This editorial is the opinion of Bill Coburn, publisher of Sierra Madre News Net and 15 year Sierra Madre resident. It is not intended to reflect the views of any other person or entity with whom I am associated.
At Tuesday night’s City Council meeting, the City Council did the right thing by setting the proposed water rate increase aside. Not only was it the right thing, it was actually an extraordinary thing. To respond to the will of the people of the community in this manner, when the consequences to the City for doing so could be, shall we say, problematic, even when not legally required to do so, was an extraordinary action by this Council, and one that their critics are not giving them enough credit for. Of course, part of the reason they are not being given the credit is because they then turned around and did the wrong thing.
I understand why the Council remained silent on the issue of whether or not they would allow the people to protest the next rate increase proposal. One of the first rules of business is to not close off options unless you absolutely have to. I don’t have any law training, but I’m guessing that rule is one that is pressed even harder in that profession, so with two attorneys on the Council, this was probably not the direction they wanted to go. Kind of like in sales, you should never negotiate against yourself, and never negotiate the price you will receive to a lower amount. But in this case, I think the Council made a mistake in not recognizing that closing off an option (by allowing a Prop. 218 protest on the next proposal) was something they HAD to do. They couldn’t vote on it at the meeting, because it wasn’t on the agenda, but they could have all said "that’s our intent."
As much distrust as their has been of this council, and as much anger as has been stirred up by this increase and the way it was handled, this Council should have stated collectively that they would allow the ratepayers and parcel owners of this town the opportunity to protest the proposal they come back with. It would have gone a long way toward opening up the lines of communication and toward helping to build up some trust. And after all, having already taken the extraordinary action of listening to the protestors even though they weren’t legally required to do so, this would have just been an extension of that action. And if this protest failed, which it legally did, and they trust their outreach program to explain to the people why the next proposed increase is necessary, they should expect that they will be able to get the next proposal passed, too. So on that Agenda item, I think they got one right, one wrong.
On the outreach program item, I think they got it right. Taking the time to talk to the people of this town, and more importantly to listen, is the only way they stand a chance of getting the people to approve a water hike in the future. Well, not the only way, they can send it through by using the option I think they should have given up. They can, legally, send an increase through without the approval of the people, as long as it is lower than the plan they just decided to scuttle, but they shouldn’t.
Unlike former Mayor Kurt Zimmerman, I don’t think that the outreach program is predicated on the idea that the Council thinks the residents are stupid, I think it’s predicated on the idea that the Council thinks the residents are uninformed. And they are, although nowhere nearly as uninformed as they were two months ago. I’ve heard some criticism that the issue of the bonds was brought up late, though I don’t know for sure when it was first cited as one of the reasons for the hike. If, as the City Attorney implied at the July 13th meeting, the bond company has the right to accelerate payment of the debt to pay it immediately, it may not be in the best interests of the City to send up flares saying hey, we’re not conforming to the terms of our contract. Maybe, that’s why they didn’t talk about it in the beginning. Whatever the reason, it is being perceived by some as sneakiness and conspiracy. There’s no conspiracy folks, just a bunch of people trying to do their job. But it will be easier for them to do their jobs if, as Council member MacGillivray suggested, we are told what projects need to be done, where they stand in urgency, how much they will cost, and how much the people will benefit from the projects. Projects that we end up paying only a portion of because we are able to get funding from others might be worth it in the long run. But I think the residents of this town want to learn a little bit more about what’s being proposed before giving it their blessing.
The other thing the Council got right was the General Plan item. I haven’t been following that too much, but it now has my attention. Kudos to City Attorney Levin for providing the City with a solution they didn’t really ask for, by suggesting that a list of volunteers be created to implement an outreach program created by the Steering Committee, rather than creating a Brown Act committee. Bringing in a bunch of volunteers that are not restricted by the Brown Act to work on this plan could jump start this process, and the Council will still have the option, if I understood it correctly, of having more say in the creation of the advisory committees down the road. The General Plan should have as much resident participation as possible, and this seems like a good way to go about it.
