Bob Branstrom’s Second Bite at the Apple
Bob Branstrom is running for one of two seats on the Grass Valley City Council. This is his second bite at the apple. Branstrom was on the council in 2024 when voters passed Measure B, the 3/8-cent (0.375%) sales and use tax currently extracting an estimated $2,760,000 annually from local shoppers. Revenues go directly to the city’s general fund.
When considering Measure B for the ballot, the city council struggled with making Measure B a special tax or general tax. Why? What’s the difference?
Had the council decided to make Measure B a special tax, they could have included their list of specific expenditures in the ordinance for codification. The catch was, a special tax requires a two-thirds vote to pass. Having determined that the measure would not garner a two-thirds vote, the council moved forward with a general tax initiative requiring only a simple majority vote (50% + 1). The catch here is that a general tax such as Measure B (Ordinance No. 826) cannot contain a list of specific expenditures.
From that moment, and leading up to the March 5, 2024 election, it is my opinion that Mr. Branstrom and his coconspirators employed deception ranging from subliminal to falsehoods to convince the electorate that Measure B indeed supported specific expenditures and therefore could only be considered a special tax. I believe they knew that deception would be imperative in order to secure the votes needed to bring this additional revenue into the city’s coffers.
Were they successful in their deception?
Measure B passed by just 20 votes over a majority. Did their efforts convinced at least 11 people to vote YES that might have otherwise voted NO?
I look for common sense and integrity in my candidates. It is my opinion, based on his involvement with Measure B, that Bob Branstrom has little of either quality.
For me, Mr. Branstrom’s actions were despicable. His reputation as a council member is tarnished beyond repair. I will not be checking his name for Grass Valley City Council this November.
However, I prefer others make up their own minds. To assist, I have provided additional information and specific details of Mr. Branstrom’s involvement in the Measure B process.
To begin, CA Gov Code §§ 53721–53723 narrowly defines both special and general tax initiatives.
The Ballot Question
The Ballot Question is a short paragraph providing voters a true and impartial synopsis of the proposed ordinance. The Ballot Question appears at the top of the measure in the Voter Information Guide. It appears again on the official ballot, this time as a surrogate for the full ordinance. CA Election Code § 13119 requires the Ballot Question describe the “nature” of the ordinance and not create prejudice for or against the measure.
Mr. Branstrom approved what I consider to be an extremely misleading Ballot Question for Measure B. The question created prejudice by including a list of expenditures not found in Measure B. Was this tendency to mislead due to a lack of common sense, lack of integrity, or both?
Impartial Analysis
CA Election Code § 9280 requires the city attorney’s Impartial Analysis found in the Voter Information Guide, describe only “the effect of the measure on existing law and the operation of the measure.” Coincidently, his Measure B analysis contained the same misleading and prejudicial list of expenditures as was found in the Ballot Question; word for word.
Mr. Branstrom remained silent while the electorate was again subjected to propaganda I believe was intended to misdirect voters into thinking Measure B was a special tax.
Argument In Favor
The Voter Information Guide also contained an Argument in Favor of Measure B signed by all five council members, including Mr. Branstrom. CA Election Code § 9282 (b) allows city council members to submit arguments either for or against ballot measures. Fair enough.
Mr. Branstrom’s Argument in Favor begins by emphatically declaring: “Measure B WILL fund . . .” a list of specific purposes and expenditures.
For those of you following along, Measure B is a general tax. Measure B revenues flow to the general fund. Measure B contains no such list and no such mandate.
I believe Mr. Branstrom used his position of authority on the city council to convince voters that Measure B would MANDATE funding of his specific list. Did this falsehood stem from a lack of common sense or lack of integrity? Or both?
Was City Council REQUIRED to Act?
This example of subterfuge took place three weeks prior to the election. Keep in mind that Ordinance No. 826 had no authority at that point in time and would not be adopted and go into effect until weeks after the election.
Not to be hampered by reality, Mr. Branstrom and the remaining council members claimed, by adopting Resolution No. 2024-09, that Ordinance No. 826 REQUIRED they adopt a list of specific expenditures for Measure B revenues, also claiming that doing so would be in adherence to Ordinance No. 826.
Remember - this official action took place three weeks prior to the March 5, 2024 election and was obviously aimed at influencing unsuspecting voters. Yet another blatant attempt to convince voters they were indeed voting for a special tax initiative, only now the tax initiative was complete with its very own official list of mandated expenditures.
It appears to me that Mr. Branstrom and his cohorts were willing to suspend their collective common sense and sacrifice their total combined integrity in order to proclaim that an ordinance, not yet approved by the voters nor adopted by their very own authority, could have possibly REQUIRED them to take any action whatsoever.
With this resolution, they deliberately turned Measure B into a special tax initiative with the intent of passing it with a simple majority vote.
Sometimes it takes years for the truth to catch up to a lie.
Disclaimer: Mr. McCall a resident of Grass Valley. He is a member of the Measure B Independent Citizens’ Advisory Committee. The views expressed here are his alone and not intended to represent the views or opinions of other committee members.