The Contra Times editorial of March 10 supported a new parcel tax by the Acalanes Union High School District (AUHSD). The AUHSD Board voted on February 2 to place a $112 tax on a May 4 mail-in ballot, giving a mere 24 hours notice to the public that they were going to do that.

AUHSD got voters to approve a $189 permanent parcel tax just three months before making this new proposal. In that campaign they promised voters that, if they approved it, that measure would bring financial stability to the District. Obviously they weren’t telling the truth since they are already back for more money.

Unfortunately the Times’ editorial had several incorrect “facts” in it and omitted others.

The Times claim of “Usually, we would shout ‘enough’ and oppose the rapid-fire requests for extra taxes” rings false. The Times almost always supports any tax proposal and has recently taken the editorial stance that the state should impose new taxes on us.

The Times seems to think that if you throw more money at education you will get a better educated student. This is simply not true.

AUHSD is a claimant to high quality education. While that is true in some ways, there are glitches in this claim. In Not as Good as You Think (Pacific Research Institute), AUHSD performs poorly in State testing of college readiness — averaging only 36% proficiency in English, for example — despite having averaged only 18 students per English classroom! Compared with similar schools, Las Lomas High School’s 2008 Academic Performance Index rating (last available) was only 4 out of 10.

I don’t know where the Times got its class size numbers but they are wrong. It said, “Maximum class sizes have been significantly increased and by next year will reach 31-33 in English, world history, math and science”. This just isn’t true. Check out the state web site www.ed-data.org for the truth. In the 2008-09 school year there was a District average class size of 22 students with English at 18, Math 24, Social Science 22 and Science 25.

Do you know that class size is dictated by the union contract? Shouldn’t that be the province of the administration? Anyway, per John Stockton, AUHSD Superintendent, the newly approved union contract permits “An increase of two students per class during the next two years.” So how do we get to the Times assertion of 31-33 students per class? Who told them that? This two student increase will result in 22-24 students per class not 31-33.

There is no rationale for an average class size of 22-24 at the high school level. Some modest increases in class size (more than the two permitted by the union) could result in filling any revenue gap that may exist.

According to the Times, “teachers have agreed to five furlough days a year, effectively cutting their salaries by 2.5 percent.” What the Times doesn’t say, is that the District’s salary schedule tops out at $91,801 for a 186 day work year. While 2.5% may seem like a real sacrifice, this District’s teachers already enjoy 13% higher salaries than comparable districts.

The Times ignores the fact that District enrollment is falling and, according to AUHSD itself, enrollment will continue to decline. Doesn’t it make sense that with fewer students the District should need less money, not more?

Another fact ignored by the Times is that AUHSD already receives the highest revenue per student in the County. But they aren’t satisfied with that.

Apparently there is no shortage of money for a special election. The May 4 mail-in ballot election costs the District about twice what the cost would be if placed on the Primary Election ballot one month later.

If the Times really wanted to serve the public and encourage Measure A parcel-tax voters “to go to the polls with full notice,” the paper wouldn’t have omitted so much critical information. Sensible voters should read their ballot pamphlets carefully, and reject Measure A.

The January 11, 2010 special meeting of the Board of Trustees for the county retirement system amply illustrates the urgent need for investigative reporting by a free press. Were it not for the recent coverage of obscene public pension rip-offs by Contra Costa Times columnist Dan Borenstein, there is little doubt that today’s meeting would have never occurred. Concerned citizens and taxpayers should be grateful to have an old-fashioned investigative reporter on-the-job in Contra Costa. Say what you will about the Bay Area News Group – on this score, they’re getting the job done and deserve public accolade.

The Contra Costa County Employees’ Retirement Association, known as “CCCERA” (pronounced sear-uh), has administered pension plans for county employees and a few other local agencies since the 1940’s. Its Board of Trustees is comprised of 12 members appointed by the Board of Supervisors or elected by active or retired members of the retirement system. Given the pro-labor leanings of county government, it’s no surprise that most CCCERA Board members function as public employee union advocates – a fact that was readily apparent from today’s discussion.

