On Monday my post said that Gorelick is being dishonest about his role in his incorrect ballot designation and that lying to cover up ones own actions is unbecoming of a elected official and causes the public to lose trust in anything that person says. (and I’ll add defensively, I don’t believe that it is a personal attack to call into question the public actions of a public official, especially when those actions are dishonest).

So Gorelick asked that I post the “official candidate declaration” which is here:

I’ve cropped the important part for easier reading here:

The declaration page clearly shows that someone, likely the County Registrar, has crossed out “Intern” from the ballot designation. Before the vote, Gorelick writes about the fact that when he took his forms to the Registrar’s office, there were concerns about the use of “Intern”:

The profession that would be listed on the ballot did cause some consternation on the part of the county staff when neither “intern pharmacist” or “student pharmacist” fit into the regulatory framework used to determine official titles. The concern was that the modifiers were titles which are not allowed. I left that day thinking that I would be listed as either “intern pharmacist” or “pharmacy intern”, but that changed sometime prior to the printing of the ballots.

So clearly, there was an awareness by Gorelick that his requested designation was problematic.

But here’s where Gorelick’s action diverge from his claims. And so that you don’t have to strain your eyes, I’ve zoomed in on the language in the oval directly under the requested designation:

So the Declaration of Candidacy states that a ballot designation is optional, but if requested, a completed worksheet is required. And that worksheet is here:

Again, here’s the important part of that worksheet:

State Election Code 13107 explains the rules for ballot designations (emphasis added):

No more than three words designating either the current principal professions, vocations, or occupations of the candidate, or the principal professions, vocations, or occupations of the candidate during the calendar year immediately preceding the filing of nomination documents.

Gorelick recently sent me a copy of the Secretary of State’s “Ballot Designation Regulations.” The document says the following:

The Ballot Designation Worksheet shall request that the candidate proposing the ballot designation provide the following information:…

(5) At the option of the candidate, the candidate may submit one or more proposed alternate ballot designations ranked in order of the candidate’s preference;

So Gorelick has the right to have a ballot designation, and must use the worksheet in order to provide the County with any “proposed alternate ballot designations ranked in order of the candidate’s preference.” The worksheet isn’t a throw away, it’s required, and it is used in order to inform the County on their actions.

So the Guidelines state that:

(1) If a candidate is licensed by the State of California to engage in a profession, vocation or occupation, the candidate is entitled to consider it one of his or her “principal” professions, vocations or occupations if (i) the candidate has maintained his or her license current as of the date he or she filed his or nomination documents by complying with all applicable requirements of the respective licensure, including the payment of all applicable license fees and (ii) the status of the candidate’s license is active at the time he or she filed his or her nomination documents.

As this entire issue has come up again, because Gorelick was not a Board Certified Pharmacist and is now possibly running into issues with his certification possibly related to his ballot declaration that he was a pharmacist, it’s clear that he had not “maintained [his] license current as of the date [he] filed.”

and then there’s this:

Proposed ballot designations submitted pursuant to Elections Code § 13107, subdivision (a)(3), shall be subject to the following provisions:…

(c) In order for a ballot designation submitted pursuant to Elections Code § 13107, subdivision (a)(3), to be deemed acceptable by the Secretary of State, it must accurately state the candidate’s principal professions, vocations or occupations, as those terms are defined in subdivisions (a) and (b) herein. Each proposed principal profession, vocation or occupation submitted by the candidate must be factually accurate, descriptive of the candidate’s principal profession, vocation or occupation, must be neither confusing nor misleading, and must be in full and complete compliance with Elections Code § 13107 and the regulations included in this Chapter.

In fact, the Guidelines have all sorts of sections on issues of when and how you can call yourself “retired,” incumbent, etc. How you cannot designate yourself as an official with a political party, because those offices are not truly elected and may mislead voters into thinking you are something you’re not. It’s extremely clear in the law, that Intern Pharmacist and Pharmacist are not at all the same thing and that one has to be extremely specific in filing a designation.

