Joseph E. Canciamilla, the County Clerk-Recorder and Registrar of Voters, notifies all interested parties that the Contra Costa County Elections Office will be open from 8:00 am until 3:00 pm on Saturday, November 1, 2014 for voters who wish to vote in person, pick up or drop off a ballot. The Elections Office is located in Martinez at 555 Escobar Street.

For more information or directions call (925) 335-7800 or our toll free number (877) 335-7802.

Dear Editor:

As Yogi Berra would have it, it looks like deja vu all over again. Seems once again that  I can’t escape my sanity being questioned. Ten years ago I contemplated a race for Antioch School Board. I asked the late,great, Mno Grant his opinion on my throwing a hat in the ring. He told me it depended upon how big the hole was in my head.

After all, Antioch had suffered a spate of scandals, including a 9.8 million dollar deficit and entry on the ignominious county Fiscal Watch List. Running for office was like asking to be tarred and feathered.

In the end, I threw abandon to the winds; ran twice; and was deeply honored to win twice.  I was fortunate to play a role in summarily getting us off the Watch List, restoring public trust, starting a streak of seven of eight years of API score increase and initiating the linked pathways, career themed model that shined the reform spotlight.

In 2012,  I began a two year hiatus from school governance. Again, friends question the size of the hole in my head as I now  vie for office. It certainly isn’t for the money that I consider giving up having a real life. Heck, by my calculation,  the $400 monthly stipend comes out to about $4.85 hourly compensation. That’s if you don’t deduct the spent  gas and the paying functions you attend. 

Why then entertain abandoning the return to normalcy and of enjoying time for family, exercise, reading and hobbies? I guess I’m guilty of caring. 

I care about the eight million dollar settlement and the six 5-7 year old autistic kids who were physically and emotionally abused. I care about the achievement gap of minority, foster kid and English language learner students. I care about the overwhelming majority of our kids who graduate unqualified for U.C. system entry.  I care for twenty six million dollars in deficit spending.  I care about having a chair at the table for students of all niches; traditional, alternative. academy, charter, home study, remote and independent, I care about the disconnect between downtown and the grassroots that has spawned teacher dissatisfaction and parental revolts.

And yes, I care to the point of a sick stomach about schools, from elementary upwards, reporting their classrooms and yards riddled with disruption as an admittedly small number of kids terrorize teachers and fellow classmates. That’s outright unacceptable. 

Surely, we can do better than denial. Yes, Houston, we have a problem.  In fact, an emergency. Transparency, communication, partnerships, common sense and consequences seem shortchanged.

I may not have all the answers, but I promise not to sit and hope that answers somehow drop in my lap; I’ll demand accountability, respectfully disagree when needed, ask questions, civilly poke and prod staff, and stir the pot with dialogue and best practice research. Together, we can start by breaking open the silos and getting all stakeholders to the table; students, parents, teachers and community leaders. We know it all starts at home, so we need engagement.

Simply put, I don’t want to wallow in, and wring hands over, our litany of challenges. I want, instead., to vigorously seek out solutions because our kids and teachers deserve the best education that we can give them and that begins with safety…and, your Honor, yes, if caring translates to a hole in the head, then I am guilty as charged.

Walter Ruehlig

Antioch

Hears from public on school violence, budget issues

By John Crowder

At the October 22 meeting of the Antioch Unified School District (AUSD) Board of Trustees, board members heard from the public on issues of school violence and school finances.

As it has for months now, school violence remained a major focus of the meeting. The first person to address the issue at the board meeting was Superintendent Don Gill. During his regularly scheduled agenda item, entitled, ‘Superintendent’s Thoughts for the Evening,’ Gill took the opportunity to provide his perspective on the matter.

“We’re committed to student safety,” Gill said, “our highest priority has to be safety.”

Later in the evening, he added that the board would be asked to approve a new position, Supervisor – Site Safety and Emergency Preparedness. He said that the person in this position would provide oversight and support for all Antioch schools.

Gill also spoke about suspensions and expulsions as a means of dealing with unruly students. While AUSD leads other Contra Costa County school districts in suspensions and expulsions, according to Gill, “Suspending a child that doesn’t want to be in our schools isn’t effective.”

Gill later elaborated on his comments, explaining in more detail his thinking on school discipline.

“District administrators have been working with our school administrators on an ongoing basis to find ways to address discipline issues that will create lasting, meaningful results,” Gill said. “Despite these efforts, the number of suspensions and expulsions are up over the same time period from last year. The increase is of concern to both staff and district administrators, and we continue to monitor and examine this situation closely.”

