[Kern County] Promoting Kern County ….

Blog note: this opinion piece (partial) references a grand jury report. The piece also addresses other matters not related to the grand jury (not included in this blog).

While acknowledging that county officials didn’t do the greatest job of reorganizing the venerable Kern County Board of Trade, county supervisors Tuesday voted to change the name of the agency and eliminate its 10-member advisory Board.

The Board’s action followed release of a report by the Kern County Grand Jury which argued that the Board of Trade essentially no longer exists, with its economic development efforts now handled by the Kern County Economic Development Corporation, and tourism and filming promotion by an “Office of County Wide Communications” in the County Administrative Office, which absorbed Board responsibilities in 2012.

Northcutt comments

At Tuesday’s Board meeting, Trade Board member Karen Northcutt, who represents the Kern River Valley, criticized the grand jury report and also the way county officials have been managing efforts to promote tourism and attract filming to Kern in recent years.

“The Board has a robust history” of promoting Kern County, Northcutt said, recalling an event in the former BAE hangar at the Mojave Air & Spaceport some years ago that attracted 200 people and allowed airport businesses to promote their operations with booths in the building.

Nothing like that has occurred since, she said, adding the Board has not had a meeting for 18 months despite asking county staff to hold one.

The only current evidence of any Board activity in Eastern Kern is a bimonthly report delivered by a CAO employee at East Kern Economic Alliance meetings.

While the grand jury report claims that Board staff attend local Chamber of Commerce meetings, that has not been the case in Mojave.

The county maintains a web site, Visitkern.com, which lists several “day trips,” none of which mention Mojave. Two of the trips include visits to Tehachapi and to Boron and California City, both of the trips listed as being in “South Kern,” wherever that is.

The only “event” listed for the entire county is Kernville’s “Whiskey Flat Days.”

Times change

Some explanation for the current state of affairs can be attributed to advances of technology, which has significantly changed promotion and advertising.

Colorful brochures have been replaced by web pages and social media. I answer the Mojave Chamber of Commerce phone, and only about four or five times a year do I get a call from someone without internet access requesting a brochure.

Each month I also respond to requests for information and reservations for the Plane Crazy Saturday events at the Mojave Air & Spaceport, which attract visitors from all over the globe, especially from Europe and Japan and which is promoted online.

But Northcutt noted that many people in the Kern River Valley and elsewhere do not have access to the internet.

Change made ‘under the radar’

She also complained that the proposed changes to promoting the county and its many communities has been handled “under the radar.”

Megan Pearson, who manages the new Office of County Wide Communications which now promotes tourism and filming in Kern, defended the office’s efforts which include representing the county at trade shows, including one this week.

Northcutt and others who addressed the board also criticized the Grand Jury report and asked if it could be amended.

County Administrative Officer Ryan Alsop said the county’s response is required by law to be submitted the day of the meeting.

Supervisors Mick Gleason and David Couch asked that follow-up information be submitted to the grand jury to “clarify” some comments contained in its report.

I personally believe supervisors should continue to have a county-wide Board of representatives to advise county officials on promotion efforts, like the many Boards that perform similar duties for other county operations.

Northcutt said that while Board members were paid a stipend, they returned their checks to the county and then received IRS1099 tax forms requiring them to pay taxes on the money they refused.

We’ll have to wait and see how the new promotion operations works out.

February 16, 2020

Antelope Valley Press

By Bill Deaver

Placer County Office of Education continues to make safety a priority

Responses to the Placer Grand Jury Report were published last week and one thing is clear – both the Grand Jury and Placer County Office of Education value the importance of a safe school environment.

The Grand Jury’s findings, in their 2019 report, showed most county schools visited did not have adequate visitor badge information but that schools are diligent in creating a culture of safety and security for students, staff and the community with the available resources.

The county office pointed out that of the 10 school sites the Grand Jury visited, none were county-operated.

