Manteca!

Agenda memo, page 1	Agenda memo page 2	Talking points memo, page 1
talking points memo, page 2

Here are some memos from City Manager Robert F. D. Adams.  This is on the agenda for discussion at the 16 Oct 2006 Manteca City Council meeting!  For some odd reason, it's suddenly OK to advocate a position on a ballot measure.

Rather than try to have a discussion at the council meeting, where they can talk all they want and citizens are cut off at three minutes, we'll address the complex issues here.  For those who are interested, here's why the city managers comments are improper and misleading:

1.  Notice he refers to G.M. giving out some informational papers that advocated a certain vote on Measures M and K.  Actually, they advocated a "NO" vote.  Why didn't Mr. Adams want to say they advocated a "no" vote?  Possibly because it would immediately label his comments as advocating a "yes" vote.  Which would be illegal because a government official can't advocate for or against a ballot measure.  But he figures it's ok if you are vague enough and say you're advocating against a certain unspecified position.

2.  I meant to call the consultants hired by the city for $110,000 the smooth talkers.  Why did the city pay so much of your money for the slick image consultants?  To take surveys and educate you?  No!

3.  Manager Adams is telling us that the group the city hired was just to take surveys, to find out what people wanted.  Talk about disingenuous!  This has been discussed at length in the report to the people of Manteca and in the press.   The silver-tongued consultants hired by the city are not educators or opinion poll people -- they have a single goal:  To get Measure M passed by any means.   That is directly from their own advertising material.  They brag about their 100 % win rate, and how they "get measures passed even when there is opposition," they use the term "convert strategies" to get naysayers out of the way, they go on about how they plan meetings and select speakers who will sell the voters... etc., etc.

There is a small kernel of truth in what Mr. Adams says.  Notice he says the survey was to determine what "the people would accept."  "Accept" is not the same as "want."  That's a hint of something. 

The consultants started with the idea "we have to increase the taxes, somehow."  They then questioned citizens and told them various statements to see which one would make them vote for a new tax.   This is hinted at in the Adams memo.  Yet in every other talk about the matter we are told, "this is what the people asked for!"  No, the people didn't ask for a tax increase.  The people were "tested" to see what might make them approve a tax increase.  They found that people might approve a new tax if they believed they were in danger somehow.  So that's what the consultants told the city leaders.  I attended that meeting.  I have pictures!  The consultants told the City Council that the only way to get the tax passed would be if you tell the people that the police and fire departments are falling apart, then the people might be frightened enough to vote for it.  I have photographs showing the powerpoint slides.  The slides told the Council that if you say the tax is for a Performing Arts Center, they won't vote for it, but if you say the tax is for the police and fire, they will.

And now Mr. Adams tells us this was all just educating the public, it was just taking a survey, "we want to find out what people want."  Now who's being disingenuous?

Notice another theme.  In this paragraph, he is saying how "this is what the people said they want" and the reason we're having the vote on Nov 7 is to see if that is really true.  What an odd phrase.  That's not what an election is.  He keeps repeating the idea that "you, the voters, told us this"  Almost as if he's saying "you, the voters, promised us you would vote for it." Implying that "if you vote against the tax you are not keeping your word."  Which is a psychological trick. You see this same theme in the talking points, point #1.

4.  The talk about how the measure can be changed the day after the election is not a misunderstanding or "a deliberate attempt to mislead."  That's what it says, in plain English.  This is also discussed at length in the report.  

I've also examined this brand new claim about the California Constitution.   I heard of this when Councilman Hernandez sent me the paper he got when he asked that same question.  Far from assuring me it couldn't be changed, the paper convinced me that it can be changed! 

What I got by email was what looked like one side of a question and answer session, completely un-attributed, unsigned, from some mysterious unnamed source.  Really!  It was just some text with nothing else.  No names, no signature, no nothing.  It just poo-poo'd the idea, and said "no, measures can't be changed after they are voted on.  Everyone knows that!  It's in the California Constitution! (somewhere)"  For some reason, the lawyer/legal expert/whoever couldn't seem to give a simple reference so you or I could read it for ourselves.  They only have a team of lawyers, maybe they forgot were it was, who knows.  It's because it's nonsense.  There is no such restriction in the California Constitution.  You can read it for yourself here.  The only restriction  in the California Constitution is that the city can't raise the tax.  Changes are fine so long as the ordinance itself permits it.

Adams says the "state law requires this."  Once again, this is misleading.  The state law says it requires this except if the ordinance has a provision permitting it to be changed.  Which Measure M does.  Oops!

