Stephen Cassidy

Stephen Cassidy is the current Mayor of San Leandro. He was elected in 2010 and is expected to run for re-election in 2014. He is a partner at a large class-action law firm, but specializes in public relations.

Cassidy has, overall, been an absent an ineffective mayor. His major focus was on bringing pension reform to San Leandro. He campaigned on a platform of forcing city employees to pay their own share of pension contributions, and thus saving the City $3M a year. While he managed to get the employees to agree to pay their share, they did so in exchange for raises of an equal amount, leaving the City with higher payroll tax obligations but no actual savings.

Cassidy has also been frequently criticized on this blog for his attempts to do away with transparency of City operations. He did away with minutes from City Council meetings, so that now the only way of knowing what was said at a meeting is to listen to the audio recording. The recordings are of such bad quality that they don’t work with transcription software. Cassidy has also consistently violated the Brown Act and, under his administration, the City has started to also violate the California Public Records Act.

Cassidy’s administration has been plagued by examples of Police corruption and abuse, including the conviction of an SLPD narcotics officer for selling drugs to an informant, the persecution of men thought to be seeking homosexual encounters near a public park, the killing of an unarmed mentally-ill man and the growth in surveillance of citizens. Cassidy has a been a big supporter of the Chief of Police and advocated that she be given a large race and multi-year contract.

Cassidy is also criticized for his lack of leadership, his inability to forge friendly relations with City, community and political leaders, and the lack of time and concern he spends on the City.

On the plus side, Cassidy is significantly more intelligent and somewhat less petty than former Mayor Tony Santos, whom he defeated in 2010.

May 232013
 
Jim Prola

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

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.

Apr 042013
 

They say that the early bird gets the worm, and this year politicians are taking that to heart.  Candidates started announcing they would run for the 2014 elections even before the 2012 votes were counted, and every day more candidates join the fray.  So far this is how the field looks.

In San Leandro:

– Councilmember Diana Souza, who is getting termed out,  is rumored to be ready to challenge Mayor Stephen Cassidy for Mayor.  This one is hard to believe, but I’ve heard the rumor from the same person who correctly predicted that Hermy Almonte would challenge Jim Prola, another unlikely and predictably unsuccessful race.

Pauline Cutter is likely to run for re-election for City Council District 5.  Board of Zoning Adjustments member Lee Thomas will run for the District 3 Souza is vacating while my husband, Mike Katz-Lacabe, has pulled papers to run in District 1 (Michael Gregory terms out).  Mike has not yet announced.

Tony Guzman, who runs the Ford Leadership in San Leandro and has been getting progressively into politics, is flirting with the idea of moving to San Leandro and running for City Council (he currently lives in Hayward).  He definitely should move, but he may be better off joining a commission first to learn a bit about how this city works.

Meanwhile, Planning Commissioner Ed Hernandez seems ready to apply to be appointed to the District 2 seat if Ursula Reed vacates it.

Lance James seems likely to run for re-election for the School Board (representing the north area). Ron Carey, who represents the Manor, will not be seeking a second term. Carey was appointed to his seat after nobody run in the 2010 election. Currently, five of the seven school board members were appointed or ran unopposed.

In Alameda County:

– San Leandro Councilmember Ursula Reed is running for County Superintendent of Schools.
Ellen Corbett is challenging incumbent Eric Swallwell for Congressional District 15 (read more about this race).
Ro Khanna is challenging incumbent Mike Honda for Congressional District 17 (read more about this race).
– Dublin Mayor Tim Sbranti is running for Assembly District 16 (Joan Buchanan terms out).
– Fremont Assemblymember Bob Wieckowski is running for Senate District 10.

Statewide:

– State Treasurer Bill Lockyer and State Controller John Chiang were looking at exchanging jobs, as each gets termed out of their current ones. Chiang is set to run for Treasurer but, still recovering from the Nadia scandal, Lockyer is being coy as to whether he’s running for Controller (but he’s preparing to).  Meanwhile, Board of Equalization member and rising Democratic party star Betty Yee is giving it her all in the race for Controller. This one will be fun to watch.

Do you know of other candidates or other races?Comment below or e-mail me!

