For those of you who think I only read and think about politics, law, finance, and economics; you're wrong. I also keep an eye on the sports section.

Right now, the Giants are in second place in the NL Western Division and the A's are buried in the cellar of the AL West Division. More importantly, my alma mater Serra High School (I graduated from Serra in 1973) is in turmoil over the hiring of a new baseball coach to replace long time Serra Baseball Coach Pete Jensen.

More than 230 former Padres have drafted a letter to the Archdiocese of San Francisco protesting Serra President Lars Lund's hiring of Craig Gianinno to replace Serra's Assistant Coach Joe Kmak.

As I see it, my fellow Padres who signed this letter expressing their disappointment at the selection of Gianinno over Kmak, are on the right side of this argument.

In his Daily Journal article titled, A new era at Serra? [that rhymes], reporter Emanuel Lee wrrote (in part):

“Take out the names and let’s compare the two,” McKercher said. “Candidate A (Kmak) is a teacher here and candidate B is a instructor at “Rhythms and Moves” in Burlingame. One guy is a former Padre and one guy went to Sacred Heart (Cathedral). Candidate A played at U.C. Santa Barbara, candidate B played at San Francisco State, which is a little bit better than a high school program. Candidate A played in the Major Leagues with three different teams, candidate B never sniffed the minor leagues.

“Candidate A has been the pitching coach at Serra the last 10 years, and candidate B the (Serra) administration said was an assistant coach at CSM, of which we can’t find record of. Candidate B also was an assistant coach at Burlingame — again, not exactly a powerhouse program. Anyone can win (a Central Coast Section championship) in a lower division (something Burlingame did in 2004 in Division II). Craig Gianinno is not taking over Burlingame. He’s taking over Serra in the WCAL, and these teams will eat him alive. We’re just looking to get the best qualified candidates, and just look on paper and you’ll see Candidate A is more qualified than candidate B. Anyone who tells me different shouldn’t be evaluating baseball talent.”

Joe Kmak is a Serra sports legend [member of the Serra Hall of Fame] who played Major League Baseball for 14 seasons and has coached baseball at Serra for six years. On the other hand, the guy that Lund chose to replace Pete Jensen as Serra's Baseball Coach has never coached at Serra, graduated from Sacred Heart Cathedral High School in San Francisco, has a baseball career that ended in college, and is a "supervisor" at Rhythms and Moves in Burlingame.

Hmmmm, let's see, who is better qualified to be Serra's Baseball Coach? Kmak, a Serra sports legend, 14 season professional baseball player, and Serra's Assistant Baseball Coach for 6 years or Gianinno, a former college baseball player who works at Rhythms and Moves in Burlingame?

No matter how much Lund wants to dance around the issue, Joe Kmak is the best qualified candidate to Coach Serra's Baseball team. Kmak has the most impressive and complete resume for a Serra Baseball Coach that a person can have; professional baseball player for 14 years, former Padre, former member of the Padre Baseball Team, Padre Hall of Famer, and 6 years experience as Serra's Assistant Baseball Coach.

While it is true that Serra High School has one of the premier sports programs in the nation, it is also true that Serra has excellent academic programs that prepare its graduates for the top universities in the world. Serra will only continue to have a premier sports program and be able to maintain its high academic standards if it continues to hire the best coaches for its sports programs and the best teachers for its academic programs. In this case, there was clearly an error and the better qualified person was not hired. This mistake needs to be corrected.

As Serra graduates we all share in the rich tradition and common experience that is part of being a Padre. No matter where we go or what else we may accomplish in life, we are always Padres and whether we admit it or not, we are all bound to each other by the common experience and tradition we experience for many years. It would be a serious mistake for Mr. Lund to underestimate the depth and degree of problems he is creating in the Serra Community by invoking the ire of hundreds of Serra graduates. The blatant unfairness inherent in this decision to hire the significantly lesser qualified candidate for this job is exacerbated by the fact that the person being treated unfairly and with total disrespect is himself a Serra graduate.

When clearly anomolous situations like this occur; somebody in a position of power, in this case Serra High School President Lars Lund, has a hidden agenda. I would suggest that my fellow Padres, who are addressing this grossly unfair situation, do what they can do to find out what Mr. Lund's agenda is so everybody can get a real clear picture about what is really going on here. In my opinion, there is something real wrong with this picture.
  ]]> http://www.sanbrunobeacon.com/2009/07/lets_take_a_break_from_politic.html http://www.sanbrunobeacon.com/2009/07/lets_take_a_break_from_politic.html Fri, 10 Jul 2009 22:08:24 +0000 By Bill Baker, J.D.
Editor and Publisher, The San Bruno Beacon

San Mateo County's taxpayers cannot afford to have a Chief Deputy District Attorney, like Wagstaffe, whose judgment is so bad and actions are so reckless that an admitted murderer is given the opportunity to be set free because Wagstaffe engaged in "purposeful discrimination" against African American jurors during the murder trial. Now taxpayers are left on the hook paying hundreds of thousands or millions of dollars to clean up the mess resulting from the Chief Deputy District Attorney's horribly bad judgment and reckless tendencies. For this reason, San Mateo County Chief Deputy District Attorney Wagstaffe needs to resign now.

In the murder case that is the subject of the successful appeal by Mr. Ali, the admitted murderer, Wagstaffe thumbed his nose at the Civil Rights Movement; raised the menacing spectre of Jim Crow; and with his "purposeful discrimination" against 2 African-American jurors, sent the clear message that the fight against segregation and racism in San Mateo County is far from over. For this reason, San Mateo County Chief Deputy District Attorney Wagstaffe needs to resign now.

As the old saying goes, "Where there is smoke, there is fire".

San Mateo County Chief Deputy District Attorney Wagstaffe and his boss, the retiring San Mateo County District Attorney Jim Fox, are already giving wealthy, politically connected San Bruno Mayor Larry Franzella a free pass on multiple, perjured Statements of Economic Interest (SEIs), signed in San Mateo County and filed with the States of California, by refusing to prosecute Mr. Franzella. This matter was reported in the Beacon on December 4, 2008, June 17, 2009, June 20, 2009.

Now, San Mateo County Chief Deputy District Attorney Wagstaffe just handed the admitted killer of former Oakland Raiders Hall of Fame wide receiver Fred Biletnikoff's daughter Tracey a get out of jail free card. As reported in the July 8, 2009 edition of The Daily News, "In a unanimous decision, [U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals] Judge Marsha Berzon wrote that Wagstaffe provided "implausible” reasons for dismissing the [African American] jurors, and that there was “overwhelming evidence” he “acted with discriminatory intent. As a result, the court found that Ali should get a new trial".

In this case, Ali v. HIckman, the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit issued a ruling with directions to issue a conditional writ of habeas corpus requiring that admitted killer Mohammed Haroon Ali be released from custody. The Court found that San Mateo County Chief Deputy District Attorney Wagstaffe acted with "discriminatory intent" when he struck the only two African-American jurors from the jury pool. The Court also observed that both the California Court of Appeal and the District Court clearly erred when they found that Ali failed to establish purposeful discrimination.

Now, because of Mr. Wagstaffe's outrageous and just plain stupid race based discriminatory conduct in this case, the State of California will have to spend hundreds of thousands or millions of taxpayer dollars retrying Mr. Ali. If the State chooses not to retry Mr. Ali, he will be set free.

Based on what happened here, you could say that San Mateo County Chief Deputy District Attorney Wagstaffe is the best friend that this admitted killer ever had.

San Mateo County's taxpayers cannot afford to have a Chief Deputy District Attorney, like Wagstaffe, whose judgment is so bad and actions are so reckless that an admitted murderer is given the opportunity to be set free because Wagstaffe engaged in "purposeful discrimination" against African American jurors during the murder trial. Now taxpayers are left on the hook paying hundreds of thousands or millions of dollars to clean up the mess resulting from the Chief Deputy District Attorney's horribly bad judgment and reckless tendencies. For this reason, San Mateo County Chief Deputy District Attorney Wagstaffe needs to resign now.

When I looked at my calendar, I noticed that it was 2009. After reading the Ali v. Hickman decision, I couldn't believe that we had a Chief Deputy District Attorney, in San Mateo County, who appears to act like he is living in some 1950s or 1960's Alabama hell hole where Jim Crow ruled the roost and segregation restricted the civil rights of African Americans.

San Mateo County Chief District Attorney Wagstaffe's purposeful and intentional discriminatory conduct in this case, that resulted in the only 2 African American jurors not being allowed to serve on the jury, brings back images of Alabama Governor George Wallace standing in the schoolhouse door to stop the integration of African American children into white only schools in Alabama.

From a legal, moral, and just plain old common sense standpoint; thought should be given to having an outside investigative law enforcement agency conduct an in-depth investigation into the San Mateo County District Attorney's Office. An investigation to determine how many members of the African American, Mexican-Latino American, and other minority communities in San Mateo County may have been wrongly and/or maliciously prosecuted by Chief Deputy District Attorney Wagstaffe as a byproduct of same type of purposeful and intentional discriminatory conduct he openly exhibited in this case?

Does San Mateo County Chief Deputy District Attorney Wagstaffe get paid by San Mateo County's taxpayers to act with discriminatory intent and purposeful discrimination against the County's African American residents? Is this the type of person we want prosecuting crimes in San Mateo County? I think the answers to these questions are "no" and "no".

In my opinion, Wagstaffe is a legal train wreck inflicting himself at great expense on the people of San Mateo County. Wagstaffe really needs to resign now.

For your consideration: Does the California Bar Association have any rules about it's Members engaging in openly racist activity? I'm pretty sure that Members of the California Bar Association are not supposed to engage in racist activity in carrying out their duties as an attorney. Can San Mateo County Chief Deputy District Attorney Wagstaffe be disbarred for acting with discriminatory intent when he improperly excluded two African American jurors for racially motivated reasons? Who is going to file the complaint with the California Bar Association against Wagstaffe?

San Mateo County District Attorney (DA) Jim Fox and his sidekick, Chief Deputy District Attorney (CDDA) Wagstaffe [who thinks he is going to be replacing Fox as DA when Fox retires soon (not soon enough)], are running what appears to be a dysfunctional DAs Office. A public office infected with what in my opinion is the type of cancerous political cronyism that breeds corruption in government combined with the type of viral institutionalization and practice of racism that has resulted in the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals reversing an admitted killer's conviction because" there was “overwhelming evidence” he [Wagstaffe]“ acted with discriminatory intent.

As I said in my June 20th article about Messrs. Fox and Wagstaffe's refusal to prosecute San Bruno Mayor Franzella for the documented perjury he committed, "We can no longer let this injustice stand. It is time for everybody to rise up against this type of political cronyism, that breeds corruption in government, and act. There is no substitute for honesty and integrity in government."

