You Gotta Give Them Hope..

There are two things I haven't made much of over the past seven years on City Council. I haven't made much of the fact that I am the first openly gay elected official in Long Beach (was first elected in 1992 to LBCC Board of Trustees) because I am who I am and that "am" includes a lot of things, not just the gender of the person I love.  And, the second matter is that this is the age of "gotcha politics" however I have found that sometimes it is best to let slights go by the wayside and not expose the smallness of others.

But as we are in "LGBT Pride" week and the City is getting ready to open up Harvey Milk Park, I thought that enough is enough. 

Several weeks ago, the Mayor  and the Vice Mayor held a public news conference on top of the Civic Plaza to raise the "Pride Flag" in solidarity to show the Supreme Court that Long Beach supported the overturning of DOMA and Prop 8.

I was purposely not invited to this event. Instead, a member of the news media called and gave me the invitation. When asked why I wasn't invited, the Mayor's office responded that it "had been on Facebook." I attended anyway and neither the Mayor nor the Vice Mayor had the courtesy to introduce me as even being there let alone as the only member on the Council who actually has a 33 year relationship that will be impacted greatly by the court's decision. I took it in my stride and then that evening helped organize a rally in the Civic Center Plaza on behalf of Marriage Equality.

Then it happened again. An invitation was sent announcing the opening the Long Beach's Harvey Milk Park on May 21st. I wasn't sent an invitation by the Mayor or the Vice Mayor who are hosting this event. A kind staff person at City Hall sent it to me because she knew I had not been invited to to the flag ceremony.

When I asked the Vice Mayor (who by the way I had nominated for that position at his request), why I had not been invited, he also dismissed me saying "it was on Facebook" and then blamed his Chief of Staff who I understand was sent to my office to "apologize."

Mistakes do happen so let's give him the benefit of the doubt. But the following is no mistake. 

I asked to be able to speak at the opening as the first openly gay elected in Long Beach and because I had suggested that the park include a place to honor local LGBT leaders which apparently is also happening. I thought it would be appropriate. The Vice Mayor responded that I could not speak because the City Parks and Recreation Department had a policy that only the Mayor and the councilperson for the district could speak. 

Funny, I always invite the Mayor and City Council to all of my events and if they attend ask them to speak because these are public parks and that is professional courtesy.

Well, you guessed it. The City Manager confirmed "no such policy exists." If it did, representatives of the Harvey Milk Foundation would not be able to speak at the opening this Tuesday.

I know this is campaign season and obviously someone thinks he will get "political Brownie points" if he keeps me out of public events. But that kind of smallness doesn't reflect what Gay Pride is about or what Harvey Milk worked so hard to achieve. 

When the City of San Francisco opened up the first Harvey Milk Plaza in 2001, all openly gay electeds were invited to speak because it was understood that the "soapbox" Harvey Milk used when he talked was more than a prop, it was a statement to focus on how important it was for our community to be heard and not silenced. (I understand there is a copy of that soapbox in the Long Beach Harvey Milk Plaza.)

Harvey Milk's most famous line was "you gotta give them hope." I am hopeful the inclusiveness Milk advocated will catch on here in Long Beach.

City-wide I Love My Public Library Collection Drive Raises $1K for Long Beach Libraries

Councilwoman Gerrie Schipske's annual "Library Round Up" that encourages residents to "round up spare change" was expanded this year city-wide. The city-wide I Love My Public Library collection drive netted $1000 in total donations which will be presented to the Friends of the Long Beach Public Library at Tuesday's City Council meeting. In February the Long Beach City Council voted to place collection boxes in every Long Beach Public Library to raise funds to help with purchase of books and materials for The City's libraries. The City has had to cut back on the materials and events budget of our libraries for the past several years, and the I Love My Public Library collection drive helps fill in that gap. "When we started this annual drive to raise money for the Library's summer reading program, in the Fifth District with local businesses and the Ruth Bach and El Dorado Neighborhood Libraries, it was a way to help the two libraries provide materials that budget cuts would not have otherwise been possible," explained Councilwoman Gerrie Schipske, "this year when the entire City Council voted to make this spare change drive, a city-wide event, it demonstrated how important our libraries are to the entire community." Library Round Up collection boxes were placed at the library for the months of February - April (National Library Month). Patrons of The City's libraries donated money by adding their spare change to the collection boxes when they visited. "We're thrilled to have the support of the entire City Council for our Libraries, which in turn supports our community's residents," said Long Beach Public Library Director, Glenda Williams. The funds collected by the Friends of the Long Beach Public Libraries will be disbursed appropriately. Friends of the Long Beach Public Libraries also hosted a series of events during this same time period entitled: I Love My Public Library, to encourage residents to show their support of public libraries by getting involved in helping our local libraries. The I Love My Public Library fundraising effort at all Long Beach libraries was a great success. In past years, the spare change collected was donated to the Friends of the Long Beach Public Libraries which in turn contributed funds to restore an entire paperback book collection and hosted several children's events. Libraries collected $800.09, and an additional $200 was donated through other sources. Libraries collected as follows: Main Branch: $109.79 Alamitos: $52.40 Ruth Bach $74.40 Bay Shore $94.27 Brewitt $31.56 Burnett $ .53 Dana $55.20 El Dorado $134.05 Bret Harte $65.60 Los Altos $63.67 Mark Twain $53.00 North $65.62 Outside Donations $200.00

Donate to Your Local Library   More information about the I Love My Library project, please contact the Office of Councilwoman Gerrie Schipske at 562-570-6932, or Director of the Long Beach Public Library, Glenda Williams, at 562-570-6016. For more information on how to make a donation to the Friends of the Long Beach Public Library, go to: Friends of the Long Beach Public Library.

