Election tidal wave hits Pacifica

The City of Pacifica is again set to face roiling political seas with the qualification of a local initiative to establish term limitations for members of the City Council on the November 2010 ballot.

The initiative is sponsored by two local denizens who are, apparently, unhappy with the incumbent members of the council and the perceived power of incumbency as a leg up in reelection bids.

Local activists Bernie Sifry and Deborah Nagle-Burks sponsored the drafting and signature effort for the initiative hoping to blunt what Sifry referred to, recently in a news article, as the tradition of “career politicians” sitting on council in the small coastal city.

The intent of the initiative, as detailed on the website of the Pacifica Friends of Good Government—the formal group sponsor for the effort, would limit local citizens from serving more than two terms on the council, including partial terms. If adopted by voters, the clock would begin as of the next election, meaning all incumbents currently on the council would only be eligible to run for office twice more for a potential eight additional years on the council.

Pacifica has a long tradition of efforts in attempting to change the outcome of an already democratic process. In fact, Pacifica has experienced no less than five recall efforts of past city boards since 1977, only one of which was successful. In a 1992 recall effort, four councilmembers were removed from office—much of the tide of anger was tied to a local tax that had been recently imposed.

But the argument that Pacifica’s City Council is dominated by “career politicians” merits some analysis.

The council is comprised of five elected members who serve four year terms and are elected in staggered terms every even year. Of the five elected members, there are new comers, those in their midcareer, and a couple of veterans. The most senior member, Pete DeJarnatt was first elected in 1996 and is now in the middle of his fourth term in office, or his 14th year.

The next most senior member is Jim Vreeland who was first elected in 1998 and is just finishing his third term in office, or in his 12th year.

Two other members, Julie Lancelle and Sue Digre, were both elected in 2002 and just finishing their respective second terms, or eight years of service each.

Lastly, Mary Ann Nihart, the newest member, was elected in 2008 and is in the middle of her first term, or second year of service.

The spread of terms of service represent the long, the middle, and the new, and in terms of Pacifica, is actually fairly typical in comparison to other communities and reflects a paced but steady turnover.

Moreover, the City of Pacifica has had contested City Council elections for nearly every election for decades now, which many incumbents have lost and already done so. Nihart herself bested three-term incumbent Cal Hinton in the most recent council election 18 months ago.

Lastly, the term “career politicians”, as applied to local elected officials is simply silly. Councilmembers in every Peninsula community are part-time—citizen legislators who spend too much time away from their real jobs and families for these local offices as the work demands are high and escalating every day while any reward for service other than the satisfaction of service itself have changed little in decades.

To call these volunteers—and they more or less are volunteers as the compensation afforded to councilmembers amounts to peanuts every month—is patently ridiculous.

What the sponsors fail to understand is that the governance of even small communities is becoming very challenging, time consuming, and simply exhausting. Beyond the borders of any city, many councilmembers must work hard to build relationships with their colleagues in other communities and a variety of other interests in order to secure valuable appointments to regional boards and commissions that can and do provide a great deal of resources to local governments including regional transit boards and many other grant-making agencies. Without some tenure and a potential future, achieving a ranking position on these boards is all but impossible.

And by limiting the time individuals can serve will require Pacifica to offer up more and more candidates for an office that gets less and less credit or appreciation for its service.

Simply put, this is a terrible proposition for Pacifica.

The term limits initiative in Pacifica is a solution in search of a problem that will actually do far more harm to the city than any potential good.


Contact Bruce Balshone at bruce.examiner@gmail.com
Visit Bruce Balshone's Examiner Page
Visit Bruce Balshone's Twitter Page
Visit Bruce's Peninsula Examiner Facebook Page

San Mateo County taking another turn at taxes

According to local news reports, San Mateo County’s mounting deficit has hit an estimated $150 million, and county administrators and elected officials are scrambling to come up with ways to bridge the gap. However, the wholesale closing of major facilities or major programs is still not necessarily on of the table.

This month, county department heads are expected to provide the San Mateo County Board of Supervisors with their proposals to reduce expenditures within their respective departments, although conflicts within the Deputy Sheriff’s Union and the District Attorney’s Office have already strained what will be a difficult budget process.