“(The office of education) develops comprehensive school safety plans for the seven program sites in which we directly oversee and operate,” said Michelle Eklund, chief communications officer for the County Office of Education. “Each plan is tailored to consider the various needs and challenges of our student population and facilities.”

The County Office of Education is under the leadership of Placer County Superintendent of Schools Gayle Garbolino-Mojica and the County Board of Education. The Office of Education serves as a link between the California Department of Education and 16 local school districts in Placer County.

In regard to public safety at all 16 school districts, the office of education hosts quarterly county-wide District School Safety Committee meetings with 100 percent participation. These meetings include law enforcement and first responders.

In response to not having adequate visitor badge information, the county office of education’s response partially disagreed.

“While there may not be a standardized format across Placer County school districts regarding the information on a visitor badge, most schools employ a visitor badge system or process that they are able to administer efficiently,” the response stated.

The response also stated that how the visitor badge process is operated is decided by each individual school district.

The Grand Jury report recommended the county office of education require visitor badges, which they stated they do in the report, and that they require all visitor badges be retrieved at the end of the visit.

Garbolino-Mojica stated in the report that while they support the badge retrieval at the end of a visit, they cannot fully implement that recommendation because of the open nature of many school campuses throughout Placer County. She said in rare instances visitors may leave without signing out.

“While this situation is infrequent,” she said, “(County Office of Education) leadership will further investigate means of curtailing occurrences of unaccounted visitors.”

February 15, 2020

Auburn Journal (Gold Country Media)

By Traci Newll

[Solano County] Grand jury finds Rourk Vocational Training Center lacks path to future

FAIRFIELD — The 2019-20 Solano County civil grand jury has concluded the new $25.7 million Rourk Vocational Training Center is essentially rudderless.

“The grand jury found the facility has neither utilization plans nor performance metrics and no way to gauge inmate interest in vocational training based on future workplace needs,” the summary of the report released to the public Friday states.

Sheriff Thomas Ferrara said that is not a focused picture of the situation.

“It’s a work in progress and we are going to make it a great thing,” said Ferrara, who added that when the grand jury members visited, the facility had not been open very long, and the inmate population has changed since the facility was first planned.

The sheriff said of the 680 inmates in the jail facilities as of Monday, including 120 women, maybe 7 to 11 percent are eligible or willing to participate. Eligibility includes a level of security screening, such as violent offenders, as well as making sure inmates complete substance abuse and similar programs before being allowed in the work training facility.

“So when it is all said and done, you are looking at maybe 50 to 75 inmates, men and women, who are eligible and willing to use the programs,” Ferrara said.

He said those numbers do indicate, however, the need to rethink the whole of the program and possibly allow probationers to use the training facility as well.

At the time of the grand jury tour Sept. 19, only four inmates were taking advantage of the programs, all in the forklift training class.

The grand jury report issued a single finding that, “At the time of our tour, the Rourk facility was underutilized; it has the capacity to train more than (100) inmates, but was training only four.”

There were three recommendations:

• The Sheriff’s Office fast track the development of plans to utilize the facility to its full potential.

• The Sheriff’s Office use employment data trends for the future to plan and implement offerings.

• The Sheriff’s Office seek additional partners and entities to utilize this facility.

“The grand jury members who toured the facility were impressed. It is new, well-designed and clean, with many resources available. It is unfortunate that classrooms are empty and learning (and) training spaces are not utilized,” the report states.

Civil grand juries are required by law to investigate “the condition and management of penal institutions within the county.”

The project was funded with $23.04 million through the Senate Bill 1022 Adult Local Criminal Justice Facilities Construction Financing Program. The county contributed $2.66 million, plus the land value of $1 million as an in-lieu contribution.

“The facility, designed to provide more than (100) inmates the training to develop work-related skills, has 9,940 square feet of classroom space. There are seven classrooms dedicated to computer training, life sciences, vocational training and various other programs,” the grand jury report states.

