Public Comment

Letters to the Editor

Tuesday October 17, 2006

IN SUPPORT OF MAYOR BATES 

Editors, Daily Planet: 

Local Berkeley politicos are speculating about why the Berkeley Democratic Club overwhelmingly endorsed Tom Bates for mayor this year. After several discussions with members, the following themes emerged as most important.  

First, Tom Bates has done a good job of creating a civil and cooperative atmosphere on the Berkeley City Council. Tom worked hard to heal the wounds between the various factions on the City Council and to hammer out consensus solutions. Many of us feel strongly that Tom’s re-election is an opportunity to turn the page on the divisiveness of years past and establish a civic dialogue based on mutual respect.  

Second, Tom’s ability to work across the old political divisions has helped the city deal with a number of challenges. Perhaps the most important and impressive was his leadership in working with the council and the community in balancing four straight city budgets during the state’s budget crisis. Similar results are evident in his work to support children, the schools, the environment and other issues. 

Third, Tom is a positive thinker. He wants a healthy Berkeley, with a vital downtown and a strong economic base. The BDC shares Toms’ concerns and agrees that something needs to be done now!  

Lastly, club members were impressed with the mayor’s ability to work effectively with our neighboring cities. For example, in 2004 he and Mayor Gavin Newsom founded a Bay Area-wide regional homeless task force. Last year, as president of the Alameda County Conference of Mayors, Bates led the creation of a countywide effort to reduce greenhouse gas emissions that includes 10 cities and the county itself.  

So, if anyone out there is still thinking about it, let’s accept the fact that there is a new day in Berkeley. Bates is doing a good job and The Berkeley Democratic Club thinks that he deserves another two years to actually get some more things accomplished! 

Susan Wengraf 

President, Berkeley Democratic club 

 

• 

BATES’ TRANSGRESSIONS 

Editors, Daily Planet: 

Tom Bates breaks the rules as he sees fit. Always remember: 

Tom Bates first act as mayor was to steal copies of the Daily Cal college newspaper because they endorsed an opponent. 

Tom Bates personally was involved in stealing and destroying the yard signs and other literature of his opponents, including City Council members or candidates, with whom he disagreed. 

Tom Bates has created a massive public eyesore throughout the City of Berkeley by placing his campaign signs on street lamps and utility poles throughout the city. This is a brazen violation of a city ordinance, which is not being prosecuted. 

Tom Bates campaign should be fined and sanctioned, and he must be ordered to remove the offending matter immediately. 

This is consistent with the actions of a career politician, who never responds to constituent correspondence. As mayor, Bates has run the office in an imperial manner that is totally unresponsive to citizen concerns and complaints. Indeed, his chief of staff spoke to me like a bad dog or juvenile delinquent, when I followed up on a series of e-mails, to which the mayor had failed to respond. 

By the way: Tom Bates embraces local organizations that engage in brazen union busting, such as the Berkeley YMCA.  

Tom Bates’ imperial tendencies do not reconcile with Berkeley’s liberalism. 

My endorsement: anybody but Bates.  

H. Scott Prosterman 

 

• 

DONE THAT, WHAT’S NEW? 

Editors, Daily Planet: 

After reading Gregory Murphy’s and Faith Fuller’s letters (Oct. 6) about District 7 City Council candidate George Beier’s detailed platform, I picked up George’s handout, which lays out his positions on Telegraph Avenue, student issues, crime, affordable housing, and homelessness. 

The handout contains a lot of worthy-sounding ideas and goals: more housing, better outreach, studies, councils, commissions, collaboration, cooperation, enforcement, compassion. But many are essentially “motherhood” goals that no one would oppose and aren’t possible to implement, and most of the rest have an odd ring of familiarity, because they’re things that our Councilmember Kriss Worthington either accomplished long before George started his campaign, or has been working hard on for years. 

Our district’s problems are complex, and they can’t be solved by a wave of a wand. Issues like teenage runaways and Internet competition for Telegraph retailers originate far outside District 7 and Berkeley. 

We all want solutions. But “appoint a commission” is neither a bold new idea nor a rallying cry of leadership. I don’t see why we’d want to swap an effective and responsive Councilmember like Worthington for someone like Beier, who’s playing me-too and catch-up. 

Patti Dacey 

 

• 

BAD IDEAS AND FEAR TACTICS 

Editors, Daily Planet: 

Greg Murphy disapproves of my letter pointing out that George Beier is running a campaign of bad ideas and fear tactics, by claiming George is running a “positive campaign.” Not so positive that his campaign office doesn’t resort to name-calling on the window signs.  

