Mr. Gingrich

For years you have run a successful reading program in your home district encouraging young people to read, learn and grow. You commitment to educating people and exploring ideas is commendable. As an elected official I applaud this type of leadership.

So it was stunning to see you engage in uneducated, pandering rhetoric and stirring the pot of “Islamaphobia.” Let’s be clear – “Islamaphobia” is a misnomer for the ugly reality of bigotry.

Upon becoming Speaker of the House you proudly shared the GOP “Contract with America.” It seems lately you have forgotten the “real” contract with America you took an oath to defend: the Constitution.

Shame on you Mr. Gingrich, for suggesting constitutional freedoms should be based on the behaviors of foreign governments. As an American, the notion our constitutional freedoms should be subject to the whims of Saudi “reciprocation” is lunacy. Defending our constitution often means defending those we disagree with.

I serve on the board of SamTrans, the bus service in my county. Recently a well-known anti-Muslim group bought ads to run on the sides of our buses. More than 100 clergy leaders of various faiths sent letters condemning the ads and asked for a meeting with their interfaith council.

I was clear in my agreement with the clergy – the ads were hateful, based on mis-information, hurt members of the larger community and were on a personal level, repulsive.

But I reminded the assembly of my oath to protect the Constitution. As much as I wanted to “do something” to get rid of the ads – the protection of the Constitution and 1st amendment was imperative. Hard as it was, I defended the right of the anti-Muslim group to advertise their agenda of hate.

Shame on you Mr. Gingrich for equating Muslims with Nazis when exercising their constitutional right to worship in a privately purchased building.

We can never forget those who perished at the hands of criminal mad men on 9/11, but many choose to overlook a simple fact: if you are Muslim in Afghanistan or Pakistan, the body count is growing daily at the hands of the same criminals.

Does the name Kareem Rashad Sultan Khan sound familiar? This American Muslim soldier, awarded the Purple Heart and Bronze Star, is buried in the hallowed earth of Arlington Cemetery after being killed serving his country in Iraq. He is not alone. Many Muslims are buried in Arlington after giving the US their last full measure of devotion. Perhaps you can explain to their grieving families why you would lump them with Nazis, and scorn their constitutional right to worship. Instead of protecting the rights of these and other American Muslims you have chosen to demonize them.

Shame on you Mr. Gingrich for actually believing your vitriol is limited to a single project in New York.

Americans from Wisconsin to Florida, from New York to California and points in between are having their constitutional rights attacked. Most of these attacks come from small-minded bigots with supremacy agendas. Having a national figure like you leading the way turns debate into hate speech and violence. Do you recall the bombing by an alleged supremacist of a mosque in Jacksonville, Florida? Had the bomb been planted in a slightly different position, 60 worshippers would have perished in the blast.

Principled leadership is desperately needed to deal with uncertain futures in an uncertain time. You chose to take a path favored by only the lowest of politicians. The classic political strategy of telling the public “whom to fear” and “where to assign blame” is vile pandering to the basest fears and insecurities. It is sad to see a leader adding to division and hatred because it may simply further their political campaign.

Candidly Mr. Gingrich, between you and the radical terrorists we both despise, I don’t know who is doing more harm to America today.

Shame on you Mr. Gingrich.

U.N. Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon said he has never seen anything like the flood disaster in Pakistan, and urged foreign donors to speed up assistance to the 20 million people affected.  The situation is dire and compassion is in short supply for those hurt the most.

One issue which needs to be acknowledged is the reluctance to give money to/for Pakistan.  The reasons are many.  This article appearing in Foreign Policy clearly states the challenges and the issues.  I encourage you to read the article in full – but the summary is a poignant  plea to the better angels of our nature.

Pakistan has suffered from desperately poor moral leadership, but punishing the helpless and homeless millions of the 2010 floods is the worst possible way to express our rejection of the Pakistani elite and their duplicity and corruption. The poor, hungry, and homeless are not an ISI conspiracy to bilk you of your cash. They are a test of your humanity. Do not follow in the footsteps of the Pakistani elite by failing them. That would be immoral and inhumane. This is a time to ask only one question. And that question is: “How can I help?”

Full Article on Foreign Policy can be read HERE

For those looking for the Google Crisis Response Page:

http://www.google.com/crisisresponse/pakistan_floods.html

1. The phased implementation approach for construction of the system is critical
2. Electrification of Caltrain is vital for the fiscal viability of preserving the route and right-of-way
3. A short story of San Carlos and our grade separations.

San Carlos had a contentious campaign when grade separations were implemented.  Predictions from opponents were dire regarding our city character and the effect of  doing the separations.  Folks in favor looked to improve the miserable traffic flow and help economic development.  Almost a decade after the construction – what can we conclude?

• Accidents of cars/people on the tracks have dropped to zero
• Traffic issues are much better
• Economic development (Home Depot and Lucky) were done as a result of better access
• The “worst cases” did not come to pass.

