Fairfax rejects recall filing for 2nd time

Fairfax officials have once again rejected the paperwork necessary to launch a recall of two Town Council members.

“We’re going to redo it again,” said Lynnette Shaw, a leader of the recall effort. “We’re not giving up, because we have to save Fairfax.”

Shaw said that since learning of the latest setback, the group has received an offer of technical assistance from a group of East Bay residents attempting to recall Alameda County District Attorney Pamela Price.

Deputy Town Clerk Christine Foster notified the group backing the recall of the latest rejection at about 6:30 p.m. Friday, after its members submitted notices of intent to circulate a recall petition to Vice Mayor Lisel Blash and Councilmember Stephanie Hellman in person before the council meeting on Wednesday.

The recall group’s top concerns are the two council members’ support for transformative residential development in the downtown area and a new rent-control ordinance.

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 recall group first submitted the notices together with 42 signatures for each council member on April 22.

Foster rejected the initial notices, stating that they lacked a sufficient number of signatures. Legislation signed by Gov. Gavin Newsom in 2022 increased the number of signatures required for notices of intent. Foster declined to return the notices to the group, so it had to restart the process from scratch.

On Wednesday, the recall group submitted new notices of intent along with 155 signatures for the Hellman notice and 156 for the Blash notice. This time, however, Foster cited two new problems, although the only apparent change from the first submission was the number of signatures.

“We came back with the exact same thing,” Shaw said.

According to Foster’s letter to the recall committee, it neglected to include a sentence notifying the candidates being recalled that they have seven days to respond to the notices, and it failed to submit an affidavit to the clerk that the candidates had been served with the notices.

Shaw, however, said the law provides seven days in which to submit the affidavit, so it wasn’t yet overdue. Foster did not respond to questions regarding the process.

Candace Neal-Ricker, another member of the recall committee, said the group tried to verify with Town Attorney Janet Coleson that they were meeting all the requirements of the law when they submitted their second batch of notices of intent.

“She will not respond with anything other than sending us state statutes,” Neal-Ricker said. “We cannot get clear answers from her.”

On Friday, Mayor Barbara Coler said the town attorney is authorized to provide information only to the Town Council, not members of the community.

“This is a typical problem we have with the town,” Shaw said. “They are secretive, uncooperative and disrespectful. They’re disrespecting the people’s voice.”

Foster has again declined to return the new batch of notices of intent to the recall committee.

Shaw said the recall committee plans to make changes to its notices of intent before resubmitting them with even more signatures. She said this time more emphasis will be placed on the council’s ambitious plans for seven, multistory residential buildings in the downtown.

In an email, Lisel wrote, “In the short time I’ve been in office I’ve reached out to constituents with diverse viewpoints in order to understand and address their concerns. I’m saddened that this group has chosen such a costly and divisive path. It is the right of the petitioners to attempt a recall, but I don’t think their plan of replacing every current council member is in the best interests of our community.”

Hellman declined to comment, saying she needed more to fashion a response.

Shaw expects to avoid future technical errors now that she is getting the help of people who are more experienced with recall efforts.

“I put together exactly what they need to have in the next letter,” said Chris Moore of Piedmont. “I’m managing the Pam Price recall in Alameda County so I’m pretty familiar with what has to be done.”

If the notices of intent are eventually approved, the state will certify a recall, and organizers will have 90 days to collect about 1,500 valid signatures. Organizers hope to gather the signatures before Aug. 9 so Fairfax residents can 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.

That may seem like plenty of time, but Joshua Spivak, a recall expert and research fellow at the California Constitution Center at the University of California, Berkeley, said that recent state legislation complicates the picture.

“They did a lot of stuff to make recalls take longer,” Spivak said.

Spivak said the laws are also full of technical pitfalls for the inexperienced citizen seeking to recall a public official.

For example, recall petitions must “include a margin at least one inch wide across the top of each page and a margin at least one-half inch wide along the bottom of each page.” A separate document must list the recall’s top funders “in 14-point black roman type font on a plain, contrasting background, centered horizontally.”

There is even a question, based on changes in the law implemented by Assembly Bill 2582. whether Fairfax residents would be allowed to elect replacements to the council members should the recall prove successful. The law might allow the Fairfax Town Council to appoint its successors.