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.

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.

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.

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.

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”

May 052011
 

Congratulations and Thank You to Rob Rich for winning this auction! Roosevelt Elementary is several hundreds of dollars richer, and after Sue of Level 5 Salon did her magic, Mike looks younger and thinner than ever. Thank you Sue!

Come on, admit it! You aren’t entirely happy with how the San Leandro School Board is doing.  In particular Mike Katz-Lacabe (aka “my husband’)  should be doing a much better job!  Maybe you are a teacher and angry at him because he stuffed your classroom with kids, maybe you teach PE and resent that the Board cut your hours next year, maybe you are a parent and resent his views on homosexuality, religion, race or uniforms…  Perhaps you are even a former superintendent and really have a beef with him.

And there is no reason for this to end there!  Are you a personal friend of former trustees that he helped defeat?  Do you hate Mayor Cassidy? Mike helped elect him!   Are you upset about how high your property taxes are?  Mike worked to pass two bond measures for the schools.  He is despicable.

Now it’s your chance to get back at him.  You know that long, luscious brown hair that is his pride and joy?  That soft, smooth, silky mane that gives him that sexy heavy Jesus look?  Well, you can now rid him of it!  Cut if off, leave him looking like a hedgehogRoosevelt Elementary will be holding its annual Spring Auction this Saturday, May 7th, starting at 5 PM (at the Veteran’s Memorial Hall on Bancroft Ave.).  Mike will be auctioning his ponytail to the highest bidder during a live auction at the end of the night.  The winner gets to cut it off him or herself, in front of a live audience, and then donate the ponytail to the Locks of Love charity.  If you can’t be there, maybe you can get someone else to bid and do the deed for you (Tony Santos, here is your chance at revenge!).  But don’t miss this unique opportunity.

Now, here is the best part.  Sunday is Mother’s Day so you know he won’t be able to get a real haircut until Monday at the earliest – so you can have the satisfaction of having him looking goofy during my special day.  You hate me too, right?

So come to the event and bid high!