As you know, the plan diverts about $9 million in public parking money away from the general fund and into a newly created parking authority, to pay the bonds for a Kings arena.

The money is supposed to be backfilled by several sources. The biggest source is a five percent ticket surcharge, which the city estimates will bring in $3.7 million a year.

That same number was used in last year’s arena deal with the Maloofs. The team owners hired Beacon Economics to assess the plan and Beacon blasted it noting the revenue projection is based on rosy attendance numbers from years ago, way above what Power Balance Pavillion is currently drawing in.

You can object that Beacon’s analysis was paid for by the Maloofs, who wanted out of the deal anyway. But it’s at least as trustworthy as any of the glowing economic reports you’ll see generated by the mayor’s Think Big organization. A more conservative estimate would be to count on current attendance, rather than the higher figure, but then the deal wouldn’t pencil out.

Another $3 million will be generated by a little maneuver described thus in the City’s term sheet:

“The Public Parking Financing model will be structured in such a way to provide $3 million annually to backfill the City’s portion of the General Fund revenue.”

Short a few mil? Just “structure” your model to provide the money you need. It’s like magic.

I’m told that this means when the city issues the arena bonds they will borrow a little extra, and use that to partially pay back the general fund. That’s basically borrowing money to pay for cops and other basic services, at least in the early years. Later on the parking system is supposed to generate a lot more money–what with all the revitalization going on. But that’s assuming a great deal, especially given that the City plans to give all of its parking in the Downtown Plaza to the arena operator. That’s cutting the parking inventory by a third.

This angle is well dissected over at Neil deMause’s blog (he calls it the “perpetual parking revenue machine) and in this Sac Press piece by William Burg.

Either way, a lot of things have to got right. The plan is sufficiently risky that the City plans to use hotel tax revenue as a backstop. So though the City Manager’s office talks about how this plan “protects the general fund” that seems to mean “takes money out of the general fund that will be paid back if our very optimistic projections come true.”

The few polls that have been done of city residents have indicated everything from apathy to antipathy for public participation in any arena scheme. If you count Measures Q and R from 2006, it’s safe to say voters flat out hate arena subsidies.

“If the council is fixated on this subsidy, they should give the public an opportunity to vote it up or down,” says Patrick Soluri, a local attorney working with local folks fighting against the subsidy and pushing for a public vote on any arena plan.

It’s still a long shot that the NBA will approve sale of the Kings to the team of local whales–nixing what appears to be a solid offer from a group of Seattle investors. But if that happens and the Sacto whales strike a final, legally binding agreement with the City, then expect a campaign to gather signatures and put the plan to a referendum in a special election.

The main problem with Soluri’s group is that he won’t say where they get their money from, other than, “It’s a purely local coalition. All of the money is local and we are pursuing local goals.”

Soluri is a local land use attorney. He dabbled in criminal law on behalf of Occupy protestors, beating back the City’s unfair arrests and prosecution. He also represented the Westfield Group former owners of local Downtown Plaza, in challenging the City’s plans to develop the downtown railyards. How do we know he’s not getting money from some other local development interest, pursuing their own angle?

We don’t. But that doesn’t mean a referendum isn’t a good idea. Mark Paul, a former Sac Bee opinion writer and co-author of the great book California Crackup, makes an eloquent argument for a public arena vote.

While California’s overuse of the initiative has been kind of a disaster for the state, Paul writes on his blog The California Fix, that the referendum is by contrast, “the underused tool in the kit of California direct democracy.”

“The referendum is about holding a conversation,” he writes. “Our representatives make decisions and through the referendum we voters tell them whether they got it right, or should go back and try again.”

In fact, the public seems to have been trying for some time to tell City Hall they don’t like arena subsidies, and have other priorities for public money. Ultimately they may resort to the referendum to be heard.

Update: Here’s another critique from Eye on Sacramento. And a more upbeat one from Jeff Michael, econ professor University of the Pacific.  Michael was recently quoted in the Bee as saying this deal is better (for the City) than the one offered to the Maloofs. But even though he says some pretty positive things about the proposal, his take is still that, “it will increase the strain on the general fund by $4-8 million per year.”  It would be nice if the City, or the Bee, would say that.

A couple of weeks ago the Bee’s Appetizers blog ran a piece about the hopefully soon-to-open Ficklin-Wilcox tasting room in midtown Sacramento. Unfortunately, the “laborious” permitting process delayed its fall opening, causing the new retail outlet to miss the Christmas shopping season.

The question I am left with is; how many new and expanding businesses in our region were similarly delayed in their efforts, putting off the opportunity to do business and create jobs by the permitting process? Beyond that, how many were deterred altogether?

In a project I worked on in my day job, I interviewed several dozen manufacturing executives from companies small and large. The firms ranged from local businesses with only a handful of employees to multinational corporations that invested hundreds of millions of dollars at new facilities that employ thousands. The conversations were enlightening.

