State Public Schools Receive an “F” in State-by-State Rating

On Monday, January 7,  Students First released its comparison of all US states’ K-12 educational  policies and governance.  This is a rating of how well the adults are serving the children in their public educational systems.  While no state earned an A, the results cut across party lines, providing some surprising results.  The highest-ranking states were Florida, Louisiana and Rhode Island.   F’s were given to Alabama, California, Iowa and New Hampshire.

States were rated on three criteria:

• Personnel decisions based on meaningful evaluations of teachers and principals to elevate the education profession

• Empowerment of parents with adequate information and choice

• Spending resources wisely and governing well

Read the full report

Evaluate the methodology

The following letter was sent to the City Council and PCA Editors:

We find it extraordinary the City would go to such dramatic lengths to alter the minutes for the September 4 comments by Mr. Grote [City Administrator] to Ryan Gilbert’s Open Forum comments concerning the misstatement of Council unanimously endorsing the Measure Y Parcel Tax. > Click to read more…

A FUNNY THING HAPPENED ON THE WAY TO THE FORUM-

At the Sept. 4th City Council meeting, I asked to make a comment during the Open Forum, a proceeding required by the California Brown Act. I expressed my belief, shared by one or more staff, that the proposed Parcel Tax (Measure Y) faced failure, primarily because enough residents lacked confidence in the Council’s ability to manage the City’s finances properly.

My perception was that the Council’s actions lacked both sufficient transparency and independent review in the underground fiasco, Blair Park and other matters, resulting in substantial financial losses to the City.

Before I could propose a partial remedy, namely that the City should immediately retain an outside advisor for all employee contracts rather than relying on the City Administrator, Councilman McBain interrupted to state that what I had to say was not “City Business”, but rather part of a political campaign, and thus should not be allowed.

The Mayor deferred to the City Attorney who opined that it certainly was within the scope of City Business and should therefore be allowed. Mr. McBain stated his sole motive was to seek “clarification”. The Council offered no substantive comment.

Mr. McBain, your stated wish not to infringe on the First Amendment is laudable. But you tried to use your position to do just that.

Piedmont citizens should be encouraged to address their concerns to the Council, without prior restraint, and without the patently partisan and astonishing attempt to deny public comment. Mr. McBain, what part of City finances do you think fails to constitute City Business?

Do you truly believe that any citizen, irrespective of political beliefs or streets on which they live, should be subject to an obstructionist request for “clarification”? Was this truly your motivation?

So, if you were contemplating apologizing, apologize to the citizens of Piedmont instead. You should do it. They deserve it.

Aaron Salloway, Piedmont Resident

Editors’ Note:  The opinions expressed are those of the author and not necessarily those of the Piedmont Civic Association.

The following letter was sent to the Piedmont Civic Association:

When voters read the argument in favor of Piedmont’s Measure Y parcel tax, they’ll see the usual points from city leaders desperately seeking to pass a tax, and a significant misrepresentation.

Mayor Chiang and Councilman Wieler were authorized by their council colleagues to write the ballot argument – a move necessary to ensure compliance with the Brown Act and electoral code.

Despite all their caution, the Mayor and Councilman seemingly couldn’t help themselves from embellishing a very important fact, in order to strengthen their argument. Chiang and Wieler wrote that the “City Council unanimously supports renewal” of the tax. This is the important concluding message to the proponents’ argument. If true, this conclusion would send voters a strong message of support, an overwhelming endorsement, from their elected leaders for this tax.

The statement is not true. It’s an absolute misrepresentation of the facts. The City Council never voted to support the tax. Council voted to place the tax on the ballot, to allow voters to make a decision. Ballot placement is not an endorsement of the tax.

The Council also authorized the Mayor and second member to sign arguments relating to the Measure. The Council passed no resolution endorsing the tax.

Furthermore, at least one Council member, Garret Keating, was always clear that he only supported placing the measure on the ballot so that the voters of Piedmont could make a decision for themselves. He reiterated his neutrality on September 4th.

As soon as the argument was filed, we alerted City Administrator Geoff Grote, City Clerk John Tulloch, the Mayor, and Council members to the misrepresentation. The City Attorney was also aware of the correspondence. Despite all the outside pleas to have the offending language removed, staff and Council have refused to correct the misrepresentations.

At the September 4th City Council meeting this issue was raised during Open Forum. Administrator Grote, Mayor Chiang and Councilman Wieler publicly acknowledged the misrepresentation. Councilman Wieler apologized directly to Councilman Keating.

When asked directly to act to correct the misrepresentation Mr. Grote stated the City will take no action and declared that any resident could go to Court to correct the matter.

A city administration that prides itself on its partnership with residents is now blatantly disregarding that important relationship by refusing to correct the public ballot material misstatements. The City could have easily petitioned the Superior Court to correct to the misrepresentation. The City Attorney could have drafted and filed the writ at minimum cost to the City. There would have been no opposition, and a more truthful argument would be printed and sent to all Piedmont voters.

