Redefining our city
It been a busy week at the secret headquarters of SD&R, but I managed to sneak out to the City Charter public Workshop on Wednesday night. Some quick thoughts:
- It’s amazing how the meetings that are covering most important issues in town tend to be the least well attended and this workshop was no exception (quick, amusing aside: at the city’s first budget workshop, the sole member of the public at the meeting fell asleep and literally began snoring loudly from the front row.)
- There were four members of the public, three city staffers and 2 council subcommittee members in attendance.
- The charter amendment process is threefold:
- A proposal to make small clean up changes (changing the His/Him’s to more gender neutral language, consistency, etc.)
- A proposal for “substantive” changes, which are really not all that substantive and include adding language to include language requiring the City Auditor be a CPA and the City Treasurer a Chartered Financial Ananlyst or a Certified Financial Planner Certified Financial Advisor. These are clearly more than just clean up language, but they are not going to blow the lid off of things. (I was tempted to suggest that the language also require that future people elected to these positions be either named Kevin, or willing to be called Kevin—the current representatives of these spots are known as the two Kevins (Kearney and Kennedy)).
The one really substantive discussion is around whether to allow the city manager, in an emergency situation, to issue a no-bid contract in an amount over $75,000 in order to move quickly on an issue of an extreme time-sensitive nature. (Currently, an emergency meeting of the council must be called and a vote of four members attained). There are two proposals on this issue: One would allow the city manager to just issue the contract. The second would allow him/her to do so, but the contract would not be valid until it was ratified by the council at a later meeting.
It’s an interesting discussion, and really swings around the idea of a “once every ten years” type situation. I’ll say that the discussion at the workshop changed my mind from “yeah, it would make sense to give that limited authority to the City Manager” to “Since this is so rare, the language should support it remaining a rare occurrence.” Mission creep seems to be one of the unwritten rules of power, and while I’m sure the current office holders would never abuse the increase in power, one could see the definition of “emergency” broadening over the years as the people in the city manager position change.
-
- Lastly, there are the “things we’ll discuss next year” items, which include all the major issue that have been discussed, like whether the council should ge given the authority to hire/fire department heads, should the councilmembers be paid more, etc.
The items that were highlighted as being held for discussion really all fall into one category (except maybe the proposed board appointment changes), they all start questioning/changing/affecting the very nature of the current form of city government that Alameda has: City Council/City Manager. This is going to be really interesting discussion as I think there’s a lot of confusion as to how our current City Administrative structure works (actually, I’d say that I “know” that there’s a lot of confusion).
- Councilmembers Gilmore and Tam did a great job of discussing the issues and why the suggested changes were being looked at.
- It’s unfortunate that more people weren’t at this (or other) meetings on the topic.
- This will be heading to the ballot (most likely) in November. Now’s the time to give input on the suggestions, add new ones, etc.
- I think now would be a good time to look at which boards/commissions are in the charter and which are not and ask ourselves “why” on each one. Why would (or wouldn’t) we want to have to get voter approval to disband Board X (or Commission X). It seems to be a mish-mash, and no one seems to know why some of the Boards that are in the charter are in there. I don’t have a feeling one way or another, but it would seem that this is the time to look at it.
Have a great weekend, happy Father’s Day to all the dads out there.
[Updated: 9:54am for accuracy]
dave
June 13th, 2008 at 8:50 am
Do you mean the Treasuer should be Chartered Financial Ananlyst? Or a Certified Financial Planner? Those are the only two designations I’m aware with titles similar to what you write, but they are quite different.
John Knox White
June 13th, 2008 at 8:56 am
Thanks…..that’s what I get for going on memory, Yes…both (or either)
Mark P.
June 13th, 2008 at 10:10 am
Anything that gives the City Administration any more authority is very, very dangerous. Remember, they have absolutely no motivatation to represent the citizens.
To Councilmembers Tam and Gilmore:
isn’t it time for Council to be accountable for representing citizens and to document that accountability in the Charter?
Lena Tam, Vice-Mayor
June 13th, 2008 at 1:48 pm
To Mark P. –
Here’s the link to the provisions in the Charter pertaining to the accountability of the City Council to the community. The Council subcommittee on the charter review would welcome any specific suggestions for revising or modifying these provisions before its July 15 meeting.
http://www.ci.alameda.ca.us/gov/city_charter.html?article=3
Jill
June 14th, 2008 at 3:38 pm
Does anyone know to whom the Building Department is accountable? I know at least 10 people who have had terrible experiences with this department, varying from clear favoritism given to some people applying for permits while others are subjected to the third degree, to the most common, which is employees who don’t know what they’re doing so the public gets different answers depending on who is working that day or who comes out to do the inspection. Is there anyone we can complain to about this incompetence and favoritism?
Mark P.
June 15th, 2008 at 6:10 pm
Vice Mayor Tam, thank you for the link. I was thinking of accountability more along the lines of a process for removing a councilmember/mayor from office by the citizens for good reason. (not to be taken personally, I’m thinking long term.)
The ultimate goal is to give councilmembers incentive to engage with the citizens on the issues rather than rely on the city administration’s selective presentation of the issues.
I was also thinking it might be time for Alameda to have ‘districts’ with a councilmember representing a district(s). Then each of us would know who, specifically, was representing us on the Council.
Thanks for engaging!
Helper
June 17th, 2008 at 11:23 am
Jill,
The Alameda County Civil Grand Jury.
