It was widely reported -- including here -- that Carole Migden was bound for a $132,000-a-year sinecure on the state Integrated Waste Management Board after losing her state Senate seat to Mark Leno in the Democratic primary in February.
Well, it turns out the seat is going to another out-of-work senator, Sheila Kuehl, a Southern California Democrat who was unseated by term limits. No word yet on what precipitated a change. Or if there is another appointment in the offing for Migden.
Kuehl, by the bye, has been the primary sponsor of efforts to create a single-payer health care system in California. In a posting at the California Progress Report, a liberal blog, she said she would be passing the torch on single-payer to Leno, who will be sworn into the Senate next week.
Do you think Leno will be any more succesful in passing single-payer than Kuehl has been?
Should the Santa Rosa City Council declare a fiscal crisis for the purposes of tapping into Measure O funds to keep from cutting positions in the Police Department?
It's a difficult question.
When Measure O, calling for a quarter-cent sales tax, was approved in 2004, voters were promised that the funds would be used only to augment police, fire and anti-gang programs.
But there was a caveat that allowed the city to divert the funds to pay for existing police, fire and anti-gang programs if six of the seven council members declared a "fiscal crisis."
It's hard to argue that the city's current mess isn't a fiscal crisis.
Still many are concerned about the message it will be sending to voters, especially if the city decides it needs to go back to voters next year with another tax measure.
Will this jeopardize their chances of success?
My guess is the city would be justified in using the Measure O money especially if the alternative would be eliminating eight police officers, one sergeant, one lieutenant and several other department employees. It would be hard to imagine that most voters would prefer to leave that silo of money untouched while police service is cut so dramatically in other areas.
But the City Council first needs to make it clear it's serious about making major cuts to the city budget. We discuss this more in Tuesday's editorial in prepartion for tomorrow night's City Council meeting.
It doesn't roll off the tongue quite like Tinker to Evers to
Chance. And don't look for this combination to be immortalized alongside Montana and Clark and
Young and Rice.
But it's looking like a sure thing in the state solid waste
trifecta.
Wiggins is Pat Wiggins. During a two-year break between her
last term in the state Assembly and her current term in the state Senate, the
Santa Rosa Democrat was appointed to the state Intergrated Waste Management
Board.
When she left the board, Wesley Chesbro, a former state
senator (and before that a waste board member), was appointed to one of two vacancies. In a couple weeks, Chesbro,
D-Arcata, must give up his waste board seat (again) to take up residence in the
state Assembly next month.
Which brings us to Migden. That would be state Sen. Carole
Migden, who lost her re-election bid in the Democratic primary in June. Her
term ends in two weeks and it's widely expected that she will be appointed to
the waste board.
The board oversees California's
recycling efforts and enforces a state mandate to reduce landfill dumping by 50
percent. Board members are appointed by the governor, the Assembly speaker and
the Senate Rules Committee, making the board a popular landing spot for jobless
politicos. The current board chairwoman is Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger's former
scheduling secretary.
Members are paid $117,800 a year and apparently have ample
time to run for office.
The Los Angeles County Board of Supervisors on Wednesday
joined the list of challengers to Proposition 8, the ballot measure that amends
the state constitution to ban same-sex marriage.
The board joins supervisors in San Francisco
and Santa Clara
counties in a lawsuit against Prop. 8. Democrats in the state Legislature and
Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger also have called on the court to step in on the
grounds that Prop. 8 revised rather than amended the constitution, which
requires legislative as well as voter approval.
This is a risky gambit, for the plaintiffs and for the
court.
Most voters aren't versed in the finer points of
constitutional law, such as revisions vs. amendments to the constitution. They
do have a sense of fair play that could mean a backlash, perhaps even from some
opponents of Prop. 8, if the measure is overturned after being approved by the
voters.
There's plenty of precedent for overturning ballot measures.
Courts have rejected open primaries, campaign finance measures and a rather
sweeping consumer-protection law in recent years. But none of those generated
the political heat that Prop. 8 has.And neither term limits nor Prop. 13 was ruled a
revision, so it may be tough to sell Prop. 8 as such.
On the court, two justices are up for retention elections in
2010. One is Chief Justice Ron George, who wrote the same-sex marriage ruling,
which infuriated many conservatives. The other is Ming Chin, who dissented.