Instead, the City, which has never been afraid to litigate, is suddenly coy. Mr. Grote suggested that any voter can petition the court to correct the misrepresentation. Why place the burden and the responsibility of correction of the City generated rebuttal misstatement on the voters?  The City has ample time to restore transparency and honesty to the November election. It’s the only decent thing to do.

Ryan Gilbert, Member Municipal Tax Advisory Committee and co-signatory
to the ballot argument against Measure Y, www.NoOnMeasureY.com

Editors’ Note:  The opinions expressed are those of the author and not necessarily those of the Piedmont Civic Association.

Click on picture to view video.

The following is a letter from a Piedmont resident.

 At the September 4 City Council Open Forum, Councilman McBain cut off Aaron Salloway’s remarks concerning City financial matters which included comments specific to the City retaining an outside negotiator and advisor for all future employee negotiations. Mr. McBain declared  such discussion was not City business and was merely election posturing. Mr. McBain wished to stop any further comments from Mr. Salloway. City Attorney Tom Curry disagreed and opined that Aaron’s remarks related to City business and can be allowed. Evidently Councilman McBain wishes to curtail our First Amendment rights, alter the long history of open forum in Piedmont and stop residents from addressing the Council as to how their taxpayer money is spent.

At the same Open Forum Ryan Gilbert stated that the City has provided false information on the proponent ballot rebuttal argument. The offending statement is the closing remark of the proponent rebuttal, that the City Council has unanimously endorsed the Measure Y parcel tax. This is a misstatement as the Council passed no resolution in that regard and has not unanimously endorsed the Parcel Tax. The error was then publicly acknowledged by City Administrator Grote, Mayor Chiang and the rebuttal’s author, Councilman Wieler. Asked directly by Mr. Gilbert,  Mr. Grote stated the City will take no action to correct the ballot and declared that residents could go to Court to correct the matter.

The City has placed the burden and the responsibility of correction of the City generated rebuttal misstatement on the voters. The sanctity of the ballot box is fundamental to our Democratic system, yet the City will take no action to remove false information which it created. The City should obtain a writ to remove the offending language from the ballot. Short of that the City can notify voters by a city wide mailer. To do otherwise indicates that City Hall will provide false information to voters and will take no action to remove the misstatement.

Rick Schiller

September 5, 2012

Editors’ Note:  All Council agendas include: “Public Forum – This is an opportunity for members of the audience to speak on an item not on the agenda. The 10 minute period will be divided evenly between those wishing to address the Council.” See the September 4 meeting draft minutes page 1.

The opinions expressed are those of the author and not necessarily those of the Piedmont Civic Association.

School District Adheres to California “Sunshine Law” –

The following information was provided by the Piedmont Unified School District on its adherence to the Brown Act requirements after Governor Jerry Brown temporarily suspended the law for cities and counties: > Click to read more…

A majority of 2011 Municipal Tax Review Committee Members Speak Out –

Representing the majority of the 2011 Municipal Tax Review Committee (MTRC), we note the proposed Memorandum of Understanding with the Piedmont Police Officers Association (item #2 on tonight’s agenda) and a related resolution for the police captains (item #3). Our report to the Council nearly a year ago concluded that it was essential for the city to cap its expenses for employee benefit costs at the then-current level of $5.1 million annually. Since then, additional expenses in 2011-12 and the 2012-13 budget adopted by the Council have increased benefit costs by more than $600,000 or about 12%. We have heard commitments from the city administration and individual Council members that the contracts now under negotiation would address the problem of out-of-control budgets.

> Click to read more…

Board, on which Piedmont participated, was a “case study in lax oversight”- 

The 2011-2012 Alameda County Grand Jury reviewed the failure of the Associated Community Action Program (ACAP) in March 2011, finding it “a tragic but excellent example of what can happen when a board does not adequately oversee the organization for which it is responsible.”  ACAP was dissolved “as a result of serious financial concerns and significant non-compliance with laws and regulations,” according to the 2011-2012 Alameda County Grand Jury report. > Click to read more…

While compliance is now optional, Piedmont will continue its notifications –

As of the effective date of the 2012-13 California State Budget, the legal obligation to provide notifications of local government hearings and decisions pursuant to the Ralph M. Brown Act (California’s “Sunshine” Law) has been suspended. The 59-year-old  Brown Act, enacted in the 1950’s to increase government transparency and improve public access to local and state decisions, is now optional, rather than a legal requirement. > Click to read more…

High Profile Task Force Predicts State’s budget will lag as US Economy Rebounds-

Former Federal Reserve Chair Paul Volcker and former New York Lt. Gov. Richard Ravitch warned that the fiscal crisis will persist long after the economy rebounds as states continue to confront rising health care costs, underfunded pensions, infrastructure needs, and eroding revenues.  Volcker and Ravitch presented the sobering findings of their task force at a press conference in Washington, DC. on Tuesday, July 17. > Click to read more…