Michael Gregory

Choices for Art Commission Show Nepotism at Play

Choices for Art Commission Show Nepotism at Play City Hall, Community No Responses »

Jan 142015

butterfly Note: this article has been slightly expanded.

If you start seeing a lot of sad and mediocre public art in San Leandro, you know whom you have to blame: the past and current members of the City Council who chose to appoint friends to the newly created Arts Commission instead of people with any sort of knowledge or experience in the Arts.

When the City Council created an Arts Commission to decide on how to beautify San Leandro though art, they had the opportunity to populate it with outstanding artists and arts professionals. Instead, three Councilmembers, Michael Gregory, Ursula Reed and Benny Lee, decided to chose their friends and political supporters, despite their obvious lack of qualifications in comparison to other applicants.

In District 1, Michael Gregory appointed his friend Jeni Engler to the Arts Commission. Jeni is a very nice woman, an elementary school teacher, a great volunteer with Friends of the Library and a great supporter of the theater program in her church. She and her husband have been friends with the Gregories for a long time, they attend the same church and Michael Gregory honored them with a service award in 2013. However, Jeni Engler does not have either an educational nor professional background in either fine or performing arts, and she listed no art involvement beyond supporting musical theater.

The people Michael Gregory did NOT choose included:

– A professional artist/painter and former docent at New York’s Museum of Modern Art with an MA in Art.
– An artist and Alameda County Arts Commissioner with a BA in Studio Art and an MA in Art Administration, who previously worked at the Art Institute of Chicago
– A professional graphic designer with degrees in Photography and Graphic Design
– A lawyer/artist, with a certificate in studio art & printmaking
– A retired graphic designer and artist very involved in the local art scene (ultimately appointed to the Arts Commission by the Mayor)

In District 2, Ursula Reed appointed friend and political supporter Dina Herrera, whom she had previously appointed to the Parks & Recreation commission, despite the fact that Herrera did not file her application to the Commission until after the date when the Council was supposed to announce their nominations. Indeed, Herrera’s application was not included in the packet I received from the City Clerk because I had specified I only wanted those available to Council members before they made their decision. Herrera has been a strong supporter of Reed, endorsing her in multiple races and participating in her political fundraisers. According to Herrera’s application, her qualifications for being in the Commission are: “I am an active community member. I would love to help beautify San Leandro and my own children perform in San Leandro’s Theater Programs”.

In order to appoint Herrera, Reed rejected the timely filed applications of:

– An Arts professor/writer/reviewer/judge/curator/art producer with a BA in Studio Art and an MA in Curatorial Practice.
– A graphic designer with experience producing Latin music shows.

In District 4, Benny Lee appointed friend and political ally Martin Wong, who listed no involvement with the arts in his application beyond being vp or a church chorus. Lee rejected:

– A local artist
– The technical director of the California Symphony Orchestra, who has a BA in Sociology
– A Mexican American community member with a BA in Anthropology and coursework on museum curating

Things were better in the other parts of town.

In District 3, Diana Souza appointed Susan Harlow-Schott, the only person who applied.

In District 5, Pauline Cutter appointed Anna Edwards, an amazing African-American artist. There were other qualified applicants, including a typeface designer and professor at California College of the Arts, a brilliant professional sculptor/artist and a curator and artist coach who worked as Deputy Director of the San Francisco Arts Commission (she was appointed to the Commission by Mayor Cassidy), but I don’t think anyone can doubt Ms. Edwards’ qualifications.

And in District 6, Jim Prola appointed Kathleen Ott-Davis, an art designer with a BA in Fine Arts over two other applicants, a professional singer of Portuguese Fado and Prola’s own wife (who paints).

The City invited people who did not reside in San Leandro, but who are involved in the cultural life of the community, to apply for an at-large appointment to the Arts Commission. There were a couple of extremely qualified applicants, including the Executive Director and curator of a mobile public art gallery with decades of experience in art exhibitions and promotions and a Mexican American professional artist who runs an art promotion company, but neither was chosen by Mayor Cassidy.

One single at-large space remains in the Commission.

Arts Commission Applications

Dina Herrera’s application

Is Head Librarian SLPD’s Chief Next Target?

Is Head Librarian SLPD’s Chief Next Target? Police No Responses »

Jun 102013

A scene from the movie “Flowers in the Attic.” The SLPD considers the book to be “child pornography”.

An Open Letter to Chief Sandra Spagnoli

Dear Chief Spagnoli:

You have requested that the public alert you about “similar incidents” to those concerning the charges for child pornography filed against SLHS teacher Rick Styner.

