Pauline Cutter

Pauline Cutter is the current Mayor of San Leandro.

Before that she served for many years in the San Leandro School Board, and was elected Board president by her peers three times. She spent one term in the City Council before being elected Mayor. She’s a pre-school teacher by profession but has promised to be a full-time Mayor.

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.

Slate Mailers: Or how do you spell “Voter Deception”

Slate Mailers: Or how do you spell “Voter Deception” Local Elections for Dummies, Politics 4 Responses »

Oct 162012

Election Digest slate mailer from June 2012

If you are a frequent voter, chances are that you will get a lot of political mail this month. Most will be mailers touting a candidate or promoting or opposing a proposition or measure. But you will also get at least one slate mailer, probably more. These mailers come with titles that suggest they are sponsored by specific organizations. “Firefighters recommend,” “The Nurses guide”, “Democratic guide”, etc. etc. In reality, they are commercial ventures owned by private companies that sell space on their slates to political candidates. Usually candidates for the top offices are included for free, both because the candidates wouldn’t pay to be on the slates and because the other candidates want to be associated with them. But pretty much anyone running for local office will have to pay – how much will depend on the office (the higher the office, the greater the expense) and the number of voters who will receive the slate mailer. In addition to paid candidates, the slate mailers include recommendations for positions to be taken on particular propositions. These are usually paid as well.

While slate mailers can seem partisan – by using the name of a political party or a particular cause or by the choice of presidential/governor candidate they feature -, in reality they will take anyone who pays. The “Election Digest” slate mailer, for example, usually features Democratic top-ticket candidates, but it drew attention in Southern California when it included both President Obama and a candidate for judge who is a well-known “birther” and had been working to disqualify Obama from appearing on the state ballots. The judge won.

In San Leandro, several candidates for the 2014 election are paying to be included in mailers. Deborah Cox and Corina Lopez have both sunk over $3K in mailers. They will both appear in the “Voter Guide“, which comes in Democratic, Republican and independent versions featuring the national and state partisan candidates for each party, included for free, and the local candidates that pay for inclusion. Thus you may very well find Cox or Lopez appear in both the Democratic voter guide and the Republican cone. Cox paid $1249 to be included in this guide, while Lopez just $712.

Cox and Lopez will also appear in the “Californians Vote Green“, for which Cox paid $992 while Lopez paid just $422. Cox and Lopez will be joined by Mayoral Candidate Pauline Cutter in the COPS voter guide. Cox got a good deal on this one, she only paid $741 while both Cutter and Lopez ponied up $889. The three are also featured together in the “California Latino Voters Guide,” which is sent just to Latino voters, though only Lopez is Latino. Perhaps that’s why she only had to pay $350, while Cox and Cutter paid $400.

Shut out of the apparently more popular guides, District 1 candidate David Anderson paid $500 to appear in the Democratic Voters Choice slate mailer. I look forward to seeing him there.

Of course, the candidates may still appear on other slate mailers that they had not paid for – or disclosed – by the end of September.

Do Slate Mailers work?

Candidates use them because they are cheaper than sending their own mailers (a mailer sent just to the most frequent voters in San Leandro will cost about $9,000) and because they fear that if they don’t put their names on them, their opponents might. Experts believe that mailers do work. If nothing else, it helps build name recognition for the candidate and associates him with some cause or top-tier candidate voters support.

In my experience, however, commercial slate mailers don’t seem to make that much of a difference. It might help with name awareness, but not to a significant extent. Part of the reason is that there are competing slate mailers, part that they are so cheaply printed, and part that they offer no actual reasons why anyone should vote for any of the candidates.

Should Candidates Pay to be on Slate?

In general I would say the answer is “no”. It’s definitely unethical for a candidate to pay to be on a slate that communicates a message different from her own or that attempts to deceive voters as to who is supporting her. It’s less of an issue to pay to be on a slate that only includes certain candidates with common characteristics, such as “candidates endorsed by the Democratic Party”.

Another problem is that slate mailers associate a candidate with others who may have drastically different ideas that his own. That association may end up being harmful. There is also something unsavory about being on a slate that advocates positions on propositions that go against your own.

As you can see on the graphic above, I actually did appear on a commercial slate mailer on my last election, as part of a group of people running together for 10 available seats. My group did not have to pay for placement (thus the lack of an asterisk) and this particular mailer is not particularly deceitful, but I’m still less than happy to have appeared on it – and I’m pretty sure it made little difference at the polls.

This article was updated for the Nov. 2014 election

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.

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.

Newer Entries