  |
Stephen Gale
Technically, races for City Council are non-partisan. Candidates for local office cannot list themselves as Democrats or Republicans on the ballot.
But that doesn’t mean political parties don’t have a big stake in local races.
The Sonoma County Democratic Party threw its weight behind eight City Council candidates in Santa Rosa, Petaluma and Cotati this week. It is scheduled to decide which candidates to support in other city council and school board races on Sept. 14.
“The party has made endorsements in the nonpartisan races as a way of developing candidates and as a way of identifying candidates who support the values of the Democratic Party,” said Stephen Gale, chairman of the Sonoma County Democratic Party.
In Santa Rosa, the Democratic Party is backing incumbents Susan Gorin and Veronica Jacobi along with Larry Haenel, a retired teacher and two-term member of the Santa Rosa School Board.
In Petaluma, the Democratic Party endorsed Councilman David Glass in the mayor’s race and three candidates running for City Council: incumbent Teresa Barrett, software executive Jason Davies and Gabe Kearney, an emergency preparedness coordinator for Kaiser Permanente.
In Cotati, the party endorsed incumbent Pat Gilardi.
The party’s backing can make a difference in Sonoma County, where 52 percent of the county’s 246,000 voters are registered as Democrats — more than twice the number of voters registered as Republicans.
In nonpartisan races, particularly ones that receive little media coverage, clues like party affiliation can influence a voter’s decision.
“It is our belief that it helps people make a decision,” Gale said. “In some of the races, such as a school board race that is not highly featured in the press, the endorsement and the (candidate’s) ability to cite the endorsement does appear to have made a difference.”
In June, the county Democratic Party endorsed eight candidates in contested races. Six won their races outright. Two others — south county supes candidate Pam Torliatt and judicial candidate Pat Broderick — were sent to runoff elections as the leading vote-getters.
Candidates who earn the party’s blessing are permitted to use its logo on mailers and cite the endorsement. They also receive support from the party, which can provide volunteers to work on phone banks and walk precincts, along with promotions in internal communications with its members.
Financial support can vary. The local party typically makes sizable contributions in county supervisors races — it donated $2,500 to Pam Torliat last April in the south county supes contest — and smaller donations of $100 to $200 in city council and school board races.
Endorsements are the latest sign that the fall political season is getting underway.
On Saturday, Democrats will hold their annual summer barbecue at Doyle Park, featuring an appearance by U.S. Sen. Barbara Boxer.
On Sunday, the Democratic Party will open its campaign headquarters at the Brickyard complex in downtown Santa Rosa and begin walking precincts later that day, Gale said. He described it as a “soft opening” that will give party officials a week to work out the kinks.
“We will start doing the real work after Labor Day,” he said.
— Ted Appel
Watch Sonoma County
DIG DEEPER
The Sonoma County Democratic Party took the following positions on local and state ballot measures:
Local Ballot Measures
YES
Measure A – Calistoga Joint Unified School District Bond
Measure G – Cloverdale Unified School District Bond
Measure H – Sonoma Valley Unified School District Bond
Measure I – West Sonoma County Union High School District Bond
Measure J – Bennett Valley Union School District Bond
Measure K – Forestville Union School District Bond
Measure L – Piner-Olivet Union School District Bond
Measure M – Twin Hills Union School District Bond
Measure N – Sonoma County Amend Civil Service Ord. 305A
Measure O – City of Santa Rosa Urban Growth Boundary Extension
Measure P – City of Santa Rosa One-Quarter Cent Sales Tax
Measure Q – City of Cloverdale Urban Growth Boundary
Measure R – City of Cloverdale Office of City Clerk be Appointive
Measure S – City of Cloverdale Office of City Treasurer be Appointive
Measure T – City of Petaluma Urban Growth Boundary Extension
Measure V – Forestville Fire Protection District Special Tax
Measure W – Sonoma County Transportation Authority $10 Vehicle Fee
NO
Measure U – City of Petaluma Reduce Wastewater Service Rates
Statewide Ballot Measures
YES
Prop. 19 – Legalize and tax marijuana
Prop. 21 – $18 vehicle license fee to help fund state parks
Prop. 24 – Repeals law allowing business to carry back losses
Prop. 25 – Changes vote from 2/3 to simple majority for budget
Prop. 27 – Eliminates state commission on redistricting
NO
Prop. 20 – Redistricting of congressional districts
Prop. 22 – Prohibits state from taking local funds
Prop. 23 – Suspends AB32, greenhouse gas reduction law
Prop. 26 – Changes vote from simple majority to 2/3 for state levies and charges
Subscribe by Email
Follow us on Twitter
Hi again, Mr. Aparicio. Although voters approved the bond(s) for construction, the payments have to be made with interest. I would hope that you would be able to identify possible savings the SRJC could make since you work there. My original post did not focus specifically on the SRJC but was more general concerning all the tax increases on this years ballot. When taxpayers are required to pay more, they have less money to spend to support the general economy. It’s just common sense. Perhaps we should just agree to disagree on the tax measures.