Repeatedly regulations and the permitting process were brought up as a serious issue. Nothing surprising there, but what was more interesting is that a significant number made clear that they do not mind the regulations themselves. They care about safety and the environment where they and their workers live. They think it makes good business sense to operate in a desirable place to bring business partners or prospective employees. And they are generally just decent people who try to do right by the world. The primary problem they find with these regulations is not the principle nor, in many cases, even the cost. The main problem I was told, over and over again, is the uncertainty and delay the regulations cause.

In order for new, large facilities to pencil out, there seems to be a general consensus that they need to be up and running within two years. Many respondents, including respondents with a long history in the state, made clear this was not possible for them in California. The regulatory process is too slow and has too many delays and pitfalls, which can drag projects on for years.

One last vignette before I get to the policy implications. Several years ago, Mayor Christopher Cabaldon was working to bring Ikea to West Sacramento. As we know, he was successful. He did not give incentives or tax breaks. He had none to offer. What he did was promise them that within one year they would be selling furniture. He took responsibility for ensuring they could move through the process and get their investment working and today the Ikea anchors a shopping center that employs 1,100 people.

So how can our region benefit from this knowledge? Similar to the Mayor’s experience, one executive I talked to related their experience with a city in California. The city actively works with companies to streamline and expedite the permitting process. They have dedicated staff that are experts in helping businesses efficiently comply with regulations.

That is a good idea and it is absolutely one that we should expand on. It addresses our region’s biggest weakness: both the perception and the reality of being unfriendly to business. And it does so by utilizing our greatest competitive advantage: access to and expertise with state government.

The Cities, County and/or other planning agencies should develop a business permitting “Go” team. That team would be responsible for walking businesses through every step of the process, ensuring they have everything in order for expeditious review and developing relationships with regulators in state and local government to ensure prompt, fair action. In doing so, they should calculate and widely publicize the time they save companies, marketing the region as a place where you can enjoy the benefits of the Golden State without the regulatory drawbacks.

There would be some costs to this proposal. It would require a handful of well-qualified staff and some resources spent to develop the knowledge base and strategy to be implemented. But the potential benefits would be real and lasting. It would also more than pay for itself if it successfully brought just one or two new businesses into the region. What can I say; you have to spend money to make money; but this is far more cost-effective than most ideas out there.

With any luck, the “Go” team might even be able to identify strategies to help state regulators streamline their processes. Benefiting from its perspective bridging the gap between the public and private sectors, this program could prove a valuable stepping stone for needed reform statewide.

The bottom line is some projects are not environmentally and culturally appropriate for our region. Others are. In either case, if our local governments can meaningfully expedite the process of giving these projects either a thumbs up or a thumbs down, it will give us a very significant competitive advantage. This is not a magic bullet and it will not completely change things overnight. But it will help to make the Sacramento region a legitimate option for companies looking to expand and put Sacramento on a path for stable, sustained private sector growth.

Pedestrian Injuries in San Francisco

Blight in New Orleans

Bikeshare in Boston

Others include dangerous dogs in Austin, rat sightings in New York and traffic cameras in Baltimore. I can imagine an interesting analysis from pulling together time series data on pedestrian injuries and traffic cameras.

The one that grabbed my attention most, though, is crime data in Philadelphia. Philadelphia made news for doing it recently, but Chicago and Baltimore also deserve credit for having systems already in place. The reason I found this so salient is that a colleague and friend of mine has been using the Public Records Act (PRA) process to try to get similar data for an economic analysis project he is working on. To date, they have only given a small amount of the data he has requested. My friend – and most of us doing this sort of analysis on our spare time – is just trying to help make the city better.

Beyond that, expanding the data that is actively available could spark unknown amounts of innovation in the public and private sector. It is just simply a good thing. It is easy to do and it is worth it. Our leaders always talk about being an “innovation incubator” – this is the kind of thing that can help make that happen.

So they plan to pick their own replacement to represent Area 1 (Land Park, Curtis Park, the Grid), and to serve the remainder of Bell’s term, which ends December 2014.  The board is scheduled to pick from eight applicants, and to make that appointment this December 20.

That decision may be overruled by voters, however.  Community activists and district labor unions are now calling for a special election to replace Bell.  And they’re threatening a petition drive that would force an election, even if the board makes it’s own pick.

Annette Deglow is one of the folks leading the effort–she was also one of the community activists who helped to write and pass Measures J and K, which brought area elections to the district and replaced the old at-large system in 2006.

Deglow says the school board’s decision to appoint a new board member, rather than allowing area residents to pick their own representative, is undemocratic and undermines the system voters put in place just a few years ago.

“It flies in the face of J and K. Those candidates aren’t out there trying to work the residents of Area 1. They are trying to work the board members,” says Deglow. “We will challenge the appointment, whoever it is. I don’t want them to think it’s personal.”

If the board decides to go ahead with its plan to appoint a new board member, Deglow, or anyone else, would have 30 days from the time of the appointment to collect 2454 signatures to force the district to hold a special election to fill the seat.

That’s 1.5 percent of the registered voters in the school district, according to Sacramento County Campaign Services Manager/elections guru Brad Buyse. He said the petitioners would probably have to collect 2800-3000 signatures to be on the safe side, since a lot of signatures don’t check out as valid.

