San Leandro Times

Feb 232012
 
San Leandro Mayor Stephen Cassidy

San Leandro Mayor Stephen Cassidy

It would appear that Mayor Stephen Cassidy wrote to San Leandro Patch editor Tom Abate complaining about an article Abate wrote about the last City Council meeting. In the article, Abate characterized the City Council’s move to change the Zoning Code to help in the legal battle with the Faith Fellow Church as a “CYA* strategy”.

While Abate mentioned the complaint he received, he didn’t say who made it.  Still, Abate didn’t deny that it was Cassidy when I so suggested.  And Cassidy has a tendency of trying to influence the press  On several occasions he’s written to me complaining about specific things I’ve written either on this blog or on Facebook.   He actually e-mailed me to complain that the title of the article I wrote on the same  meeting, “City Council Moves to Ban Entertainment in Most of San Leandro,” was misleading.   It’s difficult to understand how that was so when the agenda for that meeting included a motion to approve an ordinance doing exactly that.

Cassidy is not the only Mayor who has wanted to assert his influence on the press. I’ve heard that the San Leandro Time’s editor had been called to City Hall under the previous administration – Santos objected to the publication of letters critical of the City’s actions.

Still, is it proper for a Mayor to try to influence the press? Is he just doing his job as the self-appointed head of PR for the City, or is he violating the first amendment guarantee to freedom of the press? What do you think?

 

*CYA = “Cover Your Ass”

Jul 142011
 

For the last couple of years local news junkies in San Leandro – and confess, you are one of them – have seen their choices for San Leandro coverage multiply.  In addition to the trusty San Leandro Times,  San Leandro now counts with its own daily news website, the San Leandro Patch, as well as three newsy blogs: San Leandro Bytes, East Bay Citizen and yours truly, San Leandro Talk.  If something is happening in town, chances are you’ll hear about it.

As bright as things may be looking for local media currently, there are signs that San Leandro’s news renaissance may be coming to an end.  Already, we’ve lost a print news source as the Daily Review no longer has a reporter assigned to San Leandro.  While they cover the occasional story, they do so days late and with little insight as to what’s actually going on.

I’ve written before about the shortcomings of the San Leandro Patch, which have become even more pronounced lately as they’re shifting from local to regional coverage.  Ad sales continue to be dismal – the SLP currently only shows 3 local ads.  AOL just debuted a Huffington Post San Francisco edition, and if it’s as successful as other local HPs have been, it won’t be long before AOL replaces its Bay Area Patches with one general HP Bay Area.

Things look no better in the blogosphere.   After a plea for financial support went unanswered, Steve Tavares, the blogger behind East Bay Citizen, auctioned off its domain name.  While the blog is still accessible at its blogspot address, it hasn’t been updated since July 1st.  Tavares is tweeting and he’ll likely go back to blogging, but already his San Leandro coverage had become poorer since his one contact as City Hall lost his post.

While San Leandro Bytes and San Leandro Talk will likely continue, neither of these blogs are run by actual journalists and they tend to cover issues of particular interests to the bloggers. In any case, they are not comprehensive.

The future doesn’t have to be as hopeless as I fear, however.  While the Patch may change from its present form, chances are its replacement will continue covering San Leandro is some manner, at least in the short term.  If they concentrate on the most important news stories rather than fluff pieces, it may actually be an improvement over what’s there now.  There is also the possibility that someone will start an independent online news site for San Leandro, in the model of the Berkeleyside.  It could take advantage of the content available in the existing blogs, and interface with Facebook and other social media sites to make it easy for San Leandrans to add their own news content.  If well marketed to both the public and local businesses, this model could be financially successful (at least in the sense of paying a modest salary to the person in charge).  And indeed, as new technologies are created every day, there may be something in the horizon that I can’t foresee.

Jun 302011
 

Americans generally believe in open government.  We give our democratically-elected federal, state and local governments enormous authority over our lives and pay for the privilege with a substantial percentage of our earnings, the least we want in return is to know what the government is up to.  To that end, both the federal and state governments have passed “open government” laws that require open meetings and the release of public information.    In California, the Brown Act regulates how government meetings can be held, while the California Public Records Act (CPRA) provides for access to public records.

Local politicians and city employees are not particularly fond of these laws.  They limit the deals they can do behind the scenes and make them more accountable to the public – at least in communities where there is a functioning press keeping tabs on local government.  While San Leandro is not one of those communities – the Daily Review doesn’t even have a journalist assign to our city, and neither the San Leandro Times or San Leandro Patch do any investigative journalism -, it does have a few independent bloggers as well as concerned citizens that once in a while organize around a particular issue.  City officials, therefore, have an interest in trying to circumvent these open government laws that might expose their doings.

I have written before about how recently the City Council moved to pass a policy that would automatically destroy all their e-mails and how they have gotten rid of narrative minutes of city meetings.  Just as egregious, however, is a little known City Council policy of approving items without properly agendizing them – thus hiding their actions from the public.

