The year that was

There were many worthy stories of 2010 including a tragic disaster that destroyed a San Bruno neighborhood and many lives as well and the ever controversial High Speed Rail project. But as this column is focused on the politics of San Mateo County, the stories of disaster, high profile criminal cases, the total Christmas sales as compared to last year or the highs and lows of Bay Area sports will not be included. Instead, the list below reflects the best of the political stories, known and unknown, in 2010.

Names change in county offices but perhaps not much else

This year, four countywide elected officials left local office after lengthy tenures. San Mateo County Supervisor Rich Gordon, forced out of local office by term limits after 13 years in office, was elected to the State Assembly. Replacing Gordon is Don Horsley, a county fixture having served as the county’s Sheriff for 13 years, retiring in 2006 to run for a local special districts office and now Supervisor.

This year also saw the retirements of San Mateo County District Attorney Jim Fox, County Treasurer Lee Buffington and County Assessor-Clerk Record Warren Slocum. All elected administrators has a combined tenure in office of approximately 75 years and were replaced either by office deputies who or someone else in the political family. In the case of Slocum’s office quite literally in that of Supervisor Mark Church who left the county board after ten years to run for Slocum’s seat, the very same seat held by Church’s father before Slocum, making two of the three people to ever hold the office as father and son.

Fox, for his part, was replaced by veteran deputy Steve Wagstaffe without opposition and veteran deputy of the County Treasurer, Sandie Arnott squeaked by with a win to inherit that seat. So, some names have changed but the tight political circle that is San Mateo County has been largely maintained.

Supervisors block district elections

The insular nature of San Mateo County politics was exemplified well when the San Mateo County Board of Supervisors, on a 4-1 vote last August, refused to place a measure on the local ballot last summer that would have allowed voters to elect their supervisors by district rather than the current at-large or countywide system now used. San Mateo County remains the only California County to maintain such a system.

The vote was a repudiation of the recommendation made by the San Mateo County Charter Review Committee to alter the system in which the five full-time political offices are elected by placing a measure on the November 2010 ballot. The very same committee empanelled by the Board of Supervisors and charged with making recommendations to improve the county’s governance.

Despite editorials in the local press supporting allowing voters to decide for themselves and a threat of a possible lawsuit the Supervisors embraced a scheme which will protect themselves and allow for little or no competition for the rare offices – the circle tightens again.

Cargill’s political cash

Cargill Salt, the soon-to-be former salt producer in Redwood City, is attempting to develop its Bayside property over the objections of just about everyone except development interests around the Bay. In so doing, Cargill and its development partner DMB of Arizona, is donating political cash in the hopes of securing a favorable political landscape in the area. Recently, the issue played a major role in the Democratic Primary Election for the 21st Assembly District seat which covers southern San Mateo and northern Santa Clara counties.

According to local news reports, Cargill spent tens of thousands of dollars to end the political ambitions of former Palo Alto councilmember Yoriko Kishimito who placed third in the 21st district Primary. Why? Kishimoto has been an outspoken opponent of the development and the folks at Cargill evidently wanted to make sure that no such opponent made it to higher office.

Other local candidates have also benefitted from donations from Cargill. The complication of Cargill’s presence in the area has also extended to Redwood City Councilmember Roseanne Foust who was called out by the California Fair Political Practices Commission (FPPC) for a conflict of interest that will restrict her ability to vote on the proposed Cargill development in the city she represents.

Foust has denied a possible conflict several times as this issue has been raised repeatedly over the past couple of years. It wasn’t until Andy Cohen, a councilmember from neighboring Menlo Park filed a formal complaint with the FPPC, California’s political watchdog agency, claiming that Foust’s dual role as CEO of the San Mateo County Economic Development Association (SAMCEDA) and as a councilmember who will make key votes on a major development project formally endorsed by SAMCEDA, which is also financially supported by the developer and Cargill. It goes without saying that Cargill political money will play a role in local politics and any would-be candidate should expect it now.