Given the timeline set out by Buyse, if the petitioners turn in enough valid signatures the election would likely wind up being held in the summer, I’m assuming June 2013.

Here’s where it gets weird. If there is a special election, the new board member elected at that time wouldn’t be seated until December 2013. So, whoever the board appoints this month would be in office for about a year (12/12 to 12/13). Then whoever gets elected in 2013 would also be in office for a year (12/13 to 12/14).

Again, this is my best understanding of the how the process would work, though I think it’s still being sussed out by district lawyers and election officials.

The potential a having a new board member rotate through every year for the next two or three years is…not optimal. And I’m sure the argument will be made that it would be a lot smoother just to let the board make their appointment. On the other hand, democracy is messy. And why are we in this messy situation in the first place? Isn’t it because of decisions made by members of the school board?

After all, who really knew what, and when, regarding Bell’s departure? Given that Bell took the San Francisco job back in the spring, why was this not sorted out a lot sooner? With just a little more notice, her seat could have been up for election on last November’s ballot. Deglow and others are asking why Bell’s resignation was delayed so long.

Of course, the other big argument for a board appointment is that the cost of the election is just too high.  According to Buyse a special election would cost $155,000 to $280,000. However, it is possible for the District to decide to hold a mail-in ballot only election, which could save some money. How much money? Proponents say it could save as much as 60 percent off the normal costs.  Buyse said he didn’t have enough information to give an estimate, but he acknowledged that a mail in election could save money, because the county could then avoid setting up polling places, paying precinct workers, etc.

This seems like something to watch for.  If you really want to weigh all the options and come up with the best answer, as democratic and as cost-effective as possible, then you should at least ask the question, and have the county elections folks bring back an estimate for the costs of a mail-in only election. Right?  We’ll see if any of the trustees raise the question at the Thursday board meeting, or if they just plow ahead with appointment.  My money is on plow.

Some will question spending ANY money on an election if it can be avoided. But as Sacramento City Teacher’s Association president Scott Smith points out, the board spends all kinds of money that people don’t always agree with. For example, “They had $500,000 to spend on City Year.”

The rumor is that of the eight candidates who have applied for the job, Bina Lefkovitz already has lined up the four votes she needs to get the appointment. That wouldn’t be so surprising. Her resume is long, and she showed at a recent community forum at Cal Middle School that’s she’s quite knowledgeable about our schools. (She’s also a big fan of Superintendent Jonathan Raymond’s “priority schools” program, which will win her some points down at Serna Center ).

And she’s got some very powerful friends lobbying on her behalf–like California State Senate President Pro Tem Darrell Steinberg, and of course her Sacramento City Council member husband Jay Schenirer, who has weirdly been trying to keep reporters from mentioning his name in this story.

I’m sorry for this diversion, but I should explain:  After I mentioned on this blog , and in my column, that Lefkovitz is married to Schenirer, and that Schenirer made some pretty dubious (to put it politely) decisions back when he was a member the school board, Schenirer flipped out.  He complained to the SN&R editors, and to the paper’s owner, though never to me directly, and said I was sexist for bringing up his record in a story about his spouse making a bid for the same office he once held. Because, what political reporter would do that, right?

Sorry, politics and Schenirer’s record are a big part of the backstory here. That’s why I don’t much care what Jay Schenirer says I can or can not write about. I’m more interested in what George Orwell and/or Bill Moyers have to say: “The news is about what people want to keep hidden. Everything else is publicity.”   (A little pretentious for a blog post, sure, but it helps me to keep some of this stuff in perspective.)

Where was I? Oh right, 2454 signatures. If you think about it, not all that many signatures. Especially with the teachers union and other district labor groups now officially backing the idea of a special election. And especially if it looks like the board’s appointment is some sort of back room deal.

To find out more, I called up Vallejo City Council member Marti Brown. Brown has a strong Sacramento connection, she worked as a redevelopment planner here for several years, and recently took a job a director of the North Franklin District Business Association.

Brown highly recommends PB, and I think Sacramento ought to consider a similar project. Earlier this month, we voted to tax ourselves to improve our city, why not let us have more input in deciding how that money is spent? I don’t know if the idea would ever catch on here. We’ve seen a certain anti-democratic impulse among certain council members recently. Measure M comes to mind. But who knows?

(I’m out of town posting this with limited broadband and unable to use the usual WordPress podcast widget. So I’m using Soundcloud instead. This podcast will be added to iTunes later.)

Some of the names are familiar to me (and probably to you as well), others less so.  Ross ran for this seat back in 2010. I thought he was good candidate back then, he had a good critique of the school district’s heavy use of expensive consultant contracts. Molander is a fellow progressive and an activist in the local Democratic Party. She was one of the higher vote getters in the (Quixotic) race for Sacramento Charter Commission. Samara Palko just finished her own run for the Sacramento Municipal Utility District board.