According to the Brown Act, before any meeting the government body must  “post an agenda containing a brief general description of each item of business to be transacted or discussed at the meeting.”  The City Council, however, does not need to either discuss any item on the agenda or vote individually on those items.  Indeed, most meeting agendas include a “Consent Calendar” of items that the City Council will approve altogether and without discussion.  Any member of the City Council can “pull” an item from the consent calendar, for individual consideration, but members of the public cannot do so.  Members of the public can speak about any of the items in the Consent Calendar, but in order to do so, they must know what those items are.

The San Leandro City Council operates both as a full body and through standing committees.  These committees are usually composed of 3 City Council members are usually deal with concrete issues: rules, finance, facilities, relationship with the school district, etc.  In addition to the standing committees, the City Council occasionally creates ad-hoc committees to handle issues that come up, such as the hiring of a new city manager.  These committees are supposed to do the nitty-gritty work of the Council, read staff reports, discuss issues and decide upon them.  While these committees must publish agendas for their meetings and their meetings are open to the public, they mostly meet during the day when most people are at work and unable to attend, and therefore they seldom see any public participation.  City Council Committee members are therefore free to discuss and decide on issues without any public input.

The recommendations made by City Council Committees are supposed to be discussed and approved by the whole City Council before they become “law”.  They should be listed in the agenda as such, as required by the Brown Act.   They are not in San Leandro.  Rather, the City Council is asked to approve the minutes of the different committee meetings within the consent calendar, and by doing so, they approve their recommendation.   For example, let’s say that the Business & Housing Development Committee recommends increasing business fees by 1,000%, the agenda for the next City Council meeting should say: “Action: Approve increase of business fees by 1000%”.  What it would actually say  is: “Accept Business & Housing Development Committee minutes”.   When the City Council approves the minutes, it also approves the tax increase.  The public would have no clue as to what had just happened.

It’s not only the public that gets blindsided – new City Council members do as well, as they’re often not told of this policy until something comes up.   Indeed, due to complaints by a City Council member, more recent City Council agendas have been a bit more clear as to what the Council is voting to approve, actually listing the committees’ recommendations, but they still don’t make it clear that the Council is approving those recommendations when they approve the minutes.

May 022011
 

I pride myself on being San Leandro’s most infamous atheist.  I came into local prominence a couple of years ago when I challenged the San Leandro School District to stop teaching overtly religious songs in school.  I had been appalled to find out that McKinley Elementary School‘s evangelical Christian music teacher, Kathy Maier, had made my 6-year old learn and sing the song “Silent Night” which praises Jesus as God.  Not kosher in my book. So when I read a letter on last Thursday’s San Leandro Times accusing the city of establishing religion by allowing the Calvary Chapel church/religious group to hold services at the newly opened Senior Center, I had to investigate what was going on.  And apparently it’s much ado about nothing.

Calvary Chapel is a small religious group started/run by the Cortez family, who relocated their ministry to San Leandro  from the city of Guadalupe in late 2009.  They are fundamentalist neo-Pentecostals (competition for Faith Fellowship?) but they don’t seem to make too big a deal out of speaking in tongues.  They’ve been meeting at the Marina Community Center since they started, and apparently now they are moving to the Senior Center. I don’t know if that’s because the Senior Center is more centrally located or if they were able to see the signs predicting the end of the Marina center.

Meeting rooms at the Marina and Senior Centers are available for rental by any member of the community.  Non-profit groups, apparently including churches, are charged reduced non-profit rates during non-peak hours and regular rates during the peak hours that Calvary Chapel mostly reserves.  Any group is allowed to use these facilities, provided they pay the appropriate fees & deposit, have insurance  and don’t have a history of trashing the facilities.

Personally, I don’t have a problem with that.  I don’t really want the government to have to inquire as to what every group who rents a room at a public building is going to do in the room.   Whether a group of people want a room to hold masturbation workshops,  have a Barbie convention or pray to imaginary cosmic entities, it’s really nobody’s business but their own.

The fees that Calvary Chapel pays the city for the use of its facilities, moreover, help tremendously in keeping the Senior Center open.  And who can complain about that?

May 022011
 

Last Thursday’s San Leandro Times included a number of interesting letters from local citizens.   One that particularly caught my eye was sent by Leo West and concerned the use of monitoring software on the networked computers at the library.  According to the letter, “any librarian can log in and watch what any computer-user is watching – contacts, contents of materials received or sent, websites used, everything”.

I talked to the library about this issue and I was told that the software in question has been installed so the city’s IT department (the library does not have its own) can troubleshoot computer problems over the network, from their home base at city hall.   Librarians themselves can only access the software for very limited purposes (like extending the time a patron can use the computer).  IT staff will access the software when a patron reports a problem, so the patron will be aware of what the staff is doing.

No records are kept of patron’s computer sessions.

Personally, I’m not overly concerned about the library staff or the IT staff at city hall watching over my shoulders (in particular after 5 PM, I very much doubt anyone is left over at City Hall after working hours) – but this tool potentially could be misused.  That’s just as true of a pencil, however.