Contra Costa Herald

News Of By and For The People of Contra Costa County, California

Contra Costa DA Becton supports one-sided bill limiting police union influence in elections

By Leave a Comment

First-in-the-nation legislation labeled “Cure the Conflict” to require prosecutors recuse themselves from investigating, prosecuting police misconduct if they’ve received campaign contributions from police unions

Does not include similar provisions for contributions from criminal defense attorneys

Becton wants to take it further and ban contributions from police unions to DA candidates; refuses to answer questions

Contra Costa District Attorney Diana Becton. From CCC website.

By Allen Payton

In her continued effort to limit the influence of police unions in supporting and electing candidates for district attorney, Contra Costa DA offered support on Friday, Oct. 23 for the bill by California State Assemblymember Rob Bonta (D-Oakland) that will require elected prosecutors to recuse themselves from the investigation and prosecution of law enforcement misconduct if they accept financial contributions from law enforcement unions.  The legislation will be sponsored by the Prosecutors Alliance of California and co-sponsored by numerous District Attorneys.  It will be introduced when the new legislative session convenes in December.

“This is about trust in law enforcement, and trust in the independence of our elected prosecutors,” said Bonta.  “As people across our cities, states and our nation have come together to raise their voices and demand greater justice, we must cure the conflict of interest that gives, at minimum, the appearance that police are not held accountable due to the proximity and political influence of law enforcement associations and unions.”

“Now, more than ever, prosecutors have the responsibility to promote equal justice and build trust with the communities we serve. In order to do that, we must eliminate the conflict of interest existing when elected prosecutors accept police union support,” said San Francisco District Attorney Chesa Boudin.  “It is only when prosecutors are not financially beholden to law enforcement unions that the public can be confident in the decisions prosecutors make about holding police officers accountable.”

“Law enforcement unions generally finance the legal representation of an accused officer, and when prosecutors receive financial support from the entity funding the defense a conflict of interest arises for elected prosecutors,” said Contra Costa County District Attorney Diana Becton.  “To restore trust in law enforcement we must cure this conflict.”

Recently, the Prosecutors Alliance of California called on the State Bar to create a new rule of professional responsibility to preclude prosecutors from taking police union money.  The Alliance took this step in the wake of the murder of George Floyd and Breonna Taylor in an effort to increase the independence of prosecutors from police. The State Bar is scheduled to reconvene tomorrow to continue discussions on the topic.

According to a June 1st press release from Becton’s office, “The Prosecutors Alliance of California is a non-profit organization that provides public education, support and training to prosecutors and their offices. The Prosecutors Alliance of California Action Fund is a social welfare organization that advocates for criminal justice reform legislation, engages and educates the public on criminal justice ballot measures, and supports candidates for state and local office who advocate for comprehensive reforms to our justice system.” (See related article)

The bill by Bonta to be considered by the Legislature will take a different path. Rather than precluding prosecutors from soliciting or accepting law enforcement union contributions as Becton supported earlier this year, it requires a prosecutor that accepts a law enforcement union’s contribution to recuse themselves from the decision-making process if one of the organization’s members is suspected of criminal conduct. In such cases, the State Attorney General’s Office would be asked to handle the case.  This will help reassure family members, community stakeholders and the public that decisions are made based on the facts and the law, not political horse trading and back scratching.

According to Becton and Bonta, “by closing this loophole, the Legislature will reduce the presence of conflicts of interest and ensure independence on the part of elected prosecutors. This legislation also aspires to help reestablish community trust in the integrity of prosecutors at a time when national events have damaged that trust.”

A question was sent to Becton on Oct. 23 asking her if she also supports DA’s recusing themselves from cases involving prosecution of public defenders or criminal defense attorneys who have contributed to the campaigns of elected prosecutors.

That was along the same lines of the questions sent through Scott Alonso, her department’s public information officer, earlier this year to which Becton never responded. She was asked specifically, will she try to ban political campaign contributions to DA candidates from criminal defense attorneys and public defenders and not just police unions?

