Narrow Search

Comment Archives: stories: News & Opinion

Re: “Vote With Us! The East Bay Express' Endorsements for Election Day 2016

You should have endorsed Macleay for OSD School Boord

I understand you have a ton of races to cover, little time insufficient staff.
And Don can be a frustrating mix of visionary and nuts /bolts kinda guy which is hard to catagorize for an enorsement.

I have spoken to Jody briefly several times over the years since before she was first elected and followed closely some of the issues she voted on. Last fall I attended two OUSD board meetings for the first time in my life and spoke at one of them pleading for OUSD to issue retroactive parcel tax exemption refunds to seniors and low income homeowners. Last fall I exchanged emails with Jody on the parcel issues and possibly spoke with her on the phone once.

I have talked much more with Don Macleay because we were often found ourselves sitting next to each other at forum during the District 1 Council Member election of 2014. Much to my surprise (and his) we found many things Oakland public policy issues we either agreed on or could agree to disagree on. Consistently, I was impressed by his intellect and focus on local public policy issues. We'd probably have come to blows if we were discussing US economic policy but he's a surprising thinker and we might find ourselves agreeing.

Executive summary: Support Don because we need smart new blood overseeing the cush bureaucracy at OUSD. Dont vote for him if you think his posting are too long. (this one of mine is way way too long, and too late also.)

Beneath those rough edges and "aw shucks" demeanor, is a public policy wonk that is in touch with the needs and desires of the underclass of Oakland that constitutes most of its students and dropouts. He's also led a varied life and career that included supporting Sandinistas in the Nicaraguan civil war and working as a machinist as well as computer repair services business owner, and picking up a phi beta kappa key as an older undergrad at SF State. It's a background that helps explain why he's more in touch with training and ed needs of working and underemployed families here than Jody. of graduating from a UC and going on or back to UC grad school.

I don't think Jody is in the pockets of anyone, though law I know from firsthand experience how expensive even a local district race can be. Just by the number nicely produced mail pieces alone, it is clear she has some deep pocket supporters. And she is going to have be very sure she doesn't want to run for higher office or rerun for this one if she crosses too many of them.

So I was surprised to go to http://www.opendisclosure.io/#!/city/2/oak… that she had only spent 8k as of the reporting period ending in late October. Since printers and mailing houses require payment up front from politicians :), I don't see how her own committee could have produced even one of those mailing pieces unless she targeted an extremely low percentage of highly likely voting households. That number used to be about 40k in D1. Using a cost of mailing/processing and printing, it costs at least 35 cents per normal sized full color union bug mailer. This is the only time I wished I hadn't thrown the entire 3lbs of political mailers I kept from this election so I could read the disclaimer saying 'Paid for by XXXX" on Jody's pieces. Someone or some group paid at least 14k for each of those mailers unless the mailing was extraordinarily restricted (such our LL's which could only afford to send out 8k mailers twice to the entire city highly likely unique 80K households.




But most likely many of the (no recycled) mailing pieces singing Jody's praises were "slate mailer" subsidized by organizations for which a supported candidate only has to pay equivalent of a time share fee to get sent to every voter in the district.


The biggest advantage to Jody was the endorsement of the Alameda Democratic Party because she could stamp "endorsed by the Democratic Party on everything mailed out for her. Plus, she gets on the restricted City Dem Party slate mailer. All of a sudden her cost of mailing to entire D1 Dems, drops well below 1,000 (Our LL paid 950 to go out to entire city)


Does it mean jodi is in GO" pockets (if you assume as I do now, that's not a good thing) even if their pac spent 14k on a mailing for her? Probably not, but something to think about.


if you're still with me, this gets down to why I signed his original petition and took one of his signs.


OUSD has several much much worse directors than Jody. She's even one of the better ones.


But that ain't saying much compared to the quality of the candidates we've been going for Council and Mayor in recent years.


I asked a colleague on LL why Wellstone (the self-described left wing Oakland Democratic club choice Jody over Don. 'Jody spoke better.' Someone else attended the LWV session and said Don referred the financial questions to Jody.


My response to the above is that Jody's profession as an energy consultant to public orgs involves tons of public speaking practice. Don's business as computer services business owner involve discussions one on one with business owners and the boards of small nonprofits.