Feb 272013
 

It’s time that our Mayor and City Council do what’s right.  Californians approved medical marijuana collectives fifteen years ago, and they are now ready to legalize marijuana altogether.  Legalization at this point is inevitable and every person of sound body can easily get marijuana at school yards, parks and at street corners.  As the case of SLPD officer Jason Fredriksson showed, even cops are in the marijuana selling game.

The only people who have trouble getting marijuana are the old and sick patients who actually need it.  The attitude of City Council members like Diana Souza and Benny Lee, who want to deny pain relief to those suffering, is unconscionable.  And I don’t want to hear any excuses about how the “community doesn’t want it” (when surveys like this show that they clearly do) or that “patients can go elsewhere” (when that’s impractical for exactly the people who most need it).

Have some courage, put the needs of others beyond your own personal prejudices and pettiness.  Approve the dispensary once and for all.

Feb 122013
 
Ellen Corbett

Ellen Corbett

She can, but only if she stop playing it safe.

Last October, in the midst of the 2012 electoral battle between veteran Congressman Pete Stark and Dublin City Councilman Eric Swalwell for Congressional District 15, California Senate Majority leader Ellen Corbett took the unprecedented step of announcing she would run for that seat in 2014.

Corbett had been angling to run for Stark’s seat, after he retired, for years.  And there was much speculation that Stark would retire in 2012.  He was in his 80’s, frequently in bad health, and had been marginalized in Washington.  Furthermore, his district had been redrawn and he had lost much of the more liberal parts of western Alameda county, while gaining the conservative Tri-Valley area where his liberal policies were unlikely to be popular. Corbett already represented some of these areas – namely Castro Valley and Pleasanton – and her more moderate Democratic views would be an easier sell.

Stark, however, declined to do the “right thing” (for the local party, at least) and retire and while Corbett entertained the idea of challenging him, she eventually backed off. My guess is that labor would not support her against the aging incumbent.

Eric Swalwell

Eric Swalwell

Her decision proved to be like manna from heaven for Eric Swalwell.  The young Dublin City Council member had little to lose by taking on Stark.  A prosecutor from a conservative Bay Area suburb, Swalwell was too young and had yet to pay enough dues to be taken seriously by the Democratic establishment or by labor.  He had no support to lose by challenging the incumbent.

Swalwell, however,  proved to be a consummate campaigner, willing to knock on door after door, attend event after event, and embrace the power of social media and new campaign technologies. He was also able to draw on the expertise of local politicos disaffected with Stark and the local Democratic party. Our own Mayor Stephen Cassidy, for example, shared his own tips and experience on defeating incumbents (he’d done it twice in San Leandro) while Swalwell’s former High School teacher and mentor Dublin Mayor Tim Sbranti, an upcoming political force himself, once again took him under his wing. It certainly didn’t hurt that Stark made some serious gaffes during early debates and then disappeared altogether from the campaign trail, leaving it all in the hands of his campaign managers and his supporters in labor and the Democratic party.

Pete Stark

Pete Stark

Ultimately, it was the new open-primary system in California that gave Swalwell his win. After his surprisingly good showing in June, which put him in a one-to-one contest with Stark in November, Swalwell started drawing on support and money from more disaffected politicians and individuals. He became the new darling of the news media, which covered Stark’s gaffes with gusto. And he was able to make the race about personalities, rather than issues, which allowed him the flexibility of appealing to voters with very diverse ideologies.

By the end of the campaign, Swalwell had raised $826K and spent $800K of that. That still pales in comparison with the almost $1.4M Stark spent on this race, but it definitely made him competitive.

At the end of the day, in the November election, Stark’s incumbency held and he easily won the part of the district that he had historically represented, while Swalwell easily won the rest.

The question, of course, is what all of this means for Ellen Corbett. While nobody can predict the future, it’s helpful to look at the differences between Corbett and Stark and what she can and cannot bring to a Congressional campaign.   Let’s also keep in mind that as everyone wants to back a winner, Corbett’s chances at winning are also dependent on the analysis politicos, contributors and voters make of those same chances. If people think Corbett has a shot, they are more likely to give her their support. And she will definitely need lots of it.