Measure U passes

An interesting reform that voters adopted was Measure U on the November 2, 2010 ballot. Measure U was one of many reforms proposed by the San Mateo County Charter Review Commission. Measure U will restrict the Board of Supervisors’ ability to appoint members to the board in the event of vacancies. Thanks to the overwhelming approval of Measure U by county voters, the county will hold a Special Election on May 3, 2010 to elect the replacement for Supervisor Mark Church who vacated his position to run for County Assessor-Clerk-Recorder.

This issue was touched off in late 2008 following the appointment of former San Mateo City Councilmember Carole Groom to the supervisorial seat left vacant by former Supervisor Jerry Hill, who had been elected to the State Assembly that November. Groom’s appointment to the board was roundly criticized in local newspaper editorials and formally opposed by organizations such as the San Mateo County Democratic Party, the county’s Republican Party, the Sierra Club, and even the League of Women Voters. Despite the firestorm of opposition, Groom was appointed by the Supervisors with only Supervisor Rich Gordon calling for a special election instead. Now, thanks to the passage of Measure U, Supervisors must call for an election in the event of a board vacancy in the first two years and nine months of a Supervisor's term.

Munks runs unopposed

Although the story is now an old one, San Mateo County Sheriff Greg Munks' detention in a Las Vegas brothel in April of 2007 was never explained and has left a lingering cloud of suspicion over the Sheriff. The incident happened just months into Munks’ first term as the county’s elected sheriff so there was no means for voters to respond to the scandal.

Despite the seemingly ripe opportunity for a challenger to run against Munks in 2010, no one emerged and Munks walked into a second term. Even local newspaper editors were surprised.

Indicted Daly City Councilmember easily reelected

At the end of November 2009, two-term Daly City Councilmember Maggie Gomez pleaded not guilty to 12 counts of insurance and workers' compensation fraud for which she will soon stand trial. Gomez had worked for Seton Hospital in Daly City as a patient relations manager and originally filed the claim in 2005. Despite the pending charges Gomez was easily reelected to her third term on the Daly City Council.

According to local news reports, Gomez will appear in San Mateo County Superior Court on Jan. 31 for a pretrial conference with a slated trial start date of March 7 in which she will actually now face a total of 16 felony charges.

Gomez is not the first sitting councilmember to be indicted for alleged felonies but if she is convicted she would be the first San Mateo County official removed from public office as a result in many, many years as convicted felons cannot hold public office. Should Gomez be convicted her council colleagues will be forced to appoint a temporary replacement or call a Special Election.

City governments struggling to survive

2010 was the year of consolidation and outsourcing of city services, a process that will likely accelerate in 2011. Amidst what is now the Great Recession, State diversions of local tax revenue and continuing increases in costs, many local jurisdictions are exploring ways to save money by combining services with other local agencies, outsourcing public services, wholesale elimination of services or some combination thereof.

2010 saw the San Carlos city council put the finishing touches on a major restructuring of city services, outsourcing some services entirely and contracting with the San Mateo County Sheriff’s Department for police services.

By contracting with the Sheriff’s Department, San Carlos officials hope to save over $3 million annually for a contract worth $6.8 million versus the $8.9 million the city spent maintaining its own police force last fiscal year, according to published reports.

In turn, the cities of Burlingame and San Mateo are now studying the potential for merging their respective police departments. Previous studies performed by each police department last fall concluded that the combined savings could be as much as $2.2 million annually for the cities.The City of Millbrae is now looking for a variety of shared service options to also reduce costs.

Recently, the Half Moon Bay Review newspaper suggested that with the departure of that city’s police chief that city officials should also explore contracting out police services to the Sheriff’s Department. Half Moon Bay is struggling financially and the city council placed a now failed one-cent tax measure on the November 2010 ballot. With the failure of that measure, some in and outside of the community are wondering aloud if the City will be able to survive.

