Blogging Bayport Alameda

February 23, 2016

I would walk 500 feet and I would walk 500 more

Filed under: Alameda — Lauren Do @ 6:03 am

Absent any real alternative reason given by Tony Daysog as to why the opted to recuse himself from the vote on the Circle K convenience store alcohol license, the only rationale we have for recusal if that Tony Daysog felt he lived too close to the project.

Now you know and I know that the recusal requirement is only if someone lives within 500 feet of the project. But somehow Tony Daysog who lives twice that distance away, decided that he would recuse because of an unnamed “conflict of interest.”

Screen Shot 2016-02-19 at 3.27.39 PM

If the reason that Tony Daysog did recuse, and after repeated attempts to ask him via Twitter, he seems disinclined to answer between his packed tweeting schedule taking videos of his cat:

 

And posting photos on trash day:

Anyway, I’m super hopeful that this becomes a trend for Tony Daysog, to recuse when any item comes up to the City Council that’s within 1000 feet of his home.  Like the Central Avenue project.  That’s equidistant from his home as the Circle K site.

Screen Shot 2016-02-19 at 3.28.00 PM

I can’t wait to see what other more than 500 feet projects Tony Daysog recuses himself from deliberating on because it’s politically expedient to not make a decision that might upset a healthy percentage of people.

 

Advertisements

21 Comments

  1. I actually don’t think Circle K needs to sell Alcohol but that is just me. I don’t really like gas stations selling beer.

    He shouldn’t have recused himself. I think he has sort of ran his course in politics in Alameda…I voted for him to be Mayor, and on the counsel…but never again.

    I am curious Lauren, do you even have a bike? I do, but just ride it to the ferry, although I have taken it to Safeway a few times. Our other bike which we had for 5 or 6 years has about 10 miles on it.

    Comment by joelsf — February 23, 2016 @ 6:46 am

  2. The great Circle K scandal again?

    Comment by MP — February 23, 2016 @ 7:09 am

  3. I think he just isn’t comfortable politically taking a stand either way about kosher gasoline.

    Comment by Jack Mingo — February 23, 2016 @ 7:40 am

  4. Anyone planning to challenge Daysog in the next election?

    Comment by Annie — February 23, 2016 @ 8:50 am

  5. There’s plenty of liquor for sale on Webster already, so I can’t shed crocodile tears for Circle K. If you lived in the area and regularly found bottles smashed on the sidewalk or empties thrown in your flowerbed, you’d feel that way too. I’ll bet that happens to Tony from time to time, so I can’t fathom why he’d recuse himself. It’s silly. Take a stand for *something*, man! As an aside– isn’t it a bit of cognitive dissonance for gas stations to sell booze? What with drinking and driving being a big problem?

    Comment by Kristen — February 23, 2016 @ 9:06 am

  6. I showed up to that meeting after the recusal, so the next day I was inclined to give the benefit of the doubt that he was recusing for some legitimate reason.

    When I watched it a couple days later, I became much more dubious. He said he would recuse himself because he lived too close. Staff called him on the distance and he gave the shruggie emoticon and left with no further discussion.

    Without further information, I am left with one of three conclusions:

    1. Tony has his own definition of too close that goes above and beyond the paltry standards of conflict of interest due to his high ethical standards.(though, he chose not to enlighten us at the time) If so, I would think he should explain to his constituents what his standards are so folks can know how often to expect him to recuse himself beyond the legal requirements and to be able to judge his consistency. Do we get a 90% council member? 80%? 70%?

    2. He had a different conflict of interest that he was not willing to disclose that night and he tried to lie about it by using the proximity excuse as cover, assuming nobody would be prepared to call him on it.

    3. He just did not want to have to take a difficult vote and was trying to use conflict of interest rules to provide cover.

    Too bad there is no way for him to ever clarify the issue with voters so they can make informed decisions.

    Comment by BMac — February 23, 2016 @ 9:12 am

  7. I doubt Tony is going to run for re-election. He is building up a solid track record of “I don’t give a f….” in the way he pops on here and facebook to make some outrageous assertion, then fails to respond to reasonable questions posed by his constituents. I think he even stopped doing his town hall meetings. He is probably playing video games up on the dias.

    Comment by notadave — February 23, 2016 @ 9:25 am

  8. I’m sort of new here, but, having witnessed months of Tony Daysog’s feigned allegiance to data contrasted to this (Tony: 1000′ is not 500′), and his perverse rent proposals based on his-world CPI (he’s the only one that’s got this right, eh…hem) I feel like an old-timer. Couple this with his unrepentant and blind pandering to the so-called ‘mom-and-pop’ landlords while1000s of his constituents are gouged and evicted, Together, one clearly sees what the lack of a activist community allows to pass as an elected official in Alameda. Daysog wouldn’t last days off-island.

    Comment by John K — February 23, 2016 @ 10:58 am

  9. If he has another reason he doesn’t want to disclose, that’s his business. I’m not a fan of his but I don’t see the point of beating this particular dead horse any more.

    Comment by Denise Shelton — February 23, 2016 @ 2:49 pm

  10. 9. Wow. So an elected official can choose not to fulfill their obligations and not disclose why to their constituents in your book? Life is good for a politician if that is acceptable to voters.

    Comment by BMac — February 23, 2016 @ 3:31 pm

  11. Well it happens all the time in Washington! did I hear TD is a Trump supporter? Have we had enough – at all levels?

    Comment by Annie — February 23, 2016 @ 3:35 pm

  12. #9, Denise, no it is not “his business”, its our business. When he sits on the dais he is doing our business.