It is time for both Fox and his sidekick Wagstaffe to resign so San Mateo can find a new DA and Chief Deputy DA who do not act with racially discriminatory intent and hand out free passes to admitted killers. It is also time for both Fox and Wagstaffe to resign so San Mateo can find a new DA and Chief Deputy DA who do not hand out free passes to politically powerful/wealthy, well connected politicians and other VIPs like Mr. Franzella, who can commit multiple documented counts of perjury in San Mateo County knowing that Fox and Wagstaffe will not prosecute them because Fox and his sidekick Wagstaffe appear to protect their wealthy, well connected friends.

IS SAN MATEO COUNTY CHIEF DEPUTY DISTRICT ATTORNEY WAGSTAFFE A RACIST?

As I see it, the role of the Beacon is to raise this question and let the Beacon's readers determine, based upon the facts, whether or not Wagstaffe is a racist. If I were to say Wagstaffe is or Wagstaffe isn't a racist, I would be unfairly front loading your decision about this matter. It is not up to me alone to determine this question and take the necessary and appropriate action if the answer is yes.

Wagstaffe holds the prosecutorial reigns of power in San Mateo County and wants to become San Mateo County's next District Attorney when the current DA Jim Fox retires in the very near future. So it is important, based upon what happened in this case, for each of us to make a determination on this matter.

In the case of Ali v. HIckman, there was “overwhelming evidence” that Wagstaffe “acted with discriminatory intent" in excluding two black jurors from the jury. As a matter of fact, Wagstaffe's discriminatory intent was so strong that it resulted in the reversal of the conviction of the admitted killer he was prosecuting. The 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, in their decision reversing an admitted killer's conviction, stated that "there was “overwhelming evidence” he [Wagstaffe] acted with discriminatory intent when he dismissed the only two African American jurors in the jury pool for this case.

Even if we give Wagstaffe the benefit of the doubt, and assume he is not a racist; at the very least, in this case, his reckless actions were unprincipled; showed an absence of legal judgment; and were an insult to the African American community.

In this case, Wagstaffe thumbed his nose at the Civil Rights Movement; raised the menacing spectre of Jim Crow; and with his "purposeful discrimination" against 2 African-American jurors, sent the clear message that the fight against segregation and racism in San Mateo County is far from over. For this reason, San Mateo County Chief Deputy District Attorney Wagstaffe needs to resign now.
 ]]> http://www.sanbrunobeacon.com/2009/07/is_san_mateo_county_chief_depu_1.html http://www.sanbrunobeacon.com/2009/07/is_san_mateo_county_chief_depu_1.html Fri, 10 Jul 2009 06:42:33 +0000 By Bill Baker, J.D.
Editor and Publisher, The San Bruno Beacon

One of my favorite quotes is, "I'm not as concerned about the return on my money as I am the return of my money". This cautionary quote is especially applicable when it comes to investors buying or remaining invested in California's borderline junk debt General Obligation (GO) Bonds.

In my opinion, as things stand now, if you directly or indirectly own California General Obligation (GO) Bonds sell. If you don't have exposure to these bonds, don't buy.

Yesterday, the analysts at FitchRatings cut California's long-term general-obligation bond ranking two notches to triple-B. This downgrade puts California bonds at the very bottom of the "investment grade" rating ladder and just one notch above the junk debt category.

It won't be long before Moody's and Standard & Poors step in and downgrade California's Bonds to junk or near junk debt.

According to a July 8th Wall Street Journal article titled, California Debt Tempts Bargain Hunters, "On Tuesday, a California 4.5% tax-exempt bond maturing in 2036 traded at a 6.31% tax-free yield to maturity". These "bargain hunters" may soon become "bagholders" when interest rates jump and all of the bond rating agencies reduce California's bond ratings to the junk or near junk category.

The 6.31% tax-free yield, while attractive, is not nearly high enough to compensate for the very high interest rate and credit risks California's debt obligations carry that could result in California GO bonds being worth pennies on the dollar.

Let's discuss the interest rate risk built into California GO bonds. When an investor buys a California GO Bond, the amount that they invest in the bond before it matures, is subject to market fluctuations. Until the bond matures, there is no guarantee that the investor will be able to sell the bond for the same amount they paid for it. Prior to maturity, the bond investor's only recourse, if they want their money back, is to sell the debt instrument in the secondary market. So, if the investor has a bond that matures in 2030, they will not be guaranteed to receive the bond's par value ($1,000) until 2030. Therefore, if they need to cash in the bond before maturity, they have to take your chances in the secondary market and sell the bond for whatever the prevailing market bid price on that bond is.

The reason why, even with a 6.31% yield, California GO Bonds are an unacceptable risk is that as interest rates move up, the principal value of the bond goes down to adjust the return for the higher interest rate environment. So, if you buy a 30 year California GO Bond for $1,000 and interest rates move up, that bond will go down in value. If you need your money before the 30 maturity date, your only recourse will be to take a loss in the secondary market. On the other hand, if interest rates go down, your bond will increase in value and you can sell it for a profit in the secondary market. Unfortunately, interest rates are already very low and are more likely to go up than down.

In addition to the the strong possibility of California GO Bonds losing value as a result of California's bond debt almost certainly being reduced to junk or near junk status by all of the bond rating agencies, there is a very high probability that the pre-maturity principal amount of any California GO Bond you buy will take a big hit as interest rates move up.

Let's discuss the very high credit risk associated with California GO Bonds. The State of California is buried in debt. Absent a General Motors style Federal bailout, the State of California is headed for bankruptcy. However, long before California's bankruptcy attorneys take that long walk up the stairs to the Federal Bankruptcy Court to file their papers, the bond rating services mentioned earlier in this article will have reduced California's Bond debt down the ratings ladder to"junk status" and finally, as California files bankruptcy, to "D", default status.

During California's long, painful march into default or near default, the principal value of California's GO Bonds will plummet. So, a hypothetical California GO Bond trading at 98 ($980/$1000 face value) could plummet to 50, 40, 30, 20, 10, or lower. As the bond prices plummet, the yield on the bonds will skyrocket to 20%, 30%, 40%, 50% to adjust for the growing risk of default or near default. Not unlike what happened with General Motors, Citibank, FreddieMac, etc.; somewhere after California's bonds fall into the "junk" category, the traders will be making quick profitable California Bond trades as they play on the day to day ups and downs of California's descent into the world of default.

And what about all those investors who hold California GO Bonds directly, in mutual funds, ETFs, etc.? Well, they become blued, screwed, and tattooed bagholders who join the ranks of other burned investors like those who invested in the Enron bonds; or held onto Bear Stearns or Lehman Brothers stock and bonds as these companies plummeted and vanished, or [fill in the name of other companies that have gone bankrupt or out of existence]..................................

For disclosure purposes, I do not hold any California General Obligation (GO) Bonds. I am also not short any closed end municipal bond funds that have exposure to California GO Bonds.

That being said, if you either directly or indirectly have any investment in California GO Bonds, you should minimize or eliminate your exposure to this debt. And if you are thinking about investing directly or indirectly in California GO Bonds; don't. The risk is too high and the reward is too low.
 ]]> http://www.sanbrunobeacon.com/2009/07/californias_bond_rating_headed.html http://www.sanbrunobeacon.com/2009/07/californias_bond_rating_headed.html Tue, 07 Jul 2009 19:22:10 +0000 By Bill Baker, J.D.
Editor and Publisher, The San Bruno Beacon

As reported in the June 25th San Francisco Business Times story titled, California will issue IOUs starting next week, the State of California is preparing to issue IOUs to its creditors, starting on July 2, because the State has no cash reserves.

California's State Government, and many of the municipal entities within the State, are knotted balls of bureaucratic inefficiency plagued with: the same type of cancerous unionism that infected and destroyed the U.S. auto, steel, and textile industries; political cronyism; in my opinion, deeply embedded corruption; and almost every other form of organizational sickness that governmental entities can have.

California's Budget Deficit, and the potential financial collapse of the State Government, is just one symptom of a governmental organization on the verge of financial collapse brought about by the policies of the dysfunctional people in control of the organization.

California has a projected $24 billion budget deficit for the next fiscal year. This deficit can only be overcome by reducing the cost of operating California's State Government. Since most of the cost of running the State Government comes from personnel related expenses, the State must cut State government jobs and benefits, while finding a way to eliminate the CalPERS State retirement system liabilities that are burying the State in debt.

In a Beacon May 13, 2009 article titled, TIME FOR THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA TO PRESS THE RESET BUTTON BY FILING FOR BANKRUPTCY, I wrote:

The State of California needs to dramatically shrink the size of State Government; cut State employees salaries, benefits, and perks; reduce all State taxes and fees; and file bankruptcy to get out from under the debt and debt service it is drowning in. Bottom line, the State of California needs to press the "reset" button by filing bankruptcy.

Bankruptcy will allow California's State Government to reduce or even eliminate it's debt and the interest it pays on that debt; dramatically reduce the number of State Employees and the size of the State government bureaucracy; allow restructuring of pension payments and benefits to government retirees; and undo the destructive, divisive, counterproductive stranglehold that government employee unions have on the State government. Finally, the reduced cost of government brought about by bankruptcy will allow California's State government to dramatically reduce or eliminate the State income and sales taxes as well as many of the other outrageous fees charged by the State.

....................The State of California is the government version of General Motors (GM). Financially, the State of California is a walking corpse having its bones picked at by the unions, politicians, and other special interest groups who cannot understand that their collective actions have put us where we are today and are hastening the State's financial collapse.

....................California's Legislators are milking the corpse of a financially dead State Government that is so deeply in debt, financial collapse is waiting just around the proverbial corner. The unions will always demand higher wages, more jobs, and taxpayer sponsorship of their troubled pension plans whose failed, political driven investment tactics have made these pension plans the laughing stock of the investment world.

Aside from the fact that California is already out of money and, no pun intended, is living on borrowed time; higher State sales taxes, fees, and other government schemes for milking more money out of California's taxpayers are going to reduce consumer spending and force more companies (that haven't already done so) to relocate to tax friendly locations out of California..................."

In the Beacon June 24, 2009 article titled, CalPERS RETIREMENT SYSTEM NEEDS TO BE TAKEN OVER BY THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT AND DISSOLVED TO HELP SAVE THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA, I wrote:

"Higher taxes, higher rates and fees on government services, reduced class sizes, fewer cops and fireman are all the result of, what in my opinion is, an out of control, money losing CalPERS system that is helping bankrupt the State of California to support these types of rich CalPERS retirement plans.

....................California's taxpayers can no longer afford to support CalPERS and provide unlimited funding to cover their investment losses. If CalPERS loses money, tough luck. Let CalPERS and their members eat the losses. When you take big investment risks, like CalPERS has been taking, you either get big returns or big losses. If you live by the investment sword; you should always be prepared to die by that sword. That's how adults play the investment game. So, when it comes to covering CalPERS' investment losses, it is time to take CalPERS out of the kiddie pool where the kiddies get forgiven for their mistakes and put them into the ocean where you live or die based upon your skill. CalPERS should not be a taxpayer supported welfare agency for rich people.