Re Don referring fiscal questions to Jody. When she first ran I went up to here or her to me and asked her how much money the state gave OUSD each year for attending. She was absolutely clueless. Now it rolls off her like what's the weather today. She learned and so could Don.


As for Jody's command of the fiscal situation there. Sure they now have a clean audit opinion which allows OUSD reduce borrowing costs by millions each. But what about all those years they were overpaying those millions? She (and all the other directors) never told them constitutes to yell at Jerry Brown to stop the audit power games.




Back to my interactions with Jodi last fall around the parcel tax refunds as I grew frustrated with ousd admin stonewalling. A savvy OUSD gadfly tutored me how I could exercise my right under the Brown Act to get my issue to be placed on the board agenda. Jodi's response:


From: Jody London [mailto:jody.london@ousd.org]
Sent: Wednesday, November 4, 2015 2:33 PM
To: cpas
Subject: Re: Jody, at tonight's Nov 4th session would you be willing to put this on the agenda?

Len,
I believe we can address your concerns administratively and do not want to introduce this as a new legislative matter. If you are proposing amendments to the previously approved parcel taxes, I believe that would have to somehow go back to the voters. I will share these concerns, as I have your other concerns, with our staff and work with them to ensure we are doing what we told the voters we would do.


Jody London
Vice President and Director, District 1
Board of Education
Oakland Unified School District
510-459-0667

On Wed, Nov 4, 2015 at 2:16 PM, cpas wrote:
for future full Board consideration and discussion after Brown Act etc notification





I even publicly thanked her for helping on this. Then I waited and waited . No response from the admin or board re my questions. After about two weeks I gave up on Jody. One member from far side of town, Shanti Gonzalves took less than half a day to get OUSD to start translating their refunds into languages besides English.

Dozens of seniors and some low income home owners contacted me in response to my posts and op-eds asking what they could do. They were the one who shamed OUSD into allowing retroactive refund clams. They were the ones who threatened OUSD that if a mailing didn't go out to every property owner, they vote no on all future ones.


Vote for Don Macleay at this late date because we need a change at the top of OUSD. We need someone who will be resistant to the Kool aid they all drink and give the overpaid, overstaffed admin way too much discretion.


Len Raphael, CPA










.

Posted by Len Raphael on 11/08/2016 at 4:28 AM

Re: “Top Commander Accused of Turning California National Guard Into ‘Criminal Syndicate’

The CAARNG State Surgeon's Office needs to be criminally investigaed for neglect, harrisment, and reprisal with melicious intent against Soldiers. Willfully ignoring the documentation of medical professionals, purposefully delaying Soldiers due process for medical boards and making their own set of rules to medically flag and discriminate against Soldiers. The CAARNG violates HIPPA law on a massive scale. MG Baldwin allows this mistreatment of Soldiers and the brazen violations by the SSO and subordinate commands, he must be held accountable. There are people inside the SSO who secretly have told the truth about the corruption but are too afraid to speak out and blow the whistle for fear of serious reprisal.

Posted by Douglas Shaw on 11/07/2016 at 12:36 PM

Re: “Oakland's Street-Repair Deficit is Deep. The Mayor Says a $600 Million Bond Needed to Address the Problem.

Remember Oaklands BAD Garbage Contract
I oppose the City of Oaklands $600 million Bond Measure KK because Oakland is not capable of administering a contract wisely. The Alameda County Grand Jury found that Oakland totally mismanaged the recent $50 million garbage contract resulting in a 50% increase of our monthly garbage bill. [See 2015-2016 Grand Jury Report @ acgov.org/grandjury on p.39] The Oakland Administrative Office botched the garbage contract so badly that at the last minute it assigned the contract to California Waste Solutions, which was not capable of performing the service. Next, Oakland renegotiated the garbage contract to give back most of the collection services to the ongoing collection company, WMI. The new garbage contract costs property owners 50% more because Oakland would not accept a cheaper package deal from WMI.
Now Oakland wants $600 million of taxpayer money to dole out and manage in contracts. Oakland has proven that it cannot manage money wisely and should not be trusted with large budget until it has proven ability to manage small budgets.
Oakland leadership routinely ignores its own Ordinance, which requires competitive bids on all contracts. The leadership merely passes a Resolution to bypass the Ordinance requirement as it did with the ESA Coal Study contract. A month ago, the Oakland Mayor waived the competitive bidding process to hire a part time $300,000/ yr transportation consultant. With the funds from this KK bond the contract spending abuse would be infinite.
Oaklands infrastructure improvements need to be done incrementally. The taxpayer must evaluate the value received before additional tax money is supplied. Marcus Crawley mcprose@att.net

