Announcement:  The Piedmont Civic Association has specific policies regarding Piedmont elections:

1.  PCA does not support or oppose candidates for public office.
2.  PCA does not support or oppose ballot measures.
3.  The PCA website is open for comments or opinions on election matters – ballot measures and candidates. These may be sent to editors@piedmontcivic.org.
4. Personal attacks on individuals and attacks on organizations are not accepted.
5. Opinions are published with the author’s name. 
6. PCA has invited all candidates to submit information on their candidacy to our website.
7. All Piedmont candidates have had questions posed to them by PCA, and their responses will be published on this website.

PCA will attempt to keep voters informed during this election period and welcomes community engagement in the process.

BE SURE TO VOTE ON PIEDMONT CANDIDATES AND MEASURES, TYPICALLY FOUND NEAR THE END OF EACH BALLOT. 

PIEDMONT WILL HAVE AN ALAMEDA COUNTY BALLOT BOX NEAR THE MAIL BOXES AT WELLS FARGO BANK IN CENTRAL PIEDMONT. POSTAGE IS NOT REQUIRED. 

Charter Revisions Make City Administrator Selection Vital to Piedmont. 

Will there be an opportunity for public input on the qualifications sought in a new City Administrator?

The Piedmont City Council is moving ahead to find a replacement for City Administrator Paul Benoit, who is retiring in June 2019.

Minutes from February 25, 2019 Special Council action meeting can be read by clicking > 2019-02-25_special

Public input methods and characteristics sought in a new City Administrator by the City Council have not been publicized.  In the past, the community has been given opportunities to provide comments and ideas on desired characteristics of top Piedmont officials.

The recently voter approved Charter revisions place the decision of retention of key employees with the City Administrator rather than with the City Council.

In November 2018, the City Council and City Administrator Paul Benoit proposed and Piedmont voters approved City Charter changes transferring long-held Council responsibilities to the Piedmont City Administrator.  If the City Council and City Administrator disagree on the retention of key-officers – Police Chief, Fire Chief, Planning Director, Finance Director, Public Works Director, etc., only  the City Administrator has the right and authority to determine these key employees continued employment with the City.

The next City Administrator may require a different set of skills than previous candidates.

The Council selects the key-officers of the City, but the Council cannot terminate or retain their choices if the City Administrator does not agree.  Given a disagreement between the City Administrator and the City Council, the Council by law can terminate the City Administrator and then select another person to fill the City Administrator position who will then make decisions.  The City Administrator, by law, is singularly entitled to make firing and retention decisions regarding top officers and will bear the sole responsibility for those decisions.

This major change in Piedmont governance makes selection of an appropriate City Administrator all the more important to Piedmonters.

Some comments made in the community have suggested the following characteristics be sought in a new City Administrator:

• Understanding of California law and application to Piedmont
• Belief in open and transparent government
• Familiar with Piedmont City Charter
• Proven ability to propose and work within budgetary constraints 
• Ability to encourage varying points of view
• Speaking and writing skills commensurate with responsibilities
• Foster community participation in Piedmont decisions
• Support broadcasts of Piedmont public meetings
• Experience with personnel decisions including terminations
• A previous track record of administering a comparable public entity in California
• Plans for service in Piedmont extending beyond 5 years
• Understand the difference between Council and Administrative decisions
• Willingness to work with the Piedmont School District
• Ability to develop and encourage appropriate employee activities

Thank you for being a PCA reader. Your input is invaluable.

Since the revitalization in 2011 of the 1986 Piedmont Civic Association and the transformation of the paper newsletter to a website, Piedmont civic news has been read by thousands of Piedmonters.  Yet even now, not all Piedmonters are aware of PCA News, so let your friends and neighbors know how they can easily, at no cost, keep up with Piedmont civic matters on www.piedmontcivic.org 

Opinions and articles offer Piedmonters an additional source of Piedmont civic news. 

Participation is encouraged through “OPINIONS, COMMENTS, ARTICLES, ANNOUNCEMENTS, LETTERS TO THE EDITOR, FORUMS FOR DISCUSSIONS, EXCHANGE OF IDEAS, and NEWS.”

Subscribing Piedmonters receive updates as news happens. 

The Piedmont Civic Association is not supported by advertisers and does not charge for subscription updates.  Subscriber information is considered completely private and never released.  