BSNF Offers Package of Mitigation Efforts on SCIG Project -- We Need a Public Discussion at Council

English: Four BSNF units (a GE C44-9W is leading) with a double-stack train descending Tehachapi Pass, between Caliente and Bakersfield, CA. Deutsch: Vier BNSF-Loks (eine GE C44-9W voraus) mit einem "Double-Stack"-Containerzug fahren den Tehachapi Pass hinunter, zwischen Caliente und Bakersfield, Kalifornien. (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

The following was sent to all Council members about BSNF Rail Company's proposals to attempt to mitigate the impact of their proposed rail yard project which will sit adjacent to the residents of west Long Beach, who are already greatly impacted by pollution and noise.

The package appears promising, however, it needs to be placed on a public Council agenda so that the Council can discuss in the open each of the proposals and vote on each. This will also give the public a chance to talk on the issue.

All of this is too important to the quality of life of our residents to have it done behind closed doors and without the public being able to weigh in.

SCIG Long Beach Council May 13 2013

Related articles

• L.A. council approves controversial rail yard for port complex
• Environmental Group Threatens Lawsuit After City Council OKs Rail Yard

Stats and documents you need to read I received this month

Crime Time (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

I have received a number of memos and reports on city issues that I think you will find of interest. Just click below and it will take you to the document.

Quarterly Crime Stats -- 2012 and 2013.

http://www.scribd.com/doc/140628731/quarterlypolicecrimestatistics10-15-12

http://www.scribd.com/doc/140628718/Quarterly-Police-Crime-Statistics

Plans to put Wifi into the Parks.

http://www.scribd.com/doc/140628692/Parks-Wifi-Plan

Infrastructure budget for 5th Council District 2012 and 2013.

http://www.scribd.com/doc/140628669/Infrastructure-Budget-12-and-13

Breakdown of funds sources for employees.

http://www.scribd.com/doc/140628635/Generalcitysupportfromenterprisefunds-1

Responses to my survey on City Hall, infrastructure parcel tax and stopping "pay to play" contributions.

http://www.scribd.com/doc/140621582/Responses-export-Survey-on-City-Hall-and-Infrastructure-2013

Survey Says...No Support for Rebuild of City Hall or Infrastructure Tax But a Big YES for No More Pay to Play

100_1686 (Photo credit: sugarsharrk)

In a recent survey I sent out to my email subscribers on the proposed plan to rebuild City Hall and the Main Library, 217 responded. Although not scientific by any means, it does take the pulse of residents throughout the City on this issue and the issue about whether or not there is any support for an infrastructure parcel tax.

Little support for rebuilding City Hall or infrastructure parcel tax. Lots of support to end "pay to play" campaign contributions -- by prohibiting contributions from contractors, developers and those bidding or doing business with the city.

You can view the results on line (without the additional comments) at http://survey.constantcontact.com/survey/a07e7elzkj1hg1xokte/results.

If would like the results and all of the additional comments click here.

Responses_export Survey on City Hall and Infrastructure 2013

Schipske Thanks Councilmember Dee Andrews and City Manager Pat West for Completion of New Site for MHA – This Clears the Way for the Eastside Police Station Now Located in 4th Council District to be Moved Permanently into the 5th at Schroeder Army Hall

May 9, 2013 – Councilwoman Gerrie Schipske today thanked 6^th District Councilmember Dee Andrews and City Manager Pat West for their recent efforts to locate a homeless services program run by Mental Health America to a location on Long Beach Blvd., and issued the following statement on the announcement that escrow has closed on the Long Beach Blvd., property:

“For more than 6 years, the City Council has grappled with how to best accommodate Mental Health America – a homeless services provider – in order to meet the requirements of the federal government as a condition to receive 4.6 acres of surplus Army property once known as Schroeder Army Hall at Willow Street and Grand Avenue. Initially a site adjacent to the City’s Public Health Department was selected. After community concern about the selection, additional sites were reviewed.

Three years ago, I brought a property to the attention of City Management as a possible alternate site. Unfortunately, it was not immediately available but through the efforts of both Councilmember Dee Andrews and City Manager Pat West the property is now owned by the City of Long Beach and will used to satisfy the federal mandate that in order to receive surplus property, the City must accommodate a homeless services provider.

