, get those voters to the polls and present Measure D as “Taxpayer Protection and Government Reform,” the likely outcome would be the desired outcome of the ruling class – approval of Measure D and overturn of Measure K.

This is exactly what happened.

While we are privy to no absolute proof of this theory, we encourage readers to follow the money.

The San Bernardino County Registrar of Voters Public Portal for Campaign Finance Disclosure shows that a cabal of local entities, including public employee unions, developers (Burum included), real estate companies, and politicians invested well over $1 million dollars to ensure the passage of Measure D. (Click on website, select 2022, search on the following terms “Good Government Yes on D,” “People United for Fairness,” “SoCal Partnership for Jobs”)

How much was spent in support of Measure EE? According to the same webpage the “People United for Fairness in support of Measure D & EE” spent less than $90,000 on advertising in favor of the “Fair Share Analysis” petition.

In other words, spending on Measure D outpaced the “Fair Share Analysis” offering by more than ten to one. 

Which issue was more important to the county political class? Follow the money…

If our opinion is correct, what should local voters do about it? We believe the best strategy is for voters to simply vote against incumbents, particularly in local elections. While this strategy seems disruptive it appears to be the only method to ensure local politicians begin to listen to everyday voters rather than the special interest groups.

To paraphrase John Barnill, when elected officials fear the voters’ vote, the people have liberty.