Both George and Chin faced retention challenges in 1998, led by critics of a
decision that overturned a state law requiring parental consent before a minor
undergoes an abortion. Both formed campaign committees, raised money and fought
off their opponents, which is rarely necessary in California judicial races.
George probably will have to do that again. Although he's a
former prosecutor whose rise on the bench has been orchestrated by
Republican governors, it's conservatives who will be looking to unseat him,
much as they did in 1986 with Chief Justice Rose Bird and two associate justices appointed by Democrats.
This isn't to suggest that Prop. 8 should stand
unchallenged. But it would better political sense for advocates of same-sex marriage to try
to repeal it with another ballot measure in 2010.
A comparison of election results from 2000 and 2008 shows
that support for same-sex marriage increased from 39 percent to 48 percent. The
sad fact is opponents of Prop. 8 may have defeated it with a better campaign.
Crowds have turned out to protest, but where were those crowds before the election? There was next to no effort to counter the most effective pro-Prop. 8 ads, which claimed negative impacts
on churches and schools. And instead of gay families, the campaign relied on
politicians such as Sen. Dianne Feinstein and schools chief Jack O'Connell to
make its case.
A court fight only compounds the mistakes of the campaign.
Supporters of same-sex marriage need to convince the electorate.
One recurring theme during the closing days of the campaign
and the first few days after the election was that a newly minted generation of
political junkies would suffer withdrawal. Not to worry. Less than a week has
passed, and we've got the first handicap report on California's 2010 gubernatorial election to
dissect.
And why not? Some stores have been set up for Christmas since the
Fourth of July.
Michael Rothfeld rounds up the likely field of candidates in
today's Los Angeles Times. Alas, no great surprises.
Among the Democrats mentioned are Jerry Brown, John
Garamendi, Gavin Newsom (though his "Howard Dean moment" on same-sex marriage might
hurt him in the general election, it is pointed out), Antonio Villaraigosa and
Steve Westley (who also has been mentioned for an Obama administration post).
The wild card, of course, is Dianne Feinstein. If she runs, chances are
everyone else is busy. Errands to run. Hair to wash. Lawn to mow. No time for a
campaign.
There aren't many household names among the Republicans -- Meg
Whitman, Steve Poizner and Campbell. But Whitman, the founder of eBay, is a
self-made billionaire. Poizner, the state's insurance commissioner, has deep
pockets, too. Campbell
has been on the faculty at Cal and Stanford, served five terms in Congress and was state
finance director under Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger.
I think Feinstein takes a pass, and we see a free-for-all
among the Democrats. Whitman seems to me to have the inside for the Republicans
- money, huge business success, female. What do you think? Or were you hoping
to get through Thanksgiving (or at least Veterans Day) without thinking about
the next election?
Measure Q: I told several people that I thought Q would fail,
largely because it wouldn't do well in MarinCounty.
Moreover, I said I expected Marin voters to give much stronger support to Prop.
1A (bonds for a high-speed train to L.A.)
than to a local rail measure. Well, I certainly was wrong. Support in Marin increased
since 2006, and, as a result, this time the rail measure passed. I was right that Prop. 1A would do better -
65 percent vs. 62.6 percent. But 2.4 percentage points doesn't exactly equate to "much stronger." In
SonomaCounty, by the way, Prop. 1A lagged well
behind Q - 64 percent vs. 73.5 percent.
Prop. 8: Election results don't become final for about a
month after Election Day, as late absentees are counted and the vote is canvassed.
During that time, I would imagine that there will be a rush, much as there was
right before the election, for gay couples to marry. That's going to be an
extra crunch for county clerks, who will be wrapping up the election at the
same time they have a big demand for marriage licenses and civil weddings. I
also imagine we'll see a court fight over the validity of the marriages
conducted in the six months between the state Supreme Court ruling and whatever
date Prop. 8 takes effect.
Rohnert Park:
Interesting mixed message in the results here. Measure L, the sewer rate
rollback, passed, yet the candidate most closely associated with it (Dawna
Gallagher) finished last in the City Council election. We'll probably get a
picture very quickly of whether the sponsors were right that the city could
meet all its financial obligations, including paying for the regional treatment plant and
The Geysers pipeline, with lower rates. A major argument of Measure L's
sponsors was that the city had been adding a sewer line to promote growth. Yet
the new council majority may be considerably friendlier to development proposals
than the majority that has been turned out.
