An attorney and son of former Mayor Tom Butt filed complaints with the state, county and city Thursday alleging that a Richmond firefighters union campaign for Measure Q, a $120 million fire station bond, used a station, fire engines and city-issued gear to film campaign videos, which is banned by state law.
Point Richmond resident Daniel Butt asked Contra Costa County District Attorney Diana Becton, Attorney General Rob Bonta, the Fair Political Practices Commission (FPPC) and city officials to review the four videos that were released to promote Measure Q. He outlined his complaints in a press release and letters addressed to the agencies, which he shared with Richmondside.
The videos were posted on Oct. 7 through Oct. 9 on the Facebook page of Richmond Firefighters & Community for Yes on Measure Q, a committee sponsored by the firefighters union, IAFF Local 188.
The complaints say the videos were shot inside Fire Station 66 on Clinton Avenue and footage in the ad shows an engine that appears to be parked within a small area of the 83-year-old station — one of the buildings Measure Q would help replace and update.
In the complaint, Butt requested a review of the allegations. None of the agencies who received it have yet issued findings.
Richmondside reached out to Ted Asregadoo, spokesperson for the district attorney’s office, who declined to comment on Friday morning but confirmed that the Butt’s complaint was being reviewed.
In his letter, Butt asked the district attorney Becton to contact the committee and the city of Richmond before Election Day about the videos’ continued use, and to preserve the records he submitted of videos and social media posts. He is seeking penalties for each day of use and each video. Butt requested that Bonta step in if Becton doesn’t act.
Butt said in an interview Thursday that he found the videos earlier this week, after they turned up in his social media feed. He filed his complaint Thursday while also filing a public records act request with the city of Richmond for any permits, fees, access authorizations related to the station, and the videos that were produced.
“It’s a pretty direct violation of the law,” Butt said. “It’s tricking the public into thinking that the city or the fire department itself has some position in this.”
Richmondside on Thursday also reached out to Marcus Faumui, president of IAFF Local 188, for comment about the complaint.
Fuamui declined to comment on the allegations and said that the union would let the respective agencies handle the investigations.
“We had permission and we filed the appropriate paperwork to my knowledge,” Faumui said about filming at the station. “We will let them decide if it was appropriate or not.”
In the complaint, Butt says the IAFF Local 188 committee for Measure Q did not report the use of the station as an “in-kind” contribution in its campaign finance filings.
According to campaign finance documents for the union during the last reporting period, the committee for Yes on Measure Q reported $30,000 in digital ads and paid an Oakland consultant, Telegraph, $6,325 for “videography services.” Telegraph reported paying Afflux Films $5,500 for videography on the committee’s behalf. The committee reported zero non-monetary contributions.
Butt called the FPPC complaint “sort of peripheral” and said the more serious matters relate to the complaints to Becton and Bonta. He said he’s unsure either will act but hopes that his complaint will lead to compliance moving forward.
According to the complaints filed by Butt and still images of the ad, the videos show Engine E66, a sign that reads ‘Station 66,’ vehicles marked with the Richmond Fire Department logo and an engine pump panel lettered ‘Richmond.’
One person is seen wearing city-issued gear while two others wear IAFF Local 188 t-shirts and stand in front of the pump panel. A fourth video, posted on Oct. 9, is a differently captioned version of that footage urging viewers to vote ‘Yes on Q.’
Each video includes a disclaimer saying that “All firefighters were off duty during filming” and that no city funds were used to produce the ad.
Butt argued in his complaint that the gear worn in the ad by one person counts as city equipment or clothing under the city’s political activity policy. He also believes that there are permits and fees needed to film inside of the station.
California Government Code 8314 bans the use of “public resources” that include buildings, vehicles and equipment for campaign activity, whether or not any public money is spent. Those found in violation can face penalties from either a district attorney or the attorney general of up to $1,000 a day plus “three times the value of the use.”
However, the code does allow for the use of public resources for providing information to the public about the possible effects of any bond issue or ballot measure, as long as the activities adhere with state law and “the information provided constitutes a fair and impartial presentation of relevant facts to aid the electorate in reaching an informed judgment regarding the bond issue or ballot measure.”
Butt believes the fire department gained a political advantage by using the station in the ad.
“You wouldn’t have used the trucks in the location if it didn’t offer value for the campaign,” Butt said.
Butt also cited a policy that took effect last month, barring city employees from engaging in political activity on city property that is not accessible to the public.
Richmondside reached out to City Attorney Shannon Moore on Friday who confirmed by email that her office received Butt’s letter.
“Our office is evaluating the complaint now and will likely be discussing it in more detail with the City Council during closed session on November 10,” Moore wrote.
Butt takes aim at Bana for posting ballot box selfie alongside a Richmond firefighter and Measure Q sign
Butt’s complaint references a selfie that was posted and deleted recently by District 4 council member Soheila Bana alongside Richmond firefighter Fernando Ramirez. It showed the two dropping ballots into a county drop box at the El Sobrante Library and a Measure Q sign behind them, resting on the box but visible in the background.
In August, Ramirez signed his name to the in-favor argument for Measure Q, according to city records and the Contra Costa County Voter Information Guide.
Butt called the drop-box photo “kind of a minor thing” though he believed Bana should have “known better.”
“It’s okay to post a picture of yourself depositing your ballot,” Butt said. “But you can’t hold a campaign sign.”
Richmondside reached out Thursday to Bana, who said she was the one who suggested to Ramirez that the two should take the selfie and removed the photo on Nextdoor almost “immediately” after posting it when Butt’s brother, Andrew, commented that she was violating California code. Bana said she was under the impression that her photo with Ramirez was not in violation because he was off duty, in his union shirt and there was “no one around” but removed it “just to be safe.”
California’s Code of Regulations prohibits distributing, displaying, or wearing “any clothing (hats, shirts, signs, buttons, stickers) that include a candidate’s name, image, logo,” and any activities that “support or oppose any candidate or ballot measure” within the vicinity of a person casting their vote or within 100 feet of a polling place, curbside voting or ballot box.
Bana said she believes the complaint is politically motivated, citing the firefighters union’s endorsement of Claudia Jimenez for mayor. Jimenez, a Richmond council member, is locked in a highly contested mayoral race against Ahmad Anderson.
Both Butt and his father have been longtime critics of Jimenez and her allies with the Richmond Progressive Alliance.
“What can I say? Daniel Butt has nothing else better to do but file nonsense complaints,” Bana said. “I’m very shocked and surprised, actually, that instead of working towards improving the facilities for public safety, these important fire stations, they’re working against it because they’re upset that firefighters endorsed Claudia Jimenez.”
Butt said that he’s received backlash online for his position on the issue from those saying he was going after the firefighters.
“People responded, ‘Well, you know, their first responders, Why would you give them shit?’ ” he said. “ Well, we all got to follow the law.”
