July 5, 2008. In recent days, I’ve had the pleasure of meeting and talking privately and individually with the two
Candidate 1: It was my impression that this man has the more extensive, solid knowledge of City and District issues. And, of the two men, I feel like this candidate, as of today, would likely be the better prepared of the two at performing effectively as councilmember from Day One. This man would seem to need the least amount of “on-the-job training.” I think these positive attributes are very, very important, as the eventual councilmember will need to work immediately to help solve or address the numerous challenges that face the city of
The big concern I have about this candidate would be whether he has the ability and the necessary resolve to truly say “No” to some of the powerful, “establishment” special interests that are lining up behind him. In my opinion, a responsible, ethical public servant should strive mightily to support or enact laws or policy that benefit the greatest number of citizens and taxpayers, not the “privileged few.” Given the recent history of “special” and “sweetheart deals” we’ve seen at
Candidate 2: Between the two, this man would seem to have the larger and deeper “life experience”, both personally and professionally. His history should imbue him with greater wisdom. But as I talked to him, I was struck by his occasional lack of knowledge on certain issues that I would have thought would be important to know in this Council race. He seemed to struggle to answer some of my questions, none of which were meant to trick or trip him up. And he was unaware of a very important, city employee pension-related matter that emerged in recent days at City Hall.
With this troubling experience in mind, I would, with all due respect, advise this candidate to start studying the issues a little harder and be better prepared for the difficult questions and challenges that will inevitably come his way. Between now and the November election, things will get harder, not easier. His opponent and the opponent’s supporters will be merciless in pointing out the kind of weaknesses I’ve mentioned here.
Don’t get me wrong. Candidate 2 is a very likeable and ultimately capable person. I have not, in fact, definitively made up my mind about whether I will support either candidate. Both men, including Candidate 2, have the overall qualifications to be an effective leader, as a councilmember or in another endeavor. Mr. Gloria is the District Director for a member of Congress. Mr. Whitburn is a spokesperson for the local office of the American Red Cross. They have each already demonstrated and proven their intelligence and professional skills and accomplishments.
In the weeks and months ahead, I will be carefully watching and listening to the two candidates. I will be attending the candidate forums that occur between now and the November election. I’ll monitor their respective web sites, campaign mailers, press releases, and the news articles and reports on each of them. If I decide to endorse one of the candidates, that will not happen until sometime well after Labor Day. There’s just too much at stake in our city for me to not think long and hard about this decision.
Independence Day, or Just Another Day Off?
July 3, 2008. Have the important holidays, the holidays that are supposed to inspire reflection and commemoration, been reduced to just another day off from work?
Memorial Day is meant to acknowledge and remember those military men and women who sacrificed their lives to preserve the special freedoms that we Americans possess, unlike any other people in the world. Or is Memorial Day just the first unofficial day of summer, and another day off?
Veterans Day honors our fellow Americans who, for a few years or as a career, serve as soldiers, sailors, airmen and women, or Marines, prepared for war, but hopefully ensuring peace. For many civilians, though, it’s a day off from work.
Christmas Day is meant to be a holy day, to celebrate the birth of Jesus. But, as the American Heritage New Dictionary of Cultural Literacy says, “Today, Christmas is largely secularized and dominated by gifts, decorated trees, and a jolly Santa Claus.” Sad, but true. And another day off.
Now we’ve arrived at Independence Day. Or is it simply, “The Fourth of July,” another day on the calendar? A day for grilled burgers, cold beer, and spectacular fireworks shows? A day off.
Nope, to me it’s still about the Declaration, about the courage and wisdom of the Founding Fathers and so many other American patriots, and about the celebration of a set of ideals that are grounded in the value and preservation of human life and liberty. What about you? What will you be thinking about on this day off?
It’s About Time
June 29, 2008. Last week,
Eventually, this pension reform proposal is projected to save the City and
Although I would have preferred to see the new, non-public safety employees contribute more to the cost of the 401(k)-like retirement accounts, I understand that sometimes, politics is indeed “the art of compromise.” But this proposal is a good step forward.
Again, I would remind critics of this plan of two important things: First, the vast majority of private companies – especially small businesses, where most jobs are now being created – do not even offer pensions anymore. These companies long ago moved to 401(k) plans. Second, public employees and their union “leaders” should never forget where their salaries, health care, paid holidays and other benefits come from – hard-earned taxpayer dollars.
On This One, Honor Hizzoner
June 17, 2008. Yesterday, Mayor Jerry Sanders wisely chose to exercise fiscal restraint and prudence, using the power of the line-item veto to remove 62 staff positions from the proposed Fiscal Year 2009 city budget. In his original budget, as submitted to the City Council, the mayor called for the elimination of more than 120 Full-Time Equivalent (FTE) positions. The City Council, on a 6-2 vote, chose to restore or add the 62 positions, at a cost of $4.3 million.
While it is never easy to eliminate jobs, I agree with Mayor Sanders that the present fiscal condition of the City of San Diego and the current economic uncertainty in the San Diego region and the state of California requires this tough decision. Although the San Diego region usually outpaces the rest of California and the country economically, our city is also feeling the economic slowdown this time around.
The San Diego area is experiencing declining real estate values, which portends lower property tax revenues coming into City coffers in the year ahead; rapidly rising fuel prices, which are likely to depress travel to San Diego, in turn reducing Transient Occupancy Tax (hotel room tax) revenue that pays for many City services; lower sales tax receipts, as local consumers spend more of their income to refuel their vehicles; less funds coming from the State of California, as Governor Schwarzenegger and legislators deal with an enormous, $15 billion budget deficit and the painful cuts that are being negotiated in Sacramento; and many other downward economic and financial indicators.