Happy Thanksgiving! 

PCA Editors

The Editorial Board wants our many readers to know the Piedmont Civic Association (PCA) does not endorse, support, or oppose candidates for public office or ballot measures. Opinions expressed are those of the authors.

PCA’s goal is to inform and encourage participation in Piedmont civic matters.

Candidate and ballot measure information is welcomed free on this site.

Information, photos, endorsements, and opinions can be submitted.

PCA Editorial Guidelines do not allow attacks on persons.

Will any group or resident submit an opposing argument in the Piedmont Voter Information Pamphlet for all Piedmonters to read regarding the November 6, 2018 Election to change Piedmont’s City Charter ? 

A controversial Charter change example would be requiring the Council to hire key employees, but prohibit the Council from firing  these same key employees. 

The City Council set a deadline of Friday, August 17, 2018 at 4:00 p.m. for the submission of direct arguments for and against the measures to be submitted to the City Clerk’s Office. Direct arguments are limited to 300 words and are confidential until the deadline.

The Council also set a deadline of Friday, August 24, 2018 at 4:00 p.m. for the submission of rebuttal arguments to the City Clerk’s Office. Rebuttal arguments are limited to 250 words and are confidential until the deadline.

Residents or groups interested in submitting arguments are encouraged to contact the City Clerk’s Office at (510) 420-3040 for more information.

“The City Council authorized Mayor McBain and Councilmember Rood to prepare and sign a direct argument in favor (and, if necessary, a rebuttal argument) of the proposed charter amendment measures on the November 6, 2018 General Municipal Election ballot.”

There is no charge to place a pro or con argument in the Voter Information Pamphlet. 

Deadline to file Arguments with the City Clerk In Favor/Against Measures on the November 6, 2018 General Election is:

Friday, August 17, 2018  by 4:00 p.m. with the City Clerk of Piedmont, 120 Vista Avenue. 

CONTACT CITY CLERK JOHN TULLOCH AT  

420-3040

The City Council has proposed numerous changes to Piedmont’s City Charter to be voted upon at the November 6, 2018 Election.  The City Charter is the primary legal document for Piedmont governance. 

Controversy has surrounded the Council’s City Charter revisions approach, by making themselves the exclusive body to consider the changes. Groups and individual residents asked the Council to broaden the input and to thoroughly consider the language and proposed revisions. This did not happen.  None of Piedmont’s commissions or committees were asked to provide their input.  Some individuals spoke to the Council regarding proposals at their meetings while leaving subjects unresolved and questions unanswered.

One example of controversy has been the Charter revision to require the Council to hire key employees, such as the Police Chief, Fire Chief, Finance Director, but the Council would be henceforth forbidden from firing these same employees who they have hired.  Only the City Administrator would be able to fire those same employees.  This revision represents a definite change in how for decades Piedmont has been governed.  The change is presented as a “clarification.”

Ballot language approved by Council states:

CHARTER AMENDMENT MEASURE ___ “Shall the measure amending the Charter of the City of Piedmont to clarify the duties and reporting structure for officers and employees of the City be adopted?

If approved by Piedmont voters on November 6, 2018, the proposed changes become law.

Second proposed Charter Amendment states:

CHARTER AMENDMENT MEASURE ___ “Shall the measure amending the Charter of the City of Piedmont to modify procedures for filling of vacancies in elected offices for City Council and Board of Education for the Piedmont Unified School District, modify term limits for the City Council, and making other clarifying amendments regarding City record keeping, format of City ordinances, public posting, City contract approval, operation of City Council meetings, and other minor technical amendments, be adopted?”

If an argument Against one or both of the two City Charter Ballot measures is filed, there will be an opportunity for rebuttals by opponents and supporters in the Voter Information Pamphlet.

Deadline to file Rebuttal Arguments In Favor/Against a Measure on the November 6, 2018 General Election August 24, 2018.

Filing information based on City Council action:

“SECTION 4. The last day for filing direct arguments for or against the measure shall be August 17, 2018 at 4:00 p.m. and all such arguments shall be filed with the Piedmont City Clerk, 120 Vista Avenue, Piedmont, California and shall not exceed 300 words in length. The City Clerk, upon receipt of arguments and after the filing deadline, shall immediately transmit copies to any known opposing parties who may then submit rebuttals within the time period described in Section 5 below. Arguments received prior to the deadline shall be confidential until the deadline.

