A hot scoop or not? | The Observer | Roz Rogoff | DanvilleSanRamon.com |

Local Blogs

The Observer

By Roz Rogoff

About this blog: In January 2002 I started writing my own online "newspaper" titled "The San Ramon Observer." I reported on City Council meetings and other happenings in San Ramon. I tried to be objective in my coverage of meetings and events, and...  (More)

View all posts from Roz Rogoff

A hot scoop or not?

Uploaded: Dec 9, 2014

I received an email from a source that County Supervisor Candace Andersen announced her plans NOT to run for re-election in 2016. This sounded like it could be big news and I'm always on the lookout for a scoop.

I phoned Councilman Dave Hudson last night to see what he knew about it and he didn't know anything about it. But as often happens when I call Dave, we chatted on the phone for over an hour about a variety of things including opposition to the Tassajara Valley Cemetery (it's all about property values) and why Steve Glazer should run for Mark DeSaulnier's State Senate seat. Hudson said Glazer is the smartest guy he knows and would be a better Senator than the two prospective candidates, Joan Buchanan and Susan Bonilla.

I still wanted to write my blog about Supervisor Andersen, but I needed to see if the other local papers were carrying the story. I did a Google search on Supervisor Andersen just in case there was a story in the Contra Costa Times or one of the other local papers about her announcement that she isn't planning to run in 2016.

Instead the search linked to "Re-elect Supervisor Andersen 2016." I thought it was strange she would have a re-election website up if she just announced she wasn't going to run. So I phoned the number on the website this afternoon. She returned my call almost immediately and quashed that rumor. She is definitely planning to run for reelection in 2016.

I also asked her about the raise the Supervisors voted for themselves, which she voted against and has declined to accept. "How can you not accept it?" I asked. She answered, "I executed a waver with the Contra Costa Treasurer to exempt myself from the 33% raise," which was voted on by the other four County Supervisors. She did, however, accept the 4% raise offered to other County workers.

Two of the Contra Costa County employees' unions are not happy about the Supervisors' raise either. Public Employees Union Local 1 and the Contra Costa County Deputy Sheriffs Association are gathering signatures to put a referendum on the ballot to overturn the big pay hike granted by our County representatives for themselves.

Supervisor Andersen encourages residents to sign the petitions. The unions need to gather 25,000 signatures by January 2, 2015 for the pay hike to go to a vote.
What is it worth to you?


Posted by San Ramon Observer, a resident of San Ramon,
on Dec 10, 2014 at 12:55 pm

San Ramon Observer is a registered user.

Important Update!

When Supervisor Andersen said the unions need to gather 25,000 signatures before January 2nd to put the referendum against the salary increase to the voters, I interpreted that as support for the petition.

I received an email from Supervisor Andersen this morning clarifying her position on the the unions' referendum against the Supervisors' raise.

"Although I voted against the Board of Supervisors? pay raise, am not accepting it, and I strongly support the right of anyone to bring a referendum on any board action, I have not encouraged (or discouraged) individuals from signing the petition and am not involved in the referendum campaign."


Posted by Harald Paul Arthur Balle, a resident of Alamo,
on Dec 11, 2014 at 9:34 am

Dear Ms. Rogoff,

Are you sure the response referenced above was from Ms. Andersen, or was it actually written by her campaign director (and Chief of Staff) Ms. Gayle Israel?


Posted by San Ramon Observer, a resident of San Ramon,
on Dec 11, 2014 at 1:31 pm

San Ramon Observer is a registered user.


Supervisor Andersen emailed the correction to me. So I reported it as coming from her.


Posted by Messenger, a resident of another community,
on Dec 12, 2014 at 10:59 am

Some board members don?t understand, or are unwilling to accept, that in order for the majority to rule the minority must support decisions with which it disagrees. When these board members find themselves on the losing end of a vote on an issue about which they feel strongly, they continue the battle, taking their disappointment into the community and seeking from owners the support they were unable to win from other board members. They rail against the decision, accuse the board?s majority of acting irresponsibly and encourage owners to protest the offending policy or ignore it.
This behavior undermines the board?s decision-making process and breeds dissatisfaction and dissension in the community. Instead of being a unifying force, these dissenters create tensions or exacerbate them, and the damage they do over time can?t be overstated.
The Duty of Loyalty
How should boards respond? Ideally, they should try to prevent these situations from developing in the first place by educating board members about their role, making sure they understand that their fiduciary duty.

Follow this blogger.
Sign up to be notified of new posts by this blogger.



Post a comment

Sorry, but further commenting on this topic has been closed.

Stay informed.

Get the day's top headlines from DanvilleSanRamon.com sent to your inbox in the Express newsletter.

California must do a better job spending cap-and-trade revenue
By Sherry Listgarten | 3 comments | 1,938 views

Tri-Valley Nonprofit Alliance grew from chance meeting
By Tim Hunt | 0 comments | 1,167 views