Joyce Starosciak

Suspect of Stabbing Caught, But It’s Not Enough.

Suspect of Stabbing Caught, But It’s Not Enough. City Hall, Community, Police No Responses »

Mar 242012

Yesterday, a young woman was stabbed to death by her boyfriend near downtown San Leandro. The stabbing was witnessed by a friend and the suspect was quickly caught. Of course, that doesn’t do the victim any good. Nor did the quick arrest of another man who also stabbed his 15-yo girlfriend to death earlier this year.

I congratulate the Police for their quick work, but I can’t but wonder if these murders demonstrate a much larger problem of domestic abuse that we are not seeing. And behind that, a greater problem of men who are growing up without the coping techniques to deal with anger and frustration and know little else but to resort to violence.

Domestic abuse is not a police problem. Washing our hands and looking at the police to arrest perpetrators is of little use. At the moment you are hitting your wife or killing your girlfriend, you are not rational enough to be thinking “I better not do this or I’ll go to jail.” This is a problem that we need to address earlier, from the moment a child enters kindergarten, and we must do it as a community.

I salute our public schools for having initiated the anti-bullying program at the elementary schools. I know that at Roosevelt it works great, my daughters report that there is very little teasing going on, much less violence. Things seem to be different at the Middle School and High School, and as the District is forced by a declining budget to cut counselors it will even get worse.

The City, of course, could very well step up. It could fund those counselors as well as early-intervention programs for children who are showing signs of anger problems and violence. It could institute outreach programs to victims of violence, direct them to existing services and so forth. When he was running for election Mayor Cassidy listed proudly his seat at the Board of Building Futures for Women and Children, a shelter for victims of domestic violence, but what we need are programs, not just warm seats.

The City Council and the Mayor will cry that there is no money for social services such as these. However, they have little trouble finding it to fund needless lawsuits and enriching their employees. Just last Monday they approved a $500,000 parting gift for four staff members. Right before I reminded them of their greater obligation to the community – but the vote was still 5 to 2 (with Cutter and Cassidy voting against it).

What we need in this town is leadership. As a woman, I applaud the fact that four of our Council members are women and that three of our top-level City staff are as well. But for years, women have been saying that if they were elected to office, if they had positions of responsibility, they would do things differently. It’s time they follow with those promises.

Councilwomen Joyce Starosciak, Diana Souza, Ursula Reed and Pauline Cutter – show yourselves! Get off your comfy chairs, take your lips off the butts of City staff (to be fair, this doesn’t apply to Cutter), and show that leadership. Create programs to help the community, find the funding and don’t whine. You were elected to do a job, do it!

And the same goes for Assistant City Manager Lianne Marshall and Deputy City Manager Jacqui Diaz. Justify your six figure salaries!

Of course, leadership is not enough. There has to be a commitment from the community to address the issue of domestic violence, but few things take place without someone taking that leadership.

Endorsements: Do they Matter?

Endorsements: Do they Matter? Local Elections for Dummies No Responses »

Mar 152012

Short Answer: No

There are many things that voters should look into when choosing which candidate to vote for, but endorsements from politicians, parties, organizations and even prominent individuals is not one of them. The unfortunate fact is that most politicos and organizations do not endorse based on the quality of the candidate, but based on factors such as personal ties, political advantage, likelihood of winning and willingness to do their bidding.

For Voters: How Candidates get Endorsements

Incumbency/Likelihood of Winning

Endorsements usually go to the candidate deemed most likely to win, which is usually thought to be either the incumbent or the candidate that has raised the most money. This is true for both individual and institutional endorsers. Most endorsers want something in return for their endorsement (even if simply access or future support), and they’re more likely to get it if their endorsee wins. In addition, some candidates have a reputation for vindictiveness, and politicos or organizations may not want to irate them by endorsing their rivals.

A couple of examples. During the 2010 Mayoral election, the Police Union initially endorsed City Council member Joyce Starosciak. Not only was she a staunch police supporter (her husband is a sheriff deputy), but the conventional wisdom back then was that a woman candidate, going against two males, would win. As the campaign developed and it became clear that Starosciak wasn’t doing well, the Police Union hurried to co-endorse the incumbent Mayor Tony Santos (who had a reputation for vindictiveness). During the 2008 campaign, the San Leandro Teachers Union (SLTA) endorsed Carmen Sullivan for School Board, but only after it was clear that she was the only candidate running. Sullivan was at the time a supporter of Superintendent, which the SLTA wanted to oust.