Mr. or Ms. Reason:
While I have not been a fan of the current SRJC administration’s general emphasis on buildings over promoting education, your example illustrates exactly why one should be careful before using rhetorical references to “fat,” let alone the type of rhetoric you originally used. For SRJC’s development does not effect its operating budget. They are funded differently. The college went before the people of Sonoma County and convinced voters to provide a bond for this construction. Even if every construction decision was poorly administered — which is not the case — that would not demonstrate any fat in our operating budget.
I hope this helps some; and I welcome further suggestions. For, I will happily recognize any realistic account of areas that can be reasonably called “fat.” In fact, I’ll happily pass any thoughtful proposed cuts to the appropriate personnel. Still, I can’t imagine you’ll be able to provide the evidence to justify your original post’s hyperbolic rhetoric. After seeing my department’s schedule and budget cut so severely in recent years, as I face the prospect of having no classes to offer adjunct instructors who already are underpaid, I’m troubled to think anyone believes we’re “[spending you] into oblivion.”
Peace!
Michael Aparicio
Mr. Aparicio, You asked about cutting fat from the SRJC. Well, they have acquired property and built new buildings and are continuing to expand. While there may be some need to expand, perhaps now is not the best time.
One big area of fat is redevelopment, a system whereby property taxes are diverted away from the general funds of cities and counties and the State. Virtually, all new property taxes generated in redevelopment areas are retained by the redevelopment agencies to subsidize investment in these so-called ‘blighted’ areas. Most of their money goes to private investors in the form of land, free infrastructure improvements, and low interest loans to developers. These tax diversions last for 45 years.
The county loses the most to redevelopment and about 2/3 of their money goes to support schools. But it’s more complicated than that. The State then ‘backfills’ the shortfall to the schools, costing the State. The State recently took action to curtail some of the property tax diversions as they were also coming up short due to redevelopment property tax diversions. Redevelopment Agencies in California are in debt over $80 Billion right now.
The spending us into oblivion comment I made was a result of looking at what the Democratic Party is endorsing in the upcoming election. They are in support of every single tax increase on the ballot. Maybe that doesn’t concern you but I view it as unsustainable increased spending.
Another big fatty area is the government’s excessive use of facillitators to control community meetings. Another is the excessive use of consultants to figure out what to do. I rarely see staff making decisions without the use of highly paid consultants. I would like them to eliminate all those people from the process. I could go on, but I thought that would be enough for you.
Michael,
I would suggest you and I are not in disagreement with respect to many of the points you raise in your latest post. Having said that, a couple of your comments deserve response.
First, I disagree that overspending by government is the result of compromise. To the contrary, it is the failure to compromise that leads to overspending. A true compromise is a series of tradeoffs wherein the competing parties each get some of what they want while giving up something in exchange. Overspending results when neither party gives up anything (or at least not enough) and both irrationally decide to fund it all even while knowing inadequate funds exist to do so. A true compromise recognizes that some services must be sacrificed in order to fund others. Alternatively, the parties could decide that all services are worthwhile and raise revenues to the level necessary to meet that demand. It’s really a matter of priorities.
Second, perhaps the SRJC and the Public Health Dept. are models of efficiency. I have no first hand knowledge of either institution and for the sake of argument will defer to you on this one. Perhaps other anecdotal examples could be found as well. But the simple reality is that the taxpayer who bears the burden of all these services is not a resource of unlimited means. The taxpayer expects and deserves a reasonable return on his investment. So long as waste is rampant, be it through the maintenance of unworthy or inefficent services or through the exercise of poor business judgment by those in charge of making these decisions, the taxpayer is right to question how tax dollars are being spent. Further, the taxpayer is right to refuse additional requests for yet more tax dollars until worth and efficiency is demonstrated. The proponent of a new tax or bond issue looks narrowly at how the proposed revenue (or lack of) will effect his particular institution. The taxpayer has a broader perspective and sees the myriad government entities asking for yet more and more money. It may be that the proponent’s institution is both worthy and efficent. Perhaps then we should look to those institutions that are not and redirect those dollars.
I look forward to continuing this discussion. You get my thumbs up.
Oh , for heaven’s sake. The 1/3 does not control the taxes , as they can not institute a tax on the people.
