Letter To The Tattler: Michael Webber

The following letter is from Emeryville resident, Michael Webber.  Mr Webber is running for city council.

.                .               .               .

When I announced my candidacy a few months ago, the first question that was asked me by Residents United for a Livable Emeryville (RULE) members was whether Council Member Ken Bukowski was helping me get started principally to draw off votes from candidate Jac Asher.

I hope that RULE and the other residents understand, now, that I have been running because I care about Emeryville.

I have not been running against Jac.

I have been running against Council Member Nora Davis and the outdated policies she represents. The extreme pro-business, pro- "big", policies that are no longer appropriate for a maturing city like Emeryville. (The worst example of this is "capping" the business license tax on the current ballot measure, but inviting Lawrence Berkeley to move into Emeryville, tax-free, is another bad example - Lawrence Berkeley is exempt from taxes and that shelters their landlord too.)

I truly think this is the election where we can retire Nora Davis, since she seems unwilling to step gracefully from office and take credit for her early years in office.

If RULE and other progressives in this community vote for only one new candidate today, they will be shortchanging the future. They should be voting for only one incumbent today, and using two of their three votes to send two new Council Members to City Hall.

Sincerely,

Michael Webber

Letter To The Tattler

The following is a letter to the Tattler from city council candidate, Michael Webber, received today and printed in its entirety:

Dear Emeryville Tattler,

This morning I saw a four-page, full color, glossy campaign brochure dedicated solely to attacking Ken Bukowski. In a nutshell, the brochure called Ken “corrupt,” demanded his removal from office in this election, and had Jac Asher’s, Ruth Atkin’s, and Nora Davis’s pictures on the back.

I stand by Ken’s efforts to rehabilitate himself after the events of the last term.

I would like Ken to publicly state that he has put all the events of the last term behind him and to pledge that he is clean and sober and will avoid even the APPEARANCE of any conflict of interest in the future.

I object to the use of the word “corrupt” in the campaign brochure, since that implies criminal activity.

As an aside, the committee name identified in the small print under the recipient address indicates I can expect some attacks too, since the committee is to defeat me as well as Ken.

What is most unfortunate about the campaign brochure is not that it attacks Ken personally, but that it wastes 4 good pages where real campaign issues could be addressed.

Emeryville is not quite the perfect little community that Jac, Ruth, and Nora would like to present in their Pollyana-ish, four color campaign pieces.

Not everyone who disagrees with their policies (although I have been hard-pressed to find any published policies or issues from Jac, even this late in the campaign) is evil, corrupt, stupid, deaf, or a rude gadfly.

Some of us have simply noticed that things aren’t quite as “right” as what the official face of the City Council would have you believe.

Like those early pioneers, Ken and Nora, who started out just like me, I just want to roll up my sleeves and become a citizen volunteer working on behalf of this community.

For this basic civic-minded motivation, I should not merit a committee dedicated to defeating me, and which will probably try to do it with low-blows instead of honest discussion of the issues. I think I can deal with other candidates attacking my principles, that is fair game, but is a separately funded “hit” committee the right way to conduct politics here in Emeryville?

When Sean Moss at the Andante community asked me last year if I would step aside as President of the homeowners association, I did so - because it’s good to have more than one person experienced in that job, and it’s good to let others have their term. I had already served for five years from inception through conclusion of construction defect litigation, it was time to let Sean have a turn.

What we have in Emeryville is just the opposite - an entrenched, entitled, even arrogant power structure that thinks the only reason to have new blood is to defeat an opponent, and then selects the least offensive person they can find to replace Ken.

I think it’s much healthier for politics in our small town to dig up issues, debate them, and leave personal attacks out of it.

From day one I have published my blog on questions, concerns, that I have as an ordinary resident. As people came forward with problems and issues, I learned that all is NOT well in Emeryville - particularly, why are we about to “out source” the Fire Department, why was an effort made to do the same to Police, why is Anna Yates, the one gem in the often troubled Emeryville school system, going to be shut down? (I have been told that shutting Anna Yates is a school district issue, not a City Council issue, but where are the funds and plans for the ECCL coming from? It is a joint project, not just a school project.)

Given more opportunity, who knows what I will unearth in Emeryville? Does Emeryville support or oppose this type of resident-level interest and activism? Is Emeryville run by disconnected City Council members who have forgotten about the actual residents living here?

I hope that you ask Jac, Ruth, and Nora whether and to what extent they authorized the “hit” piece, and whether and to what extent they agree or disagree with it. A very simple question, even for an issues-averse, lull-the-voters, ticket.
Thank you for your time and doing your best to serve Emeryville.

William Michael Webber “Michael”

/Michael/

Webber for City Council 2011

Letter To The Tattler: Michael Webber

Resident Michael Webber Responds To Council Action: City Attorney Initiative

Emeryville resident, Michael Webber responds to the Tattler story on Monday August 8th about the City Attorney initiative and the Monday night council meeting; a meeting he attended.  Michael Webber is planning to throw his hat into the ring and run for city council in November.  Here is Mr Webber's letter verbatim:

Thanks for the accurate reporting. 