“Training bays are available for pre-apprenticeship programs in automotive maintenance, welding, carpentry, diesel mechanics, plumbing, heating and air conditioning, sheet metal work and electrician training. Sixty-thousand square feet of the facility is dedicated to driver training and heavy equipment operations. Other programs include substance abuse treatment, anger management and a pathway to obtain a high school diploma.”

While the grand jury concluded that inmate interest is necessary for the success of the facility, “available qualified staff” is also essential.

“Rourk has on-call staff that also fills positions in other county facilities. Despite the availability of these resources, staff indicated that there were no forward-looking plans which would anticipate projected job market demands,” the report states.

“The training center serves inmates who do not pose a threat to the general public. Participation in facility programs is determined by inmate interest, length of incarceration, background check and staff approval. In order to accommodate the length of inmate sentences, many programs are flexible,” the report states. “Staff indicated that the goal of this facility and its programs is to reduce recidivism.”

The sheriff said time will tell the truer story.

“I would encourage them to come back in a year and see how far we’ve come,” Ferrara said.

February 15, 2020

Fairfield Daily Republic

By Todd R. Hansen

[Placer County] Juvenile facility offers career, education training to youth

The Placer County Grand Jury released its final report response regarding the annual inspection of the Placer County Juvenile Detention Facility and recommended the JDF provide information on career and technical training opportunities and expand educational opportunities to include technical training programs.

The JDF confirmed the recommendations have been partially implemented and the opportunities it provides will be strengthened.

Melanie Esque, the JDF superintendent program manager, said the facility has been working with the Placer County Re-Entry Program to provide education and career training to youth before their release.

“We actively have the PREP Center come in for anyone who is 18 and older,” Esque said. “They can come in and do a one-on-one with a transition specialist before they leave the facility.”

The PREP Center program has been extended to provide resources and develop a transition plan for youth once they are released. The facility also has weekly meetings to assist with developing transition plans for youth based on their needs, Esque said. The JDF reported the PREP Center works with Golden Sierra Employment Services and Northern California Construction Training to provide job placement and training for construction opportunities.

Golden Sierra Employment Services has been meeting with youth in the facility who have already graduated to develop an employment program, including interview skills and resume building. The facility will continue to work with Golden Sierra Employment Services to expand off-site job connection events and implement soft skill classes, according to Esque.

The JDF has been working with Unity Care to assist youth with their transition back into the community with education, employment and housing services. Approved field trips will be arranged to provide youth with positive engagements while in the community, the JDF reported.

The facility implemented the Youth Rehabilitation Program in May 2019 to assist youth with transitioning back into the community. Phase two of this program, coming in March, will be the Youth Center, an enhancement to the current program to provide youth with services while they work through the core system in the facility, according to Esque. The program provides services in independent living, cognitive behavior skills, education, work and vocational, mental health and family reunification, the JDF reported.

“We’re excited for the Youth Center program,” Esque said. “It will hit a large array of kids that transition out of the facility.”

February 14, 2020

Gold Country Media

By Stacey Adams

[Shasta County] Shasta County’s Measure A – Hard Questions To Ask

Blog note: this opinion piece references a 2018 Shasta County Grand Jury report. The writer identifies herself as a member of that grand jury.

County residents should be asking hard questions about Measure A, which proposes a countywide sales tax of 1%, mostly to fund the county jail and law enforcement, and which will be on voters’ ballots for the March 3 primary.

Although it’s frequently referred to as a “public safety tax”, from my perspective that isn’t entirely accurate. “Public safety” is a term that refers to the welfare and protection of the general public. This means you, me, the rich people who live up on the hill, and the unsheltered men and women sleeping outside. A more accurate description would be to say that Measure A is focused on something related, but different: enhancing the criminal justice system in Shasta County.

According to the Safe Shasta website, Measure A will provide $31 million dollars, 51% of which will be designated for the Shasta County Jail, including capital expenditures for new facilities, as well as funding for operations, programs and services.

