CaliforniaCityNews.org

Potential Cancellation of Cal Fire Contract Inspires Recall Campaign in Atwater; Union Ploy?

A recall campaign is heating up in the city of Atwater over the possibility of returning once again to a city-run fire department, which would require the cancellation of a contract with Cal Fire. Councilman Jeff Rivero, Mayor Pro Tem Joe Rivero and Councilman Gary Frago have expressed support for such a change because they posit it could save Atwater money without compromising the quality of the city’s public safety services.

However, critics and recall proponents don’t see it that way. Councilman Jeff Rivero in particular is the target of the recall campaign because his term does not expire in November. The effort is being spearheaded by a group of residents who have already begun the process of filling out recall paperwork. Recall supporters believe the city cannot afford its own fire department, especially since Atwater is growing and the level of service it requires will also grow.

Notably, no decision has been made yet on the Cal Fire contract, but the issue has still managed to inspire the initial stages of a recall. It’s also worth mentioning that one of the recall’s major proponents is married to a Cal Fire employee, which has led officials to call the effort a ploy to protect the firefighter union’s turf. The Merced Star reports the following on such sentiments:

“Fred Warchol, a planning commissioner who worked on Jeff Rivero's campaign, said the union, CDF Firefighters, is pushing the recall as a way to protect its interests by retaining the Cal Fire contract with the city. ‘They feel that Jeff, Joe and Gary are a threat to them retaining this contract,’ Warchol said, adding that moving back to a city-run fire department could ‘absolutely be done’ with a lot of foresight and effort. The city leaders are doing their job by scrutinizing the arrangement, he said. ‘I think they absolutely have an obligation to look into this,’ he said. ‘Our city budget is in a precarious position, like many city budgets in the state of California.’”

Cal Fire also recently filed a public records request to obtain messages between the council members about the contract. In response to the recall campaign, Councilman Rivero commented, “I've worked extremely hard for the citizens of Atwater. I don't know how I could have worked any harder, but I worked for the people.”

Millionaires Tax Campaign Says Fund Local Services by Taxing a Kardashian

Last week it was announced that Governor Brown’s campaign to raise taxes was rolling in the dough, with $1.2 million collected in two weeks. You’ll recall that Brown wants to pass a ballot measure that would raise $7 billion annually for five years. While the campaign’s early contributions certainly grabbed plenty of notice, a rival tax plan has come up with another way to make headlines: The Courage Campaign and the California Federation of Teachers have apparently figured out that if you really want attention, then nowadays it seems -- for some inexplicable reason -- all you have to do is throw a Kardashian in the mix (logic is no help when trying to find a rationale for the fame of the omnipresent clan known as the Kardashians. If you haven’t heard of them, then count yourself blessed).

This rival tax plan to the governor’s proposal is being called the “Millionaires Tax of 2012” and it’s using “celebrity” Kim Kardashian’s name (or more aptly, hatred for her) to generate support for its cause. This tax would raise $6 billion annually by raising income tax 3% on those who earn $1 to $2 million; in addition, it would raise the rate by 5% on those who earn over $2 million. The campaign contends that a higher tax rate on wealthy Californians could help fund schools and local services. To drum up support for the millionaire’s tax, the Courage Campaign has made a video called “Tax Kim” that claims she made more than $12 million in 2010, but she only pays one percentage point more in state income taxes than a middle-class Californian.

The video’s subtitle reads: “That's not OK, especially when budget cuts are decimating schools and critical programs for children and the elderly. Don't you think she could pay a little more?” More info on the campaign can be seen here.

View the video here:

Whippersnapper Sets Record: 22-Year-Old Takes the Reins as Placentia’s Youngest Mayor

On Jeremy Yamaguchi’s to-do-list is complete his political science finals, graduate university, and oh, make history by becoming the youngest person in history to be elected mayor of the city of Placentia. At the young age of 22, Yamaguchi is one of the youngest mayors to serve in Orange County and the state. The whippersnapper was first elected to the Placentia Council at 19 in November of 2008 and has taken his upcoming new role in stride, commenting, “It's record-setting, and uplifting in addition to being an honor. But it's the same job if you're 70 or you're 22.”

Yamaguchi’s goals as mayor for 2012 include establishing office hours to be available to residents, visiting every school in the city, and reviving the city's youth council. He still lives with his parents and his dad is a sergeant with the Placentia Police Department.

After graduating from Cal State Fullerton, Yamaguchi plans to continue his education by obtaining a masters degree in public administration and a juris doctorate in order to study and practice law.