Following is the email message with questions sent to Alonso for Becton on June 1 regarding her press release entitled, “LAW ENFORCEMENT LEADERS CALL ON STATE BAR TO CREATE NEW ETHICS RULE TO END THE CONFLICT OF INTEREST BETWEEN PROSECUTORS AND POLICE UNIONS – New Ethics Rule Would Help Restore the Independence, Integrity, and Trust of Elected Prosecutors by Preventing Them From Taking Donations From Police Unions”

“Scott,

Please ask DA Becton to clarify her comment because it’s not clear what she’s trying to say and answer my questions, below.

“The legal representation of an accused officer is generally financed by their law enforcement union,” said Contra Costa District Attorney Diana Becton.  “It is illogical that the rules prohibit prosecutors from soliciting and benefiting from financial and political support from an accused officer’s advocate in court, while enabling the prosecutor to benefit financially and politically from the accused’s advocate in public.”

Is she saying that currently a prosecutor cannot solicit and benefit from financial and political support from an attorney representing a police officer accused of a crime while in court or during the court case? But the police officer’s attorney can support the prosecutor financially and politically when not in court or during the court case?

Please clarify who the accused is in her comment about the “accused’s advocate”. I assume it’s the same accused officer she refers to twice before in her comment. But, not sure.

Also, are she and the rest of the DA’s willing to forgo any financial contributions from criminal defense attorneys and public defenders? How about no financial support from any organization and only from individuals who live within their counties? How far should this go to ensure fairness in prosecutions? Isn’t this really one-sided? Also, if the police unions have so much influence in our county and they all backed Becton’s opponent in the last election how did she still win? Isn’t she in effect attempting to violate the free speech rights – which political campaign contributions have been defined as by the courts – of the police unions?

Alonso responded that because the questions were political, he could not respond, even though the press release was sent from the Contra Costa District Attorney’s office through his email account. Further efforts asking him to forward the questions to Becton and getting her to respond were unsuccessful.

The latest question about the proposed legislation by Bonta and the questions from June 1st were sent to Becton’s personal email address on Friday, Oct. 23

Previously, a phone call to her was made asking her about the issue, but Becton was watching a Zoom meeting and said she didn’t have time to discuss it.

To date, Becton has yet to answer any of the questions posed to her about her efforts to only limit the influence of police unions in elections for district attorneys and not also limit the influence by criminal defense attorneys.

Please check back later for any updates to this report.

Scott Alonso, Public Information Officer, Office of the District Attorney, Contra Costa County contributed to this report.

Brentwood Council candidate Jovita Mendoza boasting of self-funding campaign filed bankruptcy didn’t repay $378,000 in 2017

By 5 Comments

Document showing Jovita Mendoza and her husband Michael Kleeman did not repay almost $378,000 through Chapter 13 bankruptcy finalized on Sept. 11, 2017.

Attacks other candidates for receiving campaign contributions, believes all candidates should self-fund

Jovita Mendoza. From her Facebook page.

By Allen Payton

Candidate for Brentwood City Council in District 1, Jovita Mendoza, has been boasting that she has been self-funding her campaign and attacking others in both her and two other races for city council and mayor for accepting contributions. However, in 2012 she filed for Chapter 13 bankruptcy which on Sept. 11, 2017 ended with Mendoza not repaying almost $378,000 of the debt.

In addition, in a letter to the editor published on this website, yesterday, the writer provided proof that Mendoza and her husband also had a judgment against them and their roofing company, at the time, from Ford Commercial Credit, Inc. of San Jose for over $100,000 in 2007, before the economic downturn occurred in 2008. The writer wrote self-funding her campaign is “easy to do and say when you don’t pay your bills and you’re spending your creditor’s money.”

According to the U.S. Courts website, “A chapter 13 bankruptcy is also called a wage earner’s plan. It enables individuals with regular income to develop a plan to repay all or part of their debts. Under this chapter, debtors propose a repayment plan to make installments to creditors over three to five years.” (See post of letter)

Document filed on Dec. 11, 2017 showing Jovita Mendoza and husband Michael Kleeman’s list of Scheduled Creditors with total debt in claim of $416,633.55 and amount repaid of $81,485.99.

Another document shows a list of creditors with a total of $416,633.55 in debt and total payments of $81,485.99. But that latter amount and the amount discharged of $377,964.93 is greater than the $416,633.55.