But what if Gorelick had walked away from filing, confident that he was going to be listed as an Intern Pharmacist as he write?. Yesterday I confirmed with the Alameda County Registrar of Voters (ACROV) that they send a proof of each candidate’s ballot listing to the candidate before the election in order to allow the candidate to identify spelling errors, and make sure that they don’t list a plumber as an electrician, etc. So Gorelick was not only aware that there were concerns with his filing designation (from his initial visit), and he not only turned in paperwork that explicitly told the County that they could designate him a “Pharmacist” but then, he received a confirmation proof of his ballot listing, which gave him the opportunity to correct his previous mistake. Clearly, this didn’t happen. Updated: Gorelick emailed me to say that he had received a proof copy, but that he had not opened it until after the deadline for corrections. Interestingly, his post today (link below) ignores this when talking about how the County never contacted him.

So in the end, all the paperwork, the statutes, guidelines and procedures point directly to Gorelick having listed himself as a Pharmacist on the ballot. Which brings us back to the point of Monday’s post.

The point on Monday was not that Gorelick called Leah Williams a liar, or that his comments section is messed up, or even that he clearly broke the rules in filing for last Fall’s election.

The point is that he is 100% not telling the truth when he writes:

I did know that the ballot designation listed next to my name, “pharmacist”, would likely be in my favor.  That designation was the result of a mistake by the Alameda County Registrar of Voters, a change made after I filed which I had no input into;

And this lie is the basis for three posts, which have since been taken down but are linked to here, which lob a lot of accusations at other people, all of which are based on a lie.

Gorelick has a right to be angry and concerned about his certification, no one can take that away from him. But he doesn’t have the right to make up his own facts and then use them to attack other people.

Updated: Gorelick has a new post up today in which he continues to ignore the fact that it was he himself that listed “Pharmacist” on his paperwork as an acceptable ballot designation. Apparently, it’s all someone else’s fault and the only mistake he made was choosing Blogspot over WordPress software, causing his comments section to not work correctly. This post is possibly more troublesome than the original.

I asked Gorelick about this in the comment section of his blog, however it appears that the comment has been moderated, another sign of an attempt to hide the truth and cast aspersions on others for his own misdeeds.

This comment has raised the ire of Gorelick and a couple of his supporters who have asked for a retraction. It’s a day late, but here it is: my statment that I left a comment on Gorelick’s site is true, I spent about 45 minutes writing the comment, which was along the lines of my Monday post, and asked him to bridge the gap between the reality of his actions and his 180-degree different statement about them. That comment did not appear on the website.

As Denise Lai has pointed out in the comments, Blogger (the blog site that Gorelick uses) is less than perfect. I’ve had issues with it in the past, so I’ll concur with her assessment that Blogger “sucks.” That said, in the past, the problems I have experienced have resulted in error messages, an inability to login to comment, etc. None of which occurred on Sunday. Still, it’s certainly possible that there was some new error that saw the comment whisked into the ether, never to be seen again.

Up until last Saturday, I would have said “whoops, my bad” and immediately adjusted my posted with a clarification. But given that on Sunday, Gorelick was caught making false statements in order to distance himself from his own actions, I find myself in a bind of needing to trust the word of someone who has now shown himself not to be trustworthy. This is not an easy thing to write/think. Up until Sunday, I never thought of Gorelick as someone who would deny his own actions in order to support his own perception, but Sunday’s post changed that.

So, it’s clearly possible that the disappearing comment was a technical aberration. In fact, I’m slightly inclined to believe it was, despite everything else. So let this post stand as a correction to my statement.

That said, the original point of Monday’s post remains intact, comment moderation or no, and if anything, this issue highlights the trouble that Gorelick has created for himself.

Gorelick has also asked me to post some other documents related to his campaign filings, I will be attempting to get those up later today or tomorrow as well.  I didn’t want anyone to think I was ignoring the request.

