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.

Comments

[Sam]

Heather's excellent article in Daily Journal:

http://www.smdailyjournal.com/article_preview.php?type=lnews&id=117644

[Two Cents]

I thought it was a good overview of the candidates. Kudos to Rosalie for showing up with a bad cold. Many of the candidates have strong opinions about issues and I am glad I know who stands where.

Note to Mrs. Keighran: This was not a city council meeting. It was not your place to interrupt the debate and demand that the audience be quiet. Please learn to be more tolerant of normal meeting noise.

[BeenAround]

After watching the debate I'll vote for all three incumbants.

I will also vote to keep the City Clerk elected.

Why should the qualifications be any higher for the City Clerk than they are for Council?

I also objected to Terry Nagel's assumption that the City Clerk would always be a "she." Perhaps it would have been a little more progressive of her to think the job would be available to anyone.

If the duties of the City Clerk are so "technical" as Ms. Nagel stated perhaps it would be feasible with the salary and such that it would attract all genders. It was pejorative of Ms. Nagel not to keep an open mind on that.

In regards to the candidates, I always enjoy the knowledge displayed by experience but particulary like Ms. Keighran and Ms. O'Mahony.

They both have done quite a bit in the last term.

O'Mahony revealed that she has never taken any money for healthcare from the City in any manner and paid for her own travel. She has devoted countless hours to many committees and as far as I know rarely misses a meeting.

I like her experience.

[Sam]

I agree with you about Rosalie - she has served this community well and you only have to look at her committee reports to know she is not a two-block party attendee but attends the heavy duty meetings.

I will be voting for one hardworking incumbent and one financially experienced challenger and also voting on appointing the City Clerk especially after listening to Terry Nagel's excellent argument.

[Two Cents]

Gee, Sam, who would that be? Too afraid to tell us?

[Account Deleted]

For those who missed it live, here's the video (from city's website/Granicus):

http://burlingameca.granicus.com/MediaPlayer.php?view_id=2&clip_id=65

[Sam]

Two cents - happy to tell you:

Ann Keighran and Michael Brownrigg.

Sincerely, Sam

[No Friends]

That's funny...even you must have seen the icy cold wall between those two last night.

[Mr. Slate]

I thought they were out campaigning togethere with Terry Nagle. In some cases there is ALWAYS ice.

I liked much of Mr. Brownrigg's performance but when I left, there was something bugging me. He came through as a know-it-all particularly when he kept questioning the LWV moderator about the order. He seem to be unable to move on. He reminded me of that smart kid in school that had no time for anyone else's dumb ideas. I liked him but not sure if I like how he would change the dynamics of the Council. I'll stick with the incumbents. Although......boutique hotel and movie theater???? Not sure how feasable these would be.

[Readmylips]

Ya gotta look beyond some of the answers and look at the way these candidates handled themselves under pressure. After all, that’s what their going to have to do as part of their job.

Clearly, the winners in that category would be Baylock and Omahony. Both didn’t get rattled by procedure or questions.

Reading between the lines and their body language, you can see that Keighran and Brownrigg look at life in black and white terms. Keigrhan stiff approach and Brownriggs hand on face slump are contrasting styles but ultimately communicate the same thing--the sort of ‘my way or the highway” types. That isn’t the quality I look for in a local leader.

Brownrigg’s chortling of “These guys don’t get” is harsh considering that the council relies on a great deal of input from financial experts. For Brownrigg to take a stance like that is like saying, “Hey I’m the only one on the planet that can balance the budget.” A position that seems arrogant, to be kind.

Keigrhan touted the newspapers claim that she is a “consensus builder.” That’s a stretch. She hasn’t yet demonstrated an open mind on any issue that I’ve seen…and I have been watching closely over the last several years. Next time she gives a stump speech she ought to give an example or two when she – not staff or some committee—actually did the consensus building and opened their minds to new ideas. She also seemed quite defensive and shouty in her responses. Too aggressive for my taste.

Both of these candidates need to learn the difference between assertive and pushy.

Baylock and Omahony seemed like they were willing to listen to the people they represent. Baylock even said at one point, “I can see both sides.” That isn’t wishy-washy, it’s a way to say, “Look, some answers need to come from the people rather than the council”…that’s a gutsy position to take considering you’re up there trying to convince people that you are a strong leader. I like that kind of honesty and courage.

[alittlebird]

Hey readmylips, you couldn't be more right on about Keighran. She thinks she is better than all humans on earth, and particularly those in Burlingame. She throws her weight around and acts like she is God's gift. Show me some examples! Concensus builder? Show me! Irritating? YES!

[meatloaf]

The LWV may want to enlist a new moderator. Keighran and Brownrigg stepped in to move it along, that's all. The moderator, as lovely as she is, should've done what they did. O'Mahony has the experience, and a memory of the council history and decisions like no other. I just named my votes.

[SJM]

I saw something from Michael last night that I had not seen before and it was not positive. I know something about municipal finance and he was playing loose with the debt position. Many cities got into this unfunded liability situation because of CALPers poor performance. Michael should know this as it is well known in the VC community. The debt he described was a careful financing move to change ad hoc CALPers demands into a steady payment with known costs over time. That is prudent financing. He needs to remember private equity is not like munis.

[Richard]

I think Michael's comments about the debt were misunderstood. I hope he reads this board and will respond directly, but from email exchanges I've had with him about finances, I believe he is saying that Burlingame (and many other cities) put themselves in a bad position by giving rich pension and healthcare packages to employees so that when the stock market tanked, Burlingame had to take on additional debt, which is costing us a significant amount of money.

