Are Ventura voters so agitated that they will reshuffle the city council with newcomers, or are they mostly satisfied and reelect the incumbents?
One would have to suspect that in this political climate, anything is possible. The flagging economy woke many people up from their civic slumber and now the traditional political calculus is no longer reliable. The city council, struggling to make ends meet, resorted to some ill-advised policies that may come back to haunt them.
For starters, there was the 911-fee fiasco. You could pay the monthly fee or you could opt out and pay almost $18 if you were dumb enough to call 911 after that. The money -would go to the fire and police. Credit Neal Andrews for being against this fee. His reward is to be pummeled by the police unions.
While we're speaking of unions, we might as well talk about Measure C, the measure that would stop Wal-Mart from...oh wait, nevermind.
Then there's Measure A, a half-cent sales tax increase that the council supports (minus Andrews again--pattern?) The challenge here is that the city is dying for more money, but raising taxes is politically unpopular, so the council hopes that voters will approve the sales tax measure whilst not voting them out of office.
It will find out Tuesday. Ventura voters may very well be in the mood to clean house, but they should be careful not to throw any good incumbents in their haste.
Eric Ingemunson is active in local politics and is a national correspondent for RedCounty.com. His commentary has been featured on CNN, NBC, Inside Edition, and KFI's The John and Ken Show.
Eric was born and raised in Ventura County and currently resides in Simi Valley, where he is an IT manager at a leading tax software developer. He earned a master's degree in Public Policy and Administration from California Lutheran University, where he was also an editor for the university newspaper.
As a conservative, Eric supports smaller government, less taxation, more individual freedom, the rule of law, and a strict adherence to the Constitution.
Last city election, the inbumbents won very comfortably. Doug Halter had a good chance but was sabotagued by Jim Monanhan's support of the anti-Wal-Mart/union guy Jerry Martin.
I think two of the incumbents are vulnerable this time. I think Mike Tracy (newcomer) might win. He has a lot of support, a lot of respect, and is well known by a lot of voters.
Neal A. did a very good job keeping the 911 fee front and center. Other "no taxes" Republicans should have followed his lead - but didn't.
Hehe I like "inbumbents". "Indumbents" is good too, let's start that trend.
Crap - I didn't mean to do that!!!
Eric,
Who did the VCRCC endorse?
Eric, the $17.88 didn't click in until the second call and only if you opted out and only if you were calling from home for yourself. Still most people (like you) didn't understand that so it ended up being an administrative and PR mess for the city.
It was ill advised all around. STILL I did not mind paying the $1.49 a month as it went to put our School Resource Officers back in our schools. This is a highly successful program. Not a big deal unless you opted out. The opt-out was to save the city from a possible lawsuit. Many other municipalities have this fee. A couple have been challenged. One court of appeals upheld it; another didn't. So a final determination would need to be made in CA Supreme Court.
Anyway, it's gone.
We are expecting record low turnout this year if early absentees are any indication.
I support Measure A as a way to keep our Wright Library open.
I will never understand why Neal Andrews was the only person who voted against the 911 fee. What happened with the other pro-business/Republicans on the City Council? It was a no-brainer stance.
My prediction is the 1/2 cent tax is going to pass easily because it only needs a simple majority. The view ordinance is going to fail and the anti-Walmart may squeak by (which would be a real shame).
It's rather complicated. The fee was proposed, along with other ideas, to generate revenue to decrease the city's emergency response times as well as help pay for our School Resource Officer program and other things. This was in response to the failure of P6, which was a dedicated revenue measure and needed 2/3 to pass. (Measure A is simple majority only.)
It was one of several ideas discussed. The city did polling on it. (I have the data if you want to see it.) Most of the respondents were in favor of it. In addition, the Council heard from many citizens during meetings who were also in favor. (Including one of the challengers in this year's election.) As I reported above, many other cities and counties had this fee and the first court challenge came in favor of the fee's legality. (Although it was not published. Again, I have the opinion, if you want to read it.)
What changed: a subsequent legal opinion came out against the fee from another municipality. I also think the city did not take into account the great confusion the opt-out would cause or how difficult it would be to administer the opt-out portion.
