Features

TEACHER PAY 

Editors, Daily Planet: 

As one of the many long-time Berkeley teachers beginning to work contract-only hours this week, I was extremely disturbed by the remarks of school board members quoted in the Daily Planet. They suggest that teachers are asking for money that doesn’t exist.  

In fact, our team has asked for a fair share of any new money that the district receives, while at the same time accepting the fact that employees are going to need to pay some of the health care increases. The district’s own advisors have indicated that there will be some, though nowhere near enough, new money from the state. We are only asking that the district recognize that teachers need a fair share of that new money.  

We know their PG&E bills have gone up—so have ours.  

Louise Rosenkrantz 

• 

RFID TECHNOLOGY 

Editors, Daily Planet: 

It’s reassuring that Library Director Jackie Griffin tells us not to worry about the new RFID technology she is introducing to our libraries. 

Of course, we all know that no one in government would ever attempt to violate our privacy with this new system. The fears of the ACLU are groundless, she maintains. Anyway, no one in Berkeley pays attention to the ACLU. I’ll sleep more soundly knowing that “Big Sister” Griffin is there to protect us from any abuses of her new system. Now if only those “outside agitators” would quietly leave Berkeley and stop interfering with Jackie’s spending sprees for new technology. The poor director has apparently not gotten the message the voters sent her last November. 

Further, it’s good to know that Griffin is following the honored American managerial policy of firing those staff members who receive the lowest pay and benefits. God forbid if she had to let go her high salary—benefit cronies on the management level. These folks, who never see the library patrons and never experience their wants, must be preserved in their new building adjacent to the main library. 

It’s time to realize that libraries are too precious a resource to be left solely in the hands of librarians. It’s time for the Board of Library Trustees to start representing the citizens of Berkeley and stop being a rubber stamp for Jackie Griffin. 

Don McKay 

• 

WHO COUNTS? 

Editors, Daily Planet: 

The advertisement featuring your recent readership survey trumpets in large type, “In Greater Berkeley, almost everybody who counts reads the Planet.” At the bottom of the page, in very small type, we find that the people who count are people “who were out and about and shopping” at Fourth Street, the Gourmet Ghetto, the Berkeley Bowl, the Farmers’ Market, or the Elmwood Shopping District. It seems to me that you missed a lot of people here. Are we to presume that people who aren’t inclined—or can’t afford—to shop in the above areas, don’t count? 

I expect to hear this advertising line from the Wall Street Journal, not from the Daily Planet. Please put more thought into your advertising taglines. 

Francisco Dóñez 

• 

FINANCIAL HOLE 

Editors, Daily Planet: 

The City Council has identified “business retention” as a top budget priority. Meanwhile, business attraction tops priority lists in nearby cities; their leaders aim to grow their city economies, while Berkeley contents itself with attempts to staunch losses. 

The result is rising budget deficits and over-reliance on residential taxes, which already are too high. Perhaps most Berkeley residents don’t want Emeryville-style shopping malls to turn their city déclassé. But when even a popular organic grocer cant get a store built in Berkeley, it becomes clear that economic growth wont help dig the city out of its financial hole. 

Russ Mitchell 

• 

FATHER CRESPIN 

Editors, Daily Planet: 

As St. Joseph’s parishioners respond to the allegations regarding Father Crespin’s forced resignation (“Parishoners Confront Diocese Over Fate of Accused Pastor,” Feb. 18-21) I urge an open mind. There is more to George Crespin than perhaps meets the eye. 

First, the Bishop of Oakland believes the accusation is credible. That hurdle is significant. 

Second, Crespin has caused the Oakland Diocese to be sued. In order for such a suit to move forward, I understand a civil court must find that the lawsuit has merit. Civil authorities must believe it has merit because his alleged victim is part of the massive Clergy III coordinated action against the Roman Catholic Church. 

Third, Crespin was featured in a Dallas Morning News editorial just four days ago (“Games Bishops Play, Why DA Hill Should Be Wary, Feb. 15. The Morning News noted that when Crespin was chancellor of the Oakland Diocese, Crespin admitted that the Diocese did not put sex abuse allegations into a priest’s file. As chancellor, his job was to investigate sex abuse claims. Perhaps his own file was misplaced? We might never know. 

George Crespin surely did some very good things while a pastor at St. Joseph’s. But his legacy is mixed. To wit: From 1966 to 1994 he successively served on the Clergy Review Board, as Diocese chancellor and as Diocese vicar general. He was a very powerful man within the Oakland Diocese. 

With the depositions of Crespin and others because of Clergy III, it is irrefutable that during Crespin’s time in power, numerous reports of sex abuse involving a number of priests were made to the diocese, many to him. Not once did Rev. Crespin call the police or child protective services in order to protect a child. 41 priests are accused of abuse while serving in Oakland. George Crespin never turned in any of those priests while he had the ability to do so.  