All the 1/3 can do is not allow a tax increase, or a spending increase.
That is the only control there is on the politicans in the majority that will prevent excessive taxation.
Now if you want to let the controlling party, majority members, whatever the party, tax as they wish, I am sure you will be happy when and if the Constitution is amended and the opposite party do something completely against your beliefs.
You could make the same comment about the governor who could veto anything the legislature votes to approve.
Oh, well, all’s well, that ends!
What I find amusing is the City of Santa Rosa cutting an UNFILLED position and then expecting us to beleive they are cutting costs?
This leads one to ask exactly how much was the city paying the person in the unfilled position before the cut it out?
But filled or unfilled every position in the city is paid much more than the national average for the same job> Because the city has never stood up to unions, which should be abolished!
Dan, I will respond to one of your examples. Personally, I don’t know how I would have voted if I was on Windsor’s City Council. It is significant to take away a means of electing representatives. This is central to our democratic process. A problem is that write-in campaigns are one way to elect representative. I would be reluctant to take away this essential feature of our political process. So, while I THINK I would have voted to save the money, I would have done so only if it was worded in a way that didn’t establish a precedent that could be misunderstood and/or manipulated in the future; and I also would not accused someone who voted for the election of being wasteful. I would respectfully disagree, but honor the person’s commitment to democracy. I have thoughts about some of your other examples, too (eg, Petaluma’s D street proposal); but maybe we should go into the details in a private correspondence. It doesn’t seem right to write one of these lengthy comments for each of your examples. You can contact me any time. I am the Chair of the Philosophy Department at SRJC. Look me up. In the meantime, I will make an effort in the morning to see if I agree with one of your examples. For, again, I don’t doubt there are some examples of waste. Peace! Michael Aparicio
Donna Norton,
Nice post, well written, but absolutely wrong on some basics.
You wrote” “If you give this a little thought, that wonderful 2/3 vote threshold basically translates into 1/3 of the elected representatives controlling the budget and taxes.”
Important issues often require a supermajority. See: http://www.lorencollins.net/tytler.html
You wrote: “…this means the Republicans have been in control of taxes and spending. That’s right, the budget has been controlled by the minority…”
As you state, the Republicans have been able to block TAXES but even with a 1/3rd vote are logically unable to block SPENDING (unless one accepts the unlikely proposition that the state has been functioning without a budget for the past couple decades). And the problem is not TAXES, the problem is SPENDING.
You wrote: “…the Republicans have put a tight lock on any attempt to alter our outdated tax structure.”
Problem’s not the tax structure, problem’s the spending structure.
You wrote: “Basically, under Prop 13, property values (in regard to taxes) can go up by only a small set % each year, … and it provides needed protection especially for seniors whose rising property tax assessments at the time were overreaching their limited set retirement income.”
You note the REASON for Prop 13, and nothing has changed to mitigate that concern, or other concerns.
You wrote: “But the more dramatic effect on state revenues was that large corporations–who “live” far longer than individuals, reap huge benefits … Disneyland is a corporation. It owns property. But, unlike your home, its property pulls in a tremendous profit … It’s our taxes that pay … etc etc etc”
Unlike my home, corporate properties generate sales taxes, lodging taxes, airport fees, etc, etc, etc. Unlike my home, corporations pay corporate income taxes (atop shareholders paying income taxes, ie; double taxation). Corporations (and their associated jobs) are already leaving California, piling taxes on them will NOT help our recovery.
You wrote: “So yes we’d like to “raise taxes.” But not on the middle class …Public education, fire and police protection, public libraries, healthcare.”
As I’ve written here before, the politicians have lied to the public so many times, so relentlessly and remorselessly (just see Lynn Woolsey’s
Swiss cheese defense of Social Security) that NOBODY TRUST THEM, OR GOVERNMENT, OR PUBLIC EMPLOYEES (or the organizations and unions who represent them).
Nobody who pays as much or more in as they receive out believes a word of these kinds of claims to righteousness and justice. When the government raises taxes, they take the money and do as they please, and the actual taxpayer be go to heck. The government is sheer avarice without productivity, prosperity, or any understanding of what it takes to foster those essential components of a sustainable democracy.
Regards,
Chuck
Dan, thanks for responding with relevant claims rather than a personal attack.
However, I never claimed all government programs have been “carved to the bone.” I don’t doubt that there are areas which can be and, arguably, should be cut. If, for no other reason, our Madison-like political process, which is designed to force different “factions” (aka, interest groups) to compromise, means that our policies often will be imperfect; and one form of imperfect compromise is spending more money than we can afford sometimes. It can and has happened when either the Dems or the Reps are in the majority; fpr it’s a product of our political system, I think. Our system makes compromise the easy way to address problems, and one way to compromise is to spend too much sometimes.