As part of the strategy to deal with the budget, the County Manager was to obtain the services of an outside consultant and create an advisory panel to work with such a consultant--implemented in a plan adopted by the board at a recent Feb. 9, 2010 meeting. They would then, if one assumes the electoral viability of, explore several tax generating options to place on the ballot, either in June or November 2010.

According to the plan, the consultant would review one or all of the following options, or perhaps others.

Countywide Sales Tax (1/4 cent) which could yield approximately $30,000,000 per year
• Utility Users Tax (Phone, Wireless, Electric, Gas, Water and Cable) which could yield approximately $2,000,000 per year
Commercial Parking Facility Operators (Measure Q) which could yield approximately $500,000 per year
Vehicle Rental Businesses (Measure R) which could yield approximately $3,000,000 per year
• Uniform Business License Tax, the yield for which is undetermined
Transient Occupancy Tax (hotel tax) which could yield approximately $100,000 per year

Unfortunately, many of the ideas the County Manager has proposed have already been attempted.

In fact, a countywide sales tax was attempted twice in the past few years, the most recent of which was Measure O, a 1/8-cent sales tax for city and county parks. That measure failed twice at the ballot and was half of the sales tax proposed by the county.

In addition, in November 2008, the board placed two measures on the local ballot designed to raise much needed revenue. The first, Measure Q, was an 8% business license tax on gross receipts of operators of commercial parking in the unincorporated County area, meaning San Francisco International Airport. This measure would have raised roughly $4 million annually without significantly impacting the pocketbooks of County residents.

The second tax effort, Measure R, would have levied a 2.5% business license tax on gross receipts of vehicle rental businesses in the unincorporated county area, meaning the airport as well. This measure would have raised roughly $7.5 million annually, as the tax itself would have generated tax revenue from car rental enterprises at the airport, which generate a great amount of tax for the City and County of San Francisco, but little for San Mateo County.

Both taxes would have generated money from visitors from out of town; so, theoretically, there should have been little in the way of opposition from county taxpayers and voters.

Both measures failed to garner even a simple majority on a ballot that included newly elected President Barack Obama. Measure Q garnered only 47.4% of the voter and Measure R garnered only 47.1% of the vote.

With a little support, both measures could have easily passed muster but both were simply abandoned. While San Mateo County's Supervisors placed them on the ballot, none took ownership of the measures nor helped to coordinate support.

Since then, according to the county elections web site, no less than 15 local jurisdictions have placed 20 tax measures on the local ballot in four separate local elections to raise new revenues in 2009 alone—with only some success as five of the measures failed even in such tough economic times.

In 2010, four local school districts have sought or are seeking new or renewals of local parcel taxes, and more districts are considering such an option including the Cabrillo Unified School District, the South San Francisco Unified School District, and the San Mateo County Community College District.

The county has been running in the red for several years and has been depleting its reserves to cover ongoing costs for several budget cycles. Last spring, the county announced that it had a $29 million structural budget deficit, prior to the Lehman Brothers collapse and before the full extent of the state economic meltdown was known. Now the deficit is $150 million and counting.

This month, county residents should know what the county’s consultant will propose and what the Board of Supervisors may elect to do. But the capacity for new taxes to support County services and the ability of the County’s elected leadership to see it through remain to be seen. Part of the package of taxes could have already been in place in 2008 and already generated a great deal of revenue had someone taken the reigns and mounted a campaign in support of the airport parking taxes. But obviously, no one did.

Nonetheless, voters in San Mateo County can expect a steady stream of local tax measures on the ballot in a series of elections to come.

Contact Bruce Balshone at bruce.examiner@gmail.com
Visit Bruce Balshone's Examiner Page
Visit Bruce Balshone's Twitter Page
Visit Bruce's Peninsula Examiner Facebook Page

More prospective 2010 San Mateo County candidates

Battle brewing between Ruskin and Church

Following the announcement by Warren Slocum that he would not seek reelection this year, San Mateo County Supervisor Mark Church, announced that he would go ahead and seek the seat Slocum now holds, San Mateo County Assessor-Clerk-Recorder.