Here are some questions I think both government officials and residents should be asking about Measure A.

What data have officials gathered to show the cause of the real or perceived lack of public safety in Shasta County?

Judging by the planned use of these “public safety” tax funds, public officials view the root cause of the real or perceived lack of public safety as stemming from a lack of jail space, operations, programs and services.

What data has been shared with residents that reasonably proves this conclusion?

Keep in mind that oft-repeated statements aren’t the same as data.

If the public is less safe due to a lack of jail capacity, how many jail beds are needed?

Many people in Shasta County feel that the County needs more jail beds, as anecdotally evidenced by daily capacity releases at the Shasta County Jail. But how many more jail beds are needed?

I was a member of the 2018 Shasta County Grand Jury when we wrote a report on this very subject, titled Jail Capacity and Funding. The Jury pointed out that while it seems clear that Shasta County does need more jail beds, the Board of Supervisors (BOS) has never determined how many jail beds are actually needed. A search of minutes from BOS meetings since that Grand Jury report was published shows no evidence of any data-driven review or analysis of how many jail beds are needed in Shasta County.

What data has been shared with County residents documenting the number of jail beds needed? Why would we designate a percentage of funding to continue to build more jail beds without determining the number needed?

The public has been promised “up to 500” additional jail beds with Measure A money. If data shows that this is the needed number of jail beds, what would the costs be to build these beds and to operate and maintain a jail facility of this capacity?

We all know that 51% of $31 million is a lot of money. But it’s not an infinite amount of money. Before building a bigger jail we need to be very clear on not only what it would cost to construct additional jail space but more critically, what the on-going costs would be to operate the facility we think we need. Don’t forget that the County gave back money for a jail before, when officials had not thoroughly counted the cost ahead of time. It’s fair to ask them to provide us the data that proves they’re not about to make a similar mistake.

Is the cost of new jail facilities for up to 500 inmates known? Have these figures been shared transparently with the public?

How soon will these jail beds become available? What will happen in the meantime?

Common sense tells us that building this many new jail beds will take time.

According to the Safe Shasta website, while jail facilities are being built, Measure A tax money will be used to send a greater number of Shasta County inmates out of County for incarceration. The County is currently funded to send 19 inmates out-of-county for incarceration and the Safe Shasta site states that Measure A funding will allow for 60 out-of-county jail beds. This means the 1% sales tax is guaranteed to increase our jail capacity by only up to 41 beds in the mid-term . . . and this mid-term could likely last several years.

What’s the timeline for new jail facilities? Has this been transparently shared?

Will so-called “quality of life” crimes and homelessness be solved by increasing jail space?

From those most vociferously concerned about Shasta County’s lack of safety I usually hear complaints about “quality of life” crimes and an excessive number of homeless people in Redding. Will either of these be solved by a larger jail? Quality of life crimes are often misdemeanors. Homelessness is not illegal. The Safe Shasta website states, “With these funds we will aggressively address the quality of life crimes, addiction, mental health and homelessness challenges facing our community.” More needs to be said on how these kinds of behaviors would be addressed under the additional funding provided by Measure A.

Specifically, how would Measure A funds be used to combat homelessness and quality of life crimes?

The Shasta County Board of Supervisors paid $97,000 for a jail study that they received in September of 2019. This study indicated, among other findings, that the jail should implement an evidence-based risk assessment to help determine the risk of individual offenders prior to choosing inmates for capacity releases. It also suggested the use of pre-booking assessments to help reduce costs and failures to appear.

During this BOS meeting, a supervisor responded to the report by saying that the County has received multiple previous reports on the jail and they’re not being told anything new this time. (Leading one to wonder why the BOS didn’t originally implement those findings or prove them wrong.) The Sheriff promised at the meeting to respond to these findings in September 2019. There is no further public response documented in 2019.