An email with the documentation and the following questions was sent to Mendoza at 8:11 a.m. Friday, with a deadline of noon for her to respond:

“How much was the original amount included in your bankruptcy filing? The total from the list of creditors was $416,633.55. But the $378K and $81K add up to more than that.

Have you paid back any of your creditors included in these documents other than the $81,485.99? If not, don’t you think it’s wrong to be paying out-of-pocket for your own campaign expenses instead of paying back at least some of those creditors with those funds?

Someone named Brian commented on the post of Ms. Hauck’s letter on the Contra Costa Herald that ‘Those bills have been paid years ago and Jovita is self funded.’

If that’s true and you have paid any or all of your creditors back, please provide proof, your answers and any other comments you would like to make by 12:00 pm, today.”

However, Mendoza did not respond by publication time of 12:55 p.m. Please check back later for any responses from her and any other updates to this report.

 

Contra Costa Elections Division reports dozens of ballots missing from Richmond drop box

By Leave a Comment

Box in Richmond where ballots are alleged to have gone missing. Screenshot of NBC Bay Area news report 10-29-20.

“We have been able to confirm receipt of many of the ballots deposited into that box on the 12th but not all of them.”

“These concerns and reports are not widespread.”

By Scott O. Konopasek, Assistant Registrar of Voters

We are aware of reports by dozens of voters, and claims on social media, that they deposited their ballot into the Richmond City Hall drop box on October 12th and the County has not been able to confirm receipt of the ballot. These reports are limited to this site and date.

Our records document that the box was serviced and ballots retrieved by a two person team each day. We have been able to confirm receipt of many of the ballots deposited into that box on the 12th but not all of them. We have conducted an internal investigation and review of documents and processes and have not identified a cause for the complaints. We will continue to investigate throughout the election and canvass period.

We are taking the voters’ concerns seriously and we have tracked comments on NextDoor and have proactively reached out to the voters and advised them of their options for casting their votes for this election. We have re-issued ballots to many of the voters and advised others on the in-person voting options in their area.

Because voters returned their ballots early and used the various ballot tracking tools available, this office has been able to identify and resolve many ballot issues in advance of Election Day. Voters who want to verify receipt of their ballot can use the “Track My Vote by Mail” feature on our website, www.cocovote.us, or call our office at 925.335.7800.

These concerns and reports are not widespread. These reports are limited to dozens of voters using one box on one date. Nearly 150,000 ballots have been securely returned from ballot drop boxes from across the County so far. For more information, call 925-335-7800.

In a post on the Elections Division Twitter feed on Wednesday they wrote, “With an estimated 355,000 ballots received, we’ve surpassed the total number of ballots cast in March 2020 (330,514). We’ve also made it to 50% turnout! #cocovote“

For more details see NBC BayArea news report.

Allen Payton contributed to this report.

The Herald recommends: Romick, Alaura and Meadows for Oakley City Council

By Leave a Comment

Kevin Romick, Claire Alaura and Aaron Meadows. Photos from their Facebook pages.

By Allen Payton, Publisher & Editor

The only other races in which I’m offering endorsement, this year, other than those in Antioch are for the Oakley City Council.

As a neighbor living in Antioch since 1991, I’ve been watching the changes, growth and improvements in Oakley since I was on the Antioch City Council from 1994-98 when we voted to give up the land between Highway 160 and Neroly Road, which was part of our city’s sphere of influence, and make the freeway the city boundary. That helped give the soon to be formed city more of a sales and property tax base with the gas stations, hotel and other businesses located there.

Kevin Romick

I don’t always support someone for office who is running for their fifth, four-year term, wanting new blood, fresh ideas and perspective. That’s usually when things aren’t going well in a city, county, school or special district. But Oakley Mayor Kevin Romick is an exception. He has earned another term, having accomplished much during his time on the council, having helped guide Oakley to the successful city it has become.

Since that time, I’ve witnessed the council, with Romick being the longest-serving member, make wise decisions and create a community that is safe with a nice quality of life.

