Why would the San Mateo County Supervisors refuse to give voters the option of changing the method of electing supervisors?  57 of 58 counties in California use a district-specific system, San Mateo County is alone in making candidates run county-wide.

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.

I’ll admit to being stumped as to why the Board of Supervisors voted 4:1 (termed-out supervisor Rich Gordon voting in the minority) against asking the public the preference of district vs at-large elections for supervisors.

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.

There was a special feeling which came from people telling you what your programming meant for them and their kids.  Discovery Channel turns 25 and I have so many fond memories of the people, the adventures we shared and the mission to make the best programming which could be made.

“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!

PT Barnum was called the greatest showman ever born.  Often referred to as the “Prince of Humbugs”, Barnum saw nothing wrong in entertainers or vendors using hype (or “humbug“, as he termed it) in promotional material, as long as the public was getting value for money.

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.

Folks will argue about how services should be delivered.  Three members of our community intend to put the following language on the ballot (Emphasis added to several points), with no idea how to pay for it:

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…