The Burlingame Voice

One Man's Viewpoint

Bruce Balshone, who is an independent contractor blogging at Examiner.com, has taken on the role of County-wide political analyst.  Here is his take on the recent election including the Burlingame results.

And the Winners Are....

 

Election Day

H and I Financings

The arrival of a Measure I postcard that is missing key information about who paid for the mailing is stirring up some questions.  Long time political watcher Bruce Balshone first broached the topic at his blog here.  And today the San Mateo Daily Journal covers the story starting with:

Excess donations to support Burlingame’s successful storm drain fee earlier this year is now funding an effort to change the city clerk to an appointed position, raising concerns for some donors — including former mayor Joe Galligan — who argue their money is supporting a measure they don’t.

Questions around the use of funds donated to Protect Burlingame, which was originally established earlier this year in support of Burlingame’s storm drain measure, resulted in the realization that volunteers had not correctly filed financial paperwork for the group. With papers filed last week, the group is now establishing itself with the state’s Fair Political Practices Commission for general purpose, meaning it can support or oppose multiple measures allowing the money to be used for more than one election.

The City Council put the storm drain measure on the ballot then handed over the campaign to volunteer Kevin Osbourne. Councilmembers supported the cause, some even gave to it.

Osbourne, co-chair of Protect Burlingame, explained the decision to use excess funds from the storm drain measure for the city clerk measure was simple.

“I felt that since the funds were raised for a ballot measure placed before the city residents by the City Council it seemed very appropriate to use the remaining funds to support measures H and I, which were also placed on the ballot by our elected officials,” he wrote in an e-mail response.

However, Galligan is arguing the public was misled.

He argued people gave simply in support of the measure, not for any other reason and now the council majority is using the funds against those individuals in a November campaign for Measure I which, if it gets a majority vote, would change the city clerk from an elected official to an appointed one.

Councilmembers asked for the public’s money and then used it against them, said Galligan, who has been actively campaigning for the clerk position to remain elected.

We will have to see what the ramifications are for each Measure.  There may be more digging to be done.

Last Newspaper Checks in for Incumbents

Today's San Mateo County Times became the last of the three local papers to issue its endorsements for Burlingame City Council under the headline:

Editorial: Re-elect Keighran, Baylock and O'Mahony to Burlingame City Council

The editorial goes on to state:

However, the three incumbents have done an excellent job guiding the city and deserve to be re-elected so they can follow through on the work they began in previous terms on the council.

A prime example is a new Safeway to replace the old one on Howard Avenue. After years of wrangling, the new grocery store is slated to open in December 2010 with a design that addresses the concerns of nearby residents and business owners.

Keighran, Baylock and O'Mahony all have good ideas on how to improve the downtown area.

So the final tally between the Daily News, Daily Post and San Mateo Times is:

Mayor Keighran -- 3

Vice Mayor Baylock -- 3

Councilwoman O'Mahony -- 2

Commissioner Brownrigg -- 1

There's more on the ballot than council candidates

City clerk should be elected and here’s why

The City Clerk should always answer to the people of Burlingame. That’s not simply a catchy phrase. It’s the truth. If the city clerk were to be appointed by the city council and the city manager then there is no doubt that they answer to them. The problem? The city clerk’s job is to be the city council watchdog. An appointed city clerk reminds me of another overused phrase—the fox guarding the hen house. We should not allow that to happen.

Some proponents of appointing the clerk say that the current qualification for city clerk is too lax for someone with such big responsibilities. Currently, by law, someone who wants to run for city clerk only needs to be 18 and a resident of Burlingame. That argument does not hold water. Those who “run” the city—the city council-- only need to meet the same minimum requirements. Why the hypocrisy?

In Burlingame’s 100 -year history we have never had a special election for the city clerk. The clerk election has always run concurrently with another election. The ballot argument says if we appoint a city clerk the city will save $32,000. This is simply untrue.

Electing a city clerk is less political than appointing one. I know that sounds counter intuitive, but think of it this way. When running for office, the candidate needs to gain support from a wide variety of people. If appointed, those appointing the clerk will most likely think that they can appoint those who think favorably of them. We have all seen commissions that are stacked with politicians’ friends. So, the argument that an elected city clerk is politically motivated is a weak one at best. I don’t want any “back room” deals being made by politicians and appointees or their friends and family. We’ve seen that happen too many times and electing a clerk is one way to stop that behavior.