Personal and Political Ties

It makes sense, if a candidate is your friend you are likely to endorse him. Some ties are very old and very strong. For example, Congressman Pete Stark had a standing policy of not endorsing candidates in non-partisan races when more than one Democrat was running. However, he broke his rule and endorsed Julian Polvorosa, a long time friend, for City Council during the 2006 race. Charlie Gilcrest, a local campaign manager who has been active in the Democratic party for close to forty years, obtained the endorsement of practically every politician in the East Bay when he ran for City Council in 2008, even though he’d never held elective office.

There is also an unwritten rule that if someone works in your campaign, you endorse them when they run for office. For example, Governor and former Oakland Mayor Jerry Brown recently endorsed Libby Schaaf for Mayor; she used to work for him.

Not everyone follows this rule. Ellen Corbett, in particular, is much criticized for putting political considerations above loyalty to her former supporters. That strategy came back to hurt her, however, when she ran against Eric Swalwell for Congress. Most of those former supporters turned on her. They knew she wouldn’t have their back. Smart candidates, however, pay their political debts.

Political Alliances

Often times endorsements are the result of political alliances. An endorser who doesn’t care much about the outcome of a given race, might endorse a candidate at the request of a political ally or, in case of politicians, big campaign contributors that do have a steak in that race.

Affinity Politics

African American politicos almost always back other African Americans. This is less true for Latino and Asian politicos. It makes sense. As minorities, you want to build the influence of your community in the political arena. The problem is that the candidates they back are not always going to be the best.

Similar Agenda

Organizations, in particular, are likely to endorse candidates who have similar agendas (or views) to their own. This can be a good or bad thing, as far as voters are concerned, depending on whether they know what the actual agenda of the organization in question is. For example, the SLTA backed Hermy Almonte and Morgan Mack-Rose in the 2008 School Board election, because they also wanted to get rid of the Superintendent.

Some membership nonprofit organizations, however, have been “infiltrated” by members who are more interesting in political power than furthering the cause. Endorsements from the Sierra Club, for example, are often suspect.

Tit-for-Tat

Business associations, in particular, are likely to endorse candidates based on what they think the candidates can do for them. The Rental Housing Association and the Association of Realtors, for example, will endorse candidates that will vote against rent control measures. The Chamber of Commerce will likely endorse candidates that won’t vote to raise the minimum wage. The Police and Fireman unions will endorse candidates that are willing to give their departments the most money, raise their salaries and pensions, and do not insist in holding their departments accountable.

Pettiness

Often times, endorsements are actually based on pettiness. In 2010 the SLTA endorsed Corina Lopez for San Leandro City Council – even though they had never before endorsed in City Council races – because she was running against Pauline Cutter, whom they opposed because she had supported the Superintendent they didn’t like. In 2012, the SLTA president endorsed Ursula Reed because she was running against Morgan Mack-Rose whom, as School Board president, had angered the SLTA leadership. In the current election, Diana Prola endorsed Leo Sheridan, and worked hard to get him the endorsement of the Democratic party and of labor, because he’s running against Latrina Dumas. Dumas was a parent supporter of that controversial Superintendent and often spoke out in her favor at School Board meetings.

Democratic Party

The candidates endorsed by the Alameda County Democratic Central Committee are often those that have powerful interests behind them. Candidates often hire Alliance Campaign Strategies, a campaign management firm run by a member of the ACDCC’s executive committee, as a way of assuring themselves the Democratic endorsement or at least blocking that of their opponents. There is a lot of behind the scene deal making and threats. Occasionally, the endorsements do go to the candidates that best exemplify Democratic values, but often that’s not the case.

The Democratic endorsement is considered very valuable, however.

Newspapers

A newspaper’s endorsement will be based on the political views of their current editorial board. In the case of the Bay Area Newsgroup papers (Oakland Tribune, Daily Review, etc.) their endorsement is based solely on how much a candidate knows about the financial situation of the city/district they are running for, how much they understand the nature of their unfunded liabilities and how they plan to address this issue.

Whose endorsement should you actually pay attention to?

My own, of course. I’m sort of joking, but I do actually stand by the candidates I endorse, whom I’ve chosen based on their liberal ideology, knowledge base and ability to do the job.

