Journal Morro Bay Candidate Endorsements

by Jack McCurdy

Morro Bay has two candidates in the June 8 primary who fit the bill: Betty Winholtz for Mayor and Jack Smith for City Council.

Both are crystal clear in their outlook about how to serve the community, not in just nebulous terms but in concrete "how to" ways. Both have clear and enterprising ideas on how to deal with the issues at hand, mainly the shortage of revenue to balance the city budget in this recession.

Winholtz has an abundance of experience in the complexities of making city government work effectively for residents and businesses. Smith is an experienced business owner and former chamber of commerce manager in another state, who knows how to fathom a budget.

Both are clear—explicit is more to the point—in expressing their views or answering questions. You can understand where they are going.

Based on her nearly eight years of experience on the City Council, Winholtz has clear ideas on ways to cope with the maze of obstacles that obstruct the goal of attaining a well-operated, efficient and economically-run city that serves residents and businesses alike. Smith stands out based on his ideas of innovation to increase people coming to Morro Bay and generating income for businesses and revenue for the city—through eco-tourism: surfing, fishing, hiking, mountain biking, sailing, kayaking, road cycling, mountain biking and the "new" sport of stand-up paddle surfing. No one else has put forth such a vision. And he has already succeeded in doing it and wants to do more on a larger scale.

Listen closely to Council meetings, read some of those staff reports, talk to Council members and staff or residents who pay really close attention, and you will likely come away thinking this city—like any government agency or business—needs innovation, not for show but to provide the community what it deserves in return for its investment of tax money. Listen to what the candidates had to say at the debate, read their websites or—if that is too demanding—review the report in this issue of the Journal about their campaigns, and you likely will see the contrast between what Winholtz and Smith are proposing—taking initiatives, trying new ideas and talking specifics—and the rest of the tired-old, same-old.

The others engage in the grandiose—cutting the budget more and searching for more revenue—with few details on how to make that work without impinging upon services to residents and possibly, or even likely, spending reserve funds to generate more dollars for the city—even though all the candidates are united against using reserves.

Winholtz stands alone in advocating "more efficient, more effective with less" and "how we use volunteers more effectively" and "better oversight of staff projects to reduce waste, a review of hiring and promotion, reduce staff through attrition and staff reorganization." These aren't flashy things, like dressing up the Embarcadero, a week-long boat parade, or alluring signs along Highway 1. But they may be a lot more doable—and affordable and effective. And why would she suggest this course, if she hadn't seen plenty of need inside City Hall? But no one else talks about it.

Only someone who has been inside city government for a number of years and can think accordingly—seeing solutions to problems at hand—and would take that practical tact. People can understand it because they live it every day—having to cut back when the money has or is going to run short. It will pay off a lot sooner than just going out and looking for new or additional income, as the other candidates are hung up on, with little certainty that it will pay off within the short time frame in which results are needed.

She also stands alone in asking residents to hold elected city officials accountable and for those officials to respond to and address the concerns of residents. For their part, she has urged residents to get involved, write emails and letters to Council, attend forums and meetings and subscribe to the city's notification list. It sounds a lot like working together, doesn't it?

Another mayoral candidate, Rick Grantham, serving the end of his one term as a Council member, doesn't seem to have much in the way of ideas about city finances and the budget. During the debate, the gist of his comment on the budget was "we need to find new revenue sources." Maybe that is missing something he has to offer. But on his website, there is nothing about what most would probably agree is the most pressing problem facing the city. Listening to him and looking at his website, he seems to concentrate on promoting his police and military careers and wrapping himself in the flag.

Neil Farrell, the newspaper editor and reporter, has ideas on just about everything, but his facts are sometimes suspect. He told a Business and Community Forum on May 20 that "property values here haven't dropped," which would be surprising to anyone involved in real estate. He said during the candidates debate that "government employees are guaranteed raises and cost of living adjustments automatically, whether they are doing the job or not." Is the city the only agency or private business around that does not follow the standard practice of requiring employees to do their jobs and meet certain performance standards in order to get paid? If he can document his opinion, that's worth an article he hasn't written.

His credibility also may be exposed. He told the Forum that he "moved back to town for the purpose of running for office," which seems close to the definition of a carpetbagger. Farrell continues to write articles under his byline and presumably edit stories about the city in which he is campaigning for public office, raising the question of an ethical conflict of interest.

Professor Bill Loving, chair of the journalism department at Cal Poly, was asked about that, and here is his observation: "On the face of the situation, it could be a conflict of interest. If a candidate is also reporting on the office he or she is seeking, there could be a question about the coverage that might be affected either consciously or subconsciously in the minds of readers. I remember one instance at a newspaper of a reporter running for city council. He was given the choice of either stop reporting or not running for office. The newspaper would not allow him to do both because of the perceptions it could create. It is important for the professional media to maintain a reputation as being unaffected by political affiliation or party ideology. It harms what we do and harms democracy." He agreed that Farrell's situation could undermine that reputation.

Bill Yates served three terms as mayor. He was turned out of office in 2004 by losing his bid for reelection to current mayor Janice Peters. When he left office, he was seen by a number of people as the most unpopular mayor in memory. It stemmed mainly from his demeanor in presiding over the Council at meetings, which was often unfriendly bordering on hostile. He reportedly vented his anger at fellow Council members and top staff in private. In one public incident, he verbally attacked former city manager Robert Hendrix during a Council meeting.

In her comments on the primary election in the May 1 issue, Peters said publicly what others have expressed privately about Yates' deportment as mayor: when "elected to a third term . . .  his temper tantrums both in public and closed sessions, and his bullying of city staff, were detrimental to city operations and morale. His chauvinism was obvious in his treatment of female council members and was made blatantly clear in his blog during the last election, when three of four candidates for mayor were female and Yates stated that the male candidate was the only one who 'looks like a mayor.'"

Former mayor and Council member Gene Shelton said he "perceived Yates to be a strong and forceful leader who was aloof and distant to a significant sector of the community—the environmentally concerned. Because of his aloofness, his principle failing is that he seemed to exclude the opinions and concerns of people who wanted leadership regarding growth and density, water resources, traffic density, and quality of life."

On some key issues that have confronted the Council over the past several years, Winholtz and Grantham took different sides. Winholtz opposed the highly-controversial redevelopment agency proposal last year and made the motion to table it, which was adopted by a 3-2 vote, and Grantham voted no, supporting the proposed redevelopment plan. Winholtz strongly supports inviting PERC Water and other companies to make public presentations about their alternative approaches to building a wastewater plant upgrade. Grantham has opposed it, although he has been meeting privately with three other Joint Powers Agreement board members where PERC Water plans have been reviewed. Winholtz had emphasized the need for the public to be given the opportunity to hear any alternatives for the plant upgrade.

On two current controversial budget issues, Winholtz opposes reducing the level of services provided by Dial-A-Ride and is against ceasing the telecasting of all advisory board meetings, except for the Council and the Planning Commission, to save funds. And Grantham supports both cutbacks.

Among other Council candidates, Nancy Johnson, D'Onna Kennedy and George Leage have expressed their views on the budget, tourism, business development and ways to generate funds for the city in very general terms, which makes them mostly indistinguishable. On the wastewater treatment plant, however, the four Council candidates do fall into two camps. Johnson and Leage are against considering alternatives to the conventional development now in the planning stage, while Kennedy and Smith would favor examining the PERC Water technology and other alternatives before making a final decision.

[Editor's Note: These endorsements are not the choices of all staff members of the Journal.]

Belted Kingfisher image on banner by Cleve Nash