Ursula Reed

Benny Lee Blames his Endorsers for City’s Woes

Benny Lee Blames his Endorsers for City’s Woes Politics No Responses »

Nov 042012

Benny Lee (center) with former Mayor Tony Santos (left) and supporter Hendy Huang.

Lee’s mailer highlights bad decision-making by Shelia Young and Tony Santos

I am the volunteer campaign manager for Chris Crow, who is running for San Leandro City Council District 4, so when I received a mailer from his opponent, Benny Lee, I was quite interested in reading it. I was expecting he’d use the mailer to answer criticisms about his lack of concrete proposals on how to move San Leandro forward.

Instead, his mailer focused on criticizing the City for three poor decisions made in the last decade. Surprisingly, these were all done while two of his endorsers, Shelia Young and Tony Santos, were Mayor of San Leandro. Two of his other endorsers, O.B. Badger and Ursula Reed, were in the City Council at the time. Tony Santos, in particular, has been Benny Lee’s mentor and they are staunch allies.

The first issue Lee brings up is a loan guarantee the City gave to a private company – with Shelia Young’s approval. The borrowers defaulted, the lender wants the City to pay up, and we may be on the hook for millions of dollars.

Another has to do with a city street apparently under foreclosure. Lee’s mailer is not clear on the particulars, but it shows the matter going back to 2005, when Shelia Young was Mayor and Badger and Santos were in the City Council.

Finally, the mailer points out the City could have saved millions by refinancing its pension liabilities when interest rates first fell several years ago. He is right, but both the Young and Santos administration ignored this issue. It wasn’t until Stephen Cassidy became mayor that the debt was refinanced.

Lee could have pointed out many other bad decisions past City Councils have made, such as having the City pay the employee’s portion of their pensions, engaging in the Faith Fellowship and Albertson’s litigations (which combined cost the city about $7,000,000) and not handling the sex and race discrimination issues at the Police Department before getting sued.

I agree with Lee’s tacit conclusion that both Tony Santos and Shelia Young, and more recently Reed, appear to have done less than a competent job while in the Council. But there is no reason to suspect Lee will do any better. On his mailer he calls himself a “financial analyst” and promises to fix the city’s budget problems, but a quick look at his resume shows that his actual expertise is in IT, with a focus on financial computer systems. His promise to search through the city budget for savings seems disingenuous when he could have easily done so already. The budget is available for download at the city’s website.

And indeed, Lee has given us a hint of the type of decisions he will make if elected. For example, he would kick a green-energy company out of town, because he fears the lone wind turbine they want to install will give his wife headaches. He would ban marijuana dispensaries because a friend became addicted to alcohol as a teen and then died of cirrhosis (yes, I fail to see the connection as well). He would get rid of RCV purportedly because Chinese Americans are unable to understand how to vote. And he would not make Police officers have to pay their share of pension contributions. In return, the Police union has spent more than $7,500 to get him elected.

Now, given that I support Chris Crow, it’s not surprising that I’m unimpressed by Lee. What is surprising is how unimpressed he seems to be with the people who endorsed him.

Reed Faces her Rivals, Badly.

Reed Faces her Rivals, Badly. Politics No Responses »

Oct 072012

San Leandro City Council incumbents rarely face serious competition in San Leandro. If anyone bothers to run against an incumbent, chances are it will be someone who is doing little more than putting his or her name on the ballot. Serious candidates usually wait until the incumbent is termed out.

School Board President Morgan Mack-Rose and Bal Theater owner Dan Dillman are hoping to beat the odds and become the second candidates in San Leandro history to unseat an incumbent. Reed appears to be seriously concerned that Mack-Rose will.

The three candidates faced each other off at the Chamber of Commerce/League of Women’s Voters debate on September 25th. Candidates for other districts participated as well, answering the exact same questions. Here, I’m are the video clips from the forum, edited to only include the statement and answers from candidates for District 2. You can see those from District 4 here. The questions are not presented in the order they were asked or answered.

Incumbents for City Council seats tend to do better in fora because they know the job better. This didn’t seem to be the case with respect to Ursula Reed who almost invariably had weaker answers that Mack-Rose. Dan Dillman kept true to his platform of “changing the status quo”. Full disclosure: he has my vote.

Opening Statements

“What are your specific proposals for raising revenue in the next four years?”

“What is your position on Measure L?”

“What will you do to help retain businesses?”

“With such high unemployment yet so much construction going on, would you support a program of San Leandro jobs for San Leandro people like Oakland’s recent initiative of Oakland jobs for Oakland people?”

“On police, fire, and employees’ pensions, should there be a top limit of $100,000 or $110,000?”

“What would you do to bring the many communities San Leandro together?”

“As an elected Councilmember, how would you assure that events like tonight have large attendance of students, especially high schools?”

Closing Statements

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.

San Leandro City Council Systematically Violates Open Meeting Laws

San Leandro City Council Systematically Violates Open Meeting Laws City Hall, Legal, Transparency 3 Responses »

Feb 062012

It’s worse than I thought, but is it intentional or just careless?

Just ask public officials, perhaps over a few beers, how they feel about the pesky public looking over their shoulder as they try to “get things done.” They hate it. Public oversight means they have to worry about following the law, hiding any corrupt deals and being held accountable for their actions.

As the corruption facilitated by secrecy has dire consequences for society at large (just think of the City of Bell), the California legislature long ago passed the Brown Act to guarantee the public notice and access to government meetings, and the California Public Records Act to grant access to government documents. Local governments have been trying to skirt them ever since.

