Part of the Bay Area News Group

Filing deadline passes and East Bay ballots firm up

By Lisa Vorderbrueggen
Friday, March 9th, 2012 at 8:08 pm in 2012 primary election, Alameda County, Alameda County Board of Supervisors, ballot measures, Contra Costa Board of Supervisors, Contra Costa County, Contra Costa politics.

The 5 p.m. filing deadline today has come and gone and election clerks in the East Bay have delivered their promised preliminary candidate and ballot lists.

Check out the list below for Contra Costa, Alameda and portions of Solano County. There are a few surprises, including a fair number of entirely uncontested races. (The women rule here, as you’ll see.)

My favorite development is the similarity between the name of incumbent Democratic state Sen. Mark DeSaulnier and his Republican challenger Mark Meuser. The Marks might want to hand out reading glasses to voters in the hopes the magnification effect will help them choose the right one.

Voters in a dozen cities, school and fire districts will also find requests for new taxes on their ballots. While no one wants to pay more, residents are far more likely to support local measures because they feel the money will stay closer to home.

The following individuals and ballot measures had qualified for the June 5 ballot as of information available late today. (i) denotes incumbent. (Keep in mind, election clerks may still be processing applications from those who filed at the last minute.)

(Ed. Note: I’ve updated this at 4:30 p.m. Saturday — Josh)

CONGRESS

District 3: John Garamendi, Dem. (i); Kim Vann, Rep.; Eugene Ray, Rep., Rick Tubbs, Rep.

District 5: Mike Thompson, Dem., (i); Randy Loftin, Rep.; John Cilley, Rep.

District 9: Jerry McNerney, Dem., (i); John McDonald, Rep.; Ricky Gill, Rep.

District 11: George Miller, Dem. (i); Cheryl Sudduth, Dem.; John Fitzgerald, Dem.; Virginia Fuller, Rep.

District 13: Barbara Lee, Dem. (i); Marilyn Singleton, nonpartisan; Justin Jelincic, Dem.

District 15: Fortney “Pete” Stark, Dem. (i); Eric Swalwell, Dem.; Christopher Pareja, nonpartisan.

District 17: Mike Honda, Dem. (i); Charles Richardson, Lib.; Evelyn Li, Dem.

STATE SENATE

District 3: Lois Wolk, Dem. (i)

District 7: Mark DeSaulnier, Dem. (i); Mark Meuser, Rep.

District 9: Loni Hancock, Dem. (i)

ASSEMBLY

District 11: (No incumbent) Jim Frazier, Dem.; Patricia Hernandez, Dem.; Gene Gantt, Dem.; Len Augustine, nonpartisan; Mike Hudson, Rep., Charles Kingeter, Dem.

District 14: Susan Bonilla, Dem. (i)

District 15: Nancy Skinner, Dem. (i)

District 16: Joan Buchanan, Dem. (i); Al Phillips, Rep.

District 18: (No incumbent) Rob Bonta, Dem.; Joel Young, Dem.; Abel Guillen, Dem., Rhonda Weber, Rep.

District 20: (No incumbent) Bill Quirk, Dem.; Jennifer Ong, Dem.; Sarabjit Cheema, Dem.; Luis Reynoso, Rep.; Mark Green, nonpartisan

District 25: Bob Wieckowski, Dem. (i)

ALAMEDA COUNTY (nonpartisan races)

Board of Supervisors, District 1: Scott Haggerty (i)

Board of Supervisors, District 4: Nate Miley (i); Tojo Thomas

Board of Supervisors, District 5: Keith Carson (i)

Hayward City Council (four seats): Barbara Halliday (i), Francisco Zermeno (i), Olden Henson, (i), Al Mendall, Greg Jones, Fahim Ajaz Khan, Ralph Farias Jr. and Peter Bufete. (Filing deadline extended to March 14 as one of the incumbents did not seek re-election.)

