by Arsenio Ndeve

(more…)

I’m voting for Supervisor Jim Provenza to continue his proven record delivering results for all of us in District 4. I agree with Enterprise columnist Bob Dunning’s assessment in his November 2019 column, “Put simply, Jim Provenza is a public servant of the highest order. He is a man of integrity who cares deeply about making this world a better place.”

I have witnessed this as I’ve worked with Provenza on county issues for more than five years. Jim is a local elected official who spearheads innovation and knows how to successfully advocate for those he serves. His policy approach includes both common sense and compassion, and he thoughtfully applies his deep experience to lead the Board on issues involving children, community health and prevention, our neighborhoods, and our environment.

(more…)

Dear Editor,

Supervisor Jim Provenza is a results oriented policy-maker, and as our elected representative he doesn’t merely talk about ideas, he implements solutions and accomplishes objectives to improve our lives.

I have worked with Supervisor Provenza in multiple capacities during his tenure as our District 4 representative, and as a 45-year fire service veteran (including Fire Chief of Davis) I am particularly impressed with his solutions on issues of a public safety concern. Supervisor Provenza is one of the most responsive, action-oriented elected officials I have ever had the pleasure to work with. As such, he has a robust catalog of accomplishments for the betterment of our constituency. A sampling of Supervisor Jim Provenza’s public safety accomplishments include the following:

(more…)

By Michelle Jillian Bailey

Growing up in Davis, I always felt a little out of place. I had my head in the clouds with a strong desire to fly. I naturally gravitate towards the military service; my maternal grandfather served 33 years and retired as a Naval O-6. I knew the risks, but I also believed in the rewards this country reaps for those willing to do its bidding. Davis had no support system for me. Thankfully, while on vacation to Ohio, I discovered Civil Air Patrol.

(more…)

Letter to the Editor

I am supporting Jim Provenza for re-election to the Yolo County Board of Supervisors. I served with Jim on the Board and also worked with him when I was a member of the California Assembly.

Jim served as counsel to the California Senate Judiciary Committee and chief counsel to the California Assembly Public Safety Committee. He was later the legislative counsel at the California State Capitol for the Los Angeles District Attorney’s Office.

While working at the capitol, Jim was responsible for numerous bills expanding protection for victims of domestic violence and sexual assault, including California’s stalking law and the legislation permitting a court to remove guns from those who commit domestic assaults. He also drafted and was instrumental in the enactment of California’s current hate crime law.

As a member of the Yolo County Board of Supervisors, Jim is a compassionate leader who works to assure that essential services, such as mental health, suicide prevention, and the Yolo Food Bank, receive the funding needed to protect our most vulnerable residents. By using tobacco settlement funds and obtaining outside funding, he has been able to do this with a balanced budget and no increase in taxes.

I was particularly impressed by Jim’s ability as chair of First 5 Yolo to obtain millions of dollars in state funding for Yolo’s early childhood prevention and intervention programs. These efforts will significantly improve the lives of our at-risk children.

Jim works hard to the meet needs of all of his constituents; rich, poor and in-between. He always does his homework and is prepared, listens

to all viewpoints and is fair and civil to all those who appear before the Board.  

Please join me in supporting Jim Provenza for re-election to the Board of Supervisors on March 3.

Helen Thomson

Throughout his years as a county supervisor, Jim Provenza has been a staunch advocate for at-risk children and an ally to community organizations that support families in crisis. Supervisor Provenza has championed progressive policies and programs that focus on providing vital services to keep children safe and struggling families intact and growing stronger. As a volunteer and advocate for our County’s youngest, most vulnerable children and their families, I’ve seen firsthand the tremendous impact Jim’s efforts have had in our community. That’s why I’m offering my wholehearted endorsement in Jim's bid to be re-elected as our Yolo County Supervisor, District 4. Please join me in supporting him.

Jane M. Eadie

To the Editor,

Jim Provenza’s work for children and the elderly has touched us personally.  As a school board member, Jim was diligent in supporting the needs of all children.  He showed a special sensitivity to children in the Achievement Gap and special needs children.

Interested as we are in senior issues, we have been impressed with his efforts to establish support programs for the elderly. 