In addition, City Manager Rick Cole made what I thought was serious tactical error for attacking the Star for putting out misinformation on the fee. Howry obviously did not take kindly to that one. They had a bee in their bonnet after that.
The great majority of citizens did not opt out or claim a refund. I think most, like me, didn't really care about $1.49 a month. Plus it would go to public safety, which I always support.
I've written a lot about this issue. It's all logged in my archives in the 911 fee category.
Brian,
They officially endorsed Neal Andrews and Jim Monahan and support the other Republicans in the race.
Marie, but what does it say about the priorities of government where it's spending so much on other areas that it has to come up with creative fees to fund public safety?
Isn't that one of its primary functions? If there isn't any money left for that, wouldn't a reasonable person conclude that cuts need to be made in other areas first?
Eric, the city has cut $11 million in the current two-year budget. Nearly half the budget is public safety. The city uses a Budgeting for Outcomes process whereby committees meet in each budget area and work on prioritizing what matters most.
Cultural programs here, which are a revenue generator for us, were whacked pretty severely. (I sit on the City's Cultural Affairs Commission)
Recreational programs are already fee-based. Economic development/planning functions are also necessary to generate revenue as is the Visitor's Bureau. After that you have public works (street paving, etc.) and other necessary city functions.
Ventura is an older full-service city which does not contract to County Fire (estimated $10 million more to do that) or have a parks district. The infrastructure is aging.
All city employees took pay and/or benefits cuts.
It's almost like you're saying that the high cost of public safety is the largest component of the problem. And one of the largest components of public safety cost is the pensions. And that's precisely why 911 fees needed to be raised--because much of the money was going to fat compensations.
So then Neal Andrews has the audacity to speak out against the 911 fee and in favor of pension reform, and he gets crucified. Wasn't he right all along?
Eric:
Not only was Neil Andrews right all along regarding the utter political stupidity of the City Council's ostensible public argument for the 911 Fee, he stood his ground and voted against the fee, even when all six of his Council colleagues voted for it.
Further, even after losing that vote, Mr. Andrews continued to struggle mightily to minimize the adverse impacts of the 911 fee on Ventura residents, (i.e. extending the opt-out period of time) until his remaining Council colleagues beat a hasty, though tardy, retreat and rescinded this ill-conceived fee, in reaction to the court's decision regarding a similar fee matter.
Marie:
Once again, you miss the essential public policy and political governance import of the 911 Fee arguments.
City Manager Cole's blaming the media was not, as you simply describe it, "a tactical error," it was a strategic municipal governance blunder of monumental proportions.
And, as Joe Howry rightly pointed out in his February 2008 Editorial, the unacceptable political sins committed by a majority of Council, as well as Mssrs. Cole and Callone, was one of arrogance and pride (See Above URL).
To paraphrase Cassius, "..the fault, Dear Marie, did not lie in the media nor the citizens of Ventura, but rather in the Council (minus Neal Andrews), Cole and Callone, stars themselves.."
We shall see on Tuesday, whether the Council's sin was politically mortal for those members who voted for the fee and are up for re-election (Brennan, Monahan and Summers) or simply venial.
Regardless of the outcome on Tuesday, in this blogger's opinion, Mister Andrews has earned a chapter in the Council's "Profiles in Courage," book for his principled and steadfast actions regarding this matter.
NostraDemus
I don't see the 911 fee in the "monumental" category as far as impacts to our citizens, which is what counts. For the vast, vast majority of our citizens it went unnoticed. Only one-sixth of the eligible lines were opted out and not one was ever charged a per-call fee.
Not meeting adequate response times in emergency services would be of far greater impact. And that was the reason for looking for additional revenue.
I saw it as an administrative nightmare, as it really was.
As far as pensions go, it is important to remember that public safety personnel in the City of Ventura are compensated at a lower level than comparable cities. Oxnard pays higher salaries and raised its sales taxes last year. AND our folks took cuts to help balance the budget.
Average public safety pension in City of Ventura: $38,131. This comes straight from our new compensation task force. I support the work of this group which is made up of citizens from both sides of the issue.