Lefkovitz is interesting too. She’s married to Sacramento City Council member Jay Schenirer. You’ll recall that Schenirer was on the school board too a few years back. In fact, he was one of the board members who pushed for the giveaway of Sacramento High School to Kevin Johnson’s St HOPE charter school company. That decision is an open wound in the district, years later.  Schenirer was also one of the main architects of the CASA pension scheme that later blew up so spectacularly, costing the district millions.  In other words, Schenirer’s tenure on the school board was really kind of a disaster.  And he was voted off the board largely because of those decisions.  Likewise, Bell was motivated to run for school board partly out of her frustration with the Sac High giveaway.

So, should Schenirer’s past sins be held against Lefkovitz? Just because Schenirer did terrible, destructive things to the Sac city schools, that doesn’t mean she will too. Right? I’m sure the board will ask her just that during the public meetings leading up to the appointment. Or not. 

Redacted Applications

So, like clockwork, politicos like myself head to the county’s election website and start hitting refresh. Refresh, refresh, refresh. I can only imagine (since I don’t care enough to ask) how much their traffic must spike on update days around 3 pm.

As of the Thursday update, in council District 2 Rob Kerth clings to a 155 vote lead over Allen Warren, while Steve Hansen enjoys a slightly larger 160 vote spread over Joe Yee in District 4. As Steve’s emails and facebook updates consistently remind us, the race is too close to call and we need to count every vote.

But no, this article is not one more in a long line about how close the races are. It is about the breakdown of District 4. Before the process devolved into apportioning the massive number of voters who live at Sacramento Charter High and in the Medical Center, one of the most interesting storylines was bringing The Grid together within a single district, instead of split into three as it had been previously. It was paired with Land Park and River Oaks (ROCA in chart below) in the new district. With most of the voters divided close to evenly between Land Park and The Grid, it was not surprising that each neighborhood sent a strong candidate into the general election.

Most expected the candidates’ home neighborhoods to support them strongly. Some thought the strong reliability of Land Park voters would carry Joe Yee into office. Others thought the fact that The Grid has more voters would get Steve over the top. Many forgot that River Oaks exists.

So, down to the numbers. This is based on the 11/15 update, which includes almost all mail votes, but still has 31,000 provisional ballots outstanding. How did each candidate fare in their home neighborhoods? It turns out, quite similarly.

Both candidates won their home neighborhoods by a score of 57-43. Steve seems to have benefited from the Obama wave and his own extensive turnout operation (which, in the interests of disclosure, I was a volunteer for), as The Grid cast 785 more votes in this race than Land Park, which netted him a 77 vote lead between the two largest neighborhoods. Voters on The Grid certainly benefit from being drawn into an even numbered district, which are perpetually aligned with the higher turnout presidential elections, and could undercut Land Park’s typical advantage in voter turnout.

Most of Steve’s lead, though, was earned in oft-overlooked River Oaks. It only made up 10% of the total vote and was closer than the larger neighborhoods, but Steve’s 4% advantage added 83 votes to his lead. This district is almost certainly going to be highly competitive as long as it maintains this alignment. I think it’s safe to assume, River Oaks will be getting a lot of attention from incumbents and challengers alike.

It reminded me that Steve Hansen completely blew off the questions I sent him Friday about ethics and transparency. He’s made a big deal about the need for ethics reform at City Hall. For a lot of reasons, I can’t take his rhetoric at face value.

Some of the reasons are in that column I linked above. Below is the email I sent to Steve on Friday, outlining some more reasons.

Hi Steve.

I just want to push a little more on this issue of ethics and transparency. I’ve got to be honest with you, some of the things I’ve seen and heard in the last few weeks are worrying to me. 

For example, I saw that Obama mailer too, and it made me wince. I know you think it’s no big deal. But I think the little things like that do matter. If your opponent had put out that mailer, implying that he was endorsed by Obama–and it really does imply that, Steve–you would flip out. So, why do it?

Also, tell me again why we shouldn’t be worried about electing a lobbyist to City Council?

Here’s why I ask: 

Your shop at Genentech gave $4000 to Perez last year, he turned around and gave you $1500 for your council campaign. Genentech gave Ricardo Lara $5000, he gave you $3000. Your employer gave Rich Gordon $5000, he gave you $3000. In fact, some of those contributions went back and forth on the same day.

What interest do these Southern California pols have in our local City Council race, beyond returning the favor for the money they got from the guy at Genentech?  This sure starts to look like a revolving door of campaign contributions. Maybe not illegal, but not seeming highly ethical either.

How do I know that you’re not using your position at Genentech to trade favors–to leverage corporate campaign contributions from your employer for contributions to your own campaign coffers?

Also, I’m sure I’m not the only reporter in town who’s heard rumors that you’ve withheld Genentech donations to groups who did not want to contribute to your campaign.  I don’t know if that’s true, I’m sure hoping it’s not. But obviously that’s the kind of thing that gets politicians into pretty serious trouble. It’s the kind of thing that people are going to wonder about. I’m going to wonder about it.

As you’ve noted in your own campaign materials, we have a problem with ethics and transparency in City Hall. We have council members who flat out say things that are not true, in order to score political points. Who try to bend the rules, or who think the rules just don’t apply to them. 

Why should we think that you are the guy who is going to fix that stuff? A secret map, a shady campaign mailer, a constant flow of campaign contributions and favors. Where is this all going? Tell me why voters should trust you.