I have noted before actual and threatened violations of these laws by the San Leandro City Council. Recently, I’ve become aware of a number of recurring and and very serious violations that allow the City Council to deliberate secretly. I’ve given the City the benefit of the doubt – perhaps nobody at City Hall is actually aware of the law or perhaps they’ve just been careless – and I’ve written to City officials* requesting that they cease these violations. How (and whether) they respond, and more importantly whether they actually comply with my request to obey the law, will be very indicative of the trustworthiness and ethics of our City Officials and our City Attorney.

The following are the Brown Act violations that I’ve discovered in the last few days

The City Council Appears to Have Deliberated Secretly on the Sale of the former Albertson’s Property

The City Council agenda for Feb. 6th, 2012 lists “Conference with Real Property Negotiators” as one of its closed session items. It says that they are currently negotiating the “price and terms of payment” with Innisfree Ventures II, David Irmer’s development firm. This implies that the City Council has already agreed to sell the former Albertson’s property to Irmer, or at least has discussed it; you don’t negotiate a price for a property you are not ready to sell. The Brown Act requires that any discussion on the sale of the property as well as any instruction to the City Manager (or anyone else) to initiate negotiations for the sale of the property, must be done in open session, after being properly agendized. A search of the agendas, minutes and other public records in the online Public Records Database maintained by the city, did not produce any records of such discussions or decisions. It would appear that these discussions were made informally or in closed session, in violation of the law.

The City Council Mislabels Public City Council Meetings as “Closed Sessions”

The City Council publishes agendas both for its open and closed sessions. Closed sessions usually start at 6PM and open sessions at 7PM. Agendas for closed sessions are labeled “Closed Session” while those for open sessions are labeled “Regular Meeting” or “Joint Meeting with Redevelopment Agency.” I was just informed by the City Clerk, however, that a portion of the meeting labeled closed session is actually an open session, in which the City Council can transact all sorts of business, including making required announcements. But as the meeting is not labeled “open session,” or “regular meeting” or anything other than “closed session,” the public has no reason to know that this is a meeting they are free to attend. The results are that practically nobody is likely to go to these meetings, and thus nobody witnesses what was said or not said there.

The City Council Fails to Include All Required Items in the “Open/Closed Session” Agendas

The Brown Act provides that “[n]o action or discussion shall be undertaken on any item not appearing on the posted agenda.” However, it would appear that actions and discussions not appearing in the agenda are actually carried out in what the City considers to be the “open” part of closed sessions (hereby described as “open/closed sessions”). This came to my attention on Friday, when I e-mailed the City Council et al. to alert them to the fact that while the Brown Act allows the City Council to meet in closed session with property negotiators, as it was itemized in the agenda for the Feb. 6th meeting, the negotiators’ identities must first be announced in open session. The City Clerk responded by saying that there would be an open session prior to the closed session in question, thus suggesting that the announcement would be made at that point. However, the agenda for that open/closed session only included two items: Roll Call and Public Comments. This is, indeed, the case with all the closed session agendas that I’ve seen. So it would appear that the City Council conducts business during these open/closed sessions that is not disclosed in the agenda

The City Council Fails to Keep Minutes of the “Open/Closed Session” Meetings.

California law requires the City Clerk to “keep a correct record of [City Council] proceedings”, and indeed, minutes and/or recordings ** are produced and posted online for regular open session meetings. This does not appear to be the case, however, with respect to open/closed meetings. For example, there are no minutes for the Dec. 13th, 2010 open/closed session, even though a number of people (including myself) attended and made public comments at that meeting.

So basically we have a situation in which the City Council seems to 1) be holding public meetings without alerting the public about it, 2) not including all items to be discussed in the agenda and 3) not keeping minutes of those meetings – all in violation of state law.

There is yet another serious way in which the City violates the Brown Act:

The City Council Fails to Disclose the Subject of Anticipated Litigation

The Brown Act allows the City Council to meet in closed session to discuss exposures to litigation against the City. However, the law also provides that the closed session agenda must describe the “facts and circumstances” which have exposed the City to litigation, except when such facts are not known to the potential plaintiff. A quick look through a sample of City Council agendas from 1998 on suggests that those facts and circumstances are never disclosed, even in cases where it’s very clear that the potential plaintiff is quite aware of what those facts are (e.g. the murder of Gwendolyn Killings and the disagreement with Dan Dillman about the use of the Bal Theatre).

The disclosure of this information is very important for the public as it allows San Leandrans to keep a closer tab on how the City is fulfilling its legal obligations towards the community. A plethora of circumstances that make litigation against the Police Department likely, suggests that there are serious troubles with that institution. The City Attorney’s judgement that the City may be sued for employment discrimination or Brown Act violations, will shine some light into what’s going on at City Hall. Litigation is also very expensive, so it behooves the public to keep a close eye on what the City is doing to bring about lawsuits against it.

I find this pattern of violations of Open Meeting laws to be very disturbing. I can only hope that they will be addressed immediately by our City Officials. I will keep you posted of any response I receive.

– * I sent my initial e-mail to Mayor Stephen Cassidy, City Council Members Michael Gregory, Ursula Reed, Diana Souza, Joyce Starosciak, Pauline Cutter and Jim Prola, City Attorney Jayne Williams, Community Relations Representative Kathy Ornelas and City Clerk Marian Handa. Handa responded to that message, also copying City Manager Chris Zapata and Assistant City Manager Lianne Marshall.

– ** Minutes and/or audio from meetings from January 2011 on can be found at http://www.sanleandro.org/depts/cityhall/council/audio/audiostream.asp

Older Entries Newer Entries