SAN BERNARDINO >> A letter signed by all of the city’s policy makers asks President Donald Trump for help fighting crime and the use of drugs in the city, including marijuana, which majorities in the state and city voted to allow.

But the letter, sent before White House Press Secretary Sean Spicer said Thursday to expect “greater enforcement” of federal laws against recreational marijuana, doesn’t actually have the support of everyone who signed it.

“I must have missed that part,” Councilman Benito Barrios said of the references to marijuana. “I don’t agree with it at all. As a council, we understand that the voters have spoken and they want us to regulate. … We have to create safe public use.”

• Read the letter: San Bernardino asks President Trump for help with crime, drug use in city

Mayor Carey Davis drafted the letter Feb. 13 and then had it signed by all seven City Council members as well as the city attorney, city manager and police chief.

The letter begins by congratulating Trump, then reminds the president of the Dec. 2 terrorist attack and of Trump’s offer to send federal assistance to stop the “carnage” in Chicago.

“As San Bernardino emerges from bankruptcy we are striving to revitalize our community but continue to face many challenges including violent crime,” the letter continues. “Many of these crimes revolve around illicit drug trafficking, including marijuana. … In order to more effectively reduce crime it would help our city to gain the support and partnership of the U.S. Department of Justice in our efforts to address illicit drug and marijuana trafficking.”

Davis said by phone that, given the national attention San Bernardino got after the attack, he estimated there was more than a 50 percent chance the White House would at least respond, and he disagreed that San Bernardino had expressed its preference to regulate rather than ban marijuana.

“The main backers of that (Measure O) were not from San Bernardino,” Davis said. “When you compare that to the percentage of voters that voted in favor of Measure L, the charter reform, that was a clear message, I think, on the part of the voters.”

Measure L passed with 60.57 percent of the vote. The marijuana regulatory plan of Measure O received 55.12 percent, and a competing pro-marijuana measure, N, received 51.1 percent (it will not go into effect unless Measure O is invalidated, as two lawsuits seek to do.)

A third alternative, the city-drafted Measure P, failed with 48.45 of the vote.

Councilman Henry Nickel said that voters were duped.

“I’ll be honest, I think the voters were lied to regarding Measure O,” Nickel said. “Measure O promised $19 million to $24 million annually. We have not seen any indication that in fact that is the case. Much like what we saw when voters were duped into supporting the high-speed train, voters that did support it are now realizing that this is something that we need to repeal, whether it’s through litigation or the ballot box.”

The revenue forecast, which was included on the ballot summary sent to voters, was based mostly on the $5 per square foot fee on cannabis businesses included in Measure O. The study was done by Beau Whitney of Whitney Economics, who is also vice president of regulatory and government affairs at Golden Leaf Holdings, a cannabis oil and solution provider.

City officials have not yet implemented Measure O, which was passed in November. They say updating the municipal code to incorporate it is time-consuming, and more recently have said they don’t want to devote significant resources to implementing a measure that might be reversed because of lawsuits filed earlier this month.

Barrios said Davis read the letter to him over the phone, then later presented him with a copy to sign. The letter is two pages, including signatures.

“I read the first paragraph to see that it was the same,” Barrios said. “What I understood was it was about the crime that we had and receiving additional funds. It happened pretty fast, and I think I was the last one to actually sign it. I saw all the other signatures, and being in alignment with the group is important.”

Davis said most of the signatures were collected at a committee meeting and the others signed soon afterward, after verifying with City Attorney Gary Saenz that signing the letter without a public City Council meeting didn’t violate the Brown Act, which generally requires policy decisions be made publicly.

Davis said he didn’t remember sending similar requests directly to President Barack Obama, instead working with the appropriate agency or with U.S. Senator Barbara Boxer and Rep. Pete Aguilar. Both of those officials, like Obama and unlike Trump, are Democrats.

“We might still go through that channel,” Davis said. “That door hasn’t been closed. And, like we said, there’s been some attention on the part of this administration, so we hope going direct will get us a faster response and some assistance.”