....................If CalPERS' income and member contributions cannot support the benefits it is paying out; the benefits must be reduced. California's taxpayers should not be on the hook to fund any unfunded portion of CalPERS retirement plans and it should be illegal for CalPERS to receive any funding above and beyond the funding it receives from initial member and employer contributions. If CalPERS cannot fund it's member's retirement plans it should be taken over by the Federal Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation."

From a governance standpoint, perhaps the greatest problem we have, that is resulting in the economic catastrophes we are witnessing, is that voters keep electing the same political hacks with the same failed policies over, and over, and over again and advancing these destructive hacks to higher political office where they can do even more damage on a larger scale. You will never get different results from these people who have left a path of failure and destruction in their wake. These self serving hacks do whatever is politically expedient to advance their political careers regardless of who is harmed or how much damage they have to inflict in order to achieve their personal goals.

Locally, the poster children for this type of destructive political behavior is Congresswoman Jackie Speier. When it comes to leaving a path of failure in her wake and disassociating herself with the destruction, Speier is a master. You can expect more of the same type of behavior from her as we sink even deeper into economic quicksand.

Jackie Speier is one of those cunning, yet dangerously inept public officials that I often make reference to when talking about how screwed up our government is. She helped get California into the financial mess it is now in when she was in the State Senate Assembly and Senate, and now she is in Washington screwing things up.

An example of Speier's lack of common sense and command of the details, beyond the sleazy retail political arena, is how she approached lowering the high price of gasoline when it was selling for more than $4 per barrel.

Congresswoman Jackie Speier was telling us we had to drive slower to reduce the cost of oil and gas. That was Speier's brilliant solution to lowering the price of oil and gas. That simple minded solution didn't work in the 1970s and it wasn't going to work in the 2000s. Anybody with a basic understanding of oil markets would have had the common sense to know that international oil consumption was driving demand and prices. There was nothing driving slower in the United States would do to stop the voracious oil appetites of China, India, and other emerging economies.

Ms. Speier is a Hillsborough socialite with a rich person's agenda. Namely, hide behind the Democrat brand to make middle and lower income folks think you are working for them so you can get elected to office and make sure your rich socialite pals reap big rewards while throwing bones to everyone else.

Speier is an elitist and a political opportunist who lacks the integrity and common sense necessary to make considered, intelligent decisions in the best interests of her constituency.

Crowd pleasing political hacks like Speier, with their "all sizzle and no steak" style of politics, are leading us down the road to total economic collapse.

We will continue to invite failure and economic chaos as long as we keep electing the same people to solve the problems they created because these people will always have the same failed solutions.

More taxes, more unionism, more government control, and more political cronyism will finish off what is left of the California State Government's financial infrastructure, and eventually the ability of the U.S. Government to meet it's financial obligations.

If California and the United States are not already past the point of no return with respect to the issue of financial collapse, we are dangerously close to that point. If, at the local, State, and national levels, we continue to elect people to political office who have little more to offer than an empty smile, empty rhetoric, and an empty head, we will fall into the ranks of third world nations with almost every American struggling to survive above the poverty level. If you want a preview of this bleak future you need look no further than the ruins of Detroit.
 ]]> http://www.sanbrunobeacon.com/2009/06/california_on_the_verge_of_iss.html http://www.sanbrunobeacon.com/2009/06/california_on_the_verge_of_iss.html Tue, 30 Jun 2009 07:23:10 +0000 By Bill Baker, J.D.
Editor and Publisher, The San Bruno Beacon

If you read the May 21, 2009 Beacon article titled, LIVES AND SAFETY OF SAN BRUNO'S RESIDENTS BEING PUT AT RISK BY SAN BRUNO CITY COUNCIL AND MANAGER, you already know that with San Bruno's current City Council and their City Manager in office, San Bruno is becoming a more dangerous place to live in. So I won't revisit the obvious problems we have with San Bruno's City Council and their City Manager.

However, if you read the Examiner story titled, Teenager stabbed at San Bruno City Park you will see that things are starting to change in San Bruno as the City starts to be viewed as an "easy mark" by those looking for a safe haven to commit their crimes.

The current regime that has our City government in a stranglehold; has no problem having a dangerously small skeleton crew of patrol officers patrolling San Bruno's streets while a disproportionately large number of high ranking paper pushers, heading into retirement, sit around Police Plaza sipping on their coffee lattes, announcing the latest crimes committed in San Bruno, collecting fat paychecks, waiting for their megabucks taxpayer supported CalPERS pensions to kick in. These people are good folks who just happen to have cushy administrative jobs at a time when we cannot afford their services because there are so few San Bruno Police Officers patrolling the streets protecting the people who live and work in San Bruno and their property.

This numbskull style of manpower allocation puts the lives and safety of San Bruno's patrol officers, San Bruno's residents and their property at great risk.

In my opinion, the current regime in control of San Bruno's City government appears to be more concerned about gaming the system to produce maximum salaries, benefits, and retirement payouts for them and their cronies then they are about protecting the lives, safety, and property of San Bruno's residents. San Bruno's City Manager and her top management minions have their relationship with the people they are hired to serve, namely San Bruno's residents and businesses, bassakwards.

They play, everybody else in San Bruno pays.
 ]]> http://www.sanbrunobeacon.com/2009/06/san_bruno_bruno_needs_more_cop.html http://www.sanbrunobeacon.com/2009/06/san_bruno_bruno_needs_more_cop.html Mon, 29 Jun 2009 09:53:05 +0000 By Bill Baker, J.D.
Editor and Publisher, The San Bruno Beacon

Here are some former City of San Bruno employees who, according to the California Foundation for Fiscal Responsibility site, are members of the $100,000+ tier of the taxpayer supported CalPERS retirement plan retiree club in San Bruno. Here's the CalPERS retirement income they receive each month:

FRANK HEDLEY $15,613.24/month; $187,358.88/year SAN BRUNO. LEE VIOLETT $12,823.42/month; $153,881.04/year
SAN BRUNO. DANIEL VOREYER $11,469.95/month; $137,639.40/year
SAN BRUNO. WILLIAM GRAHAM $11,049.68/month; $132,596.16/year
SAN BRUNO. THERESE JACKSON $10,220.04/mo; $122,640.48/yr.
SAN BRUNO. RUSS NICOLOPULOS $9,358.63/mo; $112,303.56/yr
SAN BRUNO. RICHARD WATSON $9,076.89/month; $108,922.68/year
SAN BRUNO. DAVID THOMAS $8,857.17/month; $106,286.04/year
SAN BRUNO. PATRICK SWEENEY $8,644.03/year; $103,728.36/year
SAN BRUNO. DENNIS FIELD $8,547.25/year $102,567.00/year
SAN BRUNO. ROBERT ZERMANI $8,399.75/month; $100,797.00/year
SAN BRUNO. JOE SCHAUKOWITCH $8,387.64/mo.; $100,651.68/yr
SAN BRUNO.

Congratulations on your collective retirements ;-)

Higher taxes, higher rates and fees on government services, reduced class sizes, fewer cops and fireman are all the result of, what in my opinion is, an out of control, money losing CalPERS system that is helping bankrupt the State of California to support these types of rich CalPERS retirement plans.

The California Public Employees' Retirement System (CalPERS) is one of the main contributors to California's fiscal crisis. The State of California should seriously consider turning the CalPERS system over to the Federal Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation so that the benefits of CalPERS retirees can be brought into the realm of financial reality to reflect CalPERS dismal investment performance and stop the financial bleeding that is leading California down the road to bankruptcy.

CalPERS has been losing a lot of money. As of December 2008, CalPERS managed the largest public pension fund in the United States with $179.2 billion in assets; however, that represented a 31% decrease from the peak value of its assets of $260.6 billion in October 2007. If your calculator is broken, that means CalPERS lost $81.4 billion of it's Member's money in a year. That's dismal.

If you or I lose money in our 401K it's tough luck. If CalPERS loses money as a result of their amateurish investment practices, it's also our tough luck because CalPERS expects California's taxpayer's to subsidize their member's rich monthly retirement paychecks and medical expenses by forcing cities and other State government entities to make higher contributions to CalPERS to make up for the CalPERS losses. As a matter of fact, many cities in California have actually floated bond measures to cover the obligations they have to CalPERS but cannot meet.

The abusive, antiquated, politics ridden CalPERS system is destroying the State of California by burying the State in debt to pay for CalPERS retirees who, instead of getting less monthly retirement income and reduced health benefits as a result of the CalPERS losses, are being subsidized by California's taxpayers. This has resulted in significantly higher government expenses. This CalPERS disaster has resulted in California's public school district being unable to reduce class sizes, buy books, and other educational materials for the children. The CalPERS losses have resulted in fire departments and police departments across the State of California being unable to staff their departments as a result of taxpayer money being sucked up to pay CalPERS retirees their big retirement checks.

The California Foundation for Fiscal Responsibility has been fighting to force the release of pension data showing how much money some of these former California based local, State municipal employees are receiving in CalPERS benefits. Check their online database at:

http://www.californiapensionreform.com/calpers/

to take a look at some of the retirement checks these CalPERS lottery winners are getting; paid for by reduced educational opportunities for California's children, less fire and police protection; and higher State and local taxes, rates, and fees.

Earlier this year, Congress went on the warpath when a group of AIG employees received huge bonus checks. Members of Congress suggested that the people receiving AIG bonus checks be taxed at 90%+ because they would not have received the huge bonuses if AIG had not received taxpayer bailout money.

Until things get so bad that the Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation takes over CalPERS; I would suggest that the interim fix to the CalPERS created economic problems for the State would be to allocate all of CalPERS losses among all CalPERS retirees, taxing their past and future benefits, on a proportional basis, to reflect the CalPERS losses and the impact of those losses on the income and benefits received by CalPERS retirees. This way, CalPERS retirees could help the State economy by feeling the same degree of economic pain that everybody else feels who does not have the State of California's taxpayers bailing out their 401K plans when they lose money.

California's taxpayers can no longer afford to support CalPERS and provide unlimited funding to cover their investment losses. If CalPERS loses money, tough luck. Let CalPERS and their members eat the losses. When you take big investment risks, like CalPERS has been taking, you either get big returns or big losses. If you live by the investment sword; you should always be prepared to die by that sword. That's how adults play the investment game. So, when it comes to covering CalPERS' investment losses, it is time to take CalPERS out of the kiddie pool where the kiddies get forgiven for their mistakes and put them into the ocean where you live or die based upon your skill. CalPERS should not be a taxpayer supported welfare agency for rich people.

If CalPERS' income and member contributions cannot support the benefits it is paying out; the benefits must be reduced. California's taxpayers should not be on the hook to fund any unfunded portion of CalPERS retirement plans and it should be illegal for CalPERS to receive any funding above and beyond the funding it receives from initial member and employer contributions. If CalPERS cannot fund it's member's retirement plans it should be taken over by the Federal Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation.