“We have worked hard to build a discipline process that is effective, and that is fair and objective. Our discipline, and everything we do in our district, is built on the belief that no child, regardless of circumstances or background, is expendable in our community. I think educators recognize that all forms of discipline have limitations to their effectiveness, and that what works in one situation may not work in another. For example, suspending a child who doesn’t want to be in school in the first place – and who sees no consequences at home for the suspension – is not a lasting solution. Many expulsions, by law, are not permanent. So, while school site administrators certainly use suspensions and expulsions as a mean of discipline, they represent the top end of the discipline spectrum, and in some cases, neither may be truly a lasting solution.”

“The work of keeping our schools safe for our students and our staff is our highest priority, and it is a task that requires constant attention and focus. Meaningful, lasting solutions will require the participation of everyone involved, and we are pleased our community is engaging in the kind of dialogue that is necessary to find the answers to a complex problem.”

During public comments, several people spoke on safety-related matters, expressing a wide-range of views. Gil Murillo, for the second time in two board meetings, called for the removal of Principal Ken Gardner from Deer Valley High School (DVHS). Murillo said that many parents had, “lost confidence” in Gardner’s leadership, citing teachers, parents, and students speaking out repeatedly at school board meetings about violence at that school.

A student who said she attends Dallas Ranch Middle School expressed similar concerns. There is, “uncontrolled violence in our school,” she said. “Kids are terrified to come to school,” she continued, “the [incidents] get more violent all the time.” She also said, “The students do know the blind spots. We need more teachers and more site security.”

Another aspect of school discipline was addressed by Willie Mims, Education Chair of the NAACP. Speaking after a presentation by Principal John Jimno of Park Middle School, Mims said, “The African American subgroup had tremendously disproportionate suspensions last year” at that school. Mims asked, “What have you done to address this problem that you have here?”

Jimno asked for the opportunity to respond to the question posed by Mims, and the board granted his request. “It’s a fact, I agree, I don’t duck away from that,” said Jimno. “Students of color are suspended more than anyone else. We’ve had policies in place that unintentionally caused that. The answers will come from trying different things. I don’t have the answers for you yet.”

Another student, Alejandra Amigo, a junior at DVHS, and cofounder of a group called Students in Action (SIA), announced a meeting that her group was planning for 3:00 p.m. on Friday, October 31, at the DVHS amphitheater.

“We will be discussing the recent negative news about our school so that we can help the problems stop and also get the word out about a Peace Walk that the Student in Action program is planning,” she said in a subsequent statement. “This meeting will also express to the community that Deer Valley High School has many students that want to learn and are positive members of our community.” Amigo invited all present to attend the meeting.

Amigo’s mother, Candi, also spoke on the problems with some students. She said that it was the responsibility of the teachers to focus on education, “not to teach our children manners and respect…that is our job as parents.” She went on to say that parents should be held responsible for how their children behave in school.

DVHS Chemistry teacher Jeffery Swietlik offered yet another view. Focusing on what he considered a disproportionate amount of negative reporting, he said, “Stories about violence sell a lot more newspapers.” He said that, in his classroom, “In terms of behavior, there is basically no room for improvement. I never, ever, felt unsafe in my classroom.” One of Swietlik’s colleagues also spoke up, expressing his support for Principal Gardner.

Concerns regarding finances, and the oversight of district spending, were addressed by parent Julie Young when it came time for the board to approve the Consent Calendar. Young addressed three items, each of which was pulled from the Consent Calendar and discussed by the board and/or administrative staff.

The first item Young addressed was an amendment to an agreement with Comcast which would allow that firm to lease property at Antioch Middle School for only $1 per year. Staff said that Comcast was generous with help offered to AUSD schools, and this was a way the district could return the favor.

The second item Young addressed was an agreement with School Services of California, Inc. (SSC), for professional and consulting services. Young noted that this group had, at a previous board meeting, given a presentation regarding the LCAP, and wondered why, with the amount of deficit spending the district has been doing, we couldn’t find somebody on the AUSD staff to make such presentations. Young was particularly concerned that the firm would be paid, “hundreds of dollars per hour” for such mundane tasks as, “making copies.” She also noted that the contract was for three years and had no cap on expenditures.

In response to Young’s comments, Tim Forrester, Associate Superintendent – Business & Operations, said that he didn’t think the district would spend more than $30,000 on services provided by SSC and, in any event, he and Dr. Gill had authority to spend up to $50,000. With respect to the group advising on the LCAP, Forrester went on to say, “They’re the leading experts, because they’re writing the legislation.”

