Why I’m voting for the challengers this election.

Change is sorely needed in Hercules, and voters have the opportunity to exact change on Election Day next Tuesday, Nov. 2.

Change for the sake of change is not a wise approach, but that is not the dilemma confronting Hercules voters this year. The two incumbents—Kris Valstad and Joe Eddy McDonald—have only exacerbated residents’ fears that they’ve been asleep at the switch and provide discerning voters no other choice than a complete rebuke of their terms in office. Fortunately, the two challengers are competent, worthy opponents and offer a healthy alternative.

In a recent Hercules Patch candidate profile, Valstad said that the perceived lack of transparency at City Hall “depends on who you speak to.” Voters should count the Contra Costa County Grand Jury amongst those that residents should speak to.

McDonald has evoked his lengthy career as postmaster in his campaign efforts. McDonald claims to have “delivered” leadership and positive results. Positive results must be relative however, since McDonald sits on a city council that is known for unfulfilled promises, mismanagement, and utter disengagement with the community. A legacy of failure is by no means a positive, by any measure.

McDonald, to his credit, acknowledged the loss of trust in city government in his recent Hercules Patch candidate profile, although he explained that “it wasn’t something [he] was diabolically planning.”

Again, McDonald wants it both ways. He concedes there is a problem yet argues it was not his fault since he didn’t try hard enough.

On the other hand, the two challengers—John Delgado and Myrna de Vera—seem to offer a fresh break from the status quo. Although campaigning for some kind of change is necessary for challengers in any election, differences between the incumbents and challengers could not be any clearer in this race. On almost every issue facing voters, the two camps provide stark differences.

While the challengers call for greater transparency, accountability and an overall change in the way the city does business, the incumbents claim there is no basis for reform. To be fair, many residents don’t think the incumbents understand how the city actually does business, but they haven’t cared to ask the questions necessary to gain that understanding.

And while the challengers propose elevating the waterfront development as the highest priority in the city, the incumbents claim the project is already a top priority, amongst all the other top priorities, such as Hilltown, the annex, and a new City Hall complex. In fact, neither incumbent lists the waterfront project as a priority in their respective platforms.

The city has lost its focus, and the incumbents haven’t promised anything but the same destructive routine. The cycle can be broken, however. Not by short-sighted, irrational change, of course, but by way of a deliberate, reasonable and sound decision. That decision is crystal clear this year. It’s a vote for the two challengers—Delgado and de Vera—on Nov. 2.

Incumbents face hurdles as recent changes challenge past statements.

From the looks of it, incumbents Kris Valstad and Joe Eddy McDonald have a mighty big hole to dig themselves out of in their reelection campaigns.

The City’s recent about-face on controversies surrounding City Manager Nelson Oliva—most notably the affordable housing program operated by his former company and supposedly run by his college-aged daughters—has only made the two incumbents’ past praise for Oliva–along with their efforts to minimize the controversy–all the more relevant.

On Aug. 26, during a candidate roundtable event, Kris Valstad said the affordable housing issue had been solved. But apparently it hadn’t been. A little over a month later at a candidate forum at City Hall, Valstad heralded the work of Nelson Oliva and his company, NEO, for reviving the city’s affordable housing program in the wake of a scandal.

Valstad did not recognize the irony in his statement: Oliva arrived and departed (albeit on an interim basis) amidst alleged wrongdoing. He also did not address the question he was asked, which centered on the legitimacy of the $1.1 million no-bid contract awarded to NEO in June. All that Valstad’s non-answer did was reinforce the point that he did not consider the matter to be important. But that no longer seems to be the case.

During those two candidate events, Joe Eddy McDonald chastised press coverage of the issue. He even cautioned that the city simply could not be run if residents believed what they read in the newspaper. McDonald also suggested that the criticism surrounding the issue was coming from elitists within the city that solely did not want lower-income housing. This set of statements highlights the rather contentious relationship McDonald has had with residents—at least with those who ask questions.

It is a citizen’s responsibility to engage with government officials, ask questions and request clarification in order to better understand how their tax dollars are being spent. It is a cornerstone of our nation’s democracy. But McDonald does not seem to want any part of it. McDonald is visibly irritated while residents address the council from the podium during city council meetings, and his responses—if there is one—are regularly curt and abrasive.

Where there is smoke, there is likely fire, and putting truth to paper—although it is difficult to read at times—is necessary for a public to retain control over their government. The reports published in the Contra Costa Times, which the incumbents had routinely cast as inaccurate and blown out of proportion, were part of an investigation into the City’s policies and misleading statements regarding its affordable housing program. It was a citizen-driven investigation. It was not a witch hunt.

Despite the recent change in city manager and a demand for a complete review of the affordable housing program, the incumbents face a daunting task this election in convincing voters that they were not stubborn in their consistent denial of any improprieties, in appearance or actuality. One only has to look at the incumbents’ very recent statements on the matter to understand how deep their denial has taken them, and how seriously it has diminished their credibility in this election.

More change is necessary at City Hall.

The city of Hercules announced this week the appointment of an interim city manager, Charles Long, an outsider who helped Pinole in recent years through a troubling scenario not dissimilar to the issues currently facing Hercules.

Although City Manager Nelson Oliva is officially on medical leave for three months, the City Council has acknowledged a series of errors and mistakes in judgment over the course of Oliva’s at-times rocky tenure. The council’s appointment of an outsider is welcomed, but it is just the first step.

First off, what took so long? The company line out of City Hall for months was that nothing was wrong, and that in time, the whole story would be revealed and everything would prove to be aboveboard. That whole story never came.

For months, residents complained of apparent nepotism and a lack of accountability and openness at the podium during City Council meetings. There was no response from the city. Two scathing editorials were written by the Contra Costa Times, first last October and then in July, and there was still no response from the city, except a friendly suggestion to not believe what you read in the newspaper.

Even when a grand jury report was released, which outlined eight findings and five recommendations on the subjects of the city’s affordable housing department and lack of accountability and access to government, the city responded a month later with a churlish, spiteful letter. It didn’t seem to matter that the City agreed with seven of the eight findings and four of the five recommendations.

It wasn’t until the most recent editorial appeared in the Contra Costa Times—the one that called for voters to “take back control” and elect the two challengers running for City Council on Nov. 2—that the City reluctantly responded. And the council’s appointment of an interim city manager is certainly a step in the right direction.

Among other things, the interim city manager is tasked with conducting a complete review of the affordable housing program and every consultant contract, a full management audit, and implementing a program to improve communications between city government and the community.

One troubling fact remains however. One person was there every step of the way: the city attorney. If the City Council is finally admitting that some of the business it had conducted, and how the city had conducted its business, was wrong or misguided—in the wake of countless resident objections at the podium, three scathing editorials, and a grand jury investigation—how can the council retain the city attorney who had guided and counseled them along the way?

If what had taken place was indeed wrong—and kudos to the council for finally admitting this unsettling, inconvenient fact—how can the City Attorney, who had contended that all that had taken place was right (and who still has not admitted any fallacies in his judgment), be part of the transition forward?

City Attorney Mick Cabral’s advice and counsel was misguided. His defense of the city’s actions did nothing but amplify residents’ distrust of city government. And Cabral’s written response to the grand jury demonstrated hostility and contempt for open government laws.

A change in city manager was a positive first step. The replacement of the city attorney is the next logical one. It’s also necessary. It has to be done to heal the wounds. It has to be done for the city to regain the public’s trust.