|
Getting your Trinity Audio player ready...
|
The San Ramon City Council on Dec. 11 decided to appoint a councilmember rather than hold a special election to fill the District 2 seat left vacant when Mark Armstrong was sworn in as mayor the day before.
Although the best plan would be to allow the voters of District 2 to vote for the person they wanted to represent them, for myriad reasons, an appointment was the most expedient and stewardly way to proceed.
Armstrong and councilmembers Robert Jweinat, Marisol Rubio and Sridhar Verose were pressed for time to make a decision because of a municipal code that gives a 30-day timeframe to either fill the position by appointment or call a special election. The clock started ticking Dec. 10.
Calling for a special election would need to be done at a regular meeting, and the next regular city council meeting was canceled because it fell on Christmas Eve. In addition to that delay, the actual process of the election could take up to six months and, with a number of housing and other development proposals coming soon to the council’s agenda, a full council would be optimal.
Another significant factor in the decision was the cost of a special election. Estimated at a minimum of $159,335, the outlay of money would be painful given the city’s current financial struggles.
During a Jan. 6 special meeting, the council whittled the pool of 16 eligible candidates down to four individuals who would be interviewed Jan. 10 – Richard Adler, Kyle Levy, Baljit Sull and Tiffany Uhri Chi.
Of the finalists, Levy was by far the most qualified and prepared for the job and I question why Adler was ultimately appointed. Forever a cynic, I am concerned the reason I suspect will lead to a council majority “voting bloc,” which has proven to be destructive in another Tri-Valley city.
On paper, it was clear Levy was the top candidate. In fact, when asked for their top two candidates to interview, all four electeds selected Levy as their first choice.
Levy served as the treasurer in the city’s successful Yes on Measure N sales tax measure in 2024 and, prior to that, was a member of a smaller group that encouraged the council to place the sales tax measure on the ballot. He is the board president for the San Ramon Library Foundation, and chair of the San Ramon Valley Unified School District Facilities Oversight and Advisory Committee.
He works in administrative project management for the Castro Valley Sanitary District, and is responsible for preparing staff reports for agenda packets for the agency’s meetings.
Levy is also a commissioner on San Ramon’s Parks and Community Services Commission, so he has experience with reading staff reports and meeting protocol. He has a degree in political science, a law degree, and certificates in HR Management and Public Law and Policy.
Before conducting the interviews, the councilmembers listed characteristics they wanted in the person they would appoint, including knowledge of the community and, specifically, District 2, as well as the issues; understanding of law and local government; ability to think critically; communication skills; and ability to connect with residents.
All the candidates did well during the Jan. 10 interviews, but Levy stood out there too. His answers were on-point, clear and concise, demonstrated his knowledge and highlighted his experience. He needed no prompting to give specific examples or to clarify or elaborate on an answer as other candidates were asked to do.
After the four interviews, the councilmembers voted on a four-point scale, with their top candidate receiving four points, the second candidate receiving three, and so on.
Adler received 13 points, with Armstrong giving him three points, Jweinat giving him two and Rubio and Verose both giving him four. Levy received 12 points, with Rubio and Verose both giving him two points and Armstrong and Jweinat giving him four.
When the results were shown, Armstrong said he was surprised.
“In regard to Kyle Levy, I personally felt he kind of knocked it out of the park in terms of his answers and how succinct his answers were, and clear as to understanding the issues.” Armstrong said.
In response to Armstrong’s statement, Rubio explained why she gave three points to Uhri Chi and two to Levy, saying both had similar knowledge of the law and local government, but Uhri Chi has qualities she feels are lacking in the current council.
“(Uhri Chi) brought a perspective that is needed,” Rubio said, “We have to think not just about right now, but we need to think about the community we will have in 10, 20 years.”
“One of the things she did really well was talking about families, talking about their needs and that’s something that really stood out to me,” Rubio said.
Verose praised Uhri Chi for having a good grasp of the city’s budget and the budgeting process, which is a priority right now, and agreed with Rubio that the council needs to look to the future. “We want to have different perspectives,” he said.
Neither Rubio nor Verose mentioned why they had given Adler four points, so Armstrong asked Verose to explain why he selected Adler over Levy. Verose said there needs to be a vision for the future and Adler’s experience would bring the city’s “community services to the next level.”