No reply so far. I did get a short response from Hansen’s campaign guy, Thomas Dodson, who said that those revolving donations came from gay legislators supporting Sacramento’s possibly first-openly gay council member. Not sure why that matters, and there are other candidates, like City Council member Jay Schenirer, who have engaged in this sort of round robin with Hansen and Genentech. But ok, point taken.

Dodson also said that Kevin McCarty--whose last campaign was run by Andrew Acosta, same guy who is running Joe Yee’s campaign–also used Obama’s image in a mailer before. I’ll post them both here, and you can tell me if you think the message is the same:

Anyway,  I’ll let you know if Hansen does eventually get back to me. I do think this stuff is important, especially if your campaign is supposed to be about accessibility and accountability and transparency and all that stuff. It’s certainly what the campaign is about for me.

Let’s talk policy! And get drunk!

The two candidates for Sacramento’s City Council race in District 2 will participate in their last debate this Tuesday night when Joe Yee and Steve Hansen square off in a town hall-style forum held by The Sacramento Press at the Cosmopolitan Cabaret theater on K Street. While the event is sure to be insightful and enlightening, it’s what’s going on afterwards that may provide the most memorable quotes of the evening.

The KBar is hosting a post-debate function called DRINK SPECIALS FOR DEMOCRACY where policy wonks and political pundits can score a glass of red or white wine for just $3 bucks, select beers for just $2, and an as-yet-unnamed speciality cocktail for $5 a pop. Who ever said local politics are dull?

Actually, if you really wanted to liven things up a bit, they should start with the drink specials beforehand, and keep ‘em coming fast and strong for the candidates. Hell, let’s make a contest out of it. Last man standing after a shot-a-thon gets bragging rights. Or at the very least they should try to keep the audience lubricated to foster off-the-cuff and random questions for the would-be councilmembers.

Going forward, I hope we’ll make the option of consuming hard spirits at all political gatherings mandatory. Lord only knows we need more civic participation in this town. Maybe booze is the answer to getting more butts in the seats at City Hall on Tuesday nights.

If you want to attend the debate, you can RSVP by clicking here.

We recorded each interview as a separate podcast, for easier digestion. Follow the links to listen to each.

Steve Hansen

Joe Yee

Hello and welcome. My name is Devin Lavelle. You may remember me from such blogs as devinlavelle.com. Unfortunately, I did not have time to keep my own site fresh with worthwhile content, so it has fallen by the wayside. On the bright side, my friend, Cosmo Garvin, has offered me the opportunity to write from time to time in this space, so here I am. As I did on my own site, I plan to focus on analytical work. Simply put: what do the numbers say and, for better or for worse, what do they mean?

Unfortunately, the numbers I want to talk about today fall very firmly in the ‘for worse’ camp. As we all know, Sacramento has been slower than the state and the nation to emerge from the recession. Our unemployment stands at 10.3%, ranked 327^th out of our nation’s 372 metropolitan areas.

The reality is that while our nation suffered through and is slowly emerging from the Great Recession, Sacramento has been mired in a full-on depression.

Ok, so you are probably asking, what is the difference between a depression and a recession? A depression is generally defined as either a recession lasting two or more years or a decline in Real Gross Domestic Product exceeding 10%.

On both counts, Sacramento meets the definition of a depression. Real Per Capita Gross Domestic Product (hereafter GDP) shrunk every year from 2007 through 2010. In 2006, the Sacramento metropolitan area was producing $43,947 per capita (2005 dollars) in total output. By 2010 that figure was down to $38,697. The Bureau of Economic Analysis regional figures for 2011 are not available yet, but if trends continue it appears likely that, due to the continued losses in the public sector, 2011 may have seen a net loss in GDP as well, despite a slowly rebounding private sector. GDP has declined for at least four and quite likely five consecutive years – at least twice as long as the minimum period to qualify as a depression.

The GDP decline from 2006 to 2010 totaled $5,250. This represents an 11.9% decline from the region’s high in 2006. Again, the decline clears the minimum definition with ample room to spare. As the following graph shows, Sacramento began experiencing negative economic growth about a year before California and the United States as a whole did and has experienced a slower recovery.

Particularly disheartening is that, as of the most recent available (2010) data, Sacramento’s economy fares worse than even Stockton by these measures. Stockton, though, started with a much weaker economy and negative trends there have not improved, so this may change when future data comes online.

Suffice it to say, we could be doing things a lot better here in the Sacramento region. It is worth pointing out that, while the City of Sacramento is often considered unfriendly to business, most of the region’s population and economic activity lies in other parts of the metropolitan area and, despite the pro-growth reputations of cities like West Sacramento and Roseville, the region as a whole has still slumped terribly.

If I can assume that I have depressed everyone amply for one article, let me at least leave you with this hopeful glimmer. I do have what I believe would be an extremely helpful and cost effective partial solution … and I will lay it out in my next article.

And yet, the City’s Neighborhood Services Division is giving the leader of the “No on Measure M” campaign top billing at community meetings about that ballot question.

