The ETA blog has been upgraded and new posts can be found here.

Importing the old content was not a viable option and the current blog will remain as an archive.

Download (drag) to Enlarge

Gaspar's contributions were unusual for a council candidate. Her contribution base was dominated by contributions from outside the city. Her local contributions were dominated (84%) by real estate development interests.

To date, the ETA has not received submissions from any of the candidates to be published in response to our candidate guide.

The Encinitas Taxpayers Association held candidate interviews on September 12, 2010. We ranked each of the candidates based on their responses to our questions, their record, and using position statements found on their websites.

Council Member Barth and candidate Kranz actively participated in the policy discussions. Mayor Dalager refused to participate. He has taken positions in opposition to the ETA’s recent campaigns regarding deceptive tax increases and development rezoning. We ranked him based on his record.

Candidate Kristin Gaspar has no policy positions on her website. Before she filed as a candidate, she promised to answer our questions after she had filed. Now she has refused to participate in policy discussions under any terms. She earns low marks for being secretive about her perspectives on almost all issues. The ETA is wary of candidates who hide their positions from the voters.

The ETA provides a synopsis of the candidates’ positions so voters can develop their own rankings. ETA rankings are provided as a point of reference for citizens.

We will print any response from the council candidates in full. Candidate responses will be linked on the ETA home page and here in the ETA blog. You can sign up for ETA advisories to get an email notification that candidates have responded.

Download Full Set of Questions and Answers

Download Candidate Ratings and Q&A Highlights

A Look Back at 2005
Encinitas workers get improved salaries, benefits
The City Council brought finality to months of negotiations Wednesday by approving 3.2 percent raises and increases to health and retirement benefits for city staffers...

Bussey said the premiums Encinitas pays to the California Public Employee Retirement System could increase with downturns in the economy.

Encinitas approves worker's contracts
James Bond cast the dissenting vote in the 4-1 decision to approve the contract. Bond said he was concerned that the increase in city contribution to employee pension funds might cause financial strain in the future.

Encinitas must stand with taxpayers
"In Encinitas, the City Council is scheduled to vote on a pay package that would give a staggering 35 percent raise to city workers in the form of a lavish, lifetime boost in their retirement incomes. For good measure, ordinary wages would rise 3.2 percent annually for three years. All this comes as the state government wrestles with billions of dollars in projected deficits, a precarious condition that threatens the fiscal health of local governments."

Encinitas pays city employees well and wisely, by Jerome Stocks
"The employees, not the city, will assume the lion's share of the increased cost of the pension plan enhancement"

Current Situation
The city pension projections assume a 7.75% yearly rate of return and a 3% rate of inflation. We have not found rates of return for secure investment instruments anywhere near a guaranteed 8%, in the private market. Any resulting shortfall will have to come from the taxpayers. Coming hyperinflation is a concern among many economists.

We have been unable to find the city's pension documents online.

Dan Dalager, Jerome Stocks, Jim Bond, and Maggie Houlihan no longer have copies of the memo about the Pavement Management Report sent to them by the City Engineer. The email was clearly about city business and had a substantive description of the status of the report. It also indicates that that report has already been reviewed and revised.

Additionally, Dan Dalager no longer has the correspondence asking for his assistance in avoiding taking the Pavement Management Report issue into the courts (he never responded).

It appears that the City Council (minus Barth) has made it a policy and practice to destroy important correspondence.

Why would the Council destroy a memo from the Director of Engineering about the status of a $100,000 contract?

Public records are suppose to be retained. The law requires it.

According to the City Clerk's office, the City does not archive email or have a repository of emails somewhere other than attached to council member's personal mailbox. It is incredibly easy and inexpensive to create such an archive. Some cities even post up all their council's email (e.g. Palo Alto).

The City has been playing games with electronic public records for years. In 2004, during a council meeting City Attorney Glen Sabine told the council he would write a secret memo to the council about their policy of email destruction. (Why should the law be secret?)

Is it legal to destroy correspondence that is related to city business, like the Pavement Report Memo or my letter?

Calaware states that the council majority is violating the law and that there are criminal penalties for the violations. From state law:

6200. Every officer having the custody of any record, map, or book, or of any paper or proceeding of any court, filed or deposited in any public office, or placed in his or her hands for any purpose, is punishable by imprisonment in the state prison for two, three, or four years if, as to the whole or any part of the record, map, book, paper, or proceeding, the officer willfully does or permits any other
person to do any of the following:
(a) Steal, remove, or secrete.
(b) Destroy, mutilate, or deface.
(c) Alter or falsify.

6201. Every person not an officer referred to in Section 6200, who is guilty of any of the acts specified in that section, is punishable by imprisonment in the state prison, or in a county jail not exceeding one year, or by a fine not exceeding one thousand dollars ($1,000), or by both such fine and imprisonment.

These are the Government Code records retention statutes governing cities:

34090. Unless otherwise provided by law, with the approval of the legislative body by resolution and the written consent of the city attorney the head of a city department may destroy any city record, document, instrument, book or paper, under his charge, without making
a copy thereof, after the same is no longer required.
This section does not authorize the destruction of:
(a) Records affecting the title to real property or liens thereon.
(b) Court records.
(c) Records required to be kept by statute.
(d) Records less than two years old.
(e) The minutes, ordinances, or resolutions of the legislative body or of a city board or commission.
This section shall not be construed as limiting or qualifying in any manner the authority provided in Section 34090.5 for the destruction of records, documents, instruments, books and papers in accordance with the procedure therein prescribed.

34090.5. Notwithstanding the provisions of Section 34090, the city officer having custody of public records, documents, instruments, books, and papers, may, without the approval of the legislative body or the written consent of the city attorney, cause to be destroyed any or all of the records, documents, instruments, books, and papers, if all of the following conditions are complied with:
(a) The record, paper, or document is photographed,
microphotographed, reproduced by electronically recorded video images on magnetic surfaces, recorded in the electronic data processing system, recorded on optical disk, reproduced on film or any other medium that is a trusted system and that does not permit additions, deletions, or changes to the original document, or reproduced on film, optical disk, or any other medium in compliance with Section 12168.7 for recording of permanent records or nonpermanent records.
(b) The device used to reproduce the record, paper, or document on film, optical disk, or any other medium is one which accurately and legibly reproduces the original thereof in all details and that does not permit additions, deletions, or changes to the original document
images.
(c) The photographs, microphotographs, or other reproductions on film, optical disk, or any other medium are made as accessible for public reference as the original records were.
(d) A true copy of archival quality of the film, optical disk, or any other medium reproductions shall be kept in a safe and separate place for security purposes.
However, no page of any record, paper, or document shall be destroyed if any page cannot be reproduced on film with full legibility. Every unreproducible page shall be permanently preserved in a manner that will afford easy reference.
For the purposes of this section, every reproduction shall be deemed to be an original record and a transcript, exemplification, or certified copy of any reproduction shall be deemed to be a transcript, exemplification, or certified copy, as the case may be, of the original.

The council majority is well known for ignoring the law even when the public cries foul. Example: Prop C.

Kevin Cummins