Publication Date: Wednesday, June 15, 2005
Letters
Letters
(June 15, 2005)
Hear it for Harman
Editor,
My brother, Dennis Harman, is going to keep his job with the City of Palo Alto, though it will not be official until the full council votes on the budget on June 20. The article that was published about Dennis in the May 18 edition of the Weekly was very beneficial. Bill D'Agostino wrote an excellent article. He put a lot of time into the article and did an exemplary job writing it. Bill truly got the essence of Dennis.
Many people came forward to help Dennis. A large number of city employees signed a petition in Dennis's behalf. Several spoke in support of Dennis at Finance Committee meetings. Two people that I am aware of stand out for their support for Dennis: Phil Plymale, the chief steward for the union, and Vic Ojakian, the chairman of the Finance Committee.
Phil Plymale did many things to bring Dennis's layoff and the impact of the layoff to the city. Phil has put in many hours and I appreciate his efforts. Well done, Phil.
Special thanks go to Councilman Vic Ojakian. As Chairman of the Finance Committee he took the time and put in the effort to make the necessary changes in the budget so Dennis can keep his job. Councilman Ojakian has served the community well; unfortunately he is being term-limited out of office. In the present situation of significant budget shortfalls his financial skills are needed more than ever.
To Councilman Ojakian I offer my gratitude for assisting Dennis in these difficult financial times.
Patrick Harman
Bothell, Washington
Clueless on budget
Editor,
In her May 27 letter, Sue Kemp claims she has clues on the budget but asked me what "painless cuts can be made."
What's painless to me may not be to others. I made many suggestions but my testimony and letters to the Finance Committee won't fit in this 250-word format. Read the Finance Committee minutes or watch the tapes to better understand my proposals. Here are some:
During budget hearings in 2003 I observed we had many "managers" with zero to four people reporting to them. I urged that managers have at least five and preferably 10 direct reports. Potential savings up to $2 million, public pain zero.
The city auditor reported on "Management Span of Control" in April 2004 and agreed with me. She found an average span of control of 4.73; 220 managers and professionals had zero to four direct reports with 121 having zero direct reports. This has improved but the average still is under 5.5 direct reports. Management experts recommend 10 to 15 direct reports.
Other low-pain cuts -- City Pages, $35,000. Two public relations staffers, $250,000 (one is in utilities and creates no General Fund savings).
On the income side, pass a business license tax, as former City Manager George Sipel proposed in 1976. Palo Alto is the only California city (and one of the few nationally) without one. Income potential from a modest tax is $3 million to $5 million.
Sorry Sue, you and the public still have no clues.
Bob Moss
Orme Street
Palo Alto
Respecting seniors
Editor,
Shame on Councilmember Bern Beecham for his thoughtless, mean-spirited and ill-considered remarks made to the Palo Alto Weekly (June 8), in which he falsely claimed it is longtime residents, meaning pre-Proposition 13 seniors, that are not paying for the services they use.
This is a low blow. Blame the elderly and vulnerable members of our community for the financial woes of the city rather than the profligate and mismanaged operational programs, the over-staffing that came about during a previous city manager's reign and the refusal of the City Council to bite the bullet and take a hard and disciplined look at the way the city is managing our money.
I daresay that the senior citizens of Palo Alto have made contributions to this community that go way beyond the money they are paying out in property taxes in their golden years. Our record as community volunteers and activists over the 43 years we have lived in Palo Alto speaks for itself.
Other seniors I know have contributed as much -- if not more -- of themselves. Look at the soup kitchens, food closets, hospitals, nursing homes and other charitable organizations here and you will see them staffed by many seniors.
If Mr. Beecham's generation and subsequent generations do as well, we will continue to be a fortunate community. Mr. Beecham owes every senior citizen in Palo Alto an apology for his remarks. God help seniors if his attitude is representative of what the younger generations think of the older generations.
Mr. Beecham recently told me he really cares about this community. At the June 6 council meeting, Mayor Jim Burch asked when we are ever going to develop community in this town.
Well, not by attitudes and remarks like this.
Richard and Jeanne Placone
Chimalus Drive
Palo Alto
Bern's rebuttal
Editor,
I received several e-mails over the weekend by residents who were angered by my comments on who pays property taxes and how much.
Several e-mails mentioned the many kinds of contributions our citizens frequently make, such as participation in a wide array of civic organizations as well as defending our country abroad. These contributions are critical to the integrated functioning of any society and are invaluable. I honor and endorse these contributions and do not disparage them in the least.
I'm happy to discuss and debate this economic issue based on quantitative analyses. Some believe their entire property tax goes to the city, but in fact the city receives only a small portion of the total paid.