Following are Romick’s long list of accomplishments:

  • Police – The city converted from a contract with the Sheriff’s Department to an in house Oakley Police Department which included hiring and processing approximately 35 sworn and professional support employees, equipping and construction of office space and evidence storage facility, selection and purchase of required safety equipment, implementing a new report writing and records management system and developing a policy and procedure manual
  • Roads – When the city first incorporated many of the main roads, Main Street, Empire and Laurel Avenue on Oakley were 2 lane country roads without sidewalks, they are now functional 4 land roads. As a Board member to the Contra Costa Transportation Authority, representing East County, oversaw the completion of the State Route 4 widening from Loveridge to Balfour and the extension of BART to Antioch
  • Parks – When Oakley incorporated in 1999 there was one city park. Now there are 35, including East County’s first all abilities park and Oakley’s first dog park, five joint use parks and two parks managed by the East Bay Regional Park District – the Antioch/Oakley Regional Shoreline and the Big Break Regional Shoreline. The city is also working with the state on a 1,200-acre marsh restoration project at Dutch Slough.
  • Initiated the weekly Oakley Outreach email blast and consistent social media posts to keep the public better informed.
  • Held Oakley’s first and annual Memorial Day event, Veterans Day event, National Night Out event, Heart of Oakley, Movies in the Park, July 4th Fireworks and Christmas Tree Lighting
  • Worked with senior community to secure and update the old fire station as the Senior Center.
  • Coordinated the construction of Oakley’s Veterans Memorial.
  • Jobs – Romick’s and the city’s greatest and most recent accomplishment was the approval and opening the Contra Costa Logistic Center at the former DuPont site, and locating the Amazon distribution center there.

Claire Alaura

Councilwoman Claire Alaura has served the community well in her first term on the council. During her year as mayor, Oakley became the 16th safest city in California. She will continue her efforts. While Alaura pushing for and wants a new library for the city, instead of the combined one at Freedom High School, she and the supporters of that effort will need to identify a funding sources for both the construction costs and operation costs, as well.

She also gets credit for the Logistics Center and Amazon locating in Oakley. She deserves another four years on the council.

Aaron Meadows

For the third seat, the choice is clear and that should be local business owner and real estate broker, Aaron Meadows. He’s not only a lifelong, fifth generation resident, his mother’s family, the Cutinos have been in Oakley for 110 years. That’s a rare thing in California, these days.

Meadows community service dates back to before the city was incorporated, when he served on the Oakley Municipal Advisory Committee from 1993 to June 30, 1999. He currently serves on the Oakley Union School District Bond Oversight Committee.

Meadows also served on the Holy Rosary School Board of Directors from 2006-18, Delta Family YMCA Board of Directors from 2001-10. He’s been a member of the Rotary Club of Oakley since it was formed in 2019.

He has earned the trust of colleagues in the real estate industry having served on the Delta Association of Realtors Board of Directors from 2002 to 2011, and as treasurer, president-elect, and then president in 2007. Meadows also served on the California Apartment Association Contra Costa, Napa, Solano Board of Directors from 2014-19 and the Contra Costa Wine Grape and Olive Growers Association Board of Directors from 2005-08 representing the Diablo Vista Vineyards for which he’s been a partner since 1993.

His broad experience in real estate, property management, construction and the wine industry will help Oakley in its next phase as the city seeks to attract businesses to employ the residents. Meadows is committed to focusing on three areas once elected: first, public safety, which should always be the city’s first priority; second, economic development, specifically streamlining the permitting process for commercial projects; and third, bringing a solution to the lack of fire service for families and businesses.

He knows the leaders in neighboring cities of both Antioch and Brentwood and can work with them on a regional basis for issues affecting all of East County, such as local jobs, transportation and fire service.

I’ve known Aaron for over 20 years and can tell you he’s a straight shooter, does what he says he will and works hard to get it done. He has the experience, knowledge and commitment to the community that Oakley needs in a council member and will be a great addition to the city’s leadership team.

I’ve also known Kevin since he was first elected in 2004. You can be sure he’s a man of his word, tells it straight and has proven his commitment to listening to the public, and solving problems and addressing challenges the city faces to the satisfaction of the residents.

Please join me in supporting Kevin Romick, Claire Alaura and Aaron Meadows for the Oakley City Council in this year’s election.

