I'd like to have answers to those questions too. Maybe the "scandal" can be explained by incompetence, but there's also the possibility that malfeasance was involved, and that would be far worse than scandalous.

What really got my blood boiling was Lee Duboc -- one of the council majority that pushed for privatization because of financial woes that now turn out to be bogus -- whining about how the voters had been misled about the city's financial status when they went to the polls to vote on the utility tax. The "misleading" was the fault -- get this -- NOT of the COUNCIL MAJORITY, of course, but of those naughty city staffers. Disgusting.

There's actually a perfectly plausible explanation for how we got into this mess. The old council majority wanted to cut/privatize certain programs, getting rid of city staff in the process. Our dear city manager went along by producing ultra-conservative budgets that projected huge deficits - perfect political cover.

But with the "other side" (principally Fergusson) pushing for a tax increase instead of cuts, while their target of privatizing childcare was meeting fierce opposition from parents, the majority (through Ms. Winkler who made this proposal) decided to cut what they thought was a low-risk deal with Fergusson/Cohen at one particular council meeting last year, saying: We'll put a tax measure on the ballot if you get on board in looking at privatizing childcare before the November elections.

Problem was, they never in a million years thought the UUT would pass, but they did such a good "gloom-and-doom" job that it did (barely) pass (and remember, our beloved former Mayor came out with the "newly projected" surplus announcement just before the elections, so they must have realized that they had gone overboard and the UUT might actually pass).

Now with the UUT in place (and a new council evidently willing to spend it, save for John Boyle), we're stuck with it.

The way I see it: Just one last “kick-in-the-pants” from the old majority (although at least this time they didn't intend it to be one).

ElectionWatcher's possible scenario could well be how the whole mess unfolded, but it still doesn't let Lee Duboc off the hook. As far as I'm concerned, the entire council of that period bears responsibility for not demanding better financial data from Boesch. But for Duboc to stand up in public and bemoan the fact that the voters were misled without acknowledging her role in the farce and offering a mea culpa is outrageous. And, as I said earlier, disgusting.

I'm also disgusted with what has unfolded and the disingenuous position former Councilmembers have taken. They deliberately ignored a golden opportunity to make progress on a legitimate budgeting process and meaningful financial analysis. They also misled the public in several ways. During the campaign season, they claimed that they had balanced the budget but neglected to mention they had not spent anything for too-long-deferred infrastructure improvements from the General Fund (normally $2 million minimum). Then they included it in the budget forecast for this year, the basis of the budget survey and decision to seek the UUT. Yet, neither budget includes set-asides for unfunded liabilities. They also claim that the UUT is not needed when they know full well that city services have been cut to the bone. No traffic enforcement, limited library hours.
One reason for conservative budgets is that, by law, the city must present a balanced budget. I'm not surprised that these often are wrong. However, this doesn't excuse city management (staff and Council) from evaluating the city's financial picture more broadly. And it doesn't excuse them from taking advantage of citizen talent to help in that process.

Last year, Councilmember Cohen proposed a citizen Budget Advisory Committee to help the Council with the budget challenges. In their infinite "wisdom", staff and Councilmembers Jellins, Duboc, and Winkler appointed the BAC but explicitly limited its scope to assisting with the budget survey. Along the way, the BAC made numerous recommendations about the need to evaluate the city's long-term obligations and revenue potential. Despite the investment these citizens and staff made to understand better the city's finances, the Council refused to allow the BAC to continue with any work. I'm hopeful the new Council will get moving on this. What a wasted opportunity otherwise.

Well some insiders got some infrastructure upgrades. Just drive down Bay Laurel drive, going west from San Mateo Drive. Note how the street was repaved a year ago between Dubocs, McClures, Matteson, Jrs., Boesch (one house in from Matteson on Cotton) when other streets in the area, and throughout town go neglected and will cost double now because they have deteriorated so much that it's too late for seal coating. Former Public Works director Steffens is interim city mgr., so ask him at the next council mtg. public comment who authorized this repaving ahead of others in greater need. Also, ask him why Don Dey, the former M.P. Traffic Engineer, who many feel was the henchman for developers, and no supporter of neighborhood traffic mitigations, is ghost writing staff Trans.Div. reports as a consultant on local neighborhood traffic issues. Don't expect the current mayor to ask the tough questions, me thinks she wants to be a county supervisor(?) when her term's up.