Albany council to reconsider city's campaign finance law

Albany council to reconsider city's campaign finance law
By Shelly Meron
STAFF WRITER
Article Last Updated: 07/10/2008 12:39:43 PM PDT
Contra Costa Times

After a lively public debate, the Albany City Council decided this week to consider throwing out its campaign finance reform ordinance at its next meeting.

The decision comes amidst a debate about whether the act has been effective and easy enough for candidates to interpret, and whether it can be improved or should be done away with completely.

"Simplicity would be the best thing to have," said councilman Farid Javandel. "We should make it simple and easy. People shouldn't be guessing — 'Can I do this?'"

Councilwoman Marge Atkinson had stronger words, saying "I don't think this is functioning now," and called for the city to "start over."

The discussion came after the council received several recommendations from the city's Social and Economic Justice Commission on how the ordinance could be improved, including raising the spending limit per voter; adding a fourth expenditure filing — on top of the three already required by the state — for those who choose not to accept voluntary expenditure limits; and removing a prohibition on contributions from organizations and limits on contributions related to independent expenditures and general purpose committees.

The committee also called for having information and debates more readily available on the city's Web site and KALB, community access television and for establishing a task force that can delve deeper into complex issues.

City attorney Robert Zweben seemed
Advertisement

to agree with concerns expressed by others about the ordinance and recommended that the council get rid of it, and — if they wished — attempt to put together better legislation after the November election.

In a later interview, Zweben explained that "it's almost impossible to have campaign finance reform laws that are effective given the state of court decisions that essentially protect or authorize people to be able to spend money and to receive money from those who have rights to give money. You can try to nibble around the edges, but by and large there's not an effective campaign finance reform statute in this country, period. So, at most, to some extent you might get a symbolic ordinance."

Zweben warned the council this week that whatever group takes on the issue — whether a committee or a task force — it "will experience the same frustration."

Several public speakers also expressed concerns about the changes, and about the ordinance in general.

"I don't think the proposed revisions were very well thought out," said resident Clay Larson. "They pretty much eviscerates the current requirements and that's a concern. This whole thing needs to be looked at more thoroughly. All the proposed changes should be perceived with a thorough legal written review by the city attorney."

Resident Bob Outis said he had always been concerned about the ordinance, and is more concerned about the proposed changes.

"This ordinance has been used for mischievous purposes in the past. It has been proven to not be an aid to rational, fair, responsible elections," he said. "There's a state law that probably accommodates most of the concerns about full and fair disclosure and reasonable restrictions on campaign finance. Given the way the courts are going on these things anyway, we would be far better off to repeal this."

The discussion also brought back memories of the contentious 2006 election in Albany, which led to a suit filed against five candidates and two election committees, alleging they were violating Albany's campaign finance reform ordinance. The defendants included Joyce Jackson, Peggy McQuaid, Sally Outis, Caryl O'Keefe, O'Keefe's husband Alan Riffer, the Committee to Elect Caryl O'Keefe, and a committee named Concerned Albany Neighbors (CAN). According to O'Keefe, the suit was dismissed before the election.

An anti-SLAPP suit was then filed by Bob Outis, Sally Outis' husband, and another attorney. SLAPP stands for "strategic lawsuits against public participation," and refers to suits filed to try and intimidate and prevent someone from participating in government and civic affairs, speaking out about public issues, and petitioning government officials about grievances.

Resident Robert Cheasty said the lawsuit was a result of the ordinance being unclear.

"The major issue with the last campaign had to do with a lot of confusion about what the election law says," Cheasty told the council. "I think that it's fair to say that part of the reason that happened was because the law is so poorly written and so confusing, that it was subject to multiple interpretations. The law should be clear enough so that a reasonable reading gives everybody the same understanding of it, and that's what you don't have with this law."

O'Keefe agreed that there are issues with the ordinance that need to be addressed, but said she is "hoping that when the (city) council comes back to this that they think hard before they disappear the entire act."

The council is expected to discuss repealing the ordinance at its next meeting on July 21.

Staff writer Shelly Meron covers Albany, El Cerrito and Kensington. Reach her at 510-243-3578 or smeron@bayareanewsgroup.com

Study Ranks Albany 'Greenest' City in California

A recent study by researchers at UCLA ranked Albany the 'Greenest' City in California.