Board of Education, District 2: None

Board of Education, District 3: Ken Berrick (i)

Board of Education, District 4: None

Board of Education, District 5: Frederick Sims (i)

Board of Education, District 6: Eileen McDonald (i)

Zone 7 (three seats): Sandy Figuers (i); Dick Quigley (i)

Union Sanitary District, Ward 1: Manuel Fernandez (i)

Union Sanitary District, Ward 2: Patricia Kite (i)

Union Sanitary District, Ward 3: Anjali Lathi (i)

CONTRA COSTA COUNTY (nonpartisan)

Board of Supervisors, District 2: Sean White of Lafayette, Candace Andersen of Danville; and Tomi Van de Brooke of Orinda. (Filing deadline extended to March 14 as incumbent Gayle Uilkema did not seek re-election.)

Board of Supervisors, District 3: Mary Nejedly Piepho of Discovery Bay (i)

Board of Supervisors, District 5: Federal Glover of Pittsburg (i)

CONTRA COSTA BALLOT MEASURES

Antioch Unified School District: $59.5 million bond measure for school facility upgrades. Requires 55 percent voter approval.

Antioch: Two measures. One seeks to change city clerk and treasurer from elected to appointed position. The other would convert elected mayor to a rotating position from among members of the City Council. Both require majority approval.

Crockett Community Services District: Increase in the $50 recreation per parcel tax to $110 for maintenance of the area’s parks. Two-thirds vote required.

East Contra Costa Fire Protection District: Annual $197 per parcel tax to maintain fire service. Two-thirds vote required.

Hercules: Two measures. One seeks voter approval to sell the city’s electric company and requires a two-thirds vote. The second is an emergency funding proposal for a four-year, 1/2-cent sales tax to maintain city services in the wake of a deficit. Majority approval required.

Pittsburg: A 10-year sales tax (1/2 cent for first five years, 1/4 cent in the second five years) to raise money for city services. Majority approval required.

San Pablo: A 10-year sales tax (1/2 cent for first five years, 1/4 cent in the second five years) to raise money for city services. Majority approval required.

West Contra Costa Unified School District: Five-year renewal and increase in parcel tax. Requires two-thirds vote.

ALAMEDA COUNTY BALLOT MEASURES

Peralta Community College District: Eight-year annual $48 per parcel tax. The funds would be used to preserve 1,900 classes a year at the college serving students from Oakland, Alameda, Piedmont, Berkeley, Albany and Emeryville. Requires two-thirds vote.

Dublin Unified School District: $99 million school bond measure to build and improve classrooms, buildings and equipment. Requires 55 percent voter approval.

Hayward Unified School District: Annual $58 per parcel tax for school operations. Two-thirds vote required.

New Haven Unified School District (Hayward): Four-year annual $180 per parcel tax to fund school operations. It is similar to a measure that failed last May. Two-thirds vote required.

City of Alameda: A 30-year half-cent sales tax increase to fund library improvements, replace aging police and fire vehicles and construct a new emergency center. Two-thirds vote required.

SOLANO COUNTY

Countywide: Would extend existing one-eighth of 1 percent library tax for 16 years to fund ongoing operations. Majority approval required.

Board of Supervisors, District 1 (no incumbent): Susan Anthony, Erin Hannigan, Tony Intintoli Jr., Lee Simmons.

Board of Supervisors, District 2: Steve Messina, Linda Seifert (i)

Board of Supervisors, District 5: Mike Reagan (i); Skip Thomson

 

[You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.]

  • Anne M Lepre

    I am supporting Marilyn Singleton for congress in Distict-13.She is not a professional politician and promotes personal responsiblity,wants to create a business-friendly environment and community based solutions to social problems. She is a breath of fresh air amoung polluted politicians.

  • John W.

    Interesting that there are are two Republicans running against McNerney. Is that bona fide competition for Republican votes, or did the Dems “arrange” for somebody to siphon off GOP voters from Gill?

    Also, I was going to vote for Stark to hold the seat for a better field of Democratic candidates in 2014. Now that I know his real name is “Fortney” instead of “Pete,” I definitely have to go with Stark on that basis alone.

  • RR, Senile Columnist

    It’s a popularity contest in District 2. Either gal could easily match Gayle U.’s “record” of achievement.

  • Elwood

    “Now that I know his real name is “Fortney” instead of “Pete,” I definitely have to go with Stark on that basis alone.”