These shortcomings don’t mean George Crespin is guilty of the accusation. However, the Diocese is doing the right thing. It is moving to protect children in the event the allegation is credible. Had the Diocese behaved that way while Crespin was in charge, dozens of catholic kids surely would not have been victims of child sexual abuse. 

Dan McNevin 

Emeryville 

• 

CLEAR JUDGMENT 

Editors, Daily Planet: 

It’s an old story. A beloved Catholic pastor is accused of sexual abuse. Loyal parishioners rush to his defense, with no more knowledge of the situation than their personal affection for their leader. 

Yet, as we have seen time and time again, many abusive clergy are well-liked, charismatic spiritual and organizational leaders with impressive curriculum vitae.  

Parishioners should not confuse their personal affection for the public persona to cloud their judgment regarding private behavior. Plenty of beloved leaders have lead dual lives or carried dark secrets.  

Tom Fike and Carolyn Scarr mistake an internal, personnel disciplinary investigation for the sort of standards of proof and judicial bias adhered to by the American legal system. I would point out that such a standard of proof is not required between an employer and an employee. In the end, Crespin’s employer will have to decide who they believe. 

This is not a new accusation; as long ago as Dec. 18, 2003, the Survivors Network of those Abused by Priests named Crespin as an accused abuser still in ministry. There has been more than a year for Crespin’s employer to avail themselves of “due process.” One must believe, then, that the suspension comes after due diligence and is not a knee-jerk reaction. 

Where the legal system will come in is in the aggregated civil case in which Crespin is now a defendant. That standard of proof will rely upon ‘a preponderance of the evidence’ as such is the standard in civil cases. 

Guilty or innocent, Crespin to a great extent finds himself in a bed of his own making. As chancellor of the Diocese, he participated in and perpetuated a system which did everything possible to protect priests from allegations of sexual misconduct and to suppress victims who might go to the authorities. It is for that very reason that it has taken accusers like his three decades to feel free to tell their stories. 

The St. Joseph the Worker community prides itself upon its concerns for social justice and the rights of the weak and oppressed. Will they show the same concern for an alleged victim of sexual abuse under color of great power when the alleged abuser is their beloved leader, one who has historically and for decades been one of the most powerful figures in the Diocese of Oakland? 

Greg Bullough 

• 

LANDMARKS 

Editors, Daily Planet: 

I write in response to two letters on the topic of Berkeley landmarks (Daily Planet, Feb. 15-17). Ignacio Dayrit expresses concern that the landmark process might be used “to stop development of any kind”, rather than for historic preservation. Alan Tobey takes exception to the designation of the Celia’s building as a structure of merit, and to the very existence of this category of designation. 

Those of us who study local history and prepare landmark applications at our own expense (it isn’t cheap), do so because we desire to preserve the atmosphere of Berkeley, and its charming, distinctive buildings. Pro-growth enthusiasts seem to find it inconceivable that some of us actually love Berkeley, rather than wish to profit from it. Although I grew up over a mile away from the Celia’s building, all the children in my neighborhood knew it as “The Boy Scout Building”, a magical and treasured place we all admired. Whether one finds it beautiful or not (and I do), it is a part of our history. 

Mr. Dayrit’s reference to “development of any kind” surprised me. I am unaware of any developer proposing to build an ice skating rink, a park, a swimming pool, a night life entertainment district (as suggested by Elliot Cohen)—or any other amenity for the public. The recent projects endangering historic buildings all seem to be five story condo/rental blocks because these are perceived, in the prevailing real estate bubble, to be profitable ventures. 

In fact, the need to build big blocks of condos in Berkeley for teachers and firefighters is a myth. Our existing large condo buildings serve mainly as rentals, and are advertised as such daily, because the rental market has tanked. It is therefore unlikely that additional boxes, whether rentals or condos, will be a financial success. 

There is nothing salutary or “smart” about destroying our local environment—the existing Berkeley—to produce defective new buildings (see the Gaia, still shrouded after all these years). Moreover, flawed construction practices continue, such as leaving chipboard out in the rain (see Durant Avenue and Fulton Street), where it becomes a rich growth medium for mold. Considering that further new buildings are likely to have serious vacancy problems (in addition to mold), the pressure to expunge historic buildings for them boggles my mind. 

In conclusion, our Landmark Preservation Ordinance and its structure of merit designation are not the problem. While Berkeley needs many things, five story condo/rental blocks just aren’t on the list. I can only hope that the Zoning Adjustments Board, the City Council and the Planning Commission will wake up before they completely destroy the vitality of this town. 

Gale Garcia 

Ã