The result of these efforts means that the Eastside Police Substation, now located in the 4^th Council District in leased property, will be moved to the 5^th Council District and placed permanently in the Schroeder Army property. This will relieve the crowding at the current site and the City will no longer have to pay a very large lease payment.

I want to thank Councilmember Dee Andrews and the City Manager Pat West as well as most of the other council members who did not use this sensitive situation for political purposes but supported finding a sensible, humane solution to helping the most vulnerable of our residents so that the City could receive this surplus military property.”

Don’t Mitigate or Mediate. Move the Project to protect the people of Westside Long Beach.

English: The Port of Los Angeles, 1913. (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

There is no doubt that the Ports of Long Beach and Los Angeles need on-dock rail facilities so that cargo can be quickly loaded off gigantic ships directly onto rail cars that can then take the goods to trucking facilities and distribute throughout California and the rest of the nation. The construction and operation of such a facility will create needed jobs in the region.

The key word in this discussion is “on-dock” – meaning as close as possible to the ships. Placement anywhere elsewhere requires off loading to trucks which then take cargo to rails which then takes them again to a truck facility.

An off dock rail project is being proposed on the Westside of Long Beach on property owned by the Port of Los Angeles. This project -- Southern California International Gateway Project (SCIG) – is being proposed by BSNF Railway Company. A second project is being proposed by Union Pacific Railway Company.

An online map and data tool released recently by the California Environmental Protection Agency (Cal EPA) and the Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment (OEHHA) that "presents the nation’s first comprehensive screening methodology to identify California communities that are disproportionately burdened by multiple sources of pollution and presents the statewide results of the analysis using the screening tool." 

Westside Long Beach is among those communities.

The City Council never took a vote on whether or not to support a major rail yard adjacent to the homes and schools on the Westside of Long Beach. As far as we got was to direct City staff to send a letter to the Port of Los Angeles objecting to the lack of any measures to reach zero emissions of the railroads and the pollution, light and sound impact on the area with additional trucks and trains.

The City of Long Beach letter was sent and ignored by the Port of Los Angeles (which owns the property for the project) so the City Council then took a vote in closed session to direct the City Attorney to appeal the Environmental Impact Report on the Southern California International Gateway Project (SCIG).

Yesterday, I received a curious letter from Los Angeles City Councilmember Joe Buscaino who represents the area containing the Port of Los Angeles. Buscaino’s letter states that he has been talking with the City of Long Beach which indicated that it has requested “mediation” on this project. His letter urged the Mayors of both Los Angeles and Long Beach to engage in mediation.

Mayor Bob Foster, without the approval of City Council or the City Attorney (which is our legal spokesperson) told LA Councilmember Buscaino that the City wanted to “mediate” instead of outright oppose the impact on our residents. 

Really? Besides being a blatant violation of the City Charter which only gives the City Council authority to direct the City Attorney about litigation, no one has bothered to bring the residents into this process and ask them what they are willing to “mediate” about. (Hell, the Long Beach City Council doesn’t even know what he wants to mediate about.)

If “mediation” is about putting up a sound wall and getting a pot of money for new windows and air filters, these measures will do little to lessen the assault of this type of facility in the backyards and school yards of the Westside.

Instead, the City of Long Beach with a vote of the Council should continue its opposition to the EIR and take a look at the potential of putting such a project on Pier S in the Port of Long Beach. 

This location would bring the railroad cars closer to the cargo ships and out of the neighborhoods. Such a project could be a joint effort of the Ports of Long Beach and Los Angeles and would require the two major railroads to work together and not build competing facilities. It would create construction and operation jobs. 

Most importantly, it would start a real commitment toward stopping the “disproportionate burden” of pollution on our Westside residents and the rest of Long Beach.

Related articles

• Toxic Train or Green Railway? L.A. Harbor Neighbors, Environmentalists and Long Beach Officials Fight Los Angeles

Please Take My Survey on Whether or Not the City Should Build a New City Hall

As I indicated in my previous blog, City management has just sent out a Request for Qualifications to find a developer who might be interested in building a new City Hall.

Please take a moment and take my survey on this issue and issues related to banning political contributions from those who bid on this project or get the contract. Also let me know what you think about a potential parcel tax.

I appreciate you taking time to be engaged in city issues.

http://survey.constantcontact.com/survey/a07e7elzkj1hg1xokte/start

The Civic Center Belongs to the Taxpayers

Long Beach city management today (April 26) released a Request for Qualifications (RFQ) inviting interested parties to submit their qualifications to develop, construct and operate a new Civic Center. 

 I am puzzled why the City is sending this RFQ out before it has verified with another seismic expert the one report we have that indicates there is $170,000,000 in repairs needed for City Hall. The Council was told there would be a peer review to verify the repairs are required and at the amounts stated. Doing it after the fact seems not logical and appears that this train is already out of the station on moving to get rid of the current city hall.

The other troubling aspect to this announcement are the comments by the Council member of the 2nd District whose district the Civic Center is in, which neglects to mention anything about concern for the taxpayers. At a time when we have huge unfunded liabilities and services which need to be restored, concern about rebuilding a very expensive building because is " design lacks human scale, is difficult to access and does little to assert the importance and value of the public realm" seems rather out of touch with what this City is experiencing.