Writer asks candidate for Brentwood City Council, Jovita Mendoza if she’s not self-funding her campaign but spending ‘borrowed’ money from creditors she never paid back

By 4 Comments

Judgment against Michael W. Kleeman and Jovita Mendoza from Ford Wholesale Co., Inc. of San Jose for $100,390.86 dated Oct. 16, 2007. Provided by letter writer.

Dear Editor:

Jovita Mendez is running for Brentwood City Council in District 1 and bragging about self-funding her campaign.  That’s easy to do and say when you don’t pay your bills and you’re spending your creditor’s money. That’s because Jovita and her husband appear to have a judgement against them for over $100,000 from Ford Wholesale Co., Inc. of San Jose dating back to 2007.

In addition, she has judgements against her from Discover Bank beginning in 2009 for $13,590.60, with recent court records from late 2019 and early 2020, that appear to indicate the money Jovita took from them hasn’t been paid back.  Additionally, court records show Jovita defaulted on a debt with Capital One in 2011.

Court records for Jovita Mendoza Discover complaint for $13,590.60 dated Feb. 17, 2010 and completed Feb. 25, 2020. Provided by letter writer.

Here’s the question, did Jovita ever pay those creditors back?  If not, she’s spending their money on her campaign to try to get elected!

Yet, Jovita has the audacity and gall to attack other candidates for accepting campaign contributions from people, companies or organizations she doesn’t like. How hypocritical.

Court record of Jovita Mendoza default on Capital One complaint dated June 8, 2011 and dismissed on Aug. 29, 2012. Provided by letter writer.

The voters should reject Jovita Mendoza for Brentwood City Council.  How can we trust that she will “be a good Steward” of our community and handle our tax dollars correctly, when she “appropriates” money from her creditors, avoids paying it back for years (possibly more than a decade!), uses “their money” to promote herself for city council and can’t handle her own personal finances?

Sincerely,

Leila Hauck

Brentwood

Please see above the proof of my claims and click here to see the judgments against Jovita on the Contra Costa Superior Court website.

 

Brentwood City Council candidate Indrani Golden offers five alternative solutions for golf course properties

By Leave a Comment

Indrani Golden

In response to Tuesday night’s Brentwood City Council discussion on forming a new Lighting and Landscaping Assessment District (LLAD) to maintain entrances to the Deer Ridge neighborhood and former golf course property, candidate for Brentwood City Council District 3, Indrani Golden issued the following solutions for both that land and the Shadow Lakes golf course property. She wants to ensure the land is maintained and does not negatively affect the property values of homeowners in the adjacent neighborhoods. Deer Ridge Landscaping 2020-10-27 BCC mtg

“There are a variety of options,” Golden said. “At a minimum and for now, the city needs to require the former golf course owners to maintain their land, which is currently not happening. The city is issuing fines, which can be converted into liens.”

The city is currently working with the landowners to purchase the frontage entrance to Deer Ridge and 13 park strips. But the residents must first vote to form the new LLAD and assess themselves over $500,000 to be paid back over 10 years. In addition, Shadow Lakes owners said they will maintain nine golf holes, and they have remodeled the golf club, and will remove the barriers. Following are Golden’s five alternative solutions to the unsightly, weed-filled dry grass, barriers and closed cart paths.

Deer Ridge Entry Site Map. From City of Brentwood.

Option 1 – The second option is to have the City also maintain the cart paths as walking trails and obtain easements from the landowners, while they keep ownership of the land.

Option 2 -The homeowners of Deer Ridge and Shadow Lakes can form assessment districts to purchase all the golf course land, in their respective neighborhoods, from the property owners and pay the City to maintain it, and allow the cart paths to be used for walking trails. That requires the owners to sell their land which they currently aren’t interested in because of the loans owed on the property.

Option 3 – The landowners can deed their property over to the City to create parks and maintain them out of the City’s General Fund. But the council will have to determine how to cover those costs. Again, that’s unlikely due to the loans on the property.

Deer Ridge Landscape Site Legend. From City of Brentwood.

Option 4 – The landowners can reopen one 18-hole golf course on the entire property.