Why are the BOS spending public funds for jail reports they don’t act on? Could there be cost efficiencies in running the Jail that the County has been informed of but has not implemented?

These questions aren’t comprehensive, but here’s my bottom line: The County would significantly benefit from a sales tax. Such funds could be used to address problems related to expanding homelessness and related low-level crimes, among other perceived public safety issues. Many of us would be happy to pay a 1% sales tax if it serves to benefit our community. But without the County publicly discussing and sharing real data and analysis showing the cause of the public safety issues and how planned spending will address those causes, many concerns arise.

Additionally, I wonder if the suggested uses of Measure A funds prepare our County well for the future. Governor Newsom has suggested there may be a way to penalize counties that have not responded sufficiently to the needs of the homeless (and I don’t think he meant incarcerating them). And a short way down the road, it’s highly likely that California will move to a no-bail jail system where pretrial incarceration is based on safety rather than raising bail. What will we do with our 1,000 jail beds then?

February 13, 2020

aNewsCafe.com

By Annelise Pierce

[Kern County] Grand jury praises KEDC but calls for changes

The nonprofit responsible for improving the local business climate deserves greater recognition and taxpayer investment, but it also needs to end a governance practice that appears to violate state rules, the Kern County grand jury concluded in a report released Wednesday.

The grand jury's eight-page report credited Kern County Economic Development Corp. with projecting a "positive, business-friendly image." It asserted that the "organized, professional and very efficient" organization may be underplaying its role in creating jobs and supporting local employers.

But in addition to suggesting county government increase its annual contribution to KEDC, the grand jury recommended that the organization quit allowing county supervisors to appoint members of their staff to take actions including voting at KEDC's Executive Committee.

In making these suggestions, the grand jury was less critical of KEDC staff than it was of board leadership and county government, which as the report noted, has given the nonprofit an increasingly vital, quasi-governmental mission.

Even at its most critical, however, the report did not fault board actions so much as it took issue with the way decisions have been made.

ECONOMIC ROLE

Founded by public- and private-sector leaders during the oil industry downturn of the late 1980s, KEDC was conceived as an independent partnership that would promote the county's economic development and encourage retention of employees.

About a decade later, the county Board of Supervisors tasked KEDC with implementing Kern's economic strategy and, specifically, working to diversify the local economy beyond the pillars of agriculture and oil production.

Its roughly $1.1 million annual budget, which covers expenses including the salaries of six full-time employees, is funded through a mix of contributions, with only $175,000 coming from the county. The rest comes from other public sources ($50,000), private membership fees ($415,000) and event revenues and other money ($473,800).

PUBLIC INVESTMENT

The grand jury's report notes that the county's funding commitment is tied to performance measures that, in fiscal 2018-2019 at least, KEDC met early in the year. It says this arrangement "has the potential to hinder performance-based initiative."

The report recommended that the county lift the $175,000 funding cap so that KEDC "is appropriately compensated for creating a strong and diverse economy for Kern County."

County spokeswoman Megan Person said by email that Kern's Board of Supervisors is always interested in activity that increases local jobs and advances the economy.

"This (KEDC) contract, like all contracts, can be amended at any time and would be approved by the Board of Supervisors, ensuring we are fiscally responsible with every taxpayer dollar we spend," she wrote.

RECOGNITION-WORTHY

The report also suggested most county residents are unaware of the county's collaboration with KEDC. It said workers may not understand that economic development and jobs "are not created from thin air," adding that "KEDC continues to fulfill its role with little fanfare."

The grand jury recommended that KEDC promote its name beyond the local business community, possibly by adding the words "Brought to you by KEDC" to written materials.

The report's most critical passages regarded KEDC's seven-member Executive Committee, two members of which are county supervisors elected by the public.

MEETING PROBLEMS

It said committee meetings are often cancelled because members fail to respond to messages confirming they plan to attend. Between August 2017 and September 2019, the report said, about a third of the 22 meetings scheduled were cancelled.