Considering all of these troubling fiscal and economic realities that the City of San Diego faces in the many months ahead, I think Mayor Sanders was entirely correct to say, in his veto message to the City Council, that “Adding back expense [restoring and adding 62 staff positions] at this time is not in the best interests of the City...” The mayor goes on to say, “Should additional revenues be identified, I have stated that the City should keep these dollars in reserve as a cushion against the unanticipated and increased cost of doing business. For example, to maintain a buffer to pay for spikes in fuel costs, the increased costs of road repairs and for any emergencies that could arise during the upcoming fire season.”
In these precarious economic times, I believe Mayor Sanders is exactly on point in his display of fiscal restraint, with the use of his veto pen. I hope a majority of the San Diego City Council will follow his lead and practice the good judgment the mayor has put forth in his proposed Fiscal Year 2009 budget.
Reflections on the June 3, 2008, Primary Election
June 15, 2008. I am honored and privileged to have been a candidate for the San Diego City Council, District 3 seat, in the June, 2008, election.
Running for political office is a trying and tiring challenge. And I would do it all over again. In fact, I probably will. The opportunity for a regular citizen to be able to step forward and run for political office is, in my view, a uniquely American experience. Running for office is both humbling and exciting. Public service, whether in office or elsewhere, is a noble calling.
I’m saddened that I did not win this time around. I ran for the right reasons. Whoever wins the District 3 runoff election in November – Todd Gloria or Stephen Whitburn – will have a historic opportunity and obligation to bring about the changes that are so badly needed at both San Diego City Hall and in District 3. In recent years, we have witnessed numerous scandals, resignations, investigations, indictments, criminal convictions, and other examples of a lack of ethics and integrity. Along with the civic embarrassment that came with these behavioral developments, we have seen financial shenanigans that have resulted in deficits – structural, employee pension, employee health care, and infrastructure and deferred maintenance – that each approach or greatly exceed $1 billion. All of the above negative outcomes are symptoms of a woefully dysfunctional culture and system at City Hall.
Here in District 3, as I walked the neighborhoods and precincts during the campaign, voters and citizens repeatedly mentioned the problems of the high crime rate, an insufficient Police presence, a crumbling infrastructure, concerns about neighborhood preservation, needed transportation improvements, and so much more. Of course, the ethical lapses at City Hall that I’ve mentioned were also of paramount concern to citizens. The eventual District 3 councilmember, either Todd Gloria or Stephen Whitburn, must address these critical issues. If not, either Mr. Gloria or Mr. Whitburn will have squandered the trust and hope placed in him by the citizens and taxpayers of this district.
I am encouraged by the proposed bipartisan initiative being undertaken by Councilmember Donna Frye and Councilmember-elect Carl DeMaio to come up with the changes that are indisputably required to fix the problems with the way the San Diego City Council conducts its business. Ms. Frye and Mr. DeMaio are also reaching out to Mayor Sanders to try and bring about a new working relationship with the mayor’s office. Again, let’s hope that meaningful and effective ideas are implemented from this effort.
One particular outcome of the Frye-DeMaio effort that I am looking for, related to Council rules, is that outgoing councilmembers shall not be allowed to select the new Council president, president pro tem, or committee chairpersons and members. First, the outgoing councilmembers have no stake in these selections. Second, no departing councilmember who has been caught up in a City Hall scandal should have any say in how a new Council is to conduct its business. In this case, all four councilmembers who will be leaving office – Scott Peters, Toni Atkins, Brian Maienschein and Jim Madaffer – were implicated by investigators as being “negligent” in their fiduciary duties to taxpayers and bondholders.
Indeed, Mr. Peters and Mr. Maienschein, both of whom are attorneys(!), were defeated in their respective attempts to become our next San Diego City Attorney. I can only hope that voters made the conscious and deliberate decision to deny Peters and Maienschein their individual pursuits of the City Attorney’s position, due to their less than stellar displays of judgment when it comes to the pension scandal, among other things.
So, to summarize my extended thoughts, I may not have prevailed in the June election, but I will definitely continue to be very active and involved in the civic affairs of San Diego, especially in Council District 3, where I am a homeowner and taxpayer. I invite my fellow San Diegans to participate, in any way you can, in the governance of our beloved city. I hope to see and meet as many of you as possible in the future, as we work together for even better days ahead in America’s Finest City.
Thank you very much to those of you who supported and voted for me in the recent election. I look forward to continuing to serve you, in whatever role comes my way.
Volunteering Feels Good
June 7, 2008. Today, I was honored to join hundreds of other concerned neighbors and citizens as we participated in Summer FaceLift 2008. This time, we were in the Hollywood Park neighborhood of City Heights. We spent a few hours painting several homes of those in need, and cleaned up yards and the adjacent canyon. Tons of trash was picked up and hauled away from nearby properties and the canyon.
After the work was done, free lunch and refreshments were served to the tired, but very satisfied, group of volunteers. FaceLift organizers, along with District 3 City Councilmember, Toni Atkins, presented awards to many of the groups and individuals who worked so hard to make this such a successful event.
FaceLift is a twice-a-year volunteer event that selects underserved neighborhoods in City Heights that are in need of sprucing up. The next FaceLift will be held this Fall. For more information, please call the Project Manager, Linda Pennington, at (619) 563-4014, or by email: gizmopennington@cox.net.
I’ll see you there at Fall FaceLift 2008!