The report, titled "Green Market Geography," ranks Albany as California's "greenest" city, followed in second place by our southern neighbor, Berkeley. Of course all of the articles highlight Berkeley. Still it's fascinating how Albany rated.

From Economist.com
Why does Berkeley have so many Priuses?
June 16, 2008


BUYING green is all the rage: barely a day passes without the rollout of a new “environmentally responsible” product. This week it's the waterless car-wash, an energy saving computer monitor and a biodegradable dish-rack. Ignore, for a moment, whether green consumerism is a contradiction in terms. Pass over the question of whether these products actually deliver the benefits they promise. Who buys them—the rich, the idealistic, the penny pinching or the guilty?

Perhaps energy saving cars, light-bulbs, computer monitors and building materials appeal to those who value their future environmental benefits. But evidence suggests that, despite tangible financial rewards, most people do not make even small environmentally sound changes at home, such as installing energy-efficient light bulbs or not leaving the television on standby.
AP Green machines

By and large, then, these green products are aimed at the environmentally concerned. Matthew Kahn and Ryan Vaughn, economists at the University of California at Los Angeles, wrote a paper analysing the patterns of green consumerism in California. They noticed that Berkeley, California, just a few hours up the coast, has lots of Priuses, organic food, solar panels and public transit—and no Hummers.

Messrs Kahn and Vaughn built a database of every certified green building, sorted by zip codes. They looked at where hybrid vehicles were registered, and constructed a measure of each zip code's politics based on analysis of party registration and voting records on two binding statewide environmental initiatives.

They also controlled their results for factors such as age, income and ethnicity, allowing them to see environmental commitment all the more starkly. Malibu, for instance, has many Prius owners; Beverly Hills has few, but both are largely wealthy and white: it is no stretch to deduce, then, that Malibu residents tend to be greener than those of Beverly Hills.

When they average their measure of greenery by zip code, across entire cities, and then rank the results, the usual suspects come out top and bottom. Of 349 places in California, the ten greenest are Albany, Berkeley, Fairfax, Belvedere, Piedmont, Mill Valley, Larkspur, Portola Valley, Sausalito and Palo Alto. Folsom and Bakersfield rank near the bottom. And mapping their index by zip code across the entire state gives a graphic representation of where California's greenies live.

All of this raises the question of why the politically green huddle together in the same sorts of locations. Dr Kahn speculates that small initial differences in spatial attributes, such as being close to a beach or public transport, may create the initial seeds of green communities. “This in turn attracts ‘green businesses’,” he explains, “such as tofu restaurants and bike shops, and this in turn attracts more greens.” The process culminates when greens have enough political clout to elect politicians and enact green regulation that further enhances their community’s attractiveness to environmentalists.

Though greens are a small minority in America generally, concentrated in certain locations, they can have a strong influence on local policy. California itself is quite green relative to other states, and taking unilateral steps, which are much stricter than federal mandates, to mitigate its greenhouse gas emissions.

While green clustering could certainly cause hot spots in green consumerism, let us not neglect other possible factors when it comes to the Prius. What we know of work on social interactions suggests that the chance that any person will buy a Prius is likely to be related to the probability that his neighbour buys one. Of course, competitively purchasing the latest green products to keep up with the Joneses is hardly environmentally friendly. But that, as they say, is another matter entirely.

Albany Schools Begin Webcasts of Meetings

According to the Superintendent's Office of Albany Unified School
District , meetings of the Board of Education of the school district will be broadcast live on Cable
Channel 33, and webcasted on the new Web site <> of the City of Albany from July 15. The meetings will be held at the Albany Community Center, 1249
Marin Avenue, from then on.http://www.albanyca.org/index.aspx?page=544

Q & A concerning the New Albany Swimming Pool

Some decisions have been made with respect to construction of the new pool at Memorial Park. The School District pool committee's recommendations will be discussed at next week's School Board meeting and the School Board may approve the recommendations at that meeting.

Below is a set of questions from Ira Sharenow and responses provided by Superintendent Dr. Wong regarding the design and construction of the new Albany Swimming Pool.

Thank you to Ira Sharenow and Dr. Wong for this information.

