During the 2010 campaign candidates for Petaluma City Council raised, through their campaigns approximately $150,000.  Chris Albertson’s campaign, one of eight, raised $17, 518  which ended up equaling, appropriately enough, 1/8^th of the total.

His campaign total was just under the average (however, it is worth noting that the average was heavily skewed by the monies of the Harris campaign which spent over $58,000). When independent expenditures are included the total raised on his behalf was $19,288 – a bit more than the average including IE money for all candidates.

While there is nothing particularly noteworthy about the monies raised, Albertson was third behind Harris and Johnson and just ahead of Barrett in dollars, the source of his monies is concerning and leaves little doubt as to how he might be expected to vote on developer related issues.  A review of his campaign contributions reveals the following:

1. Albertson’s campaign was dominated by out-of-town and business       money.  Only about a third of the campaign money used to elect Alberston came from Petaluma Voters.2
2. Developer Interests dominated as the largest single source of money. Over 40 percent came from this one special interest group.

For additional information see the full report.

As part of Petaluma Tomorrow’s commitment to open government we examine and report on the source of contributions to the campaigns of candidates for mayor and city council.  Research  indicates that people contribute to a given candidate for two reasons.  Not surprisingly, people contribute to candidates with whom they share like views.  Also, not surprisingly, contributors see their contributions as a way of having influence on the candidate.  In that context a review of contributions to a given candidate provides insights into their views on issues and, those who will seek to influence their decisions.

Separate reports will be prepared on each candidate beginning with those most recently elected, then with appointee Kearny, other sitting council members and finally, non elected candidates with contributions of over $2500.

The following was released to the press today concerning the Dutra Asphalt Plant:

Shamrock has filed a demurrer in Sonoma County Superior Court, arguing that they are not a real party of interest in the Dutra Petaluma Asphalt Plant case, got no approvals from the county to do anything on their land, and should be dismissed from the case.

They argue that Shamrock and Corto Meno Sand & Gravel in fact never agreed to be a part of Dutra’s project, have no agreement to do so, and that any such inclusion in the Dutra project is incorrect.

Shamrock’s claim shows that the County’s EIR and Dutra Asphalt Plant Project approvals are patently inadequate because Shamrock never agreed to the Dutra Project that the County approved.

The conditions of approval require that Dutra’s Asphalt Plant Project must be built on a portion of Shamrock’s property which must be conveyed to Dutra’s ownership, destroying wetlands required to be created as mitigation for the Shamrock project, and require Shamrock to be Dutra’s exclusive supplier of rock and aggregate barged up the Petaluma River.

Dutra’s original project design depended on barged deliveries of aggregate to Dutra’s own river-frontage site.  However, the barge and tug operations and mooring facilities were found to block the river’s federally dredged channel, and impair navigational safety. Dutra’s river-front barge landing site was also discovered by us to be located directly over two PG&E high-pressure 12″ gas lines and PG&E easements, which are not buildable.  Dutra had to find another solution to remaining a barge-accessed project and avoid truck-only deliveries. Their proposal, ultimately approved and mandated by Sonoma County’s conditions of approval and CEQA conclusions, was to deliver all Dutra’s aggregate through the adjacent Shamrock property and barge landing site, and deliver it to Dutra’s site via a conveyor belt system that would cross directly through Shamrock’s previous wetlands mitigation site.

When the Supervisors asked county staff if there was an agreement between Dutra and Shamrock, they – erroneously – assured the Supervisors and the public that there was, or would be an agreement between Dutra and Shamrock to use Shamrock’s facilities as part of the project, including a transfer of property to Dutra for the conveyor belt system and construction, and wetland mitigations for the conveyor belt. Shamrock registered no objections to the Supervisors’ final approvals in December 2010.

Either Shamrock isn’t a participant in the Dutra Project despite the County’s requirements and assurances, or Shamrock will need to have a full environmental review of the alterations to its site, operations, permit and wetlands in order for the Dutra Project to proceed.  Either way, the Dutra project should finally come to a complete stop.

Research conducted as part of Petaluma Tomorrow’s Election Watch examined trends in absentee voting.  Some of the highlights:

1. Since AB 1520 passed in 1991 absentee voting has grown from an accommodation  of those unable to go to the polls on Election Day to the method used by most Sonoma County voters in 2010.

In the 2010 election, 63.4% of the ballots came from absentee voters.  By  comparison, statewide, 48.4%, of 2010 votes were cast absentee.   By way of reference Marin voters are just below Sonoma in the percent of votes cast absentee while Napa voters rely on precinct voting.

Absentee Votes as a % of Total Turnout: Statewide and Sonoma, Marin & Napa Counties

(General Elections)

2. Most absentee voters cast their votes relatively close to Election Day.

In Sonoma absentee ballots are mailed 29 days before Election Day and voters can return them as soon as they get them.  The Registrar’s office states anecdotally that they have received ballots as early as the day they are mailed.  Nonetheless, most votes are returned close to election day and a significant percent of the ballots are returned on election day.