Ellen Corbett is not Pete Stark – in either the bad or the good ways. She is a calm, measured politician; she’s pleasant, smart, compassionate and empathetic, without being overly emotional. She is unlikely to make offensive statements on the campaign trail and give Swalwell the type of ammunition that he had with Stark.  However, Corbett has been in public office for a couple of decades: first as a City Council member and Mayor of San Leandro, and then in the California Assembly and now California Senate. If Swalwell decides to run a negative campaign against her, he will probably be able to find plenty of things to criticize.

In 2012, Corbett’s advantages over Pete Stark were that her Senate district included most of CD 15 and that her views were more moderate, and thus more attuned to the voters.   She’s always been a grass-roots politician, and knows the importance of one-to-one contact with voters. Voters have seen her at community events in their cities throughout the years. Since the district was redrawn, Corbett has also been seen in community events in those cities she does not currently represent: Dublin, San Ramon and Livermore.

In order to win, Corbett will have to make sure that the votes that went to Stark in 2010 now go to her and that the Democratic voters in Castro Valley and Pleasanton who voted for Swalwell, now vote for her instead. Of course, she will also have to make inroads with other Tri-Valley voters.

The first proposition should be the easiest. Southern Alameda county voters are used to seeing her name on their ballot and seeing her at events, and they may still be bitter about Stark’s loss. However, Swalwell is well aware of this and he is reaching out towards those parts of the district, attending events and trying to ingratiate himself with the local political establishment.  He might have made a mistake by locating his district office in Pleasanton, however, as that sends a message that his heart is really in the Tri-Valley (plus it’s awfully inconvenient for voters in the southern part of the district to drive to Pleasanton), but Corbett is not helping herself either by keeping her district office in San Leandro.

Converting Swalwell voters to her is likely to be more difficult. While it’s true that many of the votes that Swalwell got were “anyone but Stark” votes, Corbett will need to make a case to the voters as to why she’s a better choice for them than the man they just put in office.   Attacking his youth or inexperience did not work for Stark, so she will have to try to draw other distinctions.

So far the only message I’ve heard concerns Swalwell’s political stances. Rumors are being circulated that he has reached out to Blue Dog Democrats and to Republicans and that he is really a Republican in disguise (though that can also be said about President Obama).  But rumors are just rumors and Swalwell is smart enough to know that it behooves him, at this point, to entrench himself within the Democratic party and follow  Nancy Pelosi‘s lead.  So far, all indications are that he’s doing just that.  He has co-sponsored gun control legislation and the reauthorization of the Violence Against Women Act and he happily accepted being appointed an Assistant Whip, which means he is now responsible for making other Congress members fall into the Democratic party line.  If Corbett wants to go after Swalwell on the issues, she will have to be ready to make strategic attacks on the party line.

One area in which Eric Swalwell and the Democratic leadership are particularly weak is the protection of civil liberties.  Swalwell approves of the Patriot Act, going to war with Iran and  has dodged questions about whether he supports US Presidents having the power to assassinate American citizens (which would imply that he does).  Swalwell, moreover, has made it explicit that he doesn’t believe in a separation of Church and State and has suggested there is no place in government (or maybe even America?) for non-believers. While those positions may play well with his conservative base in both parties, they will make many voters on his district – both in the Democratic left and the libertarian right – very uncomfortable.  Indeed, his support for gun control legislation is already losing him support in the Tri-Valley.  Corbett could seize on this and develop a strong civil liberties agenda that would put all those voters in play.  Indeed, this would also draw her closer to her potential colleagues to the north and south, Barbara Lee and Mike Honda, both staunch civil liberty advocates.  That said, Corbett has not focused on civil liberties in the past and seems to be in favor of stronger federal gun control measures.

Corbett has two other big hurdles to clear: money and support. It’s almost impossible to win a Congressional campaign without money. Candidates need to put their names out there and that involves sending out mailers and putting out radio and TV ads, all of which are very expensive. A crafty candidate can save some money by manufacturing news events and getting free media coverage, but Corbett has not exhibited those media skills. Corbett started the year with only about $100K in her campaign account for Congress, that’s less than a tenth of what she will need in order to run a competitive race. And it’s not clear where her funds will come from. Her previous campaigns have been funded almost exclusively by PACs, so she doesn’t have a network of individual contributors on whom to rely on (by contrast, 85% of Swalwell’s contributions came from individuals). PACs, however, are unlikely to support her unless she can give them something that Swalwell can’t or won’t.