However, my own personal experiences are filled with examples of public service being funded much less than it needs in order to achieve its mission. Of course, I am most knowledgeable about my own world, in higher education; but I do have some experiences with other areas of the public sphere, too. While I don’t doubt one can find an example here or there of some funding that seems excessive, I welcome any attempt to suggest that the norm is anything other than a society of underfunded public services.
So, I see two options here. One can do research of a representative collection of government services (rather than a list of anecdotal examples) or one can respond to my previous proposal: please explain how SRJC “spends [you] into oblivion.”
If you want to make a similar claim about any other specific area of government (e.g., Sonoma County’s Public Health Department), I recommend you bring your evidence to the persons who are knowledgeable of their area. It’s easy to toss out an example or two or even ten. It’s harder to know what one is talking about. I know persons in the Public Health office with whom I can introduce you. I know some persons in local government, too. I’d love to learn from the discussion.
In the process, if you happen to find some examples of excessive government spending, please let me know. I, for one, will appreciate cutting this waste so underfunded areas like junior college education can better be served. I’m looking forward to the day we can educate our students without relying on so many part-time instructors who are, in the end, exploited by our society. We shouldn’t have to do that in order to educate our population.
I sincerely look forward to learning how we can stop this practice by saving money elsewhere.
Though I fear you’ll find A LOT of other government services which are underfunded as well.
Mr. Aparicio and his leftist friends can spend all day looking for truth and justice, but the facts are the facts. Democrats have run this country into the ground with the current regime’s spending, spending and more spending. The Democrats have also do this at the local level in Santa Rosa and Sonoma County. Look no further than the budget deficits and spending on public employee union benefits, opulent buildings, SMART, continuing tax increases, regulations which hinder economic growth.
Yes, the Democrats have a proud record of deceit, promising one thing and delivering another. Health care reform is an excellent example of this. The list is too extensive for this short comment. Vote Democrat if you like the continued trip down the red river of socialism.
Michael,
First of all, I appreciate the measured and reasonable tone of your comments. In that same light, please do not consider my comments below as an “attack.” They are not intended in that vane.
I used to think like you that our government institutions had pretty much carved themselves to the bone and allegations of “fat” came largely from the ill informed. But many recent events have convinced me otherwise. There is plenty of fat out there. It may not be so much in existing programs, but rather in the abominably poor decisions made by various elected and appointed officials. Off the top of my head, I offer the following examples:
1) The decision made by the state PUC to award a $1.4 million dollar contract to a PG&E contractor for the purpose of investigating the accuracy of PG&E’s SmartMeters. Any surprise how that investigation came out? If we are going to investigate someone, let’s not hire as the investigator someone who works for the investigated.
2) The City of Santa Rosa spending $40 million for a new public works building.
3) The SMART board of directors deciding to pay both the employee and employer share of pension contributions (not to mention the salaries and consulting payments being doled out).
4) Windsor council member Cheryl Scholar voting to force an unnecessary election at a cost to Windosr residents of $25,000.
5) The City of Santa Rosa deciding to spend $1.0 million to build a second senior center when we are struggling to keep the existing center open. Yes, I know this money supposedly comes from another fund (which really is just a statement about our spending priorities), but the operating costs do not.
6) County Agricultural Commissioner Cathy Neville firing Animal Control Chief Amy Cooper without regard to the cost of taxpayers. By all accounts, no effort was made to discuss with Cooper any perceived shortcomings in her performance and give her an opportunity to make appropriate adjustments. We invested a lot of money in Cooper’s recruitment and retention (money we will now spend again with respect to Cooper’s successor), but no effort appears to have been made to protect that investment before the firing.
7) County Administrator Veronica Ferguson’s request for $65,000 to hire a consultant to determine if Animal Control should be taken away from Nevile following the Cooper firing. Fortunately, the Supes shot that one down, for the moment anyway.
8) The Sonoma County Transportaiton Authority grant of $50,000 to Petaluma to create a bicycle friendly D St. I actually like the idea of bicycle boulevards, but is this really where our financial priorities should be these days?
9) $35,000 spent on that new bicycle monument on Santa Rosa Avenue. Yes, and again, I know this money came out of a different fund, but the simple fact of the matter is that we taxed the Santa Rosa Nissan folks for this money and spent it on public art. As with the bicycle boulevards, I like the idea of public art, but when faced with our financial problems, public art should not be at the top of our spending priorities.
