ON ELECTION DAY I WILL VOTE “NO” ON MEASURES B AND C. I believe Benicians voting on these measures will be making a vote of confidence — or no confidence — on Benicia’s political and financial management.
Measures B and C represent a vote of confidence in the leadership of our city finances because these measures are really important and have the unanimous support of all members of Benicia’s City Council. Failure to gain voter approval of these important measures would be a clear repudiation of the financial leadership now in place in City Hall.
Measure B asks voters to end the practice of electing an independent city treasurer. The measure would have the City Council appoint the treasurer. It is argued by the Council in the sample ballot and voter information pamphlet that this would be helpful because it would end the practice of electing treasurers who “might” not have a background in finance. Moreover, they argue that the city would save money by not paying $200 monthly to the treasurer and by eliminating the cost of electing the treasurer.
More substantively, they argue that the treasurer has become a ceremonial post because the key operational duties formerly assigned to the position have been transferred to staff, and that the citizen oversight role is provided by the Finance Committee.
Having participated on the Finance Committee for four years, including the last year as chair, I believe only one of the arguments advanced has merit, and that is about saving a very few bucks.
The argument that an elected treasurer “might” not have financial expertise is a scare tactic. What the Council is implying is that the electorate “might” elect an incompetent person and it would be better to avoid that possibility. They ask that you put that decision in their hands. But insofar as the same electorate elected the Council, what does that way of thinking say about our current leadership?
The financial oversight role of the treasurer is not being provided by the Finance Committee. The Council can say it does, but it is not true. The Finance Committee only sees what staff wishes to show the committee, and the recommendations of the committee are routinely ignored by staff and the Council.
In fact, far from needing to eliminate the elected treasurer, what Benicia needs is an elected treasurer who takes the position seriously and uses the independence and power of the office to ensure that city finances are properly overseen.
Bottom line on Measure B: It is a raw power grab by the City Council to eliminate an independent and potentially effective citizen oversight of city finances.
Citizen oversight of Benicia’s finances is the segue to Measure C, the sales tax increase. Again, this is a measure that has the unanimous support of the Council.
In light of my knowledge of city finances, I can honestly say that I do not know if the sales tax increase is warranted. But what I do know is that there has been no competent analysis of city finances done to justify the measure — just a lot of hand waving about Benicia’s financial condition.
The measure’s trumpeted appointment of the Finance Committee as a “Citizen Oversight Committee” to oversee the tax is deceptive. Council says it will be “transparent and fiscally accountable.” But the Council knows that will not happen with a Finance Committee that is only advisory, has no independent staff or resources, and is appointed by the Council. The Finance Committee is simply incapable of effectively overseeing city finances in any manner, an impotence that has been repeatedly demonstrated.
Bottom line on Measure C: The need for a sales tax increase has not been demonstrated and approval of the measure would endorse a failed financial decision making process which ought to be repudiated.
Measures B and C are important, but neither is good for Benicia. My vote Tuesday will be a vote of no confidence in the current financial management of this city.
We deserve and need much better.
Lawrence Grossman is the principal of Grossman Financial Management and a certified financial planner, SEC-registered investment adviser and accredited investment fiduciary. He has taught financial planning at the University of California, University Extension, Davis and Berkeley, and is the former chair of the Benicia Finance Committee. He lives in Benicia.
Sharing is caring!
Mr. Grossman,
Thank you, for a statement of truth. Stepping up and going up stream against the current city tide. It is a forthright letter of which every voting citizen of the community should be aware ! Bravo. !
I see a little sour grapes coming from Mr. Grossman. He is entitled to his vote on both issues. I will vote yes on Measure C. It is good for the City.
There is a lot of talk about Measure C that I would normally support as a Conservative. But I have followed the City finances very closely and this measure is needed. Will it pass? I get the feeling it will pass. The residents of this city are very independent and they do like their services. The City has made no threats to encourage a yes vote. But they have clearly said what will be done in the next two years. If anyone looked at the ten year forcast there would be no doubt that you would support Measure C. I unlike some have A lot of confidence in our four council members. Do I think there may be some influence trying to get its agenda driven ideals in place. That is for sure. Will they also try to use this money to do the same. Probably but it will not work. The four council members are your safe guards. They do understand agenda driven ideals. This is a very good four member council. They may not agree all the time but they will come together when it comes to what is right for the city. Lessons have been leatrned and mistakes made. They do admit that and fully understand the issues. Measure C is good for the City. Do as voters what you think is right. I have already cast my vote.
I agree. While I respect Mr. Grossman, I think this is the right thing for our community. We are fortunate in many ways for the variety as well as the level of city services and amenities we receive.
I understand the arguements for revenue increases. But I don’t fully embrace that all spending restraints have been implemented. Property owners and citizens of Benicia have been faced with several rate and tax increases this year: Water department surcharge, property tax increase via the school bond measure …
Now additional sales tax?
I may support this measure but the compounded facts that taxpayers must continuously pay more to just support existing services leads me to wonder … Are we truly managing our existing revenues correctly with proper priorities? Or are we just feeding the same beast with unfettered amounts of tax revenues with no restraint?
Steve your comment will not go un-noticed. It is valid. Bridge tolls upped 25% to get grant money etc. It does go on and on. Grant money comes from bridge tolls, gas taxes and many other taxes. Look at ANY bill we get and it is there. i do understand the feeling of all of us. As I said normally I would not support something like this. But this one I do, This city had some issues on not being accountible at the finance end of the city. Brad was in shock on what he saw. As I said before the Mayor did some things on finances with the support I hate to say of the council to fix the 1.2 mil debt Well guess what it actually needed close to 2 mil more.. When you do not understand the debt issue and the budget we get our selves in trouble. Not enough questions were asked. At that time we lived in a situation of do not tell them too much. The mayor did not even know that the employee benefits/salary were at 75% of total budget. Now that is not good. Others did but again they were feed only the info that would make everyone very happy. You may have noriced simeone retired suddenly. Finally when Brenda Took on the job as interim did we get it all together. The financial facts are there and projected out for ten years. It is needed. I do believe the council and city staff will be very on top of how the money is spent. I do have that convidence. We have a very good City Manager and an excellent staff. We will get on with it and will see results.