3. Absentee voters have higher turnout rates than precinct voters.

In the 2010 election 76% of registered absentee voters in Sonoma turned out versus 67% of precinct voters.

Absentee Voter Profile

Most studies of the profile of the absentee voter indicated that before the 2008 showed that they were similar to voters overall.  A Project Vote Policy Paper, “Early In-Person Voting: Effects on Underrepresented Voters, Voting Turnout, and Election Administration” by Teresa James states that absentee voters ”tended to look very much like Election Day voters: they were older, more educated, and wealthier than the general population.  Lower-income and minority individuals tended to use EIP* at lower rates than the general population.

The 2008 Presidential election, in contrast, marked a dramatic change in the use of EIP by minority voters.  African Americans cast EIP ballots in 2008 at a rate that exceeded that of White voters, and Hispanic voters increased their use of EIP to rates that matched that of White voters.”

For additional information on the complete report please contact greg@petaluma-tomorrow.org

*EIP/Early In-Person voters referred to in the Project Vote policy paper are the same as absentee voters as referred to in the PT research.

“Bad Decisions that Have to be Made” David Rabbitt

The March 17 Petaluma Argus Courier article, “Rabbitt weighs in on county budget shortfall” exposes a new challenge to solving the county’s budget deficit: David Rabbitt.

Rabbitt tells the Argus that he found the budget learning curve to be “pretty steep.”  This should come as no surprise for a person who, with well over a hundred errors in his campaign finance statements, showed that he cannot do basic math.  Appears that the addition and subtraction learning curves are a bit too steep for Mr. Rabbit.  Not a good sign for someone interested in fixing our budget.

His next quote is a frightening characterization of the quality of the decisions he sees himself making.  He states, “The decisions to be made are not good.  They are all bad decisions that have to be made.”  If you have ever listened to Rabbitt’s ramblings you might want to give him the benefit of the doubt – that what he meant to say was that none of the alternatives are good and the decisions will be difficult.  But, it is equally likely that he does not know what he said, or, maybe he is planning on playing to his strength – bad decision making.

A few quotes later Rabbitt suggests that the Board of Sups shares fairly close ideological backgrounds and feelings, then says, “Here I’m considered a moderate, but I’m a lifelong Democrat.”  There are a lot, perhaps too many, ‘moderates’ calling themselves Democrats so it is difficult to understand what he means by the statement: “but I’m a lifelong Democrat.”  Rabbitt is no champion of the Democratic Party, was not endorsed by them, campaigned with Republicans and found no reason to complain when racism was used on his behalf – hardly what the Democratic Party stands for these days.  Rabbitt added the comment that “people make more out of (ideological differences) politically.”  Sorry to disappoint you Mr. Rabbitt – informed voters are concerned about ideology, especially when you call yourself a Democrat but act out an ideology of a corporatist Republican.

Back to the budget.  With all of the originality and uniqueness of a Big Box shopping development, Rabbitt is focused on “pension reform” as a key solution.   Speaking of what he sees as needed changes he says, “It’s a leadership thing.”  He then dismisses raising revenues/taxes (especially ones on businesses) as ‘not being popular.’  So much for that “leadership thing”.  Sounds like he did mean bad decisions, not difficult ones.

Based on a review by Petaluma Tomorrow, a total of $194,677 was spent to elect two Council members and the Mayor in the November election.*  Of this, $148,709 was spent by and for Council candidates with the remaining $45,968 on the race for Mayor.  Most of the monies spent, 96%, came directly from candidate campaigns.  The remaining 4%, $8,239, was spent by two PACs on behalf of candidates.

Of note:

• Jeff Mayne spent over twice that of David Glass in his unsuccessful bid for Mayor.  Mayne’s votes “cost” $3.31 each versus a cost per vote of $1.44 for Glass;
• Expenditures for Council candidate Harris were an exceptional $60,712. This spending represented over 40% of what was spent by all eight candidates combined.  His cost per vote was $5.65;
• At the other end of the spectrum, the cost per vote for candidate Kearney was $0.48 – an irony given that Kearney was ultimately appointed to the vacant council seat;
• The most for the least was spent on behalf of Council candidate Johnson.  His cost per vote was $4.14 versus a cost per vote of $2.20 for winning candidate Barrett.

Based on the outcome of the 2010 election there is no apparent direct relationship between dollars spent and votes.  However, there appears to be a necessary but not sufficient amount between $15,000 and $20,000 that must be spent in order to win.   Fortunately other variables – track record, message, name recognition and the quality of one’s campaign – not just money, are still critical factors.

The complete review is available as part of PT’s Election Watch activities and can be viewed by clicking 2010 Expenditures.