Measure M, you’ll recall, is the question on forming a Sacramento Charter Commission. Neighborhood Services held a meeting on Measure M last night, at Hart Senior Center. Here’s what happened, according to charter commission candidate Anna Molander and another Measure M supporter, Rick Bettis.

The agenda for the Monday night meeting included, among other topics, zoning changes, information about neighborhood watch, Measure M and Measure T (the claw).

Supporters of Measure M asked if they could have someone make the pitch for the measure at the meeting. But, according to Molander they were told no, because this City-sponsored event was just going to include an impartial presentation of the facts and an opportunity for citizens to ask questions.

But the person giving the “impartial” presentation of the facts was in fact city council member Angelique Ashby, who is leading the opposition to Measure M. She signed the ballot argument against the measure, and has steadfastly argued from the dais that it’s unneeded and too expensive. She has routinely voted with Mayor Kevin Johnson on this and other governance issues, like strong mayor. She’s close to the public safety unions, which have been strongly opposed to the charter commission (and for strong mayor). In short, Ashby is not impartial. She is as partial as they come.  (I’ve got calls in to Ashby and to Vincene Jones at Neighborhood Services, but no response yet.)

Rick Bettis, an activist with Common Cause and League of Women Voters attended the whole meeting and said that Ashby played it pretty straight–she disclosed her opposition to Measure M upfront, but mostly kept her opinion out of her presentation. Bettis supports Measure M, and so he was keen to correct Ashby when, he says, she told audience members there was no organized “yes” campaign, and that the end result of the Los Angeles charter commission experiment was a strong mayor form of government. (That’s part of it, but they also got an ethics commission and neighborhood councils, and other reforms.)

No matter how impartial Ashby tried to act at this meeting, it’s not appropriate for her to be the voice of the City on this matter. Before this meeting, Ashby posted on her Facebook page, “Busy day ahead, including two community meetings to ask folks to please Vote NO on Measure M…”

Then we’re supposed to trust that she’ll present the information on Measure M fairly? That’s a lot to ask.

In fact candidate Molander thinks it’s illegal to give the “No” side a venue and not giving equal time to representatives from the “Yes” side.  “The City is not permitted to spend public funds to support or oppose ballot measure, particularly where the opposing view is offered no opportunity to speak. The public now perceives the City as opposing Measure M although the City has taken no such position,” Molander said in letter she sent this afternoon to the City attorney.

It may be a stretch to say this meeting had a big impact on public perception, one way or the other. Bettis said there were about 7 people in the audience. Still, Ashby is a politician who wants to raise her profile and be seen as leading on this issue. The City gave her a venue and denied it to the other side.

“It un-leveled the playing field,” she told me. “I want to know what the City is going to do to make this right for the people who support Measure M, and who are running. I don’t have the same kind of money that Ashby does.”

And there are more meetings scheduled with Ashby giving her “impartial” analysis, including one on Wednesday night. Even if Ashby thinks she can be fair, why pick her for the job? I know there have been budget cuts and there are fewer staff around. But really, there’s no one on staff who’s at least plausibly impartial who can give this information to the public?

Anyway, I did want to break the seal a bit with an interesting item on our favorite deadbeat developer, District 2 city council candidate Allen Warren. According to the latest campaign finance statements, Warren has so far loaned $121,000 to his own election campaign. Warren gave himself $17,000 in August, and another $50,000 at the end of September.

His opponent, Rob Kerth raised $58,000 in the last report, bringing his total for the year to about $154,729. Warren has raised $237,000 this year. Somehow he’s got the personal wealth to finance his own election campaign, despite owing hundreds of thousands of dollars in unpaid property taxes and despite being bogged down in lawsuits with creditors who are suing him for unpaid bills.

You know how some people say government should be run more like a business? Yeah, just not one of Warren’s businesses…

A lot of this stuff–like Warren’s unpaid property taxes–has been floating around. We asked the candidate about it on the podcast a while back. Patrick and Isaac and Dale revisit it in the latest Forum podcast too.  Warren has insisted that no one believes it is an issue.

Among other things, Miller’s is the first major media story out there to lay out Warren’s legal trouble with creditor Wells Fargo.  The bank says Warren and family went on shopping sprees and European trips, when he should have been tightening his belt and attending to his foundering development business. And then, according to the suit, he didn’t pay the bank back.

I think it probably is a campaign issue, even if Warren’s opponent Rob Kerth doesn’t want to touch it directly. As Miller says in the story, “there’s no denying that the lawsuit and Warren’s business ups and downs are baggage.”

Heavy baggage.

I’m going to introduce this week’s podcast with a little bit of a bitch session.

I just finished listening to Isaac Gonzalez and company’s latest ransackedmedia.com podcast. It’s good, basically one long interview with Steve Hansen, District 4 City Council candidate. If you haven’t heard it, you should download it. Not now, though.

Toward the end of the interview Hansen is asked about the Sacramento Charter Commission. Like a lot of people in politics, he’s pretty dismissive. He even compares the candidates to the cast of Real World/Road Rules. I’m not sure if I’m saying that right. But it is/was a reality show on MTV.  I’m really not sure, I haven’t watched MTV since 120 Minutes.