1. When will the current pool facility be removed?

The actual date the old pool will be demolished has not been determined. The conceptual design for the pool will be presented to the Board of Education on June 10, 2008 for approval. At that time, the architect will begin engineering and architectural drawings. Construction drawings and approval by the Division of State Architects may take six to nine months to complete. Demolition will take several weeks of actual construction time. The date the old pool will close will be determined based upon the swimming classes that can be completed and consideration will be given to how long our employees will be out of work. It will probably close two to three weeks before demolition.

2. When will construction begin?

Approximately 8 weeks after the plans have been approved by the Division of State Architects.

3. What is the anticipated completion date?

Construction will take approximately 9 to 12 months after the plans have been approved by the Division of State Architect.

4. Will the competition pool be indoor or outdoor?

The pool advisory committee is recommending that the competition pool be built as an outdoor pool at this time, but be constructed in a way so that a roof can be added later. The instructional pool will be designed as an indoor pool.

5. Will the warm pool be indoor or outdoor?

The instructional pool will be kept warmer than the competition and will be designed as an indoor pool.

6. What will be the size of the warm pool?

The instructional pool will be designed to be 50 x 75 feet. The competition pool is being designed at 25 meters x 25 yards.

7. How many classrooms and other mainstream school facilities will be built?

The design will include two portable classrooms in the project. Other than supportive facilities for the pool (locker rooms, storage, office, etc) no other mainstream school facilities will be built.

8. What decision has been made with respect to cafeteria related construction?

The current cafeteria/multipurpose room was designed to serve as a food service facility. The plans will include purchasing food serving carts and stations with tables and chairs for students. Only minor electrical work will be needed to make the food service area operational.

9. What is the expected cost of the construction?

The total amount of funds available through the 2008 bond election is approximately $10 million dollars. The design is being made to contain construction cost to this amount.

10. How is the Board hedging against inflation?

The construction budget has a 5% inflation amount built in.

11. Has the Board considered a fixed floating swap or other interest rate derivative?

The purpose of the bond is to fund necessary construction for public entities. The Board is prohibited from selling bonds early for the purpose of taking advantage of any higher interest rate investment program. Our funds are deposited with the Alameda County Treasurer and are subject to the investment requirements of their office.

12. Has the Board set a final date for receiving recommendations from the committee?

The swimming advisory committee will present their recommendations to the Board of Education on June 10, 2008.

13. Has the Board set a date for finalizing its decisions?

The Superintendent is recommending that the Board approve the conceptual design for the pool at their June 10, 2008 meeting.

14. Given that the bond measure passed in early February, is there any reason why construction cannot begin this summer, especially given the inflationary concerns?

The first task initiated by the school district was to organize an advisory committee to make recommendations on a conceptual design. After several months of work, that committee will make their recommendation to the Board on June 10, 2008. Large school construction projects require the development of construction plans that must be submitted to the Division of State Architects for approval. These plans can only be developed after a conceptual design has been identified. There are no stock construction plans available that fits the footprint for the Albany Pool, therefore complete sets of new plans must be drawn. The Division of State Architects reviews the plans for structural safety, health and life safety, accessibility, and other concerns. All of these tasks take months to complete.

2nd Annual Greening Albany Event

Sunday, June 8, 2008
12 noon - 5:00 pm

Veteran’s Building in Memorial Park

Presented by the Green Chamber of Commerce.

Come visit and talk to companies that are offering services and tools for lowering your carbon emissions and impact on the environment.

Possible workshop sessions include:

Lead testing for your children’s toys.
How to get a free energy efficiency audit from California Youth Energy Services.
Greening Albany schools - an open discussion.
Eco-friendly gardening.

For more information, visit www.greenchamberofcommerce.net

Give your input on Ohlone Greenway Landscaping Plans

Thursday, June 12, 2008, 7:30pm
Community Center, 1249 Marin Avenue

The City of Albany would like your input regarding the Landscape Planting Plan for the Ohlone Greenway. As you may know, BART will be seismically retrofitting the pillars under the BART tracks in the near future. BART is required to replace landscaping that is impacted during construction. This has given the City the opportunity to make possible changes in those areas where the landscaping has to be redone. Please attend the Parks and Recreation Commission meeting Thursday, June 12, 2008, 7:30pm, at the Community Center, 1249 Marin Avenue to let us hear your ideas.

