On Feb. 14, BART directors will begin discussing ways to raise revenues quickly because, according to BART‘s Chief Financial Officer Carter Mau, with ridership expected to double over the next 15 years and a 40 year old infrastructure, BART will need to spend about $750 million a year to address capacity and repairs.

Options to be discussed are: continuing its inflation based fare index which increases fares every two years and is set to expire this year and boosting daily parking fees by 50 cents. These measures, however, are only expect to raise about $700 million over 12 years.

As a result, BART is considering going to the polls to ask voters to approve a $1 billion general obligation bond. Other initiatives under discussion are a $50 parcel tax that would raise $45 million a year and a quarter cent sales tax increase that would generate $125 million annually.

The initiatives would require a two-thirds approval from voters in San Francisco, Alameda and Contra Costa counties. BART, however, serves 5 Bay Area counties which means that BART intends to exclude San Mateo and Santa Clara Counties who are currently benefiting from BART extensions (BART found a way to San Jose! The transit line is expected to open in 4 years, ahead of schedule and come in $77 million under budget).

In the interim, BART will be conducting a public meetings to discuss a new law allowing BART to prohibit individuals who have committed violent acts, certain misdemeanors or felonies on the system from entering all BART property through a “Notice of Prohibition”. (Good luck with that one BART). The meetings (Feb. 11 in Alameda County, Feb. 13 in San Francisco County and Feb. 28 at the El Cerrito City Hall in Contra Costa County) are intended to allow interested communities to comment, particularly those advocating for individuals with mental health issues or the homeless.

Speaking of transit systems and misbehaving patrons, I was floored to read that alcohol consumption is permitted on Caltrain, although spokeswoman Christine Dunn said “We do not tolerate disruptive behavior.” (NOTE to Caltrain – drunk people frequently exhibit disruptive behavior and should not be permitted to board, especially if they’re carrying an alcoholic beverage). Common sense.

Incidentally, BART Directors receive a monthly stipend if they attend all regular Board meeting in that month ($1386.19 per month for 2011). Directors are also eligible for medical, dental and vision coverage.

I predict one small savings this year, however, That saving is in the number of BART directors and BART employees attending the annual American Public Transportation Association (APTA) convention. In 2011 four BART Directors and nine BART employees attended the annual APTA conference in New Orleans. I’m predicting attendance will be less this year because it’s being held in Chicago which just doesn’t have the allure that the “Big Easy” does.

As promised, one in my hat collection still stands ready to be eaten should this current Antioch City Council buck it’s Union label. So far, the fedora hasn’t come close to the carving knife as Big Labor, Big Government and Big Spending rule the local roost.

Let me first applaud this Council for working hard and getting out into the public, especially the tireless, impassioned Wade Harper.  Kudos, too, for,  the Council’s 3-2 vote rejecting pot dispensaries from sporting their shingle in Antioch. The food union workers were disappointed, but, in the end, two of the usual four member voting bloc showed that they are not, in fact, monolithic. Hats off for the independent thinking.

Timing is everything in life and Antioch ‘s current plate is simply better off without the attendant issues of pot dispensaries. Common sense considerations of city reputation, setting  teen example, and police manpower shortage prevailed. After all, Pittsburg, with half Antioch’s rate of crime, voted 5-0 against allowing dispensaries and didn’t even consider the topic deserved discussion.

I wish, though, that I could be as cheerful about the holiday time emergency vote on retirement packages circumventing the new state reform by four days. The new Council voted 4-1 (businessman Gary Agopian objecting) to scrap the deal made earlier in the year to bring new police pensions back from 3% at 50 to 3% at 55. On top of that, in a Christmas-giving frenzy, they threw in a bonus to twenty-one incidental city employees, increasing pension accruals from 2.0 to 2.7% yearly at age 55.

Let’s count the reasons why all this hurt so bad.

#1) Let’s, for argument’s sake, assume it a sensible proposition that we will, in fact. have trouble recruiting experienced officers without such a package (which many of our neighbors, tellingly, don’t have). Why, though the incidental, non-police personnel give-away?

This was not Chief Cantando’s thrust or intention when he initially proposed the police sweetener. The package simply got hijacked by city staff wanting to be ‘fair”.

#2) The earlier assumption is just that, assumption. We are speculating and rolling dice that this deal will attract seasoned officers, Agreed, early on still, but note, not one officer has yet been hired from this.

#3) What kind of an example doe this set to reverse a deal painstakingly negotiated earlier in the year? What does it say to the four or five other city bargaining units? They must be salivating.

#4). Consider the shaken trust level of Antioch voters, who invariably will someday be asked to pay a sales or parcel tax for additional police services? Kiss that proposition goodbye.