During the same period, two Executive Committee meetings took place with no county supervisor or designee present, according to the report.

The report also pointed out that, at 12 committee meetings, a staff designee attended in lieu of a county supervisor and that this person "acted as a proxy." The grand jury said such actions have included making and seconding motions and casting votes.

INAPPROPRIATE VOTING

Such activity is an apparent violation of a California Corporation Code requiring that "no director may vote by proxy," the report stated.

The report concluded by recommending that at least one county supervisor — not a staff designee — attend each monthly Executive Committee meeting. It said each county supervisor on the committee should attend at least four of the group's 10 meetings per year.

It said the practice of allowing county supervisor designees to take formal actions at Executive Committee meetings "should be discontinued immediately."

KEDC's executive leadership declined to take questions about the report. CEO Richard Chapman referred questions instead to Chairman David Womack, who works as senior vice president and area manager for Kaiser Permanente in Kern County.

OFFICIAL RESPONSE

Womack said by email he was delighted by the grand jury's "overwhelmingly positive report" and its recognition KEDC is doing a remarkable job growing new jobs in Kern.

"It reflects the strong leadership of our CEO, Richard Chapman, and the mature guidance of our board," he wrote.

"I personally agree with the grand jury’s recommendation for the county to raise or eliminate the cap on KEDC’s incentive to grow jobs," he added. "New jobs are good for everyone and they return way more to the county in tax revenue than the incentive costs. Everyone wins."

As for county supervisors' proxy voting, Womack wrote that the Executive Committee will address the matter at its regularly scheduled meeting at 8:30 a.m. Feb. 20 at KEDC's offices, 2700 M St., Suite 200.

Person, the county spokeswoman, wrote that the grand jury's report is under review by Kern's compliance and accountability officer. That person will work with county counsel to determine whether adjustments need to be made, she added.

February 12, 2020

The Bakersfield Californian

By John Cox

[Kern County] Grand jury releases first audit of the Kern Economic Development Corporation

The Kern County grand jury released its first ever audit of the Kern Economic Development Corporation.

The corporation is a private, non-profit, created by county officials to help create new business in Kern County.

They created around 3,200 jobs between 2017 and 2018.

The KEDC uses taxpayer money and two county supervisors sit on the executive committee, but there were 12 meetings in 2017 and 2018 that those supervisors did not attend. Instead, they had stand-ins, who sometimes voted on motions, which goes against state law.

The grand jury says the supervisors need to attend the meetings for the county’s interests and also recommends increasing the corporation’s funding to continue its success.

February 12, 2020

KGET.com

By Jose Franco

[Kern County] Grand jury report highlights major upgrades needed at coroner's division

The Kern County Coroner’s facility desperately needs an update, according to a Kern County grand jury report made public on Feb. 4.

And that’s not really news, it noted in the report. Four previous grand jury reports in the past two decades reached similar conclusions.

“It appears the coroner is functioning in the 21st century with 1970s infrastructure,” the report said, noting the facility is cramped, lacks proper backup power for refrigeration units where bodies are stored, has virtually no building security and an outdated record keeping system.

Sheriff Donny Youngblood, who is also the county coroner, is well aware of the issues, he said Feb. 4, but has been unable to do much because of the county's financial struggles in recent years.

However, county leaders are working on the issue and have scouted a few locations for a new facility, Youngblood said. He added, however, that it's too soon to announce a time frame for a possible move.

"It’s just important when people die that they’re treated with dignity and we want to provide that service," Youngblood said. 

"There are times when we have to store bodies at different locations because we run out of room," he said. "But we make do the best we can with what we’ve got."

Dawn Ratliff, chief of the coroner's office, said in an email the current facility was built in 1974 and can store approximately 50 bodies in refrigeration. She is requesting storage of up to 200 bodies to accommodate the added caseload the office now has and in the event of a mass fatality.