Also, prior to the meeting, please join the City staff, Council members, and Commissioners in officially opening the newly renovated Ocean View Park. Take a tour of the new picnic area, ball field, play area, and community garden. Share some sparkling apple cider with those who worked hard to provide for you this remarkable facility. The opening will be Thursday, June 12, 6:30pm, at Ocean View Park next to the Teen Center, 900 Buchannan Street.

Francesco Papalia Opposes New Albany Smoking Law

Hard to imagine in this day anyone could get this upset about upgrading smoking restrictions as dozens of other cities have done. Speaking in favor of the ordinance were representatives of the American Cancer Society and other public health groups.

Stop the Spray

KAWAMURA'S MISINFORMATION-SETTING THE RECORD STRAIGHT

In a May 16 editorial on his department’s plan to eradicate the light brown apple moth (LBAM) by aerial spray and other means, California Agriculture Secretary A.G. Kawamura accuses those who oppose the LBAM program of spreading “misinformation” and urges us all to rely on “sound science” and to “draw the line” on “exaggerated and unsubstantiated claims” that cause “unwarranted fear.”

Mr. Secretary, it is time to look in the mirror. You and your department are the primary source of misinformation and fear tactics.

You claim the pesticides you sprayed last fall and want to spray this summer over our communities are “just pheromones,” neglecting to mention that the products in question are designated by the United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) as pesticides and contain not only untested, synthetic pheromones but a host of other toxic ingredients, dispersed in minute plastic capsules.

You claim that LBAM is a “ravenous” pest that will destroy California agriculture and eat everything from redwoods to Scotch broom when in fact this benign moth has caused no damage in California and almost no damage in the other states and countries where it is established.
You claim that the spray is safe and has been tested when your own department’s documents say otherwise. You claim that the state’s superficial review of the 643 illness reports after last year’s spray proves there is no link between the spray and the sicknesses when in fact that report reviewed only 10 percent of the reports and concluded it could not determine whether or not there was a link.

Who is relying on unsound science and unsubstantiated and exaggerated claims?
At least two courts in the state of California have agreed during the past month that your science is not sound, halting the spray program in Monterey and Santa Cruz counties and ruling that you and your department abused your discretion in exempting the program from any environmental review.

Local governments all around the Central Coast and Bay Area where spraying is slated to start this summer also agree that your claims do not stand up to scrutiny. Almost every city and county – more than 25 at last count -- where you and your department have made presentations about the LBAM program has now voted to officially oppose the program.

You say you choose to rely on facts. So let’s look at some facts.

Your own publications contradict your claims that the spray is safe. You say it is untrue that the pesticide used last fall has not been tested. In fact, the assessment published by the California Departments of Health and Pesticide Regulation and the California EPA’s Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment clearly says the active ingredient in those pesticides, a synthetic moth pheromone, has never been tested for human exposure. The “thorough review” that you claim those agencies gave the pesticide relied on short-term exposure data for other pheromones, assumed they would be applied only over unpopulated agricultural areas rather than the populous urban areas that will be affected by the LBAM spray, and ignored the other ingredients that made up more than 80% of the pesticide. Those other ingredients include carcinogens, mutagens, and chemicals associated with birth defects and miscarriages, and toxic to aquatic life. Your department repeatedly claims it is “unaware” of those health risks even though they are documented in the toxicology database of the United States’ Institute for Occupational Health and Safety and on Material Safety Data Sheets prepared by the chemical manufacturers.

Now you are touting the “six-pack” toxicology tests being done on the pesticides proposed to be sprayed over our communities this summer. But you fail to mention that these are short-term exposure tests that determine how much of a pesticide or individual ingredient will be fatal to an animal in a very short period of time. These tests will tell us nothing about the actual risks faced by human populations to ongoing exposure from a pesticide that time-releases during the 30-day periods between sprays or about the risks of long-term health problems such as cancer.
At a recent presentation in the Central Valley where CDFA is now trying to shore up its case for spraying Bay Area and Central Coast residents, a farmer who had researched the moth and found it is not a threat asked: “why are you bringing alarm into the Central Valley?”
The only fear being spread is by CDFA, claiming that LBAM is a “voracious” pest that will eat “anything green,” destroy California agriculture, and overrun the Central Valley. You have produced no science, substantial or otherwise, to support these claims. In fact, your own department has said the moth has done no damage to crops or plants in California. Respected scientists have shown that LBAM is just another of the many leaf-roller moths that do no harm in California and that it does almost no damage in other countries and states where it is established and which do little or nothing to control it. The USDA’s own research shows that LBAM will not reproduce in the extreme temperatures of the Central Valley.