I happen to really love this neighborhood that I live in. It is creative and interesting. I don’t want a representative who thinks it is horrible here, that calls People’s Park “gross,” and that wants to sterilize our vibrant community. George was involved in shutting down the best student co-op because it was in his neighborhood. He wants to destroy the trees and gardens in People’s Park. He is working against improving the bus system. George is harming our businesses and community by exaggerating the crime and problems which scares away shoppers and visitors.  

Let’s keep Kriss Worthington as our representative, he actually likes our neighborhood.  

Cyndi Johnson 

 

• 

TOBEY’S COHERENCE 

Editors, Daily Planet: 

I would like to commend you for Alan Tobey’s Oct. 13 opinion piece on Measure J. It’s the only coherent description I have read of the current controversy over architectural preservation in Berkeley.  

Sandy McCoy 

 

• 

A LITTLE TRUTH PLEASE? 

Editors, Daily Planet: 

I’ll address only a couple of the numerous inaccuracies and untruths in Alan Tobey’s Oct. 13 commentary about “Preservation and Democracy.” 

The six-year process Mr. Tobey refers to was not a “community-wide effort” by any means. It was an effort to gut our landmarks ordinance led by Deputy City Attorney Zach Cowan. Also involved was our city Planning Department, which receives its funding, not from the general fund, but largely from developer fees (no conflict of interest there!). 

For much of the last year Mayor Tom Bates, who never met a big building he didn’t love, had his staff working on the revised ordinance. The goal was the same as the earlier versions, to weaken our time-honored preservation laws in order to pave the way for more development. 

At the Feb. 14 City Council meeting, 41 members of the Berkeley community, many representing neighborhood associations, spoke against the mayor’s version of the ordinance. Six developers or employees of developers, most of whom live outside of Berkeley, spoke for the mayor’s version.  

The final draft of the mayor’s revisions came before the City Council only a few minutes before they voted on it, hardly an example of an ordinance based on “consensus of the whole community.” Yet Mr. Tobey refers to this extremely unpopular set of revisions as the “community-compromise” ordinance—not once, but nine times in one article. Repetition does not make a lie true; it simply makes it more outrageous.  

We are waiting to see the campaign against Measure J, which apparently will be funded in part by the Berkeley Chamber of Commerce. I think we can count on it to be very slick, and utterly truth-free. Vote yes on Measure J. 

Gale Garcia 

 

• 

MEASURE A 

Editors, Daily Planet: 

Measure A is one of the most important school tax measures to be on the ballot this November. 

It is the renewal of a tax which Berkeley taxpayers have already been paying, it is a continuation of that tax and has not increased the percentage to heighten the burden on the people of Berkeley. I don’t like taxes anymore than my neighbors around me! 

The North East Berkeley Association (NEBA), a once influential political group from the hills, has bee persuaded by a woman who entertains herself by trying to destroy the school district. 

She needs to have her history investigated so that her motives can be assessed and evaluated. 

Until that happens, I feel a desperate need to inform voters to support Measure A. It is a vital agent to encourage young people to enjoy a full education which can not be provided to them because of a limited general purpose budget to fund things such as a vital art, music and choral program, this is only part of the monetary provisions. Lives are enriched thus keeping youngsters from elementary schools to high school in class to learn math, science and history. These things are important to me and to children who blossom while participating in the art world. I have a grandson who has discovered drama, choral singing and dance production in the fourth grade just because voters in the past have supported raising these dollars. He thinks of being a director as a profession. 

The fund has been guarded by parents and was formerly chaired by a brilliant woman who is now on the School Board, Nancy Riddle. The committee doing this supervision is open to the public and anyone may attend its meetings to observe its devotion and ethical correctness to the children of Berkeley. Those of you who know me, know my devotion to the school children of Berkeley and I continue in this support by letting you know that Measure A is fully worthwhile and needs your positive understanding and support. 

Barbara Wittstock 

 

• 

NEBA NOT NEIGHBORLY 

Editors, Daily Planet: 

The North East Berkeley Association does not represent me or many other North Berkeley residents I know. 

I am embarrassed to say that I fell under the delusion that joining NEBA would give me the opportunity to at least state my views on issues addressed by the group. NEBA had no trouble cashing my dues check. It seems however that the NEBA board feels free to stake out positions on issues of important public policy in the name of NEBA without actually seeking membership input. For example, the board put itself on record against Measure A, the renewal of the parcel tax for Berkeley public schools on next month’s ballot, but it never raised the issue for membership consideration.  