Posted by Marcus Crawley on 11/06/2016 at 8:12 AM

Re: “Vote With Us! The East Bay Express' Endorsements for Election Day 2016

Survivors of police shootings say NO on measure LL- Yes we need change but not this change and we are uniquely qualified to understand the process and provide the best possible solutions for human rights-we say NO on measure LL because the same people who work for the alleged civil rights attorneys and impotent organization alternatives have not produced a positive result, have endangered and maligned victims and should not be granted more power money and control. Yes we need growth but not regression as is offered with measure LL- SEE MORE ON WHAT VICTIMS ENDURE AT www.karmawon.wordpress.com

Posted by karma wonitall on 11/05/2016 at 9:31 PM

Re: “Oakland's Street-Repair Deficit is Deep. The Mayor Says a $600 Million Bond Needed to Address the Problem.

No!!! I can't afford to pay more taxes in the middle of switching jobs. Are they trying to tax us out of our homes and add to the growing number of people on the street that can neither rent nor own? Use what millions of homeowners have given you already and stop letting people who do not own property vote on what property owners should spend. The logic is backwards. I hardly use my vehicle compared to the number of renters. Probably there are other property owners that do very little impact on the road. It should not be up to renters. Just because taxes go up does not mean property owner's income goes up in order to pay those taxes. Vote No!!! What Paul Merr said and pretty much everyone else on this thread.

Posted by Maggie Fukuda on 11/05/2016 at 1:51 PM

Re: “Kaiser Still Violating Mental Health Laws, Clinicians Say

I have been trying to get help for my son for 4 years we have had 3 suicide threats and attempts in less than 6mo. They have been no help getting my so help through them has been impossible..

Posted by Terri Tankersley-Larson on 11/05/2016 at 8:57 AM

Re: “Top Commander Accused of Turning California National Guard Into ‘Criminal Syndicate’

Would love to have someone contact me in regards to more issues dealing with the CA Army National Guard. My email is razsniper@yahoo.com. I am a whistle blower and issues with the medical department

Posted by Ryan Zarick on 11/04/2016 at 7:39 PM

Re: “Vote With Us! The East Bay Express' Endorsements for Election Day 2016

Jody the charter school Appeaser London is the progressive choice of the East Bay Times? Time for a change in the East Bay Oakland School Board District 1 when Wednesday night Jody London is arguing that buried in Measure J pasted by the voters to specifically rehabilitate the following specific sites Washington Elementary (name changed to Sankofa), Roosevelt, McClymonds, Glenview (being rebuilt with student temporary relocated to Santa Fe Elementary), Skyline, Webster CDC replacement, Whittier, Sobrante Park, Madison and Madison "sports complex", the Broad has the right to take funding from these schools, many over 70 years old to fund the renovation of 2nd Avenue buildings Administrative Building and Dewey High School.

Members of the Measure J oversight appeared and said that the Measure J money could not be used for funding 2nd Avenue projects.

I had another Board member beside Jody the charter Appeaser provide the following language that gives the Board the power to change the site specific buildings that Measure J money can be spent on:

o redeveloping administrative sites and inactive school sites,

o reconfiguring inactive school sites for alternative uses such as teacher housing, alternative academics, and training,

o reconfiguration of sites or parts of sites to house administrative functions, and

o optimizing active school sites to host community partners.

This language is not in the extended text or the summary statement of the purpose of Measure J.

I am still looking to find reference Jody made to Measure J language that allows the Board to switch site-specific priority list for Measure J that Jody the charter Appeaser mentioned at Wednesday night's Special Board meeting regarding plans for Second Avenue facilities.

Jody the charter Appeaser shouldn't be trying to divert money that the public authorized to be spent on listed projects to funding 2nd Avenue project.