Past news coverage on his election to the city council at the age of 19 in 2008 can be seen here:

Modesto Mayoral Candidate Vows to Fight for Pension Reforms after Voters Approve Measures

In November, voters in the city of Modesto approved three advisory measures that called for reduced retirement benefits for city employees. The three (non-binding) ballot measures were introduced by Councilman Brad Hawn, who termed out of office in November. Now Hawn is looking to be the city’s next mayor. He will compete with former Councilman Garrad Marsh in a vote-by-mail runoff in February (ballots are set to go out next month). Hawn has made pension reform a top focus in his campaign and the three measures were intended to give local voters a voice in city negotiations with unions. 

Hawn wrote the following op-ed for the Modesto Bee about the passage of the non-binding measures and what he sees as the next steps:

“In the November election, you spoke firmly when voting "yes" for my pension reform measures that three City Council colleagues joined me in putting on the ballot for your consideration. Thank you. It was an important message that you sent: you want your elected officials to challenge business as usual inside City Hall.

Despite uncalculated thousands of dollars spent by union special interests, all three pension reform advisory measures passed with enormous majorities. The effort to convince you that these reforms would be "too costly" or have "already been implemented" failed because neither is the truth.

The facts are this: Any reforms that we have previously passed only apply to future city employees. These future reforms will not fix the current problem of Modesto not having enough money to pay for lavish, and sometimes abusive, payouts. With your backing on these measures, I now can, and will, challenge defenders of the current system who support draining the city treasury, even worse roads, fewer police on the street and increased taxes on you.”

In the aftermath of the November election, the outcome of the pension measures in Modesto were pointed to as proof that voters would be keen to support further reforms in other battlegrounds, not only in other cities but at the state level as well.

Local Govt Ties: Minority of Executive Office Candidates Started at the Local Level?

While a majority of legislators have gotten their start in local government, here at CityNews we were curious whether or not the same could be said for executive candidates in light of the Iowa Caucus being right around the corner. The short answer is a big, fat no. Take Newt Gingrich, who is being hailed as the current front-runner since Republicans have been running around in circles to avoid Romney. After pursuing higher education at the graduate level, Gingrich took his first stab at politics in 1974 with a run for Congress. He finally won a seat in the House in 1978.

As for Michele Bachmann, the Minnesotan’s first foray into politics came when she won a seat in the state senate, but prior to that, Bachman was only involved in local politics as a political activist; namely, she protested abortion clinics and state-mandated educational standards. Early in Ron Paul’s career he was a doctor for the military and eventually opened his own practice in Texas. He first ran for office with a failed Congressional bid in 1974 but he eventually won a seat two years later.

Mitt Romney likes to emphasize that he’s first and foremost a businessman and after founding the investment firm Bain Capital, Romney made his first political run in 1994 in an attempt to capture a seat in the U.S. Senate in Massachusetts, but he couldn’t beat Ted Kennedy. Eventually he was elected governor. Ever since completing one term, running for president has been the business of Romney. While Rick Perry’s first foray into politics came through an election to the Texas House of Representatives, his real introduction to politics was by way of his father’s involvement in local government, as Joseph Perry served as the Haskell County commissioner for many years in Texas.

The lesser-known (i.e. long-shot) candidates like Jon Huntsman and Rick Santorum also don’t have any local government experience. Notably the former Utah governor was born a Californian, and his first involvement with politics came as an intern for Utah Sen. Orrin Hatch. Santorum, a Pennsylvanian, first ran for office at the age of 32 as a long-shot candidate for the United States House of Representatives.

And what if we look past 2012’s list of candidates? Is the influence of local government more evident? Only a bit. Take Joe Biden and Sarah Palin, which are the only recent executive office candidates who have overt local government experience. After working as an attorney, Biden served on the New Castle County Council from 1970 to 1972; afterwards, Biden was then elected to the U.S. Senate in 1972 at the age of 29. And then there is Palin: she most prominently has local government experience, as it was her first foray into politics. She won a seat on the Wasilla City Council and subsequently was elected mayor. She used her time in city government to launch a run for governor and won the seat in 2006.

Legal Fight Lies Ahead for San Jose as Council Approves Pension Reform Measure for June

The city of San Jose appears to have set itself up for a fierce (and inevitable) legal battle if voters approve the controversial ballot measure the council agreed this week to place on the June ballot. The divided 6-5 vote gave Mayor Chuck Reed the initial victory he has been looking for since May, despite the objections of labor leaders who earlier this week pleaded with the council for more negotiations and a request to settle reform at the bargaining table as opposed to the ballot. Residents, city workers and retirees flooded the council’s chambers during discussion of the pension measure and debate lasted as long as 3 hours.

Unions deemed the pension measure unnecessary and premature and have called on the council to hold off on the issue until further talks can occur. Notably, the city did put off the declaration of a fiscal emergency because new figures indicated the city’s retirement bill would be smaller than projected and its budget shortfall fell from $80 million to $25 million. Council members who voted against the measure, as well as other opponents, have pointed out that the legal costs the city is likely to incur from the measure’s passage are alone reason enough to think twice before putting the issue before voters.