On several occasions, verifiably untrue statements were made to me by CEO Stebbins Others are free to interpret this as unintentional, but I am of the opinion that there was more to it than that and would have to label those statements as lies.  (1/26/11)

And he has had an ongoing beef with the person he beat in last November’s election, Leah Williams, who cried foul when she lost over Gorelick’s designation a “Pharmacist,” a state licensed position, when he was still a student and intern. The issue never took hold, most people realized that the time for discussing the issue was prior to the election, not afterwards.

The bizarrely out of the blue Sunday night, Gorelick had a new post insinuating that Williams is a “liar” and her actions “evil” and hinting that he may sue for defamation. All of it was unnecessary and odd, but what came next took the issue to a new level. Gorelick started rewriting history and in the process making statements that absolutely untrue. From the post:

I did know that the ballot designation listed next to my name, “pharmacist”, would likely be in my favor.  That designation was the result of a mistake by the Alameda County Registrar of Voters, a change made after I filed which I had no input into; it should have been “intern pharmacist” which is the license I currently hold (and what I listed on my filing papers) and how I represented myself throughout the campaign.

But here’s the thing, the “pharmacist” designation wasn’t the result of a mistake by the County, it was specifically one of the options that Gorelick provided the County (and signed a sworn statement to the truthfulness of) in case “intern pharmacist” couldn’t be used for some reason. He listed “Pharmacist” ahead of “Student” which was a true designation. Here’s his ballot form:

Today, he’s back to trying to create this myth writing in a third post on the subject (they all say basically the same thing):

The fact is that I did, even as a student (let’s ignore the fact that I was a licensed intern pharmacist and never suggested otherwise) have more knowledge of health care than Leah Williams as a “Business Owner/Attorney”

Actually, lets ignore the fact that Elliott specifically told the county that he could be represented as a “Pharmacist” and the fact that their choosing to do so was not a mistake, but a result of his actions.

Gorelick admitted as much in an article that he would both benefit from the designation “pharmacist” in writing for the UCSF student paper where he worked:

 Of course, I’m not really a licensed pharmacist yet, but that is how the Alameda County Registrar of voters listed my profession on the ballot.

The problem isn’t so much that Gorelick fudged the truth in his filing (granted he claimed to be something that requires certification and licensing that he didn’t have, imagine if he claimed to be a Doctor, Lawyer or Pilot and wasn’t, somehow claiming to be a “Pharmacist” doesn’t set off the alarms that it probably should). The problem is having stepped in it, Gorelick is now on the attack blaming County staff for trusting his own campaign filings, blaming Williams for raising the issue, blaming a host of Alameda politicians for not standing up and supporting him (because Gorelick appears to believe that he’s not culpable here).

We elect people to be the voice of the community. The Hospital Board oversees million dollar budgets and we need to be able to trust that the people who are overseeing this process are able to rationally, and reasonably, make decisions with our money. Flat out attacking people publicly, especially calling them liars, etc. when ones arguments are based on falsehoods, is cause for significant concern.

I hadn’t intended to write about this issue. I asked Gorelick about this in the comment section of his blog, however it appears that the comment has been moderated, another sign of an attempt to hide the truth and cast aspersions on others for his own misdeeds.

At this point, Gorelick should be considering his role on the Board and whether he feels it’s appropriate for him to continue. It’s questionable whether his comments on the finances, etc. of the hospital, all based on his pre-conceived notion that the hospital be shuttered, aren’t convenient statements that misuse other facts to support his position.

Updated post: revised image to remove address info

I wanted to talk about the conversation around the leases, especially with Darcy Morrison running around claiming that Alameda Point has generated $126 million in net income over 12 years. As proof, she points to David “Action Alameda” Howard’s “analysis” of the ARRA’s cash flow analysis. That should have been her first tip off that she should check her math. The second should have been the overall post that she links to, which claims that Alameda Point is making money because they have revenue and then adds up a bunch of numbers that don’t mean what Howard claims they mean.

