Update 2: Cuthbert to Pay $2,500 for Illegal Mailer; Mayor Hits Shiff Remarks

Updated at 9 a.m. Wednesday

Ten months after mailing a postcard to 15,000 La Mesa households endorsing three challengers for City Council, Peter Cuthbert has agreed to pay a $2,500 fine for violating elections law—leaving his name off.

Staff of the state Fair Political Practices Commission has recommended that Cuthbert, a La Mesan since 1955, pay for what it judged an illegal slate mailer. The fine becomes official after a Sept. 22 commission hearing in Sacramento.

The mailer—sent about a week before the Nov. 2, 2010, election—endorsed mayoral challenger Laura Lothian and council hopefuls Ian Shiff and Kevin Rynearson, and urged certain votes on propositions. 

By adding the propositions—to fill up “white space” on the reverse, he later said—Cuthbert pushed the mailer into violation territory.

But Cuthbert, in his early 80s, hadn’t registered the name of the mailer’s sponsor—La Mesa Coalition for Better Government—with state authorities as required.

The maximum fine of $5,000 possible in the case wasn’t levied, however, because none of Cuthbert’s actions “appear to include anything more than negligent behavior,” the FPPC said. (See attached documents.)

“Respondent has no prior enforcement history and has no prior experience with campaign reporting,” the FPPC report noted. “Respondent has fully cooperated with enforcement in the investigation of this matter.”

In fact, Cuthbert said last year that the night he learned about his mistake, he immediately wrote a letter to the FPPC to “just fess up.”

Mayor Art Madrid filed a formal complaint with the FPPC after winning re-election to his sixth term.

When informed of the penalty after Tuesday night’s council meeting, Madrid said he would have filed the complaint “irrespective who the person was. There was no gray area.”

He rejected the word “vindication” as being an appropriate reaction.

“You can’t flaunt the law and then apologize” about making a mistake, Madrid said. “That’s why we have the FPPC—to be an independent arbiter. Peter won’t do that again.”

Shiff* still expressed outrage over Madrid filing the complaint.

“Peter is someone who I feel should NOT be punished for this act of ‘sore-winning’ from our mayor,” Shiff said in an email Tuesday morning. “It’s a shame he stooped so low to defame his former friend even after he was re-elected. Sour grapes and politics sure do mix into a fine whine in La Mesa.”

Shiff said Madrid shouldn’t feel vindicated, but “he should be embarrassed. His vindication should come in the form of lowering crime rates, cleaning up the city, and repairing the broken relationships within the city.”

Shiff added in an email:

I am looking forward to the City Council race of 2012 when Laura Lothian is elected and even more to 2014 when Art Madrid either retires or loses his last election—when free speech, fair politics and fiscal responsibility can return to La Mesa.

This is a sad day when a small mistake can cost a concerned citizen $2,500—when all he was trying to do was express his right to free political speech by supporting candidates who are trying to put money back in people’s pockets—not take money out of a retiree’s pocket like our Mayor just did to Peter Cuthbert. I hope Art is happy for throwing Peter under the bus, it’s no wonder they are no longer friends. Who needs friends, when your enemies are your constituents?

Tuesday night, Madrid said that Shiff admitted giving biographical information to Cuthbert for the mailer and so Madrid assumed Shiff should have known he’d be in the mailer.

In late October 2010, Cuthbert said: “My objective is to get the mayor out.”

For his part, Madrid said at the time that Cuthbert “knowingly broke the law,” since the mailer includes more than four candidates or propositions.

Wednesday morning, Madrid added via email: “I’m not surprised with FPPC’s decision; it was a clear open and shut issue as shown in the commission’s summary and stipulations.”

The mayor also hit back at Shiff, saying his “comments are typical of his entire campaign—allege and then deny. He initially denied knowing anything about the mailer and then admitted he had talked with Pete and gave the bio information he wanted included. The same for Lothian.”

Madrid also wrote:

As I said last night, this is not about vindication; it’s about holding people accountable for breaking the law regardless of who the individual is. What is evident to everyone is that two of the three candidates used Pete for their own political gain; rather than trying to deflect blame, they should admit that you were an integral part of the scheme and refund their share of the fine to Pete.

Speaking in fall 2010, Cuthbert said that he had told the mailer's printer: “I think I ought to put my name on the mailer,” but he said the printer—whom he declined to identify—said, “You don't have to put it on.”

Cuthbert said he “never thought about” the FPPC.

The FPPC said Cuthbert spent a total of $5,130.38 on the production and distribution of the mailer, “and [he] was required to provide the name, street address, and city of the committee on the outside of each piece of mail in a mass mailing. The mailer did not include this information.”

This was a violation of Section 84305, subdivision (a), of the Government Code, the FPPC said.

According to the FPPC order, Cuthbert has agreed to pay the state a $2,500 penalty.

Also said the order: “Complainant Roman G. Porter, executive director of the Fair Political Practices Commission, and respondent Peter Cuthbert agree ... to enter into this stipulation to resolve all factual and legal issues raised in this matter and to reach a final disposition without the necessity of holding an administrative hearing to determine the liability of the Respondent, pursuant to Section 83116 of the Government Code.”

Cuthbert and Lothian have not responded to calls for comment.

*Editor’s note: An earlier version of this story incorrectly said that “Shiff said his name appeared on the mailer without his prior knowledge.”