Otherwise, CalPERS risks becoming a massive Ponzi scheme with California's taxpayers as it's targets.
 ]]> http://www.sanbrunobeacon.com/2009/06/abusive_public_employee_pensio.html http://www.sanbrunobeacon.com/2009/06/abusive_public_employee_pensio.html Wed, 24 Jun 2009 14:04:13 +0000 By Bill Baker, J.D.
Editor and Publisher, The San Bruno Beacon

On May 21, 2009, I wrote a Beacon article titled, LIVES AND SAFETY OF SAN BRUNO'S RESIDENTS BEING PUT AT RISK BY SAN BRUNO CITY COUNCIL AND MANAGER. In this article, I wrote:

"It is only a matter of time before one or more San Bruno residents is/are killed or seriously injured as a direct result of the rank and file manpower shortages in San Bruno's Police and Fire Departments."

My statement, in the previous paragraph, was confirmed in writing in a recent letter circulated by the San Bruno Professional Firefighters Association that stated:

"Using Firefighters per population, Square miles per Station, Fire Budget Per capita, San Bruno Fire is the lowest funded department of our neighbors. As an example, our Fire Budget Per Capita is $166, compared to $274 for South San Francisco, $543 for Hillsborough, $199 for Millbrae and $305 for Burlingame."

Unlike the San Bruno City Council and their cronies, numbers don't lie. The letter from San Bruno's Firefighters needs to be taken seriously or people will be seriously injured or die. San Bruno's Firefighters know more about firefighting and emergency rescue than you, me, the City Council, San Bruno's City Manager, and literally anybody else you could think of. San Bruno's City Council and Manager don't care, because they are the ones who have, for the past 6-10 years, destroyed San Bruno's financial and public safety infrastructures with their bad, grossly negligent decisions.

The firefighters are brave men and women but one has to ask why, in the past, have they supported the incompetent hacks on this Council when these very same firefighters knew that these Counilmembers were putting the lives and safety of their firefighting colleagues and the people of San Bruno at risk? It is the failure of the political system, in San Bruno, to purge itself of the current Councilmembers, their City Manager, and Treasurer that has resulted in this safety tragedy that will, sooner or later, result in death and serious injury. In the future, San Bruno's rank and file firefighters and police need to take a closer look at who they support for City Council.

In my opinion, these rank and file manpower shortages are a direct result of the horrific, grossly incompetent day to day management of San Bruno by San Bruno's City Manager (appointed by this Council) and the massive financial losses incurred as a result of the disastrous financial decisions made by San Bruno's CIty Council, Treasurer, and Manager. Manpower shortages are also a direct result of the failure by San Bruno's City Council and Manager to cut the rich upper management jobs and reduce the salaries and perks of these upper management types each earning hundreds of thousands of dollars in pay, perks, and benefits.

The rank and file San Bruno Firefighters and Police, who literally put their lives on the line every day to protect San Bruno's residents, are being put at even greater risk because the San Bruno City Council and Manager have built a job mill at City Hall for richly paid upper management employees while maintaining, what is becoming a skeleton crew of rank and file City employees. Rank and file City employees are the people who actually deliver services directly to San Bruno's residents.

For example, the San Bruno Police Department (SBPD) has 48 sworn officers and over 70 employees. San Bruno's City Manager and Police Chief have built themselves a paper pushers paradise down at the SBPD. You have 22 SBPD employees (31% of the SBPD) who aren't sworn cops and 3 of the 48 sworn police officers who are Commanders earning between $11,061 to $13,573 per month (not including perks and other benefits)

With so few rank and file cops to provide direct police services to San Bruno's residents we are not getting a good return on the taxpayer dollars used for Police services. It's time for the richly paid San Bruno Police Chief and his "Commanders" to get into some patrol cars and start protecting San Bruno's residents instead of sitting around their lavish Police Plaza offices sipping coffee lattes and attending seminars on paper shuffling management. A better idea would be to eliminate the 3 "Commander" positions and replace them with 7 or 8 patrol officers.

If this Council is not purged from office in the November 2009 Elections so that changes can be made; their ongoing destruction of San Bruno's financial and public safety infrastructure will, sooner or later, result in the death or serious injury of San Bruno residents and public safety personnel and catastrophic levels of property damage.

Are you and your family willing to accept this high risk of potential death, serious injury, and/or property damage so that City Manager Connie Jackson can use the San Bruno Treasury as her personal piggy bank to borrow money from to pay for the taxpayer sponsored house she lives in? Are you and your family willing to accept this high risk of potential death, serious injury, and/or property damage so that so that San Bruno's top management employees can each continue to receive pay, benefit, retirement, and perk packages worth hundreds of thousands of dollars each year?

And finally, isn't it time we threw the bums on this Council out of office so that we can have a City government that works for everybody instead the privileged cronies of this Council?
 ]]> http://www.sanbrunobeacon.com/2009/06/letter_from_san_bruno_professi.html http://www.sanbrunobeacon.com/2009/06/letter_from_san_bruno_professi.html Mon, 22 Jun 2009 02:35:41 +0000 By Bill Baker, J.D.
Editor and Publisher, The San Bruno Beacon

San Mateo County District Attorney (DA) Jim Fox and his sidekick, Chief Deputy District Attorney (CDDA) Wagstaffe, should be ashamed of themselves for, so far, giving San Bruno Mayor Larry Franzella a free pass instead of prosecuting him for perjury.

A free pass from the San Mateo County DA so Franzella can go about his merry way disregarding the law? Franzella has a record of filing materially false statements under penalty of perjury; enhancing the value of his real property by using his position as Mayor to vote for a train station near the property he owned, at the time of the vote, instead of recusing himself from the vote as he was required to do by law; and having his real estate license revoked because large sums of money was missing from trust funds he was managing for real estate clients.

Is this the profile of a person who respects the law, the people he serves as Mayor, or his real estate clients? Does Franzella think the law is a joke or something to be trifled with? The refusal of DA Fox and CDDA Wagstaffe to prosecute Franzella would certainly lend credibility to the notion that, in Mr. Franzella's case, the law is something to be trifled with.

The inherent injustice of the San Mateo County District Attorney's Office not prosecuting Mr. Franzella can no longer be tolerated and the DA's failure/refusal to prosecute this case will be addressed in the appropriate legal and political forums if it continues.

The failure of DA Fox and CDDA Wagstaffe to prosecute San Bruno Mayor Franzella also begs the question; are there other wealthy and/or politically influential people in the San Mateo County DA's jurisdiction also being given free passes by the DA's Office for their criminal conduct?

Fox and Wagstaffe probably think that if they don't do anything about Franzella and remain silent, instead of doing the job they were paid to do, everything will just go away. Just like Fox and Wagstaffe did for their buddy San Mateo County's brothel visiting Sheriff Munks whom they allegedly wrote email messages of support to, even before all the facts were in. These guys appear to have a "good old boys club" going down at the San Mateo County District Attorney's Office and usually don't mess with wealthy and/or politically powerful people. In San Mateo County, is justice is for everybody except the wealthy and/or politically influential friends of the DA and CDDA?

This case cries out for justice to be served because it goes to the very heart of the political, judicial, and overall legal process. The Franzella case is the type of case that significantly influences the public's perception of and confidence in the integrity of government and the legal process; testing whether or not liberty and justice are really for all (people) or just those people with the money and/or political influence necessary to get free passes for their criminal conduct from their friends in power.

The facts in this case are indisputable. San Bruno Mayor Larry Franzella perjured himself by making 16 material omissions on three different Statements of Economic Interest (California Form 700) he filed in three different years and signed "Under Penalty of Perjury" in San Bruno. The Statements of Economic Interest (California Form 700) that Mr. Franzella signed specifically stated:

"5. Verification I have used all reasonable diligence in preparing this statement. I have reviewed this statement and to the best of my knowledge the information contained herein and in any attached schedules is true and complete. I certify under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the foregoing is true and correct."

Fox and his heir apparent Wagstaffe certainly know that Perjury, as defined by California Penal Code Section 118, is a felony in the State of California.

Franzella's perjured statements are not only a violation of the California Penal Code but also the public trust. They grow in importance when we see that Franzella, who has been the Chair of the City of San Bruno Redevelopment Agency for ten years, used his vote as San Bruno's Mayor to vote for a railroad project alternative that had a very strong potential to increase the value of the property he owned that was located within 500 feet of the proposed train station he voted to approve. In their case against Franzella, the California Fair Political Practices Commission (CFPPC) stated:

Franzella also made a governmental decision in which he had a financial interest, by voting to approve Alternative Five of the proposed Caltrain Grade Separation Project alternatives, which involved relocating the train station at Sylvan Avenue that was within 500 feet of his real property, in violation of Section 87100 of the Government Code.

Putting a train station within 500 feet of the property you own will certainly cause the value of that property to dramatically increase in value.

There is an old saying that where there is smoke, there is fire. Franzella has a history of engaging in deceptive, illegal behavior that includes having his California Real Estate license revoked for trust fund shortages.

If anybody else who was not a well connected, wealthy political ally of DA Fox and CDDA Wagstaffe committed even 1 count of perjury, the San Mateo County DA's Office would be prosecuting this person to the fullest extent of the law. Fox and Wagstaffe like to talk about justice. However, in their world, there is one set of rules for the wealthy and politically well connected who insure that they remain in office and another set of rules for everybody else. The reason why people like Franzella continue doing what they do is because we have District Attorney's and Chief Deputy District Attorneys like Fox and Wagstaffe who let them get away with it.

We can no longer let this injustice stand. It is time for everybody to rise up against this type of political cronyism, that breeds corruption in government, and act. There is no substitute for honesty and integrity in government.
 ]]> http://www.sanbrunobeacon.com/2009/06/case.html http://www.sanbrunobeacon.com/2009/06/case.html Sat, 20 Jun 2009 16:23:26 +0000 By Bill Baker, J.D.
Editor and Publisher, The San Bruno Beacon

So far, the San Mateo County District Attorney's Office has not prosecuted San Bruno Mayor Larry Franzella for the 16 material omissions he made on three different Statements of Economic Interest (California Form 700) he filed in three different years and signed "Under Penalty of Perjury" in San Bruno. The Statements of Economic Interest (California Form 700) that Mr. Franzella signed specifically stated:

"5. Verification I have used all reasonable diligence in preparing this statement. I have reviewed this statement and to the best of my knowledge the information contained herein and in any attached schedules is true and complete. I certify under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the foregoing is true and correct."

When you have a District Attorney (DA) and Chief Deputy District Attorney (CDDA) who refuse to enforce the laws of the State of California against a person in a position of political authority like Franzella; the political process, transparency in government, and the legal system are weakened and public confidence in these institutions and processes are undermined.

The failure of the DA and CDDA to prosecute Mr. Franzella reinforces the belief, which is in many cases a fact, that the are two criminal legal systems; one for the rich and powerful and one for the poor.

Fox and his heir apparent Wagstaffe certainly know that Perjury, as defined by California Penal Code Section 118, is a felony in the State of California.

DA Fox and CDDA Wagstaffe know about the Franzella case that was reported reported in the Beacon on December 4, 2008 and several other newspapers throughout December 2008 and January 2009. Fox and Wagstaffe have had more than 6 months to bring justice to the doorstep of Mr. Franzella and they have failed to do so.