Morrison’s math, based on Howard’s sheet (and actually written on it) actually ignores $70 million in “Property Management Expenditures” (aka costs) which are clearly included in a line called “Total Expenditures” which totals $158 million. Of course, this line is wrong as well, Howard’s personal subtotals are missing over $3 million in costs because he forgot to total them.

I converted the PDF from Action Alameda (the base numbers are Howard’s, I’ve only corrected the totals and labels), it’s a google spreadsheet so you can see the math for yourself:

Second, Morrison and Howard manage to fall victim to some really bad labeling on the city’s part. The cash flow analysis shows two lines, “Total Lease Revenue” and “Total Revenue,” one of which is not what it says it is. “Total Lease Revenue” is the actual income from the Point.

“Total Revenue” should be labeled “Cash Balance after Revenue” because it is a combination of the Actual Revenue and the Beginning Fund Balance for the year (This is confirmed with Leslie Little at Development Services). Howard and Morrison are double counting $52 million as “revenue” the kind of accounting that got Enron in trouble.

Here’s what the City’s numbers show (I can’t figure out the 2005 numbers, so I’m starting in 2006).

2006 – Beginnig Fund Balance: $6,591,526

2017 – End Fund Balance: $3,167,008

Somehow, Morrison and Howard would like Alamedan’s to believe that despite the fact that Alameda Point will have lost $3.4 million over 12 years (without major capital expenditures like the FISC fire), the Point’s revenues “generally exceed the expense to maintain it.

As per usual, numbers, simple math and accounting comprehension escape David Howard, who Pat Bail says is “always 100% right on the facts” (some day I’ll dig up that video gem!)

The legal letter says:

“Attached hereto as Exhibit A are four pages from the Alameda Point Revitalization Initiative stating that there will be 3,182,000 square feet of commercial and business park development. Attached hereto as Exhibit B is Table 11-2 stating that there will be 2,515,000 square feet of commercial and business park development. The difference is 667,000 square feet. That is 20% of the higher number and 25% of the lower number. That is larger than the entire Alameda Towne Centre, the largest retail shopping center on Alameda Island at 657,000 square feet, and that is just the difference. This is too significant and material a mistake and discrepancy to be ignored.”

The letter goes on to say that this discrepancy is meaningful (I agree) and that initiative signers might feel that 2.5 msf of retail/commericial was just right, but that 3.2 msf is way too much. I highly doubt it, but it’s a valid point. But! The claim is completely, fundamentally, 3^rd-grade-math-and-reading(ly) incorrect.

It is true that Exhibit A shows four pages that mention 3,182,000 sf commercial and business park. The Specific Plan, backed by documents also says:

“…up to 350,000 square feet of retail uses and 3,182,000 square feet of other commercial and business park uses (including up to 500,000 square feet of adaptively reused space) and up to 260,000 square feet for civic/institutional uses;…”

So that’s:

The cited offending Table 11-2 does not say what this legal threat claims. I’ve cut and pasted it below. You can pull out your calculators and note that the non-residential column adds up to 3,792,000, just like the above list.

The claim is that this grid only lists 2.5msf in commercial and business park. A quick look at the table (and I’m going to suggest that whoever hired this lawyer just did a quick look) and you can see that the lines for land use codes AP-C and AP-BP add up to the 2.515 million in the letter.

Unfortunately for the folks hoping to have found a legal loophole to keep this off the ballot, there are five other lines in this table that list “non-residential” uses, including two that specifically that they are “mixed use” areas. And while planning jargon can be a little confusing at times, “Mixed Use” is probably one of the more plain spoken terms.

In fact, had the crack legal team that hired the lawyer to write the letter read just one page beyond the table (and I know, tables are pretty and easy to read and really should have every bit of info in them), they would have found the following descriptions:

Alameda Point – Preservation Mixed Use (AP-PMU)

…

It is envisioned to be a mixed-use area with an emphasis on providing adaptive reuse and compatible new construction to accommodate civic uses, housing, recreation, education, and various commercial and light industrial uses.