For months you told us that the reason there was no crop damage due to LBAM was that it had just arrived last year. But on a recent radio show you admitted that it has been here at least 6 or 7 years. Meanwhile, entomologists across the UC system have been saying all along that it has been here 10-50 years. How many other claims have you made that will be revised when the moth of mass destruction turns out to be just another mild-mannered leaf roller? And, meanwhile, how many more people will have to get sick before your sham science and unsubstantiated denials crumble and the truth is revealed that the LBAM program is dangerous and unnecessary?

We have read a lot in the news recently about interference with the work of government scientists charged with evaluating the safety of chemicals to protect public health. A Government Accountability Office report found that the White House's and other agencies had “delayed or blocked efforts by the Environmental Protection Agency to list chemicals as carcinogens,” (San Francisco Chronicle, Apr. 30) and that the U.S. EPA has bypassed the results of its own scientists research to instead rely on recommendations of an industry-funded group. Rules changes by the Bush Administration have made deliberations about chemical risk secret so that there is no oversight or open scientific debate. An April 30 Washington Post article notes that this “makes it impossible to see whether agencies are acting in the interest of science or for less noble reasons.” It seems clear similar problems have trickled down to CDFA as you and your staff present cherry picked and misrepresented science to the citizens of California in an effort to rationalize a dangerous program for which there is no justification.

You claim that you are conducting the LBAM program “in an open, transparent manner.” In fact, East Bay residents have for some time been requesting CDFA’s schedule of LBAM presentations and asking that those presentations be balanced to include the scientists whose research counters the state’s unsubstantiated claims. Those residents have received no response.

With all these lies, omissions, abuses of discretion, and failures in transparency to your credit, Mr. Secretary, and with the burden that has been placed on the independent scientists and citizens of California to bring the facts about the LBAM spray to light, the charge of misrepresentation clearly lands at your own doorstep.

Mayor Robert Lieber R.N.

Visit ccc.stopthespray.org for more information

Health Problems with Artificial Surface at Santa Anita?

Looks like Magna is having health problems with the new track surface at Santa Anita. They used a different product at Golden Gate Fields but still not exactly what we wanted to hear. They asked Albany to take safety claims at face value. I don't think they have shared this with anyone at the City of Albany.

This is from their Q1 Conference call with inverstors:

Glenn Mattson – GTK Capital

Good afternoon. Could we have an update, please on what's happening on Santa Anita on the track surface and how much more is needed to be spent there, please? Thank you.

Frank Stronach

Yes. First of all, again, that was a – we got a, call it the state imposed or the Racing Commission which is the state organization imposed that we must use synthetic surfaces. And in hindsight we should have said, "Look, if you pay for it, fine. If not we're not going to change it, okay?" We're going to have a different attitude in the future. I'm personally I've always said I don't believe so much in synthetic surfaces but we have – we are right now in the process from health issues because there's a fair amount of dust flying away, so that has to be verified that there is no health issue and we should have that within the next maybe couple of weeks and then we will do what we do have a water test where we, because we had a problem, we had an unusual amount of rain and that kind of – the water didn't drain and thereby we had to cancel races and thereby we lost a lot of monies. So those things would have to be done, if the water test is fine because we made some amendments in the race course and if the health analysis is safe for horses and for people, then we leave it the way it is. Otherwise, it might mean we might have to go back to turf surface. We'll take the next question. Okay, another question, please?

Read the whole transcript here:
http://seekingalpha.com/article/78684-magna-entertainment-corp-q1-2008-earnings-call-transcript?source=reuters&page=-1

AERIAL SPRAY NEWS 5/23/08

Five Items:

1) Hear Albany Mayor Robert Lieber and former Fairfax Mayor Frank Egger on Joanie Greggains show tomorrow (Sat. 5/24) am between 8 and 9. KGO, 810 AM.

2) Assemblymember Huffman's bill. AB 2765, passed the Assembly yesterday - this bill requires disclosure of aerial spray pesticide ingredients if the manufacturer consents and a public hearing to consider alternatives to a proposed aerial spray. The bill now goes to the state Senate for a vote.