As a direct consequence of recent Times reporting about inflated pension benefits paid by CCCERA to public employees resulting from pension calculation practices of questionable legality, the Retirement Board was compelled to confront an issue which, until now, had been conveniently swept under the rug. After all, CCCERA is no different from other government agencies whose universal motto of is: When faced with a problem, ignore it; in case of doubt, do nothing; if questioned, stonewall or complicate the issue. True to form, the Retirement Board refused to release public pension records until a lawsuit compelled them to do so.

Just as vampires fear sunshine, so do government-allied bureaucracies despise having their dirty little secrets in the limelight.

Predictably, today’s standing-room-only crowd was packed with county employees, retirees, union reps and union attorneys. Not surprisingly only a handful of taxpayer advocates and citizens were present – which stands to reason, since Mr. and Mrs. Joe Citizen are at work on Mondays and can’t afford the time off to hear how their tax dollars are being spent.

Today’s special meeting of the CCCERA Board was scheduled following the disclosure of legal analysis provided to the Board from its pension counsel, Harvey Liederman, following Borenstein’s relentless coverage of pension abuses in the county system. At today’s meeting Liederman offered a lengthy, informative summary of his analysis, including some real-life examples of the benefit calculation practices at issue. In addition, the CCCERA’s CEO, Marilyn Leedom, provided a brief report regarding CCCERA’s services to covered employers and their employees. Mr. Leiderman’s October 21, 2009 letter to the Board and his slides from today’s presentation are available on the CCCERA website at http://www.cccera.org/.

Today the Board heard from the usual parade of county retirees and employees who made public comment (mercifully limited to three minutes each) in defense of their pension benefits. Most were polite, a few were emotional and many, understandably, were concerned about public scrutiny of their defined benefit pension plans.

Following the comment period several Board members apologized to county retirees and employees for upsetting them by calling today’s meeting. Needless to say, there was no concern expressed for tax-weary citizens who pay the bulk of CCCERA pension contributions, but lack clout with the county’s “Unionocracy.”

It’s impossible to know what decisions, if any, the Board of Trustees will make regarding the current controversy. But there’s every indication that CCCERA risks getting sued no matter what it does. As the song says, Que Sera, Sera.

My favorite moment during the meeting was when one of the Board members mistakenly pronounced columnist Dan Borenstein’s name as “Bernstein.” Immediately flashbacks from the Watergate-era film classic “All the President’s Men” popped to mind. When I glanced over at Borenstein in the audience, I could envision him as the intense Carl Bernstein character played by Dustin Hoffman (never to be confused with the Bob Woodward character played by a dashing young Robert Redford).

It was at that moment that I realized that Contra Costa has really arrived now that it has its own “PensionGate.” All we need now is our own “Deep Throat” but I suppose Mr. Borenstein has more than one insider informant. The only truly burning question is whether Tommy Lee Jones will agree to play the part of Treasurer-Tax Collector Bill Pollacek in the coming movie. Stay tuned.

Dave Harmer (Republican)
Education- opposes government supported public education declaring that the money received was ‘not worth the strings attached’.
Social Security- opposes its structure wants privatization along the lines of a 401K fund that restricts your benefits based on what you put in,
Health Care- opposes government involvement wants a voucher like system, prefers a system of three major insurance companies dominating the national market than one government system
Environment- Sees nothing wrong with CO2 and is opposed to any efforts to curb it in the atmosphere.
Debt- decried the national debt and stimulus saying we need to stop the growth of government
Blame Game- blames the economic recession on Franks and the Federal Government.

