A Senate bill that would have outlawed strikes by BART‘s transit unions, as well as workers for CalTrans, and VTA, was defeated January 13, 2014 in the Senate Public Employees and Retirement Committee.  The vote was three against and two in favor, along party lines with Democrats opposing. Two Bay Area Democratic senators, Leland Yee, San Francisco, and Jim Beall, San Jose voted with the majority.  This means the bill will not be taken up on the floor of the State Senate, unless reintroduced before the February deadline.

Last month, the BART Board of Directors discussed the need for a ban and the possibility of developing an alternate ban. However, neither BART management nor BART riders attended the Senate committee meeting. The Service Employees International Union and Amalgamated Transit Union did attend and testify against the bill.

Read PCA previous coverage of the proposed bill.

Read more: http://www.pleasantonweekly.com/news/2014/01/16/legislators-kill-bart-strike-ban-proposal

http://sanfrancisco.cbslocal.com/2014/01/13/phil-matier-california-lawmakers-kill-proposal-to-ban-transit-strikes/

Piedmont League of Women Voters forum statements –

A January 15, 2014 article in the Piedmont Post entitled “City Council candidates provide some answers in League-led forum,” contains two significant errors. The article both misidentified and misquoted me, and in doing so distorted the substance of my response to a question at the forum about fire department staffing levels.

First, I was not a member of the Municipal Tax Review Committee (MTRC), which completed its work in 2011. I am  a member of the City’s Budget Advisory & Financial Planning Committee.

The direct quotation attributed to me in the article omitted, without ellipsis, the core of my response: that, following the recommendation of the MTRC to consider service efficiencies in all departments, including fire, the Council had later asked the then-fire chief for his opinion, and that he had responded that he would not recommend reducing fire staffing levels. That opinion by former Chief Tubbs is what I referred to when I said we had a new chief now but nothing had changed significantly.

Piedmont’s high-quality public services are essential to its high quality of life, and I deeply regret any confusion the Post’s misquotation may have caused among voters regarding my position on an essential public service at a time when many ballots are being cast.

I urge Piedmont voters to view the KCOM rebroadcasts or the online video of the candidate forum, which is available on the City of Piedmont website under KCOM/On-Line Video/Other Public Meetings, to hear my complete and unedited response to this and other questions.

Tim Rood, City Council Candidate

Editors’ Note:  The opinions expressed are those of the author and not necessarily those of the Piedmont Civic Association.  The Piedmont Civic Association does not support or oppose candidates for public office.  Information on candidates and their campaigns are welcomed.

 

– Financial knowledge and years of experience –

The residents in our fair city have benefited from a long line of dedicated City Council members, including current office holders: John Chiang, Margaret Fujioka, Garrett Keating, Bob McBain and Jeff Wieler.  The range of talent in past and current members have helped steer Piedmont through flush and lean economic periods while maintaining an excellent level of city services.  Not an easy act to pull off.  And while increased revenues from higher home sales and other sources have helped offset rising operating costs – not to mention greater expenditures for personnel, the newly formed City Council along with our TBD City Administrator will face some tough fiscal and planning decisions ahead.

And it’s this fiscal showdown – a showdown municipalities across the country are facing with growing pension obligations matched with increased costs of running a city, aging infrastructures, transportation systems and technology – that I welcome the addition of Tim Rood to our City Council.

Holding dual advanced degrees in Architecture and City Planning from Cal, Rood has successfully managed multidisciplinary consulting teams in numerous cities, tackling just these issues: fiscal responsibility with demands for change and growth.  Integrating new demands for LEED accreditation in green neighborhood design, as well as accommodating more pedestrian and bicycle traffic, and installing greater safety measures in small and large communities, including Oakland, Martinez, San Rafael and Healdsburg, Tim’s experience is all about working with a range of professionals committed to making cities run well for its residents.  Coming off a two-year stint volunteering on our Budget Advisory & Financial Planning Committee, Tim Rood’s broad experience in civic planning will be a terrific addition to our Council and I urge neighbors to vote for him.

Denise Bostrom, Piedmont Resident

Editors’ Note:  The opinions expressed are those of the author and not necessarily those of the Piedmont Civic Association.  The Piedmont Civic Association does not support or oppose candidates for public office. Information on candidates and their campaigns are welcomed.