Second Avenue is an important project to address but not at the expense of promises made to the voters and property owners that pay the bill.

Posted by Jim Mordecai on 11/04/2016 at 2:47 PM

Re: “Top Commander Accused of Turning California National Guard Into ‘Criminal Syndicate’

Whistle blower part.. yessss.. A contractor one of many abused by personal friends of General Baldwin's, was set up and let go while friends found to have mishandled funds but are still promoted and new positions found for them or they retain jobs they never even had to apply for hmmmm Toss that in this bucket right now

Posted by Sue Miguel on 11/04/2016 at 1:52 PM

Re: “Vote With Us! The East Bay Express' Endorsements for Election Day 2016

I'm personally dissapointed that you endorsed Jody. I was certainly not interviewed and I have no idea why you endorsed this GO candidate, but not the others.

Some reason would be nice.
I found nothing in the write up.

Posted by Don Macleay on 11/04/2016 at 1:07 PM

Re: “Tenant Activists in Alameda Test Progressive Rent-Control Waters with Measure M1

Tony I'm still waiting?

Posted by Mike Yarmouth on 11/04/2016 at 9:46 AM

Re: “Vote With Us! The East Bay Express' Endorsements for Election Day 2016

I'm voting for Zakhary Mallet precisely because he was not afraid to expose the political motives that dictated the route of BART's proposed San Jose extension. Bad transportation. I also want a BART director who will rein in the overblown salaries and benefits of BART employees, who get free or almost free family health coverage no matter ther family size. When BART personnel were finally required to pay into their pensions, they got a wage increase of exactly that amount, defeating the purpose. This wage stuff needs to be addressed, and Lateefah Simon is establishment politics as usual, based on her endorsements.

Posted by Jan Van Dusen on 11/03/2016 at 12:32 PM

Re: “Tenant Activists in Alameda Test Progressive Rent-Control Waters with Measure M1

Tony, I've spoken with you before and I'm surprised what a fraud you are coming off as...this the issue you're planting you pole on? Sad.

I live just off Buena Vista and Webster...please answer me a quick little litmus test question...what is the single biggest issue facing people living on the west end? There is one clear answer.

Posted by Mike Yarmouth on 11/03/2016 at 11:43 AM

Re: “Tenant Activists in Alameda Test Progressive Rent-Control Waters with Measure M1

When the 470 Central evictions happened days after council issued a moratorium on no-fault evictions (the eviction notices using the loophole-ridden language that the city put into the moratorium), council was outraged and rushed to close the loopholes they had opened. Months later, they drafted their rent ordinance that now will allow mass evictions just as long as it's only 25% per year. There are no rent caps. It puts the burden on already burdened tenants to appeal to a mayor-appointed mediation body and air all of their financial hardships into the public record. That is what Tony Daysog is championing here. He happens to also be up for reelection next week.

Posted by Jason Buckley on 11/03/2016 at 10:42 AM

Re: “Vote With Us! The East Bay Express' Endorsements for Election Day 2016

Jody London at last night's meeting regarding Board's plans for new administration building and upgrading Dewey High School facility--both located at 1025 Second Avenue-- referenced language in Measure J giving the District the right to spend Measure J money for rehabilitating the water damaged District Administrative building.

I am not sure, but I think she was referring to the part of the language below that gives the Board the right to make changes in the Measure J listing of projects the public voted on.

Board Member London's assertion that the Board could make change in the listing ignores that the changes have a context having to do with possible adjustments that have be made because the funding is insufficient to fund all of the projects listed.

Its a robbing Peter to pay Paul situation not diverting large portions of Measure J to pay for reconstructing damaged 2nd Avenue Administration building and upgrading Dewey. and negatively impacting the projects the public was promised would be funded.

Finally, the Board's changes would have to be supported by the Measure J civilian oversight committee and the Measure J Civilian Oversight Committee opposes the use of Measure J funding for 2nd Avenue upgrade.

Measure J extended text:
"Completion of some projects may be subject to further government approvals by State officials and boards, to local environmental review, and to input from the public. For these reasons, inclusion of a project on the Bond Project List is not a guarantee that the project will be funded or completed. The Board of Education may make changes to the Bond Project List in the future consistent with the projects specified in the proposition."