It’s also unclear how much support Ellen Corbett will be able to get from the Democratic party, labor and other groups.  She is extremely entrenched within the local party, while Eric Swalwell has received the cold shoulder – at least publicly – from local politicos.  But Corbett is not without her detractors: it’s hard to be in politics for so long without making enemies. She also has a reputation for not paying back her political debts, something which may come back to haunt her.  She does, however, have a good shot at winning the party’s endorsement, though it’s definitely too early to know how that will play out.

Local Democratic insiders seem to be under the impression that Corbett’s gender will play in her favor.  Some believe that Corbett will get the support of Nancy Pelosi because Pelosi wants to see more women in Congress.  While I’m sure she has that goal in general, I will note that in 2011 she participated in fundraisers for Ro Khanna, who at the time was planning to run for CD 15 against Ellen Corbett.  And if Swalwell falls into line, Pelosi would have no incentive to back Corbett – in particular, when there are plenty of more important races for her to concentrate on. It’s also doubtful whether Corbett will enjoy the support of Emily’s List,  which also has more important races to focus on.  Plus Swalwell has been playing it smart, not only did he co-sponsor re-authorization of VAWA but he joined the pro-choice caucus.

Even without overwhelming party support, Corbett is likely to have the support of the Alameda Labor Council. She has been faithful to labor for many years and chances are they will go to bat for her. However, it’s unlikely that the AFL-CIO will go against an incumbent Democratic candidate – in particular, if he doesn’t do anything to offend them – which could put local labor in a pickle. Without labor’s money and volunteers, her campaign is a non-starter.

Even with them, Corbett’s campaign has one additional problem: it has not embraced digital campaign technologies. As of this writing she doesn’t have a Facebook page, a Twitter account, a blog, a mailing list or even her own campaign website. This means that, at least online, the story of her campaign is being told by others (including me, if you search for “Ellen Corbett” you’ll see a link to San Leandro Talk). While in the digital age, it’s impossible for any politician to completely control their message; they still need to attempt to do so. And digital technologies not only allow politicians to interact with voters and maintain name recognition, but they also make it easier to run organized campaigns cheaply.

Swalwell knows all of this only too well. He has been tweeting out a storm (though he doesn’t respond to tweets), keeping up his Facebook page, posting videos on YouTube and making sure he’s seen everywhere. According to a recent tweet: “January by the numbers: 50 mtgs, 30 dist. events attended, 10 hearings, 200 guests from #ca15 for swearing-in & 9,000+ miles in the air.” He could have added his office issued 10 press releases in January, all available on his website (Corbett’s last press release is from September 2012). Moreover, Swalwell has been keeping the eyes of the media on him by hosting quirky events (e.g. “Ride with your Rep“) and vowing to try out one job held by people in his district every month.

One of the keys to Swalwell’s victory in 2012 was the support that he got from the news media, in particular San Francisco Chronicle’s Carla Marinucci and Bay Area Newspaper Group’s Josh Richman, who were happy to write about the many gaffes of Pete Stark.  Stark’s personal arrogance and disrespect for the media had made him many enemies, of course. It will be interesting to see what type of coverage Corbett gets.

One final factor on this analysis are what other candidates might enter this race. It seems unlikely that any serious Democrats will throw their hat into this ring, but stranger things have happened. Ro Khanna, who raised over $1 million in anticipation of a run, has since transferred his ambitions towards a run in CD 13 against Mike Honda. If a serious moderate Republican entered the race, however, things could get complicated very quickly. Roughly 40% of the votes in CD 15 are conservative/Republican votes. Swalwell got all of these in November 2010, but he would likely lose a large percentage of them in June 2014 if a serious, well-funded Republican entered the race. If Corbett was able to hold on to Stark’s votes, it’s possible that Swalwell could be eliminated in June, sending her and the Republican candidate to November (when the 60% Democratic votes would give her a win). If I was Corbett, I would be looking hard through my Rolodex with anyone with an R by their name.

