Fairfax recall organizers report obstruction by Town Hall

A group of Fairfax residents attempting to recall two members of the Town Council submitted additional signatures to the town clerk this week to initiate the process.

The recall effort, which targets Vice Mayor Lisel Blash and Councilmember Stephanie Hellman, is being motivated by concerns over a new rent-control ordinance and proposed zoning changes to stimulate the construction of new housing.

The first step in the process requires the recall group to collect a requisite number of signatures on two notices of intent to circulate a recall petition. The group submitted 42 signatures for each notice of intent on April 22, but then learned it needed more.

“The law changed quite a bit in 2022,” said Joshua Spivak, a recall expert and research fellow at the California Constitution Center at Berkeley Law.

After surviving a recall himself on Sept. 14, 2021, Gov. Gavin Newsom signed two recall bills into law on Sept. 20, 2022. One of the mandated changes was an increase in the number of signatures required on notices of intent to recall.

Lynnette Shaw, chair of the recall committee, said that on Wednesday her group submitted 155 signatures for the Hellman notice of intent and 156 for the Blash notice of intent. Members of the committee say that town officials have been uncooperative in providing them with some of the basic information necessary to exercise their legal right to mount a recall.

Under the law, the committee had 10 days to submit the necessary 60 signatures for each notice of intent, but Deputy Town Clerk Christine Foster declined to return the 84 signatures initially gathered, thus preventing their reuse.

Candace Neal-Ricker, a member of the recall committee, said that turned out not to be a problem.

“Every single person that signed the original was willing to sign again,” Neal-Ricker said.

She said 80 people sought her out because they wanted to add their names to the list.

However, Neal-Ricker said, Town Attorney Janet Coleson has also refused to answer basic questions about the process.

Coleson, in an email to the Independent Journal, wrote, “We are not permitted to give advice on initiatives, referenda or recalls. That would include discussing required steps with you and having you publish it.”

On Friday, Fairfax Mayor Barbara Coler said, “The town attorney works for the council. We do not authorize her, nor is she paid for providing legal advice to people that are in our community. They can hire legal advice to provide them more information.”

Neal-Ricker said, “The town attorney represents the town of Fairfax, not just the council. This is about a large group of Fairfax residents trying to file in the democratic process, hindering that in any way doesn’t feel very democratic.”

Spivak said that in other states, officials have succeeded in preventing recalls by putting up obstacles.

“In California,” he said, “that doesn’t work.”

Spivak said that while the public doesn’t seem to object to officials supporting officeholders who are being challenged with a recall, “Voters are not happy to see somebody try to prevent a recall through other means.”

Spivak said he recently examined the results of the 1,187 recall elections that have taken place in the United States since 2011 and found that in 61% of the cases the recalled officials were removed from office. He said another 6% resigned prior to their recall election.

When asked for an update on the submitted signatures on Thursday, Foster told the Independent Journal that she is not allowed to speak with the press and that all questions had to be submitted in writing for review by the town manager and town attorney.

Later that day, she emailed back, “A package was received on Wednesday, May 1, 2024, and is under review. The proponents will be notified when the review has been completed.”

Coler said the notices of intent are being examined by both the town clerk and the town attorney.

“They’re reviewing more than signatures,” Coler said. “They’re reviewing to make sure they follow all the procedures.”

Asked what procedures she was referring to, Coler said, “I’m not going to go into that.”

Asked her opinion on whether the recall is a good idea, Coler said, “I’m disappointed. I don’t always agree with our council, but I think they work hard for the community. I wish it wasn’t happening.”

Shaw, however, said, “This Fairfax administration has gone off the rails. The tentative plans to tear down half of downtown and put in high-rises would put hundreds and hundreds of vehicles downtown with nowhere to park.”

Neal-Ricker said, “I don’t believe in changing the town building codes to build up to six stories, and I don’t believe in building on the ridgelines as well.”

If the notices of intent pass muster, the state will certify a recall, and organizers will have 90 days to collect about 1,500 valid signatures. If that happens, a special recall election will be set.

Organizers hope to gather the signatures before Aug. 9 so voters will vote on the recall in November when the other three council seats are up for election. A referendum on Fairfax’s rent control ordinance is already scheduled for the November ballot.

Neal-Ricker, a renter who grew up in Fairfax, said the rent-control ordinance has resulted in fewer mom-and-pop landlords renting their dwellings.

“It’s actually resulting in higher rents for the remaining units,” she said.

Hellman, in an email, wrote, “Until I learn that the people who oppose tenant protections can effectively meet the legal requirements for a notice of intention to circulate a recall petition, I have no comment on this matter.”

Blash emailed: “I’m not able to make a statement now as I need to attend to work.”