The endorsements you really should pay attention to are those of people you know and respect, who know the candidates and, preferably, the requirements of the office for which they are running. For example, I decided to vote for Latrina Dumas for San Leandro School Board in part due to the fact that a friend of mine, who has been involved in the schools for many years and understands what the School Board does, fully recommended her. Sure, I did my research, but her first-hand opinion mattered greatly.

Beyond that, pay attention to endorsements that actually explain why a candidate is chosen over another. The Green Party, for example, provides explanations of their endorsements, though unfortunately they don’t include San Leandro. The East Bay Express and other newspapers do as well.

For Candidates: Which endorsements should you seek?

You should seek endorsements from organizations or people:

1- who will give your campaign financial contributions

2- who will get others to contribute to your campaigns or throw fundraisers for you

3- who will put elbow grease into your campaign

4 – who have a “base”.

One of the reasons why labor is so powerful in the Democratic party is that they can do all of those things for you. While you can definitely win against a candidate endorsed by labor (Mayor Cassidy did in 2010 and Benny Lee in 2012), it’s definitely easier if they are behind you.

An endorsement from the Democratic Party, on the other hand, is much less powerful because it’s “passive,” i.e. it doesn’t come with anything attached.

In addition to the unions, there are several PACs that will give you campaign contributions, often considerable ones. They usually won’t do anything more than that for you, but money is essential for running campaigns. Of course, most of those PACs will want something from you in return.

Having big politicians endorse you is usually, in itself, not that useful – it may help your ego, but voters are seldom impressed -, unless those politicians also contribute to your campaign directly or indirectly. Mayor Cassidy, for example, gave Pauline Cutter’s Mayoral campaign $2,000 and has helped her campaign behind the scenes. Other politicos, on the other hand, usually do little more than sign their names and, if you are lucky, record a robocall for you. If you are running, it’d behoove you to find out which endorsements are worth pursuing.

The value of big-name endorsements, however, is in convincing other endorsers that you’re the most credible candidate, and thus generate the support of more endorsers, in particular those who will give you money because they believe you’ll win.

For local campaigns, volunteers are just as important as money, if not more so – so pursuing the endorsement of people and groups that are willing to put time and effort into your campaign is time well spent. For example, the San Leandro Community Network, a now defunct local political and civics organization, did not make financial contributions to political candidates, but its members provided lots of very valuable volunteer work, from graphic design to data management and computer services, to phone banking, walking and flyering. The candidates they supported saved thousands of dollars (tens of thousands, in the case of Cassidy) by having SLCAN members work on their behalf. Similarly, in San Leandro you want to get Jim Prola’s endorsement (though he’ll rarely endorse someone until Labor endorses them first), because he LOVES walking door to door and he’s great at convincing people to vote for you and put up a lawn sign.

Finally, you want the endorsement of people who have influence among the voting population you are targeting. Some times those people are politicians, but most often they are not. In general, the higher up the ladder the politician is, the less influence s/he has with the voters – at least for what I can see. Stark’s endorsement did little to help Polvorosa, Corbett couldn’t help Santos and Hayashi didn’t help Starosciak. That’s because people who are in Washington or Sacramento most of the time, are unlikely to be able to keep their bases energized and loyal. But you can’t even count on local politicians to have bases – they need to be built, and that requires a lot of time and effort. Currently, in San Leandro, I’d say there are only a couple of politicians that actually have influence over a large number of voters.

Non-politicians can actually be more influential. Go after people who are thought to be “on the know” and reasonable by many members of the community. Long-time teachers, coaches and principals are great endorsers, as hundreds if not thousands of voters may have personal experiences with them (just make sure the teachers were well thought of). Endorsements by community leaders are great as well. Religious ministers can endorse you in their personal capacity – so it’s not a bad idea to seek the endorsement of those who have particularly large congregations.

Some endorsements from well known people are more problematic. My endorsement, for example, may lose you as many votes as it gains you. The same can be true of PTA and Homeowner Association presidents – often times there are as many people who dislike them as who like them.

How to get the endorsements you want

Organizations, such as the Alameda Labor Council and the Democratic Party, usually have procedures for getting their endorsement and you should look them up on their website. As for the rest, you need to call – and ask to meet with them. And then you sell yourself to them. To do so, you need to be prepared. You need to know why you are running, how your values match theirs, what your position is or would be in a number of different issues, and how you differ from your opponents. Cold calling is fine, but it’s best if you can have someone with influence with them call for you first, or at least let you use their name when you call (i.e. “I’m running for X, so-and-so suggested I meet with you).