In addition, the city's own lawyer, Craig Steele has told the press that he basically agrees with us, that Measure M's promises can be removed the day after the election.

4.  The phone banks and meeting rooms are well documented in press reports.  The "phone bank" was at  The Manteca District Ambulance and the meeting rooms were provided by the Convention and Visitors Bureau, a city paid agency.  This year, the "convention and visitors' bureau" was given $94,000 of city money for their mission, whatever that might be.  Mr. Adams is trying to split a hair here because there probably isn't a document listing "provide meeting rooms for groups that support measures that we like."  But they are paid by the city.  And the same for The Manteca Ambulance.  That is "technically" a private group, but it's entire business depends on money from Manteca and the favor of city officials who grant this private group the exclusive right to do business in Manteca.  And they have to please the city, or else!

One only has to look to what happened to the Chamber of Commerce to find out what "or else" means.  Earlier this year, the Chamber made the mistake of taking the wrong side on the SSJID vs. PG&E power takeover plan.  The leaders of the Chamber were called into a City Council meeting.  They were chastised by council members saying, "you aren't supposed to take political positions!"  And then they were told that "we'll be looking carefully at the next contract, to make sure we get what we're paying for."  If that's not a threat, I don't know what is.

By the way, this time, the chamber has said "we support Measure M!"  Suddenly, there is no problem with taking a political position.  No more talk about we'll be looking at your contract from city leaders.  It's all a matter of picking the correct political position (the one that pleases the city leaders!).

5.  Notice the veiled threat against the website, mantecalive.com.  He's not going to discuss it because it wasn't "brought up" at a meeting.  Well, actually the flyer being distributed is directly from this website, and the flyer even says that!  Curious why they don't want to address us.  I hereby give you permission to discuss us.  hehe.

Besides, since when does simply handing out political papers near the city council meeting suddenly mean the council has a right to attack you?  It's up to the "Yes on M" people to challenge anything we say, not the city!

6.  The rest of the memo is on Measure K.  We won't go into a whole thing on Measure K, except that I support "NO on K" and urge all voters to vote no on Measure K.

7.  Adams says he's providing this "information" so that people can make decisions based on "facts" and not "innuendos."  I never knew I was making innuendos.  I didn't know that facts, documents, photographs, testimony, press reports and scholarly analysis was "innuendos."  Sure, I could say the consultants are golden-throated silver-tongued smooth-talking slick image consultants, I guess that's an innuendo.  But anyone who reads our material or talks to me knows that I don't just "say things" just "because" or for no reason.  I have to have a reason.  Remember, I'm nobody.  I have to back up everything with solid evidence, because YOU have to decide.  I don't ask people to just "believe."

On the other hand, the city people seem to say that "facts" are what we say they are.   It doesn't matter that Measure M says in plain language it can be changed any time.  We, the authority, say it doesn't.  It doesn't matter if the people supporting Measure M are getting paychecks signed by the city.  We, the authority, say they aren't paid by the city.  And it doesn't matter that the tax is to pay for projects and ball fields, we, the authority, say the police need it, because the consultants said to say that.  No wait, forget that last part.  It's because there's a crisis.  Yes, that's it.  There are meth labs, there might be ten of 'em!  And gangs!  Gangs!  Did we mention gangs?  I think we did.  Well, let's mention it again.  The consultants said to talk about gangs, that makes people want to vote for it... Darn, I did it again.

Where was I.  Oh, we were talking about how the city is giving us pure facts and not twisting anything.  And how these "inaccuracies" brought up by thinking citizens have to be "refuted."   To that end, I just wanted to mention that is the reason for ManteaLive.com!  Since the city doesn't think a public forum on the issue is a good idea, you can make comments on the blog portion of the website.  I invite responsible comment, even comments I don't agree with.

Talking points from the city manager

Attached to the memo is a talking points paper called Measure M Informational Responses to Concerns and Misinformation.  What a title!  Did we mention that it would be illegal if he were advocating a position, he's only allowed to "give information."

1.  How was the Measure M committee appointed, then?  The question is asked but never answered.  Instead, we get more of the same old song and dance about how the consultants were simply determining what "people wanted."  Which is utter nonsense because the consultants were hired to manipulate and persuade the voters, not to determine what they wanted.

2.   I've been meaning to write something about his so called "Citizen's Oversight Committee."  Now's as good a time as any.  This might take some time.

First, lets address Adams' comments.  That the Citizen's Oversight committee can't possibly have any authority because they "aren't accountable."  They aren't elected.   Well what about the planning commission?   Or the parks and recreation commission, or the other commissions?  What about the city administration itself?  The City Manager isn't elected either, but apparently he has great authority to affect decisions about who gets a permit, how much people are paid, many things.  So why the civics lesson there about how only elected boards can have authority to do things?