Board Member Claire Smith, however, did not appear satisfied with the explanation, or the contract in general. “A lot of under $50,000 purchase orders are being signed for,” she said, “but cumulatively they could go over $50,000.”

Board Member Diane Gibson-Gray also spoke out against the contract. “We’re relying on consultants, over and over again,” she said, “and we have highly paid experts here.”

The final item Young spoke about from the Consent Calendar was the aforementioned Supervisor for Site Safety position. Noting the cost of the position ($109,598 for salary and benefits), Young said the position amounted to extra spending for more bureaucrats.

Two board members, Claire Smith and Diane Gibson-Gray, expressed concerns with the item. Smith said that the proposal submitted by staff was not only costly, but, “void of any kind of qualifications.” Smith and Gibson-Gray both also stated that the board should have more input for such hiring decisions.

But two board members disagreed with Smith and Gibson-Gray on delaying the hiring. “I’ll trust you,” Board President Joy Motts told staff, “there is an urgency here.” Board Vice President Gary Hack echoed her comments, telling staff, “I have faith and trust in you.”

Following the discussion on the items, each was ultimately passed by the board. The Comcast contract was approved 5-0, the SSC agreement was approved 4-1 (Smith dissenting) and the Supervisor position was approved 3-2 (Smith and Gibson-Gray dissenting).

The next school board meeting is scheduled for Wednesday, November 12, at the AUSD office at 510 G Street. Meetings begin at 7:00 p.m.

But, gets it wrong on City’s budget

ANALYSIS

By Allen Payton

In the latest mailer from the well-funded No on Measure O campaign, it states under the first reason for voting no, that “On September 23, the City Council admitted that Measure O will be used for salaries and pensions at City Hall.”

Unfortunately, that statement is correct.

Upon looking at the annotated Agenda of the September 23rd Antioch City Council meeting, (which can be viewed by clicking, here), it shows under agenda item #8 that of the estimated $2.27 million in annual revenue projected from Measure O, if it passes, city staff recommended to spend $800,000 to eliminate “Furlough Fridays” to fully staff City Hall, Police Department reception and the Public Works office five days a week, instead of the current four.

The staff report on the agenda item reads as follows:

If Measure O passes and provides $2.27 million in additional annual funding, staff recommends the following spending priorities:

Between January 2015 and the end of Fiscal Year 2015-16, use approximately $800,000 for the elimination of “Furlough Fridays” so that City Hall, Police Department reception, and the Public Works office can once again be open to the public for a five day work week. All field staff would also return to 40 hour operations. When implement ed in 2009, the furlough program was intended to be a temporary fiscal solution to the downturn in the economy, not an indefinite service reduction to the public. Although a five day work week would be implemented, restoration of afternoon counter hours in Community Development and the Police Department will be dependent upon staffing resources. This will be an ongoing cost.

Additional, one-time budget items were also listed in the staff report.

In a Herald article (which can be viewed here) about the Council meeting, it confirms that the Council voted 4-0 to support the staff recommendations.

That article states “Mayor Harper spoke in favor of EBRCS, police body cameras, and the end of furlough Fridays. The rest of the council echoed their concurrence, and a motion to approve the report was passed on a 4-0 vote.”

CORRECTION: The $800,000 mentioned in both the staff report and the article, covers 18 months of the of the tax. But, according to Michelle Fitzer, the City’s Administrative Services Director in an email to the Herald on October 30th, “The annualized cost to the General Fund to return employees to a 40 hour work week, providing services to the Community on Fridays, is $800,000.”

At a cost of between $125,000 and $200,000 per sworn police officer in Antioch, $800,000 could instead be spent to fund between four to six officers, per year.

It appears the City Council has their priorities wrong and their vote has fulfilled the concerns stated in the No on Measure O campaign, that they won’t spend the money on hiring additional police, as expected – and needed, now.

UPDATE:  In the Sample Ballot, it states under Measure O, City of Antioch, BUSINESS LICENSE TAX. “To provide funding that cannot be seized by the State, to maintain such general City services as police services, code enforcement, street repairs, senior services and youth programs, shall the City of Antioch adopt a residential landlord business license tax…”

So, if Measure O passes, the Council must change their vote on the use of funds, at their first meeting in November, and direct staff to use them to hire police, and not for the elimination of Furlough Fridays. That matter can be handled during contract negotiation time with the various city employee groups.

Surplus Revenue Claim is False

UPDATE: Also on the same mailer, at the bottom, it shows Antioch had “Revenues” of $85,498,803 in 2013 and “Expenditures” of $83,434,491 leaving “Surplus Revenue” of $2,064,312.