The special independent attorney told the Council that based on recent Supreme Court decisions, the City would very likely lose a lawsuit brought to place the measure on the ballot if the Council refused to place the measure on the ballot - the independent attorney repeatedly mentioned that placing the measure on the ballot is a "ministerial" duty which means it is not an issue, at this stage, that calls for administrative judgment or discretion. The independent attorney further advised the Council that not only would the Council most likely lose such a lawsuit, but would also have to pay attorneys' fees to the proponent of the initiative.

The independent counsel then advised the Council that if they opposed the initiative measure, the proper time to attack it was via lawsuit either after the measure went on the ballot, or via lawsuit after the voters had voted on it. Placing the measure on the ballot by no means indicated the Council supported it, only that the Council recognized their legal duty to do so.

During the initial public comment period I then asked the Council to please defer their legal challenge until after the election since there was no need at this stage to spend limited City funds to oppose a measure that may or may not win.

It appeared to me that both Kurt Brinkman and Jennifer West were looking for any excuse to publicly oppose the measure, but only if they were certain that the majority of the Council would vote to put the measure on the ballot so the City wouldn't get sued, lose the suit, and pay attorneys' fees (a senseless waste of resources). Once they were assured that they wouldn't be stirring up real trouble for the City, they both voted against even PLACING THE MEASURE ON THE BALLOT. IMHO this is a breach of their ministerial duty to the CIty (placing the measure on the ballot was a ministerial, not discretionary, act per the City's own specially hired independent counsel) and reflects their own lack of understanding of ministerial and discretionary acts, something that is Civics 101.

The City Clerk's presentation then moved to the costs/benefits of in-house (staff) attorney vs. contracting out to a law firm.

At this point I have to be purely opinionated and tell you that I have never seen such a lame, poorly-conceived, one-side "promotional piece" in my professional career.

Rather than go out with RFP's (requests for proposal, essentially asking municipal law firms to bid for the business), the City Clerk tallied up the number of hours spent by current city counsel, and extrapolated how much those same hours would cost the City if spent on outside lawyers.

Well of course you will always lose that type of pre-determined mathematical battle. In-house hours, no matter how egregiously over-paid, will always cost less than the SAME hours spent at outside law firms.

But what is MISSING from such a simplistic approach is the the fact that you have to pay inside counsel for every work hour, rain or shine, but with outside counsel you only pay for what you need. In addition, outside counsel, when properly managed, does not "churn" hours with inexperienced associate "research," I would rather have one hour of "good" time (at a higher rate) then 10 hours of "wheel spinning" by inside counsel who may not understand the heart of the issue the way a specialized outside counsel does.

Brian [Donahue], during comments, made the interesting point that in the current recession, with the building boom over, maybe inside counsel won't have as much to do as before, and no allowance has been made for that slowdown in calculating the relative costs of inside vs. outside counsel.

I was horrified to hear - did I hear correctly? - that Mr. Biddle is apparently not an "exempt" employee who does not get overtime pay. The City Clerk let drop a comment that Mr. Biddle (did I hear correctly, I want to get this right?) is currently billing the City an additional 30 hours per week beyond his normal 9-5 work day week (did I hear that right? what happened to 8-5? I have to assume that Mr. BIddle, as salaried employee, gets an hour off for lunch - does that mean he really only has a 35 hour work week? cushy).

But the most telling point, the real elephant in the room, was the slide that showed that Mr. Biddle is part of the "executive leadership." My fear has long been that he usurps the discretion of both the City Manager and of the City Council. For the first time that I have seen, Mr. Biddle has been publicly acknowledged to have an "executive leadership" position. But I thought he was an advisor, not a leader? 

Ken [Bukowski] was accused of having a vendetta against the City Attorney. I don't know about Ken, but I certainly would want to replace the existing City Attorney by any legal means, if I had been deliberately excluded from information, reports, and advice. Those two (Ken and Biddle) don't have to LIKE each other, but the City Attorney SIMPLY CANNOT be allowed to selectively counsel SOME Council Members more fully and more timely than others. THAT is why I signed Ken's initiative.

During the second public comment period, I objected to the obviously one-sided, biased City Clerk's report on costs/benefits, and also pointed out that the Pollard wrongful discharge case, besides ruining a long-time employee's career, cost the City over $4 million dollars, and wondered where Mr. Biddle was during that whole fiasco - if the job of the CIty Attorney to to provide "in-office" assistance, why didn't he listen to Ms. Pollard's complaint and give it the fair hearing (and her the fair treatment) it deserved?

I want to thank Ruth Atkin for voting to have the special Council meeting to allow this to come before the Council in time for the November general election, and to thank Mayor Davis, who despite clearly detesting the measure, electing to do her civid duty to place the measure on the ballot.

And of course the greatest thanks to Ken who tirelessly fought an uphill battle to single-handedly put this measure on the ballot.

~William "Michael" Webber

in the interests of full disclosure, I hope to file nominating papers this week to run for City Council. Yes, I believe it is time for a change.