Ratliff also said security became a recent issue when a man broke into the facility armed with a knife during the overnight shift when only one person was on duty. By the time police arrived and arrested him, the intruder had already rifled through some offices and put items in his backpack.

The grand jury report noted that the county's population increased 47 percent in the 20 years between 1998 and 2018 while the number of deaths reported to the coroner's office went from 2,017 in 1998 to 2,872 in 2018. The number of exams and autopsies performed by the coroner's office has increased 59 percent from 722 to 1,148 in that time period, the report said.

With just two autopsy sinks, only four autopsies can be completed in a work day, the report said.

The coroner's office is required by state law to investigate deaths that resulted from traumatic injury, like falls, traffic accidents, homicides and industrial deaths, and cases where the deceased hadn't seen a doctor in the 20 days prior to death, as well as deaths in prisons and on military installations. 

February 11, 2020

The Record, The Bakersfield Californian

By Stacey Shepard

[San Diego County] Morning Report: Where School District Election Reform Stands

Blog note: this article references a grand jury report. The article also included comments on other issues that are not reproduced here. 

Between an effort to place a ballot measure before voters in November and an ongoing lawsuit, 2020 could be the year San Diego decides once and for all whether to change the way its school board elections are carried out. 

Many districts across the county and state have switched to district-only elections, but San Diego Unified has resisted such a switch despite a Grand Jury report recommending it. Currently, school board candidates run in a small subdistrict during the primary, but then must face voters across the whole district — meaning most of the entire city of San Diego — in the general election.

City Council members have indicated they’ll place a potential election reform measure on the November ballot.

“Until we see what’s on the ballot, I absolutely am worried,” City Councilman Chris Cate, who’s supported election reform, told Huntsberry.

School board trustee Richard Barrera, who supports keeping the process the way it is, said he doesn’t think allowing 16-year-olds to vote will be included in a prospective measure, but said there is another switch that could come before voters in November.

“What’s in play is whether we’re gonna have five or seven seats,” said Barrera.

February 11, 2020

Voice of San Diego

[San Diego County] School Board Election Reform Question Could Be Settled in November (Or Sooner, or Not)

Supporters of changing the way San Diego Unified school board elections are carried out worry a potential measure to change the process might include more controversial provisions that could muddy the waters. A lawsuit addressing the issue is also moving forward.

Blog note: this article references a grand jury report.

School District. Do schools in poorer neighborhoods south of 8 get an equitable share of money and talent? Do the parents north of 8, in richer communities, have a louder voice in district affairs?

These questions often pit the communities against one another. But one debate over the last decade has molded together a diverse coalition of San Diegans, from University City in the north to Lincoln Park in the south: district-only versus citywide elections. Such a seemingly sleepy question of electoral process has galvanized so many, because they believe the current citywide model allows big money to drown out the true will of voters in local communities north and south of 8.

Now city leaders and community members are tangled up in lawsuits and potential ballot measures that could finally settle the debate in November or even sooner – unless they don’t.

Here’s how elections work now: Candidates in five sub-districts face off in internal sub-district contests during the primary election. But then in November, candidates must run citywide and reach a much larger number of voters during the general election. In some cases, candidates have won big when facing just the voters in their community during the sub-district primary. But then when the general election rolls around, those same candidates have been outspent and unable to win a citywide election.

In 2008 and 2016, for instance, the preferred local candidate in districts both south and north of 8, respectively, went on to lose in the general citywide election. Both losing candidates were opposed by the local teacher’s union, which spent serious cash helping its preferred candidates win the citywide races. Supporters of district-only elections argue that the only way to even have a chance of winning against big money is through district-only elections.

But supporters of the current system, like current San Diego Unified board trustee Richard Barrera, say that big money can have a huge influence in citywide or district-only elections. He noted that wealthy charter school supporters often put up big money that can outpace union spending.