We have always been supportive of Jim due to his demonstrated leadership style encompassing integrity, responsiveness, reliability, compassion for others, and responsiveness.        

We have learned that Jim can be trusted to make decisions that benefit our community.  We support Jim Provenza in his re-election campaign for Yolo County Supervisor.

Laurie & Bob Rollins

While I agree with the statement made in The Davis Enterprise “Our View” from January 31, 2020, that “We doubt that there is any district in the state that has anyone as qualified as the three candidates who are running for District 4” of the Yolo County Board of Supervisors, I am not taking the advice of the all-male Enterprise Editorial Board and am instead voting for Linda Deos. We need diversity, and especially a woman’s voice, on our currently all-male Yolo County Board of Supervisors—and everywhere else in our society as well.

The Enterprise cites “experience” in the elected position as a reason for their support, but that argument effectively limits newcomers from bringing their diverse perspectives to serving our community. I, for one, do not want to wait for all the males to retire or die before bringing in new, diverse perspectives to help solve our significant societal problems. If not change/diversity now, then when? If not via District 4 voters, then how?

Please join me in voting for the highly qualified woman running for Yolo County Board of Supervisors: Linda Deos.

Robert Darragh
Davis

Big money in our little election

By Colin Walsh

On Thursday, February 20, the Vanguard Blog again ran an attack on Jim Provenza, trying to link him to an Independent Expenditure group that has run ads supporting him. By doing this Greenwald again seems to want to link Provenza to the controversial Yolo County DA. But let’s look a little deeper.

Greenwald to his credit did reach out to the Provenza campaign and Greenwald confirmed the campaign had no knowledge of the Independent Expenditure Committee Safe Neighborhoods Coalition.

Greenwald states the independent group “has put forward ads primarily on Facebook—though they have yet to file an independent expenditure report, so it is difficult to know how much they have spent.” Then the Vanguard goes on to say, “Independent expenditures must be reported if they exceed $1000.”  And that “By one count, ‘There have been at least ten separate ads. No idea how much they cost.’” That all makes it sound like the group is exerting a considerable effort on behalf of Provenza.

This is disingenuous and intellectually dishonest reporting. Greenwald publishes his attack after campaign finance reporting was due and what do you know, they did file a report – they filed on February 15, 2020 and again on the 20th. Worse, it was not their first filing. They filed on November 5, 2019 as well. All indications are this independent expenditure committee is operating legally and has made all appropriate filings. Greenwald's accusations are demonstrably false.

(more…)

"501(c)(3) organizations are absolutely prohibited from directly or indirectly participating in, or intervening in, any political campaign"

By Rik Keller

In return for tax-exempt status, a 501(c)(3) nonprofit organization like the Vanguard promises the federal government that it will not engage in “political campaign activity.” If it does, IRS regulations mandate that the nonprofit lose its tax-exempt status and will be subject to other financial penalties [my emphasis]:

 “All section 501(c)(3) organizations are absolutely prohibited from directly or indirectly participating in, or intervening in, any political campaign on behalf of (or in opposition to) any candidate for elective public office. Contributions to political campaign funds or public statements of position (verbal or written) made on behalf of the organization in favor of or in opposition to any candidate for public office clearly violate the prohibition against political campaign activity.  Violating this prohibition may result in denial or revocation of tax-exempt status and the imposition of certain excise taxes.

https://www.irs.gov/charities-non-profits/charitable-organizations/the-restriction-of-political-campaign-intervention-by-section-501c3-tax-exempt-organizations

The same IRS guidance goes onto state that 

“Certain activities or expenditures may not be prohibited depending on the facts and circumstances.  For example, certain voter education activities (including presenting public forums and publishing voter education guides) conducted in a non-partisan manner do not constitute prohibited political campaign activity. In addition, other activities intended to encourage people to participate in the electoral process, such as voter registration and get-out-the-vote drives, would not be prohibited political campaign activity if conducted in a non-partisan manner.

On the other hand, voter education or registration activities with evidence of bias that (a) would favor one candidate over another; (b) oppose a candidate in some manner; or (c) have the effect of favoring a candidate or group of candidates, will constitute prohibited participation or intervention.”