To this day there are detractors of the berms, and they correctly point out “things we should have done.”  In hind-sight, improving the sidewalk conditions of Old County Road, under-grounding of utilities and better pedestrian access are all points of design and implementation which would have made this project go from “good” to “stellar.”  These are things the council is making progress on improving and I wish we could move faster in making those improvements.

In the discussions regarding High Speed Rail (HSR) there are opinions – and then there are facts.  One simple fact – a grade separation is not a death sentence.  In the San Carlos case it has meant greater safety, better traffic flows and economic development.  This can also be the case for the jurisdictions fighting hardest  and issueing ultimatums of implementation scenarios.

A final thought I offered was the notion of FUD: Fear, Uncertainty and Doubt.  When there is a vacuum of information, FUD will fill the void.  Some of the FUD we are hearing is politically motivated, some is because good information is not being put forward for the general public.  Political FUD is just part of the process and has to be addressed.  FUD resulting from an information vacuum is simply bad management.  Being more direct: the current PR firm in place has niether servered the public, nor the High-Speed Rail Alliance and should be replaced.

A group of terrific city leaders from San Mateo and Santa Clara counties hope a musical message will help remind you of the serious issues Prop 22 addresses.  The state has long had a specific mantra of how it would balance its budget – if they can steal the money, they will.  For years the state has stolen billions from cities and transit agencies.  The continual raids on local money have meant depletion of public safety, infrastructure crumbling and core services being elimniated.  For too long the state has operated under the assumption of “if it isn’t nailed down, we’ll take it.  If we can pry it up, it wasn’t nailed down.”

You’ll hear flowery rhetoric from the opposition, but you need to be clear who they are.  The opposition is primarily those who benefit from a spinless legislature who have shown year after year they cannot balance a budget.  Cities, on the other hand, have to balance a budget every year.  I had an exchange with one opponent recently and asked if they would change their “No on 22″ button to “It’s OK to Steal.”  They declined – but had no response to the fact the monies in question are for cities and transit agencies to do their important work.

You’ll hear more from me on this issue between now and the election.  I hope you will support this critical initiative and vote yes on 22.

The current system of electing Supervisors benefits incumbents, discourages political newcomers and fosters races in which no real issues are debated or discussed. The opportunity for legitimate candidates to mount a solid campaign is hampered by the high cost of running an expensive county-wide (as opposed to a district-specific) race.  The benefits of district-specific elections bring out candidates who are actually connected to their district and more competitive races giving voters better choice.

Among the reasons given by supervisors to remain in the current jurassic voting system include:

• “We don’t want to be SF County”: Interesting objection, but dislike of a single instance is hardly grounds to ignore 56 other counties who have successfully implemented this standard.
• “Democracy is Expensive”: The notion of putting artificial barriers to keep the process expensive only perpetuates the growing cost of campaigning.
• “If it ain’t broke…”:  The Grand Jury and the Charter Review Committee felt the system was clearly “broken.”  After months of study, the conclusion was clear and and the question of changing the voting system ought to be put to the voters.

The debate on whether or not this change is right for San Mateo County would have been an important one to have.  We are living in extraordinary circumstances and need leadership who can stand up to the challenge of our demanding times.  Sadly, this debate is now moot and the lingering question remains whether the people of San Mateo County were served by this decision.  One would be hard pressed to say we were.

Keep in mind, San Mateo County is the ONLY county in California with an at-large election. One would be hard pressed to say this is serving the public interest.

The vote was a repudiation of the recommendation made by the San Mateo County Charter Review Committee to alter the system in which the five full-time political offices are elected by placing a measure on the November 2010 ballot. – examiner.com

I’m looking forward to conversations with the supervisors in the coming days to hear their reasons.

“Put the green on the screen” was the motto of how the money was to be spent.  We spent time, care and money to get the images people have never seen and tell the important  stories of our world.

Yes, I’m extremely proud of my Discovery roots, the colleagues who worked together so closely and the work which still stands today among the best ever done.

Congratulations and here’s to 25 more years!

Before we get to details about Barnum – let’s start with where we agree: A well-functioning police force is something we all want, need, and should not accept sub-standard service.  San Carlos is a wonderful place to live for many reasons: great schools, the parks people love, the sense of community, our great downtown,  and our safe community. There are many things a city does or contracts for: water treatment is via JPA while the city maintains sewers, garbage and recycling are done via JPA,  major road maintenance is via contract, minor is via city staff and a mountain of other services.

While everyone agrees public safety is a high priority – we are engaged in a debate on how this service is delivered.  Some claim any change from the way we deliver safety services today will be negative.  We are in a process of determining those issues and the consequences (positive and negative) if the service model is changed.  Change is always hard and is questioned. But in a time of scarce funding, it must be examined closely.

While folks are entitled to their own opinions, they are not entitled to their own facts.  Let’s review a few:

FACT: The city is enduring revenue shortfalls and has been cutting the budget for the last 10 years
FACT: The city dipped into reserves last year to allow voters a chance to increase revenues
FACT: The city reserves are nearly depleted
FACT: Four times, the voters have had revenue measures placed before them which were rejected. (2003-2009, 6 years).  Is it fair to repeatedly ask? Or should we just acknowledge the question has been asked – and clearly answered?
FACT: The cost of MAINTAINING our police force at current levels has grown significantly
FACT: San Carlos has a hard time retraining/recruiting police officers because the compensation is lower than neighboring jurisdictions.