Confidential one-page Complaint forms can be found on their web site.
Mark Irons
June 23rd, 2008 at 7:29 am
Mark P.
It is a confusing subject, but there are ranked choice voting systems which are proven to improve representation of districts without actually having district elections. I have a short DVD on the subject.
Ranked choice is primarily helpful in run-off situations or in elections like 2000 where because of our plurality system Nader became a spoiler. By ranking each candidate run-offs can be instant and elections can be decided by a majority every time. It’s too much to explain here , but trust me, it’s true.
As for districts in Alameda, two points. This town is so small that all of our council can be our district representatives. I think having districts would make things like the East -West divide more problematic, not less. However, in a ranked choice system where all voters vote for all candidates in a straight order of preference, it is mathematically proven that various minority constituents get better representation. This refers to any constituency of minority opinion, not necessarily a racial minority.
I am rusty on this and would have to refer to the DVD again to give more precise details.
Mark Irons
June 23rd, 2008 at 7:39 am
Jill
As a builder who has had to deal with department on behalf of clients and as a home owner who has pulled permits for two large projects I would tend to agree that it seems like you can get different answers to the same question depending on the day and person you speak to. I agree this is a problem. As to blatant favoritism, I simply can’t abide that this is happening.
With my experience I may have better luck weaving through the process, but there is no eye winking back slapping favoritism that I’ve seen . I think it is by nature a frustrating experience and even with my repeat visits, I find I am overwhelmed and often don’t hear what I am told clearly or I miss things which cause me to have to repeat certain steps. I can see where a novice might have the perception of favoritism by comparing notes with others, but I don’t think there is anything nefarious going on.
In the distant past I know of some pretty bad stories which would substantiate what you claim, but not presently.
Helper
June 27th, 2008 at 9:12 am
From the recent past:
FBI Sting Nabs City Inspector for
Written by Dan Abbott Published: Thursday, 29 June 2006
A city building inspector allegedly attempted to trade favorable building inspections for payoffs from Alameda businesses that ranged from free Chinese food and a blender to cash payoffs, according to Alameda County court documents.
Hans Williams, 46, a combination inspector for the Alameda Planning and Building Department, was arraigned June 23 on two counts of soliciting bribes, after more than three months of investigation by FBI agents. Agents allegedly caught Williams discussing quid pro quo arrangements on video and audio surveillance devices. The FBI has turned the case over to the Alameda County district attorney’s office.
Williams, a Dublin resident, was released on $30,000 bail, and is expected to enter a plea when he returns to court July 7. If convicted, Williams could face up to five years in state prison.
Alameda County deputy district attorney Trevor White said the FBI often conducts investigations of state and local crimes if public officials are suspected of wrongdoing. White declined to discuss details of the case, but acknowledged that allegations of corruption may expand to include others.
“The true scope of this case may be larger,” White said, “or it may just be the two charges (against Williams).”
Williams is accused of offering Richard Chiu, a construction contractor whose extended Chinese-American family owns the Chef’s Wok and House of Bagels as well as several undeveloped properties on Bay Farm Island, favorable safety inspections on remodeling work as early as December 2005. Chiu told the FBI he often intercedes on behalf of his family due to his better grasp of English.
According to Chiu, Williams arrived at the Chef’s Wok for an inspection of remodeling work on the restaurant’s kitchen around Dec. 8, 2005. He allegedly asked if Chiu’s family had any other projects in Alameda, and told Chiu he could overlook problems with the remodeling work, saying “You help me and I’ll help you.”
The help Williams was referring to included free food at Chef’s Wok and House of Bagels, Chiu told the FBI, which Chiu said he arranged with family members.
In subsequent meetings, Williams allegedly asked Chiu to buy him a blender from Costco, and repeatedly discussed using Chiu’s contractor discount to set up an account for him at Economy Lumber in Oakland, so that Williams could purchase materials for remodeling work at his Dublin residence.
Meanwhile, city records show that Williams repeatedly signed off on work in progress at Chef’s Wok without comment, giving the restaurant a temporary permit on Jan. 26, 2006. Chiu acknowledged to the FBI restaurant a temporary permit on Jan. 26, 2006. Chiu acknowledged to the FBI that there were several flaws in the remodeling work that Williams overlooked.
Chiu began to secretly record his conversations with Williams in mid-January, court documents show. On March 9, Williams told Chiu he wanted more food from Chef’s Wok, allegedly saying “The family wants more Chinese food, what can I do?” Chiu alleges that Williams again took food without paying, and the next day Chiu filed a complaint with the FBI. Federal agents subsequently provided Chiu with audio and video devices to collect evidence against Williams, court documents reveal.
In subsequent meetings, Williams allegedly became more explicit in his requests for payoffs, apparently offering favorable inspections of Bay Farm Island housing developments owned by Chiu’s family. During one recorded conversation, court documents show, Williams insinuated that other public employees, including “my buddy from Alameda Power,” would be willing to give blanket approval to electrical work at his request, immediately before asking Chiu about opening an account at Economy Lumber.
On June 2, Chiu told the FBI that Williams called him from one of his family’s housing developments on Bay Farm Island, and allegedly asked Chiu to give him cash instead of setting up the account at Economy Lumber, apparently nervous about receiving construction supplies at his home. Williams apparently met Chiu’s brother, construction contractor William Zhao, at the development, and borrowed Zhao’s phone to call Chiu. Chiu told authorities he was not able to record the call as a result.