The Civic Center is not the plaything or the design project of one particular council member. "Visioning" what a civic center should look like or whether or it not it should be rebuilt belongs to the taxpayers of the entire city -- and this discussion has yet to take place.

Finally, one of the major reasons I tried to get my colleagues to discuss prohibiting contributors from contractors and those bidding on contracts is because of this specific potential "trough" of public funds to build a new Civic Center. We need to make certain that any decisions concerning this issue are free from political contributions.

Why I Voted Against the Sale of 100 Long Beach Blvd...City Hall East

I was the only councilperson who voted against the sale of the building and parking lot at 100 Ocean Blvd last week. (www.lbeport.com published the vote and the council agenda item and in the interest of saving space I am linking the article http://www.lbreport.com/news/apr13/100lbbl2.htm).

This property was originally "sold" to the City of Long Beach for a value of $10 million from Southern California Edison when our current mayor, Bob Foster, was a Senior VP of SCE. Actually the building was given to the City in exchange for a promise that Long Beach would never leave SCE and go off and run its own electricity utility. SCE valued the building at $10 million and told the City if it ever broke its promise not to run an electricity utility, the City would have to pay SCE $10 million for the building.

For a brief time and about $1.5 million in refurbishing costs, the City used the building to house the police department while the old building was totally redone. When no longer needed, the City put the building out for sale and got an offer of $5 million. But  the potential owner backed out when a plan to move the City's Main Library to that building and for the City to lease the building from the new owner got squashed when a couple of councilmembers (oh it may have just been me) and the community rose up and said...NO.

A few years later, the building again sold for $4 million but that deal never went through.

So last staff recommended another bidder and proposed to sell the property for $2.1 million.

My objections to the sale are numerous: 

1) our insurance company valued replacement of the property at $35 million -- so either we buy way to much insurance or we just had a fire sale...

2) The performance requirement placed in the agreement gives the buyer $1 million dollars if somehow the city doesn't close escrow. Even the Assistant City Attorney had to admit when I asked that this was an abnormally high amount.

3) The City was selling the property "as is" but was giving certain warranties on the property and was reimbursing the seller for vandalism done on the property before the sale was even negotiated.

4) The City never put the property out for the entire real estate community to bid because management claimed it gave the city better control over what we want done with the property. Well, someone needs to go back to real estate school because the city could have required the same use of the property through a restrictive covenant.

5) And on the topic of restrictive covenant, after the vote I found out that indeed (a little real estate pun) the city was insisting a restrictive covenant that the property be used for residential apartments and some retail space. But low and behold, it is only for 10 years, which then the owner I presume will take this gem of a deal and flip it into condominiums.  

6) The Council received several letters from attorneys representing another bidder alleging the City Council violated the Brown Act and that the City should have set aside appropriate time for an administrative appeal from the other bidder. I thought we might want to wait until some of this legal stuff was worked out before we went ahead.

Why Are They So Scared of Transparency?

Tonight, with Mayor Foster’s behind the scenes urging, the seven other members of the City Council killed any consideration of several political reforms I put on the agenda.

The reforms – which are in place in several other cities (San Jose, Santa Ana, Los Angeles), would:

1. Make the Mayor and City Council members disclose if they are communicating with a lobbyist or contractor or developer at council before a vote on an issue impacting that lobbyist or contractor or developer. This would let the public know of communications that effect votes.

2. Make the text messages and emails generated by the Mayor and the City Council on their personal phones and computers public records if the contents are about official city business.

3. Ban political contributions from lobbyists, contractors, developers and those bidding on business with the city. The federal and state government and several cities have this ban in place.

Let me be clear. My proposal was to send these items to the Council Elections Oversight Committee so they could be discussed and worked out. This council wouldn’t even let the ideas be discussed.

What a contrast between this Mayor and the Mayor in San Jose, Chuck Reed who made open government a major platform of his administration. Mayor Reed posts his calendar on line as does his Chief of Staff and all of the Council members. Mayor Reed called and got the City Council to enact policy three years ago making elected officials' personal email and text messages about city business public records subject to disclosure.

How sad that several of the council members who wouldn’t let these items get further discussed are the first to tweet and facebook and email how much they support transparency in government.

Taxpayers deserve to know what their elected officials are doing and who they are communicating with. Playing the game that as long as the communication isn’t on a city phone or computer that no one should see it, is insulting to voters who understand that technology makes it possible for instantaneous conversations and that those conversations should be public.

What is so special about elections in Long Beach that we can’t step up and ban contributions to political campaigns and officeholder accounts from lobbyists, contractors, developers and those bidding doing business with the City? The federal and state levels and several California cities ban these contributions to prevent the practice and appearance of “pay to play.” Long Beach needs to do the same.

Since the Mayor would not allow discussion of the issue after it was killed and no councilmember dare speak why they were against these political reforms, the public was not given the opportunity to hear, just what they were all so scared would happen if we made these communications public and stopped the flow of political contributions. Democracy perhaps?