I think I get Hansen’s point though. The candidates are a sideshow, a distraction. Their ideas are not to be taken seriously.

But we’re supposed to take City Council candidates seriously, I suppose. After all, you can take all of the criticisms of the charter commission and make them about every other elected body and every other field of candidates in local politics.

So you believe that the best the voters can do is elect a bunch of Charter Commisioners who are just proxies for different interest groups that fight for power and get nothing done? Well, show me a legislative body that is different. If you’ve got a better system, let’s hear it. Maybe you should try to get it into the City Charter.

In fact, I sat down with four charter commission candidates this week for this podcast, and found them to be well-informed and reasonable people.

Phyllis Newton, Sondra Betancourt, and Derek Cressman all came by the studio for a wide ranging discussion. Isaac of course sat in too, this time as a candidate and a guest.  The episode serves as a pretty solid primer on charter commission background and basics, and an introduction to some of the the people who may be working together to help perfect our City’s constitution. I’m hoping that interviews with other candidates will follow soon.

I’m proud of this podcast. I thought it went remarkably smoothly, for a reality show.  I think there’s been a lot of cynicism about the charter commission idea.  Even my old employer, the Sacramento News and Review–which normally has a zest for small “d” democracy–seems to be falling into the cynicism trap. I may be wrong, but my guess is that they’ll soon urge readers to vote “no” on the charter commission, and not consider endorsing any candidates. I can’t really tell if it’s because they’ve really done their homework and have concluded that it’s a bad idea, or if they just looked at the number of candidates (54) and threw up their hands, figuring they don’t have the time or the energy–or the curiosity–to get engaged.

It’s not that hard, really. Just talk to people. If nothing else, we’ve got a couple of months before November 6 to have a thoughtful discussion about the charter and what changes, if any, could make the city work better.

And there’s no reason, out of 54 candidates, that we can’t come up with 15 commissioners with enough integrity and smarts to lead the public through a productive and transparent review of the charter. Seriously, just figure out who those people are, and vote for them. If we can’t do that, I’ve got to think it’s only because of a lack of imagination, curiosity and energy. Maybe a little less MTV would help

Local music this week is from Th’ Losin Streaks. The track is Fine Line.

One of the big revelations in Ryan’s story is the new investigation by the Fair Political Practices Commission into the mayor’s non-profit the Sacramento Public Policy Foundation.

It seems that one of the mayor’s non-profits, Think Big, didn’t disclose several sizable  donations from the Sacramento Kings until several months after they were legally required to do so.

The mayor’s former chief of staff and now Think Big boss Kunal Merchant told the Bee the late reporting was due to a “clerical error.”

Oops.

Those donations all were made in the summer of 2011 and total $357,500. But they were not reported to the City Clerk until August 23 of this year.

That’s one week after my story in SN&R came out–raising several concerns about the transparency and accountability of the mayor’s groups. Up until that point, Think Big has only reported $22,423 in donations from the Kings. With the “clerical error” money added in, the total is much more significant, $379,923.

I spoke with Johnson’s attorney, Fred Hiestand, last week about the lack of transparency for these groups. As I reported in my column in SN&R this week (out tomorrow), he told me, “There are a lot of nosy people, the KJ haters, who have nothing better to do than to ask for more than the law requires” about the non-profits.

I wonder if those big donations from the Kings would have ever been reported–at all–if nosy people had not started asking questions. I’ve asked it before, I’ll ask again, isn’t there a pattern here?

Once again I’ve uploaded the most recent behested payments filings, if anyone wants to investigate further.

Sacramento City Council behests–as of Sep 5 2012

Ryan Lillis

(Obviously, they’re withholding that information while the Serna-Mayorga criminal investigation is going on. Would releasing that list of charges really interfere with that investigation? I don’t think so. But if the Bee’s lawyers can’t change their minds, I know I can’t.)

The Bee doesn’t include the actual data on their website for some reason. Luckily Isaac was on the spot and uploaded them all to Scribd for your enjoyment.  It’s nearly $10 million worth of credit card charges over the last five years. Lots of pizza and Starbucks. Let’s see, Six Flags, Mixmaster Limousine. Hmm…

Some of this stuff certainly bears a closer look. I embedded the docs for the City’s General Services and Parks and Recreation departments, the two which had the highest overall amount of charges.

The rest of the documents are here: (Thanks Isaac.)

I’m sure the Bee’s reporters and data gurus are pouring over it and will do some sort of deeper analysis. But they shouldn’t get to have all the fun. We all paid for it.

General Services Credit Card Charges

Here’s the Parks and Rec stuff.

parks-rec Credit Card Charges

“No, I’m not comfortable with it,”  City Manager John Shirey told me earlier today, saying that he doesn’t believe it’s appropriate for the Mayor’s outside initiatives to be housed in City Hall, using City office space and other resources.  That includes City interns and volunteers working on the mayor’s many policy initiatives.

“The people who are here need to be engaged in City work. Those non-profit organizations can not be using city resources unless they are sanctioned by the City Council,” Shirey explained.