Thursday, July 29, 2010
Sunday, July 25, 2010
All Valid Protest Letters Should Count, Not Just Some
Editorial by Bill Coburn
This editorial is the opinion of Bill Coburn, publisher of Sierra Madre News Net and 15 year Sierra Madre resident. It is not intended to reflect the views of any other person or entity with whom I am associated
The results of the verification of resident protest letters regarding the water rate increase is to be reported to the City Council at Tuesday night’s meeting. That verification was to consist of eliminating any duplicate letters, then cross-checking the names/addresses on the protest letters against the City’s water billing list. If the name listed for an address in a protest was not the name on the City’s water billing list, the name was then to be checked against the Assessor’s Parcel database to see if the name the County Assessor has listed as the parcel owner was the same as the name on the protest. If the name and address of a protestor could not be matched with either the City’s water billing list or the County Assessor database, it was to be disqualified. Only one name was to be allowed per parcel, though, either the rate payer or the parcel owner, not both.
The City Clerk was charged with verifying the signatures. Again, verification was to include both the City’s water list and the County Assessor’s Parcel database. Verifying against just one list or the other means that only half the job was done. Checking just the water bill would mean that a protesting property owner whose tenant pays the water bill might be wrongfully disqualified, because their name is not on the water bill. Checking just the Parcel list would mean that protesting tenants who pay for their own water might be wrongfully disqualified, because the Assessor doesn’t show their name as the property owner. So it is imperative that both lists be checked, to make sure everyone that has a legal right to protest is given their right to do so.
Last weekend, more than a week before the presentation of the report to the City Council was scheduled to take place, City Clerk Nancy Shollenberger announced in a press release that she had “tabulated and determined the validity of the written protests to the City's proposed water fee increase. I hereby find and give notice that there were 1,898 written protests. Accordingly, a majority of parcel owners, who would have been impacted by the proposed fee increase, have submitted written protests.” The press release stated that there were 1,898 written protests, plus 151 duplicates (2,049 total).
She added the following post script:
“P.S. The City Clerk did not have access to the Assessor's Parcel Numbers List/Owner's Names. If this list is made available to her, she will be happy to check the list again.”
Let’s look at this statement. Ms. Shollenberger states that a majority of parcel owners, who would have been impacted by the proposed fee increase, have submitted written protests. A) It’s not just parcel owners that are to be counted, it’s rate payers as well, hence the need to verify against both the water bill list and the Parcel Owner’s database. Why weren’t the rate payers referenced in her statement? B) How can she find and give notice that a majority of parcel owners have protested, when she, by her own admission, hasn’t accessed the database of Parcel Owners?
In addition, the first sentence of this post script is just flat out not true. Anybody that goes to the Assessor’s Office and asks for it has access to that list (our City staff did just that in order to double check signatures, see below). Also, anybody with online access to MLS has access to that list, and I’m sure there are many Sierra Madreans that have access to MLS that would have been happy to help with this task.
What Ms. Shollenberger was really trying to say was that she was denied access by the City to that list, a claim the City has denied. The City doesn’t have a parcel owner's “list,” however, it does have software that provides them access to the County Assessor's database, so that specific addresses/parcels can be looked up to verify ownership. According to City Manager Elaine Aguilar, our City Clerk, on three different occasions, was offered access to that database, and access to a staff member to make sure that if the City Clerk had problems with the software, there was someone there that was familiar enough with the software that any issues might be resolved. She declined the offer each time.
According to Ms. Aguilar, Nancy told her she intended instead to be at City Hall during the part of the City staff’s review of the protest letters when staff was using the Assessor’s database to cross-check any letters that did not match the water bill names. In fact, according to Ms. Shollenberger herself, she intended to be there. To quote the City Clerk from an e-mail I received from her on Tuesday: “I have asked her (Ms. Aguilar) to let me know when they will start and I will be there.” That was originally scheduled to begin on Tuesday. However, cross-checking the water bill names against the protest letters took longer than anticipated and so the second phase didn’t begin until Wednesday morning. According to the City Manager, verification against the Assessor’s Parcel list took place both Wednesday and Thursday. Yet for some reason, the City Clerk decided not to go. According to the City Manager, Ms. Shollenberger instead sent a “deputy” to observe on Wednesday, but just a few minutes before staff began checking the names, the deputy announced that she had to run home for a few minutes. She never came back, and so even though staff was checking names against the Assessor’s database for two full days, no one from the City Clerk’s office was on hand to take note of their findings. Part of the reason that aspect of the verification took two full days is that City staff, knowing there is the possibility of delay in updating the online database, after checking online, physically went to the Assessor’s office and double checked any names that had not matched up during their online verification attempt.