It also will be interesting to see if the new council
revisits the issue of retirement benefits for the Public Safety
Department. Joe Callinan and Gina Belforte were critical of the negotiations
that resulted in a two-tier retirement system, which reduced the city's long-term
liability.
Board of Supervisors: I haven't got an up-to-date voter
registration breakdown of SonomaCounty by supervisorial
district, but I'm surprised to see that there were far more votes cast in the
1st district (Valerie Brown vs. Will Pier) than either of the other races. Pier
quietly put together a very serious challenge to an incumbent supervisor, but
attention was focused on the contests between Shirlee Zane and Sharon Wright in Santa Rosa
and Efren Carrillo and Rue Furch in the west county. The numbers will change as the remaining absentees are
counted, but probably not the proportions. For now, there are 40,500 ballots in
the 1st district, 31,000 in the 3rd and 34,000 in the 5th.
Ballot fatigue: It's not unusual to see a big drop-off from
the top of the ballot to the bottom, but not this time, at least in SonomaCounty.
There were 196,300 votes cast for president and 180,671 for Measure Q, the last item on the ballot. What
else were voters intense about? Prop. 8, for sure. There were 194,000 ballots cast. And Proposition 2 (chickens and cages), with 190,300 ballots.
It's 11 p.m. and it looks, believe it or not, as if Measure Q could be headed for victory.
With 97 percent of the precincts reporting in Marin County, Measure Q was winning with 62.4 percent of the vote. In Sonoma County, with half the precincts reporting, Measure Q was winning with 72.7 percent. Combined, the train measure was winning with about 68 percent. If these numbers hold, the train would get about 2 percent more in Sonoma County and a surprising 5 percent increase in Marin County from the results of a similar measure (Measure R) two years ago.
That is really remarkable given the downturn in the economy and the opposition this year by some well-known Sonoma County people such as Joan Vilms and former Supervisor Ernie Carpenter.
Carpenter was recently interviewed on KRCB by Dick Spotswood and said that he still believed the train was going to create a surge in growth in Sonoma County, altough he had a hard time explaining why.
When Spotswood asked him, "Well, what's your alternative?" Carpenter stumbled a bit. "I don't know," he said. "Do you really need an alternative?"
He then went onto talk about how cars will become more fuel efficient. I like Ernie, but this wasn't his most persuasive moment. I'm still not clear why he stepped out to oppose Measure Q.
Our list of the most deceptives mailers in this election continues . . .
No. 2 - Zane the Puppet - This is the nasty four-page mailer that shows 3rd District Supervisorial Candidate Shirlee Zane on puppet strings under the title "Who really controls Shirlee Zane." (To see it, click here
azneoutside0081104202002.pdf and zaneinside0081104202014.pdf). Zane has been supported heavily by the unions in this race. But this mailer goes over the top in suggesting that she will be their puppet which "can only mean fewer parks, more potholes and less money for badly needed social services." It's hard to believe Zane, the head of the Council on Aging, would agree to cut social services to bost benefits to union employees. I also don't remember her pledging to creat more potholes. Distortion score (on scale of one to 10) - 7
And now for the No.1 most deceptive mailer - "One thing is clear" This is part of a series of attack mailers put out by "West County Labor, Environmentalists and Democrats for Change" against 5th District supervisorial candidate Efren Carrillo.
(Click here.efrenfront20081104202225.pdf and here efreninside0081104202123.pdf ) This one features an aerial photo of a clear cut hillside. It states, "In the race for Supervisor, one thing is clear - the developers backing Efren Carrillo want to clear cut Sonoma County Forests." This refers to the proposed 19,650-acre Preservation Ranch project which includes planting 1,800 acres of vineyards across 30 square miles near Annapolis. If the project is approved, trees will be cut down. But no clear-cutting is proposed. On the contrary, sponsors of the project are seeking approval under the very timber-conversion rules that county Planning Commissioner Rue Furch, Carrillo's election opponent, recommended be approved.