Bob, I appreciate your comments and the support of the now current management of our city. It is a hopeful sign. Your comment about 75% of city revenues are dedicated to salaries …. Well, I guess that is CA today.
Without getting into a discussion regarding merit and deserved earnings, one fact is clear … California pays its government employees at the highest levels compared to any other state in the union. Salaries for teachers, police, firemen, city administrators, legislators …. All rank #1 among states. That requires revenues. Working a CA state job is a good thing.
But are we at the end of the rope here? We need to pay our important employees at solid levels. But there are limits. I guess the question becomes … What are the limits? Have we reached the limit? Are we now squeezing out important services to pay for the current tab? CA tax rates are the highest in the nation, or near the very top.
Just asking rhetorical questions. I am not denigrating anyone’s earnings or worth, just simply asking important questions.
Yes Steve I did say that. it was that at ine time. The City is now at 69% and more than likely will go down. This city under the City Manager has made great strides in rerducing expenditures and at the same time keeping services at a very good level. Very recently employee healthcare was free with no co-pays. If you took Kaiser. Not any mor.e They are paying a fair share now. Also employee contribution to their side of CalPers was only 1% out of 8%. They now pay the whole 8%. Fire and safety have always paid their side of CalPers at 9%. Also the city has a new level of city contributions to CalPers for all new employees. When that fully kick in it will make a big difference in what city pays for their contribution. Em[loyees down by over10%with some positions also not being filled at this time. So as you can see this city has done a good job on cost control. Remember what I saidabout the mayor and her $622.00 per month she gets for opting out of healthcare plus other benefits such as dental and vision.. That amounts to over $8,000 per year. Council member Stawbridge is the only one that takes no salary or benefits. Thats right zero. Now that is leadership. You may wonder why I site the mayor in my comment. Simple,because she ran on leadership skils. Where are they. Also rememberr a huge increASE in City side of CalPers is now hitting the city budget. . I saw it coming as did the city mamager. That is why the city did a ten year budget layout. Very well done and easy to follow. It was all there. I do not believe in comparing Benicia to any other city. We are Benicia and that how I look at it. Very independent and at the same time the jewel of Solano Co.Letskeepit that way. Maybe the folks across the bridge will now start to come and visit us and pay thatyextra 1%. This is a good measure. You will make your own choice.
Thanks Bob. You may have just convinced me to go with the measure. These are the facts that need to be published. Thanks again.
Sooooooooo right ! Thanks.
Mr. Grossman States:It is argued by the Council … that (measure B) would be helpful because it would end the practice of electing treasurers who “might” not have a background in finance
Perhaps a measure to end the practice of electing city officials who “might” not have a background in running a city would also be helpful.
Based on his history of dysfunction on the Finance Committee, his other letters in the Herald, and his hedging above… “In light of my knowledge of City finances, I can honestly say that I do not know if the sales tax increase is warranted”, I suspect Mr. Grossman’s opposition is more personal than professional. As a past long term member and Chair of the Finance Committee, he should know and help us understand why a sales tax increase is warranted. Instead he seems unwilling or unable to get past his personal disappointments working with the city. That’s unfortunate considering his credentials.
Who are you to decide that Mr Grossman’s personnal opinions are as you discribed? Perhaps where there is smoke there is truth and honesty. Common sense dictates a no vote. Unless you are willing to be lead down the primrose path again, by all means vote yes !! I am not going to vote for another painful realization that spending our money does not mean a good budget
Jackie who are you to decide what commom sense is? Please present some facts on why you are voting no. I do believe I put up some facts and do not tell people how to vote.. tell us about that Promrose Lane. I have watched and studied the city budget and made up my mind on how I will vote and yes it will be YES. Others can voter as the feel fit.
Dennis, I agree on principle that it’s good to elect highly qualified, experienced people to city office,
yet I still like most of the people on Council well enough, and continue to think Mayor Patterson has
great self-control, wisdom, character, professional experience and record of responsible and rather successful public service. I’ll appreciate learning evidence to the contrary, not just misogynistic or unsupported, ideological opinion.
You may be hearing from me soon by email to a group of folks who’ve been long at loggerheads and need to begin a process of non-combattive, group dialogue and quit this logomachy. At this point in our lives, we all have bigger fish to fry than each other, Me? I’m fed up with our egg-head scramble.
Robert you and your groups big problem is you do not understand finances. Only agenda driven idealogy that know one even pays any attention to. Measure C will pass in flying colors. You can now find another flag to wave in revolt. Will it be a Tri-Colored StatC OF cALIFORNIA fLAG WITH A dead Bear.. Robert your group is going down big time.Good bye Robert { Rag Time}Shelby
Mayor Patterson was not mentioned in my comment, nor was it directed at her or any other specific Council members. You are reading between the lines, while ignoring the lines themselves. .
I have worked with her in the past and I respect her knowledge on the subjects with which we were involved.
.
Robert,
Mayor Patterson was not mentioned in my comment, nor was it directed at her or any other specific Council members. You are reading between the lines, while ignoring the lines themselves. .
I have worked with her in the past and I respect her knowledge on the subjects with which we were involved.
.
Water., that I agree with.