Can Measure M be changed or not?

Since discovering the hidden text in Measure M that lets the city council remove any restrictions that the money has to be spent on "police and fire" the day after the election the city has waged a campaign of obfuscation (smokescreen!) to try to keep the voters confused. Last Monday, the city council was presented a report that they say was supposed to "correct" this "error." However, when I challenged their latest confusion at the same meeting, they have come up with an new argument.

(This paragraph revised, see comments)

Before we go on, lets just give a quick re-cap of what we've been told every time we ask the same question:

1. First they said it had to be spent on police and fire. The city manager even read from section 150 in a council meeting. We pointed out that there are all sorts of promises in section 150, but they can all be changed because section 120 (amendments) says that the council can change any part of the ordinance, at any time, including the spending plan.

2. Next they told us their special lawyer Craig Steele determined it can't be changed. And they said "we can only go by what he says, we aren't lawyers." Sounds reasonable enough. Except that when someone actually asked Attorney Craig Steele he said things like the "citizen's oversight" committee and the audits and accountability could be removed the day after the election.

3. Next we were told that section about the amendments was just put there because The Board of Equalization asked us to. Not sure what that has to do with if can be changed or not!

4. After more questioning then we were told it was in the state laws. Then we asked where, and we pointed out there was no such law we were aware of, and in fact, the state law says it can be changed IF the ordinance says it can be changed. ("The ordinance" is "Measure M" the thing we are being asked to vote on)

5. So after they couldn't find anything in the state laws, next they said it's in really in the California Constitution. They weren't sure where. When pressed, someone said it was in Article 13. When I pointed out that I have a copy of Article 13C and it doesn't say anything like that, we were next told:

6. It's in the tax code, or the government code or somewhere. (revised, see comments)

Well… it's not there either. So where does that leave us?

Should I get up at a meeting and tell them it's not there either, and demand to know why they keep telling the people all these laws exist in some mysterious place but can never show where, etc? We could. My guess is, at this point, they would find another section of the code and insist it's there, or maybe find some other agency that they claim says something that they don't or say some other lawyer has determined it can't be changed but then change his mind when we ask them. And so on.

One last point: If we are to believe the city "information person," there is some law somewhere, heck, they just can't find it. But let's just say that's right. In other words, they are saying they can't change the measure even though Measure M itself says in plain English it can be changed. And we already know that section 9217 (state law) clearly says it can be changed, in plain English. So then, what the city is claiming is that there exists some mysterous law they can't seem to find that conflicts with the plain English we've already pointed out and talked about. Nonsense!

No, if anything all this suggests that even I wasn't cynical enough. It can be changed the day after the election, and from the "dancing around" the issue, I'm starting to think this was intentional! It does fit with the philosophy of the consultants the city hired. In their documents they stress doing whatever it takes to win. If you want to get a "general tax" increase, they will find a way to get the people to vote for it. From what I can tell, the "survey results" found that no one wanted a general tax increase (low 20's percent), and that would be insufficient to pass even with just the majority vote needed. But they did find that when probed people would support a new, special tax to save your children from drugs and gangs, at high enough numbers to pass even with the higher requirements for the special tax. The numbers (reportedly) went up to 66% -- exactly the number needed.

So, it doesn't at first seem to make any sense to try to pass off a general tax as a special tax. A special tax needs a super-majority to pass, and a general tax just needs a majority. In this case, it's just possible that someone did a quick calculation that showed a general tax could never pass, but a special tax might. The problem is, the city didn't want a special tax, they wanted a general tax. No problem. And what happened next isn't documented, I can only speculate. But somehow, in some mysterious way no one can explain, section 120 B just appeared in the Measure M ordinance. It looks like a special tax, and people might vote for it because they think it's a special tax (Manteca people said loud and clear they don't want another general tax) … but it can be instantly converted to a general tax the day after the election.

Now I'm not sure which is actually better, I'm no fan of special purpose money. But, there is no support for a general tax increase, and so I think the voters should know before deciding that Measure M is really a general tax that can be spent on Big League Dreams or planters downtown or the city bus or lucrative raises for administrators, or anything. It's masquerading as a "special tax" that will make you "safer" in some almost magical way by paying policemen and firemen more money or giving the union bosses better retirement plans.