Features

Your story “Board Vetoes Jefferson School Name Change” (July 8) was misleading. I was never “torn” about the name change. I objected to labeling opponents of the name change as racist, and opposed arguments that the nasty nature of the campaign somehow justified ignoring the result of the vote. I said what the School Board taught about the value of democracy was more important than any school name. I reminded the School Board how disgusted we were when the Supreme Court interfered with the 2000 election. I implored boardmembers to prove that in Berkeley one’s vote still counted, and concluded that admiration for Jefferson required respecting the democratic process he so loved by honoring the vote to re-name the school. 

Unfortunately this incident represents another episode in the accelerating trend toward undemocratic governance. In 2001 I warned that Berkeley was becoming “…an administrative state, where policy is decided by bureaucratic fait, and where the voice of the people will not be heard.” ( “Dead Trees Resemble Communications Tower Fiasco,” March 28, 2001.) 

Since then the problem has gotten worse. First Linda Maio’s aide Brad Smith issued a memo calling for removal of commissioners who favored the Height Initiative. Then, immediately following the mayor’s apology for trashing newspapers that endorsed his opponent, the City Council ignored pleas by the American Civil Liberties Union and the Peace and Justice Commission by creating a secretive “Agenda Committee” which, in the absence of TV and radio coverage, makes backroom deals and prevents controversial items from appearing on City Council agendas. 

The March 2002 election saw voters adopt initiatives further eroding democracy. Measure H lowered to 40 percent the number of votes a candidate needs to avoid a run-off election, and Measure J made it more difficult to run for local office. Ironically, Maudelle Shirek failed to qualify for re-election after, either by confusion or conspiracy, she failed to comply with the more complicated procedures she sanctioned by supporting Measure J. 

By 2004 the gratitude toward more amiable City Council meetings was fading. Some people began to see Mayor Bates as the mythical evil genie who grants wishes at the cost of dire unanticipated consequences—the wicked magician whose parlor tricks made squabbling vanish by pulling back room deals out of his hat while making democratic debate disappear. That fiscal waste and disgust at the selling out of citizen interest to developers led an unlikely coalition of Berkeley voters to defeat every tax increase City Council placed on the ballot. To drive the point home the same voters adopted tax increases for Berkeley schools, state mental health and children’s hospitals. Berkeley voters were not opposing to taxes per se, but the City Council itself. 

Unfortunately, the council is ignoring the message. The sneaky deal with UC to abandon authority over downtown development means that unless the courts intervene the mayor, city staff and UC developers can make backroom development deals which can not be altered by commissions or by the City Council. Councilmembers have violated the city charter by relinquishing land use authority and guaranteed a charade of sympathetic speeches about how UC’s sovereign immunity means we can do nothing to stop the very development this deal allows! 

These sleazy arrangements to undermine democratic participation will further alienate citizens from city government making the rejection of future tax measures more likely. If voting “no” continues to fall upon deaf ears, Charter Reform will eventually be enacted. My fear is that at the rate that the City Council is giving public land away to developers there will be little left to save by that time. 

Elliot Cohen is a member of the Peace and Justice Commission.