    Comment by John P. — February 24, 2016 @ 6:52 am

  13. Unless the rulebook states that he may not recuse himself without an explanation, he’s free to do so. Suppose it’s an embarrasing reason, like he’s sleeping with the owner or owes him some money, or has a pending lawsuit? I don’t think the public “needs” to know the specifics. If this is unacceptable to people, see to it that they change the rules.

    Comment by Denise Shelton — February 24, 2016 @ 9:06 am

  14. Conflict of Interest rules

    For the limited types of public officials who are covered by section 87200 and who also are subject to either the Brown Act or the Bagley-Keene Open Meeting Act, specific statutory
    disqualification requirements apply. The list of affected officials is as follows: city councils, boards of supervisors, planning commissions, certain retirement investment boards, the Public Utilities Commission, the Fair Political Practices Commission, the Energy Commission, and the Coastal Commission.

    Generally, when one of these officials is disqualified from participating in a decision because of a conflict of interest, the official must publically announce the specific financial
    interest that is the source of the disqualification. (§ 87105, subd. (a); Regulation, § 18702.5, subd. (b)(1).) After announcing the financial interest, the official usually must leave the room during any discussion or deliberations on the matter in question and the official may not participate in the decision or be counted for purposes of a quorum. (§ 87105; Regulation, § 18702.5, subd. (b)(3).)

    Comment by Lauren Do — February 24, 2016 @ 9:18 am

  15. The ‘rulebook’ is state law (thanks LD). If you’ve always lived in Alameda and only dealt with city hall here, it’s likely such niceties like state law aren’t much a part of your political world view. There’s so much ‘wink-and-nod’ governance in Alameda, it’s laughable. It’s likely you wouldn’t notice it, though, if Alameda is the only fishbowl you ever swam in. No, Toto, the Constitution and state law do not stop at the bridges.

    Comment by John K — February 24, 2016 @ 9:28 am

  16. So vague. “Generally” but not always. Also, it specifies “financial” interest. Certainly there are cases where the reason it is not financial in nature but where it might be perceived that the official would be under pressure to vote one way or another and so recuses himself. It also says they “usually” leave the room. Just enough weasel words and wiggle room in there for Tony to get away with how he’s handling it. I’m not an expert but I suspect unless these guidelines are revised, he’s in the clear, just barely, but that’s all it takes.

    Comment by Denise Shelton — February 24, 2016 @ 9:34 am

  17. 14

    It would be nice if that were enforced for votes on contracts with unions who have paid council members.

    Comment by dave — February 24, 2016 @ 9:36 am

  18. 15, Get over yourself Snobby Snoberson, I grew up in New York and lived in London, Columbus, OH, San Jose, and Los Gatos before moving to Alameda.

    Comment by Denise Shelton — February 24, 2016 @ 9:37 am

  19. A little less vague:

    (b) Content & Timing of Identification: The public official shall, following the announcement of the agenda item to be discussed or voted upon but before either the discussion or vote commences, do all of the following:
    (1) The public official shall publicly identify:
    (A) Each type of economic interest held by the public official which is involved in the decision and gives rise to the conflict of interest (i.e. investment, business position, interest in real property, personal financial effect, or the receipt or promise of income or gifts), and
    (B) The following details identifying the economic interest(s):
    (i) if an investment, the name of the business entity in which each investment is held;
    (ii) if a business position, a general description of the business activity in which the business entity is engaged as well as the name of the business entity;
    (iii) if real property, the address or another indication of the location of the property, unless the property is the public official’s principal or personal residence, in which case, identification that the property is a residence;
    (iv) if income or gifts, then identification of the source; and
    (v) if personal financial effect, then identification of the expense, liability, asset or income affected.
    (2) Form of Identification: If the governmental decision is to be made during an open session of a public meeting, the public identification shall be made orally and shall be made part of the official public record.

    Comment by Lauren Do — February 24, 2016 @ 9:48 am

  20. Beyond the specifics mentioned in #14 & #19, I can assure you that many of these issues have been litigated. If, after all this, there’s lingering confusion about a specific section, take trip to the free Alameda County Law Library where you can find all of the case law on any topic.

    Comment by John K — February 24, 2016 @ 10:46 am

  21. 19. Again, it’s all about financial. There’s no mention there of recusing oneself on another basis. There may be no financial reason but another reason which might come into play. If for instance, a council member voted for or against an issue and it was later revealed that he had some bone to pick with the interested parties of a personal nature or an intimate relationship with one of them or something other than a financial reason, could it not be said this influenced their decision and they should have recused themselves? Say councilman A’s best friend wants a liquor permit. The councilman has no financial advantage to voting in favor of his friend, but if his friend is approved and a business across the street is denied, wouldn’t the business owner denied feel that the councilmember’s friend got a break due to their close personal relationship? Wouldn’t it be reasonable to assume so? Isn’t a lawsuit more likely to result from a situation like this than from one where the councilmember recuses him or herself without specifying why? When someone says, “I don’t think it’s appropriate for me to vote on this” doesn’t it indicate that they are trying to avoid trouble down the road? Unless, it becomes a habit, I don’t see why there should be undue concern about it.

    Comment by Denise Shelton — February 24, 2016 @ 1:04 pm


RSS feed for comments on this post.

Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.

Blog at WordPress.com.