And then:

Alameda Point – Mixed Use (AP-MU)

…

This transit hub location is the most suitable location for high-density residential, offices, commercial entertainment, retail sales and services. In this district, vertically integrated uses would be an effective use of the land, with active uses on the street frontage. Outdoor cafes and similar storefront uses that activate the sidewalk are appropriate.

Now one can only wonder: “Who hired a lawyer to file such a poorly researched claim? Who could be so epically incorrect and yet so confident in his/her assertions that they would hire a law firm to send threats to the city?”

I personally believe that the fact that Action Alameda posted the letter gives a pretty good hint. But given what this might do to one’s credibility, I wouldn’t imagine they’ll be taking credit for it any time soon.

Epic Fail.

Here’s the full letter:

[issuu layout=http%3A%2F%2Fskin.issuu.com%2Fv%2Fcolor%2Flayout.xml backgroundcolor=FFFFFF showflipbtn=true autoflip=true autofliptime=6000 documentid=090611131607-00baaeb1992e40b6a5657755947ca115 docname=june2009attorneylettertocity username=jknoxwhite loadinginfotext=Letter%20to%20Alameda%20City%20Attorney showhtmllink=true tag=suncal width=420 height=273 unit=px]

Matarrese’s website, like a certain other news-themed internet site, doesn’t archive old posts, and only holds a single news item at any time. (Last week, and still today) it was “I’m having a community meeting!”) Which means that everytime he updates his site, the last post disappears into the ether. Using the logic that means that Matarrese no longer supports the Alameda Point plan, one would also have to say that Don Roberts has backed away from last Wednesday’s fact-challenged posting: “Jean Sweeney says Sun Cal’s Proposed Actions are Unconscionable” as a visit to his site finds it no longer there.

So I contacted Councilmember Matarrese, who sent me the original statement and reiterated that as of May 22 (when his email was sent) he’s still supporting the plan. Here’s his full statement:

Alameda voters will have a unique chance to approve a plan and development agreement for re-use of the former Alameda Naval Air Station now known as Alameda Point.  Suncal, the developer currently in exclusive negotiations with the City to develop Alameda Point, submitted language for a ballot initiative that will let the voters of Alameda have the final say on the plan for the revitaliation of Alameda Point. I reviewed and evaluated the pluses and minuses of the plan as submitted for voter approval and have decided to support it.  In my estimation, it provides the significant benefits for all of Alameda.

This plan ensures that Alameda Point will be cleaned up to a higher standard than the Navy is required to meet.  This will ensure that Alameda Point is safe once and for all.  The plan includes a variety of public amenities for us all to enjoy and benefit from, including a new ferry terminal, a 58-acre city sports complex, 145 acres of new parks, a new library, a school site, walking, hiking and biking trails. A key component of the plan is voter consideration of an amendment to city Charter section XXVI, to allow the building of condominiums or other multiple unit dwellings, but capping the number at 4826 units and restricting height and parking per city zoning regulations.  These amendments only apply to Alameda Point and do not overturn Measure A development restrictions in the rest of Alameda in any way.

Additionally, this plan includes the potential for creating 9000 jobs replacing a good number of the jobs lost when the based closed in busiesses that will strengthen Alameda’s economy.

We have studied base re-use for almost 12 years now. We cannot afford to let the base exist in its current condition any longer.  Aging buildings present safety hazards.  Aging infrastructure at Alameda Point is a growing burden for the city and us as taxpayers.  This revitalization plan is fiscally neutral – meaning it will pay for itself and does not require a subsidy from the city.  Over time, we expect that a revitalized Alameda Point will result in new tax revenues that will help stabilize the city and school distrit budget to protect programs, services and facilities that we all rely on and value.

I encourage you all to do your own evaluation of the plan.  After close review, I think you will agree that this plan is the result of years of careful planning and deserves our support.