SECTION 5. The last day for filing rebuttal arguments for or against the measure shall be August 24, 2018 at 4:00 p.m. and all such arguments shall be filed with the Piedmont City Clerk, 120 Vista Avenue, Piedmont, California and shall not exceed 250 words in length. Arguments received prior to the deadline are confidential until the deadline.

SECTION 6. Pursuant to Elections Code Section 9295, the ten (10) day public review period for direct arguments submitted shall open at 4:00 p.m. on August 17, 2018 and shall close at 4:00 p.m. on August 27, 2018. If a rebuttal argument is submitted, the ten (10) day public review period shall open at 4:00 p.m. on August 24, 2018 and shall close at 4:00 p.m. on September 3, 2018. 

Read the staff reports on Charter changes HERE.

For additional information on the schedule and requirements for arguments, contact:

John Tulloch, City Clerk at 420-3040

Council would hire, but could not fire.

Facing a strong Administrative staff proposal to diminish the Piedmont City Council’s authority and control, the Council appeared confused, lacking clarity or direction.  Council members questioned issues as basic as whether the Council or the City Administrator should hire and fire the City’s top managers – Police Chief, Fire Chief, Finance Director, etc.

The City Council had paid little attention to the City Charter until there was a desire to accumulate ever greater amounts of revenue in reserve, without clear and specific purposes.

Overriding the unlimited reserve issue became the Administrative staff desire to change how Piedmont is governed. 

The review and changes to the City Charter had been pushed by former and resigned mayor, Jeff Weiler, who wanted the City to not only have a permanent, potentially escalating parcel tax, but who wanted the City to garner and retain in the General Fund Reserves unlimited amounts of revenue.

The City Council asked the Administrative staff to look at the City Charter and propose changes.   The Council was eager to allow the staff to construct their proposals independent of Council originated ideas. Individual Council members were to privately, outside of Council meetings,  submit to the City Administrator Charter changes they wanted.

The Administrative staff came up with a monumental proposed change to Piedmont’s long-held system of governance. The Charter changes proposed will significantly reduce Piedmont’s City Council’s long-held authority and Council responsibility for City services.

City Administrator, Paul Benoit, proposed that the City Council should no longer appoint top Department Heads, Police Chief, Fire Chief, Finance Director, Public Works Director, etc., he, the City Administrator, should have complete hiring and firing authority.

The Council did not totally accept Benoit’s proposal and chose to continue their long-held practice of hiring key positions.  The Council however, relented on Benoit’s proposal to allow him, the City Administrator, to be the sole individual authorized to fire key staff members hired by the Council.

The Council, in deference to Benoit, who is well liked by the Council, was also willing to forfeit their right as a Council to direct the Police Chief, Fire Chief, etc.  The Charter revisions as proposed will require all Council direction to go through the City Administrator, even if the Administrator position is vacated or terminated.  If there is a conflict with the City Administrator and a Council hire, the only choice the Council will have is to fire the City Administrator.

Mayor Bob McBain wanted to totally relinquish to the City Administrator the Council’s hiring and firing authority, but this was not supported by other Council members.

The City Administrator proposed governance is a form of governance traditionally found in cities with directly elected mayors who have more executive authority than Piedmont’s largely ceremonial Council-selected mayor, rotating among  their members with limited powers as set out in the City Charter. 

Council questions regarding Charter language stating the Council has authority “to direct” their appointees led to further Council confusion.  Despite specific existing language in the City Charter stating Council members as individuals are not allowed to direct staff members, Benoit argued he did not want the Council as a whole to be able to direct staff members even during Council meetings or emergency situations.

Individual Council members have been known to direct staff without the knowledge of the Council as a whole perhaps encouraged by a City Administrator.  It can be easier and faster for an administrator to gain direction from one person, a Council member, the mayor, than from a majority of the Council as required by the City Charter. 

The City Council and the City Administration, including the City Attorney, in recent years have not been attentive to the intent or language in the City Charter.  Since Piedmont’s long-term attorney retired, a great amount of knowledge on the City Charter has apparently been lost or ignored.

