Submitting your campaign financial disclosures to the FPPC over two years late is frowned upon in Sacramento. They don't appreciate things like that.
Yesterday I sent a note to City Hall about this matter. Hopefully they will see the value in helping to solve this mystery and take me up on this. After all, they too have a stake in the matter.
The reason I changed my mind about this was due to a couple of comments that were left on Friday's article about the topic by someone I believe is from the Yes on UUT camp. Here is how that went.
This cruel and unnecessary guilt trip was followed a few hours later by the following.
It struck me as odd that I should have suddenly become the prime witness that the missing 2016 Yes on UUT paperwork actually exists, and had been submitted to City Hall a couple of years ago. This based on a Tattler article that had been run here back in April of 2016.
One person who had joined in on the conversation had it right, I think. Why shouldn't this person just produce a copy of the actual paperwork and be done with it?
The article the Yes on UUT commenter is referring to is this one.
The rest of the article, which does actually delve into 2016 Yes on UUT matters, can be linked to here. Here is what the irate commenter from that campaign was referring to on Friday.
So here's the catch, which makes the claims that I am the unlikely sole proof that the Yes on UUT Form 460s actually exist even more dubious than they first appeared. I didn't write the above article. It was written by a thoughtful guest writer who went by the handle "Concerned Sierra Madre Resident."
Which means that I, along with City Hall, have never seen the 2016 version of the Yes on UUT's financial disclosures AKA Form 460s. Possibly because they were never done, and do not exist. A flagrant violation of state campaign law.
Besides, I don't write all of the articles that appear on The Tattler, as you know.
All that said, hopefully that missing paperwork will turn up soon, and this mystery will finally be put to bed.