Now, as I mentioned above, some endorsements are very political and a simple meeting won’t do it. For those, try to find someone in the know to give you some hints on how to approach them.

If you have any questions or comments, feel free to contact me.

SLT’s Guide to Local Elections

This article was updated for the Nov. 2014 election.

Short Recap on the Rules Committee Meeting re: the Ban on Entertainment & Recreation in San Leandro

Short Recap on the Rules Committee Meeting re: the Ban on Entertainment & Recreation in San Leandro City Hall, Faith Fellowship v. SL case No Responses »

Mar 042012

Committee Members ask few questions, make fewer comments, decide to pass the buck back to the City Council.

Thursday afternoon, the San Leandro City Council’s Rules and Communication Committee met to discuss the staff (read city attorney’s) proposal (read intense push) to amend the Zoning Code to ban entertainment and recreational use in industrial areas of San Leandro. As one of the City’s attorneys made clear last week, the reason for the ban is to help on the lawsuit against Faith Fellowship.

Every single non-staff speaker at the meeting: community members, the Chamber, business owners and yours truly spoke against the ban. Twenty first century companies, specially high tech ones, realize the importance of combining work with relaxation, and appreciate nearby recreational facilities which allow their employees to let off steam, and them come back to work. An entertainment/recreational ban will discourage those companies from moving into town.

The Planning Commission has voted twice against the ban. The Board of Zoning Adjustments expressed its disapproval. Plenty of people have spoken against it, and the city has not heard ONE community member speak or send an e-mail in favor of this (I checked). And still, there seems to be a strong will to give away the future of the city for the potential legal advantage (one that I don’t quite get) in a lawsuit we are going to lose anyway.

Among the speakers at the meeting was Pastor Gary Mortara of the Faith Fellowship Church. He said that as a community member he doesn’t want to hurt the city, his interest is in getting a property for them to build a church (I’ve been suggesting that we give him the former Albertson’s property, this would put 1700 people downtown every Sunday, as well as many during the week). He asked that the City not hurt the community for what’s a matter between them.

For me, giving away the future of this city for whatever legal advantage we may get in one case is just bad public policy.

The rules committee did not recommend against the code change, however. Mayor Cassidy seems to prefer to add assembly use to the area rather than ban entertainment and recreation, but wants more time.

Council member Jim Prola is stuck on the 70’s and wants to preserve manufacturing. He also wants to attract high tech companies, but even though he has no experience working for one, he believes he knows all about them and won’t listen to what people with experience have to say. Prola is a great guy, but he’s very reluctant to go against staff on anything that is not labor-related.

As for Ursula Reed, I’m not clear where she stands. I think she was very much in favor of doing what the City Attorney told her (she’s not an independent thinker, and usually just rubber stamps what comes from staff), but she’s starting to realize how detrimental that would be to San Leandro. She is also running for re-election this November, possible against Chris Crow (who has been very vocal on his opposition to this ban), and she may not want to antagonize voters on yet another issue. She’s already made enemies by pushing the purchase of i-pads for City Council members and top staff and by voting for red light cameras, even though they will cost the City money in the long (and probably short) run. That said, Reed is not the most politically savvy person out there.

As for the rest of the Council, Diana Souza indicated last week she’d vote for the ban, which I’d expect from her. Souza came to the Council with only two issues in mind: building a lap pool in Washington Manor and getting rid of the Links shuttle. She was unsuccessful on both counts, and has since taken a very anti-community attitude. She’s termed out and has no prospects for a political career, so she has no accountability whatsoever.

Joyce Starosciak will probably vote for the ban as well – or at least abstain. She also kisses the staff’s butts whenever possible, though she should be wary of this decision if she actually plans to run for office again (and she has a committee for a City Council run in 2016). Pauline Cutter also has a tendency to rubber stamp and she often has great difficulty understanding issues she’s unfamiliar with – for some weird reason her concerns about the zoning change had to do with parking (?!). Finally, Michael Gregory is hard to predict, though he never goes out on a limb, so I’d say he’ll vote for the ban as well – unless the Council seems to be moving against it. He doesn’t like to make waves.

The one thing that really bothers me is that none of them (save for Cassidy who is, after all, a lawyer) seem to be able to grasp the actual issues at play. I know it’s not just my inability to explain them – there have been many speakers, using different languages and arguments to do so. I think it’s just their lack of experience outside their personal spheres, their laziness vis a vis researching matters on their own or thinking about them, and their unwillingness to stand for something.

