HOLLISTER
– Unable to make a decision about the legality of a referendum
petition challenging the slow-growth initiative, the San Benito
County Board of Supervisors has put the matter on hold again.
HOLLISTER – Unable to make a decision about the legality of a referendum petition challenging the slow-growth initiative, the San Benito County Board of Supervisors has put the matter on hold again.
Supervisors indefinitely postponed a decision on whether to accept the referendum petition challenging the growth control initiative while they seek a legal opinion from an independent third party.
The problem started Tuesday after County Clerk John Hodges certified the 5,344 signatures on the referendum petition. Hodges’ certification covered only the validity of the actual signatures and had no direct bearing on whether the referendum was worded properly.
Then attorneys representing the growth initiative and the referendum debated the issue before the Board. Carmel attorney Alexander Henson renewed his claim that the referendum is illegal because two statements were left out of the wording of the petition.
Henson is an attorney for The Citizens for Responsible Growth in San Benito County, which drafted the growth initiative.
The statements allegedly left out of the referendum are:
• “Notice to the public that this petition may be circulated by a paid signature gatherer or a volunteer. You have the right to ask.”
• “The use of your signature for any purpose other than qualification of this measure for the ballot is a misdemeanor. Complaints about the misuse of your signature may be made to the Secretary of State’s Office.”
“When it comes to the part about paid signature gatherers, they didn’t do it,” Henson said. “It’s just as simple as that.”
However, attorneys for Farmers and Citizens to Protect our Agricultural Heritage said Henson’s claim is wrong and that the referendum is properly worded. The section of the law that Henson cited refers to initiatives and not referendums, the attorneys said.
“Mr. Henson has made an attack on this referendum that is not based in any law,” San Francisco attorney Peter Bagatelos said.
Bagatelos said the Board was not carrying out its legal obligations.
“The Board has one of two administerial duties: To either repeal the ordinance or place this on the ballot,” he said.
After Henson and Bagatelos presented their arguments, supervisors were unsure about who was right and which way to go.
“All I want is a legal answer on who is right and who is wrong,” Supervisor Bob Cruz said.
The Board decided to table the issue to an undetermined date while it seeks the advice of an independent expert in election law.
The decision did not make the Citizens for Responsible Growth or the Farmers and Citizens to Protect our Agricultural Heritage very happy, but both sides are standing firm.
“I think our position is the right position and that it well be upheld,” said Janet Brians spokesperson for Citizens for Responsible Growth.
Initiative supporters said contrary to the concerns that farmers and ranchers have, the initiative will protect the land and the lifestyle county residents treasure.
“We hope that by sustained slow growth that we can continue to live with, the county will benefit over the short and the long term,” Brians said.
The farmers and citizens group tried to see the decision from the Board’s point of view.
“I can kind of understand this in one way, that they don’t want to make the wrong decision. It always helps to clarify things before you make a decision,” said Tom Tobias, chairman of the farmers and citizens group. “But on the other hand, when all we’re asking for is to allow this to go to election, there is no wrong decision.”
Tobias said this problem should never have gotten this far.
“We feel they could have cut a lot of the rigmarole out of this and just let it go to a vote of the people with a decision today,” he said. “In some ways we were a little disappointed, but in other ways we kind of understand.”
Other farmers said the issue is cut-and-dried and that they don’t understand the need for further delay.
“I think the certification of the 5,344 signatures was a step in the right direction, and we’re happy about that,” referendum supporter Robert Frusetta said.
“We think that those 5,300 people who signed the referendum did it with the assumption that this would go to a vote,” he said. “And we think the 5,000-some-odd people who signed the original initiative did it under the assumption that they would also have the opportunity to vote on that.”