*Total expenditures and votes and those presented for the Mayor and Council races are based on the top two candidates for Mayor, Glass and Mayne, and on eight Council candidates.  Expenditures and votes for write-ins, Council candidate Bellefeuille, and Mayoral candidates Kilgore and Lickter are excluded.

The City Council has its regularly scheduled meeting this coming Monday, February 28 beginning at 7:00 P.M. A key item of interest will be a revisit of the vacant council seat.

Background on the Council Vacancy and Action the January 31st Council Meeting

The vacant seat was last discussed at the January 31st meeting. The minimum objective on the 31st was to “winnow down” the number of applicants to a small number that could be discussed. The ultimate goal was to reach agreement on filling the seat. Using a list of 19 applicants, three successive “expressions of interest” or preference votes were taken. By the end of the evening the minimum objective had been partially met. On the third vote preferences were expressed for 10 of the 19 applicants. Those ten were:

Gene Beatty               Jeff Mayne
Harry Clifford           Rick Parker
Jason Davies             Dennis Pocekay
Ray Johnson              Lou Steinberg
Christina Kauk          Pamela Torliatt

There was no overlap between those supported by the developer funded coalition of Healy/Albertson/Harris and the community supported coalition of Glass/Barrett/Renee. Of particular note:

• Not one of the developer funded HAH coalition “expressed interest” in Jason Davies. Davies received more voter support for council than any of the other 19 applicants;
• Healy has commented and made clear in an Argus Courier letter to the editor that Jason Davies should not be considered for the vacancy. According to Healy the Council would be best served by selecting an applicant who was above the political fray. Yet, Healy “expressed interest” (aka voted) three times, along with Mike Harris, for Ray Johnson, a losing council candidate and Jeff Mayne, a losing Mayoral candidate (Albertson agreed two of the three times but dropped his interest in Mayne on the third vote);
• The community supported coalition of Glass, Barrett and Renee “voted” for what could be considered a compromise candidate – Dennis Pocekay.

Click Record for a full accounting of the “expressions of interests”/votes made at the January 31st meeting was compiled by Council Watch. Click on Agenda for the full agenda including a full list of the 19 applicants and their applications.

Comment: What to Look For

It will be interesting to see if both coalitions stick to the applicants they ended up with on their third vote at the January 31st meeting or go back to the original list of 19. Back tracking will essentially eliminate any of the previous progress made.

Also of interest will be if to see if HAH is totally wedded to development interests. HAH did not take the opportunity to accept Pocekay as an interesting possible compromise candidate in January.

The level of enthusiasm – perhaps demonstrated by the level of vigorous, intelligent debate versus the pabulum of “consensus” – will be an interesting indicator of whether the HAH coalition wants to fill the seat or continue with its obstruction of progress.

Since January 14, when Petaluma Tomorrow along with the City of Petaluma, the Petaluma River Council, the Madrone Audubon Society, Friends of Shollenberger Park, Moms for Clean Air and five individuals filed a lawsuit against the county to stop the Dutra Asphalt Plant, much preparation has gone on regarding the suit and a complaint to the Board of Supervisors for Brown Act violations.

• The Board of Supervisors, in closed session and beyond public scrutiny, denied claims that they violated of the Brown Act, California’s Open Meeting Law at their meeting on December 14, 2010.   At the December meeting the BoS prohibited any public comment on the Dutra Asphalt plant. This is a very disappointing violation of the basic tenants of open government.
• Based on the decision of the BOS regarding Brown Act violations, the law suit against the county has been amended to include the violations.

We will continue to update you as new information becomes available.

PETALUMA TOMORROW PROMINENT IN ONGOING SAVE SHOLLENBERGER EFFORTS – Preparation of Documents for Law Suit

During the last week and a half PT members have taken a lead role in the volunteer effort to scan documents needed for the law suit to stop the Dutra Asphalt plant and save Shollenberger Park.  An initial requirement to mount the legal action is the scanning of an estimated 70,000 pages of documents.  Charges for the scanning would have been in excess of $65,000 had it been done by the county instead of volunteers.  Reflecting our commitment to this effort and the dedication of individual members, over half of the volunteer time required to complete the task has been staffed by Petaluma Tomorrow members.

The City has posted a notice that it is seeking applications for city commissions and committees.  This is a great way to become involved in policy making at the ground level.  And, it has become a path to taking a more prominent role in city politics.  The notice from the city’s website is shown below with a link to the application and instructions.

Get Involved!

Applications are now being accepted to serve on City Boards, Commissions, and Committees. To learn more and complete an application, visit here.

The Sonoma-Marin Area Rail Transit District is holding another community workshop to receive public input on the design of the Downtown and Corona Road stations. SMART staff and design consultants will present information about the progress of the project in general and, more specifically, the design of the two stations and related components. The workshop will be at the Petaluma Community Center and will occur on Wednesday, February 23, 2011, from 5:00 p.m. to 7:00 p.m.

(From the City of Petaluma Website)