As next election cycle comes around, I can only hope that a couple of competent, intelligent candidates run.

San Leandro City Council Systematically Violates Open Meeting Laws

San Leandro City Council Systematically Violates Open Meeting Laws City Hall, Legal, Transparency 3 Responses »

Feb 062012

It’s worse than I thought, but is it intentional or just careless?

Just ask public officials, perhaps over a few beers, how they feel about the pesky public looking over their shoulder as they try to “get things done.” They hate it. Public oversight means they have to worry about following the law, hiding any corrupt deals and being held accountable for their actions.

As the corruption facilitated by secrecy has dire consequences for society at large (just think of the City of Bell), the California legislature long ago passed the Brown Act to guarantee the public notice and access to government meetings, and the California Public Records Act to grant access to government documents. Local governments have been trying to skirt them ever since.

I have noted before actual and threatened violations of these laws by the San Leandro City Council. Recently, I’ve become aware of a number of recurring and and very serious violations that allow the City Council to deliberate secretly. I’ve given the City the benefit of the doubt – perhaps nobody at City Hall is actually aware of the law or perhaps they’ve just been careless – and I’ve written to City officials* requesting that they cease these violations. How (and whether) they respond, and more importantly whether they actually comply with my request to obey the law, will be very indicative of the trustworthiness and ethics of our City Officials and our City Attorney.

The following are the Brown Act violations that I’ve discovered in the last few days

The City Council Appears to Have Deliberated Secretly on the Sale of the former Albertson’s Property

The City Council agenda for Feb. 6th, 2012 lists “Conference with Real Property Negotiators” as one of its closed session items. It says that they are currently negotiating the “price and terms of payment” with Innisfree Ventures II, David Irmer’s development firm. This implies that the City Council has already agreed to sell the former Albertson’s property to Irmer, or at least has discussed it; you don’t negotiate a price for a property you are not ready to sell. The Brown Act requires that any discussion on the sale of the property as well as any instruction to the City Manager (or anyone else) to initiate negotiations for the sale of the property, must be done in open session, after being properly agendized. A search of the agendas, minutes and other public records in the online Public Records Database maintained by the city, did not produce any records of such discussions or decisions. It would appear that these discussions were made informally or in closed session, in violation of the law.

The City Council Mislabels Public City Council Meetings as “Closed Sessions”

The City Council publishes agendas both for its open and closed sessions. Closed sessions usually start at 6PM and open sessions at 7PM. Agendas for closed sessions are labeled “Closed Session” while those for open sessions are labeled “Regular Meeting” or “Joint Meeting with Redevelopment Agency.” I was just informed by the City Clerk, however, that a portion of the meeting labeled closed session is actually an open session, in which the City Council can transact all sorts of business, including making required announcements. But as the meeting is not labeled “open session,” or “regular meeting” or anything other than “closed session,” the public has no reason to know that this is a meeting they are free to attend. The results are that practically nobody is likely to go to these meetings, and thus nobody witnesses what was said or not said there.

The City Council Fails to Include All Required Items in the “Open/Closed Session” Agendas

The Brown Act provides that “[n]o action or discussion shall be undertaken on any item not appearing on the posted agenda.” However, it would appear that actions and discussions not appearing in the agenda are actually carried out in what the City considers to be the “open” part of closed sessions (hereby described as “open/closed sessions”). This came to my attention on Friday, when I e-mailed the City Council et al. to alert them to the fact that while the Brown Act allows the City Council to meet in closed session with property negotiators, as it was itemized in the agenda for the Feb. 6th meeting, the negotiators’ identities must first be announced in open session. The City Clerk responded by saying that there would be an open session prior to the closed session in question, thus suggesting that the announcement would be made at that point. However, the agenda for that open/closed session only included two items: Roll Call and Public Comments. This is, indeed, the case with all the closed session agendas that I’ve seen. So it would appear that the City Council conducts business during these open/closed sessions that is not disclosed in the agenda

The City Council Fails to Keep Minutes of the “Open/Closed Session” Meetings.

California law requires the City Clerk to “keep a correct record of [City Council] proceedings”, and indeed, minutes and/or recordings ** are produced and posted online for regular open session meetings. This does not appear to be the case, however, with respect to open/closed meetings. For example, there are no minutes for the Dec. 13th, 2010 open/closed session, even though a number of people (including myself) attended and made public comments at that meeting.