#5) Where’s the sobriety? City staff claims that this will only cost Antioch $23,670 a year, which if inflation, shortfalls and unfavorable actuarials don’t bite us, amounts to us paying some $700,000 over, say, thirty years.That’s no pittance but, worse yet, a citizens committee that went to City Hall raised no hackles when they showed staff calculations of three million in real actuarial benefit.

Who, then, pays the rest? The Public Employees Retirement System (PERS)  gets stuck. Is that fair? Isn’t that the very reform we all want, where one city can’t sock it to others by passing on their largesse? Is three million dollars, even if not all comes from the Antioch pot, not an inordinate sum to bet on a gamble that might attract only a handful of officers? How much is that per recruit? Brotherly love aside, won’t we all eventually get dinged with increases for a system shortfall, just like insurance payoffs aren’t free?

I, for one, begrudge no one generous retirement. If only we could wave a magic wand and let every citizen in the country eat of the fatted calf. Fact is, though, we just can’t keep printing and spending money without becoming Greece. Sound budgets and sound pension plans are not made by wands but by sharpened pencils, not made by politicians who rise and shine wanting to give things away, but by bean counters who are paid to object.

Antioch is facing a two million dollar plus deficit next year. We have tens of millions already in unfunded retirement liability. We also owe it to the State not to take advantage. This Council, which has charitable, good-intentioned people who like to please, simply has to learn the operative fiscal word of this age, no.

Walter Ruehlig, Antioch

By Barbara Zivica

Things are moving quickly at City Hall since Mayor Harper, Monica Wilson and Mary Rocha were elected in November. First an accelerated swear in date, then appointment of Tony Tiscareno, who organized precinct walks for the aforementioned (Wade, Monica and Mary). Last but not least was the decision in December to abrogate the signed September 1, 2012 contract agreement with police officers and restore the more lucrative 3% at 50 pension formula for veteran police officers and a 2.7% formula for miscellaneous employees. How generous – especially for a city whose offices are closed to the public one day a week (furlough Fridays). Let’s just hope there’s no new parcel tax proposal this year to augment the general fund.

Shortly after the New Year, Mayor Harper, who recently retired from the Tracy Police Department, decided he wanted to occupy an office at City Hall, expressed a desire for a part time volunteer secretary and stated that it was time for the city manager to undergo a performance review.

This month Council received for consideration a list of applicants for three partial term appointments to the three vacant Economic Development Commission (EDC) seats: Applying were Moses de los Reyes (Master Compliance Services LLC, former member of the Police Crime Prevention Commission), Petru “Peter” Donisanu (Macroeconomic Investment Research Analyst, AVP Wells Fargo), Kendra Ebinger, (CPR certified, 10 year teacher, assistant and acting director of child care center), Rhoda Purhams (capital programs mgr, Recreation and Parks Dept. San Francisco (2005-2010), Lamar Thorpe (Director of Development San Jose State University, campaign fundraiser for Democratic party candidates e.g. Monica Wilson), Karen Williams (Issuance & Archive Coordinator Bayer Corp in Berkeley, Parking Control Tech Oakland (1995-6), Admin. Assistant San Leandro, Medical Records Clerk – Kaiser Hayward).

Council also appointed their Standby City Council Members. (The Antioch Municipal Code provides for the selection of standby council members “in the event of a declaration of a emergency and a Council Member is unavailable due to being killed, missing or having an incapaciting injury.” ) See if you find some the appointments as illuminating as I did:

Mayor Harper: 1) Vincent Manual (Sr. district rep for Federal Glover) 2) Diane Gibson-Gray (AUSD Board Trustee) 3) Robert Miller (attorney)

Council Member Agopian: 1) Former Mayor Jim Davis (appropriate choice) 2) Manny Soliz (former council member) 3) Lonnie Karste (consultant and former city employee)
Council Member Rocha: 1) Louie Rocha (self serving) 2) Ken Gray (husband of Diane Gibson-Gray) ; 3) Jessica Fernandez

Council Member Monica Wilson: 1) Don Freitas (former mayor) 2) Lamar Thorpe (campaign fundraiser)
Council Member Tiscareno: 1) Reggie Moore (former Council member) 2) Argentina Davila-Luevano (former state director of LULAC whose endorsement of Prop. 19 (legalized marijuana) led the national organization to state that she did not have the authority to make the endorsement on behalf of LULAC). 3) Greg Feere (Contra Costa Building Trades Council director). (Councilman Tiscareno and Mary Rocha also voted against a ban on pot clubs in January.)

Fortunately, there is no compensation for Standby Council Members.

By Barbara Zivica

Under the California Constitution, as in most states, there are two basic forms of city government. The “charter city” has a degree of self-determination and executive powers. Formed by the citizens by a specific charter, they are generally independent of the legislature and have direct control over local affairs. (There are a total of 477 cities in the state, 105 are chartered.)

