"What do we want as a supervisor, and why would anyone want the job?"
Original post made by [removed] on Feb 16, 2012
Draft Committees met jointly to consider competitive candidates for supervisor in districts 2, 3 and 5, Contra Costa County, last Friday. Committee leaders posed the critical questions, "What does the voting majority want as individual supervisors and a majority on the CCC-BOS?" and "Why would anyone want to be supervisor?" As news service researchers participated in the discussions, more focus was brought to these discussions related to capable and qualified professionals respectfully declining the opportunity for voting majorities in neighborhoods to elect them as the new majority on the CCC-BOS.
Thus, it becomes a question of WHY are the best among us unwilling to add their name to supervisor contests in districts 3 and 5. Certainly, district 2 voters are offered qualifications, capabilities and experience among the candidates to replace a very capable Gayle Uilkema, but such offering are not emerging in districts 3 and 5. Without competitive contests in all three districts, voters will not be able to shape the future of CCC-BOS by a majority representing our will and interests.
Thus, as news services invite their subscribers in Contra Costa County to comment on "What do you want in a supervisor, and why would anyone want the job?" it becomes a public question for your readers' consideration. It would be interesting to review how important change may be as a new majority on the board and what new directions readers want in the actions of our supervisors.
on Feb 17, 2012 at 7:35 am
This morning, news service researchers circulated names of 7 women in Districts 2, 3, and 5 with Mayor Andersen's name included as the benchmark for what qualifies a candidate for supervisor. Among the other women are masters and legal degrees, broad experience in public service, and operational experience in major corporations and institutions.
Most women considering running are encouraged by the voting majority in neighborhoods in their district and shared goals for the future of our county. Thus, again, what do your readers want in a supervisor and how will your readers support their choice?
on Feb 18, 2012 at 11:12 am
The citizens of Contra Costa have been offered a rare opportunity to change and improve the makeup of the Board of Supervisors. We also have been faced with the possibility of a Board that could be even more beholding to special interest than ever before. It is the special interest that has influenced our elected county officials to give away huge salaries and benefits to public employees along with themselves far exceeding the average income and benefits of the private tax payer sector. Examples of runaway salaries and benefits is the retire at 50 years old, huge salary increases, added perks, the ability to pension spike, and being allowed to double dip. This is our money the incumbents have squandered away.
There are three Supervisorial seats up for grabs. If the status quo remains in two of the three seats then it's more of the same deteriorating services and higher unfunded debt. If the third open seat is won by Tomi Van De Brooke an associate of Mary Piepho, doom and gloom for the average tax payer is inevitable.
What we need in Supervisors is true original thinkers able to implement the will of the people. We need three new Supervisors that cannot be bought by unions, oil, or development. We need three new Supervisors to change the makeup of the BOS to work for the taxpayer unconditionally.
We need a new Board of Supervisors willing to make a better life for the average tax paying citizen of Contra Costa.
on Mar 13, 2012 at 12:37 pm
@ "Voter" (and all of the aliases that you have been using for several months).
Looks like once again you came up short. Your quips were as hollow as your accusations.
While your comments were off base, the one that really gave some insight to your bad information was this; "Examples of runaway salaries and benefits is the retire at 50 years old, huge salary increases, added perks, the ability to pension spike, and being allowed to double dip. This is our money the incumbents have squandered away."
For the record those "spikes" you referred to were done by members of independent special districts-having NOTHING to do with the County Supervisors. And since you were in such a hurry to falsely blame a certain incumbents (Piepho), I am Sorry to also break it to you but the incumbents not only had NOTHING to do with your accusations. They are actually making some major headway with county debts that some of them did not create. It looks like a certain incumbent (Piepho) is exactly the opposite of how you tried to paint her. So much for your forecast of "Doom and Gloom".
Apparently you were either unaware or purposely put out bad information.
You may want to spend less time trying to fool people and more time educating yourself.
By Lisa Vorderbrueggen
Tuesday, March 13th, 2012 Columnist for the CC Times;
A bit of good financial news: The county has cut its unfunded liability for retiree health care to $968 million.
It was $2.6 billion in 2006.
The number matters because the higher the figure, the higher the number of dollars the county must contribute each year out of its general purpose funds toward paying it off over a 30-year period. Six year ago, the county's payment was $216 million. This fiscal year, it was $59.8 million. The drop is the result, among other things, of cuts in county employee benefits.