The city has to pick up the pieces following Oliva’s negotiated exit.

Nelson Oliva, the soon-to-be former city manager, will escape town with something that resembles a golden parachute. The City Council approved the termination of Oliva’s contract in closed session Dec. 21. It was agreed between both parties that his departure was without “good cause” for which his contract required a full year’s salary as compensation.

Examples of good cause–as described in his contract–include insubordination, dishonesty, embezzlement, and appearance of a conflict of interest. In other words, the city presumably had good cause to terminate Oliva’s contract under any of a litany of controversial items but chose not to. In fact, when the City Council dismissed interim City Manager Charles Long on Dec. 7, and reinstated Oliva amidst an orchestrated evening full of praise, it wiped out two avenues to terminate his contract in one fell swoop.

The reinstatement essentially negated Oliva’s past poor performance–including a significant and persistent appearance of a conflict of interest with his former company NEO Consulting–and cut short, by nine days, the possibility to enact another clause in his contract which would have allowed the city to terminate, even without cause, had Oliva failed to perform his duties for more than 60 consecutive days.

It is difficult to argue causation when the old council had awarded Oliva with the maximum bonus in 2009–20 percent of his then $200,000 salary (Oliva’s salary rose to $225,000 in 2010)–in gratitude of his service. In hindsight, 2009 was a trendsetting year for the city, but not in a good way.

On June 9, 2009, Oliva presented a construction budget of $56 million for the Sycamore North project to the council for approval within a lengthy consent calendar, which unsurprisingly came without discussion. It has since been revealed that the budget was $14 million less than what was actually anticipated–which was either negligent or purposefully destructive–and that the city had underfunded the project by $42 million, a crisis that now threatens the well-being of the redevelopment agency and all city projects.

Oliva had also promised progress and success on the waterfront project and the Intermodal Transit Center, but both continue to flail aimlessly and approach failure under his leadership.

Oliva’s tenure was not all a disappointment. As his supporters readily proclaim, Oliva oversaw the construction of a dog park and a community garden, helped cover the expenses at the city’s schools when the district made harsh program cuts, and expanded the city’s affordable housing department–be it for the financial benefit of his family.

And that is what is so perplexing about Oliva’s self-inflicted demise. His story is not unlike those told in Hollywood true-crime stories that document the rise and fall of individuals who take advantage of the system. Oliva leveraged a complacent electorate and a disinterested and disengaged council to perpetrate an ingenious scam out of city hall–funneling redevelopment monies through the affordable housing agency run by his company.

Just as if it were scripted however, Oliva continued to push the envelope–capped by the Sycamore North project, where he had finagled to include an inordinately-high affordable housing component (74 of 96 units)–and his empire ultimately came crashing down.

In the end, Oliva should be just as relieved as residents. He was never just the city manager. That was mostly a front, a pretense for his real position–executive of the company he never actually left when he took the high-paying job as city manager. NEO has its founder back, although it is safe to assume the company will be renamed before it approaches another city desperate for creative accounting and affordable housing solutions.

Two new council members breathe new life into the city’s governing body.

The new City Council had its first full meeting Tuesday evening and it was clear from the outset that residents were going to witness a city conducting its business in an entirely different way, and it could not come at a more opportune time.

The city faces significant hurdles, and trouble surely looms. Jobs may be cut, projects may be lost, and scars will be permanent. An energized council must take sweeping and effective action–which must be immediate to avoid serious harm. The deceits were deep, and the deficits are real.

Emerging from closed session on Tuesday, Mayor Ed Balico announced that the council had voted to confirm its controversial termination of interim City Manager Charles Long in a 3-2 vote, a first in recent memory. The vote established an old and new bloc on the council that echoed throughout the evening, and although it meant a segmented council, it welcomed a renewed sense of healthy democratic debate.

Council members Don Kuehne and Joanne Ward voted with Balico to form the majority which simply did not want to admit past mistakes, even though they did anyway by voting for a third consecutive closed-session council decision–all were unanimous, including Tuesday’s–that upended the city manager’s position.

On Dec. 7, the council fired Long and reinstated Nelson Oliva. On Dec. 14, the council announced Oliva’s return was temporary and that a new city manager would be sought immediately. And on Tuesday, the council announced that Oliva’s contract would be terminated immediately and that Police Chief Fred Deltorchio would assume the position of interim city manager, starting Jan. 9.