I expect that Ms. Shollenberger’s report to the City Council will differ from the report in her press release. After all, she has publicly issued two different numbers for the number of protests she has received (the figure of 1,941 that she stated at the July 13th City Council meeting was different than the 1,898/2,049 figures she provided in her press release), and in an e-mail to me on Tuesday the 20th, she stated she had 1,959, a third number. In addition, her press release clearly states that she had failed to perform the assigned task of verifying signatures against the Assessor’s Parcel list, which leaves the possibility that some qualified protestors had not, at that time, had their protests allowed. One wonders why she would even issue such a press release, since it clearly states that she hadn’t completed her job at the time it was issued.
So it is important that she now follow through with the verification against the Assessor’s database, and issue a final report in which the verification process is completed, not done half way. Ms. Shollenberger has (erroneously) claimed she doesn’t have access to the Assessor’s database, and didn’t have anybody on hand taking notes when the City was accessing the database. Since the City Clerk has chosen not to be involved when the City Staff was checking the Assessor’s Parcel database, it is critical that the City Clerk’s office now access the Assessor’s Parcel list on its own to verify the names, before issuing its report on Tuesday. It’s the only way to ensure that ALL protests that SHOULD be counted, ARE counted.
The sad part in all this is how unnecessary the controversy is. Council stated at the last meeting that the water rate increase was not moving forward, and directed staff to develop an outreach program to do a better job of informing residents why it feels a water rate increase is required. So this whole verification process is a formality, albeit a necessary one. If I remember correctly, and I could be wrong, memory occasionally fails, but I believe Joe Mosca asked if it was even necessary to count the protests since the increase was dead, and Council Member MacGillivray (correctly) stated that it was necessary. But this should be a non-issue: a quick look for duplicates, followed by a comparison of names/addresses against the water bill, and then a cross check of parcel lot owners, culminating in a 30 second reading of the final count on Tuesday. Instead, we have three different numbers from the City Clerk, which calls everything into question. We have accusations by the City Clerk that the City has refused to provide access to the very list the City directed her to use (what sense would that make?) which only adds to the problem. And we have unsubstantiated allegations that the City Manager is trying to make her own list so she can force the water rate increase through, when all she’s trying to do is ensure that the City is protected by making sure the signature verification is done the proper way. Which, by the way, is her job, the City Council directed staff to work on these numbers, too. She’s conducting her own analysis. In theory, since she’s working from the same list the City Clerk is, and they are operating under the same guidelines, the numbers should be exactly the same in the City Manager's report as they are in the City Clerk’s.
City staff should be concentrating on trying to figure out a way to get some money to the water department in a manner that is acceptable to the rate payers, not concerning themselves with a ridiculous controversy over what should be a non-issue.
This editorial is the opinion of Bill Coburn, publisher of Sierra Madre News Net and 15 year Sierra Madre resident. It is not intended to reflect the views of any other person or entity with whom I am associated
The results of the verification of resident protest letters regarding the water rate increase is to be reported to the City Council at Tuesday night’s meeting. That verification was to consist of eliminating any duplicate letters, then cross-checking the names/addresses on the protest letters against the City’s water billing list. If the name listed for an address in a protest was not the name on the City’s water billing list, the name was then to be checked against the Assessor’s Parcel database to see if the name the County Assessor has listed as the parcel owner was the same as the name on the protest. If the name and address of a protestor could not be matched with either the City’s water billing list or the County Assessor database, it was to be disqualified. Only one name was to be allowed per parcel, though, either the rate payer or the parcel owner, not both.