I said much the same in my 2004 State of the City address, which was reprinted by the Weekly at the time:
"As we look to balancing the budget and supporting our infrastructure, we must consider not only service cuts but also how we raise the funds to pay for our needs. In our net General Fund, we spend $1,400 annually per resident. That's about $3,000 per household or family....
"Our top two revenue sources are sales tax and property tax. Let me talk first about property taxes. Broadly speaking, we receive nearly half our property-tax revenue from commercial properties.
"For residential properties, let's consider two families. The first bought a $1 million home last year. Of the $10,000 they pay in property taxes, the city receives just $950.
"The second is a family with the good fortune to have lived in a similar home since 1975. With an assessed value of $60,000 at that time, under Prop. 13 the city receives $99 in property taxes. For the year. For the family."
I continued with a discussion of improving our sales-tax revenues and other issues.
My comments on this matter are intended to be strictly and clearly economic. I stand by the numbers and welcome a reasoned discussion.
Bern Beecham
Palo Alto City Councilmember
Hamilton Avenue
Palo Alto
Ongoing efforts
Editor,
City of Palo Alto SEIU workers have attended numerous Finance Committee meetings where we have discussed various methods to reduce the city's expenditures, as well as our ideas to save jobs.
We have proposed further study of a business-license tax, which we believe is long overdue. If implemented it would generate potentially millions of dollars in new revenue.
We have also asked for full implementation of the city auditor's report from 2004 that stressed the need for the city to eliminate excess managerial positions that are not directly service-based. To our knowledge, the auditor's recommendations have only been seriously addressed in one department.
We continue to view early retirement as an option. Councilwoman Dena Mossar appears (from the Weekly's article of May 25) to completely misunderstand our proposal. We know of direct matches of positions being cut where someone doing the same job is willing to retire early.
Why not let those people leave and prevent layoffs? After researching the cost and checking in with the city of Menlo Park, which implemented this plan last year to save jobs, we have found that the cost to the city would be minimal, spread out over many years and may not require any upfront money.
We will continue to try to work with the city to find ways to avoid layoffs and we hope that the Finance Committee, including Councilmember Mossar, will take our various suggestions into account when they vote on the city manager's proposed budget.
Maya Spector
Palo Alto Chapter Chair, SEIU Local 715
Bay Road
Menlo Park
What's the real story?
Editor,
Recent complaints from Menlo Park Planning Commission members and council majority loyalists Kirsten Keith and Henry Riggs regarding the appearance before them on May 23 by council member Kelly Fergusson overlook the most egregious aspect of the brouhaha.
We should be asking what caused the commission to place the issue on the agenda again after approving it on April 25. The real story is that Mayor Mickie Winkler wrote a letter on the subject to the entire commission sometime between April 25 and May 23 that was not made available to the public, either in a public notice, attached to the agenda or on the city's Web site.
That letter may have influenced both Mr. Riggs' request to reconsider the issue and the commission's decision to reverse itself. Either way, the public deserves to know.
Apparently the mayor, not satisfied with having packed the commission with her supporters, also finds it necessary to work behind the scenes to coach the commissioners into outcomes that are consistent with her developer-friendly approach to residential-zoning regulations.
This under-the-radar brand of governance has become the political reality for council members Jellins, Duboc and Winkler.
Steve Schmidt
Central Avenue
Menlo Park
'Public process' charade
Editor,
When the used-car salesman begins to argue the consumer's cause, let the buyer beware. Similarly, Menlo Park residents should be wary when the architects and realtors are arguing for the "protection of homeowners' rights" just as local businesses should be skeptical when the "protectors of business" on the City Council ignore the recommendation of the Chamber of Commerce representative and pass a commercial-zoning "streamlining" ordinance ostensibly designed to help them.
I attended the April 25 Planning Commission meeting and was one of seven speakers at the public hearing, all of whom opposed the automatic approval of large developments on small lots without public review. A majority of the commissioners were concerned too, and approved recommendations for retaining the possibility of appeal to the Planning Commission.
However, those recommendations were rescinded at the May 23 meeting after commissioners received a letter from council member Winkler.
I was unaware of the May 23 reconsideration. There was no public-hearing notice posted on the Planning Commission Web site and the agenda item did not have a bright-blue link highlighting it or a staff report as there had been for the April 25th meeting.
So, in the dark of day, the meeting took place with only one alert citizen attending.
The City Council does not need to listen to the independent opinions of its advisory body or the public. However, it is disrespectful to concerned residents to maintain the charade of "public process" when the majority is listening to nothing other than its own voice.
Chuck Bernstein
Oak Court
Menlo Park
E-mail a friend a link to this story. | 