Lots of ways to vote….even if you have travel plans.  You can vote now. 

On February 4, 2014, the City of Piedmont will hold a General Municipal Election to elect members of the City Council and School Board.  Three seats to the City Council will be elected in an uncontested contest.  The candidates are Tim Rood, Teddy King, and incumbent Jeff Wieler.   Two members of the Piedmont Unified School District Board of Education will be elected from a field of three candidates: Amal Smith, Doug Ireland, and Hari Titan.  (Candidates are listed in the order found in the Voter Information Pamphlet.)

Also on the ballot is Measure A regarding approval of a bond measure to reduce the interest rate charged for the CalPERS pension side fund obligation.  The Piedmont City Charter specifies:

“No bonded indebtedness which shall constitute a general obligation of the City may be created unless authorized by the affirmative votes of a majority of the electors voting on such proposition at any election at which the question is submitted to the electors and unless in full compliance with the provisions of the State Constitution, other State laws and this Charter.”

Information on the candidates and the ballot measure can be found in the Voter Pamphlet.  Additional information can be found about the candidates at SmartVoter.

The deadline to register to vote is January 20, 2014. The deadline to request a vote by mail ballot is January 28, 2014.

The Piedmont City Clerk’s Office is able to accept Vote by Mail ballots during regular business hours for the Tuesday, February 4th General Municipal Election now and on election day.  The City Clerk, John Tulloch,  is located in City Hall at 120 Vista Avenue, Piedmont.

In addition, Vote by Mail ballots can be dropped off at the Registrar of Voters office 1225 Fallon Street, Room G-1, in Oakland or to any polling place on Election Day.

To be counted, all ballots must be received by the Registrar of Voters no later than 8:00 p.m. on Election Day.  Post marks do not qualify a ballot to be counted.

To find out the location of your polling place or to see whether your Vote by Mail ballot has been received by the Registrar of Voters, please see the My Voter Profile web page.

If you are a registered voter who can’t make it to the polls on election day, you can also vote now during regular business hours at the Registrar of Voters office at 1225 Fallon Street, Room G-1, in Oakland prior to and on election day.

For more information on early voting please contact the Alameda County Registrar’s office at (510) 272-6973.

Resident Rick Schiller recommends contract change:

While I value an informed electorate, John Chiang is a strong advocate for Measure A and no one spoke in opposition. If no one is available to speak then the LWV should have had no speakers on this.

A critical issue of the Sidefund Refinance was not discussed last night. According to the BAFP June 3 Report, if the SideFund is refinanced “without a contract change in the mechanics of the cap, the refinancing of the Side Fund would save the employees substantial money but actually cost the City more money (p19). ”

Taxpayers should have been told that by passing the bond refinance, unless Council acts on negotiating down the Pension sharing caps, taxpayers will be voting to pay more for employee pensions.

Editors’ Note:  The opinions expressed are those of the author and not necessarily those of the Piedmont Civic Association.

Non-profit organizations’ use of City Hall, public schools and other public facilities for ballot measure advocacy and partisan campaigns are no longer allowed.

On January 1, 2014 SB 594 came into effect in California and may create hurdles for non-profit organizations across the state and in Piedmont.  Sections 54964.5 and 54964.6 of the California Code were approved by the Governor on October 12, 2013. The new law prohibits non-profit organizations from using the property of local governments in their advocacy of candidates or ballot measures.

According municipal law consultant BB&K:

“SB 594, which takes effect on January 1, 2014, prohibits nonprofit organizations from using “public resources” in any communications that expressly advocate for or against a state or local ballot measure, or for the election or defeat of a candidate, or that constitutes a campaign contribution.”

The law defines “public resources” as:

“Any property or asset owned by a local agency, including, but not limited to, cash, land, buildings, facilities, funds, equipment, supplies, telephones, computers, vehicles, travel, and local government compensated time that is provided to a nonprofit organization.”

Piedmont is in the practice of allowing organizations advocating for ballot measures to use public facilities for promoting ballot measures, including partisan forums and programs.  The City has videoed these forums, programs and meetings and allowed use of the City website as a communication vehicle. 

Editors’ Note:  The Piedmont Civic Association (PCA) does not support or oppose candidates for public office or ballot measures.  