3) San Francisco School Board will consider a resolution opposing the spray this coming Tuesday, May 27 at 7 PM. T

Irving G. Breyer Board Meeting Room
555 Franklin St, 1st Floor (McAllister & Fulton)
4) Save the dates:
NEWLY ANNOUNCED EVENT:
Benefit screening of the documentary Weapons of Moth Destruction at the Roxie in SF on Thurs., June 12. More info to come, including time and panel that will speak after the film.
ALSO, don't forget:
Gate Bridge Walk to stop the spray, May 31, 10 AM starting on Marin side, ending with rally at Crissy Field at noon. For more information: www.stopthespraymarin.org.
Other upcoming event:
Oakland Town Hall meeting, June 23, 7-9 PM, Lakeside Park Garden Center, Lake Merritt

5) How can you help stop the spray?
To donate to our work, particularly our media efforts, you can send contributions to:
Pesticide Watch Education Fund, 1107 9th St. Suite 601, Sacramento CA 95814. Note on the check that the donation is for Stop the Spray East Bay media fund.
To volunteer, contact Tracey@stopthespray.org or Tara@stopthespray.org.

Silly Olympics - Saturday, May 31st at Cornell School

If you have kids between 3 and 12 you want to drop by the annual Cornell School Silly Olympics next Saturday (May 31st). It's a PTA event all about having fun with your kids. Drop by and watch your kids have a couple hours of outrageous fun!!! Runs from about 11-3

Indian Casino Interests attacking Loni Hancock

Loni Hancock is running for the State Senate and needs your help. Earlier this week, a phony "education" committee funded by the Lytton Band of Pomo Indians spent $100,000 on two mailers smearing Loni's good name as an advocate for education.

The mailers claim to be paid for by "Education Leaders for High Standards" but, according to the Secretary of State, the mailers are really paid for by six tribes that own gambling casinos -- including the Lytton Band of Pomo Indians, the owners of Casino San Pablo. Why are they attacking Loni? Because Loni successfully stopped the Lytton's planned expansion of Casino San Pablo to a massive, Vegas-style casino.

The truth is, California's REAL education leaders support Loni. Loni is endorsed by the California Teachers Association, California Federation of Teachers, and 30 current or former school board members throughout the 9th Senate District.

Loni needs your help. You can help Loni spread the truth about these attacks by talking with your friends and family in the District.

And the best way to fight back is to help get out the vote. We have an aggressive plan to turn out Loni's supporters - but we can't do it alone. Call (510) 486-8357 today to volunteer. Loni's campaign staff will follow up with you right away. Please, help Loni fight back against these deceptive attacks!

NO on 98, YES on 99

You may already have received your California absentee ballot. It could be sitting on your coffee table, or in that pile of mail. We want to remind you that the most important thing you can do today for the environment is pick up that ballot, fill it out, vote NO on Proposition 98 and YES on Proposition 99, and send it in.

If you are planning to vote at the polls on June 3, make sure to cast your vote No on Prop 98 and Yes on Prop 99.

Legal analysis of Proposition 98 shows that hidden provisions in Prop 98 would wipe out environmental regulations.

Here's how: Prop 98's language would prohibit laws and regulations that "transfer an economic benefit to one or more private persons at the expense of the private owner." The problem with that language is that courts have ruled that virtually all environmental protections technically impose costs on the affected party and transfer economic benefits to other private parties.

Therefore, Prop 98 would instantly gut a wide range of laws and regulations that protect our environment and regulate growth and development, such as:

* AB 32 regulations to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and other laws to limit climate change;
* Protection of endangered species and their habitats;
* Protection of open spaces, coastal areas, wetlands, agricultural land, and cultural and historic sites;
* "Smart growth" regulations that promote compact, walkable, and transit-oriented communities;
* And many more.

On June 3 (or on your absentee ballot), remember to vote NO on Proposition 98 and to vote YES on Proposition 99, which is eminent domain reform (prohibiting government from taking homes to transfer to private developers) without the hidden agendas and adverse consequences of Prop 98.

Because turnout is expected to be low on June 3, your vote is especially critical to stop Proposition 98 and elect environmental champions. Read more about what's at stake on June 3.