Imagine what would happen if YOU provided false information to a judge.
Just because Oxnard City Hall publishes a number, don’t assume that it’s correct …
… especially if they’re trying to persuade the public to accept rate increases … or to vote against a ballot measure … or if they’re trying to persuade a judge in court!Read more
We just had another win in court last week, with a judge granting an anti-SLAPP motion against the city of Oxnard.
In November, Oxnard voters adopted Measures M and N.
- Measure M requires that council meetings be held outside the standard workday so more of us can participate, gives the public greater opportunity to speak, and mandates that City Hall provide more information to the public in advance of the meeting.
- Measure N requires the city to repair our streets to certain standards by certain dates or else reduce our sales tax rate.
Oxnard City Hall is fighting these reform measures to improve transparency and accountability to the taxpayers.Read more
In City Hall's continuing war against increased transparency and public participation, they lost another battle on Monday.
Without warning last Thursday, City Hall notified our attorney that they had requested a next-day court hearing seeking an emergency temporary restraining order to enjoin – in other words, stop – implementation of Measure M.Read more
Unfortunately, name-calling is the level of discourse we have come to expect from Oxnard City Hall.
In last week’s issue of the Tri County Sentry, Oxnard City Manager Alex Nguyen called the President of Moving Oxnard Forward a “Fascist” because we use the democratic process to bring increased transparency to local government. By implication, his characterization is also aimed at the 36,549 Oxnard residents who voted for such reform.
Perhaps we should buy the city manager a dictionary.Read more
You helped us bring positive change to Oxnard!
The entire Oxnard City Council urged voters to oppose Measure M (the “Oxnard Open Meetings Act”). But Oxnard voters knew better and adopted Measure M with 57% of the vote this past November.
As a result of your vote for Measure M, there’s a new feature on council meeting agendas – and we want to make sure you notice and make use of it.Read more
UPDATE: The $34 million figure in this article was originally calculated through the information that was available when opening briefs were filed with the court. But the city continued collecting this fee until the judge's decision was issued, and the amount collected during that time also must be returned, so the final amount will instead be $36.5 million.
Victory in court today!
The City of Oxnard had been skimming as much as $7 million per year from the City’s three utility enterprises (water, wastewater and solid waste) ... and diverting the money to the general fund for what they call an Infrastructure Use Fee (IUF).
Our contention has been that the IUF is an unlawful transfer scheme – really, a backdoor tax! – that violates the California Constitution, particularly Proposition 218.Read more
As you probably remember, the City of Oxnard sued to overturn Measure M, our 2016 initiative which repealed the City Council’s abusive 87% sewer rate increase. Voters adopted Measure M with 73% of the vote.
We successfully defended ourselves in court and won in Ventura County Superior Court in 2018. The City appealed to the Court of Appeal, which announced two weeks ago that they have overturned the trial court’s decision.
While nearly every court ruling leaves one side unhappy, the Court of Appeal in this case made significant errors in its decision, including some material misstatements of the evidence. So last night we filed a Petition for Rehearing.Read more
Oxnard City Manager Alexander Nguyen claims to have greatly increased transparency at City Hall.
California’s 482 cities are required to report employee wages and benefits to the California State Controller each year.
Can you guess which four cities did not disclose that information for 2019?Read more
Last week, the court decided on two lawsuits between us and Oxnard City Hall.
In the first case – the one that was more substantive – we petitioned the court over the false and misleading language the City Council adopted for the ballot titles and questions destined to appear on November’s ballot. We had warned the council that this was a problem before they adopted the language on July 17. They didn't listen.
Many voters do not read more than the ballot title and question when making a decision on how to vote ... so it is especially critical that the language be concise, accurate and impartial. Otherwise, the City is abusing its power by placing its thumb on the scale of democracy.
In this lawsuit, WE were the prevailing party. Here are just a few snippets of what Judge Borrell wrote in deciding this case:Read more