One councilwoman’s argument is that many cities appoint the clerk. “After all we wouldn’t want to elect our chief of police?” she said. In many cities across the country the local sheriff and his deputies are elected, we here in California elect our judges, and we even elect officials that sit on committees like Sanitary Districts and Water Districts. By the way the qualifications to run for those offices are simply defined as well.

It’s up to the candidate to educate the voters on their qualifications for the job. It’s been that way for hundreds of years for a reason—it’s the fairest way to gain office.  Every time a council makes an appointment to a council without an election, there is always an outcry about fairness, so why then are many of our current council members screaming that an appointment in this case is okay?

The city clerk should remain elected. Vote no on Meaure I.

 

 

Open Thread: Candidates Forum Thoughts

The four City Council candidates fielded twelve questions ranging from high-speed rail and green businesses to the Broadway overpass reconfiguration, shared field access with the school districts and term limits.

The crowd was modestly sized (about 60 people) and for the most part respectful of the process.  Kudos to Tom Paine for making a suggestion about the order of the answers to each question which the League of Women Voters representative accepted.  How was the sound on television?  What were your impressions of the answers?

The follow-up debate on Measure I (Elected or Appointed City Clerk) was more lightly attended, but lively enough to keep people's attention for another half hour.

Reminder: Candidate's Forum Tuesday

The League of Women Voters will moderate this election season's Candidates' Forum on Tuesday, October 6th. This event is open to the public and will also be televised live on the local Burlingame Channel and streamed on the City's website.

The Forum will start promptly at 7:00 p.m.  Immediately following, there will be a discussion on Measure I, (shall the City Clerk position be changed from elected to appointed).

Date: Tuesday, Oct 6
Location: Burlingame City Hall, Council Chambers, 501 Primrose Road

Daily Journal Goes With the Incumbents

The San Mateo Daily Journal is the first newspaper to announce its endorsements in the Nov 3rd Council race.  The full article is here under the headline

Baylock, Keighran and O’Mahony for Burlingame City Council

You can and should read it on their website,( or the newstand version), where it concludes with the statement that:

The city may be known for its drawn-out political brawls over a variety of issues, but the recent calm approach to important issues has been a breath of fresh air. Brownrigg should be commended for his desire to further serve the city and we encourage him to stay involved in his capacity on the Planning Commission. But for now, the best choices for Burlingame are clearly the incumbents.

As an added feature, the paper has also printed the written responses to a list of questions it gave to the candidates here.

Measure I --The Straight Text

Here is the text of Measure I listed as the "Impartial Analysis from the City Attorney of the City of Burlingame" as shown at The League of Women Voters'  smartvoter website

The City Council of the City of Burlingame has placed this measure on the ballot to ask the voters of Burlingame if the position of City Clerk should be made appointive rather than elective. Persuant to California State law, the City Clerk of any general law city, such as Burlingame, is an elective office unless the voters of the city approve a measure to make the office of City Clerk an appointive position. The Burlingame City Clerk is currently an elective office with a term of four years.

There are two qualifications for the position of elected City Clerk: first, the individual must be a resident of the City, and second, the individual must be a registered voter. Some, but not all, of the City Clerk's duties include preparing, indexing, and maintaining accurate minutes of City Council meetings and all City documents and records; printing, assembling, and distributing Council agenda packets; administering municipal elections; receiving and maintaining candidate campaign forms and City officials' statements of economic interest; revising bi-annually the City's conflict of interest code; and preparing, mailing, and publishing all official notices in a timely manner.

A simple majority of those persons voting on the measure is required to approve the measure. If the measure is approved by the voters, the position of City Clerk would become an appointive office at the end of the four year term which begins in December of 2009. Stated another way, if the measure is approved by the voters, the position of City Clerk would become an appointive office effective December of 2013. If the measure is approved by the voters, the City Council would appoint the City Clerk in the same manner as the Council now appoints the City Manager and the City Attorney.

A YES vote approves the measure.

A NO vote rejects the measure.

Comments, bloggers?