Antioch is a general law city. General law cities are limited by existing law in the Government Code and acts of the legislature. While all cities have a technically nonpartisan elected city council, there are two basic forms of general law cities. Seventy five percent of cities, including Antioch, have a professional administrative head e.g. city manager, city administrator, who directs day to day operations and has executive powers, while the city council sets policy by ordinances, usually generated by staff.

There are also two types of mayoral forms: 1) The strong mayor system where the mayor acts as the executive head of government. The strong mayor system is most common in charter cities such as Oakland and San Francisco. 2) The “weak mayor” system where mayors can be appointed by council or elected. These mayors serve primarily as a figurehead. They often run the council meetings, but are otherwise equal to the council members. This is the type of mayor system Antioch has which is why

I’m wondering why newly elected, newly retired Mayor Wade Harper has decided he needs to move in and occupy an office at city hall.

From the looks of it, Harper may want to “micromanage” far more than Freitas did or else he doesn’t comprehend how limited a mayor is in a General Law City like Antioch.

If you have driven by Antioch City Park, at 10^th and “A” Streets lately, on Saturday around 7:30 a.m., most likely you have noticed a group of men with heads bowed. Rain or shine, 20-40 men of various races and ethnicities, from various denominations, gather around a monument to pray for revival in our city. We are not honoring that monument but what it represents. On July 4, 1851 Antioch was given its biblical name. On the 100^th anniversary city leaders erected this plaque:

July 4, Anno Domini, 1951

This city was named 100 years ago for Antioch in Syria where the disciples of Jesus Christ were first called Christians. (Acts 11:26). Today we rededicate ourselves to Him in grateful memory of our founding fathers who envisioned a city and a world under the rule of the spirit of Christ.”

To a man, we believe our only hope for Antioch and our country for that matter, can be found in the words on that plaque. So why is “Men praying together” so vital? Recent headlines in Washington Times:

“Fathers disappear from households in America. Big increase in single mothers.”

As men we believe that strong families benefit everyone in the community. When men humble themselves before God, that is the beginning of revival. We draw on Him for our source of strength. We will not stop praying for our city. Join us.

Mike Pollard

Antioch

“I’m only going to dread one day at a time.” – Charles Schulz

Folks, this is my new philosophy for the coming year, because I live in Antioch and council decisions have had me pulling my hair out all last year and the prognosis for 2013 isn’t much better.

Council pulled an end run on December 27 at a special council meeting, just before AB340, California’s new voter approved law increasing retirement ages for new public employees (2.7% @ age 57 for Safety and 2% @ 62 for Miscellaneous) becomes effective on January 1. They did so by adopting an Urgency Ordinance for Public Peace, Health or Safety which needed to become effective by December 31, 1012.

The ordinance amended the signed September 1, 2012 contract agreement with police officers (3% at 55) and restored the more lucrative 3% at 50 pension formula for veteran police officers and a 2.7% @ 55 formula for miscellaneous employees. The ordinance required an affirmative 4/5th vote of Council to pass. The vote was 4-1 with Councilman Gary Agopian voting no.

The city’s rational for the ordinance was the need to implement a recruitment advantage in the marketplace in order to be able to recruit and retain Public Safety employees, both sworn and non-sworn. The Antioch Police Department now has 32 vacancies, with an anticipated minimum of 10 more within the next 12 months. Note, however, that the following agencies have 3% @ 55 retirement formulas: Tracy (Wade Harper’s former employer as it’s my understanding he just retired), Benicia, Brentwood, Fairfield, Hercules, Martinez, Pittsburg, San Ramon, and Walnut Creek. Frankly, I think the city’s argument doesn’t hold water.

Regrettably, no alternative options such as signing bonuses were offered as incentive alternatives. (In 2005 the City offered lateral police officers a signing bonus of $2,000, $1,000 at time of appointment, $1,000 at end of probation). Ironically, the city did hire two lateral officers in July, both of whom were prior Antioch Officers who had taken positions with a neighboring jurisdiction. Only one remains with the City, the other is returning to his prior position elsewhere. Additionally, in November the City had five candidates scheduled for interviews. All five canceled or did not show. On December 13th, two lateral officer candidates were interviewed but neither are expected to continue on in the recruitment process.

Frankly, I think it’s our high crime rate that scared them away, as well as lack of confidence in the City’s financial stability, a deciding factor for several candidates who turned down conditional offers of employment.

Watchdog by Barbara Zivica

“POLITICS: A STRIFE OF INTERESTS MASQUERADING AS A CONTEST OF PRINCIPLES.” – Ambrose Bierce.

A prime example is what occurred in 2008 and again this November 18th when a vacant seat became open on the Antioch City Council.