But, what the No on O folks don’t understand, or don’t want the voters to know, is that the totals include what are known as Enterprise Funds, which include the Marina Fund, Water Park Fund, Sewer Fund and Water Fund, which can only be spent on the specific items related to those funds. They can not be spent on police or other city services. It’s the City’s General Fund that pays for police.

According to the City’s 2014-15 Budget, the actual total General Fund revenue in 2013-14 was $37,508,575 – less than half of what the mailer states. The total expenditures was $39,195,201, resulting in an annual deficit of $1,686,626 – not a $2 million surplus.

The City Budget includes the General Fund, Special Revenue Funds, Capital Projects Funds, Debt Service Fund, the City of Antioch as Successor Agency and Housing Successor to the Antioch Development Agency Funds, and funds from the Antioch Public Financing Authority.

So, any budget surplus was not in the General Fund and can not be spent as the City Council wishes. So the mailer seriously misstates the City’s finances.

Plus, the mailer compares Antioch’s revenues, expenditures and surplus with other, much smaller cities, such as Oakley, Walnut Creek and Lafayette, none of which have their own water department, water park or marina.

So, they’re not providing accurate information and are comparing apples and oranges.

Let’s hire those who have proven themselves, are trustworthy and are running to do something, not just seeking a title; beware of catchy slogans and empty promises

I view campaigns as the time the public gets to decide whether to hire a new office seeker, renew the contract for an incumbent running for reelection, or give a promotion to a candidate running for higher office.

The election is the interview and job performance review process. We the people, as their employers, have a right to know what all candidates believe, hear all candidates share their positions on the issues and defend their records. All candidates have that responsibility.

The question we should all ask ourselves before voting is, what have the candidates done before seeking office to deserve getting hired or what have they done in office to deserve to have their contract renewed or get a promotion? Talk is cheap. Action and results are what matter.

I can’t understand why someone who has done nothing for the community they wish to serve wants to start out doing so in elected office. I say, accomplish something, make some improvements, prove yourself, first.

Some candidates, unfortunately, have just put their name on the ballot and have done little or nothing to let us know who they are, what they stand for, what they’ve done or what they’ll do, if elected.

Others, including those in office, already, have arrogantly refused to appear at candidate forums or debates and be held accountable by those who they seek to represent, or answer the questions of their opponents, as if they’re entitled to be elected. That’s just wrong.

Remember, candidates, you already or want to work for us – we the people.

Then there are the candidates who have serious issues in their backgrounds. The question is who is responsible for vetting those candidates? It’s not the City or County Clerks’ nor the California Secretary of State’s jobs to do so. They merely verify if the person is at least 18 years old, is registered to vote and, under penalty of perjury, lives where they say they do on the forms they complete, including the voter registration forms.

It’s the media’s job to vet the candidates, look into their backgrounds, verify if what they’re telling us is accurate and true, and inform the public about who they are and what they’ve done, both good and bad in their lives and for the communities they wish to represent, so voters can make an informed decision.

We’ve done our best to do our part to provide that information over the past few months. On our website we have published and in our November we will publish some news stories that have information that makes both the candidates and us as writers, editors and publishers, as well as you voters, uncomfortable. It’s not enjoyable dealing with those kind of issues, but it must be done for a fully informed electorate.

In 1988, nationally syndicated columnist George Will wrote that there are two types of candidates: those who run to do something and those who run to be something.

We’ve had enough of those, elected already who just want to be something, who then don’t speak out on the issues or accomplish anything, or just go along with the majority, while in office. We don’t need any more. And we surely don’t need any more of those with merely catchy slogans who overpromise during election time and underdeliver after they’re elected.

Good luck to all the candidates. May the best ones win.

But, those who don’t, should stay involved. Don’t lose and just go away, like so many before have done. That just shows you really didn’t care about the community, you just wanted to get elected, to be something. Trust me, serving in office isn’t easy. It takes a lot of hard work, many long hours and putting up with some rather unpleasant things, at times. So getting elected for a stroke to your ego is pretty foolish. You need to be running for office to accomplish things for and improve the community in which you want to serve. Seriously, who cares about a title or position if you don’t do something with it to benefit others? It’s just a waste. So, do something to benefit the community, whether you’re elected or not. Getting elected should be about wanting to help more people on a larger scale than you’re already doing. If you’re not already doing so, you shouldn’t have been running for office, yet. That’s my perspective.

For those who haven’t yet voted, please do so with the long-term, best interest of our community, in mind.