Option 5 – “But, if that can’t happen my favorite option is to have the land be used as mitigation by other developers who must be required, for every acre they develop in Brentwood, to purchase two acres of the land from the current landowners of the former Shadow Lakes and Deer Ridge golf course, and deed the land to the City for permanent open space,” Golden stated.

For more information about Indrani Golden, email her at indrani@goldenbrentwood.com, call her at (925) 204-9511 or visit her website at www.goldenbrentwood.com.

 

Op-Ed: BART-Board Director Debora Allen deserves re-election

By Leave a Comment

Publisher’s Note: This is in response to an Op-Ed published on August 28. There have been challenges with our email account info@contracostaherald.com and although sent on Sept. 4 this Op-Ed was not seen until recently. For both the Contra Costa Herald and Antioch Herald, please for now, use editor@antiochherald to submit letters to the editor or opinion pieces. Thank you and apologies for any inconvenience.

By Michael Arata

Joshua Anijar says the Bay Area “deserves leadership that doesn’t divide us” (Op-ed, Aug. 28).

But as executive director of Contra Costa County’s AFL-CIO Labor Council, Anijar’s stock in trade is division.  In the present case, that involves a cynical campaign to replace BART-Board incumbent Director Debora Allen in BART’s District One (South County and much of Central County).

Allen has been a voice of fiscal and regulatory sanity on the nine-member BART Board.  So she’s appreciated by sensible BART passengers and attentive citizens at large whose taxes subsidize BART operations and capital projects — but not by Anijar and some other special-interest activists.

Allen’s rationality is particularly needed during the time of COVID-19 restrictions and outright shutdowns.  As she wrote in July, BART has lost 88 percent of its ridership during the pandemic, with a resultant $35 million drop per month in farebox revenue.

But over Allen’s objections, the BART Board majority’s new budget foolishly increases operating expenses by 6 percent anyway, including a $32.5 million labor-cost increase.

Anijar’s breezy reference to “400,000 trips per day” represents merely an historical artifact; present reality is only 48,000 trips per day.  Allen speaks for the grownup position: “BART’s failure to cut operating expenses will continue to worsen its grave financial condition and cause irreparable harm to the long-term sustainability of the system.”

Last year, following the fatal stabbing of a BART passenger, Allen wrote about BART’s obligation to insure safety on the system’s trains and in its stations.  She noted insufficient police presence, rampant fare evasion, and aggressive panhandling as contributing factors in a widespread perception of unsafe conditions.

The 2018-19 Alameda County Civil Grand Jury documented similar concerns:   “Violent crime on BART, including robberies and aggravated assaults, increased by 115% over the last five years…. Rider satisfaction with BART fell from a high of 84% in 2012 to a low of 56% in 2018…. [S]ince at least 2012, cleanliness has been a top concern for riders who responded to the survey.”
The Grand Jury report continued: “Respondents… cite ‘personal security in BART system’ as the second largest service rating decline…, just after fare evasion.  Lack of visible police presence on trains and in stations has long been a concern of riders…. News reports of the three homicides in July 2018 and video in October 2018 of a man swinging two chain saws while riding BART reinforced worries among Bay Area residents about their safety on BART.”

So, Anijar’s assertion that Debora Allen’s Bart Board record “shows her to be unresponsive to public wishes and hostile to public input” is false.  And her real-world track record is exemplary, not “shameful.”

Anijar’s primary interest, meanwhile, is presumably the next round of increases in BART-employee salaries, current benefits, and pensions.  As is, nearly 1,000 BART employees receive total annual compensation already exceeding $200,000 (2019 figures, available at TransparentCalifornia.com).

Anijar has been busy on another front as well.  He’s a principal coordinator and ballot-argument signer for Measure X, a regressive half-percent sales-tax increase for all of Contra Costa County, lasting 20 years, at a time of pandemic-driven financial distress for much of the County’s population.

The measure, appearing on this November ballot, advertises specific purposes — but it’s framed officially as a general tax instead, “solely for general governmental purposes and not for specific purposes.”

Representatives of County employee organizations demanded such a tax measure 15 months ago.   And as a general tax, its proceeds could be used to “free up” current general-fund expenditures to pay for compensation increases, while backfilling the general fund with new Measure X dollars.

