Comment Archives: Stories: Today
Re: “Jerry Brown's Assault on Transparency”
Elie Rose,
Either Senator Hancock doesn't understand the legislation or she's trying to muddy the water or deflect blame. Under the proposed law, cities and counties who decide not to spend the money needed to comply with public records requests would not face any penalties. As a result, they could just decide to not spend the money and ignore public records requests.
Re: “Jerry Brown's Assault on Transparency”
When I phoned Sen. Lori Hancock's office to express my opposition to gutting the Public Records Act, I received an interesting explanation. Her Aide said that the state was simply trying to save money in its tight budget, and that the only change was that the state will no longer reimburse the communities for their activities under the PRA. The State will leave it to the communities to pick up the costs. I stated my strong belief in protecting the public's right to this info. I feel it is far more important that the state continue to cover the costs. Oakland is in far worse shape than CA, & I anticipate that communities would delay even longer or not respond to PRR, if not reimbursed by the state.
I stated my strong disappointment & opposition to this Democrat action.
Re: “At Oakland's Hutch, Southern-Style Grits Are King”
The Star and Hutch in the same column. Headline opportunity missed.
Re: “Jerry Brown's Assault on Transparency”
Jim,
This proposed law does not "require" local governments to pay or do anything. Instead, it allows them to ignore key aspects of the public records law without fear of penalty. As a result, this law would, in effect, gut aspects of the records act in jurisdictions in which public officials decide to not make public records public.
Re: “Jerry Brown's Assault on Transparency”
Requiring the local govts to pay for their own PRAs is not "gutting the CPRA." It's fair to require the locals to pay for their own costs.
Re: “Quickly Reshaping Oakland Politics”
I commend Mr Allen-Taylor for bringing attention to the issue of redistricting. As equal representation is the cornerstone of government, it's essential that council members represent similar numbers of residents. A few points of clarification on this story:
-Ms Santana's July memo stating that no council districts required redistricting was a product of faulty math. When calculating the difference between the largest (D3) and smallest (D2) council districts, her office divided the result by the population of the entire city, rendering a difference of 4% - under the 10% requirement. When dividing this difference by the average council district size, as her office should have, the difference was in fact 20%. Under the faulty math, one council district would have needed at least 20,000 more residents than the average council district size to qualify for redistricting. This should have been an immediate red flag to anyone reading the memo with a critical eye.
-Ms Santana's office worked off of this faulty assumption until late in 2012, when it was pointed out to them by multiple source. This placed the City well behind a typical timetable to do redistricting according to best practices. Berkeley, on a similar deadline, has been doing redistricting outreach since early 2012. This may partially explain the rush to approve a contract.
-Only 3 of the council districts (2, 3 & 5) met the threshold of a 10% population difference (+/- 5%), when compared to the average council district size. While such limited redistricting is hardly normal, it could technically satisfy the requirements of the City Charter. It's my understanding that the original decision to limit the redistricting to only these 3 council districts was an effort to spare the expense of a full redistricting - cost cutting also being a rationale in the July 2012 memo for not doing redistricting at all. But once the ball was rolling on redistricting, it doesn't surprise me that enough political pressure built up to expand to a citywide process.
I attribute this debacle to faulty math in the Administrator's office that wasn't questioned because it told them that they didn't have to spend money. As for council "not having input", they received the faulty memo in July of 2012. All it would have taken was some basic math and critical thought over the summer to ensure enough time for a standard council oversight process. They have only themselves to blame.
Re: “Time Magazine: The Drug War Is Blocking Cancer, Alzheimer's Treatments”
It's easier to study heroin or LSD than cannabis, even though studies show the benign plant could treat Alzheimer's, diabetes, and PTSD.
This is the way the politicians want it......because if clinical trials were to happen all the government lies would be exposed