Anyone who's been observant has noticed that for the past few years has been fashionable to add to any measure some verbiage about "strict accountability and citizen's oversight..." to try to get a measure passed.  Anyone who has actually served on one of those "oversight" committees knows they are a joke.  They have no authority to do anything.  All they are allowed to do is meet and talk.  And sometimes write a report that is always a glowing account of how great the tax has been.  No matter what. 

We saw this with the previous "Measure M bond" for the school board.  The money was more or less squandered.  The bond was supposed to fund dozens of projects, several schools, fix leaky roofs, etc.  It ended up paying for a fraction of a single high school (when you add up all the small contributions to various projects).  Yet, the Measure M citizen's oversight committee said "it was great."  And how "All the promises have been kept!" since all the money was spent on schools and not on vacations to Hawaii.  (this may be confusing, here I'm talking about a previous school bond measure from 2004 also called "Measure M")

Now lets look at the current Measure M.  What does the ordinance actually say the "Citizen's Oversight" committee can do?

See Measure M section 3.09.160:  The "Citizen's Oversight" committee is pure window dressing.  In fact the whole chapter is about what the committee can't do, not what it can do.

• The purpose of the committee is to "monitor."  Not "suggest" or "direct."  "Monitor" means just that, you can look but don't say anything. 
• The committee is limited to money collected by Measure M only. No looking at any cost shifting in the general fund!
• The committee is hand picked by the city council.
• The committee can only look at the Measure M funds and no other.  This is repeated in part C.  They really want to emphasize that the committee isn't allowed to look at the general fund.  Wonder why?
• Then it's repeated again:  The committee can not look at the the general fund.  hmmm.  Then it's repeated a fifth time in other words: "Revenue [from other sources] shall be outside the jurisdiction ... of the Oversight Committee."  This idea is repeated five times in the ordinance!  You think they are trying to say something here?
• The Oversight committee isn't allowed to have any role in contracting, project management, or any other aspect of the measure funding.  The rules further spell out, in case you have some doubt, that the committee can't have any role in decision making, spending priorities, schedules, project details, funding source decisions, developer fees, tax-rate assumptions.  The committee is advisory only.
• If that's not enough to tell you the citizens "oversight" committee is worthless, check part G.  Just when you might think despite all the restrictions, you can still publish a report.  Part G says that you can only publish your report after the city council reads your report and decides it's OK.   Sigh. 

3.   Has already been addressed.  Why do they never say where in the constitution is supposedly says this?  Because it doesn't.

4.  There's no need to re-hash the redevelopment issues here.  These are extremely complex, yet at their heart very simple.  It's tax money.  That's it.  It doesn't come "from the Redevelopment Agency" or somewhere else.  It's  your property taxes that bought Big League Dreams, the down-town "bulbs" and the Manteca Bowling alley with televisions in the men's room, and even the downtown "Brewery."

I'm trying to figure out how giving one citizen free money to build his restaurant is really helping the poor of Manteca.  But hey, at least we have a brewery.  It's paid for by the poor people who pay the property taxes.

Without getting into all the details, one of the most "disingenuous" statements I've ever heard was in many public meetings, officials have actually said that redevelopment money is "not a tax!" or "not tax money!"  That is pure baloney.  I'm not going to go into why here, but there is a lot written on the subject in "the report" and on the blog.

The most laughable part of Adams' comments is that last part about how all this redevelopment blight is "temporary" and will revert back.  They just rolled into some new redevelopment bonds that I think exist for 55 years.  Your ten year old child would be retiring by then, except that the retirement age will probably be 105 by then.  There are some old redevelopment agencies in Los Angeles that are ending in a few yeas and they have already declared them "still blighted" so it gets renewed for another 55 years.  It's never ending.  And City Manager Adams knows it too.

One more question occurs to me.  We've been told, supposedly, that everyone wants this new tax.  that's what the consultants said.  They said it has great support.  Why, then, is so much money being spent on the Measure M campaign?  After all, if everyone wants it no campaign should be needed.  Then why does the city have to spend $110,000 to sell us on the idea?  And why does the supposedly impartial "Yes on M citizen's group" need to spend almost another $50,000 to sell us on the idea?  More money is being spend on the Measure M campaign than on all the candidates on all the races in Manteca, Lathrop and I think the school board combined!  And yet, if the consultants were right, that everyone really wanted it, they wouldn't have to spend anything to get people to vote for it!  So why the aggressive campaign?  Curious.

###