Backers of two crime-fighting initiatives took the stage Wednesday night in an exercise of comparing and contrasting the merits of their plans.
It was the city’s Marshall Plan on crime squaring off against the Stockton Safe Streets half-cent sales tax initiative in front of 100 or so residents. (more)
News10 covered the debate.
A law firm representing a Stockton creditor in bankruptcy is accused of playing dirty by raiding attorneys from an opposing firm that represents the California Public Employees’ Retirement System.
CalPERS, with which the city contracts to manage employee pensions, wants the judge overseeing Stockton’s bankruptcy to kick Winston & Strawn, LLP, off the case in an argument also with implications in San Bernardino’s ongoing Chapter 9. Keep reading…
Today’s story previewed Mayor Antony Silva’s State of the City address to come next week, entitled: “Leaving All of Our Egos at the Door – Change is Inevitable.”
Provocative? Judge for yourself.
Here are the titles of speeches the Stockton mayors gave over the last eight years:
2012: “Moving Stockton Forward,” Mayor Ann Johnston
2011: “Making Lemons into Lemonade,” Johnston
2010: “Getting to the ‘A’ List,” Johnston
2009: “Opportunity and Challenge,” Johnston
2008: “Today… and the Future,” Mayor Ed Chavez
2007: “It’s your City – Take Ownership,” Chavez
2006: “Yesterday, Today and Tomorrow,” Chavez
2005: “The Renaissance,” Chavez
Jay Leno is on a tear at Stockton’s expense. Here’s a recent bit sent to me by Mayor Anthony Silva, who found it amusing:
City Manager Bob Deis sent this letter to Moody’s, contending the credit rating services didn’t do its homework before issuing this report. Standard & Poor’s issued their own statement, which city officials say is more fair and balanced.
The Stockton Safe Streets tax initiative is posted on a website by the same name stocktonsafestreets.org. Punch the middle button to read it in English. The left button is purported to produce the initiative en español, but I couldn’t get that to work.
Mayor Anthony Silva’s vote against (or was it?) moving the Marshall Plan on to the next stage continues to inspire discussion. Here’s how it appeared from the back press table of the council chambers. This came close to the midnight hour, probably not a moment of clarity for anybody in the room.
The vote came due on a three-part motion to 1) hold community meetings on the Marshall Plan 2) authorize $300K to pay for Ceasefire and keep the Marshall Plan steering committee alive and 3) after getting community input, have the city manager come back with financing that jibes with bankruptcy negotiations.
For the record, this vote didn’t enact the Marshall Plan, but rather keeps it moving forward.
Silva said he supported the Marshall Plan, yet he’s got a competing tax initiative, which was to be presented as something to oppose in the moments to follow the vote. All the council members voted to approve the motion, and Silva said he abstained. Word is that city administrators in the well told him that there was no button for abstaining, so he pushed the next best thing – casting the “no” vote.
Silva hedged his bets, saying he supports the Marshall Plan, announcing that he abstained and then voting “no.”
City Clerk Bonnie Paige read out the 6-1 vote count, saying Silva dissented. The council moved on with no further discussion.
Section 404 of the city charter on quorums says:
A majority of the members of the Council shall constitute a quorum for the transaction of business. Every member when present, must vote upon all propositions. (emphasis added)
It doesn’t say so here in Section 404, but the common practice in Stockton allowing abstentions is a stated conflict of interest. There is no third button available to council members who abstain. Silva made no conflicts known, so we reported that he voted “no.”