While the process of consolidation and some outsourcing has been ongoing for several years, the economic factors driving these efforts have become more urgent. More will come in 2011, like it or not.

Pension battles

In addition to consolidation of services, many local cities have begun to revisit the pay and benefits of their respective employees but nowhere more explosively than in the City of Menlo Park. In that community, a signature led initiative was placed on the November 2010 ballot by local residents to roll back the future salary and pension benefits of city employees – with the exception of police.

What became Measure L was approved by over 72 percent of voters in that city despite fierce opposition by local unions. Although Measure L was mild in comparison to similar measures adopted elsewhere in California, the model for addressing pension reform has now been developed and may spread to other communities in the county or even on the ballot statewide. In short, the pension skirmishes that took place locally may only be the beginning of something much broader.

County budget challenges

On Tuesday, July 27th, the San Mateo County Board of Supervisors voted 3-2 against placing a one-quarter cent sales tax measure on the November 2010 General Election ballot. The five year tax would have generated an estimated $30 million per year and place San Mateo County’s sales tax rate among the highest in the Bay Area, equal to that of San Francisco and only 0.25 cents behind Alameda County.

The Supervisors continue to struggle to bring into balance a budget with a structural deficit of as much as $150 million and will likely endure state diversions of resources for the foreseeable future. The Supervisors have made several attempts in the past three years to raise revenues with little success. 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. The continued red-ink was and will be a major challenge.

San Francisco declares war on San Mateo County

Finally, in the waning days on 2010 in the midst of what is considered the season of sharing, officialdom from San Mateo County’s neighbor to the north offered up a double dose of Bah Humbug.

The San Francisco Board of Supervisors undertook legislation to impose a toll between the two counties for commuters entering and leaving San Francisco and adopted a local hiring priority program that will constrain the ability of construction trades workers from gaining employment on city funded projects.

Under the plan offered by the San Francisco Transit Authority, all drivers entering and leaving San Francisco via San Mateo County would have paid $3 between the hours of 6:30 to 9:30 a.m. and 3:30 to 6:30 p.m. The tolls were proposed as a congestion management scheme that would also, incidentally, raise as much as $80 million annually for all new tolls including ones in downtown San Francisco.

Needless to say the Grinch-like proposal drew howls of protest from local commuters who faced the possibility of an extra $1500 annual cost for getting to and from work. Many local pols threatened an all-out border war if San Francisco were to enact the toll.

San Mateo Assemblyman Jerry Hill, in speaking before the San Francisco board of Supervisors, threatened also to seek legislative relief to prevent San Francisco from doing so – a very likely easy sell in Sacramento. In the spirit of giving, the San Francisco supervisors quietly backed off the idea.

But San Francisco had more to give later in December in the form of a local hiring ordinance introduced by Supervisor John Avalos to give priority to San Francisco construction trades workers on city funded projects worth $400,000 or more, requiring such projects to utilize a workforce comprised of as much as 20 percent local residents. Moreover, the local hire requirement would increase by five percent every year until it reaches the 50 percent mark.

San Mateo County leaders and those involved in the construction business were obviously inflamed. The local hire ordinance will mean that future projects along San Francisco’s sprawling infrastructure throughout the Bay Area including the Hetch Hetchy water system, airport, jail, perhaps golf course and a great many assets would be largely off-limits to those wishing to bid for work on publicly funded infrastructure projects, although current projects were exempted from the ordinance.

Unsurprisingly, San Mateo County folks cried foul and urged soon-to-be Lt. Governor and Mayor Gavin Newsom to veto the legislation. But Newsom’s veto would have been useless as the Supervisors adopted the local hire ordinance with enough votes to override a veto anyway so Newsom let it go.

Despite the spirit of the season, it looks like San Mateo County got a lump of coal in its stocking this year. But again, Hill has vowed to take the fight to the Legislature.

And that was 2010.

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