According to the DA's web site, the San Mateo County District Attorney's Office Bureau of Investigation located at the Hall of Justice in Redwood City has 11 inspectors who investigate, among other things, misconduct by public officials and perjury. So, there you have it, the DA's Office, by its own admission, holds itself out as investigating misconduct by public officials and perjury.

It is quite clear that if DA Fox and CDDA Wagstaffe wanted to prosecute Franzella they could. The resources are there to get the "low hanging fruit" evidence needed to prosecute Mr. Franzella. It wouldn't take much effort to obtain the documents Franzella signed and a few more hours to put the case together. This case is a no brainer, slam dunk case that should already have been prosecuted. But the DA and CDDA; well, they just won't prosecute the wealthy and politically influential Mr. Franzella.

The failure of the District Attorney and Chief Deputy District Attorney to prosecute Mr. Franzella gives the green light to perjury in San Mateo County and sends a clear message that if you have enough political influence, you can perjure yourself in San Mateo County without having to fear criminal prosecution.

Under the names of James P. Fox (San Mateo County District Attorney) and Stephen M. Wagstaffe (Chief Deputy District Attorney), you will find the following statement prominently displayed at the web site of the San Mateo County District Attorney:

"I am pleased that you have visited the San Mateo County District Attorney website. We in the District Attorney's Office are committed to seek justice and accountability for all who violate the law in our county. We also seek to provide assistance for those victimized by criminals. Our efforts to achieve justice will continue to make San Mateo County as safe an environment as possible in which to live and work. ----District Attorney"

Obviously, in this case, the statement made by DA Fox, appearing in the previous paragraph, is not true. Perhaps DA Fox should rewrite his statement to reflect what in my opinion is the reality of the situation:

"We in the District Attorney's Office are committed to seek justice and accountability for all who violate the law in our county except our politically powerful friends like San Bruno Mayor Larry Franzella. Oh, and by the way, perjury is also OK in San Mateo County for our politically powerful friends."

DA Fox and CDDA Wagstaffe can choose to continue undermining the integrity of the San Mateo County District Attorney's Office by ignoring the Franzella matter or they can act. If they refuse to act it will be incumbent upon the people of San Bruno and this County to take the action necessary to address this matter in the appropriate legal and political forums and demand justice in this case.

This case is just another example of why the confidence of most Americans in our Country's legal and political systems has been and is being shattered. We cannot tolerate a District Attorney and Chief Deputy District Attorney who hand get out of jail free passes to rich and politically powerful people who violate the law. To do so is to turn our legal system into a proverbial roll of toilet paper for certain wealthy and politically powerful people who have little or no respect for the law. These nefarious characters see the law as something they can ignore with impunity by using their influence and money. When law enforcement officials get in bed with these types of people by giving them a free pass, they become an enabler of and accomplice to their criminal activities.

Perjury destroys our legal and political systems by shredding the truth. Truth is the foundation upon which the legal system is based. There is no justice without truth and without justice, the legal system loses its credibility, becoming the tool of corrupt public officials and bureaucrats.
 ]]> http://www.sanbrunobeacon.com/2009/06/why_isnt_the_san_mateo_county.html http://www.sanbrunobeacon.com/2009/06/why_isnt_the_san_mateo_county.html Wed, 17 Jun 2009 01:46:40 +0000 By Bill Baker, J.D.
Editor and Publisher, The San Bruno Beacon

It is pretty clear at this point that the good people of San Bruno have lost total control of their government and it is now controlled by some very nasty, self-serving characters.

Sad, pathetic, uncaring. A few descriptive words one might ascribe to the San Bruno City Council and their proxies; whose reckless, self serving, mean spirited decisions have been and are leading to the financial destruction of the City of San Bruno, its residents, and businesses. There is no doubt left in my mind that this financial wrecking crew needs to go.

The May 10th San Bruno City Council Meeting showcased the utter contempt that this Council has for San Bruno's most vulnerable residents. I guess it is easy for such people to hammer senior citizens, sick/disabled people, and economically disadvantaged people. Perhaps, when you lack character, common decency, and integrity; picking on the weak and vulnerable is second nature.

At their May 12th Council Meeting, this Council misled San Bruno's residents, while paying lip service to the pleas and heart wrenching stories told by some of San Bruno's most economically vulnerable residents.

At the Council Meeting we heard from: San Bruno senior citizens who stated that they don't know if they have enough money to live on until they die; San Bruno residents who have to choose between buying the medication they need to survive or stay healthy and paying their utility bills; San Bruno residents who are raising families and finding it impossible to make ends meet because of skyrocketing utility bills. These people, and other like them, are systematically being financially destroyed by this misanthropic Council and their highly paid government proxies who are grinding San Bruno's residents and businesses into the ground.

In my opinion, it is as if this Council and their functionaries are using a system of financial eugenics to purge San Bruno of its poor and moderate income residents, a large percentage of which are members of one or more of our City's minority communities. This arrogant, uncaring Council paid lip service to the pleas of the San Bruno residents who showed up to testify about the pain and suffering higher utility rates would cause for them and their families.

The pleas were ultimately ignored by the Council and they punished San Bruno's residents and businesses with horrific water and wastewater increases that will ultimately destroy the lives of many of these people and others in San Bruno. As I see it, this Council and their City Government functionaries, living off of rich taxpayer supplied salary, benefit and perk packages, don't give a dam about anybody except themselves and their cronies. This group that has taken control of our City government is the modern day version of the 'let them eat cake' crowd.

Let's look at the distortions of truth advanced by this Council and their proxies:

1). At the May 12th Council Meeting, San Bruno Administrative Services Director Jim O'Leary contended that the $12 million plus taxpayer dollars squandered by this Council on their failing Redevelopment scheme had nothing to do with the abusive water/wastewater rate increases this Council has been punishing San Burno's residents with almost every year during the past 10 years.

Here is what San Bruno Administrative Services Director O'Leary had to say at the May 10th Council Meeting about the approximately $3.9 million portion of Redevelopment debt borrowed directly from the City of San Bruno's Equipment Reserve Fund by the troubled San Bruno Redevelopment Agency:

San Bruno Mayor Franzella: "The question talked about the 5 million dollars that was lent to the Redevelopment Agency ehhh I don't know that that's still an outstanding balance but I know Council had spoken about that debt being paid off soon but perhaps you could address that

San Bruno Administrative Services Director Jim O'Leary: "Any Redevelopment Agency is required to have debt in order to be eligible to receive tax increment revenue uh in this particular instance, The Redevelopment Agency for San Bruno is relatively new uh the startup costs in the early years of the Redevelopment Agency, in fact the City lent the Redevelopment Agency, I think the total now is 3 point nine million dollars uh the uh for for the past number of year uh at the beginning again the Agency the need of this money for operations and didn't have the ability to pay it back uh the Agency has now reached the point uh where in fact uh the uh this debt, interest is being paid on this debt originally that was not the case but interest is being paid on the debt the uh the borrowing is actually from the City's Equipment Reserve and uh that borrowing and the Redevelopment Operations has no impact on the rates or on the water or wastewater enterprise accounts."

O'Leary is wrong. Here's why:

A). First, O'Leary would have us believe that the San Bruno Redevelopment Agency is "relatively young". Let's take a look at O'Leary's statement. The San Bruno Redevelopment Agency Redevelopment Plan was adopted on July 6, 1999. Project activities can take place over 30 years. O'Leary's "relatively young" Redevelopment Agency is 10 years old. That's 1/3 of the time that project activities can take place. O'Leary's serpentine statement would have you believe that the Redevelopment Agency is a new entity with little or no track record. No, the San Bruno Redevelopement Agency is a 10 year old troubled agency that is draining millions of San Bruno resident's taxpayer dollars out of the City's Equipment Reserve fund to support the massive debt load and real estate schemes concocted by this Council.

B). O'Leary says that the San Bruno [Redevelopment] Agency, "has now reached the point uh where in fact uh the uh this debt, interest is being paid on this debt originally that was not the case but interest is being paid on the debt". O'Leary isn't telling the whole story. I wonder if O'Leary has ever heard of a CPA firm in San Jose called Mayer Hoffman McCann P.C.? They are the CPA firm that did the last audit on the Redevelopment Agency. Here's what Mayer Hoffman McCann wrote in their audit report about the San Bruno Redevelopment Agency:

"At June 30, 2008 and 2007, the Agency owed the City $3,300,811 and $3,427,733 for advances made by the City. As revenue from tax increment continues to increase, the Agency will be able to reduce its reliance on advances from other City funds. The City has not determined a repayment schedule for the debt owed by the Agency."

So, now, in this Election Year, O'Leary is telling us that the Redevelopment Agency found a pot of gold and now has the money to repay the "interest" on this $12 million + debt that has been run up by the Redevelopment Agency? Great, let's see the proof. However, even assuming that we are not being jerked around on the interest repayment issue, the fact remains that there is still no plan to repay the principal on the Redevelopment debt in a worsening economy.

No matter what type of "happy face" this Council and Administrative Services Director O'Leary want to paint on this bleak picture, the fact of the matter is that this Redvelopement Agency has run up a debt of $12,900,000 +. This Redevelopment scheme is a ticking financial time bomb. It is not unlike the subprime mortgage disaster that only worked if property values continued to increase. And, not unlike the subprime disaster, somebody is making a lot of money and the taxpayers (in this case San Bruno's taxpayers) are going to end up holding the proverbial bag.

The absurdity of this money losing redevelopment scheme is brought into focus on page 7 of the auditor's report:

"The incremental assessed property-tax value of the redevelopment area for fiscal year 2007-08 was $635.5 million and for fiscal year 2006-07 was $530.9 million. The Agency is anticipating a 10% increase in the incremental assessed property-tax value for the 2008-09 fiscal year that will be sufficient to meet current debt service requirements and to continue promotion of additional development in the redevelopment area."

Property values have plummeted between the time the Redevelopment audit report was published and today. The 10% increase in assessed property value they were projecting is probably not even close to being a reality. Even assuming the best case scenario of a 10% increase in incremental assessed property-tax value you are still only covering the debt service and not paying the principal. It would now appear that the Redevelopment Agency is not even covering the debt service on the money they borrowed.

The $3,300,000+ that the Redevelopment Agency owes the City of San Bruno could be earning interest at a rate of about 3%. Therefore, on top of all the other problems inherent in this redevelopment scheme, the City of San Bruno is losing about $99,000 a year in interest on this taxpayer money this Council is gambling on this redevelopment scheme.

Since this auditor's report was published in 2008, we found out that San Bruno's City Treasurer may have also lost a big chunk of the Redevelopment Agency's money on bad investments. The San Bruno Redevelopment Agency may have even more financial problems than indicated by the last auditor's report.

C). During his Council presentation, O'Leary also stated:

".....the [San Bruno Redevelopment Agency] borrowing is actually from the City's Equipment Reserve and uh that borrowing and the Redevelopment Operations has no impact on the rates or on the water or wastewater enterprise accounts."