    Well if you’re in to 80 year old wacked out senile old ****s, Fortney’s your boy!

  • John W.

    “If you’re into 80 year old…”

    Just to keep the seat warm until 2014 for some decent replacement candidates, and away from a not-ready-for-prime-time wannabe. The rest of the Bay Area Congressional delegation aren’t exactly spring chickens either. But at least we have a youthful governor!

  • Rick K.

    Keep your eyes on Congress District 3 where “Live Shot” Garamendi may be headed for defeat. First elected to the Legislature in 1974, Garamendi is the “poster boy” for the professional politicians who have made cesspools out of Washington, DC and Sacramento. Voters in that district are independent-minded and will not like Garamendi’s “The Proven Democrat” slogan. Many voters in this district rejected Garamendi when he ran for Lt. Gov. in 2006. Once they learn about Garamendi’s nepotism and cronyism over his decades as a professional politician, they will be even more certain to oust him from public office. UC Davis students and faculty will be outraged when they learn about how Garamendi Sr. apparently parlayed his influence (on the UC Merced Foundation board) into a $210,000 a year UC job for his 30-something year old son John Garamendi, Jr. UC Davis students are paying higher tuition and UC Davis staff members are suffering because for too many years influential politicians have arranged for cushy administrative jobs for their progeny. It’s doubtful if Garamendi Jr. would have gotten that high-level UC job if his name were “Smith” or “Ramirez.” The Occupy Davis and Tea Party crowds will be angry when they learn about how Garamendi Sr. was “Washington, DC investment partner” for Yucapia Cos. during the go-go years of the 1990s stock market boom. Yucaipa has run by Ron Burkle, the notorious “sugar daddy”/mega-campaign donor to Garamendi and other California politicians. “Forbes” magazine did an expose in 1999 that showed that Garamendi’s “investment partner” job was very mysterious — especially because Garamendi refused to explain what exactly he did as “Washington, DC investment partner” and how much he was paid. “Forbes” suggested that the Yucaipa “investment partner” job was payback to Garamendi for his role in the Executive Life insurance scandal. Look at: http://www.forbes.com/global/1999/1227/0226024a.html

    If the voters of the 3rd Congressional District catch on to this, Garamendi will be “retired” by this time next year.

  • rew

    Nobody is running agaisn’t Piepho and Glover. As I understand it District Attorney Mark Peterson and Sheriff Livingston were recruitng candidates to run agaisn’t both because of cuts to county law enforcement budgets.
    Looks to me like their law enforcement uprising agaisn’t the board of supervisors is a total flop. Now they are going to make nice to Piepho and Glover because they will be re-elected without opposition. They will have to go with a “hey, we were just kidding about working behind the scenes to get you knocked off”.
    As I have written previously, you can make no case county officials aren’t taking care of our public safety people. All you have to do to know this is to read Dan Borensteins articles on public safety pensions and retiree health care. Public safety pensions – as many know – are real whoppers these days, some are so high – especially for management – you can only describe them as “hello Cabo San Lucas” pensions, you read stories about these assitant fire chiefs retiring with $220,000 a year pensions, I mean your eyes pop out of your sockets.
    In fact, the board of Supervisors cut thier own salaries durring this economic crises, they have cut and trimmed budgets everywhere – often real gut-wrenching stuff, like cuts to programs for the disabled, cuts to indigent health care, for the homeless, I mean the safety net has taken a real hit, it breaks your heart.
    While I’m upset about these cuts to the counties indigent, I’m less upset about cuts to law enforcement. They have had it good – for a long time, nobody can make a case we haven’t taken care of law enforcemnt in this county. More recently the county hasn’t taken care of them as well in the past, but that’s due to the horrific economy. Law enforcemnt is suffering, along with everybody else, but there isn’t much you can do about this, you’ve got to wait until the economy gets better.

  • James B.