Rubio seconded Verose’s statement and said that “it’s not all about the numbers.” She said “nuanced” psycho-social economic issues are important to recognize. She gave a long, extremely confusing explanation of how a person is able to understand those nuances, and I guessed that understanding the “nuances” is basically the ability to relate to and communicate with people.
Adler is involved in community groups and interacts with residents.. He was a member of the Yes on Measure N committee, is president of the Dougherty Valley San Ramon Rotary Club as well as a member of the city’s Senior Advisory Committee and the San Ramon Valley Mental Health Advisory Council.
However, I didn’t get anything from Adler that would lead me to believe he would be better at communicating with residents than Levy.
Apparently Jweinat felt the same way and said Levy’s interview was “by far a higher quality. The answers were in-depth, were rich.”
“Candidly, I didn’t find Mr. Adler’s commentary or answers really heartfelt,” Jweinat continued. “It felt more like a check-off on a resume …’this is what I’ve done’ and that’s pretty much it.”
Adler’s interview did strike me as perfunctory, with weak answers and few specific examples.
Rubio and Verose continued to defend their four-out-of-four ranking of Adler by reiterating the council’s need for a different perspective, someone who could look to the future, and that Adler’s experience in community service would be valuable.
But the value Levy would immediately bring to the council, which is in the midst of the aforementioned budget concerns and upcoming development projects, far outweighs what Adler can bring now or 10 to 20 years from now.
The connection between Rubio, Verose and Adler is what gives me pause.
Rubio has ties to the Democratic Party of Contra Costa County (DPCCC), where she is a committee vice-chair and one of Central County’s four members. She was endorsed by the San Ramon Valley Democratic Club when she ran for her current council seat in 2022, and received a $1,300 independent expenditure from the group.
Also that year, Rubio reported contributions of about $25,000, with only $200 contributed by a San Ramon resident. About $20,350 was contributed by individuals outside of the city, from special interest groups such as the Sheet Metal Workers, Plumbers and Teamsters unions and the San Ramon Valley Democratic Club (SRVDC).
When Rubio ran for State Senate in 2024, Adler hosted a meet and greet at his home for Rubio. The invitation was on the DPCCC website.
In 2020, Verose was endorsed by the SRVDC and received a $250 campaign contribution from the group. He also received contributions from special interest groups and individuals outside of the city.
I was taken aback when Verose cut off Armstrong’s argument for Levy to make a motion to appoint Adler. Rubio very quickly seconded the motion, which passed 3-1 with Armstrong being the dissenting vote.
The weak justifications of Adler’s scores, the connections and the motion to move on an appointment quickly were alarming.
As I wrote in a 2022 column, “Influencing Elections,” it’s disconcerting to see thousands of dollars from outside special interest and political groups impact local, supposedly non-partisan, elections.
Now I’m concerned that partisanship is creeping into the appointment process, which could lead to a voting bloc.
A poignant example of what can happen when a majority of a council frequently casts ballots together to achieve certain goals comes from recent Pleasanton City Councils. Beginning in 2020, when Valerie Arkin was elected to the council, a majority of Arkin, Councilmember Julie Testa and Mayor Karla Brown was born.
After that most votes ended 3-2, with councilmembers Kathy Narum and Jack Balch defeated by the majority, and some very illogical – even absurd – decisions were made.
When Narum left the council in 2022 and Jeff Nibert was elected, many votes ended 4-1 because Nibert often followed the majority’s lead.
The decisions ratified by the Pleasanton council majority were not what was best for Pleasanton or the residents, and when Balch started speaking out about that, the majority called a special meeting and tried to silence him.
Three or four elected officials pushing their own agenda is damaging to a community’s future and, more importantly, trust in the council and the city. In the last election, Pleasanton voters sent a strong, loud message that they wanted to disband that majority.
After seeing Levy’s superior qualifications, listening to the interviews and hearing Rubio and Verose’s weak defense of Adler’s scores, I felt obligated to bring the connection between Rubio, Verose and newly-appointed Adler to light.
Let’s not have what happened in Pleasanton occur in San Ramon.