In 2008, when a seat opened up as a result of Jim Davis being elected Mayor, council make the decision to interview applicants for the position rather than appoint the next highest vote getter who was Arne Simonsen. After a three hour interview process with 13 applicants, the field was narrowed to four candidates – former Mayor Pro Tem and Councilman Manny Soliz, Jr., Supervisor Federal Glover’s former chief of staff Vincent Manuel, high school administrator Jason Miller and Martha Parsons, a Democrat fundraising consultant for Torlakson, DeSaulnier and Kalinowski. The council, of course, appointed Martha Parsons to fill the remaining two years of Mayor Jim Davis’ council term.

This year, Mayor Jim Davis decided not to run for re-election but for run for council instead and councilman Wade Harper decided to run for Mayor. Harper was elected Mayor and Mary Rocha was re-elected to Council, along newcomer Monica Wilson, Jim Davis coming in third, all of which resulted in a vacant council position (Harper’s council seat prior to becoming Mayor). This left council with the following options: leaving the seat vacant and letting voters decide in a future election, appoint the next highest vote getter (Davis), or solicit applications for the council vacancy, which is exactly what they did.

Applicants were asked to apply for the position by submitting a nomination paper with signatures of at least 20 but not more than 30 Antioch registered voters, write a 400 word statement of interest, and submit a Statement of Economic Interest.

Nine people applied including former Mayor Jim Davis, former Mayor Don Freitas, Soliz – again, District Representative for Supervisor Federal Glover and Antioch Planning Commissioner Vincent Manuel, attorney Robert Miller, Mental Health Advisor Debra Vinson, Chief Executive Officer of the Antioch Chamber of Commerce and chiropractor Sean Wright, bail agent Jonathan Hernandez and retired steelworker/political adviser and former Political Director for the Contra Costa Labor Council Tony Tiscareno, who was also Campaign Director for Democrat Jim Frazier during his run for State Assembly.

Guess I don’t need to tell you who council picked. Hint – his initials are T.T. (Tony, the tiger?. I guess we’ll find out).

Editor:

I avoided throwing my line off the pier for Antioch City Council appointment precisely so that I could not be blamed in post-derby comment for personal-driven sniping.

Hence, I could now easily just button the lip and get along by going along. Silent acquiescence is not my stripe, though. If the Emperor has no clothes, let’s call it.

As feared by many, this appointment was a charade. Applications, interviews and ‘whittling down’ were window dressing, my friends. The die was long cast for patronage.

In truth, I had my doubts about the wisdom of the appointment process. It’s not because the ideal is flawed; it is, in concept, a noble idea, like communism, that on paper works. Practice, though, is another kettle of fish. You see, if you don’t use an objective measure like next highest vote getter you leave yourself open to subjectivity. Likely to enter left stage, politics as usual, i.e., the buddy system, payback, and the temptation to stack the deck.

Again, in the abstract, picking someone who is the most experienced in governance, most involved in the community and most complimentary to the existing skill set of the Council is noble and conceptually doable. It’s just a darned hard assignment for most folks, human nature given what it is.

Case in point; by a 3-1 vote this Council took the subjective, lower and less enlightened road, choosing someone notable principally as a past union leader and political operative who worked aside them on many campaigns. Bless her family style, but Mr. Tiscareno also happened, from all accounts, to have grown up as a virtual third son to Mary Rocha.

Those are not “bad” things, but in doing so, though, the Council bypassed people overflowing with civic and governance accomplishment. The rejected resumes sported the likes of a Citizen of the Year, Stanford graduate with a Masters degree, past Mayors, Chief of Staff and CEO of the Chamber of Commerce.

Lost was more than experienced talent but a golden opportunity to show Council leadership, to rise above petty politics, and to do best for the City and 105,000 residents. After all, in a marriage or in a business partnership is it wise to favor a spitting image of yourself or, in fact, better to choose one complimentary, enriching and suitably challenging?

Don’t get me wrong, Tony Tiscareno seems a sincere, smart and determined chap who deserves commendation. I wish him nothing but the best. I simply bemoan favors trumping fairness and the process of like choosing like with dispassion forfeited. Yes, count me foolishly old-fashioned but isn’t public service allegedly a public, sacred trust, not tit for tat?

I already miss veteran Brian Kalinowski whom I always admired as an experienced, unvarnished, straight-shooting, unpredictably blue dog style democrat. We now have a Board with only Member Rocha having substantial Council experience. Agopian and Harper have two years each; Wilson and Tiscareno none.

Expect a highly partisan, public employee and union-dominated Council that will echo each other 4-1. Save lone wolf Agopian, where, pray tell, is a business community counter weight?

Is this Council a Solomon-like rudder for balanced, non-partisan decisions in turbulent waters? I fear not and, like legions of others, am rooting for courage. I hope my fears are baseless and am always eager to eat my hat if proven wrong.

Walter Ruehlig

Antioch