According to court documents, as reported by the media, these charges arise from “more than 200 pornographic stories” found on his computer, including one about a 14-year-old girl having sex with her brother, reportedly accompanied by the naked picture of a girl that looked to be underage.

The story mentioned in court records sounds very much like “Flowers In The Attic
“, the best seller by V. C. Andrews. The novel – which was made into a very bad movie
– concerns four siblings that are raised hidden in an attic and repeatedly abused. As the children enter puberty, the older siblings start to develop sexual feelings for one another, and they consummate that relationship when the girl is 14 years old.

I have checked the San Leandro library catalog, and it would seem that the library does have multiple copies of this “pornographic story”. It would thus seem prudent that the SLPD get warrants to search the homes and computers of all library personnel responsible for distributing such “child pornography”.

“Flowers in the Attic” has sold over 40 million copies worldwide, and it’s a favorite among teenage readers. It would therefore seems likely that the book is also present in San Leandro school libraries and English classrooms. The SLPD should not take any chances and start investigations into all SLUSD librarians and English-language teachers. Perhaps the SLPD should get a court order to have Amazon.com and other booksellers disclose the identity of everyone in the city that has bought a copy of this “pornographic” novel, so the investigation can become even more inclusive. Who knows what other untold crimes people who read this story may be committing?

Of course, I understand that the problem is not only this “pornographic story” in Mr. Styner’s computer, but the fact that it was illustrated with a picture of someone who appeared to be underage. While there may be a question about the age of the model in that photograph, there is no question that actress Thora Birch was only 16 when she appeared nude in the Oscar winning film American Beauty. The main library, and undoubtedly hundreds of San Leandrans, have a copy of this movie and thus, according to SLPD standards, seem to be in possession of “child pornography.”

As you probably also know, when I wrote my article on the Styner investigation, I linked to pictures of Brooke Shields in Pretty Baby
– a movie in which she appeared nude when she was barely 12 years old. Not only should the SLPD thus be able to arrest me, but everyone who read my story and clicked on the link. I should be able to provide for the Chief the IP addresses of everyone in that situation. Will arrest warrants follow?

Thank you, once again, for your commitment to keep San Leandro free of any real crime. I support your crusade to clean the bookshelves of San Leandro’s citizens. It’s definitely a much more important endeavor than paying attention to pesky little things like robberies, actual burglaries, domestic violence and, the peskier of them all, corruption and misconduct within your own department.

Sincerely,

Margarita Lacabe

—

This letter was e-mailed to Chief Sandra Spagnoli and copied to Mayor Stephen Cassidy, the other members of the City Council, City Manager Chris Zapata, Assistant City Manager Lianne Marshall and City Attorney Richard Pio Roda.

Jim Prola appointed Vice Mayor; Diana Souza, Chief Whiner

Jim Prola appointed Vice Mayor; Diana Souza, Chief Whiner City Hall, Politics No Responses »

May 232013

Jim Prola

Council Split in Two Camps

The last item on last Monday’s agenda of the San Leandro City Council was the selection of the Vice-Mayor. It had been put off from a previous meeting as the then current Vice Mayor, Michael Gregory, had been absent. Gregory made a motion to nominate Jim Prola for the position. Pauline Cutter quickly seconded him and then Mayor Cassidy immediately called for a vote. He left no room for discussion, counter-motions or public comment. Of course, other council members could have interrupted to offer their own motions nominating someone else – but they didn’t do so. The vote went 4-3, with Gregory, Cutter, Cassidy and Prola voting to make Prola Vice-Mayor, and Ursula Reed, Benny Lee and Diana Souza voting against him.

Diana Souza

The reasons for this pretty unusual vote came clear at the end of the meeting when Diana Souza paid homage to her mentor Joyce Starosciak (who, you will remember, left town because she couldn’t deal with the pain of not having been elected Mayor), to sing her own “why don’t you love me” swan song. She said she didn’t vote against Prola because he was unqualified – all of them, said Souza, are equally qualified -, but because she wanted to be Vice-Mayor and she’s never gotten the chance. She blames this on her willingness to stand up for her principles rather than compromise (principles such as “we should spend all our money building an Olympic swimming pool in the Manor”, “people shouldn’t be allowed to raise chickens or bees”, “no marijuana dispensaries in town”, “porn theaters yes, Shakespeare no in the industrial district”, “let the police do as they will”). I don’t know if I’ve ever seens as clear an example of the Dunning–Kruger effect.