Dec 132012
 

But is this a ploy for police to gain access to resident’s backyards?

San Leandro Police Chief Sandra Spagnoli is attempting to turn the “urban farming” ordinance the City Council voted to pass in October 2011, into an “animal control” ordinance.   After that meeting, City staff drafted an ordinance, modeled after those in surrounding cities and based on community input, that achieved a happy balance between promoting and regulating urban farming.   The Police Chief, however, got a hold of it and is pushing to have it rewritten to provide strict controls on the keeping of bees and chickens.

According to the Chief, bees need to be strictly regulated because of concerns over “over pollination and health hazards”.  At the Dec. 11th Rules Committee meeting, where these matters were discussed, these concerns were met with skepticism, to say the least.

Scott Terry, one of the main proponents of urban farming, is an expert beekeeper who gets called in when there is a swarm of bees in Alameda County.  He was puzzled about the Chief’s concerns:  “I have never ever before five minutes ago heard the phrase “over pollination,” he said at the meeting.

Mitch Huitema, a beekeeper who grew up on a farm concurred: “I have never in my life heard of, what was it, “over pollination,” she said

But San Leandro Councilmember Diana Souza, who has been against the urban farming ordinance from the beginning, was quick to reply “I really quick “google’d” over pollination in my phone and I got several responses so it is something that’s pretty common and just we might not hear about it in our day-to-day life but it was a quick Google and gave me plenty of responses.”

San Leandro Mayor Stephen Cassidy deadpanned: “We do have to be careful about the Internet. I think of the quote from Abraham Lincoln: ‘You can’t trust everything printed on the Internet.’”

Actually, if only Councilmember Souza and Mayor Cassidy had read those links Souza found while googling, they would have  realized just how ridiculous are fears over pollination.  The second link offered by google is a FAQ about pollination from Koppert Biological Systems, a company that provides pollination solutions to growers all over the world.  It clearly explains

“Over-pollination happens when bumblebees are starving for food in strawberry greenhouses. They then shake the anthers of the flowers so vigorously that it ends up damaging the fruit, which can lead to malformed fruit, sometimes with dark marks on them. Because of the bumblebees explorative nature, this behaviour is never a problem in outdoor pollination. In indoor pollination, it has only been observed in strawberries, and only when the bumblebee densities were too high. ”

The Chief’s “concerns” about “health hazards” are almost as disingenuous.  Honey bees are not aggressive and will not sting unless threatened.   Most bee stings actually come from wasps (yellow jackets are often confused for bees) and other “wild” bees.  Honey bees, moreover, will travel up to 5 miles in search of yummy nectar, so it makes no practical difference whether their hives are located in the property next door, or in a neighboring city.  What does make a difference is the type of flowers you keep: honey bees can’t see the color red.

Spagnoli must have realized how silly her purported concerns sounded, so she tried to booster her arguments by providing a “summary” of animal control regulations in other “Bay Area” cities.  None of the cities she listed were in Alameda County, not surprising as San Leandro is the only city in Alameda County which does not allow bee or chicken keeping.  Instead she cited a Yolo County regulation that makes it illegal to have “exotic animals not used in circuses or carnivals” and those of selected Marin County cities, some of which required beekeeping permits.

Honestly, I couldn’t quite understand why the Chief of Police has shown  so much personal interest on a matter that seems to have no law enforcement angle whatsoever.  But San Leandro resident Cynthia Chandler came to the rescue with an explanation.  Chandler, a Harvard and Cambridge trained lawyer and criminologist,  is an adjunct professor of criminal law and has worked extensively on prison issues:

” Training provided to police and corrections officials generally emphasizes using punitive solutions for addressing social concerns, and building policy to increase police discretion. Bee and chicken ordinances will give the SLPD discretion to search many more households and yards at will.”

Wow, even I didn’t see that one coming.  But given the other social control measures Chief Spagnoli has been espousing: from blanketing the city with surveillance cameras to banning specific businesses from town, I shouldn’t be surprised.

San Leandro residents don’t have to let this happen, however.   While some City Council members will bend to the Chief’s will every time, others can be more responsive to the community’s input.  You can write to all of them by clicking here.