SPENDING GUIDELINES SPUR DEBATE; CHALLENGERS NOT HONORING VOLUNTARY CAP ON FUNDING.

Byline: Teresa Jimenez Daily News Staff Writer

The three incumbents and three challengers running for the Newhall County Water District board are disputing whether the guidelines for a volunteer campaign expenditure cap were misleading.

The cap, set by the Newhall district board in June, created a spending limit of 25 cents per resident for the Nov. 4 election under guidelines established by Proposition 208.

At the same meeting, the board tried to estimate the population in the district to calculate a total, but decided it would have to be determined at a later date. Candidates Tom Campbell and Valerie Thomas were present at the meeting.

The ordinance, however, states that the district has fewer than 10,000 residents - an inaccurate number that board members this week attributed to a typing error. The population is actually about 25,000, bringing the spending cap to more than $6,000.

``Whereas, in local jurisdictions with less than 100,000 residents, a campaign expenditure limit of $1 per resident can be established; and whereas, the district has less than 10,000 residents . . .,'' the ordinance states.

Lynne Plambeck, an incumbent running in the election, said the 10,000 was supposed to read 100,000, mirroring the reference in the previous sentence about Proposition 208 guidelines for small communities.

The challengers - Campbell, Thomas and Barbara Dore - said the inaccurate ordinance prompted them to decide not to observe the voluntary spending cap.

But the incumbents - Plambeck, Ed Dunn and David Rapoport - have argued that the candidates knew the statement was inaccurate and should have clarified the issue rather than declining to honor the spending limit.

The flawed ordinance has become an issue in the campaign because the incumbents have noted that the challengers have already amassed war chests of about $5,000 each. The incumbents have yet to raise $1,000 each.

They have also pointed out that Campbell, Dore and Thomas are three of nine candidates statewide who declined to operate under a voluntary spending cap. They are the only candidates to raise at least 65 percent of their respective districts' cap, according to the state Fair Political Practices Commission.

``We're new to all this,'' Dore said. ``We didn't think the population was that low, but we thought, well, if that's what they think it is. . . .

``We acted on the information that was available to us. (It's not right) to say we should have known better than to depend on their own printed document.''

But Plambeck said the challengers have enough political and community knowledge to know an error was made.

``I can see how that may have been confusing if that's all you had,'' she said, ``but Tom Campbell was there. He heard the discussion about the population. He called the registrar to get his own population number.''

Plambeck added that the board clarified the population number Sept. 11. About a week later, Campbell and Dore filed a notice with the registrar's office, as required, stating they had raised 65 percent of the $6,000 cap, she said. With a population of 10,000, the limit would have been $2,500 and the 65 percent mark would have been reached at $1,600.