[Richard]

I have to agree with Michael's comment about "these guys don't get it." I think he is expressing the exasperation that many of us have with our city/state/national leaders. In the last several years, we've seen rapidly increasing costs, large unfunded health liabilities, millions of dollars cut from the budget (with the prospect of more cuts next year) and a storm drain tax, yet the top 3 priorities of the incumbents were Safeway, HSR, downtown plan and making sure the storm drain money is spent correctly. None of them mentioned the budget. Yes, getting Safeway and the downtown plan brings in revenue, but governments seem to always find a way to spend any money that comes into the coffers. I agree with Michael that one of the top priorities is getting the budget right, which means getting a handle on costs and pension/healthcare liabilities.

[SJM]

Labor negotiations is even further removed from private equity than municipal finance is. If that was his real issue then he should have commented on the countywide effort to stem the labor increases. Is he for that approach or not?

[Michael Brownrigg]

Taking a break from walking and talking to voters. I appreciate the comments and criticisms here.

As an aside, one minute is a very awkward amount of time (I think all candidates would agree): it is longer than a one line answer but not long enough to really develop an argument. OK, enough excuses.

I wanted to answer two quick points. Most importantly, on finance: my concern is that it is not prudent to borrow long term money to pay for benefits; typically, debt should be taken on for productive investment because the notion is that one's greater productivity will compensate for the investment and cost of money (interest). If this were not the case, then one could argue we should just borrow $100 million and pay all of ourselves a great big bonus - why not? I agree that Burlingame was not the only city to get itself into this bind, but the decision to offer pensions that it could not afford was a decision made by the Council. And finally, when we took on this pension debt, we then obliged ourselves to paying $1 mm in interest a year; I just wanted listeners to realize that bad financial decisions have consequences -- when the Council has to debate if it has enough cash for the tree lighting or for the $3.5 million in deferred maintenance to sidewalks and streets, this is one reason why we may not have enough cash. That is what I was trying to say, and maybe I was ineloquent; would not be the first time.

Lastly, format: I have been around a long time and watched scores of debates, and I have never seen a format where the same person answered first every time. I thought the moderator just forgot; none of us candidates realized that she intended for me to go first the entire evening. I don't think it would have been fair to any of us. I am grateful to Tom Paine for just speaking up and saying what we were all thinking!

I don't expect to win converts here -- sounds like readers have made up their minds -- but hopefully I have clarified a couple of points. Back to the walking!

Best, Michael Brownrigg

[Holy Roller]

One thing that is very important to know regarding O'Mahoneys' statement about not needing to take the health benefits offered to all City Elders.
The reason she has not needed the benefits is because of her (UNION)retirement package. Being a member of the California School Teachers Union has benefited-rightfully so, the teachers of our future.
Will Brownrigg accept the "generous" heath care benefits for him and his family if elected?

[BeenAround]

I am sure something will come through as far as the tree lighting ceremony.

I don't think we should all be made to feel like poor children who are not going to have a gift under "our" tree!

Two years ago Putnam contributed to the affair. Last year it was scaled down to a Sunday. The reason it has a high cost is the safety employees who direct and control traffic are on duty past regular hours dealing with the street closure. (Overtime.)

It might be a Charlie Brown Xmas, but sometimes if that's what the economy dictates it might do us good.

So, I haven't broken out my crying towel just yet over the holiday tree lighting ceremony.

I am sure the City elders will figure something out. Afterall, tough times dictated no overtime, alternatives had to be looked at, community input was asked for.

I think it was responsible of the City elders and incumbants to seek the opinions of the community.

[Burlingamer]

Too bad that an audience member had to correct the debate format?

Why didn't the incumbents show leadership and question it?

Seems like most of have made up our minds unless there will be new "news" revealed before the election?

[Mr. Slate]

I did not like the oversimplification of the pension liability issue. He either understands it and misled the audience or he doesn't. Deceitful or ignorant?

On the format: Mr. Brownrigg seemed to get rattled. He made a scene by questioning the moderator over and over. He should have expressed is concern with the order and moved on to answer the question. It just made me wonder how he would react at a Council meeting where things didn't go as planned.

The debate made it clear that O'Mahony and Keighran have a good grasp on the issues. Baylock continues to push for some long lost Norman Rockwell vision of Burlingame instead of looking forward. I am afraid Mr. Brownrigg is just way to smart for the Council and seemed annoyed by having to put up with those of average intelligence.

At the end of the day, it is politics. It is using your power of persuation, building relationships, compromise and knowledge of the issues that makes an effective Council. We don't need another member who thinks they know better, who won't listen, and who is unable to work with others inside and out of our town.

[meatloaf]

Thank you, Mr. Brownrigg. Would like to see you with Keighran and O'Mahony

[SJM]

Michael has not responded to my two questions. In the situation we are in today, how would he fund the liabilities better than the debt that was issued? Second, does he believe that Burlingame can make substantial cuts during labor negotiations on its own or does it have to work with other cities in the county? These are very clear questions.

[alittlebird]

Mr. Slate,
Evidently you have never watched council meetings and watched both Keighran and O'Mahony lose their tempers. That gavel has provided each of them with a way to vent their frustrations, along with the fact that they seem to feel they are better than all their constituents. A grasp of the issues? Puhleaz!One has a grasp of what her parents want, and the other......

[Computer]

Alittlebird - your desperation is showing.