Arata is a co-founder of the Alliance of Contra Costa Taxpayers, and a signatory to ballot arguments opposing Measure X.   

 

Vote “No” on the Measure X “county services” sales tax increase

By Leave a Comment

By Sue Pricco and Michael Arata

Measure X, a 20-year, half-percent Contra Costa County sales tax increase, is on the November 3rd ballot. The “current pandemic” is among rationales advanced by the measure’s supporters.

In reality, however, Measure X got its start in May, 2019 – long before COVID-19 was even on the horizon – when five representatives of county employee organizations demanded that county supervisors drop a plan for a new transportation tax and sponsor a new “county services” tax instead.
The transportation-tax measure went ahead anyway, eventually as Measure J on March 3rd’s Primary ballot.  Itself pushing a half-percent sales-tax increase, Measure J failed.  Measure X deserves the same fate now.

For starters, Measure X is regressive, disproportionately affecting those least able to afford increased costs, particularly during a time of pandemic-driven financial hardship.  Thousands of small businesses have closed.  Millions of Californians are unemployed.   Those still working often see smaller paychecks.

Meanwhile, all must still pay (now or on a deferred basis) federal and state income taxes, payroll taxes, property taxes, auto-registration taxes, gasoline taxes, phone taxes, etc. ad nauseam.  With whatever money remains, individuals and families must still provide for necessities.

Except for food purchases, essential product needs — from paper towels to kids’ shoes, sometimes to replacement automobiles — have sales taxes added.

Oh, wait on the food exception.  If resources permit a sit-down restaurant dinner or a hot takeout meal, those foods ARE taxed.

Contra Costa sales-tax rates already range from 8.25% to 9.75%, tied for 7th highest among California’s 58 counties.  And another round of sales-tax leapfrog is not a game which County residents likely hope to “win.”

The Measure X ballot question (the summary voters see on ballots) advertises various specific purposes, implying falsely that some are new obligations.

But hiding in the underlying County ordinance’s fine print is the fact that Measure X is actually a general tax, “solely for general governmental purposes and not for specific purposes.”

In economic terms, Measure X dollars are fungible; they can be moved around.  So, for example, Measure X’s new millions could fund County-employee salary, current benefit, and large pension payments directly.

But behind a covering smokescreen of seeming legitimacy, the measure could alternatively finesse compensation boosts indirectly, by “freeing up” money budgeted for other purposes and then backfilling those budget categories with an injection of Measure X revenues.

It would not be the first time that a local government agency deployed such a maneuver.
As is, County employees have enjoyed a 20% salary/benefit increase over just the last three years, and a $166,673 average now in annual per-employee compensation cost — while many who’d pay the new sales tax would count themselves fortunate just to return to their own compensation levels of three years ago. 

What about the Measure X proponent claim of spending “oversight”?  An original ballot-question version characterized the measure as “requiring fiscal accountability.”  But a Superior Court judge removed that phrase after finding that the County’s related ordinance omitted it.  “Fiscal accountability” was apparently just an afterthought.

Finally, Measure X passage would leave at least seven Contra Costa city and town jurisdictions above the statutory 2% cap on local sales taxes.  So an underhanded legislative scheme was deployed.  State Senate Bill 1349, passed and signed at the last minute, allows the County’s sales-tax cap to increase from 2% effectively to at least 3.5% (or possibly 4%), in addition to the State’s 7.25% rate.

And this change, asserts the bill itself in Orwellian doublespeak, “does not constitute a change in, but is declaratory of, existing law.”

Measure X deserves your determined “NO” vote.  For more information, visit CoCoTax.org and NOonX.info.
Sue Pricco is president of the Contra Costa Taxpayers Association.  Michael Arata is a co-founder of the Alliance of Contra Costa Taxpayers.  

Letters: Writer wants change, new community college board member for Ward 5

By Leave a Comment

Editor:

Ward 5 of the Community College Board needs change – Enholm must go!

Ward 5 of the Contra Costa Community College District, including Bay Point, Pittsburg, Antioch, Brentwood, Oakley, Knightsen and Bethel Island, is badly in need of new leadership. The current Trustee for this area, Greg Enholm, has engaged in poor decisions, erratic behavior, and unethical acts that have not served the District, Los Medanos College in particular, very well.