Cost overruns, unidentified risks, legal and engineering oversight are addressed in the finally adopted Risk Assessment Policy.

Following Piedmont’s unplanned expenditure of well over 3 million tax payer dollars, a result of the  failed Blair Park/Moraga Canyon sports complex project and faulty private underground utility project, residents and groups such as the Piedmont League of Voters (LWV) were concerned and offered suggestions on how to protect Piedmont from future unplanned financial impacts.  The City Council finally unanimously approved a Risk Assessment Policy.

Risk problems centered on the lack of step-by-step monitoring and reporting of risks and costs.  The new policy lays out actions to alert the Council, the public and the staff when capital projects costing over $300,000 are considered, approved and implemented. Public knowledge early in project development was specifically requested by the LWV and others.

The policy is intended to provide a thorough review of projects prior to expending large amounts of City time and money on projects without public knowledge and involvement.

Rob Hendrickson, a construction law attorney and civil engineer who served on the LWV’s Task Force on Civic Governance, repeated the monthly accounting recommendation presented in April, 2013 by then LWV President Julie McDonald.  He urged that as a project was being implemented a monthly accounting should be presented to the Council to assure staff was monitoring the project and the public was aware of problems.  This request was echoed by High School student Julie Adams, who felt this was common in business and should be a part of the policy.

Tim Rood, candidate for City Council, agreed with the accountability measures noted in the LWV communication.

Acting City Attorney Michelle Kenyon cautioned against including specific timelines for the City Administrator, such as monthly reporting, as this could result in further risk if the timeline was not met. Council member  Jeff Wieler stated the responsibility for compliance rested with the City Administrator as part of the job description and non-compliance would be dealt with through personnel evaluations and ultimately through the  Council election process.

Public Works Director Chester Nakahara who was responsible for drafting and redrafting the much belabored policy responded to concerns. Numerous “and/or” clauses in the policy language were at issue as to when and what would be presented to the public and Council during the conceptual and implementation phase of a project.  Nakahara pointed out that the requirement that the City Attorney and City Engineers review projects would be an expense for the City.

Excerpts from the City Charter:

The City Administrator, “Shall keep the Council fully advised as to the financial condition and future needs of the City…”

The City Attorney is to “Represent and advise the Council and all City officers in all matters of law pertaining to their offices;” “Approve the form of all contracts made by and all bonds given to the City, endorsing approval thereon in writing;” “All contracts shall be drawn under the supervision of the city attorney.”

The City Engineer description states, “There shall be a city engineer who shall have supervision over all matters of an engineering character as required by State law, or as assigned by the City Council.”

Council member Garrett Keating supported contract review by the City Attorney to protect the City from risks on public and private projects.

Review by the City Engineer is intended to make certain all projects are properly engineered and contracts are appropriately specified.

Consultants employed to oversee or advise on projects would be an additional cost of any project.

City Administrator Geoff Grote, who is retiring within weeks, stated that the policy would not prevent all future problems, while acknowledging the policy would be helpful and could be modified as needed in the future.

Mayor John Chiang was repeatedly thanked for bringing the policy to the Council for approval prior to his February retirement from the Council.

Click for the staff report and communications.

Click for draft minutes to view changes approved by the Council.

The following announcement was received January 8, 2014.

County Democrats Announce Endorsements

Hayward, California – The Alameda County Democratic Party has endorsed the following candidates for the February 4, 2014 City of Piedmont election:

Piedmont Councilmember – Teddy Gray King, Tim Rood

These are the only official Democratic Party local candidate endorsements in Alameda County for the February 4 election and have been made under authority granted to the local Democratic Party by the California Democratic Party.

For further information contact:  Robin Torello  510/537-6390

Editors’ Note:  The Piedmont Civic Association does not support or oppose candidates for public office.  Information on candidates and their campaigns are welcomed.

The Piedmont City Council will have a special meeting at 8:15 am Friday, January 3, 2014. Following a 10 minute Public Forum opportunity, the Council will adjourn to Closed Session to interview applicants for the position of City Administrator.

The other Closed Session item is a conference with labor negotiators for SEIU Local 1021 Piedmont Firefighters Association.

There are no public session agenda items.