The council may have been on its best behavior because four members of the Contra Costa Grand Jury were in attendance–whom had published the scathing report in June harshly criticizing the city’s handling of affordable housing through NEO (Nelson Oliva’s former company)–but questions were asked, answers were provided, and an actual dialogue took place before the public. The vote was unanimous to terminate the contract with NEO immediately, but residents were finally able to understand the opinions of the council members, which is what they’ve exhaustively been seeking.

Most, if not all, of city business had been routinely conducted in daytime subcommittee meetings, for which minutes were not recorded, and only until recently were not noticed or agendized. The items were then passed through the council on the consent calendar without discussion. That was the business as usual in Hercules. It may now have come to an end.

At several points during the meeting, newcomers Myrna de Vera and John Delgado asserted themselves and the platforms they ran on in the November election, and Kuehne voiced his opinion as well on several issues. Although Ward was mostly silent and Balico was characteristically not, the meeting seemed to carry a different air.

Whether or not the two blocs manifest into a serious disadvantage for a community demanding substantive change remains to be determined. However, with a potentially serious recall attempt in the works, news organizations actively reporting the council’s decisions and their impacts, and an engaged community, it is difficult to see how this council could manage to not approve elements of change, if only incremental. The city’s financial condition requires it. The additions of de Vera and Delgado pretty much guarantee it.

The new mayor delivered a message to a wary public.

Councilman Ed Balico said in his inaugural remarks as mayor he did not want to hold the position for the coming year. Residents knew that was simply not true. Balico revels in the spotlight, and the mayor took advantage of his election–which did not come easy (newcomer Myrna de Vera dissented)–with a speech that lasted nearly twenty minutes.

The mayor missed the opportunity to change the tone of debate in the city. Instead, his speech was contentious and combative and, at times, a lecture. Balico did not mince words either, warning that not following his lead would result in the destruction of Hercules. That is quite a bold statement from a councilman whose recent actions has sparked a grass-roots recall effort targeting his removal.

Balico is a revisionist historian. He criticized Lisa Hammon–the assistant city manager that resigned earlier in the evening–for not delivering on the Intermodal Transit Center project, the centerpiece of the stalled waterfront development. In his December 2007 remarks–as then outgoing mayor, and six months prior to Hammon taking the job–Balico stated unequivocally that the station would begin construction the following August (2008, if you are following along), due to the hard work of the council. Balico said, in 2007, that the station “did not come overnight.” Well, he’s certainly right about that.

The mayor must realize that he is responsible for the failure, not staff. While Balico admits the city has gotten off track, he refuses to be held accountable. The Intermodal Transit Center project is now projected to be eight years behind schedule. Originally slated to open in 2005, the station is now scheduled to open in 2013, but that depends on construction commencing this April, which is improbably optimistic considering the city’s financial condition.

Although the city council emerged from closed session on Tuesday and announced that Nelson Oliva’s return as city manager was only temporary–and that a search for a replacement would begin immediately–the mayor had no issue with returning all power at City Hall to the embattled Oliva in the meantime. If Oliva’s management was not an issue and his return not a concern, then why hire an interim city manager to clean up his mess, and why search for a replacement? There is an incongruence of logic in Balico’s thinking on this matter.

The council had hired Charles Long in October and specifically tasked him with conducting a complete review of the affordable housing program, every consultant contract, and all proposed projects. Unfortunately for Long, he did too good of a job. The final straw appears to have been the New Town Center project. At the Dec. 7 meeting, a representative of Red Barn, the developer, informed the council that the project will be delayed another five years in the best-case scenario.

Long had concluded that the New Town Center project was unrealistic in this economy and a drain on the redevelopment agency’s ailing budget. Long placed the project on indefinite hold and focused on other higher priority projects, including the Intermodal Transit Center and Sycamore North. Red Barn had received a drop dead letter from Long which apparently set off a chain of events that resulted in his unceremonious firing.

In order to reverse Long’s actions, Balico unilaterally directed the city manager on Tuesday evening to reinstate all contracts that Long had terminated on the New Town Center project. It was another sign that Balico assumes the city’s residents–and voters–continue to support him, despite a steady beat of reports of impropriety and fiscal insolvency. The city has yet to refute Long’s findings and a thorough financial audit is clearly appropriate.

