HomeMy WebLinkAboutSupptl Info - Rcvd after 3/19/10 - PD MagazineJan C. Harnik
73901 Shadow Lake Drive
Palm Desert, California 92260
March 25, 2010
Mayor Cindy Finerty
Council Member Jean Benson
Council Member James Ferguson
Council Member Dick Kelly
Council Member Robert Spiegel
Dear Honorable Mayor and Council Members:
2 r
r r
N Om�":
Ul m h rin
m -
-400
O -n
.. C'� m
Via Hand Deliv Iy )10.5
m
I am writing in opposition to agenda item XIV (C)12, your proposal to spend taxpayer funds to
pay The Desert Sun to publish a re -constituted "92260" magazine. I believe the decision is a poor
business decision, and more importantly, may be a violation of the Political Reform Act's prohibition on
mass mailings. I urge the council to vote against this proposal.
The proposed agreement is to spend $110,000 for four issues of a Palm Desert magazine, which,
according to the Desert Sun, is to be distributed in home -delivery copies of the Desert Sun, and "direct
mailed to nonsubscribers throughout the city." (Palm Desert Sun article by Gina Tenorio, March 18,
2010). The magazine described as a renamed "92260" and the City will have eight pages "reserved for
city produced content." (Tenorio article).
The Desert Sun currently produces The Palm Desert Sun weekly, an informative and free paper
for our residents. The reason "92260" died several years ago is simple; even in the boon times, it was
not financially lucrative. Presumably, The Desert Sun is willing to re -visit this concept only because it
will be underwritten. This is a good business decision for The Desert Sun, but a poor business decision
for the City of Palm Desert.
This proposal is to spend marketing dollars on our residents and existing market, namely people
that are already in Palm Desert, rather than using these dollars to bring new business and new visitors
into our city. We have, in the past, advertised in Sunset Magazine, the L.A. Times, and other markets
outside our valley to lure visitors from throughout the Southwest and the rest of the country. I
encourage our marketing folks to continue to explore such avenues.
Though I believe strongly that there are better uses for this money, I ask whether the spending
of $110,000 has gone out to bid. In this economy, there are several capable firms, including The Desert
Sun, who would like the opportunity to submit proposals to provide a good marketing product.
1 have observed council meetings in which concern was expressed about the spending of
marketing dollars and need for "quantifiable results." To be sure, the results of marketing dollars are
difficult to quantify but a reasonable attempt must be made. Has there been a revenue projection for
this proposal? Based on the failed history of "92260" it appears that this project has no sustainability
without the city providing taxpayer funds.
At best, this is a funding experiment during an election year with taxpayer dollars. Palm Desert
needs to market itself, and I support doing so. However, the key is return on investment. If you want to
reach the residents of Palm Desert and the guests in hotels, there are other ways to do so with this
expenditure of $27,500 per quarter. If the goal is to encourage tourists from elsewhere to visit and
spend money here, then this is not the way to proceed.
The report that the city will have control over content of this publication is concerning. It is not
clear who will have access. Who will be writing the articles? Who is choosing the subjects? Will they be
promoting the council or their particular pet projects? What journalism standards, if any, will be
required? Is this the City's forum?
This leads me to my ultimate concern that this is the spending of city money to promote
incumbents. I certainly hope such is not the case. Many people have approached me with the same
conclusion; that this paying of the Desert Sun is exactly that. The mass mailing restriction in the Political
Reform Act prohibits the use of public funds to perpetuate elected officials in office.
In addition, the Fair Political Practices Commission has adopted regulations concerning mass
mailings. Although I do not know the content of the proposed pages of city provided content, it seems
likely that this magazine will be promoting incumbents who may be running for re-election. Certainly
the dollar amount, the distribution amount, the location of recipients and the likely mentioning of the
council, the use of their photos, etc. would lead to warranted questions.
Even if the council were to comply with the letter of the law, the law is intended as a floor for
ethical conduct and not a ceiling. It is not a boundary to approach as closely as possible. The safest
conduct for the city is to find the best marketing opportunities to promote the City. Bringing back the
failed "92260" is, at best, a poor business decision.
Stated simply, it is not proper to use public funds in this questionable fashion. Please explore
the use of these funds in a more profitable fashion, or consider saving $110,000.
Respectfully,
cc: John Wohlmuth, City Manager
David Erwin, Esq., City Attorney
Richard A. Ramhoff, President and Publisher, The Desert Sun
Richard A. Green, Executive Editor, The Desert Sun