For a list of examples of the types of political campaign activities by nonprofit organizations that are banned by federal law, see: https://www.nolo.com/legal-encyclopedia/limits-political-campaigning-501c3-nonprofits-29982.html

These include:

• “criticizing or supporting a candidate on the organization's website”
• Publishing “materials that support (or oppose) a candidate”

Even publishing statements supporting or opposing candidates for office written by others is a violation: Federal code states that nonprofits may not “participate in, or intervene in (including publishing or distributing of statements), any political campaign on behalf of (or in opposition to) any candidate for political office.” (see 26 U.S.C. Section 501(c)(3)) https://www.councilofnonprofits.org/tools-resources/political-campaign-activities-risks-tax-exempt-status

It is important to note that this prohibition against partisan political campaign activity is defined as “supporting or opposing a candidate for public office” and is considered different from lobbying or legislative activities. The Vanguard has conducted such political campaign activity against Jim Provenza and supporting Linda Deos on multiple occasions. And it is not the first instance of this type of violation of federal law by the Vanguard:

• Anti-Reform Group Does IE in Supervisors Race
• Reisig Endorsement Raises Concerns about Provenza
• Monday Morning Thoughts: DA Reisig, Dunning Respond to Letter on Provenza Race; Reisig Gets A Lot Wrong Here
• Letter: Deos Shares My Values
• Letter: I Support Linda Deos

The situation gets even more shady when one considers the Vanguard’s advocating and support for such issues as the SB50 real estate bill at the state level and the proposed ARC project locally which will be on the ballot in November. In this case, the Vanguard has strongly advocated for this proposed legislation and intertwined this with commentary about candidates for public office like SB50 author California State Senator Scott Wiener and the candidates for the Yolo County Board of Supervisors. The IRS can find that “even an unbiased, neutral questionnaire to be problematic if an organization posts the candidates’ responses on its website, and other sections of the organization’s website advocate for a particular position on the issues mentioned in the questionnaire… by including the organization’s own viewpoint on the website, the organization is telling readers the “correct” position on each issue, and from that readers could then infer which candidates the organization would support.” https://bolderadvocacy.org/advocacy-defined/you-have-questions-we-have-answers/

Finally, while federal tax law prohibits 501(c)(3) nonprofit organizations from supporting or opposing candidates for public office, they may–to a very limited degree–support and oppose ballot measures and other legislation under the federal tax law definition of “lobbying.” However, the Vanguard is doping this to a degree far beyond what is allowable under federal law. The following is a description of the types of activities that fall under the definition of “lobbying”

As stated 

“for IRS purposes, your nonprofit engages in lobbying anytime it attempts to persuade members of a legislative body to propose, support, oppose, amend, or repeal legislation. "Legislation" means anything a legislative body must vote to adopt or reject–whether a law, resolution, proposal, nomination, treaty, zoning rule, or anything else. It also includes things like referendums, initiatives, and constitutional amendments that must be placed on the ballot and voted on by the general public. Lobbying, then, means trying to persuade a member of Congress, state legislator, city council member, county board of supervisors member, and even a member of a foreign legislature or parliament, to vote in a certain way. It also means trying to help to enact or oppose a law or other item that would have to be voted on to take effect.

However, there does not have to be a specific law pending in a legislative body for lobbying to occur. Lobbying includes support or opposition for proposed laws that are a long way from actually being voted on…”

https://www.nolo.com/legal-encyclopedia/how-much-lobbying-can-nonprofit-do.html

Under IRS rules, a nonprofit qualifies for tax-exempt status as long as no “substantial part” of its overall activities relates to influencing legislation or carrying on propaganda. While there is no objective standard, the IRS has previously found that if as little as 5% of an organization’ time is spent on lobbying that meets the “substantial part” threshold and is a violation that can result in stripping the nonprofit tax status. Considering Greenwald is listed as the only author on pro development City of Davis land use stories that are run in the Vanguard daily he is clearly spending a significant amount of his time lobbying the Davis City Council.

In conclusion, the Vanguard has violated federal nonprofit law in multiple ways: by conducting partisan campaign activities both directly and indirectly, and by tying issue advocacy to political candidates. It has also violated the prohibition against using a substantial part of its time/energy/expenditures for issue lobbying.