These examples are just from the past couple of months, and I haven’t even touched on the unsustainable pension issue. Sadly, our elected and appointed officials have demonstrated repeatedly their inability to manage public funds wisely. Until we have in place officials who understand the importance of prudent fiscal mangement, I’m loathe to give them any more of our money.
I’ll go – if you’ve got time to hang out on this Web site all day and play word cop, maybe you could teach a couple extra classes instead and eliminate the need for additional instructors.
Or maybe since you’re here all the time you’re the dead weight that needs to be cut away from the department.
To Voice of Reason and others accepting the long-floated Republican adage that “Democrats tax and spend,” and shiver at the thought.
Unlike other states, CA requires a 2/3 vote in both houses of the legislature to pass a budget, including raising taxes (shudder!). If you give this a little thought, that wonderful 2/3 vote threshold basically translates into 1/3 of the elected representatives controlling the budget and taxes. The Democrats have held a majority in both houses for decades, but not a 2/3 majority–so this means the Republicans have been in control of taxes and spending. That’s right, the budget has been controlled by the minority–the Republicans. THIS POINT SHOULD NOT BE LOST SIGHT OF WHEN YOU PLACE RESPONSIBILITY FOR OUR CURRENT CRISIS.
For 30 years, with that 1/3 vote control over who is taxed, for what, and to what extent, and aided by Prop 13 (passed in 1978), the Republicans have put a tight lock on any attempt to alter our outdated tax structure.
Keeping the who, for what, and to what extent in mind, let’s look at what the Democrats have had to sit there and watch happen while the 1/3 controlling Republican minority have redistributed the wealth of the state into the hands of those at the top.
Basically, under Prop 13, property values (in regard to taxes) can go up by only a small set % each year, unless and until that property is sold, at which time the property is reassessed and the tax then is reset to reflect its (usually) increased market value. This adjustment is made each time you buy or sell a home. Sounds good for those of us reflecting on our personal home situation, and it provides needed protection especially for seniors whose rising property tax assessments at the time were overreaching their limited set retirement income. But the more dramatic effect on state revenues was that large corporations–who “live” far longer than individuals, reap huge benefits, while individuals, collectively, pay the price. Disneyland is a corporation. It owns property. But, unlike your home, its property pulls in a tremendous profit. It also requires tremendous infrastructure support (water, electricity, sewage, street/road maintenance, etc.). It’s our taxes that pay for corporations’ heavy demands on our infrastructure, Corporation properties (like Disneyland) are sold far less often than the homes of private individuals. Over time, this creates a huge imbalance in the state budget–less coming in, more going out, with corporations being the major benefactors.
The Democrats’ solution. Leave Prop 13 provisions in place for individual homeowners (you and me), but tax corporate property as part of their profit-making business. This has been blocked repeatedly by the 2/3 requirement for raising taxes–or the 1/3 Republican minority control over taxes.
Another responsible solution to our budgetary imbalance. Oil companies extract oil from CA–a state (public) resource. Private oil companies make an enormous profit from our resource. CA is the ONLY state that does not charge an extraction (severance) tax. This is known as private profit at public expense. Democrats have repeatedly tried to pass a severance tax, and each time it’s been blocked by the controlling Republican minority, because it requires a 2/3 vote.
So yes we’d like to “raise taxes.” But not on the middle class where the Republicans have placed almost the entire burden.
And those awful, wasteful things Democrats would like to spend these additional tax dollars on? Public education, fire and police protection, public libraries, healthcare.
So, whatever you do, don’t let those crazy Democrats get control by lowering the threshold to a majority vote to raise taxes and pass a budget. The Republicans have done such a beautiful job with their decades of 1/3 minority control.
Mr. Reason, would you kindly explain where there is “plenty of fat” in my own place of employment, Santa Rosa Junior College? For I sincerely don’t want to “spend [you] into oblivion.” I’m especially interested to learn how you would do this in a way that still values educating people, since that is the college’s mission. Or is this mission the fat that needs to be cut? Once again, I sincerely welcome any clear and relevant reasons. However, without providing any, phrases such as “plenty of fat” and “spend [you] into oblivion” seem to be yet another example of the type of hyperbole I would not expect from someone who claims to be the voice of reason.
The Democratic Party endorsed everything that costs the taxpayer more money and they endorsed not rolling back the sewer rates in Petaluma which also will cost those people more. At least they’re consistent. I’m a democrat, but I will not be voting for democrats or their spending proposals this time around.
People must not allow the majority democrats to lower the threshold to pass a budget. This year’s endorsements show us why. They will spend us into oblivion. There’s still plenty of fat to cut in the government.