When I first heard this, I almost fell off my chair laughing. O'Leary and other San Bruno City Staff members spent a lot of time at the May 10th Council Meeting saying that the rate increases were necessary, in large part, to buy equipment. Then, O'Leary said that the millions of dollars of Redevelopment spending has been funded by draining money out of the City of San Bruno's Equipment Reserve Fund. O'Leary then came up with the ridiculous conclusion this borrowing by the San Bruno Redevelopment Agency, from the City Equipment Reserve Fund had no effect on the water - wastewater rates. Nonsensical deceptions aside, the fact remains that this Council, the City Manager, and other top City Management employees have known, for more than a decade, that a large amount of money would be required to maintain and replace San Bruno's water and wastewater systems. Yet, like a gambler gambling away the money their family needs for rent, food, and clothing; this Council gambled away $3.9 million of City money on a troubled redevelopment scheme on top of the $12 million they already squandered on this scheme.

To justify the brutal annual rate increases resulting from their reckless gamble of taxpayer money on troubled Redevelopment schemes, this Council and their City government proxies have spent a lot of time talking about how run down the City's water system and wastewater system is and how much money is needed to fix it. Yet, as was previously mentioned, this Council had no problem gambling away more than $12 million of San Bruno taxpayer money, needed to repair the water-wastewater system they know needs repair, on their troubled Redevelopment scheme.

And that brings us back to O'Leary's ridiculous statement that the Redevelopment Agency's borrowings and operations have no impact on the rates or on the water or wastewater enterprise accounts. These borrowings and the Redevelopment Agency's activities have a major impact on water and wastewater rates. The simple fact is that scarce City financial resources were squandered on this Council's Redevelopment scheme instead of on maintaining and repairing San Bruno's decaying water and wastewater system.

This Council had no problem transferring $3.9 million to pay for their Redevelopment disaster. The would also have not had any problems spending this $3.9 million on San Bruno's aging water and wastewater systems. Instead of running up a total debt of $12.9 million to pay for Redevelopemnt this money should have been spent on the water and wastewater systems. Once again, by their own admissions, this Council has stated that they have known for at least 10 years that millions upon millions of dollars will be required to maintain and rebuild San Bruno's aging water and wastewater systems. And knowing this fact, this Council, acting in their capacity as Redevelopment Agency Members, have squander $12.9 million on the troubled Redevelopment scheme instead of focusing their efforts and scarce City financial resources on the decaying water and wastewater system.

D). During the May 10, 2009 San Bruno City Council Meeting, this exchange took place between Mayor Franzella and San Bruno Administrative Services Director O'Leary:

Franzella: "The question was asked on the Lehman Brothers loss. How does that effect the uh, rates..[O'Leary hesitates]..Franzella: "The question was asked about the Lehman Brothers""

San Bruno Administrative Services Director O'Leary: "Uh the City uhm as many others Cities in San Mateo County, and many cities and other investors uhm across the country uhm did in fact uh have money in the San Mateo County Investment Pool that uh uh was lost as a result of Lehman bankruptcy back in September of 2008 uhm this loss was accounted for in the current year. The biggest uh the biggest impact of the loss was uh to the Redevelopment Agency ehr I'm sorry, to the General Fund, the City's General Fund uh but in fact uh the two Enterprise Accounts uh suffered uh some eh the two enterprise uh experienced some loss as their portion of this overall loss uh the impact on the rates that the that City Council is considering uh that loss was accounted for this year and it has no impact on the rates that are being proposed for next year."

Uh, once again, Mr. O'Leary's statement is, misleading and inaccurate with, what in my opinion is, an intent to obfuscate the facts. This guy gets somewhere between $11,723 to $14,386 per month in salary as well as a platinum plated benefit and perk package from San Bruno's taxpayers. One wonders if O'Leary gets paid by the number of "uhs" he can parse his serpentine statements with.

The City of San Bruno lost somewhere between $1.466 million and $2.246 million of San Bruno taxpayer money on bad investments. To say that this catastrophic loss has no impact on water and wastewater rates is as ridiculous as saying that subprime mortgages had nothing to do with the collapse of the US banking system. The loss of this San Bruno taxpayer money means that it is not available to pay for the maintenance and rebuild of San Bruno's water and wastewater systems.

Every dollar that San Bruno's City Council and Manager lose or squander on bad investments and failed real estate schemes means that there is one less dollar to pay for the maintenance and replacements of San Bruno's water and wastewater systems. This expense is then passed on to San Bruno's ratepayers.

2). During the Council Meeting, San Bruno's City Manager Jackson tried to undermine an informative flier published by the San Brunans for Better Government (SBBG). This flier was responsible for bringing many San Bruno residents to the Council Meeting to oppose the rate increases despite the best efforts of the City to obscure and hide the rate increases from the public and engage in a campaign of deception about the rate increases. Unlike the rate increase notices, required by law to be sent out by the City of San Bruno, most of the the San Bruno residents who showed up at the May 12 Council Meeting received the SBBG flier.

Admitting that the City of San Bruno was, in fact, raising water rates by 40% and wastewater rates by 33% as truthfully described in the SBBG flier, Jackson treated everyone to several minutes of bureaucratic doublespeak, in an attempt to further obfuscate the facts, by saying that the information in the SBBG fliers was inaccurate because the rate increases were not 40% a year. We can easily dismiss City Manager Jackson's serpentine efforts by simply stating that the SBBG rate increase flier never inferred or directly stated that the rate increases were 40% a year. San Bruno City Manager Jackson made up this fairy tale so that she could draw negative attention to the SBBG rate increase fliers notifying San Bruno's residents about the rate increases manufactured by San Bruno City Manager Jackson and her Council sponsors.

This shameful performance by San Bruno City Manager Jackson is especially insulting to the intelligence of San Bruno's residents because it has been inferred, in the statements of many San Bruno residents who spoke at the May 12 Council Meeting, that the City of San Bruno never sent out the rate increase notifications as required by law. Many of the people who attended the Council Meeting and spoke specifically stated that they never received any warning (as required by law) about the rate increases. We still have no proof that the City of San Bruno sent out the rate increase notifications as required by law.

3). Also, during the May 12 San Bruno City Council Meeting, Councilmember Ruane said that this Council was making the hard decisions to raise water and wastewater rates because past Council's had not had the courage to make these decisions. Which former Council is Ruane talking about?

San Bruno Mayor Larry Franzella has been the Mayor of San Bruno since 1999, he also served as a Councilmember in the late 1980's and early 1990s. With the exception of Councilmember Medina, the Members of the San Bruno City Council have each served on the San Bruno City Council for more than 13 years. Councilmembers Ruane and O'Connell have been on the Council since 1995. Councilmember Ibarra has been on the Council since 1996.

Ruane is trying to lay off the problems created for San Bruno by the incompetence and malfeasance of this Council on Council's from the 1980's? The 1970's? The 1960's? Ruane and his Council cronies have been making damaging, bad decisions that have resulted in the financial demise of San Bruno for the past 14 years. Political hacks like Ruane don't admit to their mistakes. They are always trying to find someone else to blame for the problems they create.

4). The May 12 Council Meeting also featured San Bruno City Councilmember Irene O'Connell's attempt at self absolution. It was almost as if O'Connell was channeling the disembodied voice of President Nixon's ghost saying, "I am not a crook". O'Connell launched into a wandering, feverish discussion about how everyone in town has known her since she was a girl and how everyone knows her family and how cronyism and corruption did not exist on the Council and if anybody had any proof to come forward and give the Council proof and they would make sure it was looked into.

Ah, yes, Hamlet, Act 3, Scene 2, "The lady protests too much, methinks." Councilmember O'Connell's claims that she is not corrupt and the Council is not corrupt; when she has not been charged with being corrupt, are interesting.

Councilmember O'Connell's demand for anybody having evidence of Council corruption to come forward and present the evidence to the Council so they can look into it is also interesting. Unfortunately for Ms. O'Connell, the City Council is not a law enforcement agency. Allegations or evidence of corruption and/or other misdeeds by any Member of this Council would have to be sent to the appropriate law enforcement agency first. I'm sure O'Connell would love to be able to have this Council sit as the chief investigator and arbiter of allegations pertaining to corruption or misdeeds by Councilmembers.
 ]]> http://www.sanbrunobeacon.com/2009/05/deception_and_self_absolution.html http://www.sanbrunobeacon.com/2009/05/deception_and_self_absolution.html Mon, 25 May 2009 16:32:01 +0000 By Bill Baker, J.D.
Editor and Publisher, The San Bruno Beacon

It is only a matter of time before one or more San Bruno residents is/are killed or seriously injured as a direct result of the rank and file manpower shortages in San Bruno's Police and Fire Departments. In addition to the lack of police presence on San Bruno's streets, it appears that this dysfunctional Council wants to reduce Fire services to San Bruno's residents by 33%.

As I see it, this Council and their City Manager are too busy protecting the platinum plated $200,000 plus pay, perk, and benefit packages of top City management officials to worry about something as mundane to them as the safety of San Bruno's residents. When push comes to shove in a budget crisis, this Council and their cronies put the interests of the feeders on their political food chain and the rich pay, perk, and benefit packages of top City Management officials above the safety of San Bruno's residents.

If you are a San Bruno resident who is not one of this Council's cronies, as long as this Council and their City Manager remain in office, you will always end up on the losing end. Unfortunately, in this case, the losing end might mean that you or a member of your family loses their life or is seriously injured.

If you value the financial and physical safety of yourself and your family, you need to get involved in local politics and help extract these people from San Bruno's City Government by using the political and legal tools that we have available for this job.

As a former San Bruno City Councilman, it is my opinion that San Bruno's reckless, uncaring, and dangerously inept City Council represents a clear and present danger to not only the financial health of our City but also the physical safety of San Bruno's residents.

San Bruno's City Council and Manager have created a financial and safety nightmare for San Bruno that puts the lives of every San Bruno resident at risk. This financial wrecking crew is refusing to cut top City management jobs, perks, and benefits so that rank and file City workers, who provide services directly to San Bruno's residents, can keep their jobs.

On any given night, there are only 1 or 2, maybe three San Bruno cops on patrol. That means that if there are more than 1 or 2 incidents in San Bruno, the cops cannot respond. There could be more cops on patrol. However, San Bruno City Manager Connie Jackson and her Police Chief, Neil Telford have made it impossible to put more cops on the street because Telford and Jackson have thinned the SBPD's patrol ranks to fund jobs for high paid, high ranking paper pushers in the SBPD,

In a March 2, 2009 Beacon article, I published an article titled, WE CAN BALANCE SAN BRUNO'S CITY BUDGET, CREATE A SURPLUS, SAVE RANK AND FILE CITY WORKER JOBS AND ALL CITY SERVICES. In this article, I wrote:

6). "The San Bruno Police Department (SBPD) has 48 sworn officers and over 70 employees. San Bruno's City Manager and Police Chief have built themselves a paper pushers paradise down at the SBPD. You have 22 SBPD employees (31% of the SBPD) who aren't sworn cops and 3 of the 48 sworn police officers who are Commanders earning between $11,061 to $13,573 per month (not including perks and other benefits).