In considering proposals for changing Piedmont’s City Charter, the City Council has held a number of poorly attended, fragmented public meetings.  No independent committee, as in previous years, was formed to carefully consider the complex and important City Charter despite a number of citizen requests. Because of various voids in the questionable proposals, it is obvious  the entire Charter was not carefully considered nor discussed leaving many questioning the process and the proposals.

Significant current issues were never considered during the Council Charter review process. 

Some examples are:

• requirement for voters to make zoning changes
• borrowing money for more than one year
• Council officer vacancies
• bid advertisements and notifications

The Council agenda for Monday night appears to acknowledge that the Council, City Administrator, and City Attorney have not upheld Piedmont’s City Charter. 

The Council agenda items for the Monday, July 16, 2018 meeting rebuffs the City Charter when it states “Conform to Modern Practice.”  No one would want the City Charter to perpetuate unlawful practices; however, “Modern Practices” infers and confirms non-compliance with Piedmont’s long successful and practical City Charter.  Prime examples of ignoring the Charter are the usurpation of Council authority, borrowing money, and negation of voter approval for zoning changes.

The Council decided to separate the governance issue from the remainder of the Charter revision proposals after sensing the potential opposition to turning over long-held Council authority to the City Administrator.  Piedmont voters will find little transparency in the attempt to change Piedmont governance as noted in the staff report below:

Amendments to the City Charter to Clarify the Reporting Structure for Officers of the City, Clarify the Departments Responsible for Maintenance of Park Lands and Recreational Facilities, and Make Other Amendments to Conform the Charter to Modern Practice 

 Council dropped notion of unlimited General Fund Reserves.

When Kathleen Quenneville, a local authority on civic governance, told the Council that the Charter proposal to eliminate the cap on General Fund Reserves would not be supported by voters, the Council promptly removed the proposal, as it is their desire to not initiate opposition to Council proposals since a prospective voter approved future facilities bond measure is being considered.  Concern was expressed by Council members wanting to keep voters positive about Council actions and proposals, leading to the unlimited General Fund Reserves being dropped, and the separation of City Administration governance from other proposals.

This article does not describe the many other proposals suggested by the Council, however urgency does not appear to be present.  Items continuing to be of concern are:

• Inconsistencies between the School Board and Council elections – School Board members could seek re-election after sitting out for 4 years, whereas City Council members must sit out for 8 years, unknown in other communities
• Extension of time to fill Council vacancies from 30 days to 60 days

The Charter change matter will be considered by the Council at 7:30 p.m., Monday, July 16, 2018 in City Hall, 120 Vista Avenue.  The meeting will be broadcast live on Cable Channel 27 and from the City website under videos.

Comments can be made to the City Council as below:

Robert McBain, Mayor	rmcbain@piedmont.ca.gov	(510) 420-3048	2nd Term Exp. 11/20
Teddy Gray King, Vice Mayor	tking@piedmont.ca.gov	(510) 420-3048	1st Term Exp. 11/18
Jennifer Cavenaugh	jcavenaugh@piedmont.ca.gov	(510) 420-3048	1st Term Exp. 11/20
Tim Rood	trood@piedmont.ca.gov	(510) 239-7663	1st Term Exp. 11/18
Betsy Smegal Andersen	bandersen@piedmont.ca.gov	(510) 420-3048	Unexpired Term Exp. 11/18

Below are the staff reports: 

07/16/18 – Consideration of the Following Actions Related to the Possible Amendment of the City Charter

a. Approval of a Resolution and Measure Proposing Amendments to the City Charter to Modify Term Limits for the City Council, Modify the Procedures for Filling of Vacancies in Elected Offices, and Make Other Amendments to Conform the Charter to Modern Practice

b. Approval of a Resolution and Measure Proposing Amendments to the City Charter to Clarify the Reporting Structure for Officers of the City, Clarify the Departments Responsible for Maintenance of Park Lands and Recreational Facilities, and Make Other Amendments to Conform the Charter to Modern Practice 

07/16/18 – Consideration of Options Regarding a Direct Argument and a Rebuttal Argument Regarding the Charter Amendment Measure on the November 6, 2018 Ballot

Piedmont City Council to Consider Proposed Charter Changes June 4, 2018, 7:30 p.m. City Hall:

If the City Administrator’s requests to change the City Charter are approved, the City Council could take a back seat in Piedmont’s governance.

Piedmont City Administrator Paul Benoit proposed eliminating the long-time appointment power of the City Council in the City Charter. 