It seems the mayor fails to understand the magnitude of the problems facing the city, as well as his role in the debacle. While Balico believes his leadership–and his alone–is the cure, a growing number of residents have concluded otherwise, and the mayor’s constituency may dwindle to include just himself.

The City Council made a step backward with Tuesday’s decision.

In a stunning, provocative move clearly meant to send a stern message to dissident residents clamoring for change and transparency, the City Council abruptly fired the interim city manager tasked with cleaning up the apparent mess left by the previous city manager, Nelson Oliva. Oliva was on indefinite sick leave until Tuesday evening, when the council inexplicably reinstated him. It was a significant change made a mere week prior to the swearing-in of two new council members who won handily on a platform of change.

It appears this council does not enjoy criticism–of any sort, at any time, even if it comes from within and with good reason. Interim City Manager Charles Long’s weekly reports, which included details of nefarious bookkeeping and disorganized chaos, and the subsequent news reports covering the timely information, was more than this council could handle.

This council would rather remain in the dark about the serious financial condition the city faces than proactively deal with the problem and move forward in a constructive manner. The city didn’t take an action to help itself; it delayed the inevitable–the hard work ahead to rebuild the unsteady foundation.

As long as this city refuses to examine itself in the mirror, and implement policy changes that not only remedy the issues that exist but also prevent them from happening again, this city will continue to be on a self-inflicted path of destruction. And no end is in sight.

With the hiring of Long in October, the council admitted mistakes, and directly ordered Long to fix the situation. But by restoring Oliva, who was responsible for misleading the council and possibly placing the city on the ledge of financial ruin, the city has failed to accomplish anything in the past two critical months.

Sitting in the audience during Tuesday evening’s spectacle, it felt more like the scene of a low-budget political thriller than a small town public meeting. Speaker after speaker rendered endless praise for the previously embattled Oliva, followed by applause from a crowded room made up individuals not considered to be regulars, who had just miraculously showed up for the pomp.

The evening clearly must have been orchestrated–there were too many people prepared to speak, with note cards, speaking about something not on the agenda and which had transpired in closed session only minutes before–and it raises questions about potential Brown Act violations. If more than two council members had discussed the removal of Long and the reinstatement of Oliva prior to the meeting–even through a series of disaggregated emails or phone conversations–it would constitute an illegal meeting.

According to Councilman Ed Balico’s statement on Tuesday, I shouldn’t be writing these words, and you shouldn’t be reading them. He feels that any negative commentary made about the city, even if accurate and helpful in its purpose, is damaging to the city’s reputation. Apparently the next mayor of Hercules believes the First Amendment doesn’t cross the city’s border. That is a slippery slope, and a condition I am not willing to accept.

Balico must remember that this council has lost the public trust–as evidenced by the trouncing of incumbents in last month’s election–and in order to regain it, the city needs to improve communications with its residents. In fact, that was one of the tasks directed to Long. He took the task seriously however, and the council had only hoped for continued lip service.

The council delivered more than lip service on Tuesday. They informed residents they weren’t willing to be held accountable. The image in the mirror must have been too hideous to tolerate.

As the city reorganizes, reviews, hires and terminates staff, the controversial city attorney has been left untouched.

Interim City Manager Charles Long has either addressed or begun to address big issues facing the city in his first month on the job–reorganization at city hall, tearing up the NEO affordable housing contract, examining the funding woes for the Intermodal Transit Center and Sycamore North projects, and restarting negotiations with the waterfront developer. However, one item seems to have escaped his attention– the fate of the city attorney.

Long’s predecessor, Nelson Oliva, is still on the payroll and retains the official title of city manager, and it is now apparent that his ambitious activities as executive director of the redevelopment agency was a shell game, or a disorganized Ponzi scheme. It is surprising then that the attorney that provided the legal basis and protection for the actions taken–City Attorney Alfred “Mick” Cabral–has retained his position. And it is not as if Cabral has a reputable tenure.

The best-known case is the city’s battle with Walmart. Cabral led the city council into troubled waters when he advised the city to invoke eminent domain over Parcel C, where the big-box retailer had proposed to construct a 99,000 square foot supercenter. Although members of the city council had invited Walmart into the city in 2004 and assisted in the retailer’s purchase of the property, the retailer’s plans resulted in an uproar from residents who campaigned to halt the project, and the council was forced to reverse course and commence eminent domain proceedings in 2006, under legal guidance from Cabral. The city council’s decision made national news.