    @#7 – I agree completely with you. Blame the “hello Cabo San Lucas” pensions on a misguided, shortsighted, plain stupid vote by the Contra Costa BOS in October 2002. That’s when then-Supervisors Mark DeSaulnier, Federal Glover, John Gioia, etc. acted like lap dogs to public safety worker unions. California then was in recession and the stock market had collapsed, yet DeSaulnier & Glover gave a gift worth hundreds of millions of dollars to public safety unions, committing county taxpayers to the boondoggle for decades to home. Note that NONE of the candidates for supervisor talks about re-visiting that fateful Oct. 2002 vote. That’s how powerful the public safety unions are with the BOS electoral process. All of the talk about “cuts” to public safety in the current year is just a smoke screen to distract voters from the much larger pension issue, which won’t be borne by today’s taxpayers but by County residents 20-30-40 years in the future, long after DeSaulnier, Glover and Gioia are obscure, forgotten people. The politicians and the unions that control them get their benefits, while everyone else pays the costs for many, many years. Why do we tolerate this?

  • John W.

    Re #7

    There’s too much attention on the abusive deals for the high rollers. They’re bad, but focusing so much on them leads people to believe that’s the only part that needs fixing. You hear that from the unions all the time. We can no more afford 75% pensions and lifetime family health care for a $60k Parks & Rec employee (plus Soc. Sec.) than we can afford spiked pensions and double dipping by the upper ranks public safety types. I’m a liberal on many issues, but there is nothing liberal or progressive about taking scarce resources and squandering it all on Rolls Royce benefits packages that are far, far, far beyond what is necessary and appropriate to recruit and retain highly qualified people. They were excessive and unsustainable even before Gray Davis and the others gave away the store. The latest from Dan Borenstein on the games being played with Martinez pension spiking is just one more example. This goes beyond bad policy. It is public corruption on a massive scale. Previous court rulings saying that, if you worked for a government agency for one week, the deal that was in place the day you started can never be changed — those rulings were made before all the abuses were exposed and should be challenged. Pension plans need to be frozen and replaced with something that makes sense; and current pensions that are spiked should be rolled back to non-spiked amounts, on the basis that the spiked part is, at best, the unintended consequence of poorly written agreements and, at worst, the result of intentional fraud and collusion.

  • Truthclubber

    @10 –

    That’s what Vallejo (and Birmingham, AL, and soon Stockton, and perhaps an entire state or two) have figured out — and perhaps CoCo County needs to similarly think the unthinkable — BK (and I’m not talking this guy!) in order to walk out of the disasters voted in by senseless politicians.

  • rew

    I forgot to mention District Attorney Mark Peterson balked when county officials tried to cut his generous salary – $220,000 annually by 15% – even threatening to sue the county, as reported by the Times.
    County Supervisors – who make about half what Peterson’s makes, cut thier own pay by 15% I recall reading, but Peterson went balistic when they tried to do it to him. Obviously one of the reasons board members cut thier own salaries because they believe in the concept of shared pain, a lot of people are suffering in this bad economy, jobs aren’t being filled at the county, you’ve got lays offs, cuts to our most vulnerable citizens. This awful economy has really been painful for so many, especially at the county, because the county has to deal with the victims of this bad economy 24/7
    The one guy though who hasn’t been experiencing a lot of pain lately is Peterson himself. When he got elected to DA last year his own salary went up $70,000 a year, he now works in that big new county office building couinty officials built for the DA’s a few years ago – he’s got the big office now, but I think he is proving – at least to me, he may be a small man by complaining about how badly the DA’s office is being treated. That’s not true, county officials have been taking care of law enforcement well for a long time – but we have a time out on that because so many people are suffering.

  • John W.

    Re #11

    It’s rare for me to defend public officials justifying their compensation. However, to be fair to Mark Peterson, a couple of points should be made. First, his salary went up because he went from being a senior DA staff attorney to DA. Frankly, $220k doesn’t strike me as excessive for that position, at least not in the Bay Area. Retirement benefits — that’s another story. As for the Supervisors taking a 15% pay cut, let’s remember that they voted themselves a 60% pay increase just a few years ago. We have allowed county supervisor positions to become career jobs, with big staffs and big pay. I say big pay, because, if you look at county commissioner jobs around the country, you will find that they are normally paid like city councils, with modest stipends, not real salaries. City councils and school boards also put in lots of time, but with little pay. The supervisors should be setting policy, not running day-to-day county operations. That’s what we have a county administrator and staff for.