So basically we have a situation in which the City Council seems to 1) be holding public meetings without alerting the public about it, 2) not including all items to be discussed in the agenda and 3) not keeping minutes of those meetings – all in violation of state law.

There is yet another serious way in which the City violates the Brown Act:

The City Council Fails to Disclose the Subject of Anticipated Litigation

The Brown Act allows the City Council to meet in closed session to discuss exposures to litigation against the City. However, the law also provides that the closed session agenda must describe the “facts and circumstances” which have exposed the City to litigation, except when such facts are not known to the potential plaintiff. A quick look through a sample of City Council agendas from 1998 on suggests that those facts and circumstances are never disclosed, even in cases where it’s very clear that the potential plaintiff is quite aware of what those facts are (e.g. the murder of Gwendolyn Killings and the disagreement with Dan Dillman about the use of the Bal Theatre).

The disclosure of this information is very important for the public as it allows San Leandrans to keep a closer tab on how the City is fulfilling its legal obligations towards the community. A plethora of circumstances that make litigation against the Police Department likely, suggests that there are serious troubles with that institution. The City Attorney’s judgement that the City may be sued for employment discrimination or Brown Act violations, will shine some light into what’s going on at City Hall. Litigation is also very expensive, so it behooves the public to keep a close eye on what the City is doing to bring about lawsuits against it.

I find this pattern of violations of Open Meeting laws to be very disturbing. I can only hope that they will be addressed immediately by our City Officials. I will keep you posted of any response I receive.

– * I sent my initial e-mail to Mayor Stephen Cassidy, City Council Members Michael Gregory, Ursula Reed, Diana Souza, Joyce Starosciak, Pauline Cutter and Jim Prola, City Attorney Jayne Williams, Community Relations Representative Kathy Ornelas and City Clerk Marian Handa. Handa responded to that message, also copying City Manager Chris Zapata and Assistant City Manager Lianne Marshall.

– ** Minutes and/or audio from meetings from January 2011 on can be found at http://www.sanleandro.org/depts/cityhall/council/audio/audiostream.asp

RCV in San Leandro: A Primer to the Nov. 2010 Mayoral Election

RCV in San Leandro: A Primer to the Nov. 2010 Mayoral Election Featured, People, Politics 25 Responses »

Aug 272011

Tony Santos is at it again. Since being defeated by Stephen Cassidy in the November 2010 San Leandro mayoral election, Santos has made no secret of his bitterness and resentment. He has blamed anyone and everyone (excluding himself) for his defeat and has committed his forced retirement to the cause of defeating “ranked choice voting” throughout the country. He’s written letters, had himself interviewed, and in his latest stunt, he testified in Sacramento against making it easier for California cities to institute ranked choice voting. He is sure, he will tell you, that ranked choice voting was the ultimate culprit for his loss. And he may be right.

It is difficult, even for insiders, to get a good grasp of the 2010 mayoral campaign in San Leandro. Santos had been in and out of City Hall for decades. He was running for re-election as Mayor with the support of Labor, fire fighters, and, at the 11th hour, the police. He was confident, even cocky, that he would easily win. After all, no elected-mayor had ever lost re-election in San Leandro (one appointed mayor, who’d promised not to run prior to his appointment, did lose). Incumbents have many advantages in city races: they enjoy name recognition, can easily gather up endorsements and have a much easier time raising money – nobody wants to say no to a sitting Mayor or City Council member. In addition, voters who don’t pay particular attention to city politics and are not extremely dissatisfied with city services, tend to vote for incumbents. For this reason, sitting San Leandro mayors seldom face serious competition; it was almost incomprehensible to Santos that he would face not just one, but two credible opponents.

Council woman Joyce Starosciak seemed like an unlikely Mayoral contender. In 2010, she was half-way through her second term in office, and could list few accomplishments and fewer long-term plans for San Leandro. If her intentions were to actually run the city, it’d have made the most sense for her to wait until 2014 to run, when Santos would be termed out. Starosciak, however, was in a hurry. As Assemblywoman Mary Hayashi’s heiress apparent, Starosciak was posed to run for Assembly in 2012. She’d be better positioned to win if she did so as Mayor of San Leandro, than as a mere City Council member. She had good reason to believe she could win: a top campaign manager, lots of money (including some from a Hayashi-associated PAC), and support from the police (her husband is a sheriff deputy with Alameda County). Most importantly, Starosciak was a woman. After Ellen Corbett was elected to the California Senate in 2006, defeating better funded male opponents, the conventional wisdom within political circles was that women had a natural advantage in democratic districts (and San Leandro is heavily democratic). Starosciak’s main message during her campaign was indeed “I’m a woman and a native of San Leandro.” It was a message that Santos feared.

