Ourania Riddle -- author of Dixon’s proposed Sunshine Ordinance -- tried to mislead Dixon voters in her September 30 opinion piece in The Vacaville Reporter. Here's the piece: Measure N: It helps citizens keep an eye on government.
She stated, "This initiative has been modeled after the San Francisco Sunshine Ordinance, which was adopted in 1993 and was reaffirmed by voters in 1999."
Really. Did she think we wouldn’t read San Francisco’s Sunshine Ordinance - Section 67? Ms. Riddle is guilty of comparing Dixon’s apples to San Francisco’s oranges. Here are a few differences between the two.
Speaking Times
- Dixon…Unlimited
- SF…….. 3 minutes
Public Records Requests
- Dixon…2 days
- SF……10 Days
Screens Placed Behind Council Members
- Dixon…yes
- SF…No
Open Governance Commission (called Sunshine Ordinance Task Force in SF)
- Dixon…”random” selection of three members
- SF…….. 11 members appointed by Board of Supervisors
City Employees Briefing Council Members
- Dixon…only two council members may be briefed
- SF……..no restrictions
Items on City Agenda by Citizens
- Dixon…20 signatures to place item on agenda
- SF……..no provision
Online Posting of ALL Job Applications to the City
- Dixon…all applications must be posted
- SF……..only “successful job applicants” to have
- applications posted
Ms. Riddle wants openness in government, but seems to think openness about the real differences between Dixon’s Measure N and San Francisco’s ordinance should be kept in the dark.
Want to say something about this blog post? Leave a comment below or post a blog directly to Dixon Patch. Just click this link and you're ready to publish! Email me at justin.cox@patch.com if you have questions.
It was Mrs. Riddle that used San Francisco as the model, not me. At the 8-28 council meeting she referenced Gilroy as another successful city with a sunshine ordinance. Once again, Gilroy's sunshine is completely different (Gilroy has limits on speakers, 10 days for records request, appointed sunshine commission, no video screens, no 20 people to put agenda items, no posting of all applications, no ban on internal lobbying). The proponents have never said which cities in America are using some of the more unbelievable parts of Measure N. I truly believe the proponents think the name alone is enough to get this unnecessary, unfunded, and unbelievable "thing" passed. Gilroy's http://dixonsunshine.com/sunshine-cities/gilroy/
"smarter then all of them and they despise her for that" You mean the woman who wrote Measure N that: 1. gives unlimited time for speakers 2. forbids City employees from "briefing" more than 3 council members 3. "randomly" selects members of the Open Government Commission 4. bans cell phones 5. requires video screens to be put up behing council members to view their I-Pad searches That woman?
PS. By the way, what have you done for your community??
I have tried to answer your questions (not that you have asked any) concerning Measure N. But I can see I'm wasting my time. Good luck to you.
Morning View has offered to work on a revised Measure if she would support a “No on N” as Morning View has stated in writing last week. As to Measure N and Dixon Downs, I was there at the time and feel there was more information provided then required by law. Since horseracing has no real competitors… I cannot see how Measure N would have helped the public or impacted the project applicant. Mike Smith