Why We Need Political Reform in Long Beach.

magnifying glass (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

Heard through the grapevine that some are “freaked out” by my proposals to reform political contributions and private communications with lobbyists and contractors. The proposals will be on the Council agenda this Tuesday and I encourage you to let me and the other Councilmembers what you think about them.

Simply put, it is time that the City of Long Beach prohibit taking political contributions from contractors, potential contractors and anyone doing business or applying to do business with the City. The City also needs to proactively put in place requirements that electeds disclose text messages and emails on their private cellphones and computers that are related to the conducting of city business during a council meeting and any other time.

These proposals are part of my continued push to make local government more open, transparent and accountable. In the past, I have pushed very hard to register lobbyists and to prohibit gifts from them. I also proposed that City Council members disclose at the beginning of a vote whether or not he/she has had contact with anyone who has expressed an interest in the council agenda item. This is a requirement made for the State Coastal Commission and I pushed for it to be enacted for votes on the Medical Board of California, on which I serve. Unfortunately, the council rejected that proposal. 

I have also advocated for putting online the calendars of the Mayor and City Councilmembers. To date, only a couple of Councilmembers put their calendars on line. The public deserves to know who we are communicating with that may have an impact on our votes.

We wouldn’t be the first city council to put these reforms in place: The Mayor and City Council of San Jose have their calendars on line as well as their key staff persons’ calendars. The Mayor and City Council of San Jose are required to disclose before a vote if they have received a text or email during the council meeting on an agenda item. And most recently, the Mayor and City Council of San Jose are now required to disclose texts and emails from their private cellphones and computers if the contents are related to conducting official city business. This last reform came as a result of the City being sued and the court ruling that these communications are public records.

The federal and state governments prohibit political contributions from contractors and/or bidders on contracts. Many other cities prohibit contributions from potential and current contractors. It took the voters of the City of Los Angeles to put that requirement into law. But certainly our Council could step up and put them in place without a ballot measure.

Because the details of both proposals need to be worked out, I am recommending that they be referred to the Council Committee on Elections Oversight with a return to Council within 120 days.  I know we can do this.

Why We Can’t Put a Gate Between El Dorado Park Estates and Hawaiian Gardens

This map shows the incorporated areas in Los Angeles County, California. Hawaiian Gardens is highlighted in red. I created it in Inkscape using data from the Los Angeles County Website (Los Angeles County Incorporated Area and District Map (PDF). (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

In response to an increase of residential and auto burglaries in El Dorado Park Estates, some residents have asked why the City of Long Beach cannot install a gate on Pioneer Blvd., that would prevent criminals in Hawaiian Gardens from entering the area.

First let me respond that the Long Beach Police Department is working very hard both overtly and undercover to stop the crime in the area. Long Beach Police Commander Paul LeBaron has also been in numerous discussions with the LA County Sheriff’s command staff about coordinating efforts to make certain that criminals in Hawaiian Gardens are apprehended.

 Police also tell me that while there is a criminal element in Hawaiian Gardens, it isn’t responsible for all the crime that occurs in our area. That being said, the issue of access to El Dorado Park Estates has been something hotly discussed long before I came to City Council.

 When El Dorado Park Estates was originally constructed, the north end of Ritchie/Claremore was closed and barricaded. At the time the 605 Freeway was constructed, Long Beach granted a petition by Caltrans (California Department of Transportation) to open Ritchie/Claremore to Pioneer to permit freeway access. 

In 1994, frustrated by traffic coming into El Dorado Park Estates, residents pressed the City to block Pioneer Blvd., so that access would be limited. The court ruled that Long Beach did not have the right to close a street that would affect Hawaiian Gardens, stating that the closure . . . promotes the health and safety of some of (Long Beach's) own citizens by interfering with the rights of others.

 The City of Long Beach appealed the ruling but in 1998 the higher court also denied any efforts to block off traffic from the north stating about Pioneer Blvd., that: "(1) it provides motorists, including residents of El Dorado Park Estates, direct access to the 605 Freeway; and (2) it provides motorists, including residents of El Dorado Park Estates, a direct link to regional facilities such as shopping centers in Cerritos and Lakewood, employment centers in Long Beach and in the surrounding communities, and the Long Beach Airport."

Three years ago, I asked our Traffic Engineer to study traffic on Pioneer Blvd., to determine if more were coming in than going out. He completed the study and found that the traffic flow north and south was 50-50.
Many residents of El Dorado Park Estates use Pioneer Blvd., to exit the area and access the 605.

I understand the frustration of residents and we will continue to work closely with the LBPD, but there are few circumstances under which a court would change that ruling and allow one city to block off access to a public road.

Why Agenda Item on Using Outside Experts to Analyze City Payroll Systems

Since joining City Council in 2006, I have pushed consistently for City Management to procure an automated time keeping system: A system that makes city employees check in every day when they come and when they leave. Most major organizations that employ close to 5,000 have a system. The City of Long Beach does not.