The City Clerk was charged with verifying the signatures. Again, verification was to include both the City’s water list and the County Assessor’s Parcel database. Verifying against just one list or the other means that only half the job was done. Checking just the water bill would mean that a protesting property owner whose tenant pays the water bill might be wrongfully disqualified, because their name is not on the water bill. Checking just the Parcel list would mean that protesting tenants who pay for their own water might be wrongfully disqualified, because the Assessor doesn’t show their name as the property owner. So it is imperative that both lists be checked, to make sure everyone that has a legal right to protest is given their right to do so.
Last weekend, more than a week before the presentation of the report to the City Council was scheduled to take place, City Clerk Nancy Shollenberger announced in a press release that she had “tabulated and determined the validity of the written protests to the City's proposed water fee increase. I hereby find and give notice that there were 1,898 written protests. Accordingly, a majority of parcel owners, who would have been impacted by the proposed fee increase, have submitted written protests.” The press release stated that there were 1,898 written protests, plus 151 duplicates (2,049 total).
She added the following post script:
“P.S. The City Clerk did not have access to the Assessor's Parcel Numbers List/Owner's Names. If this list is made available to her, she will be happy to check the list again.”
Let’s look at this statement. Ms. Shollenberger states that a majority of parcel owners, who would have been impacted by the proposed fee increase, have submitted written protests. A) It’s not just parcel owners that are to be counted, it’s rate payers as well, hence the need to verify against both the water bill list and the Parcel Owner’s database. Why weren’t the rate payers referenced in her statement? B) How can she find and give notice that a majority of parcel owners have protested, when she, by her own admission, hasn’t accessed the database of Parcel Owners?
In addition, the first sentence of this post script is just flat out not true. Anybody that goes to the Assessor’s Office and asks for it has access to that list (our City staff did just that in order to double check signatures, see below). Also, anybody with online access to MLS has access to that list, and I’m sure there are many Sierra Madreans that have access to MLS that would have been happy to help with this task.
What Ms. Shollenberger was really trying to say was that she was denied access by the City to that list, a claim the City has denied. The City doesn’t have a parcel owner's “list,” however, it does have software that provides them access to the County Assessor's database, so that specific addresses/parcels can be looked up to verify ownership. According to City Manager Elaine Aguilar, our City Clerk, on three different occasions, was offered access to that database, and access to a staff member to make sure that if the City Clerk had problems with the software, there was someone there that was familiar enough with the software that any issues might be resolved. She declined the offer each time.
According to Ms. Aguilar, Nancy told her she intended instead to be at City Hall during the part of the City staff’s review of the protest letters when staff was using the Assessor’s database to cross-check any letters that did not match the water bill names. In fact, according to Ms. Shollenberger herself, she intended to be there. To quote the City Clerk from an e-mail I received from her on Tuesday: “I have asked her (Ms. Aguilar) to let me know when they will start and I will be there.” That was originally scheduled to begin on Tuesday. However, cross-checking the water bill names against the protest letters took longer than anticipated and so the second phase didn’t begin until Wednesday morning. According to the City Manager, verification against the Assessor’s Parcel list took place both Wednesday and Thursday. Yet for some reason, the City Clerk decided not to go. According to the City Manager, Ms. Shollenberger instead sent a “deputy” to observe on Wednesday, but just a few minutes before staff began checking the names, the deputy announced that she had to run home for a few minutes. She never came back, and so even though staff was checking names against the Assessor’s database for two full days, no one from the City Clerk’s office was on hand to take note of their findings. Part of the reason that aspect of the verification took two full days is that City staff, knowing there is the possibility of delay in updating the online database, after checking online, physically went to the Assessor’s office and double checked any names that had not matched up during their online verification attempt.
