Resident Blasts City Council Over Grand Jury Report
— by Jeffrey Wisniewski — 25 June 2010 — 7 comments below »
Resident Bill Kelly took to the podium on Tuesday evening and blasted the City Council for failing to act prior to the grand jury releasing their scathing report on questionable transactions made by the affordable housing agency, a City subcontractor with deep ties to the City Manager…
After Kelly’s statement, Mayor Kris Valstad said that answers would be forthcoming and that those answers would make everything clear (the whole story). Kelly retorted that that is what Valstad told him a few months earlier.
To wit, Valstad did do just that, in a meeting on February 23…
Bill Kelly originally addressed the Council on this issue last October.
Go Bill!!!!!
I am very appreciative of Mr. Kelly and Mr. Lochner for their diligence on this matter, and I’m glad that the facts are finally going to come to light. That these facts are only now being presented as a result of direct pressure from the grand jury is huge slap in the face to the citizens of Hercules and I hope we will not forget in November.
…and Mr. Wisniewski! ;)
It is plainly obvious that Hercules needs a more open public government.
Too much business is conducted in secrecy.
The council has too much discretion where and how to spend redevelopment and general funds. There is insufficient citizen oversight. Without adequate oversight, there is too great a temptation to direct these funds to pet projects, and to favor friends and families in deciding how to allocate public funds.
The perception in Hercules is that our local officials have forgotten that they serve the public, and there is a real concern that officials confuse their personal interests with the interests of the citizens they are elected to serve.
In their defense, they assert that they have not broken any laws. But the law is clear, public officials should avoid even the APPEARANCE of impropriety. The grand jury has issued findings that suggest our officials have failed that test.
If it is not against the law to award no-bid professional services contracts to companies that are run by or employ the children of public officials, then it ought to be. The situation cries out for locally adopted safeguards to prevent nepotism. Rather than “circle the wagons”, if city officials truly have nothing to hide, they should embrace adopting safeguards to restore public confidence in their leadership. Not one of the current councilmembers has expressed the need for reform. Not one. Clearly, they are complacent with the status quo. There is not a single independent voice on this council; they are in lock-step, and those who dare ask questions are the enemy.
It is unlikely this council will ever admit there is a problem, so don’t count on reform coming from within city hall.
It will have to be forced on the council by candidates who promise to push for a more progressive, open and fiscally responsible management of public resources.
If I were to run for council:
1) I would push for having Council committees, where a lot of the decisions are made, be televised and agendized. If not, get rid of them and discuss public issues at the council meeting, with the cameras rolling.
2) I would push for the adoption of a local sunshine ordinance to provide additional public notice for meetings; 72 hours is insufficient time for the public to become informed of matters coming before the council.
3) I would not vote approval of any contract over $10,000 or any “no bid” contract if placed on the consent calendar without discussion. All such contracts should be on the regular council agenda, not buried on the consent calendar where they are not discussed, in order to get my vote.
4) I would not vote for approval of contracts with 1 and 2 page staff reports that provide conclusory analysis to justify the contract award. Too many times I have seen contracts for hundreds of thousands of dollars approved on the strength of a one line statement that “this contractor will do a great job; staff recommends approval of this contract.”
5) Council meetings are where the city’s business is conducted. You wouldn’t know it by watching one, with all the self congratulatory puffing that goes on. The council spends too much time discussing inconsequential ceremonial matters, while the decisions that matter are barely discussed, if at all. I would push for limits on the time spent on self congratulatory ceremonial matters (20 minutes of vanity time should be sufficient) , and demand that for the rest of the council meeting the council stay focused on matters of concern to the city.
6) I would push for the adoption of a strong anti-nepotism ordinance that would prevent the type of “in house” dealing that is encouraged by the lack of openness in our local government.
7) I would push for establishment of a citizen’s budget review committee to serve as a watchdog, and make sure the review committee is allowed to review all proposals for spending public funds, and empower them to issue quarterly reports. I am not sure how to prevent such a committee from being packed with friends and supporters of the incumbents; hopefully any citizen appointed to such a board would take his or her responsibility as a watchdog seriously .
The above suggestions are not radical and are not new. Many jurisdictions have adopted similar measures to address the very same issues we face here in Hercules.
I do not plan to run for council at this time. I hope that other concerned citizens will do so, and in so doing will embrace a comprehensive reform platform, rather than adopt a “business as usual” approach.