Stephen Cassidy’s reasons for running in 2010 were murkier. He had been elected to the San Leandro School Board in 2004, after defeating a well-connected incumbent, but after four tumultuous years in the Board he’d chosen not to seek re-election (he had, however, engineered the election of two friendly candidates in his stead). He had long been rumored to have further political ambitions so it wasn’t a complete surprise when he decided to run for Mayor. He did so basically with a message of competency: “elect me and get someone who can actually read a budget and think long term.” Cassidy’s political strategy was to appeal to distinct voter groups with slightly different messages: to conservatives and the elderly, with a message of fiscal responsibility; to parents, with promises of better relations between the cities and the schools; to Spanish and Chinese speaking voters, with fliers in their own languages. Cassidy’s underdog status meant that he was unable to get big donations from corporations and PACs, but he made up for it by building an impressive grass-root apparatus and tapping into the professional experience of his supporters. Cassidy recruited a former evangelist for Apple Computer, an expert on messaging, as his campaign manager. A local graphic designer put tens of hours of work into his campaign literature and his website while a top computer programmer provided back end and mailing list support. Another techie was in charge of his voter data analysis. The other candidates had to pay tens of thousands of dollars for similar services. Meanwhile, an army of volunteers organized fundraisers and house coffees, walked, telephoned, wrote letters and passed on fliers for his campaign (full disclosure, I helped Cassidy with his campaign in the initial months). Cassidy himself spent over a year walking the streets of San Leandro and introducing himself to voters. His was a grass-root campaign at its best.

The November 2010 San Leandro city election was the first time in which ranked choice voting (RCV) , also known as “instant runoff voting,” would be used in San Leandro. The city had amended its charter to permit ranked choice voting early in 2000, but had only implemented it a few months before. The appeal of RCV to city staff was that it allowed for both general elections and runoffs to be conducted at one time, saving staff time and the city money. Progressive members of the City Council liked that RCV allowed elections to be held in November (rather than June), which meant they’d have greater voter participation. However, RCV was not popular with all City Council members. Starosciak, in particular, wanted to change San Leandro’s elections back to a plurality system, where the candidate that got the most votes would win, even if s/he did not reach 50% of the votes. Given the assumption that female candidates had a natural advantage with the electorate, Starosciak figured a plurality system would virtually guarantee her winning. Her plan never got much traction with the other members of the Council, however.

As discussions for implementing ranked choice voting got more serious in early 2010, then-Mayor Tony Santos became its biggest advocate. He was seduced by the rhetoric of Fair Vote, an organization that lobbies for RCV, and convinced by his friends in Labor to push the City into implementing RCV for the 2010 elections. He went as far as suspending a tied vote on RCV, so that a City Council member that had been absent for the vote could break the tie and have the ordinance pass. Santos later said that supported RCV because he had been told RCV mostly benefited incumbents.

As the 2010 Mayoral race developed, none of the campaigns had a firm grasp on who the top contenders were and how RCV would play into the equation. The Santos campaign conducted an informal telephone poll at the end of the summer which showed Santos in the lead, with Starosciak a distant second. Though the poll was methodologically flawed, Santos took it as a sign that he would easily win and that Cassidy wasn’t a threat of any kind. While he delighted in attacking Cassidy through a friendly blogger, he didn’t feel compelled to put much effort into his campaign. He rarely walked, never fliered, and his first mailer did not even arrive until several days after absentee voters had received their mail-in ballots (ideally, you want to have your mailer arrive at the same time as the ballots, so your name is fresh in the mind of those voters who like to vote right away). It wasn’t until mid-October that Santos’ campaign realized that Cassidy posed a considerable threat: more and more people they encountered were openly supporting Cassidy, the city was blanketed with his lawn signs, and letters to the papers were overwhelmingly in Cassidy’s favor. Santos’ campaign quickly issued a mailer answering Cassidy’s charges against him and put forth robo-calls from, among others, Senator Ellen Corbett, urging voters to vote for him. This helped him enormously with poll-day voters, but it was too late to impact those who had already mailed their ballots.