  • Reality Checker

    Re #12

    John, “to be fair”, here are a few more points to consider when discussing Mark Peterson’s salary versus that of the Board of Supervisors.

    Your comments included “Frankly, $220k doesn’t strike me as excessive for that position, at least not in the Bay Area.” regarding Mr. Peterson’s salary. In comparison, you then went on to comment about the Board of Supervisors pay increase and reminded us how it was achieved. While it is unclear if you did not know or purposely left out the following “points”, I do think they are relevant;

    • The Supervisors increase was to bring them back in line with their counterparts in the 9 bay area Counties. You used the relativity yourself when defending Petersons high salary as non excessive “at least not in the bay area”
    • The Supervisors increase was in line with recommendations made by the grand jury.
    • The Supervisors increase was due to a decade without a salary adjustment.
    • The Supervisors salary @ 95k is LESS that ½ that of Petersons 220k, yet they are responsible for a much larger workforce, and more importantly a much greater scope of responsibility. Peterson is responsible for one department-Supervisors are responsible for dozens. Their responsibilities out number his 50 to 1.
    • With the salary adjustments the Supervisors received a few years ago- they are still at the bottom of the scale when compared to the surrounding 9 Bay Area counties.
    • Lastly the Board of Supervisors by law, are the only ones that can increase their own pay and it must be done by their own vote. So yes, they had to vote themselves a pay raise or it would not have occurred.

    I’m not quite sure where you get your information regarding the workload of a Contra Costa Supervisor, but last I checked (as reported by the Grand Jury) the Supervisors work more than full time, 50-70 hrs. a week. I doubt you will find many (if any), School Board members or City council members that put in anywhere near that time commitment. In fact the job is so demanding that the Supervisors all have staff to keep up with the work load.
    You did not “allow” the Supervisors jobs to become full time nor do they really make “big pay”-especially when compared to the 7 other elected positions within the county (Assessor, Auditor Controller, D/A, Sheriff, Treasurer-Tax Assessor).

    2010 salaries;

    Assessor- $182,457

    Auditor- $168,763

    Recorder- $172,321

    D/A- $213,668

    Sheriff- $216,456

    Treasurer- $175,852

    Supervisor- $97,311

    It is clear from your comments that you don’t really know what they do, work hours, time commitments of the job or what would constitute “big pay” among their peers.

  • Elwood

    Good God, what next?

    Now we have a cheerleader for the sorry-ass CoCo supervisors.

  • Reality Checker

    No just a propensity for the facts ….and unlike you, no “sorry ass” anger issues!

    Have a nice evening ‘whining’ away!

    p.s. And what is with the “we”? I didn’t know you owned the place.

  • Elwood

    @ #15

    Is that you John Gioia?

  • John W.

    Re: #13

    Oh, where to start? First, you are dead wrong about the amount of time school board and city council members spend — in most cases, for nominal pay. Yet, outstanding people still run. I’m very familiar with the arguments in support of the 60% increase at the time. I’m also familiar with how effectively the CC Times editorial page rebutted those arguments. Mary Piepho, for example, knew what the pay was when she ran. But, all of a sudden, the pay became insufficient the day she took office? Do, you really think that, if the supervisors received a $1,000 monthly stipend instead of a salary and all the benefits, no well-qualified people would show up to run? In fact, I would argue that the school boards and city councils get a better mix of people — leaders from various elements of the community, including business, not just wannabe government careerists. As for peer comparisons, anybody who has been involved in compensation planning in either the private or public sector knows how the ratcheting game is played, taking turns back and forth comparing “my inferior bay” with the other guy’s “fair pay.” Also, we can’t compare CoCo County and other counties in the Bay Area with San Francisco, with it’s consolidated county/city government and a budget more than 4 times the size of CoCo, not to mention the difficulty of governing in that crazy environment. Or with Cook County, IL, with a population and budget about three times the size of CoCo. Finally, I don’t want the supervisors to work 50-70 hours a week. I want them to set policy, stay in touch with constituents, deal with controversies and leave the details to the County Administrator.