Unfortunately, the city didn’t have the right to invoke the power of eminent domain–the right had been long expired–and a county judge eventually ruled that the city’s ordinance was invalid. It was a costly oversight by Cabral that placed Hercules, again, in a difficult position. The city ultimately convinced Walmart to sell the property to the redevelopment agency, which purchased Parcel C in 2009. While the site remains vacant, the only winner in the entire four-year saga seems to be Cabral, who racked up unknown amounts of legal fees. That is only one example of Cabral’s history of encouraging the city council into unnecessary legal proceedings. More recently, Cabral has been a key player in the city’s threats of eminent domain of the waterfront property.

Cabral also is no stranger to a conflict of interest. The city has recently begun efforts to withdraw from the jointly-operated wastewater treatment facility in Pinole at a hefty cost. The plan is to send the city’s waste to the larger West County Wastewater District (WCWD) in Richmond with the city footing the bill for the installation of needed infrastructure (upwards of $70 million). The attorney representing the city in the Pinole-Hercules Joint Powers Authority is unsurprisingly Mick Cabral. The attorney for WCWD? None other than Cabral. It’s a conflict of interest made in heaven. No matter what the city ultimately decides–or how much it pays–Cabral will benefit.

It is a pattern of behavior not fit for civil service, although Cabral is a contract employee. The city attorney must provide legal guidance in the best interest for the municipality–which he has failed to do–and not for the personal benefit of a city manager. Cabral has provided inadequate counsel on issues of great magnitude, to substantial cost to the city, and has, on occasion, shown great disregard for open government meeting laws (conducting city business in closed session) and even contempt for the community for which he serves.

When the new council sits for its first meeting in January, its first order of business should be the dismissal or demand for resignation of its city attorney. It is long overdue.

The Sycamore North project is woefully underfunded and the council hopes no one points fingers.

The details may be murky, but the consequences are clear: The financial status of the Sycamore North project–and the city council’s actions that allowed it to happen–has placed all future city projects at risk, including the long-awaited waterfront and Intermodal Transit Center.

At Tuesday evening’s city council meeting, interim City Manager Charles Long presented a sobering reality to the community: the Sycamore North project is underfunded by $42 million, a remarkable 60 percent of the project cost. The total cost is $13 million more than was expected, and the city has not yet secured $29 million in necessary financing. The fate of the project–halfway to completion–is now in the balance.

Fortunately, Long presented a series of potential fixes–all of which are workable–including drastically reducing the number of affordable housing units (from 74 to 29). Another alternative is selling the project to a non-profit affordable housing corporation. In any case however, there would be a permanent hit to the Redevelopment Agency budget on the order of $10 million. The result? The elimination or indefinite delay of future projects. How did it come to this?

The city council unanimously approved the now-underestimated construction budget for Sycamore North at $56 million in a meeting in June 2009. The item was included in the consent calendar that was approved without discussion. Any discussion on the subject that did take place came at the finance subcommittee meeting the week before. As was the supposed policy at the time, there was neither an agenda nor minutes recorded from that meeting.

We don’t know what the council members actually knew of the project’s finances when they approved it–we may never know–but we do know it was not enough. The council repeatedly insisted on Tuesday evening that the community not look to place blame for the costly mistake but to look forward and help fix the problem. It seems the council does not want to be held accountable for their actions.

Why should residents believe that this city council is equipped to fix the problem? The council did not make the effort to ensure the funding stream was in place prior to approving construction. They made this decision based on the limited information they were provided, but they did not seek additional information. They did not do their job as stewards of the public’s money.

In the year since construction started, the council had not asked for a status report on the project or the $29 million loan that was necessary for the project to be funded (not including the $13 million difference between the estimated and actual cost). If they had cared to ask these questions, the community could have begun to deal with the difficult reality sooner. The council took a backseat to City Manager Nelson Oliva–whose former company NEO managed the project at city hall–and it took an outsider to investigate and discover the problem.

As residents scratch their collective head over the issues surrounding the Sycamore North project and the potential domino effect on other projects in the city, the council needs to reexamine its role as representatives of the community. The council is not simply about being cheerleaders or advocates of civic pride; the council has been entrusted with the public’s money and are responsible for executing a fiscally solvent government. They must also be accountable. That is a novel idea for this council.

