Editorial Re-elect Sheriff Smith While Laurie Smith has her flaws, union-backed challenger would not be an improvement
C
alifornia’s system of electing county sheriffs, especially in metropolitan areas, does not generally serve the public well. Santa Clara County is a good example of this, where most of the votes cast are from voters in cities served by local police departments and where the only interest in the sheriff is to make sure the jails are running smoothly and the courts are secure. The sheriff’s office is responsible for law enforcement in all unincorporated county lands (except for Stanford, where a unique arrangement delegates authority to the University’s own private police force), plus three smaller cities (Los Altos Hills, Saratoga and Cupertino), which contract with the sheriff for police services. The current campaign being waged by retired sheriff’s captain Kevin Jensen against Sheriff Smith demonstrates why a better system would be for county boards of supervisors to hire a sheriff rather than having them elected. Through mailings, robo phone calls and anonymous blog postings, Jensen and his supporters are slinging lots of accusations against Smith with little substance to back them up. They have cherry-picked and distorted some inartfully handled incidents during Smith’s 12 years in office, but their overriding argument is that deputies don’t like her or her management style and believe she lacks “vision” for the department. Not surprisingly, this criticism won Jensen the backing and financial support of the deputy sheriffs’ union and the union of correctional officers, as well as most of the unions of city police departments and a contingent of retired police chiefs, including former Palo Alto chief Lynn Johnson. Smith enjoys the support and respect of all five county supervisors, including Joe Simitian, and a long list of elected officials. Perhaps most significant is the fact she has been endorsed by almost every councilmember in the three cities that contract with the sheriff for police services, in other words, her customers. With no one other than deputy sheriffs complaining about Smith’s management abilities, the public has little reason to turn Smith out of office. The county supervisors who approve her budget and most closely monitor her work and the cities that directly receive services from her department agree she is doing a good, competent job. Jensen, who retired last year at age 50 after 28 years in the department, is able to draw the maximum pension of approximately $150,000 a year. The sheriff earns roughly $240,000 a year. Jensen has had a long and distinguished career with the sheriff’s department, but we are uncomfortable with his campaign tactics, union backing and distorted criticisms of the incumbent. And we find little to fault in Smith’s tenure except for her occasional missteps that stem more from a lack of political polish and public communication skills than from a deficiency in her management ability. We recommend the re-election of Santa Clara County Sheriff Laurie Smith.
A
Yes on Prop. 42
lthough Proposition 42 faces only token opposition, its passage is critically important to fix a problem that threatens the transparency of local government operations in California. The measure, approved without a dissenting vote by both the state Assembly and Senate, will amend the Constitution to make local governments responsible for the costs of making their official documents available to the public. Under current law, because complying with the Public Records Act is considered a state mandate, the state must reimburse local governments for their costs. While many, if not most, local agencies don’t bother to seek reimbursement because the costs are so small, the reimbursement process has led to confusion and, recently, to a brief suspension of the law due to the state financial situation. Prop. 42 makes clear that cost should never be a factor in whether local governments comply with the Public Records Act. As we have seen many times locally, the Public Records Act is an essential tool to ensure public accountability and sunshine on the workings of government. We urge a “yes” vote on Proposition 42.