Almost as interesting as Souza’s public whining session, was the fact that it was done without an actual vote against her. Either Lee or Reed could have a motion to nominate Souza as Vice-Mayor – Reed, indeed, made it clear on her comments that she voted against Prola because she wanted Souza to have the position -, but they didn’t. This begs the question as to why. The obvious answer is that they knew Souza didn’t have the votes to win – which is the sort of thing that can only happen if you’ve been breaking the Brown Act right and left to find out how your colleagues are voting.

I’m not sure what to make of the fact that Souza and her cohorts voted against Prola knowing that he had the votes to win. It solidifies the theory that Souza is not going to run for Mayor against Cassidy, but rather that her appearances around town were part of her campaign for Vice-Mayor. Ursula Reed, on the other hand, is ostensibly running for Alameda County Superintendent of Schools and you would think she would know better than publicly spiting Prola. Prola, after all, has a lot of influence in Democratic and labor circles, and while he’s not personally petty, Reed’s vote shows a lack of common sense that is unlikely to make her many friends.
The vote, moreover, solidifies the division of the City Council into two camps. Interestingly, the Reed-Souza-Lee camp is the more solid of the three. They are driven together as much by conservative social views and loyalty to the police (the police union were huge contributors to the Lee and Reed campaigns, and Souza has other reasons to be grateful to them), as by their unwillingness to move to city forward. The other four Council members form an uneasy alliance, as their political views run the gamut and they don’t necessarily share the same vision for the City. On the other hand, they do seem to take their job more seriously. It will be interesting to see if this split stays in future votes such as that on the marijuana dispensary.

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.

Want to fix San Leandro? Run!

Want to fix San Leandro? Run! Featured, Politics 7 Responses »

Apr 282011

Are you, like me, unhappy about the idiotic decision the San Leandro City Council made in renewing the contract with Redflex, the red-light camera company, for eight years? Do you wonder how we got into that whole pensions mess that risks bankrupting the city? Are you angry that the City pays its law firm over $1 .2Million a year but cut down on swimming pool and library hours and did away with the Cherry Festival and the Christmas Tree lighting? Well, you have no one but yourself to blame. YOU are the one who voted for this Council. It’s YOUR fault.

Ok, that’s sort of unfair. I voted for them too. Truth we told, we didn’t have a choice. Most of members of the City Council ran unopposed or faced opponents with even fewer qualifications than themselves. We voted, in many instances, for the lesser of two evils – but a lesser evil is still an evil.

Ask anyone who follows San Leandro city politics closely and they’ll tell you the biggest problem is finding competent candidates. Running for office (if you get a serious, even if incompetent, opponent) can be expensive and time consuming, there are few perks to being a Council Member and, if you take your role seriously, it’s a lot of work. Unless you need an extra $1200 a month or have political aspirations, the only reason to do it is to help your community – and lets be honest, most of us are not that civic minded. But without that civic mindedness we end up where we are. So really, take on the challenge – run for office!

The next City Council elections will be in November 2012. The seat for District 4, which mostly includes Washington Manor, will be up for grabs as Starosciak will be termed out. Prola (District 6, the Marina) and Reed (District 2, southeast San Leandro) will face re-election. To run for a city council seat you must live within the borders of the district you are running for (look at the map) – so if you don’t live in those areas you’ll have to wait until 2014 (when Gregory from District 1 and Souza from District 3 will be termed out, Cutter from District 5 will probably run for re-election).

I’ll be honest with you: running for City Council is not going to be easy. In District 6, Jim Prola is virtually indestructible. Not only does he come with all the strength of organized labor behind him, but he’s a tireless campaigner. He’ll walk every street of San Leandro during the campaign – twice – and will have fun doing it. Ursula Reed, on the other hand, is more vulnerable. While defeating an incumbent in San Leandro is very hard (Michael Gregory, for example, easily got 65% of the votes in the last election), it’s not impossible as Cassidy’s defeat over incumbent Mayor Santos showed. Reed ran a very good campaign in 2008, but it was against an opponent who relied on her name recognition alone and did not campaign. Reed received a lot of support from part of the progressive community in 2008 that may no longer be there in 2012. I think that a progressive candidate that could create a good grassroot campaign would be able to defeat her.

The District 4 Washington Manor seat, however, is wide open. There have been whispers about a couple of people running for that seat but nobody has announced as of yet and none of the potential candidates are well know. If you live in the Manor, you are smart, competent, willing to do a lot of work and make sound decisions – and preferably (for me) progressive, you should seriously consider running.

The Alameda County Democratic Party will be holding a “running for office” workshop on May 14, 2011, 9 a.m. – 1 p.m at UFCW Local 5 in Hayward. This would be a great place for you to start if you are intrigued by the notion of a 2012 City Council run. For more information e-mail info@acdems.org or call 510.537.6390.