The city promised 500 acres and a sports complex but will only deliver 77 and a financial burden.

In the past two years, the City of Hercules has spent nearly $1.9 million in an effort to annex 500 acres north and south of Highway 4 on the eastern edge of town. The fruits of the expensive effort, however, will be the annexation of a meager 77 acres, now known as the “Panhandle Annexation,” which was recommended for approval by the planning commission on Monday evening.

The city’s quest for annexation of the greater 500 acres began with a city council resolution in March 2009. In 2008, the city had signed two agreements with Big League Dreams, totaling $1.2 million, for an exclusive license agreement and the planning and design of a sports complex, which would be the centerpiece of the annexed property.

The city touted the plan for the future sports complex, which would include little league sized replicas of famous ballparks, such as Fenway Park and Wrigley Field.

At the 2009 Community Update event, the City hosted two former baseball greats–Vida Blue and Bill Russell–who signed autographs for residents and trumpeted the benefits of the city’s plans. But it was all for naught: Without warning, the city reduced the proposed annexation area from 500 acres to 77 acres this past summer.

The reasons to annex the 77 acres are unclear. At Monday’s meeting, Planning Director Dennis Tagashira noted that owners of a few of the parcels (seven parcels in total are being annexed) seeking to expand their facilities face a rather draconian ban on new building permits from the county. The city has promised that they would approve such permits, which would be an awfully generous gesture if it were the only reason to annex the parcels.

The principal reason for annexation appears to be the relocation of the Caltrans yard on Willow Avenue to make room for Transit Town, a future phase of the New Town Center project. The city acquired the Yellow Freight property–which is slated to be annexed and lies between the east and westbound lanes of Highway 4–in 2009 for that purpose. But it is not clear why the city could not lease the property to Caltrans without annexation. Whether or not the property is within the expanded city limits of Hercules, or remains in unincorporated Contra Costa County, should not matter to the State of California.

The biggest cause of concern is the cost of annexation. The city has spent $1.9 million and the 77 acres may simply never return that investment. As Tagashira noted on Monday, the city would receive permit fees from the proposed expansion of existing facilities, and future expansions, but that fee revenue will not come close to dent the exorbitant cost of annexation.

A fiscal analysis states that at full build-out, “the assessed value on the property is projected to increase to $33.5 million [and] the city would then receive $17,200 in total property tax.” That additional property tax comes at a cost however, in terms of services, mainly police and government administration. And the cost is alarming. In fact, the annexation would “generate a net negative fiscal impact of $436,600 per year” at full build-out.

Planning Commissioner and councilmember-elect Myrna de Vera asked on Monday why this annexation makes sense considering the negative fiscal impact. The city’s consultant said it is assumed that the city would annex adjacent property–presumably the remaining 423 acres–which would improve the economics of the annexation. The consultant described the Panhandle Annexation as an “icebreaker” with the Local Agency Formation Commission (LAFCO).

But Tagashira stated that the city has no current plans for further annexation, and considering the costs involved, residents can understand why. The fact is that annexation is no guarantee. LAFCO does not extend boundaries without a lengthy courtship, it seems.

As of right now, there is no legitimate plan for Big League Dreams to come true in Hercules. In hindsight, it was another costly misstep by a city manager and city council that failed to focus on priorities.

Previous mismanagement leaves projects throughout the city at risk.

The organizational changes that have been proposed by interim City manager Charles Long and approved by the lame-duck City Council this week illustrate just how troubled the city was under previous leadership. It should be noted, however, that the council, too, is part of that leadership, and only two of five will be replaced next month following the results of last week’s surprise election of challengers John Delgado and Myrna de Vera over incumbents Joe Eddy McDonald and Kris Valstad.

Just how unstable the city was prior to reorganization efforts remains to be seen, but the biggest issue that residents now face is the possibility that the city simply may not be able to afford to build all the promised projects the city has been planning and presenting to the community for years. That includes the long-promised train station, which was planned to break ground next April, but will likely suffer further delays.

Long mentioned his concerns over the city’s financial state in his third weekly report published last Friday, lamenting that the city’s “five-year projection of capital projects totaling $233 million does not show sources of funding.” That sounds like a problem.

