Page 6 - Sonoma County Gazette February 2017

LETTERS cont’d from page 4
Q: “By swamping [the many small, mostly local contributions for safe water], do you mean [the California Dental Association] paid more money?”
shall be repealed.” The voter-qualified language would have required a YES vote to stop Healdsburg water fluoridation.
A: Yes. Here are the figures from the Healdsburg Campaign Contribution Disclosure Reports:
Instead of adopting the measure as written, or placing it on the ballot without alteration as the State Election Code directs, in a unanimous vote, the Healdsburg City Council altered the voter-qualified language to: “Shall the City of Healdsburg continue to fluoridate its water?”and placed its version on the November 2014 ballot as Measure P. The new wording required a NO vote to stop water fluoridation, and YES to keep it. An argument might have been made that the City Council change violated the “without alteration” clause but, in 2014, the change went unchallenged.
MEASURE P (2014) was sponsored by two Healdsburg residents; “The Committee for NO on Measure P” was supported by dozens of individual donations of money and services totaling just $16,484. On the other side, “YES on P - Save Our Smiles” was entirely sponsored and funded by the California Dental Association (CDA), which contributed a total of $63,312 to keep Healdsburg water fluoridated.
In 2016, Healdsburg registered voters qualified the following for the ballot: “Shall the City of Healdsburg institute a moratorium on all municipal water fluoridation until such time as the manufacturer supplying the fluoridating chemical provides to the public 1) an accurate list of all contaminants and their amounts accompanying each batch sold to Healdsburg, 2) a detailed toxicological report on the fluoridating chemical, and 3) a written statement verifying the chemical’s safety for ingestion by all water consumers, once introduced into the water supply?”
MEASURE T (2016) was sponsored by three Healdsburg residents; the “Healdsburg for Yes on Measure T” campaign was funded by many donations in money and services, totaling $16,531. CDA was the sole sponsor of the “NO on T - Save Our Smiles” campaign and, except for a $100 contribution from a single individual, CDA funded the entire campaign, donating $45,531 to defeat Measure T, preventing Healdsburg from requiring the safety-related information from the fluoridation chemical manufacturer.
Q: “Can you...tell me what the original wording of Measure T was and what the Council substituted.”
The Healdsburg City Council rejected the qualified wording and, in a clearly illegal action, by a 4-1 vote, approved the following to replace it: “MEASURE: FLUORIDATION OF WATER SUPPLY Shall the City of Healdsburg stop fluoridating its water supply? YES NO”
A: A: Three versions of Measure T, original, substitute, and final, follow brief background information about the State Election Code and changes to the 2014 ballot measure text.
The City Council’s new wording was so completely unrelated to the intent of the original that initiative supporters filed suit to prevent the change. Even with an amicus curiae brief from the CDA in support of the City Council language, the judge ruled against it, and held the City of Healdsburg responsible for all court costs.
According to the California State Election Code (section 9215), to qualify a measure for a municipal (city) ballot, signatures are gathered on an initiative petition. To qualify for the Healdsburg ballot, the initiative petition must be signed by 10% or more of registered voters living within the city limits, and the signatures verified by the County Registrar of Voters.
The court mandated the following, which appeared on the November 2016 Healdsburg ballot as Measure T: “Shall the City of Healdsburg institute a moratorium on water fluoridation in the city until such time as the manufacturer of the fluoridating chemical provides information regarding the identification of any contaminants in the fluoridating chemical batch, and a toxicological report and verification of safety for the fluoridating chemical?”
When an initiative petition has enough verified signatures, the City Clerk presents it to the City Council, which has two legal choices: 1) it can adopt the measure, “without alteration,” or 2) it can place the measure on the ballot, “without alteration,” to allow the voters to decide.
In 2014 Healdsburg voters qualified the following for the ballot: “1. The induction of fluoridation chemicals into Healdsburg municipal water shall cease permanently on the passage of this measure by a majority of the City’s voters. 2. All City ordinances authorizing fluoridation, or in support or implementation of fluoridation of
Dawna Gallagher-Stroeh,
6 - www.sonomacountygazette.com - 2/17
Executive Director of Clean Water Sonoma-Marin (501c4) and Clean Water Sonoma-Marin Charitable Trust, CleanWaterSonomaMarin.org