{Edited to fix text errors}

]]> http://www.johnknoxwhite.com/2009/05/28/alameda-point-matarrese-still-in-support/feed/ 29 http://www.johnknoxwhite.com/2009/05/21/group-specs/?utm_source=rss&utm_medium=rss&utm_campaign=group-specs http://www.johnknoxwhite.com/2009/05/21/group-specs/#comments Thu, 21 May 2009 14:51:26 +0000 jknoxwhite http://johnknoxwhite.com/?p=835 Yet another group has popped up around the Point, that makes 2. Honestly, do Action Alameda, SOC!A, Citizens for a Better Alameda, Keep Measure A Committee expect us not to realize that the contacts for these groups are all the same people? Heck, Gretchen Lipow is listed as a key person for three of them! Add in the fact that she’s being quoted as members of “the Sierra Club,” “the League of Woman Voters,” and “the Green Party” as well and really, you can see the desperation of trying to look broader, bigger than actually is true. This is not to say that there aren’t other Sierra Club members or Green Party members who are also raising concerns, but seriously, the organized opposition to SunCal’s plan is being oversold.

Which brings us to Protect the Point (PP?) which includes one new voice, Dave Needle of the Fernside Homeowners Association and CLASS (airport noise lawsuit org). Both are organizations with good track records. Which is why I was surprised to see his group’s announcement riddled with errors and misinformation.

The One of the biggest of all was this hummer:

“The City, the Navy and the community worked for years to put together a plan. Just because SunCal wants to change that plan so it can make more money, does not mean we, the citizens, should mortgage our City’s future.”

Neither the ARRA, nor the City Council has ever adopted a plan for the Point. The last developer (APCP) presented a plan and the ARRA accepted it, meaning they said “thanks.” Anyone attending the meeting will remember that not one ARRA member, or member of the public rose to talk about how great the plan was, and in fact much of the discussion on the dais and on the floor was about the need to continue studying other designs.

The plan was financially infeasible and APCP backed out of the deal. Had the PDC been viable, it would be underway. The PDC was not the plan that The City, the Navy and the community worked for years” on. It was a plan designed by a single family homebuilder to maximize single family homes above all else, it did not meet the goals of the community planning processes actually adopted by the ARRA and the City Council, it thumbed its nose at them.

Everyone will remember the tragedy of Dr. Attari, who drove off the end of Grand Street into the Estuary. Her death prompted a lawsuit against the city for $30 million.

Now some people in this city have tried to make political hay out of the tragedy, and even resorted to claiming that the city was on the verge of bankruptcy because of it. (you have to stretch when you’re original claims are resoundingly debunked!)

Well the suit has been settled. For $2.25 million. And, as reported by Michele at The Island, the amount is covered by the California Joint Powers Risk Management Authority, thus no drain on the city’s general fund, and thus, no bankruptcy. (It really must get tiring being oh so wrong, oh so often).

And thus concludes another sad chapter in Alameda.

Apparently someone else watched the SOC!A video about Alameda Point and realized that all their photos showing open space at Alameda Point were in locations that SunCal’s Master Plan has slated for Open Space, making the point of the video a bit pointless (pun intended).

Here’s the email and video:

Media Advisory!

Save Our Future! Alameda joins the many voices in the debate about preserving open space at Alameda Point

We agree with the many, many community groups (there’s at least one with three
different names!) that are pushing for parks and open space at Alameda Point, we must preserve it.

SaveOurFutureAlameda has put together a new commercial:

Yes to Open Space At Alameda Point

Inform yourself about the SunCal proposal on the November Ballot!

It seems that there is a small group of people who are upset at the signature gatherers not standing on street corners yelling, “will you sign this initiative to put measure a for the whole city on the ballot thereby ruining our small-town community.” So I was extremely surprised, when I heard the following acknowledgement in a pitch for the mythical industrial/open space only plan:

Apparently, the proposal heading toward the ballot will result in a higher level of environmental cleanup.