The City Council has always appointed and hired key administrative positions – Police Chief, Fire Chief, City Clerk, Finance Director, Public Works Director, etc. However, the Council told Benoit on April 30, 2018 they wanted to retain the Council’s hiring authority per the City Charter.  Yet Benoit apparently convinced the Council that he, the City Administrator, should be the sole individual authorized to fire or terminate key managers, taking authority away from the Council in an unusual change to Council authority.

Readers will find the administrative changes repeatedly diminish the authority of the Council forfeiting their authority to the City Administrator.

The form of government proposed by Benoit is usually termed a City Manager form of government joined by a strong mayor, which Piedmont does not elect.  Oakland has a City Manager form of government as does Alameda and Astoria, Oregon, where Benoit was employed for many years prior to coming to Piedmont. Each of these cities have a separately elected Mayor.  Piedmont’s mayor is elected from within the Council  by the five Council members. 

Many are familiar with Oakland struggles, but perhaps less familiar with Alameda’s recent troubles when the Council terminated their City Manager over a hiring situation. Piedmont has not had such disruption and the City Council has worked collaboratively when selecting officers such as the Fire Chief, Police Chief, and others.  It has been stated that it is better to have 5 members of the Council selecting  the City officers rather than one unelected person – the City Administrator – making the selections and terminations.

Despite pleas for an independent committee to study and evaluate proposed changes to the Piedmont City Charter, none was formed by the City Council.  The Administration driven proposals have moved forward following a Council Study Session.  