I am continually asked by concerned community members, “I live within my means, why can’t the city?”

If your home is too expensive, you look for something less expensive.  If your car costs too much to drive, you look for something else.  While the notion of mandates (and especially unfunded mandates) is a topic for later discussion, most will agree just about everything costs more than it did yesterday.  Gas costs more, electricity costs more, health insurance costs more, pensions cost more, and employees cost more.  As a city we are doing more than we did previously, and thanks to mandates passed by both state and federal governments, we do them with no added funds to cover the costs.

How can the city spend money it doesn’t have?

Simply put, we can’t.  This council is taking strong action to bring reason to the city’s spending.

I have stated consistently there can be no sacred cows when we look at our budget.

There are real concerns of moving to a contract services for police which need detailed answers  – that’s why we have hired outside help to craft our requirements for what an appropriate service would be.  I encourage those with legitimate questions to ask them and recognize there is a process underway to ensure all those questions will be answered.  San Carlos has a special sense of community which should be maintained in the best possible form we can afford.

There are a few folks who have stated through a proposed ballot initiative: regardless of cost, don’t touch anything! To be clear, this group has neither offered any way to pay for services nor will they.  Their slogans are based in fear and their solutions are based on thin air.  Even Barnum would be ashamed of these tactics.

PRIORITIZING PUBLIC SAFETY. The residents of San Carlos declare that City Government’s top priority is to provide the best level of public safety service possible. To better achieve such level of service, upon passage of this measure and thereafter, the City of San Carlos shall maintain police staffing, at a minimum, consistent with previously maintained levels.

“Police Officer” shall be defined as full-time sworn police positions and shall not include temporary or contract employees.

The San Carlos Police Department’s budgeted positions shall not fall below the level it was budgeted for in fiscal year 2001-2002, nor shall the City contract out with any entity, public or private, for general police services, without prior voter approval. If prior to passage of this measure, the City contracts out general police services, upon passage of this measure the City’s Police Department shall be reinstated and any police employees that were laid off due to contracting out services shall be immediately reinstated with back pay and benefits. Nothing in this section shall preclude the City from contracting for specialized police services with other law enforcement agencies or entering into mutual aid agreements with other law enforcement agencies. The City shall take all reasonable steps to ensure that the budgeted positions describe above are filled at all times by qualified full-time police officers.

In order to ensure that the City does not hire sub-standard police officers to simply meet the required staffing threshold, the full-time police officers employed by the City shall be compensated in salary and benefits, at a minimum, at the average of the local police market. To determine the “average.” a survey of salary and benefits of all other cities in San Mateo County that have a municipal police department shall be used unless another list of cities is agreed upon by the City and San Carlos Police Officers Association. The survey and any resulting compensation adjustments shall be done annually in August of each year.

1. Best Levels: How do “they” want “us” to pay for it? They have no idea. Everyone likely wants to drive a Rolls Royce or a Ferrari.  After all, those are the “best.”  By the same token, most folks don’t drive the cheapest thing like a used Yugo.  Most of us get a vehicle which fits our needs and our budget.  The same common sense needs to apply to services our city offers.

Some have pushed the notion of a military lock-down of the city with cameras everywhere, more surveillance and a loss of privacy and liberty.  Others would have you believe the council would turn public safety over to a former security guard from the mall.  Neither of these are the solution for San Carlos.

But the folks pushing this initiative want the best, no matter the cost and whatever the expense to other mandates and programs.

2. Staffing Levels: How do “they” want “us” to pay for it? They have no idea.The effects of adding officers, adding dispatch and adding positions would (with a back-of-the-envelope) take the City’s General Fund Budget Deficit from $3.5 Million per year to $5.5 to $6.5 Million per year.  How do you pay for this?  According to one of the people pushing this initiative:

Castle acknowledged the initiative has no funding for the increased spending on staff and salaries. (cite)

So while those pushing the ballot text acknowledge this will cost more money, how do “they” want “us” to pay for it?  They have no idea.   Point of history:  San Carlos has voted on four revenue measures to pay for services – and rejected all four.  OK – so they want a Rolls Royce, they have no idea how to pay for it, but that is not a problem?  Seriously, the intent is to push staffing to the heights of the Dotcom boom?

3. “Average” Salary & Benefits: How do “they” want “us” to pay for it? They have no idea. The “average” of the market the measure’s annual salary survey of all Police Departments means will get a significant raise now and a raise every year.  Two tier benefits?  Nope.  San Carlos is one of the few towns in the state where this exists – the “average” is paying much more.  Ignore the work which has been done to reign in a number of costs for benefits – this measure trashes that work.

One can appreciate folks are passionate about the issues.  I am fighting to keep San Carlos out of  Chapter 11.  There are those pushing this ballot text who want to continue to live beyond their means.  The folks of San Carlos are smarter than that…