With the exception of the dispatchers, we need to take a look at streamlining the SBPD to make it a lean and effective law enforcement agency that can put more than 2 - 3 cops on the street during a shift. When you call a cop in San Bruno, one of these "police commanders" is probably not going to be showing up at your house. We need to hire a new City Manager and part time Police Chief who will eliminate these 3 budget busting Commander jobs, hire a few more rank and file cops and bank the rest of the savings. Too many chiefs and not enough indians at the SBPD.

We already have excellent rank and file police officers and need even more.

In bad economic times, crimes against property and persons increase as criminals become more desperate and more people turn to crime. A stronger police presence is required on the streets of San Bruno.

We need to have 10 more patrol officers available for street patrol duty. We can do this and lower the operating cost of the SBPD. This can be done by hiring 3-5 new police officers (not more sergeants, lieutenants, captains, or commanders); eliminating all but the most essential SBPD administrative positions; eliminating the Commander positions; and requiring Sergeants, Lieutenants, and Captains to go on regularly scheduled patrol. Finally, we need to hire a part time police chief and a new City Manager who can make this happen."

In my opinion, SBPD Chief Telford and City Manager Jackson are putting the lives of every San Bruno resident at risk. Earlier this year, Telford was also the subject of another Beacon article in February 2009 titled, SAN BRUNO POLICE CHIEF NEIL TELFORD'S GANG SEMINAR SPARKS RACIAL TENSIONS IN SAN BRUNO'S MEXICAN / HISPANIC AMERICAN COMMUNITIES.

The police problem is just the tip of the proverbial iceberg when it comes to the failure of this City Council and Manager to protect the safety of San Bruno's residents. Now, in addition to the lack of police presence on San Bruno's streets, it appears that this dysfunctional Council wants to reduce Fire services to San Bruno's residents by 33%. This means increased response time to emergencies. Firefighters are San Bruno's first responders. If you have a heart attack, their response time could mean the difference between your life and your death. If you have a fire, their response time could also mean the difference between your life and death.

This Council and City Manager have destroyed San Bruno's financial infrastructure with their reckless financial schemes that have buried the City of San Bruno in debt. Now, the full effect of their financial and administrative failures and refusal to put an end to the platinum salary, perk, and benefit gravy train for San Bruno's top City Management employees may result in the serious injury or death of you or a member of your family when this Council and City Manager strip the police and fire departments of the rank and file manpower they need to protect you and your family.
 ]]> http://www.sanbrunobeacon.com/2009/05/lives_and_safety_of_san_brunos.html http://www.sanbrunobeacon.com/2009/05/lives_and_safety_of_san_brunos.html Thu, 21 May 2009 01:24:45 +0000 By Bill Baker, J.D.
Editor and Publisher, The San Bruno Beacon

At the Tuesday May 12, 2009 San Bruno City Council Meeting, the San Bruno financial wrecking crew, aka the San Bruno City Council, hammered San Bruno's residents with punishing rate increases over the next 3 years.

Despite a significant number of written protests and the devastating financial impact this would have on San Bruno's residents, the City Council voted to raise Water and Sewer Rates through the roof and hit San Bruno's residents with even higher garbage rates.

This Council was put on notice about the financial pain they would be inflicting on San Bruno's residents by passing these unconscionable rate and fee increases and they ignored the please of San Bruno's residents not to increase the rates.

Once again, this Council has inflicted more financial pain on San Bruno's residents and businesses at a time when rates and fees on City services should be reduced to help residents and business through these tough economic times.

San Bruno's ethics challenged Mayor Larry Franzella and his Council cronies need to be removed from their Council seats before they can do any further damage to the financial interests of San Bruno's residents. In the November 2009 City Elections, we need to elect a Council who will undo the damage done by the financial wrecking crew on this Council and the City Manager they have inflicted on our City.

Finally, I noticed that there wasn't much, if any, local news coverage of these rate increases. Seems like the local newspapers greyed or blacked out this story as they do with so many other stories that place this Council in a negative light. I guess the local newspapers don't consider it news when a City Council raises utility rate into the stratosphere. However, you can bet that during San Bruno's November elections, the local newspapers will be out in force supporting Members of this Council for re-election and doing everything they can do to print negative or unflattering articles about the people who run against Franzella and his Council cronies. In my opinion, the local newspapers in San Mateo County are little more than mouthpieces for the status quo, as defined by the major newspaper advertisers. As I see it, these publications are basically sales and marketing platforms that have little or no real concern for the communities they serve and the devastating impacts that the decisions of the politicians, supported by these newspapers, have on our communities. And hard copy newspapers wonder why they are going out of business?
 ]]> http://www.sanbrunobeacon.com/2009/05/san_bruno_city_council_punishe.html http://www.sanbrunobeacon.com/2009/05/san_bruno_city_council_punishe.html Wed, 13 May 2009 23:04:34 +0000 By Bill Baker, J.D.
Editor and Publisher, The San Bruno Beacon

The State of California needs to dramatically shrink the size of State Government; cut State employees salaries, benefits, and perks; reduce all State taxes and fees; and file bankruptcy to get out from under the debt and debt service it is drowning in. Bottom line, the State of California needs to press the "reset" button by filing bankruptcy.

Bankruptcy will allow California's State Government to reduce or even eliminate it's debt and the interest it pays on that debt; dramatically reduce the number of State Employees and the size of the State government bureaucracy; allow restructuring of pension payments and benefits to government retirees; and undo the destructive, divisive, counterproductive stranglehold that government employee unions have on the State government. Finally, the reduced cost of government brought about by bankruptcy will allow California's State government to dramatically reduce or eliminate the State income and sales taxes as well as many of the other outrageous fees charged by the State.

Unfortunately, the California State Legislature is controlled by liberal, dreamworld, welfare state Democrats who don't understand that private sector taxes pay for all State welfare programs and the salaries, perks, pensions, and everything else that anybody who works in the government receives.

California's State Government has been turned into a welfare giveaway program supported by the private sector. When the government sector abuses and overtaxes the private sector it loses the revenues it needs to pay for its existence. The private sector pays for everything anybody on the government dole receives. Liberal Democrats and their ilk never realize that the government exists at the pleasure of the private sector to assist and support the private sector. When government gets too big, the private sector shrinks away leaving the government without revenues.

More taxes and government debt mean a smaller private sector and less revenues. For example, when the U.S. Treasury goes into the debt markets to issue Treasury debt, this creates higher interest rates pushing up costs for private sector borrowing. The Obama Administration is now creating so much debt that the U.S. Treasury will, sooner or later, not be able to fund the off the charts spending by Obama and the liberal Democrats controlling the U.S. Congress. Today, it was reported that demand for U.S. Treasury debt is weakening and that the Treasury is having to pay more interest to entice lenders to buy U.S. Treasury debt. The good news, in this sad story, is that somebody is still buying U.S. Treasury Debt.

For anybody that cares, California Controller John Chiang's April 2009 Summary Analysis Report of State Finances showed that the State of California General Fund Cash Balance as of March 31, 2009 is -$22,267,000,000. That's negative $22,267 billion dollars.

The State of California is the government version of General Motors (GM). Financially, the State of California is a walking corpse having its bones picked at by the unions, politicians, and other special interest groups who cannot understand that their collective actions have put us where we are today and are hastening the State's financial collapse.

At a time when the State of California is technically insolvent, the California Legislature not only passes a ridiculous 1% Sales Tax increase, that will help slow down consumer spending, but also adds insult to injury by following up their bonehead tax increase with an average pay raise of 5% for their staffs. The dimwitted political hacks wandering around the State Legislature in a daze can't balance the Budget because they know they won't get elected if they tell the greedy public employee unions that they need to cut wages, retirement benefits, and jobs.

Members of the California State Legislature don't run for office to do the right thing, they run for office to do that which benefits them and their political cronies. So, this dreamworld, liberal Democrat Legislature is laying off most of the pain on California's private sector, thinking they are buying more time with tax increases and half measures to make it look like they are reducing the cost of government when they are really increasing the cost of government.

The State of California needs to cut the State Tax to attract more businesses to California and create more private sector jobs. Public sector jobs need to be eliminated until California's State Budget balances. You cannot increase tax revenues and balance California's Budget by raising sales taxes because your revenues decrease as people make fewer expenditures in your tax jurisdiction. You cannot increase tax revenues and balance California's Budget by raising income taxes because the people who pay taxes, with the exception of government employees who are supported by the taxes, leave your taxing jurisdiction leaving welfare recipients who don't pay taxes and government employees whose incomes are generated by taxes.

The only way that you can balance California's State Budget is by cutting State Government to the point where expenditures are less than tax revenues in an environment where State sales and income taxes have been substantially reduced from their present rates. California cannot borrow its way out of its Budget deficit nightmare because the credit window is closing. We know borrowing doesn't work because it was borrowing that got us into this mess in the first place. You cannot increase debt and debt interest payments at a time when your revenues are decreasing and your non-debt service costs are increasing.

At this point, there are so many people feeding off the California government food chain (richly paid government employees, welfare recipients, etc.) that it is impossible for the private sector to support this feeding frenzy with their tax payments. California's State Government no longer works for the people in the private sector. California's State Government has become a self-serving enterprise that is controlled by government employees, their unions, and the politicians who work for them and not the interests of California's private sector. If you run a private sector company, California is the wrong place for you to be if you have any intention of not having your business trashed with taxes, over regulation, and screwball liberal driven anti-business policies.

The Propositions on the California State Ballot in the May 19th Election are the most recent extension of the screwball liberal government policies that have gotten us into this mess in the first place. Voter approval of these ridiculous, reckless Propositions will do nothing more than make matters much worse than they already are. More handouts and a bigger government food chain for the private sector to feed.

California's Legislators are milking the corpse of a financially dead State Government that is so deeply in debt, financial collapse is waiting just around the proverbial corner. The unions will always demand higher wages, more jobs, and taxpayer sponsorship of their troubled pension plans whose failed, political driven investment tactics have made these pension plans the laughing stock of the investment world.

Aside from the fact that California is already out of money and, no pun intended, is living on borrowed time; higher State sales taxes, fees, and other government schemes for milking more money out of California's taxpayers are going to reduce consumer spending and force more companies (that haven't already done so) to relocate to tax friendly locations out of California.