Such a system gives an employer important information -- such as who is at work and who isn't; who works their full shift and who doesn't. It also protects the employer because it documents when lunches are taken -- failure to do so puts the company at risk for a law suit from many employees who contend they never received their lunch break. (see below under related articles).

This automated system also gives the employer the ability to make schedules and assignments.; to track vacation and sick leave, etc. Employees are given a card to swipe or a code to use on the telephone. The system tracks work and ensures the employees are actually there at work doing their jobs for the number of hours they claims.

The City of Long Beach does not have such a system. Time keeping is done on green sheets of paper each week that are hand-written and given to staff whose job it is to put the information into a computer program.
The information is then sent to a payroll company that processes paychecks.

If we were to have an earthquake tomorrow. No one could tell how many city employees were actually at work.

That is insane in this day and age of technology.

Finally a year or so ago, City management put out a request for proposals for a human resources system. What they got back were program after program that offered numerous bells and whistles. Sadly, the City had not clearly indicated what it actually was seeking and so it received proposals that were all over the place. Consequently, the City pulled the RFP and nothing was selected and the manual costly system stayed in place.

ADP Government Services were one of the responders to the RFP and contact my council office saying that I should know what happened in the process and why there were serious problems. I met in my council office with two ADP representatives who explained that it was clear to them the the City did not have the expertise to clearly specify what kind of system was needed and that moreover, the City could not tell how much current systems used by the City cost. The reps felt (and I agreed) it was important that the City know what our current system costs to determine how to select and new one that should save the city money. However, it you don't have a benchmark, you can't set a goal.

ADP Government Services reps indicated that they contract with another company who can do a study to determine the "total cost of ownership" of current systems. In other words, they can determine how much per employee it is costing the city per month to track employees' work, to manually input time sheets and then to get a paycheck processed.

I sent this information to the City Manager and I did not hear back. So I met with Councilman Gary DeLong and told him of the possibility for the City to get an analysis done so we could determine a benchmark as we go out for a new system. Councilman DeLong and I met again with ADP Government Services and city staff from Financial Management, Information Technology and the City Manager's office. It was understood from that meeting that City staff would work with ADP to  have the no cost analysis done.

Several weeks later, I chaired a meeting of the Civil Service and Personnel Committee and asked for an update. I was told that our Financial Management Department had indicated it would not participate in this analysis.

Councilmember Gary DeLong and I decided to place the issue on the Council agenda so that the entire City Council could decide should the city avail itself of a no cost analysis of the costs of our current systems.
City management thereupon (that's a big legal transition word) went to the City Attorney and prevailed on him to write a memo in opposition of the proposed analysis on the basis that it would supposedly give ADP an advantage on future RFPs.

Really? This is very interesting in light of City Management's recent actions: 1) without an RFP it used Management Partners to identify efficiencies needed and then asked for $500,000 for Management Partners to do a more thorough study -- all without ever asking for other companies to bid on this effort; 2) without an RFP it spent $80,000 for a "feasibility study" of a tunnel between the new courthouse and the jail. It gave that work to AECOM which had already examined this issue some time ago and then the City Manager gave AECOM another $986,000 to design the tunnel (that would not be built) that AECOM had studied and found "feasible." There wasn't an RFP or any other company given a chance to bid on the design.

So let's be clear on what Mr. DeLong and I are proposing:

1. The City needs an analysis by experts in the field of human resources systems to determine what it is costing the city currently to process time keeping, payroll, leaves, vacations, etc.
2. ADP Government services will contract with a third party to conduct the analysis. All the information obtained will be public and available to the City as well as other companies who bid to provide the actual new systems that will be needed.
3. The City is under no obligation to select ADP for any system purchase.

Also full disclosure:

1. I have no financial interest in ADP Government Services.
2. I have never received nor would accept any political contribution from anyone associated with ADP.
3. All my meetings with ADP representatives have been posted on my calendar and held in City Hall.
4. I don't really care which outside experts conduct an analysis of our current systems and how much they are costing the taxpayer. I just want it done so we can start implementing costs savings and efficiencies into City Hall that should have been done years ago. 

P.S. No one inside City Hall can tell me how much it costs the city/taxpayers to keep track of employees' time and to process paychecks.

Related articles

• Dollar Tree employees sue over "off the clock" work
• Hyundai Sued Over Hourly Workers' Lunch Breaks, Overtime - Bloomberg
• The Benefits of Automating Time & Attendance Management

Here's How the Voting for Best Elected Local Official Went...

The Beachcomber news asked its readers to vote for the "Best" in many categories. I have just learned that with 4,000 votes cast, I was selected. Thanks to all who voted for me. This is a special honor.

The real reason Long Beach has a surplus

Do You Believe in Magic (album) (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

Don't want to burst the bubble and take the magic away. But the real reason we are experiencing a surplus in 2014 is because we received a $26 million dollar jump in property taxes because they had been swept away and sent to redevelopment all these years.

Take a look at when Long Beach started to have economic problems and you will see they weren't caused by public employee pensions. Because if they were the cause, when the City Council negotiated pension reform, the City would have realized a surplus. Right? Wrong.