I expect that Ms. Shollenberger’s report to the City Council will differ from the report in her press release. After all, she has publicly issued two different numbers for the number of protests she has received (the figure of 1,941 that she stated at the July 13th City Council meeting was different than the 1,898/2,049 figures she provided in her press release), and in an e-mail to me on Tuesday the 20th, she stated she had 1,959, a third number. In addition, her press release clearly states that she had failed to perform the assigned task of verifying signatures against the Assessor’s Parcel list, which leaves the possibility that some qualified protestors had not, at that time, had their protests allowed. One wonders why she would even issue such a press release, since it clearly states that she hadn’t completed her job at the time it was issued.
So it is important that she now follow through with the verification against the Assessor’s database, and issue a final report in which the verification process is completed, not done half way. Ms. Shollenberger has (erroneously) claimed she doesn’t have access to the Assessor’s database, and didn’t have anybody on hand taking notes when the City was accessing the database. Since the City Clerk has chosen not to be involved when the City Staff was checking the Assessor’s Parcel database, it is critical that the City Clerk’s office now access the Assessor’s Parcel list on its own to verify the names, before issuing its report on Tuesday. It’s the only way to ensure that ALL protests that SHOULD be counted, ARE counted.
The sad part in all this is how unnecessary the controversy is. Council stated at the last meeting that the water rate increase was not moving forward, and directed staff to develop an outreach program to do a better job of informing residents why it feels a water rate increase is required. So this whole verification process is a formality, albeit a necessary one. If I remember correctly, and I could be wrong, memory occasionally fails, but I believe Joe Mosca asked if it was even necessary to count the protests since the increase was dead, and Council Member MacGillivray (correctly) stated that it was necessary. But this should be a non-issue: a quick look for duplicates, followed by a comparison of names/addresses against the water bill, and then a cross check of parcel lot owners, culminating in a 30 second reading of the final count on Tuesday. Instead, we have three different numbers from the City Clerk, which calls everything into question. We have accusations by the City Clerk that the City has refused to provide access to the very list the City directed her to use (what sense would that make?) which only adds to the problem. And we have unsubstantiated allegations that the City Manager is trying to make her own list so she can force the water rate increase through, when all she’s trying to do is ensure that the City is protected by making sure the signature verification is done the proper way. Which, by the way, is her job, the City Council directed staff to work on these numbers, too. She’s conducting her own analysis. In theory, since she’s working from the same list the City Clerk is, and they are operating under the same guidelines, the numbers should be exactly the same in the City Manager's report as they are in the City Clerk’s.
City staff should be concentrating on trying to figure out a way to get some money to the water department in a manner that is acceptable to the rate payers, not concerning themselves with a ridiculous controversy over what should be a non-issue.
Tuesday, July 20, 2010
What Are The Real Numbers? Who Cares? I Do, NOW
This editorial is the opinion of Bill Coburn, publisher of Sierra Madre News Net and 15 year Sierra Madre resident. It is not intended to reflect the views of any other person or entity with whom I am associated
Last Tuesday night at City Hall, City Clerk Nancy Shollenberger announced at the beginning of the meeting that she had 1829 letters of protest against the City's proposed water rate increase. When the Council was discussing the water rate agenda item, she updated everyone that she had received 112 protest letters during the meeting. I understood that when discussion of that agenda item closed, that was the end of when protest letters were to be accepted, so it was my understanding that 1941 protest letters had been received, and that those signatures were to be verified by the City Clerk and by City staff.
Then the City Clerk issued a press release, see below. That release had different numbers. So I sent Ms. Shollenberger an e-mail, asking her: :"...at the City Council meeting on Tuesday, you stated that there were 1829 protest letters at the beginning of the meeting, and that you received 112 during the meeting, which made a total of 1941 protest letters, which you stated at the time had not yet been verified. Yet your press release says that there are actually 1898 protest letters and 151 rejections. That means 2,049 protest letters. Can you account for this discrepancy in the numbers?"
I have now received her response: "I will check with the volunteers that did the vetting of signatures. I trusted their final report. I have 1959 protest letters." (emphasis mine)
The Mayor has already stated that whether there were enough protest letters to meet the legal requirements or not, the City has heard the protest and the water rate increase as proposed is dead. In other words, at this point, the count is just a formality that crosses the Ts and dots the Is. Interesting information for some, but more or less meaningless, since the decision has already been made to scuttle the increase. We all know that the people have spoken and the City has to back down. What SHOULD be foremost on everybody's minds now is how we move forward, how we get more money into the water department to pay for the aging system, build up the reserves and satisfy our obligations to the bond holder in a way that is acceptable to the people of the town of Sierra Madre.
