Abundant thanks to Henry Organ for criticizing the San Mateo County Supervisors for their recent decision not to put the district election issue on the November ballot. Once again he has managed to cut through the blather of self congratulation by the four supervisors who have never had to run a competitive contest for their seats on the Board.

They apparently do not have much confidence in the County's voters to pick qualified representatives, preferring instead the unions, political consultants, developers and the North County machine to perpetuate their careers.

Thank You, Henry Organ for your time served and saying it like it is.
I attended several meetings including the first where I said " This is the whitest group of people I've seen." "This group does not represent the San Mateo County I know." I was talking about the handpicked 16 member Charter Review Committee.

Thank You, Henry for being the only member of the committee to speak up and remind the committee about the Grand Jury Report as they were being lead down a different path.

There is a small group of SMC people who don't seem to care what the Grand Jury thinks, They just happen to be our Supervisors.

Short List: Mark Church, Rose J. Gibson, Adrienne Tissier, Carole Groom, don't forget Jerry Hill

This was published 7/30/2010 on the SMDJ website version of the paper but not in print version for some unknown reason, maybe not enough space, I waited to see if it was print version today it was not.

Not to be trusted
July 30, 2010, 02:52 AM By Sean Foote

Voters cannot be trusted, according to the Board of Supervisors. Voters will not decide how to hire our Board of Supervisors. Voters will not be asked how to hire an investor for our $2.8 billion county investment fund. Contrary to the recommendations of both the civil grand jury and the 2010 San Mateo Charter Review Committee, the supervisors have decided for us.
Voters are prohibited from deciding whether supervisors should be elected “at-large” or “by district.” Through six months, 13 meetings, 600 document pages and 75 public speakers, the charter committee debated and analyzed the relative merits of at-large elections versus district elections. Let me save your eyes 30 hours of meeting video: neither system is perfect. District advocates claim better local representation. At-large advocates claim better governing for the common good. Both are right. From city council to the U.S. Congress, this is the tension of representative democracy. Regardless of which system you favor, your opinion doesn’t matter. The issue will not be on the ballot this November. Despite being trusted with the decision in 1978 and 1980, modern voters are perhaps perceived as not responsible enough to decide how best to hire the Board of Supervisors. Your Board of Supervisors knows best how to hire themselves. Voters are also prohibited from deciding whether to appoint a professional or elect a politician to manage the $2.8 billion investment account of San Mateo County. The charter committee and grand jury both recommended that financial positions be appointed, similar to other technical positions like county counsel and county manager.
The county’s $2.8 billion in investments is $11,000 per county household and more investments than some Fortune 500 companies. You wouldn’t hire money managers based on campaign mailers and stump speeches. Neither would the Fortune 500. Our elected money managers lost $155 million last year versus the $1 million lost by the appointed treasurer in Santa Clara County. Whether you prefer election or appointment of the county’s financial heads, it doesn’t matter. Your opinion will not be asked. The supervisor’s lack of trust in voters, the grand jury, and the charter committee, should be enough to invoke action in us, to demand our votes be counted. If not, if we do nothing, then the Board of Supervisors might be right. Maybe we aren’t to be trusted.

Sean Foote is the chairman of the 2010 San Mateo County Charter Review Committee.