The first task for the newly-appointed Finance Director, Liz Warmerdam, will be to develop a five-year projection so the city can evaluate “how to allocate [the city’s] resources over the long term.” In her introductory remarks to the city council on Tuesday evening, Warmerdam stated that it was her intent to bring the Finance Department into “a more prominent position in the city” and to have a more integral role in directing “how and when” projects occur.

With a seemingly endless list of ambitious projects consistently advertised by the city as being “just around the corner” at the annual Community Update event—including the Waterfront, New Town Center, Sycamore Crossing, Hilltown, the annex, the redevelopment of the former Walmart property and the vacant parcel adjacent to Victoria by the Bay, as well as smaller in-fill projects, such as the Palm Center Auto Center project—the city has only done itself a disservice by creating an undesirable scenario of failing to deliver on its promises. And it is now apparent that those promises may be unrealistic from a financial perspective.

The massive reorganization being implemented by the city is meant to improve how the city plans, manages and pays for projects. In hindsight, the previous organization could best be described as a house of cards, and although it is easy, and even appropriate, to place blame squarely and solely on City Manager Nelson Oliva—currently on indefinite medical leave—for not addressing the fiscal aspects of the planned projects, it is also the city council’s responsibility to question the city manager on those issues. That does not appear to have happened.

Residents now await the fallout of the reorganization and its impacts on projects citywide. Will the Waterfront development be at the top of the City’s priorities, as the city has contended it always has been? Will the city continue to pursue the purchase of the Hilltown property, which would place further financial strain on the city’s redevelopment projects?

Long has already hinted that the city will abandon the Palm Center Auto Center project, which is either a positive sign that priorities are being straightened or a negative one that signals the city’s inability to fund scheduled projects. Time will tell, and it will be uneasy.

Challengers win by promising change in the city, but who on city council will join their plight?

Sixty percent of votes cast in Tuesday’s city council election went for the two change candidates, but the winners—John Delgado and Myrna de Vera—will only make up forty percent of the newly-formed governing body.

In order to bring about the change they’ve promised in their candidacies, they’ll need at least one sitting councilmember to join them and establish a change caucus.

Some elements of the changes proposed by the challengers are underway already, specifically with respect to delivering a more transparent and accountable government: Interim City Manager Charles Long has ripped up the controversial $1.1-million no-bid contracts with NEO to run the affordable housing department and other municipal functions. In his second weekly report, Long said that he has asked NEO to develop a revised scope of work “to more accurately reflect current organizational needs.”

Long has also cancelled all subcommittee meetings until the city can determine the best way to include the public in on pertinent city discussions.

Until very recently, subcommittee meetings had no agenda and were not noticed, and meeting minutes are still not recorded. These meetings have been a sore spot for many residents who have claimed the city is conducting business behind closed doors and in defiance of open meeting laws.

The principal issue with the subcommittee meetings was that they were an avenue for items to be lost within the consent calendar and approved at subsequent city council meetings. Although the consent calendar is intended for items that are considered to be routine, it wasn’t unusual for multi-million dollar contracts to be swept under the rug in one fell swoop by way of the consent calendar.

It went like this: a subcommittee member would state that all items were discussed in the finance subcommittee meeting—a meeting that was not noticed, and had no agenda or minutes—and the items would then be approved by a unanimous vote; there was no discussion.

So here we are. Hercules voters demanded change on Tuesday, and Delgado and de Vera arguably have a mandate to make at least portions of their platforms a matter of council and city policy. But which councilmembers will join that coalition, if any?

Councilmember Don Kuehne was elected under the guise of change in 2008, but his time in office has been largely defined by passivity. Councilmembers Ed Balico and Joanne Ward are long-time officeholders—both entering their eleventh year in the position—but their respective styles couldn’t be any more different. Balico is rather outspoken, and Ward is more subdued in her presence on the council.

There is certainly room for common ground for the new council. One of the platforms the two challengers campaigned on was elevating the long-awaited waterfront development as a top priority. Balico has long been an ardent supporter of redevelopment and may seize the opportunity to be the project’s champion at city hall.

Long, as part of his duties as interim city manager, has also re-started negotiations with the waterfront developer, AndersonPacific, as the two sides aim to forge a public-private partnership. This provides a golden opportunity for the two new councilmembers–on the heels of their impressive victory–to push the development as a top priority.

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.