This PCA article points out some of the critical issues, but as with any City Charter the devil is in the details, of which there are many.  The Council, apparently, will be presenting forums after they decide what should be placed on a Piedmont  November 2018 election ballot to seek required ratification

~~~~~~~~~~~

Below are various changes noted by City staff as substantive.  Readers will note in the full draft linked below there are many other important issues.

   The pros and cons of the changes have not been presented by staff.

Important administrative changes of the Charter were listed last in the staff report linked below. The order has been changed here. 

• ADMINISTRATIVE CONTROVERSY: Council would hire top managers, but could not fire them. In Article 3 – Administration – Council directed staff to clarify sections in this article to make clear that the City Council appoints Department Heads, but that they will be directed by and serve at the pleasure of the City Administrator.
• The Council acted against the recommendation of the City Administrator and decided to retain their long held ability to select and appoint (hire) Department Heads per the current Charter requirement appointments for Department Heads, while letting the City Administrator be the only individual who fire the Department heads.
•   ISSUE: The Council relinquishment of their ability to also terminate (fire) Department Heads –  the Police Chief, Fire Chief, Finance Director, City Clerk, etc. presents potential new problems for the City Council authority.
• New positions have been added to the list of permanent City of Piedmont positions.  The number of  Department Head employeeswill be permanently placed in the City Charter potentially making it more difficult to consolidate or eliminate positions. 
•  ADMINISTRATIVE AND POLITICAL;  NO LIMIT ON AMOUNT OF RESERVE FUNDS. In Section 4.03, the limit on the General Fund Reserve of 25% is proposed for removal. In addition, an aspirational minimum for the General Fund Reserve of 15% of the General Fund operating budget is inserted.
• Elimination of the amount of money the City can place in reserve, while continuing to tax property owners has been one of  the more noticed proposed changes to the City Charter.  The original goal of limiting reserves was to control taxation without a purpose. In recent years, the Council and Administration has circumvented the limitation by building up reserves in numerous specials funds presenting a bountiful amount of money stored by the millions for special purposes.   The change appears arbitrary. 
• ADMINISTRATIVE AND POLITICAL: BIDDING and PURCHASING:  In Section 4.11, bidding requirements are changed to remove a low threshold for costly formal bidding requirements, rather leaving it to the Council to set the thresholds for formal bidding by ordinance.
• Many City service providers are currently not obtained through a formal bidding process. Regardless of cost to the City, old friends, contractors,  and work companions often continue for years without ever going through a formal procurement process.  Some suggest Piedmont has not always performed due diligence with the millions of dollars spent for outside services and have suggested stronger language rather than more relaxed requirements. Piedmont adopted a stronger procurement, liability and project policy led by the League of Women Voters of Piedmont.  There has been no comment on the impact of the proposed Charter change to the policy. 
•  
•  The proposed amendments also modernize the prohibition against employment discrimination to include all classes protected under U.S. and state law. (Section 5.02)  This makes Piedmont Charter language compliant with U.S. and state law without impacting Piedmont’s current compliant practices.
• The provision for filling vacancies on the Board of Education is changed to match the proposed amendments for the City Council, as described above for Section 2.05 (c). Staff consulted with the Piedmont Unified School District which agreed that this amendment, along with one other technical amendment to Article 7 should be included in the proposed amendments. There is no validation provide for the Board of Education position on the Charter change. 

POLITICAL: LIMITING SERVICE BY FORMER COUNCIL MEMBERS.  The proposal would increase the period of time during which a former Councilmember is ineligible to run for office from 4 to 8 years after leaving office.

 Only two Council members have in the past 3 decades attempted to be re-elected following 4 years of ineligibility.  One former Councilmember was not re-elected, another was elected, but recently resigned over a scandal.  A local newspaper’s publicity for those two candidates influenced the election more than the candidates’ efforts.

POLITICAL: HOW LONG SHOULD THE COUNCIL HAVE TO FILL A COUNCIL VACANCY.   An amendment to the provision for filling of vacancies on the City Council would be extended to allow the Council 60 days rather than just 30 days to fill a vacancy.

 Recent history has proven the Council has been able to readily fill numerous Council vacancies within the allotted 30 day time period. The intention of the Charter was to expeditiously fill a vacancy for a full Council composition of 5 members rather than unnecessarily remain at 4 or fewer members. 

• CONTROVERSIAL: WHEN TO HOLD COUNCIL MEETINGS A requirement that the Council hold two regular meetings per month is eliminated. The proposed language would require the City Council to hold meetings on a regular basis.

  Change could be arbitrary. 

  Residents often plan their public participation schedules around knowing when the Council will meet  – the first and third Mondays of each month. With recent changes to the Zoning Code, not knowing when the Council will next meet to consider a matter opens up conflicting issues. From high school students to public participants, having regularly scheduled meetings, a standard for most cities,  is beneficial.  If three (the required amount) Council members cannot attend a regularly scheduled  meeting, then the meeting would fall to the next day or week. Going on the City Council is known to require certain meetings per month thus allowing the Council and public set dates for planning purposes. Scheduling of matters can be crucial to the consideration of many issues and the orderly functioning of government.  Reducing the frequency of Council meetings puts them at a disadvantage in providing the leadership the citizenry expects of their elected officials.
  

Amendments are also proposed to a number of other sections of the Charter to remove stated outdated provisions and modernize language. Click to read a marked up version of the Charter containing each of the proposed Charter amendments.

READ the full STAFF REPORT > HERE.

Citizens are invited and encouraged to comment at this meeting. Written comments may be submitted to the City Council at citycouncil@piedmont.ca.gov or by US Mail to City Clerk, 120 Vista Avenue, Piedmont, CA  94611. All comments submitted will become part of the public record.

The meeting will be televised live on KCOM-TV, Channel 27, the City’s government TV station and will be available through streaming video on the City’s web site www.ci.piedmont.ca.us.

For further information, contact Assistant City Administrator/ City Clerk John O. Tulloch via email at cityclerk@piedmont.ca.gov or via phone at (510) 420-3040.

March 11-17, 2018

Throughout the United States,  it is > Sunshine Week  – a national initiative spearheaded by the American Society of News Editors (ASNE) to educate the public about the importance of open government and the dangers of excessive and unnecessary secrecy. 

Residents have raised issues in the past regarding City buildings not being appropriate for political activities nor for allowing businesses with potential conflicts of interests.

The Piedmont Post is an independently owned private newspaper supported by donors, advertisers, official City notices, and subscribers.  The for-profit business entity is currently located in Oakland on Boulevard Way. The Post, contrary to City laws, uses a Piedmont residential address on Oakland Avenue as the business address.

There is no information available as to a business license in Oakland, Piedmont, or a Piedmont Home Occupation Permit as a business location on Oakland Avenue.  There are no published documents available indicating the financial status of the newspaper. The application states a gross income of $380,000 per year.

The application indicates a need for more Art Center income to support the activities of the Center, however no documentation or audit has been publicly released to show the financial status of the Art Center.