When the City put 42% of the entire city into redevelopment it swept that tax increment into what was largely a debt servicing agency. Don't believe it? Go on line as I have and read all the redevelopment reports that the City of Long Beach filed with the State Controller John Chiang. 98% of the funds/taxes collected by Long Beach redevelopment went into Administrative costs, salaries and debt services. By its own reporting, the City created few jobs because of redevelopment. Gradually as property appreciated more and more money went into redevelopment instead of the general fund. That meant all of those property taxes did not go into the general fund to be used across the entire city.

Some on the City council railed against the Governor and State Legislature for abolishing redevelopment and redirecting property taxes to government and not local development. Not I. As the representative of an area that has only a sliver of redevelopment area -- it surrounds Schroeder Army Hall -- the eastside had to rely upon general fund moneys only for city services and improvements. Redevelopment areas in the rest of the city received both redevelopment funds and general funds. Most significantly, tax increment was not available for the entire city.

There are spots of success in Long Beach directly linked to redevelopment. Come on. Let's be open and transparent. Before we all go slapping each other on the back and saying what a great job we did creating the surplus, we need to admit that had redevelopment not been abolished last year and property taxes not returned, we would be singing a different tune and there would be no surplus. Residents deserve our honesty so they can weigh in when we make decisions that impact them. They had no say when Long Beach diverted property taxes into redevelopment and it is time we told them what problems that created with our budget.

Knowing that, we should pause and say, never, never again should a council get involved in a scheme that takes away property taxes from the general fund.

Help Us Catch These Thieves

English: A car that has been burglarized. Bad for me, good for Wikipedia. (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

The LB Police have released a video of thieves getting access to residents' cars with some type of device. This was filmed in El Dorado Park Estates by a security camera on a house.

Take a look at the video and let the police know if you know them.

Here's the release and the video. By the way -- a good dog that barks would have scared these creeps away.

Press Release from the Long Beach Police Department - April 3, 2013

UNIDENTIFIABLE AUTO BURGLARY TECHNOLOGY EMERGES

 

View Video Here

The Long Beach Police Department is asking for the public's help in identifying three suspects wanted in connection with a series of auto burglaries, where unknown technology was used to gain keyless entry into several vehicles.

During the early morning hours of February 26, 2013, three suspects were caught on surveillance camera in an East Long Beach neighborhood utilizing small handheld devices to unlock vehicles before burglarizing them.  In the video, two suspects are seen walking up to four different vehicles, two parked on the street, and two parked in the same driveway.  Although they are not able to gain access to the vehicles in the street, they are able to access the two vehicles parked in the driveway after a handheld device is manipulated causing the vehicle's dome light to come on and doors to unlock.  While this is taking place, a third suspect is seen walking on the opposite side of the street.  On this particular night, seven vehicles in this neighborhood were accessed and burglarized.

Potentially, there could be numerous residents who were unknowingly victimized, or believed they may have left their vehicles unlocked and a suspect took advantage of the opportunity, but there is no way to know for sure.  Investigators are uncertain whether any particular make or model of vehicle is more vulnerable than any another. The LBPD's Auto Theft Detail has been working with law enforcement agencies throughout the nation and internationally, as well as vehicle manufacturers, attempting to identify the type of technology that is being used.

The LBPD is strongly reminding residents to call 9-1-1 immediately if they see suspicious persons in their neighborhood at any time of the day or night, and to note a physical description of the suspect(s) and any vehicle, including make, model, color and license plate if possible.  

"This is a situation where technology is working against us, making our job much more challenging at a time where resources are already strained.  Just as law enforcement tactics evolve, so does the criminal element's and we need the community's involvement more so than ever," stated Long Beach Police Chief Jim McDonnell.  

The LBPD is also encouraging the community to practice the following safety tips, which may prevent you from becoming a victim, or minimize the loss experienced in an auto burglary:

- install motion sensor lighting around your home

- remove all valuables from vehicles, including trunks

- if your vehicle was issued a valet key, locate that key and ensure it isn't left in your vehicle

- consider installing surveillance cameras around your home, which could lead to suspect identification

Anyone with information regarding the identity of the suspects depicted in the video or the burglaries is urged to contact LBPD Auto Theft Detective Joseph Starbird at (562) 570-7362.  Anonymous tips may be submitted by calling 1-800-222-TIPS (8477), texting TIPLA plus your tip to CRIMES (274637), or visitingwww.lacrimestoppers.org.

View Video Here

Time to Ban Contributions from Contractors and Disclose Texts and Communications

California Watch (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

Long Beach Needs to Ban Contributions From Lobbyists and Contractors, Make Elected Officials Disclose Conversations Before Vote Including Texts and Emails During Council and Disclose Private Text Messages or Other Electronic Communications About City Business

by Councilwoman Gerrie Schipske

As part of “Open Up Long Beach” – a project to make the City of Long Beach more open and transparent, I monitor the efforts of organizations that are working on transparency in government, such as the Sunlight Foundation. Recently, that organization announced that the District Court in the District of Columbia upheld the long time ban on political contributions from any person negotiating or performing a federal government contract stating:

The ban on such contributions guards against “pay-to-play” arrangements, in which people seeking federal contracts provide financial support to political candidates in return for their help securing government business. It also protects such contractors from pressure to contribute or risk losing their work.  

