From: adrian@ntmtv.UUCP (Adrian Brandt)
Subject: Politicking on Public Dime?
Keywords: San Mateo County Advisory Measure B BART C CalTrain
Organization: Northern Telecom Inc, Mountain View, CA
Date: Tue, 6 Oct 1992 20:40:27 GMT


Reprinted for the September-October Issue of "California Rail News"

Politicking on the Public's Dime?

San Mateo County Supervisors say they want county residents to tell them
what kind of rail transit system to build, and have put tow appropriately
initialled measures on the November ballot, Measure B (favoring BART) and
Measure C (favoring CalTrain).

However, at least two San Mateo Supervisors, Tom Heuning and Tom Nolan,
are acting as if they already know the answer they want.  Last month, the
two supes sent out an attack letter to hundreds of transit activists and
riders of CalTrain.

The target of the hit piece, Peninsula Rail 2000, had dared to question
the San Mateo County's commitment to CalTrain.  The memo was printed and
mailed at taxpayer expense and appears to be an obvious attempt to
influence voter opinion on the measure.

Some outside observers view the action as an abuse of political campaign
rules by county staff that would never be tolerated by most County Clerks.
But San Mateo County is not the ordinary county, and its staff are not
ordinary employees.

Richard Silver, Clerk of the Board of Supervisors, is an activist who is
in the thick of the battle on the preference polls.  He says he favors
both measures and even told some opponents of Measure B that he plans to
take a "leave of absence" to run the Measure B campaign.  He has not done
so, to date, and local activists say they believe that he is doing the
work from County offices.

San Mateo Supervisors didn't merely attack opponents of Measure B, they
also sued to try to change their ballot arguments.  Strategic legal action
for political purposes (SLAPP), was made illegal (for companies) by
legislative action this year, but the technique is becoming increasingly
popular among politicians.

Four supervisors, Nolan, Heuning, Bill Schumacher and Mary Griffen (Sup.
Anna Eshoo declined to participate) filed suit in San Mateo County
Superior Court to halt publication of one sentence of the rebuttal to the
Measure B argument.

The dispute was over a reference to the $30 million cost of current
studies of BART to the San Francisco Airport.  Pro-BART supes had hoped to
delete the embarrassing number, but the Judge refused, and in fact added a
second reference to $2.5 million of studies just completed, while keeping
mention of the $30 million.  CalTrain supporters like to point out that if
the $32.5 million being wasted on BART studies were put into CalTrain
service, there could be trains every 15 minutes all day every weekday for
three years.

San Mateo's battle over B(ART) and C(alTrain) promises to be a close one,
but Measure C backers say they were helped by the suit.  It raised the
BART cost issue and rallied a number of the cities behind their cause.
Also, other groups like the League of Women Voters started scrutinizing
possible improprieties involved in the lawsuit and campaign involvement by
County staff.  Until voters get the full story on BART costs and the
decades it would take to extend BART throughout San Mateo County, they
tend to support Measure B.

Although Supervisor Tom Nolan is about to leave office, the JPB seems to
be taking steps to ensure that Nolan's personal gravy train doesn't stop
running.  At the last board meeting, an interesting change in JPB bylaws
passed which will allow former members of the board to receive
compensation to do Sacramento lobbying for the three-county CalTrain
group.  Who in the world would benefit from this change?  We can't
imagine!


-- 

Adrian Brandt (415) 940-2379
UUCP: ...!ames!ntmtv!adrian
ARPA: ntmtv!adrian@ames.arc.nasa.gov
Newsgroups: ba.transportation