Labor leaders contend the measure is simply unlawful, but Mayor Reed has emphasized that savings are necessary as costs continue to balloon. Here are key proposals from the measure, according to a fact sheet disseminated by the mayor’s office:

• “New Employees would be placed in a new, lower-cost, hybrid retirement plan; New employees would pay for at least 50% of the total cost of the new plan and the City’s contribution would be capped at 9% of an employee’s salary
• Current employees would be given the option to either: a) pay more to keep their current retirement plan or b) opt-in to a new, lower-cost retirement plan
• Retirees would have their Cost of Living Adjustments (COLAs) temporarily suspended during a fiscal and service level emergency
• Disability retirement rules would be reformed to prevent abuses
• The City Council would be prohibited from enhancing retirement benefits without voter approval”

Mercury News points out that “Employees argue that forcing them to pay more toward existing pension benefits and suspending promised cost-of-living raises to retirees violates their legally ‘vested rights.’ Reed said such provisions are needed to ensure significant savings over the next couple of years and avoid further layoffs.”

You can see the full text of the ballot measure here.  ABC News filed the following report:

Recall Petition for Mayor Quan to Hit Oakland Streets Any Day Now

It’s been a bumpy road for embattled Oakland Mayor Jean Quan and it was announced this week that a recall campaign has been cleared to hit the pavement for signatures. Once signature-gatherers begin circulating petitions, they will have 160 days to collect 19,800 signatures. Quan reportedly has an approval rating below 20% and has faced anger from both Occupy protesters and businesses for the Mayor’s handling of the demonstrations. The mayor is basically getting it from all angles and has seen members of her administration resign and the defeat of a parcel tax that the mayor had argued was crucial for resolving the city’s budget woes. In an interview with KQED, Quan commented the following about the recall: “I hear that sour grapes of certain candidates that lost in the past might be funding the signatures. I think that’s a shame. [...] A recall can be very divisive and it can be very time, energy and money consuming, so most business people I’ve talked to have said they’re not supporting the recall.”

The recall petition lists the following as grounds for the recall:

“The people of Oakland seek to recall Mayor Quan because she has willfully ignored the City's most pressing issue: public safety. As crime continues throughout our city, she has offered no rational solution to mitigate the chaos. She ignored the call of Oakland residents to significantly increase the number of police officers and instead supported a regressive 11 million dollar parcel tax on top of the existing Measure Y parcel tax of 200 million dollars. Moreover, she is squandering an opportunity to shape the largest development project in Oakland's history -the Oakland A.rmy Base. After nearly a year in office she has exhibited no leadership or insight to develop and implement a sustainable solution to our growing unemployment and depressed economic development. The management of these requisite elements requires a competent, adept civic leader with a vision of a vibrant prosperous and safe Oakland. We have no confidence in her ability to lead, listen or collaborate. To stand idly by is to abandon Oakland's rich tradition of ingenuity, cooperation and good governance. This recall is not rendered lightly; for the survival and future of our City, we demand a new Mayor."

You can read the full petition here. Reportedly there is a divide between the legally designated head of the recall effort and a second group named the Committee to Recall Jean Quan and Restore Oakland. Quan has been in office for less than a year.

Wal-Mart Putting Cities in a Bind? Costly Special Elections Create a Disadvantage

Here at CityNews on numerous occasions we’ve highlighted resistance to Wal-Mart from residents and councils in many cities across the state, whether opposition is in the form or protests, regulations, petitions, ordinances, or spirited town hall debates. In the past Wal-Mart was often the target of ballot initiatives in California as a way to block stores, but now the retail giant is giving cities and residents a taste of their own medicine by bankrolling various ballot measures and/or petition drives and it hasn’t lost in the past few years. In these difficult economic times, cash-strapped cities often simply can’t afford the costs of a special election, so the company appears to get its way when it fights against an ordinance or regulation it doesn’t like. CA Watch has released an article on the store’s tactics and argues that when Wal-Mart pays petition-gatherers to repeal some city action, the city is ultimately left with two choices: pay for a costly special election or repeal the measure Wal-Mart doesn’t like (or approve a Wal-Mart-drafted measure depending on the particular fight at stake).

Case in point: this very scenario played out in the city of San Diego; the council approved new regulations on big box retailers like Wal-Mart, but the council’s efforts fizzled out when Wal-Mart spearheaded a campaign battle through the collection of signatures, which lead the council to repeal the ordinance due to concerns about covering a costly election. The San Diego Council was ultimately unwilling to incur over $3 million in costs for an election. Direct democracy through initiatives is expensive, but when you’re a company like Wal-Mart, you can afford to be far more aggressive in multiple communities, as well as circumvent CEQA through the process.