The Court further stated that it was not the “courts’ practice to “‘second-guess a … [legislative] determination as to the need for prophylactic measures where corruption is the evil feared’.”

It seems then it might be time for the City of Long Beach to enact a similar contribution ban. Conceivably, that ban could be applied to those who seek approval for a development, an entertainment permit or those who are lobbying for a specific ordinance. Some would argue that it should extend to employee unions who are under contract with the City.

I was particularly taken back when year ago on February 14, the City Council voted on whether or not to ban operation of medical marijuana collectives.

Why? Because in excess of $8,000 had poured into the campaign and officeholder accounts of several council members from businesses and lobbyists representing the medical marijuana industry. Now that may not sound like a lot of money. But considering that contributions are limited to $350 for a campaign and $500 for an officeholder account, this is a considerable sum.

City Attorney Robert Shannon told the City Council over the past several months that we needed to ban the operation of medical marijuana collectives because the court ruled on a case specifically involving the City of Long Beach’s regulation of medical marijuana collectives. The court held that the City cannot regulate that which is illegal. Marijuana is still illegal under federal law. A ban not only impacts access to medical marijuana by residents but stops an extremely lucrative revenue stream for those who operate the collectives. Some of these lobbyists who gave contributions also sent Council members language they wanted inserted into the City’s ordinance – a fact never disclosed during the discussion or the vote.

Long Beach should handle this situation in one of two ways: Either ban the contributions from anyone who is negotiating with the City or doing work for the City and/or require the elected official to disclose before voting at City Council if he or she has received a contribution and a statement that he or she does not believe there is a conflict of interest. Plain and simple.

Several cities have enacted laws which disqualify a council member from participating in decisions affecting his or her campaign contributors. These laws disqualify the council member from participating in certain proceedings if the official has received campaign contributions from a party, participant or their agents within the 12 months preceding the decision. They also require disclosure on the record of the proceeding of all campaign contributions received from these persons during that period. In addition, these laws prohibit solicitation or receipt of campaign contributions during such proceedings, and for three months after the decision, from parties, participants or their agents.

The voters of the City of Los Angeles enacted changes to their charter in 2011 that create new campaign contribution restrictions on contractors bidding on contracts with the City. They have prohibited making campaign contributions to any elected City office, candidate for elected City office, or City committee controlled by an elected City official or candidate if the contract requires approval of the Council and the contract requires approval by the elected City office that is held or sought by the person to whom the contribution would be given. (In LA, the ban starts with contracts worth $100,000 or more.)

It is time that Long Beach strengthened our campaign finance laws by either prohibiting campaign contributions from those trying to do or actively doing business with the City and by requiring elected officials to publicly disclose before they take a vote whether or not they have received any contributions from anyone benefiting from a council vote.

Additionally, just this week the City Council of San Jose unanimously passed an ordinance requiring themselves to disclose if a lobbyist contacts a councilmember by text, email or handwritten note during a public meeting and to announce the identity of the lobbyist and the subject of the communication before it comes to a vote.

Another major development regarding texts and emails came last week with a court ruling that San Jose City Councilmembers’ private text messages, emails and other electronic communications about city affairs must be made public.

The City Council can pass these legislative items to increase openness and transparency or the voters can gather signatures to place a package of reforms on the ballot in the next general election. In either case, Long Beach needs to move forward on this issue.

Related articles

• Judge Rules That San Jose Officials' Private Texts About City Affairs Be Made Public
• Judge: Public-records law covers private devices

Chickens, goats and bees in your backyard???

Chicken and egg (Photo credit: La.Catholique)

I know Easter is tomorrow. But is a proposal to allow chickens, goats and bees in backyards the most important thing our City Council can discuss?

The proposal is coming to City Council this month to allow 20 chickens, two goats and two bee hives in your backyard and the backyard of all of your neighbors.
(See Press Telegram article on the proposals: http://www.presstelegram.com/news/ci_22832442/rules-chickens-goats-and-bees-go-lb-council)

Proponents want the current city zoning changed to allow these animals and insects throughout Long Beach. They would be allowed in a backyard if there is an appropriate set back from the adjacent house. What is not getting much discussion by proponents is that the chickens and goats would not be allowed to roam free in the backyard -- they would have to be caged and/or penned up.

I don't support the proposal for a number of reasons: this would change the character of many neighborhoods without the full consent of all residents; enforcement of the regulations would be cumbersome; and  the goats and chickens would attract coyote; concerned that the chickens can present a health problem regarding salmonella; there are people who are allergic to bee stings.

When it is placed on the council agenda, I will let you know.

Related articles

• Backyard chickens and bees considered for Savannah
• Eugene council vote encourages farming by city residents
• Backyard Chickens and Salmonella
• Hatching an idea in Horicon: Council holds eggs-celent debate on chickens