The ad notes that one of Carrillo's closest advisers is a paid consultant on Preservation Ranch. This is true. It's referring to former supervisor Eric Koenigshofer who has supported and is helping Carrillo and has donated to his campaign.
The ad states that ``Carrillo has refused to take a position on the project, saying he is waiting for a report to be issued ...'' This is also true. But Furch has taken the same position, because that "report" happens to be the environmental impact report which will trigger the county's review process.
The contention here is that if Carrillo is elected, forests will be devastated, which is the worst kind of pandering to environmental fears. Distortion score (On scale of one to 10) - 9
Honorable Mentions for the "worst" list:
A mailer from unions and environmental groups supporting Shirlee Zane that contends Sharon Wright, while on the board of Memorial Hospital, ``presided over the closing of vital services'' such as the psychiatric center;
A mailer from Efren Carillo titled "Furchfacts.com," which attacks Furch for her delinquency in paying her property taxes. It also distorts her position on the Rohnert Park casino vote.
The big check. (See Sweeney's blog to come.)
Overall, it's the ads that demonize people that are the worst in my opinion. Carrillo, Furch, Zane, Wright, Brown, Pier, they are all decent people who are running for office because they care about their county not because they are to destroy it - as the worst of the mailers in this campaign contend.
Let's admit it. This election has been one of the worst for negative campaigning in Sonoma County. The gloves came off, and it got pretty nasty out there.
In our survey last week, half of the respondents agreed that the mailers in this election were "more negative and more misleading" than in previous years. And 75 percent agreed that candidates themselves need to take a stronger stand against such ads, whether they benefit from them or not.
Here are my picks for the five most deceptive and unfair mailers in this election. I'll make like Letterman and start with the last first.)
No. 5. The Developers' Team - (To see this one, click here
20081104190051.pdf) This is a card attacking "The Team" - a slate of the more conservative candidates for the Santa Rosa City Council. This mailer was put out by "A Coalition for a Better Sonoma County" the group funded primarily by labor and environmental groups.
The slate attacks the "Team" as being supported by the developers, although it doesn't give one example of a pro-developer vote - or any vote for that matter - by the incumbents (Jane Bender, John Sawyer and Carol Dean) that the coalition disagrees with. Nastiest remark: Under the remarks about Ernie Oliveras it states that he "hasn't done much about gang prevention" and is known for "Being a part of the Police Department's failed leadership on gangs." Ouch. Where did that come from? Before you try to smear someone's career, you might give an example.
No. 4 - On the Hook - This is the one we talked about in today's editorial. (To see it, click here
20081104190217.pdf) In this one, incumbent Valerie Brown attacks her opponent Will Pier for his suggestion that the county should look into taking back control of Sutter Medical Center, which used to be the county-operated Community Hospital. The ad contends Pier "wants taxpayers on the hook for millions to take over Sutter." All Pier has done is suggest that it be explored. He is not the first to make this suggestion and hardly deserved to be hung out to dry on this one.
No. 3 - Not Green, Not Smart - This is an anti-Measure Q mailer sent out by North Bay Citizens for Effective Transportation, No on Q, a Corte Madera-based group. (To see it, click here.
measureq0081104201200.pdf )It's essentially a letter from former Sonoma County Supervisor Ernie Carpenter and Santa Rosa conservationist Joan Vilms. In it they say, "If Measure Q passes, powerful forces will propel massive growth and urbanization from Petaluma to Cloverdale under the rubric of 'transit villages.'" Powerful forces? Massive growth? Sounds like a job for Superman. All this from a train that, as they argue, no one will ride. Pretty dramatic - and misleading - talk.
This is getting to long, so I'll give my final two in my next blog entry
So when exactly did Sharon Wright leave the Memorial Hospital board and was she responsible for the closure of the psychiatric center?
A recent mailer sent out by unions and environmental groups supporting Shirlee Zane contends that Wright, while on the board "presided over closing of vital services"' such as the psychiatric center. Our story on Oct. 28 noted, "Wright says the decision to close that facility was made after she got off the board and besides 'those decisions are made at the corporate level, not at the local level.'''
But an opinion piece submitted by Santa Rosa City Councilwoman Veronica Jacobi and new SR School Board member Laura Gonzalez contends that Wright's own Web site notes that she didn't leave the board until March of this year, which the decision to close the psychiatric unit was announced in mid-February. (To read the Close to Home, click here.)