But we have a little hitch in the gitalong, having to do with inconsistencies in the numbers being provided by the office of the City Clerk, which leads to other questions. What I can't figure out is this. Why are there now THREE different numbers? Which is it? 1941 from Tuesday night? 1898/2049 from Friday's press release? 1959 from today's e-mail? Why didn't the City Clerk notice that the numbers were different and ask the volunteers without me having to ask about it? Why does she have to ask the volunteers, instead of knowing the answer before the question is asked? And why does her press release never mention the number 1959, yet her e-mail to me says that's what she has today?
Why are we getting a final report from volunteers and NOT from the City Clerk, who is the person actually charged with issuing the report? She herself calls it THEIR final report. Why are volunteers doing the vetting of signatures instead of the City Clerk? The City Clerk has claimed ownership of this process, not allowing the originals to be left with the City Manager because "the people" wanted the originals left with her. Yet she apparently felt no responsibility to the people to check the numbers that were provided to her by a group of volunteers, and compare them to her own numbers from Tuesday night.
Last Tuesday night at City Hall, City Clerk Nancy Shollenberger announced at the beginning of the meeting that she had 1829 letters of protest against the City's proposed water rate increase. When the Council was discussing the water rate agenda item, she updated everyone that she had received 112 protest letters during the meeting. I understood that when discussion of that agenda item closed, that was the end of when protest letters were to be accepted, so it was my understanding that 1941 protest letters had been received, and that those signatures were to be verified by the City Clerk and by City staff.
Then the City Clerk issued a press release, see below. That release had different numbers. So I sent Ms. Shollenberger an e-mail, asking her: :"...at the City Council meeting on Tuesday, you stated that there were 1829 protest letters at the beginning of the meeting, and that you received 112 during the meeting, which made a total of 1941 protest letters, which you stated at the time had not yet been verified. Yet your press release says that there are actually 1898 protest letters and 151 rejections. That means 2,049 protest letters. Can you account for this discrepancy in the numbers?"
I have now received her response: "I will check with the volunteers that did the vetting of signatures. I trusted their final report. I have 1959 protest letters." (emphasis mine)
The Mayor has already stated that whether there were enough protest letters to meet the legal requirements or not, the City has heard the protest and the water rate increase as proposed is dead. In other words, at this point, the count is just a formality that crosses the Ts and dots the Is. Interesting information for some, but more or less meaningless, since the decision has already been made to scuttle the increase. We all know that the people have spoken and the City has to back down. What SHOULD be foremost on everybody's minds now is how we move forward, how we get more money into the water department to pay for the aging system, build up the reserves and satisfy our obligations to the bond holder in a way that is acceptable to the people of the town of Sierra Madre.
But we have a little hitch in the gitalong, having to do with inconsistencies in the numbers being provided by the office of the City Clerk, which leads to other questions. What I can't figure out is this. Why are there now THREE different numbers? Which is it? 1941 from Tuesday night? 1898/2049 from Friday's press release? 1959 from today's e-mail? Why didn't the City Clerk notice that the numbers were different and ask the volunteers without me having to ask about it? Why does she have to ask the volunteers, instead of knowing the answer before the question is asked? And why does her press release never mention the number 1959, yet her e-mail to me says that's what she has today?
Why are we getting a final report from volunteers and NOT from the City Clerk, who is the person actually charged with issuing the report? She herself calls it THEIR final report. Why are volunteers doing the vetting of signatures instead of the City Clerk? The City Clerk has claimed ownership of this process, not allowing the originals to be left with the City Manager because "the people" wanted the originals left with her. Yet she apparently felt no responsibility to the people to check the numbers that were provided to her by a group of volunteers, and compare them to her own numbers from Tuesday night.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