John Garamendi (Democrat)
Education- we need to strengthen public education and the government has a role there.
Social Security- reminded the audience the reason that it came about was the failure of the banks and the private sector to provide for the mass of the people in their retirement. Had a good line on that a 401K approach would have left people with not even a 201K recently and more likely a Zero 1K retirement fund.
Health Care- made it clear that he supports a Medicare system for all and a public option
Environment- sees global warming as real and action needed. A modification of the way we operate needs to take place.
Debt-supported the stimulus as necessary
Size of Government- reminded the audience that when he was assistant Interior Secretary he reduced the size from 90,000 to 72,000.
Blame Game-put the economic mess at the foot of Bush’s financially disasterous Iraq War, tax cuts for the rich, the lack of regulation and enforcement

Mary McIlroy (Peace and Freedom)
Education- supports public education by Oil Drilling Tax and changing the commercial side of Prop 13. Basically lost the entire audience on the opening statement declaring her party as the only socialist party and talking about supporting the working class.

Jeremy Cloward (The Greens)
Suggested massive cuts in the military budget by upwards of 190 Billion Dollars to fund college and graduate school education as well as make payments on the deficit. As with the Peace and Freedom Party wants an immediate withdraw from Afghanistan.

Jerry Denham (American Independent Party)
Wants a 90% reduction in the size of the Federal Government and perpetually responded to questions that the Constitution does not provide authority for the government to get involved in Health Care, Education, Banking, Insurance etc. He ended with a final plea that we need more God in our lives. In fact it felt that the entire role of the Denham participation was to show that there was still some room to the extreme right of the Harmer positions.

There was an overlap of common ground only on the opposition to the Peripheral Canal and the request that if elected there be more forums and town hall meetings.

The audience of about 200 was clearly fitted out with a majority of the Republican Harmer supporters who resonated with his views that would be considered extreme in many other places in the district. However, Harmer’s constant theme was selling the current government as the bad guy seemed to over ride all other aspects of his platform with the audience.

The most extreme shock though for this commentator was reserved for the moderator’s closing comments. She said that in her conversation that morning with the Election Clerk for Contra Costa County, the turnout was trending towards 22% turnout much lower than the September open primary. Such a turnout plays into the extremes that tend to vote on such occasions, something that got plenty of applause in Moraga.

I saw this post about how NY Times staffers play fast and loose with the rules concerning fraternizing with sources.

This is a big problem in the tech field. In fact if analysts in the tech field were held to the same rules as financial analysts, half of them would be in jail. It’s worse with beltway and political reporters harboring agendas.

Which begs the question: Does BANG have an ethics policy concerning coziness with sources? Do they follow it?

What do you think?

They say elections have consequences. No foolin’. Lots of questions remain concerning the outcome of the CD-10 Special Election.

1. Can Senator Mark DeSaulnier’s ground game be the difference in what could still prove to be a close contest against fellow Democrat frontrunners Assemblywoman Joan Buchanan and Lt Governor John Garamendi?

2. How badly will Republican David Harmer lose to the eventual Democratic Party nominee in November?

3. Win or lose, is Joan Buchanan in the dog house with the Democratic leadership? She thumbed her nose at Assembly Speaker Karen Bass and other party leaders to wreck DeSaulnier’s chance of victory against Garamendi. Could the Dems get even and challenge her seat in AD-15 or worse—show Joan what a glass ceiling really looks like?

4. Will CD-10 even exist as it does now after a new round of amatuer hour gerrymandering after the 2010 census?

5. Everywhere I go I hear about the future Anthony Woods has in politics. What’s his next step for electoral politics? County Supervisor? Assembly? Mayor?

6. Will the unsuccessful GOP candidates rally to Harmer’s cause, or treat as they have been treated?

7. Will Tom Del Beccaro, vice chair of the California GOP and backroom bungler for Harmer’s stealth moderate campaign, parlay yet another electoral disaster into a party chairmanship?

8. Is there any doubt that the Contra Costa Times will endorse any Democrat v. Harmer?

9. How will Mark DeSaulnier handle his first ever political defeat?

10. Despite their conservative airs, how does the Nelson Rockefeller, country club statist wing of the current county GOP leadership even begin to make room for rising stars like Bunch, Clift, Loos, Toth, and Peterson?