  • Reality Checker

    Re: #17

    Maybe you should be considering “where to end”.

    Thanks for proving my point. You are obviously very frustrated, and for that you have my sympathy. I can’t imagine any amount of pay would be enough to represent such ignorant and angry individual as you seem to be. Thank goodness someone does it.

    You tried to made a point just a few posts ago about the ridiculously high pay for the District Attorney being relevant because we are in the Bay Area-and then you spin on your heels and state; “Also, we can’t compare CoCo County and other counties in the Bay Area with San Francisco”

    That makes you the poster child for hypocrisy.

    You lost any credibility when you stated “I’m also familiar with how effectively the CC Times editorial page rebutted those arguments”. That one had me laughing out loud. Like the editorial board is qualified to know better. Yeah right!

    As for your claim that I am dead wrong about school boards and city councils. Well, I have the same claim towards your comment-YOU are dead wrong. I have experience with both to actually compare. Neither position works 1/10th of that of a Supervisor-not even close. Based on my experience, I do not suffer your ignorance.

    Sorry, but I don’t wish to spar with you over things you obviously don’t comprehend. At this point it’s clear that it is a waste of my of time. I wish you the best of luck in your angry little world.

  • Publius

    RE:#18

    Reality Check, you are the one that sounds angry. It also sounds like you have a vested interest in defending the salaries. Let’s get real for a minute. I have no vested interest other than being a tax payer. The notion that these people work 50-70 hours a week is absurd. You cannot count fundraisers. You cannot count personal appearances at the local Elks. You cannot count any function attended that helps to further thier political ambitions. Preparing to perpetuate your stay in public office is not in the job description of the County Supervisor.

    You make it sound like these people are slaving in a mine. Reality check….They work for the government. While recognizing the girl scouts, and proclaiming March prescription drug free month are important I hardly think that this is laborious and requires coveted skill.

    Should my current employer pay for the time I invest in getting a future job? This is the problem with the proffesional politician you are getting so angry defending. Their job description does not require a 50-70 hour work week, but their job security does. So easily corrupted by special interest and driven to make their positions relevant that they are always campaigning and continue to fail at thier basic job of protecting the tax payer and watching our money. Unfunded liabilities, Failing schools, and continued pressure to raise taxes are the costs of your high salaried hard working supervisors that will always sell out to special interest to insure job security.

    If a well informed man like John W cannot understand your grand illuminations then I posit that the system you defend is uncomprensable to 98% of the masses. The other 2% being government employees and insiders with vested interest like your self.

  • John W.

    Re: #18

    Our disagreement on this matter is less about “facts” than it is about the philosophy of what the job description of the supervisors should be and how to attract the right mix of people to those offices. The current paradigm is not serving us well.

  • Elwood

    @ #18

    Is that you Federal Glover?

  • Reality Checker

    Re: #19, 20 & 21

    Yaaaaawwwwwwwn.

  • Elwood

    @ # 22 rc

    Don’t confuse rc with the facts, his mind is made up.

    Always nice to have another sphincter on the forum.

    I wonder which stoopidviser he/she/it works for?

  • Reality Checker

    @ #23/Elwood,

    Wow… name calling, innuendo, hypocrisy and denial all coming from you in such a short post?

    Very impressive! One usually has to frequent a bowling alley to meet someone of your caliber.

  • Truthclubber

    @24 –

    RC, on this blog, we call “Hellwoody’s” (aka Elwood’s) affliction that of being a “fascist” — try that term on him on a future response and wait till you get a REAL reaction!

  • Elwood

    24 & 25

    Speaking of sphincters.

    Here’s a pair to draw to.

  • Truthclubber

    @26 –

    Obama’s going to win in November, and you (and the rest of your Limbaugh, Santorum, Gingrich, Bachmann, Perry, Norquist, O’Reilly, Hannity, and Beck crowd) are going to have to deal with having an uppity, “doesn’t know his place”, Harvard-educated n*gg*r in the White House for another 4 years — so get as much of your hatred out of your system now as you can…

  • Elwood

    And O’bummer’s fate relates to you two sphincters on this forum how?