As the State's bond rating sinks; anybody still foolish enough to buy a California State Bond will demand high double digit interest rates to cover the almost certain risk of default. Fewer jobs, less consumer spending, little or no access to bond markets, and a worsening national economy mean that California may be the first State to declare bankruptcy in the very near future. Well, maybe not the first, let's say one of the first 5.
 ]]> http://www.sanbrunobeacon.com/2009/05/time_for_the_state_of_californ_1.html http://www.sanbrunobeacon.com/2009/05/time_for_the_state_of_californ_1.html Wed, 13 May 2009 10:30:50 +0000 CLICK HERE TO PRINT AND/OR DOWNLOAD YOUR WATER/SEWER RATE INCREASE PROTEST LETTER

CLICK HERE TO PRINT AND/OR DOWNLOAD YOUR GARBAGE RATE INCREASE PROTEST LETTER

Here's what you can do to stop these horrific rate increases at a time when San Bruno's residents are being crushed by enormous financial burdens, losing their homes, and paying a 9.75% Sales Tax:

1).If you own a home, condo, townhouse, or other real estate in San Bruno, click on the above links download your rate increase protest letters. Download the protest letters, fill them out and send them to City Hall. Preferably by Certified Mail so they can't say they didn't get your protest letter.

2). E-mail a copy of the protest letters to your friends and neighbors who own real estate in San Bruno.

3). Print out the rate protest letters and give them to other people who own real estate in San Bruno.

PLEASE NOTE: THESE LETTERS MUST BE RECEIVED AT SAN BRUNO CITY HALL NO LATER THAN MAY 12, 2009.
===================================================================

By Bill Baker, J.D.
Editor and Publisher, The San Bruno Beacon

STOP THE SAN BRUNO CITY COUNCIL FROM RAISING YOUR WATER RATES BY 40% AND YOUR WASTERWATER (SEWER) RATES BY 33% AT THE MAY 9, 2009 SAN BRUNO CITY COUNCIL MEETING.

PROTEST AND STOP THE ABUSIVE, NEVER ENDING WATER AND SEWER, RATE INCREASES BY THE SAN BRUNO CITY COUNCIL. PROPOSITION 218 (NOW ARTICLE XIII C AND D) GIVES SAN BRUNO’S PROPERTY OWNERS THE RIGHT TO OBJECT TO RATE INCREASES AND STOP THE SAN BRUNO CITY COUNCIL FROM PASSING NEW RATE INCREASES.

It’s the same story, year after year after year after year; the San Bruno City Council raises your water and sewer rates again, again, and again. Bad decisions by San Bruno’s City Council, Manager, and City Treasurer have resulted in millions of San Bruno taxpayer dollars being lost and/or squandered on failed investments, half baked real estate schemes, handouts, and platinum pay, perk, and benefits packages for top City management. This money should have been used to keep rates low. Instead, it is now gone.

Now, this City Council and Manager want more of your money because their bad financial decisions have lost or squandered most of the taxpayer money that has fallen into their hands that should have been used to repair and maintain San Bruno’s water and sewer systems instead of being squandered and lost on bad investments and real estate schemes that continue to drain taxpayer money out of City Hall.

Giving this Council more taxpayer money gives them more money to waste and lose. San Bruno’s ethics challenged Mayor and his Council cronies have proven they cannot be trusted to make the right financial decisions for San Bruno’s residents.

It’s up to you to help end these never ending rate and fee increases. You can stop the San Bruno City Council from raising your garbage rates for 2009 and your water and sewer rates for 2009, 2010, and 2011 at their May 12th, 2009 Council Meeting.

California Constitution Article XIII D, Section 6 (a) (1)(2) provides:

(a) Procedures for New or Increased Fees and Charges.

An agency shall follow the procedures pursuant to this section in imposing or increasing any fee or charge as defined pursuant to this article, including, but not limited to, the following:

(1) The parcels upon which a fee or charge is proposed for imposition shall be identified. The amount of the fee or charge proposed to be imposed upon each parcel shall be calculated. The agency shall provide written notice by mail of the proposed fee or charge to the record owner of each identified parcel upon which the fee or charge is proposed for imposition, the amount of the fee or charge proposed to be imposed upon each, the basis upon which the amount of the proposed fee or charge was calculated, the reason for the fee or charge, together with the date, time, and location of a public hearing on the proposed fee or charge.

(2) The agency shall conduct a public hearing upon the proposed fee or charge not less than 45 days after mailing the notice of the proposed fee or charge to the record owners of each identified parcel upon which the fee or charge is proposed for imposition. At the public hearing, the agency shall consider all protests against the proposed fee or charge. If written protests against the proposed fee or charge are presented by a majority of owners of the identified parcels, the agency shall not impose the fee or charge.
 ]]> http://www.sanbrunobeacon.com/2009/05/how_to_stop_the_san_bruno_city_1.html http://www.sanbrunobeacon.com/2009/05/how_to_stop_the_san_bruno_city_1.html Mon, 11 May 2009 00:54:18 +0000 By Bill Baker, J.D.
Editor and Publisher, The San Bruno Beacon

I recently read an article in one of the local news publications (I thought hard copy newspapers were history?) saying that the City of San Bruno is considering $2.3 million in budget cuts. And, as expected, San Bruno City Manager Jackson and the financial wrecking crew on the Council want to make San Bruno's residents and City of San Bruno rank and file employees pay for the Council's fiscal mismanagement by cutting important City services to residents and threatening the jobs of rank and file City employees while protecting the big fat salaries, perk, and benefit packages for the City's top tier management employees who do not directly deliver City services to San Bruno's residents.

Election Day is Tuesday November 3rd, I hope, in the near future, we get some people to run for Mayor and Council so we can get rid of San Bruno's ethics challenged Mayor Franzella (who would do us all a great favor by resigning now or not running again) and Franzella's two Council cronies Rico Medina (a Franzella clone) and Ken Ibarra (a hard core Member of the Council's financial wrecking crew).

We are also in desperate need of a City Treasurer who knows what they are doing and can do something besides lose San Bruno taxpayer's money on bad investments. Folks, if this guy Marty, one of Franzella's cronies, is the best we can do for City Treasurer, we are in deep dodo.

So, if you want to be San Bruno's Mayor, a City Council Member, or the City Treasurer contact San Bruno's City Clerk. I am confident she will treat you fairly. Get involved, run for Council or Treasurer! Do it soon and start your campaign now and get your name out there.

Now, getting back to this story, I hope you all read my March 2nd Beacon article titled, "WE CAN BALANCE SAN BRUNO'S CITY BUDGET, CREATE A SURPLUS, SAVE RANK AND FILE CITY WORKER JOBS AND ALL CITY SERVICES". Doesn't look like City Manager Jackson and the financial wrecking crew on the Council did. If this Council won't implement those recommendations perhaps a newly elected Council will.

In the meantime, here are some ideas to start the budget cuts necessary to get us back on the road to financial recovery. Here's how we can cut approximately $694,000 from San Bruno's City Budget:

San Bruno City Manager Connie Jackson is real good at recommending furloughs, cuts in staff positions, pay freezes and layoffs (I think it's time for City Manager Jackson to take a permanent furlough to the unemployment line). However, Jackson hasn't been able to balance San Bruno's City Budget since she became San Bruno's City Manager in 2003. Why? Because Jackson's budget recommendations DO NOT represent substantive long term budget cutting measures that resolve the budget deficit. These band-aid remedies are nothing more than her attempt to play a political shell game that protects the political food chain, this Council has created, while making San Bruno's residents think that she is actually doing something substantive about balancing the City's Budget.

City Manager Jackson's and this Council's fumble fingered approach to addressing San Bruno's chronic budget crisis is akin to giving aspirin to a gunshot victim and not doing anything else to treat them. It temporarily stop the headache, but increases the bleeding.

Balancing San Bruno's City Budget and lowering rates and fees on City services would be easy if the political will was there to do it and there were 3 Council Members who were free to make decisions without having to feed a long taxpayer supported political food chain.

That being said, one thing that City Manager Jackson excels at is spreading the financial pain caused by her and this Council to San Bruno's residents and rank and file San Bruno City employees. Jackson never recommends cutting the fat out of platinum plated upper management salaries, perks, and benefit packages. These platinum plated salaries, perks, and benefits always seem to find a way to increase. If Jackson wants to get serious about balancing San Bruno's City Budget, she can start by reducing her salary of approximately $15,000 per month; or the salary of the City Attorney, who earns somewhere between $13,637 to $16,735 per month; or the salaries people like the the $14,333 / month Park and Recreation Director Jackson hired a few months ago. How about the salaries of the Police Chief, Community Development Director, Cable TV Director, Library Director; all earning somewhere between $11,000 - $15,000 per month not including their platinum perk and benefit packages?

1). Here's an easy $200,000 (Parks and Rec Director's $172,000 annual salary represents a total annual expenditure of approximately $200,000 + when perks and benefits are added in) budget cut. Eliminate the Parks and Recreation Director position. A few months ago, City Manager Jackson handed $172,000 a year (not including perks and benefits) to a new Parks and Recreation Director. Jackson has never been able to balance San Bruno's budget. As a matter of fact, ever since Jackson has been City Manager, the City of San Bruno has had a growing annual budget deficit. Yet, she has $200,000 to hand to a Parks and Recreation Director. An excellent example of Jackson's fiscal irresponsibility. The new parks and Rec guy may be the nicest, most well qualified guy on Earth. But we can't afford him. I'm sure there is a playground or recreation area somewhere else, maybe in an oil rich Middle East sheikhdom, that can afford his services.

2). Here's another no brainer. San Bruno City Manager Jackson borrowed somewhere between $10,001 and $100,000 from the City of San Bruno for personal purposes. How about if City Manager Jackson finds someone else besides San Bruno's taxpayers to float the loan on her house. NOTE TO MS. JACKSON: the City of San Bruno is not your private banker, get a loan from a real bank. The City of San Bruno needs the $10,001 - $100,000 that City Manager Jackson borrowed from San Bruno's taxpayers more than Jackson does.

3). Want more savings? Layoff the City Attorney and get a private firm to handle San Bruno's legal affairs on an ad hoc basis. Closing the City Attorney's Office will save approximately $482,000 (according to the City Budget document). That's more than enough money to hire outside counsel on an ad hoc basis and lower the cost of legal services to the City. If we factor in interest (at an annual rate of 3%) on the $482,000 we save, this could add $14,460 to the cost savings of shutting down the City Attorneys Office. If we budget $10,000 per month for outside legal services we could realize an annual budget savings of approximately ($482,000 + $14,460 - $120,000) $376,460.

4). Want even more savings? Renegotiate the San Bruno Management Employees Association MOU and demand a a 20% salary reduction from its members who are: the CATV Director, Police Chief, Community Development Director, Finance Director, Library Services Director, Parks and Recreation Services Director, Public Works Director. Not including Benefits, the members of this group earn about $11,000 to $15,000 per month. If we exclude the Parks and Recreation Director (after cutting his job) and add the City Manager and her approximate $15,000 per month salary we can realize an approximate savings of:

(.20 x15,000) + (11,000 + 15,000)/2 X .20 x 6 = $67,000 (+/-) per year
 ]]> http://www.sanbrunobeacon.com/2009/04/city_of_san_bruno_needs_to_sla.html http://www.sanbrunobeacon.com/2009/04/city_of_san_bruno_needs_to_sla.html Thu, 30 Apr 2009 00:31:15 +0000