This is not new, but enough is enough.

When the Board of Trustees approved in a 4-1 vote the building of the new Campus located in Brentwood, on donated land, with an approved Bond Measure E in 2014, Enholm continued to oppose its construction. An alternative site would have taken years for approval adding costs for acquisition of land and increased taxes. The new campus was needed as the existing leased building in a retail district of Brentwood was over-capacity. In 2016 Enholm also recommended the residents of the nearby Trilogy community sue the District to keep its construction at bay.

This opposition caused numerous delays, added hundreds of thousands of dollars to the cost due to litigation, and for a time imperiled the use of the approved Bond as expenditures needed to begin within an approved time. Covid-19 has impacted its opening, but the students will be served well by this new educational facility.

Especially troubling has been allegations of multiple ethics violations by Enholm that have recently come to light. He has not denied the allegations. The allegations were found to be true by an investigator of the District which included inappropriately trying to get a friend re-classified to be considered for a top-level position as well as ghost-writing an email to the District. As part of the investigation it was noted that Enholm went directly to the Chancellor to ask him to reconsider his friend for the position even though the person was already deemed to be unqualified for the position.

Of late, with the District facing challenges due to COVID-19, he also voted to terminate upper-level district managers, ignoring numerous requests from faculty and classified staff to reconsider that decision. Enholm has stopped listening to the faculty, staff, and his constituents and has engaged in recent actions that have put our District’s financial future at risk.

It is time for new leadership on the Contra Costa Community College District Board: Elect Fernando Sandoval.

Valerie T Lopez

Pittsburg

 

Brentwood Vice Mayor, former Fire Board President Joel Bryant supports consolidation of East Contra Costa Fire with ConFire, re-opening two stations without a tax increase

By Leave a Comment

“This is an opportunity to provide the people of Brentwood and Far East County with the fire service we need and deserve.” – Joel Bryant

Brentwood, CA – Oct. 16, 2020 – Today, in his ad in the Brentwood Press, Brentwood Vice Mayor Joel Bryant, the former President of the East Contra Costa Fire Protection District (ECCFPD) Board of Directors, announced his support for the consolidation of the ECCFPD with Contra Costa County Consolidated Fire District (ConFire). The proposal would provide the staffing necessary for the re-opening of two fire stations in the district, with at least one in Brentwood, to help get to the additional three stations that are needed, now.

For Bryant to support it, however, the proposal must be achieved without a tax increase to the residents of Brentwood or the rest of those in both fire districts. It must also provide better pay and benefits to the men and women firefighters of the ECCFPD.

“This is an opportunity to provide the people of Brentwood and Far East County with the fire service we need and deserve,” Bryant said. “The two districts already provide mutual aid to each other, mainly with fire stations and personnel in Brentwood, Oakley, Discovery Bay and Antioch.”

Following is Bryant’s complete statement on the proposal:

“I am currently working with Chief Brian Helmick and Board President Brian Oftedal of the East Contra Costa Fire Protection District, to finalize a permanent solution which provides sustainable fire protection and medical response for not only the families and businesses in Brentwood, but for the entire fire district that we are a part of.

At this time, ConFire is conducting a feasibility study regarding the possibility of consolidating both departments. In order for this to be a successful remedy the merger would need to include significant additional resources, such as:

  • At least two additional staffed fire houses, immediately.
  • Advanced life support available as part of normal operations.
  • Bringing the salaries and benefits of our firefighters in ECCFPD equal to that of ConFire personnel.

The consolidation would, of course bring additional vehicle resources as part of the normal operations, such as a ladder truck, helicopter, and fire boat, to cover the areas that are currently vulnerable.

The goal is to accomplish this without the need to raise additional revenue, such as a local tax, by the residents.”

“I completely support this effort and appreciate the opportunity to work with both Chief Helmick and ConFire Chief Lewis Broschard, the ECCFPD Fire Board, as well as the Board of Supervisors in their diligent efforts to accomplish this goal,” Bryant added.

Joel Bryant has served on the Brentwood City Council for 10 years, 7 of them as Vice Mayor, elected by his fellow councilmembers. He has the support of the East Contra Costa firefighters.