Posted by Jim Mordecai on 11/03/2016 at 8:04 AM

Re: “How to Solve Berkeley's Housing Crisis? Two Leading Mayoral Candidates Don't See Eye-to-Eye

You say, "The progressive Jesse Arreguin..." Why does voting against housing count as being progressive? He is certainly more pie in the sky and Capitelli is more pragmatic. I just wish that Berkeley's sacred word "progressive" actually meant something. In this case, it's hot air.

Posted by Peggy Scott on 11/03/2016 at 1:18 AM

Re: “How to Solve Berkeley's Housing Crisis? Two Leading Mayoral Candidates Don't See Eye-to-Eye

Yet both co-authored a tax measure that would give developers a break from a 166% tax increase for 12 years. Go figure. Neither candidate has it wrapped up when it comes to dealing with our housing crisis.

Posted by BerkWatch on 11/02/2016 at 9:37 PM

Re: “How to Solve Berkeley's Housing Crisis? Two Leading Mayoral Candidates Don't See Eye-to-Eye

Mr. Arreguin's talk is cheap: his advocacy for higher percentage of affordable units, his push for higher impact fees, his assertions to be progressive all "sound" good, but lack the test of real-world practical experience, nor are they supported by his record. Those who have real world business experience, such as Mr. Capitelli, understand how far to push on these goals so as to make the projects work both for our city and for those who risk their capital, their reputations and their future. Mr. Arreguin's record on over 1,500 housing units approved by the Council speaks for itself: he either voted against them or abstained.
Now, Mr. Arreguin has resorted to nasty campaigning, trying to tarnish the sterling reputation of a true community leader, Mr. Capitelli. It is shameful!

Posted by Deellan Kashani on 11/02/2016 at 8:11 PM

Re: “Tenant Activists in Alameda Test Progressive Rent-Control Waters with Measure M1

Ms Nader writes, "Tony Daysog would like to see the entire island gentrified. He stood by while 700 families were unjustly evicted from Harbor Island. " To see four hundred families evicted en masse on short notice in 2004 was, indeed, terribly tragic, the repercussions of which to this day affects the West End of town in the form of closed schools, some of which only recently re-opened as charter schools that attract youth from throughout the island. That mass eviction was indeed tragic . . . and contrary to what Ms. Nader says, I and the then-Council took the matter to court, all the way to Judge Alsop's court, where he ruled that the out of town property owner could displace 400 families en masse. As for gentrification, no, I don't want to see the entire island or parts of the island gentrified, and I see in Measure L1 a tool that council and the City finally has in slowing down the indicator of gentrification, ie excessive rent increases. While I believe the relocation benefit\penalty (a fee that the landlord must pay to tenants in instances of 'no cause' evictions) we, the Council, adopted in March 2016 is too high, there is, nonetheless, such a tool to stifle 'no cause' evictions, along with other tactics in the March ordinance (ie Measure L1). So I encourage residents to give L1 the chance to keep working, as it has in the form of the ordinance adopted in March. Thanks.

Posted by Tony Daysog on 11/02/2016 at 7:56 PM

Re: “Vote With Us! The East Bay Express' Endorsements for Election Day 2016

I am astonished by your endorsement of Jody London for Oakland School board in district 1. According to your own reporting, big money interests such as GO Public Schools are trying to influence our elections- http://m.eastbayexpress.com/oakland/how-a-handful-of-pro-charter-billionaires-flooded-oaklands-school-board-elections-with-big-time-cash/Content?oid=5016336 Just because they aren't making large contributions to Jody London now doesn't mean that they haven't in the past. London is still endorsed by GO. Her opponent, Don Macleay, is endorsed by the Oakland Justice Coalition, AFL-CIO, the Oakland Education Association, Rebecca Kaplan, and OUSD Parents United. He is also endorsed by the Green Party. Don believes in transparency, strong management, and accountability. Knowing what you know about GO Public Schools and their goals, I find your support of his opponent unfathomable. As an Oakland teacher who has attended a lot of school board meetings and who keeps up on the issues, I support Don Macleay.

Posted by Bethany Meyer on 11/02/2016 at 7:12 PM

Most Popular Stories


© 2016 East Bay Express    All Rights Reserved
Powered by Foundation