Page 20ÊUÊ >ÞÊ£È]ÊÓä£{ÊUÊ*> Ê Ì Ê7ii ÞÊUÊÜÜÜ°*> Ì " i°V
Spectrum Editorials, letters and opinions
Greedy for labor Editor, The “Immigrant Valley” (4/24/14) article by Elena Kadvany is one-sided and on many important aspects, inaccurate. First, Intel was founded by Bob Noyce and Gordon Moore. Budapest-born Andy Grove was an early employee and later chairman, but not a founder. Second, Moscow-born Sergey Brin accompanied his parents who left the Soviet Union with him in the late 1970s when he was 6. Maybe there was some entrepreneurial magic in breathing Moscow air at birth, but his formative years and education were entirely in the U.S. The origins of many Silicon Valley firms trace back to people like Terman, Hewlett, Packard, Varian Brothers, Rock, et al., who were all Americans. The concept that the valley now needs a massive influx of H-1B visa holders (who are not technically immigrants) is a relatively recent concept. U.C. Davis computer science professor Prof. Norm Matloff (web search on Matloff H-1B), who has written extensively on this subject, says, “The H-1B work visa is fundamentally about cheap, de facto indentured labor.” The sidebar in the article on immigration lawyers reminds one of Ambrose Bierce’s definition of a lawyer: “one skilled in the circumvention of the law.” U.S. immigration law is complex and that is exactly the way such lawyers want it, allowing lucrative billings for its circumvention. As for the fine European H-1B hopefuls in the article from Germany, Belgium and Poland, it is unfortunate those economies don’t afford them the opportunities they seek. But U.S. citizens are under no obligation to step aside to accommodate them or to satiate Google’s, Yahoo’s, Microsoft’s or Facebook’s greedy clamoring for cheap labor. Art Dent Sheridan Avenue, Palo Alto
Hazardous and ugly Editor, Shaila Sadrozinski’s commentary in Monday’s Post, “Parking hazard,” while a tad overdramatized, certainly reached a sympathetic “ear.” Ms. Sadrozinski correctly pointed out that the layout of the new Grocery Outlet is, or can be, hazardous. My only complaint about the layout is simply that I don’t like it. OK, I’ll admit that my opinion might — correctly — not be viewed as a valid one. But wait — there’s more!
I live a few blocks from the Grocery Outlet, but Miki’s, it’s predecessor, posed the same crummy layout, so I didn’t have much hope for Miki’s successor. Miki’s demise was attributed to its overreach; that is, our community didn’t need another high-end grocery store, therefore we didn’t patronize Miki’s. Nah — it was the butted-up-tothe-street layout of the building, and the “alleyway” entrance that we were required to navigate to gain access to the store — that’s what did in Miki’s. I hope that our community will recognize that architecture that jams buildings up against the street is impractical, ugly and unacceptable. Ruben Contreras Waverley Street, Palo Alto
Grand Boulevard Editor, What a crock! Vertical stack and pack ... public transport for the masses (if you’re young and frisky and don’t require a bench for sitting and waiting for the bus to come) ... God help you if some thug attacks you while en route ... But cities love it cause it’s a money maker for them ... ABAG — you have done us wrong! Barbara Goodwin Middlefield Road, Mountain View
Sending dead trees Editor, If the Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District is serious about passing Measure AA on June 3, they and their political associates should stop spending money on sending us dead trees (in the form of multiple political mailers). Instead, convene an emergency meeting and vote to eliminate their own compensation, including health benefits, effective immediately. This would demonstrate their commitment to fiscal prudence. I will hold onto my ballot until May 20, see if they respond. Margaret Fruth El Camino Way, Palo Alto
Protecting wrong party Editor, I find it disturbing that PAUSD would simply move a teacher, with “substantiated” sexual harassment allegations against him, from one school to another. I find it even more disturbing that he was moved from a high school to a middle school, in a special education environment, where younger students might not be as able to stand up for themselves and are less aware of boundaries. PAUSD is sheltering and protecting the wrong party. Suzanne Jacobs South Court, Palo Alto
WHAT DO YOU THINK? The Palo Alto Weekly encourages comments on our coverage or on issues of local interest.
Should the Palo Alto Fire Department charge additional fees for medical calls? Submit letters to the editor of up to 300 words to letters@paweekly.com. Submit guest opinions of 1,000 words to editor@paweekly.com. Include your name, address and daytime phone number so we can reach you. We reserve the right to edit contributions for length, objectionable content, libel and factual errors known to us. Anonymous letters will generally not be accepted. Submitting a letter to the editor or guest opinion constitutes a granting of permission to the Palo Alto Weekly and Embarcadero Media to also publish it online, including in our online archives and as a post on Town Square. For more information contact Editor Jocelyn Dong or Editorial Assistant Sam Sciolla at editor@paweekly.com or 650-326-8210.