While I would think Measure A deserves support just on the basis of supporting our children and society, I am especially surprised that a homeowners group would go out of its way to stake a position that, if it were to prevail, would certainly depress property values. Loss of the programs that would be maintained through Measure A would put a major dent in the quality of Berkeley public schools by decimating such important programs as music, libraries and class size reduction. I am surprised the NEBA boardmembers do not see the connection between maintaining quality public schools and maintaining the property values of their houses. Many Berkeley residents paid a premium to live in Berkeley over similar houses in less costly neighboring cities on the basis of public school reputations. How can a group, which purports to promote neighborhood welfare oppose Measure A? Indeed, how can an organization with such unneighborly process and views be called a neighborhood group? NEBA’s anti-tax-at-all-costs action belies such a purpose. 

Robin E. Miller 

 

• 

BESMAART NOT SMAART 

Editors, Daily Planet: 

Yolanda Huang argues that because Berkeley schools are not performing at a level that meets some poorly-defined standards, we should thus oppose Measure A and seek a “better” measure in March.  

Ms. Huang provides no sense of what this better measure would be, but implies she is for smaller class sizes and a more effective system. This, she argues means opposing Measure A.  

Ms. Huang’s premise is that the school board and administration will misspend the tax revenues and we the people will have no recourse for the next 10 years (the term of Measure A). 

Ms. Huang’s group, BeSmaart, simply opposes taxes. She avoids the real issue—Berkeley schools need money. Her issues regarding the district’s performance are addressed almost daily in meetings by such varied bodies as the board of education, school and distict PTA, school site councils and numerous other volunteer groups in the city too numerous to mention. The solutions that these varied groups are trying to apply in Berkeley need money. 

Ms. Huang’s group is not Smaart—they oppose taxes without insight or offering alternatives. A March measure is a false hope—now is the time to show you care about young people in our city and support Measure A. 

Paul Lecky 

 

• 

HUANG’S ANALYSIS 

Editors, Daily Planet: 

It’s interesting that Yolanda Huang included the table “Dropouts by Ethnicity” in her recent commentary piece opposing Measure A. It’s the data on which she based her earlier letter to the Planet expressing great alarm about the “whopping 33 percent dropout rate” of Pacific Islanders at Berkeley High School—and the data in this table show she’s talking about a total of ONE student dropout. Why didn’t she report the zero percent dropout rate among Berkeley’s Native American students and Filipino students? Are those numbers somehow less significant than the data she does quote, or do they just not fit her agenda of casting our Berkeley schools in the worst possible light? 

The use of this data is typical of the campaign to defeat Measure A by misinforming the public. You don’t have to study the data or even to read the actual measure’s precise specifications for the use and oversight of its funds (although you should) to realize that this opposition group has an enormous credibility deficit. If our schools are as bad as they would like us to think, why do so many students from other districts want to attend them? If out-of-district students are a problem, defeating Measure A would certainly remove their incentive to come here, but would it be rational to ruin the schools for our own children, just to get rid of someone else’s? 

Do opponents of Measure A really think their Voter Information Pamphlet claim that “average BUSD teacher compensation” is “$87,000” will fool anybody? Average teacher salary is obviously much less than that, in fact, it’s about $57,000 a year. The $87,000 figure is even more than the district’s cost per teacher, including health and retirement benefits, workers compensation, and payroll taxes, which is about $80,000 a year. Isn’t it equally absurd for them to claim (also in the Voter Information Pamphlet) that we could replace the 20 percent of our district’s budget that would be lost if Measure A fails to pass by the savings from things like “enforcing attendance” and “stopping cafeteria food overproduction?” 

Could any reasonable person buy their argument that devastating cuts to school funding would actually result in improved student achievement? Increasing class sizes and eliminating school libraries, parent outreach, and elementary and middle school music programs would remedy the achievement gap? 

After all this, do they have any credibility at all when they say they “support children” and “support public school education?” Please vote yes on Measure A to renew existing school funding. Don’t be fooled into a “no” vote, which would drastically cut funding for our Berkeley public schools. Remember, Measure A must pass by a two-thirds majority, so opponents only need to win more than 33.3 percent of the vote to defeat this well-written, essential measure for the continued support of our public schools. 

Julie Holcomb 

 

• 

INSTANT RUNOFF VOTING 

Editors, Daily Planet: 

I am very happy that Measure O, which would bring instant runoff voting (IRV) to Oakland, is on the ballot. This is a needed election reform. By eliminating a runoff election, Oakland could move its local elections to November, when turnout is nearly 60 percent higher, on average. A ranked choice ballot would also encourage people to vote sincerely, instead of having to worry about “wasted votes” or “spoilers.”  

