Hello friends and neighbors,
I post today in response to a Press Release (page 3) submitted to the Brentwood Press, and possibly other media by the Yes on Measure L campaign.

Although Annette Beckstrand’s Press Release states that a “Judge orders change to Measure L rebuttal”, she was not in the judge’s chambers last Friday as was I, and she was not involved in the stipulated agreement between Bob Nunn and Brentwood Alliance Against Measure L. Therefore, she has inaccurately reported what transpired over the last week prompting me to explain.

On Thursday morning, September 5th, our five Rebuttal Argument signers were served with legal papers to appear in Martinez Court the very next day, Friday, 9/6 @ 10am. The reason: a challenge to one Ballot Argument Rebuttal statement we made about school funding in our official submission to the City of Brentwood City Clerk, Margaret Wimberly. You can imagine our shock and dismay in this action, but we sprang into action securing an exceptional election and ballot argument Attorney, Stuart Flashman of Oakland. Luckily he was available, and able to guide us in this unprecedented challenge.

Although our ballot argument was written in good faith, and to the best of our knowledge based on meetings with both school superintendents, our proponents chose to sue us over the language. We have formulated our Ballot Arguments based on the 9212 report, the Draft EIR as well as the information in their 193-page Initiative. Each side had many ballot arguments in our initial statements, and in our rebuttals; and we too thought many of their ballot statements were questionable, but we don’t have the money nor the legal team to make a case of it. We feel the next 60 days communicating the details of their 193-page Measure L will speak for themselves – this Project is a bad deal for Brentwood. Here are the two statements, both initial and defined that will now be printed in the Ballot pamphlet for your review:

“School funding is allocated based on student attendance, so homes without students do not create any ongoing revenue.”

Original Rebuttal Statement

“Brentwood’s state-mandated LCFF funding formula is based on school attendance. Homes without students won’t help with that.”

Revised Rebuttal Statement accepted by Bob Nunn

I offer the following additional information after consulting with our Attorney: If one wants to talk about “false and misleading,” the TBW Media press release is a prime example.

Contrary to the press release, there was no court hearing and Superior Court Judge Steven Austin made NO ruling on Bob Nunn’s allegation that the rebuttal argument submitted by Brentwood Alliance Against Measure L was false or misleading. Nunn had actually asked that a paragraph of the rebuttal argument be deleted entirely. Instead, at Judge Austin’s insistence, attorneys for Measure L’s supporters and opponents, working together, clarified the statement in the rebuttal argument and came up with a modified statement that was factually accurate and still reflected one of the many reasons that the Brentwood Alliance opposes the measure.

The two attorneys submitted a joint request that the judge have the Elections Office change the ballot argument accordingly, which he gladly signed.

While the developers who wrote Measure L claim it will provide millions of dollars to Brentwood schools, the fact is that under the state’s mandated school funding formula (the so-called “LCFF”), Brentwood schools will get exactly the same amount of funding regardless of whether the senior housing in the Brentwood project, proposed for land currently outside of the city’s urban limit line, gets built or not.

Thank you for your continued support in the No on Measure L campaign. A fresh shipment of 100 signs arrives today, and we will be filling all our orders in the queue bringing our total distribution to almost 300

Kathy