There is talk of several potential candidates, some outsiders and some familiar to us. Note to candidates: embrace reform and push for change, and the citizens of Hercules will support you. Dan Romero, Bill Wilkins, Kandis Westmore, John Delgado, Bill Kelly, Myrna deVera, and Jeff Wisniewski; are you listening?
Patrick,
Please run! You’ve got my vote!!!!
A TALE OF TWO CITIES
Someone asked what I have against the current city administration and councilmembers. And the answer is, nothing. Councilmembers devote a fair amount of time to the task of running the city, and get paid next to nothing for it. The city manager is experienced and competent. They may all be very nice people. But they are human, and they can make mistakes and errors in judgment.
Most people are forgiving of mistakes, but the talk around my neighborhood concerns the complete failure to openly discuss the troubling issues raised by the grand jury report. Compounding the problem is a tendency among the current crop of city officials to view members of the public who present contrary views as annoyances, or the enemy. It seems the current elected officials view the role of the citizens to be limited to supplying the votes once every four years to keep them in office. Beyond that, leave the running of the city to them. The city attorney’s recent “off line” comments caught on tape and brought to light by Mr. Wisniewski illustrate this tendency. The city’s efforts to cover it up by erasing the public record betrays their sensitivity to public criticism. While the utterance itself might be explained, how do they explain the erasing of the comments from the public record? Will they claim it never happened? Is it more important to avoid embarrassment, or adhere to public records requirements?
It doesn’t have to be this way. There was a recent dust up in another small city I am familiar with. Citizens were upset with the city’s public contracting process. Instead of glossing it over and refusing to address the matter directly, and instead of claiming they had to be quiet “on advice of their city attorney”, this city council chose to put the matter on the city council agenda for public discussion. They had the intestinal fortitude to take the heat. They even established an independent review board to look into the contracting process to see what happened, knowing full well the independent review board might produce an unflattering report. They forked over all the internal documents related to the project so the commission could do its job. They appointed citizens, as well as a well respected retired judge, to sit on the review board. The leadership of this other city is committed to adopting reforms to assure the public that the problem will not reoccur. This city went all out to disclose what happened, and is taking measures to prevent it from happening again. This is an example of an enlightened approach to addressing the perception of problems in local governance.
Then there is Hercules. The unanimous response from the council is, “Move along, nothing to see here.” To paraphrase one councilmember, “We didn’t do what the evil newspapers and other muckrakers are claiming, and even if we did, which of course we didn’t, it is not illegal. Nevertheless we won’t comment on what we claim we didn’t do that in any event wasn’t illegal, on advice of our lawyer. We will explain everything some day, and then it will be clear, but until then, trust us.” Now that’s grabbing the bull by the horns.
Any councilmember can agendize a matter for discussion. Not one of our elected officials has pushed to discuss these matters at a council meeting. Now we have a grand jury investigation finding significant malfeasance in the operations of our local government. Why did it have to come to this point? There have been plenty of queries from citizens and the press about how city contracts are awarded, for several years now. As just one example, several years back I personally communicated to city elected officials that subcommittees must be noticed pursuant to the Brown Act. All such advice has been ignored. The incumbents have had ample time to explain their positions and address any problems. They have done nothing. They are counting on this dying down, and hoping they can sweep it all under a big rug, at least until the next election passes..
Maybe Hercules is getting what it deserves. Herculeans seem largely unfazed and unconcerned with the shenanigans at city hall. In the other small town I mentioned, the citizens are much more tuned in. Frankly, they have higher expectations in that town. I think it is time more Herculeans start having higher expectations. I also think city officials under-estimate their electorate. There is a tipping point, when even the sleepy city of Hercules wakes up and says, “enough already.”
The incumbent city leaders have had ample time to enact reforms and address the concerns of the citizens they serve. It has been their choice to ignore calls for accountability. I might have even considered voting for an incumbent, if he or she would have come clean with how this transpired, and taken steps to address the problems. But that hasn’t happened. The effort is clearly on maintaining the wall of silence.
People, it is pure poppycock to claim city officials would like to address these concerns but can’t, on advice of counsel. That is a complete fiction, a total cop out. See in my example above how the other city responded to public criticism. I hope you all remember how your concerns have been routinely and unanimously ignored, when you vote this fall. I hope you all remember the findings contained in the grand jury report, when you decide whether to vote for change, or vote to support the status quo.
Patrick Tang is a man who has superior knowledge as to how a City and its governing agents are supposed to operate. His observations and opinions should be given great deference.