For now, it’s an administrative matter, and not on the Council’s agenda. Shirey explained that in addition to her long list of regular duties, City Clerk Shirley Concolino has taken over administration of mayor and council offices. That’s the job formerly by Lisa Serna-Mayorga.  Serna-Mayora, a long-time friend and aide to Johnson, resigned from the post after reports that she had misused city credit cards.

Concolino and her staff are sorting out who is occupying the seats and offices on the third floor. “What we’re doing now is identifying people who are working for these non-profit organizations and making arrangements for them to not be here anymore,” Shirey explained.

He added that he had been looking at the issue before SN&R’s story on the issue was published, and before the Sacramento County Democratic Party sent a letter to Shirey in July asking for an investigation.  But he had other priorities, like the city’s budget deficit, to deal with.

“I inherited this situation. It never should have been allowed in the first place,” said Shirey.

I’ll have more “K.J. Inc.” follow-up in the next week’s new and improved Bites column in SN&R.

Other than the gun thing, I’d say that’s pretty much the editorial position taken by most of the local media in this town. The Bee in particular, of course. My guess is that since their union is so powerless to protect its members from routine reamings by their bosses at McClatchy, they sort of resent anybody with more effective representation. I’ve never been in any union, except the Wobblies, so fuck all y’all.

I do live with a union teacher, I have some biases. I try to be transparent about them. I’m pretty aware of how much some people don’t like teacher unions, or teachers, for that matter. I hope not too many of them are armed.

Where was I? Right, schools. It doesn’t get any more complicated and politically charged than schools. In the Sac City schools, you’ve got fights over brutal budget cuts, fights over teacher seniority, fights over charter schools, and that’s just the obvious stuff.

We had the crazy idea to invite a teacher to give us a rundown on some of the more political issues. And there’s no one better for that than Lori Jablonski. She teaches government at McClatchy High School, and is a union rep there too.

We talked about the current budget mess the district finds itself in, and how the double bond measures being pushed in the district may not help all that much.  (Yes, in fact they are titled Measures Q & R. Why? You superstitious?)

We talked about the fights over seniority rules related to Superintendent Jonathan Raymond’s special Priority Schools–and how that program has sparked a class action lawsuit by dozens of pink-slipped teachers. We even got a little bit into Proposition 32 and Citizens United, and a whole host of broader political developments that affect the classroom.

It’s a pretty detailed look, but you’re getting a lot of the teacher’s perspective. I happen to think the local media doesn’t really get the teacher’s perspective across that well or that often. You may disagree. Please don’t shoot.

Local music this week is “Here We Go Again,” by Art Lessing. Thanks Art Lessing!

PS…

The image below is taken from an email sent by Hiram Johnson High School principal Felisberto Cedros–well, by his secretary– to his teachers. It basically let them know that if they wanted to keep their jobs, they’d come to the Sac City board of education meeting and support the Superintendent’s “skipping” policy at Raymond’s Priority Schools. Note that Cedros seems to let the cat out of the bag, saying that Raymond wanted this lawsuit. Kind of a crazy email, if you think about it, a principal lobbying his his teachers to try and influence the board…

These groups allow the mayor to raise unlimited amounts of money from big donors–much of it secretly. See below for documents showing all of the donations to the mayor and council member via “behested” payments for the last 7 years. Most council members raise money in this way for established charities. The mayor is different, raising more than a million dollars for his own organization–which is controlled by him.

The mayor has also managed to leverage a certain amount of free labor and office space for his non-profits, courtesy of the taxpayer. Despite the gift of public resources, some of the people who run the mayor’s operation–like Chris Tapio and Kunal Merchant–don’t feel obliged to answer any questions about what they do.

And it’s all legal.

I hope you’ll read the story, it’s not short. And listen to the podcast, it is short. And I hope the City Manager, John Shirey, will soon decide one way or the other whether he thinks it’s ok for the mayor to use City Hall to support his own private organizations in this way.

Thanks Isaac, for sitting down and talking with me about the story, and for all the other stuff you do.

CC Form803 CurrentFilings

Jennifer Berbower was a paid intern in Mayor Kevin Johnson’s office from May 4, 2009 to January 19, 2012. See the document below, which I got from the city.

KJ Salaries

Problem is, she was also a paid staff member on Kevin Johnson’s re-election campaign, at the same time she was drawing a city paycheck. See the next document, from the City clerk’s elections website. This is the record of campaign contributions for the re-election campaign from July to December of last year.

kj-7.11-12.11

Then there’s Berbower’s resume on Linked in. This contradicts the City info somewhat. Here she says she left the City in November. But she still lists her campaign gig as starting in September. So all these documents point to at least some overlap.

I contacted the City Manager’s office about this last week asking for some explanation. No response yet. It seems like double-dipping and getting a paycheck from the City and the campaign at the same time ought to be illegal.  And it’s another example of how the Mayor’s office tends to blend the public and private spheres, blurring the line between City business and the KJ’s political operation. Isaac and I talk more about this later in the week, in a special bonus podcast.

There’s probably some perfectly complicated explanation about why these documents don’t show what they seem to show and that everything is on the up and up. If not, I’m sure the Mayor’s office will have no trouble reimbursing the money.