CA Watch reports the following:

“Wal-Mart’s use of the initiative process has angered elected officials who say the company’s political strategy effectively holds them hostage. ‘They circumvented the system and blackmailed the town,’ said Rick Roelle, a councilman in Apple Valley, where Wal-Mart pushed through a superstore proposal in April. ‘We’ve had controversial projects, but we were never bullied like Wal-Mart.’ Wal-Mart and its supporters argue that the strategy helps speed up development that can boost employment and tax revenue, as well as low-price shopping.”

While some officials clearly are no fans of the store and its tactics, Wal-Mart points out that using the initiative system is clearly legal and that the pressure it exerts on cities is proof that residents are supportive of new (and/or bigger) stores. The company also argues that cities greatly benefit from the jobs, tax revenues, and affordable products Wal-Mart stores provide. Even though there are already over 200 stores in California, the company shows no signs of curtailing expansion.

You can see just how much Wal-Mart has been spending on election lawyers, campaign consultants and public relations firms here.

Audit Says Lindsay Owes $1 Million for Misusing Measure R Funds; Third Recall Attempt

Back in 2006, voters in Tulare County approved Measure R to fund transportation projects with an increase in the sales tax. The measure ultimately has created a major dispute not only between the Tulare County Association of Governments (TCAG) and the city of Lindsay but also between the city and its residents. For awhile now, TCAG has accused the city of Lindsay of misusing taxpayer dollars and demanded that it pay back millions in Measure R funds. Over the course of 21 months, Lindsay submitted invoices for payments from the measure’s funds, but the bottom line is that many expenses were simply ineligible for reimbursements. We relayed back in September that an audit was released showing great mismanagement on the part of former City Manager Scot Townsend and former Finance Director/City Clerk Kenny Walker. TCAG has now received an audit of its own, which posits that Lindsay owes a little over $1 million due to overbilling for a downtown revitalization project.

The Times Delta points out that “The auditors also found that Lindsay had charged TCAG $317,000 in costs it had also billed to the state Department of Transportation or previously billed to TCAG.” In addition, the auditing firm found that TCAG was billed for many expenses that weren’t even related to the project. TCAG wants the city to return the $3.75 million that it received in Measure R funding (which could put the city in a precarious financial position). 

We’ve relayed previously that audits regarding the Measure R funds and TCAG’s demands further enraged residents in Lindsay who have railed against the management of the city. The Measure R dispute essentially tipped residents over the edge and they initiated a recall of all five council members. The recall effort initially hit some bumps in the road and stumbled from the outset, but the third attempt could pull through. The Recorder reports the following on the latest effort:

“The recall proponents have now reached a point where they only have to worry about getting the recall petition right. If it is declared to have deficiencies, they will have to work on correcting them. The entire process will not start over. ‘We’re looking forward to completing [the petition] so we can start with the recall,’ [recall proponent Yolanda] Flores said, adding that she feels she and the other recall proponents can gather enough signatures to have the situation settled at the voting booths. Councilman Danny Salinas said he believes the recall proponents should focus their efforts elsewhere because a special election will “cost the taxpayers and the city money. I feel like I’ve done a great job in my tenure so far,’ he said. ‘The majority of the people (in Lindsay) are still backing us.’”

If initial forms are approved, then proponents will have to gather 549 valid signatures from registered voters in the city on each council member’s recall petition.

Back for More: Mayor Johnson to Re-launch Strong-Mayor Initiative in Sac

Say what you will about Sacramento Mayor Kevin Johnson, but at the very least he is persistent...or to be more precise, he is persistent about pushing forward once again a "strong-mayor" initiative after facing rejection last year. Johnson wants more power over appointments and the budget and has contended for awhile now that the city needs such a governing structure to stay competitive; however, Johnson has been a bit of a lone ranger on the issue with the council pushing back that no one else is clamoring for the change except the mayor. Johnson has been unable to convince council members on the necessity of a strong-mayor system and few have found his case sufficiently persuasive. Nevertheless, Johnson is reportedly setting his sights on the 2012 ballot, either in June or November. The Bee reports on the next steps and how the latest proposal stacks up to 2010’s effort:

“That proposal is a somewhat watered-down version of the plan Johnson got on the 2010 ballot through an initiative signature drive. A judge eventually tossed the plan off the ballot, ruling it was a full-scale charter revision that could not be proposed through the initiative process, but only by an elected body such as a City Council or charter commission. If the latest plan is determined to be less far-reaching than the first, Johnson and his aides said there are two ways it could be placed on the ballot: through another signature drive or by the City Council drafting a plan to place before the voters.”

The mayor will likely need thousands of signatures from voters if the issue is to move forward since the council is probably unwilling to offer its support. The mayor’s staff is currently considering whether the general election in November would be more advantageous vote-wise or if the primary in June (when Johnson is up for re-election) would be worth the gamble. Based on the mayor’s eagerness, June is a distinct possibility.