So which is it?
I called Sharon and this is the response she e-mailed me:
"Hopefully this will set the record straight.
In their mailer, Sonoma County Progressive Labor Coalition states:
"During her term on the Board of Trustees of the Santa Rosa Memorial Hospital, Sharon Wright presided over the closing of vital services needed by the community, including the last in-patient psychiatric center in the county."
Here are the facts:
I served on the Board of Trustees for Santa Rosa Memorial Hospital from January 2007 to February 26, 2008.
I also served on the hospital Foundation Board and co-chaired the Capital Campaign with Al Maggini. We raised $15.2 million for the new Heart Institute that opened in June of this year and for the state of the art electronic intensive care unit (E ICU) system that has reduced the mortality rate at Memorial by 32%.
At the January 22, 2008 meeting of the Board of Trustees, George Perez, CEO & President announced to the Board that the Executive Management Team (EMT) had completed a "discernment process" and made the decision that it would be necessary to close the acute care psychiatric facility on Fulton Road. I was not at that meeting - Michael's father had cancer surgery the day before and we were at UCSF for several days.
At no time did the Board of Trustees vote or take any action on the closure of the psychiatric center.
On February 13, 2008, CEO Perez notified the staff, Board of Trustees and the press of the pending closure of the Fulton facility. The staff and public were given 90 days notice of the closure at that time. This was the first official word I had of the pending closure. Neither I nor the Board had any oversight or authority on the decision or the closure.
"While I don't have the specific dates, I can tell you that the few times the issue of funding for mental health programs were discussed at the Board level, Sister Mary and I spoke up in strong opposition. That has been my consistent record. I can also tell you that the Sisters of Orange and the entire health system take their mission of having the "Healthiest Communities" where they operate exceedingly serious. To infer that they don't is beyond comprehension. They tithe 10 percent of their operating budget back to the communities they serve - far more, I dare to say, than any other single entity can claim.
Paul, I take my commitment to this community very serious. I have given over 20 years of service as a volunteer and public official, for little to no pay. That was my choice and that was my pleasure. The inference that I would do anything that was self-serving, sinister or unethical is, as you would say, hogwash."
Is Sharon Wright in trouble in her race against Shirlee Zane for the 3rd Supervisorial District?An informal poll of select PD letter writers that we conducted late last week suggests that Zane could be heading for a victory.
Although history has shown these surveys to be fairly accurate, they are not at all scientific. (For one reason, they're biased toward people who read newspapers and write letters, which is not a representation of the general voting public.)
The sampling of voters from the 3rd District (102 voters) was not huge either. Nonetheless, the poll shows Zane leading 50 percent to Wright's 31 percent, with 21 percent undecided.
The 5th District race is much closer with 45 percent of voters saying they support Efren Carrillo with 42 percent supporting Rue Furch. Twelve percent are undecided. (These results are slightly different from what we reported today because an additional 25 filled out the survey after deadline Friday.)
The results of the 1st District race between incumbent Valerie Brown and Will Pier had to be tossed out because of a mistake in how the survey was set up. But the results still sugget that this race could be close.
Another indication is the "attack" mailer that went out this week against Pier for, among other things, his position that the county should try to take back control of Community Hospital. Why would Brown and her supporters spend the money on something like that unless they were concerned that this race might be tight?
Is change in the air?
A number of Sonoma Valley residents are not happy with her vote on the Graywood Ranch proposal.
In the Santa Rosa City Council race, it appears to be a tight race between incumbents Lee Pierce and John Sawyer as well as Gary Wysocky, Marsha Vas Dupre and Michael Allen for the four open seats. All had support ranging from 41 percent to 50 percent of those surveyed. Ernest Oliveras trailed this group with 38 percent followed by incumbent Carol Dean and Don Taylor with 23 percent. Nine percent of voters said they were still undecided.
According to our poll, the race for the two-year seat had Judy Kennedy ahead with 32 percent followed by incumbent Councilwoman Jane Bender at 29 percent. David Rosas followed with 20 percent support of the 118 surveyed. But 24 percent of those surveyed said they were undecided on this race.
Recent Comments