Slocum is currently the only second Elections Chief and Recorder for San Mateo County, having taken the reigns from the former Clerk Marvin Church since 1967, the father of Supervisor Mark Church, who is now seeking his dad’s old seat.

Church has moved fast by garnering endorsements from all over San Mateo County; however, despite his fast actions to lock up the seat, he may still yet have competition. It is rumored that Assemblyman Ira Ruskin may be interested in running for the Assessor-Clerk-Recorder seat.

Ruskin, who is being forced from office due to term limits from his seat representing southern San Mateo County, would make a formidable opponent able to raise resources from Sacramento and who would easily win in the southern portion of San Mateo County where he enjoys a degree of popularity.

While Church has been in countywide office for a decade, he has never had to seriously campaign for office and is not particularly well known. In fact, Church has never been particularly visible as a county Supervisor, never championing any particular issue of note nor doing anything beyond the usual to outreach to his constituents. As a result, there is little reason to believe that an adequately funded competitor, with a good title and a degree of name recognition, wouldn’t give him a run for his money.

If Ruskin runs, Church will face the first real test of his near 20 years in local office.


San Mateo County Coroner may finally face the music

San Mateo County Coroner Robert J. Foucrault will seek his third full term in office this year, but unlike most incumbent elected county administrators, Foucrault has an opponent, as well as some issues to be concerned about.

Foucrault will face a former Coroner’s Office employee, Stacie Nevares, in the June 8, 2010 Primary Election. Nevares is currently an employee of the University of California, San Francisco Police Department managing personnel policies, media and community relations activities among a variety of ministerial duties.

Prior to her work at UCSF, Nevares was an assistant to the San Mateo Coroner. At the Coroner’s department, she was responsible for all communications and public outreach, and helped develop the San Mateo County Homicide Protocol.

Foucrault has worked in the County Coroner's office since 1992, including positions as Chief Deputy Coroner and Acting Coroner. Foucrault previously worked in various capacities in positions with San Bruno, Millbrae, San Francisco and San Mateo County. Foucrault was first appointed to the Coroner’s post in 2001 following the death of former Coroner Bud Moorman.

Nevares ran against Foucrault in an ill-fated write-in campaign attempt in 2006 as a protest effort in response to a raft of allegations against Foucrault and his administration just prior to the June 2006 election.

Only weeks before Foucrault’s reelection bid for a second term, the county was rocked by numerous allegations of sexual harassment and a variety of lewd and highly salacious behavior within the department that stretched back many years. The allegations, made primarily by a former deputy coroner, included “…sexual banter, innuendo, decorations of a sexual nature on a birthday cake and teasing about one employee’s sexual orientation” according to one investigator’s report.

Other findings included a birthday cake for an employee that was decorated with a naked woman figurine, the fact that employees accessed adult Internet sites on their work computers and a life-size fake skeleton had breasts drawn on it. Most embarrassingly, Foucrault himself denied a claim by employees that he "mooned" two deputy coroners after hours in 2003 - a claim that was never directly substantiated but one that an investigator concluded likely happened.

Despite the allegations against him Foucrault won a landslide reelection in 2006 simply because it was just too late in the election cycle for anyone to mount a campaign against him. Four years later, many voters have likely forgotten about the scandal – but not Nevares and perhaps not many in the County’s progressive political faction.

Still, Foucrault’s foibles have not deterred current and former county politicians from actively supporting him, including current San Mateo County Sheriff Greg Munks, who was himself embroiled in a sex scandal a year later when he was detained by federal and local law enforcement at a Las Vegas brothel in April of 2007, and former San Mateo County political boss Mike Nevin, who both are raising money for Foucrault.

It will be interesting to see who will publicly support Foucrault despite the scandal. Despite the scandals, Nevares will have an uphill battle to oust an incumbent in an elected office that few voters pay attention or even understand.

Contact Bruce Balshone at bruce.examiner@gmail.com
Visit Bruce Balshone's Examiner Page
Visit Bruce Balshone's Twitter Page
Visit Bruce's Peninsula Examiner Facebook Page