Starosciak’s campaign was in trouble from the moment Cassidy entered the race. As most challengers, Starosciak needed to run on a message of “change,” but as a sitting member of the City Council there was just so far she could carry this message without convincing voters that they should vote for Cassidy, the outsider, instead. Cassidy’s criticism of City Council’s actions – like spending all the city’s reserves – while primarily aimed at Santos, also applied to her. She couldn’t answer the charges, however, without helping Santos’ own campaign. Her strategy, then, seemed to be to keep out of the fray and run on her gender, personal charm and San Leandro native status. While she ran a more energetic campaign than Santos, and hired people to walk and make phone calls for her campaign, she never really acquired much momentum. By the fall, even the police had abandoned her and co-endorsed Santos.

Cassidy, meanwhile, kept pushing his message of “competence” and “fiscal accountability,” accusing City Hall of mismanagement at every possible turn. His big issue was “pension reform” for City employees. This made him terribly unpopular with the employee unions and Labor but hit a nerve with local voters as even the Democratic candidates for Governor and State Treasurer started to talk about the need for pension reform at the state level.

Of the three campaigns, the only one that seemed to take RCV into account was Cassidy’s. As he and his supporters walked and called voters, they specifically asked those who expressed support for one of the other candidates, to mark Cassidy as their second choice. Neither of the other two campaigns seem to have done this. Indeed, Santos’ campaign showed contempt for the whole RCV process by telling supporters to not mark second or third choices.

One of the biggest criticisms of ranked choice voting is that final election results were not available until weeks after election night. This proved to be the case in San Leandro. Election night results had Santos winning the first round by 62 votes (out of over 20,000 cast); two weeks later, when all second and third place votes had been counted, Cassidy was ahead by 232 votes and was declared the winner. Santos could not accept the results, and to this day he has not conceded defeat.

At first glance, it would appear that Santos is right when he blames RCV for his defeat. He did have 62 more 1st-place votes than Cassidy and in a plurality system like the one Starosciak advocated, Santos would have won. However, San Leandro specifically got rid of plurality elections in 2000, after Ellen Corbett and Shelia Young became mayor with less than 50% of the total vote. San Leandrans did not want a mayor which the majority of the people had not elected.

Had RCV not been implemented in San Leandro, the Mayoral elections would have taken place in June 2010, with the two top candidates facing a runoff in November. Given the lack of independent, accurate polling data (polls are too expensive to conduct for most local elections), it’s impossible to say what would have happened if that had been the case. Starosciak only received about 20% of the first-choice vote in November, so it’s reasonable to believe she wouldn’t have been one of the two top vote-getters in June, but a longer campaign cycle together with the increased media attention to Cassidy’s pet issue, pension reform, probably benefited Cassidy considerably. It definitely allowed him more time for both campaigning and fundraising.

But had Cassidy and Santos been the top vote-getters in June, it is by no means clear who would have won in November. Santos would have surely benefitted both by knowing who his real opponent was and how popular he was. If the election had been as close in June as the first round was in November, Santos would surely have seen the need to step up his campaign. Given how well he did with poll-day voters once he took campaigning seriously, that may very well have given him a victory.

On the other hand, a June-November election cycle might also have benefited Cassidy. Cassidy’s main problem, as is the case with all underdog challengers, was raising enough funds to put forth a credible campaign. A good June placement would have demonstrated to political contributors that Cassidy was a very viable candidate and would have likely opened their wallets. Such placement would also have re-energized Cassidy’s volunteers and brought additional supporters into the campaign.

An additional factor that cannot be accurately assessed is who Starosciak would have endorsed. After her November defeat she was quite bitter with both Santos (who made a series of serious personal attacks against her during the campaign) and Cassidy (whom she sees as having stolen the election from her), so it’s hard to envision her supporting either.

In any case, we will never know. We also don’t know how the November 2010 San Leandro RCV election will affect future elections in San Leandro or elsewhere. Future candidates will hopefully learn of the importance of seeking 2nd and 3rd choice votes. Note that this does not mean that candidates will necessarily run “kinder,” less negative campaigns. Candidates in races with clear front runners need to attack their records in order to take votes from them. If anything, what an RCV election may do is focus political attacks on the front runner(s), but that is just as true in regular elections.

When all is said and done, Santos has nobody to blame for his defeat but himself: he antagonized voters by treating them callously during public fora and by taking unpopular positions (e.g. not supporting San Leandro Hospital, dismissing fears about crime and supporting a large affordable housing project), he put little effort into running his campaign and he did not take RCV into consideration in his campaign strategy. Other incumbents can learn from his mistakes.

Older Entries