After the 2016 election, a San Diego County Grand Jury report urged city leaders to move to a district-only election model. But officials have been unable to agree on a solution. City Council members have indicated they will put the question to voters via a ballot measure during this year’s general election in November. Because the election process is written into the city charter, only a vote of the people can change it.

But some worry the ballot measure could be cluttered with other, more controversial issues – such as allowing 16-year olds to vote in school board elections – that would make it more difficult to pass.

“I am concerned that there are players behind the scenes pushing other ballot changes that would poison the sub-district-only election measure,” said Tamara Hurley, a community member who has been advocating for district-only elections.

Hurley and others think the ballot measure should be kept “clean.” In other words, it should only be about whether to move to district-only elections. Adding another proposal on top of it could function as a poison pill that might prevent people from supporting the measure, they reason.

Councilman Chris Cate, a Republican, echoed Hurley’s concerns: “Until we see what’s on the ballot, I absolutely am worried.”

Cate noted that several of his colleagues were previously against moving to district-only elections, but have since shifted their positions. He too worried they might try to include multiple proposals on the November ballot measure, rather than keeping it focused on district-only elections.

Other proposals that have been floated include allowing 16-year-olds and non-citizens to be able to vote in school board elections.

But Barrera said he doesn’t think those propositions will be included in any potential ballot measure.

He said one question, however, does remain open: whether to expand the number of school board seats. San Diego Unified currently has five board members who represent extremely large chunks of the city. By contrast, the City Council has nine seats, which cover smaller areas than the school board subdistricts. (City Council members are also elected in district-only elections.)

“What’s in play is whether we’re gonna have five or seven seats,” said Barrera.

Hurley said she supports increasing the number of school board seats, because she thinks it will lead to more effective representation. But she doesn’t support placing the question on the same ballot as district-only elections.

“It muddies the water,” she said. “It combines something that has a lot more support from stakeholders with something that creates concerns over cost.”

The exact ballot language is set to be considered by the City Council Rules Committee on March 11 and by the full City Council over the summer.

A lawsuit filed by a group called Parents for Quality Education contends that the current election process violates the California Voting Rights Act, which prohibits citywide elections if they dilute the vote of minority communities. The lawsuit is scheduled to be heard in July. At least in theory, it’s possible a judge could strike down the current system, but it’s unclear if any changes would be implemented before the November election.

The lawsuit came about after the 2016 election in District E, between LaShae Collins and Sharon Whitehurst-Payne, who are both black. District E is made up of mostly Latino and black voters and has historically been represented by black politicians.

Collins beat Whitehurst-Payne in the primary, earning roughly 60 percent of the vote. (Whitehurst-Payne was backed by unions and Collins was backed by many charter school supporters.) But then in the general election, Whitehurst-Payne ultimately won nearly 55 percent of the vote.

Many have argued that the election clearly showed that the will of people who live in District E was ignored. Others have pointed out that Whitehurst-Payne appears to have won the District E vote in the general election. Doing a precinct-by-precinct analysis of the vote is difficult, but Whitehurst-Payne did edge out Collins in all of the precincts within City Council District 4, which encompasses a similar part of the city to school board District E.

Whitehurst Payne won 51.05 percent of the vote to Collins’ 48.69 percent in the precincts of District 4.

Even though the lawsuit came on the heels of Collins defeat, it originated from a group that has ties to a part of the city north of 8. Parents for Quality Education was formed with the help of Mitz Lee, who lost her school board election in a district north of Interstate 8 under similar circumstances to Collins.

Lee lost to current trustee John Lee Evans in District A, which includes Clairemont and University City, but she beat him during the primary. Lee also believes she won the vote count for District A during the general election. (Evans disputes this and thinks it’s possible he won the vote count within District A during the general election.) But Lee said she could not raise enough money to compete with Evans on a citywide basis.

Lee’s own story, however, offers a counter-example. Four years earlier, she managed to win the District A race citywide – even though her opponent was backed by union money.

February 10, 2020

Voice of San Diego

By Will Huntsberry