I did take issue with statements made by the opposition to Measure O in the Oct. 6 Daily Planet article. The article states: “Opponents say that it is unfair to ask voters to make a second or third choice of candidates, when all they want is to pick their top choice.” This is simply false. Under Measure O, voters have the option of ranking as many candidates as they want or can choose to only vote for one candidate. Opponents also claim that IRV will confuse voters, but offer no evidence to back up this claim. Two exit polls conducted after San Francisco and Burlington (VT) held their first IRV elections found that around 90 percent of voters reported understanding IRV. 

Nicolas Heidorn 

Oakland 

 

• 

OAKLAND SCHOOLS 

Editors, Daily Planet: 

Mr. J. Douglas Allen-Taylor’s Oct. 13 column (“Oakland Wants to Win Back Control of its Schools”) column shows that there is no logic in keeping the Oakland School District under state administration. However, I doubt if State Superintendent Jack O’Connell will pay attention. 

And, Mr. Allen-Taylor’s comments pointing to the dismal record of Oakland State Administrator Randolph Ward at financial recovery will also, most likely, be ignored by State Superintendent O’Connell as Dr. Ward has left. 

The state administration has been unable to meet the FCMAT team’s standard of fiscal management over the three years of the take-over. And, because the district’s financial records are unreliable and incomplete the state administration has been unable to pass an audits by the state’s office of controller. These facts support the view that the district’s budget has been out of control. 

I had experienced an Oakland school budget out of control for most of the 37 years I taught in Oakland. The lack of control over the budget was signified by the Oakland School District tradition of freezing its budgets in December. That action of course met that savvy school principals and teachers spent the maximum of their budgets by December. FCMAT reports have called for establishing internal audit process and position control to gain budget control. Position control concept means putting a system in place so that for every person hired there is a dedicated amount of the budget to pay that person’s salary. The position control concept was finally implemented this year but it will take time to see if it is working. Internal audit is another important FCMAT recommendation for gaining control over the district’s budget. An internal audit function seeks to halt spending more than is budgeted. The internal audit function is suppose to be put in place in this the fourth year of the take-over.  

Whether or not local control is returned to Oakland schools the issue of control over the district’s budget must be addressed. And, that is why it is disturbing that the FCMAT report states “The reforms undertaken by the district have not always been compatible with the goal of fiscal recovery and the return of local governance.”  

Because FCMAT report makes clear that under the Dr. Ward’s administration of the Oakland schools reform of the district’s administrative structure is in conflict with the goal of “fiscal recovery and the return of local governance,” the question becomes will the new State Administrator Kimberley Stratham change direction and make fiscal recovery, and the return of local governance, her priority?  

Jim Mordecai 

Oakland 

 

• 

CLEAN MONEY IN ALBANY 

Editors, Daily Planet: 

It is gratifying to find that the City of Albany has, virtually, its own “clean money” ordinance in place. No City Council candidate may, under penalty of perjury, accept funding from organizations or groups; nor more than $100 from any individual. 

Candidate Caryl O’Keefe has geographically narrowed this rule to permit herself the acceptance of campaign money only from Albany voters. If her claim in her leaflet is accurate, then the other three candidates legally receive donations from within and beyond Albany, under the same frugal monetary specifications. Or does Ms. O’Keefe intend to say that she alone assumes any limitations at all? 

The “Shoreline” candidates, Marge Atkinson and Joanne Wile, have inherited the round-robin stigma of “outsiderism” from the days of the Shoreline Protection Initiative and the rigors of its lawsuit, when revolution was in the air and it seemed the skies were falling. In particular, certain correspondents in these pages seem to have imagined the Sierra Club as a malignant outsider octopus, gnarling and snarling, flexing its tentacles and spewing filthy lucre upon naive causes: surely an urban myth! 

Only the rankest xenophobe would scorn the pro bono accolades conferred on the Shoreline campaign through endorsements by the following outside individuals: Congresswoman Barbara Lee, Assemblywoman Loni Hancock, Supervisor Keith Carson, Nancy Skinner of the Board of the East Bay Regional Parks District, and Andy Katz, Board Member Elect of East Bay MUD. Or by organizations such as the Sierra Club, the California Democratic Party, the League of Conservation Voters of the East Bay, and the Green Party of Alameda County. 

These persons and groups for the most part do not vote within our borders; but we are within their (federal, state, county, regional) jurisdictions. In discouraging the erection of a kitschy “lifestyle center” a scant 200 feet away from the water’s edge, they may feel, as we do, that when Nature is being threatened anywhere, it is a concern for people everywhere. Or, to paraphrase a recent saying by Congresswoman Lee: we all live in Nature’s district. 

Anne Richardson 

Albany