Oakland’s gearing up for mayoral election season again, with thirteen – strike that – ten candidates competing for Mayor Ron Dellums’ spot.

Last week after Wednesday’s filing deadline, it was widely reported that 13 people were running for mayor of Oakland. However, the City Clerk excluded three candidates who filed nomination papers because they each had an insufficient number of validated signatures.

Oakland requires each would-be mayor to pay $300 to declare themselves as a candidate, as well as provide 50 valid signatures from Oakland residents, along with proof that they have been registered to vote in Oakland for the past 30 days. Niki Okuk, Tim Brown, and Sharika Gregory all told Oakland North that enough of their signatures were thrown out to disqualify them for the election. Dellums announced on August 4 that he wouldn’t run for another term.

So, who’s left? Here is a rundown of the ten remaining candidates, in alphabetical order, based on biographical details provided by the candidates or their campaigns.

Terence Candell:

He’s 47, a Democrat, and directs Candell’s College Preparatory Academy, his own education business. Last week, various media reported – incorrectly – that he was a minister, perhaps because Candell announced that he has widespread support from Oakland’s Baptist churches. He has never previously run for political office and lives in the Eastmont neighborhood. He has a B.A. in politics from UC Santa Cruz, an M.A. in education from the Western Institute for Social Research, and a Ph.D. in education from University of Bedford, an online university based in England.

Arnold Fields:

Fields is 44, an Independent, and a registered real estate broker. He calls himself an affordable housing advocate and runs a business renovating old buildings and renting them out. He and his wife own Revolution Café on 7^th Street in West Oakland. Fields ran for Oakland mayor in 2006 and received 1 percent of the votes, coming in fifth. He lives in the Dimond neighborhood. Fields attended real estate broker school.

Greg Harland:

Harland is 63 years old, retired, and has been an entrepreneur in clothing manufacture, computers, and restaurants, according to his campaign website. He didn’t reply to Oakland North’s request for more information. He lives in the Montclair area, and his website says he attended Merritt College and was trained as a scuba diving instructor at the Professional Diving Instructors Corporation in Monterey.

Marcie Hodge:

A 36-year-old Democrat, Hodge is on the board of trustees for the Peralta Community Colleges. She’s been a marriage and family therapist and a public school teacher. She also served on the Oakland Budget Advisory Committee and lives near Chabot Regional Park. She went to Cal State Hayward and also has a masters in counseling psychology from Holy Names College, as well as a Ph.D. in organizational psychology from Alliant University.

Rebecca Kaplan:

Kaplan, 39, is the first openly lesbian member of the Oakland City Council, currently serving as the councilmember-at-large. She’s a Democrat and, before being elected in 2008, worked for the California legislature and for the Oakland City Attorney’s office, as well as serving on the board of directors for AC Transit. She lives in Jack London Square. Kaplan has a B.S. from the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, an M.A. in urban and environmental policy from Tufts University, and a J.D. from Stanford Law School.

Don Macleay:

Macleay is 52 and a 15-year member of the Green Party. He grew up in Canada and has never run for political office or worked for the U.S. government, though he once worked for the government of Nicaragua. He used to be a machinist but now owns and manages a small computer networking business in Oakland. Macleay lives in Temescal and attended Laney College and San Francisco State, where he received a B.A. in Liberal Studies.

Don Perata:

At 65, Perata, a Democrat, has had the longest political record of all the candidates. He was a civics teacher before his political career began, according to his campaign. Perata joined the Alameda County’s Board of Supervisors in 1986 and served as a State Assembly representative for Oakland, Piedmont and Alameda from 1996 to 1998, when he was elected to the California State Senate. In the Senate he served until 2008, at times as the Senate President Pro Tem. Perata’s already been endorsed by Jerry Brown, Willie Brown, and Dianne Feinstein. He lives in the Montclair and has a B.A. in Literature and Theology from St. Mary’s College.

Jean Quan:

Quan, 60, is a Democrat and the first Asian-American woman to be elected to the Oakland City Council. She’s in her second term on the council, representing District 4. She is on a handful of the council’s committees and works with several other groups in city government; she also chairs the board of directors for the Chabot Space and Science Center. Quan began her political career through working with her children’s school and served on the Oakland school board for two terms, beginning in 1989. She lives in Oakmore. Quan received a B.A. in Ethnic Studies from UC Berkeley, though she was suspended because of her participation in the 1969 Third World Strike, part of the – eventually successful – effort to create an ethnic studies department.

Joe Tuman:

Tuman, 51, is a Democrat and a professor at San Francisco State University teaching politics, law, and communications. He’s been a speechwriter and political consultant for many years, and published several books, including Freedom of Expression in the Marketplace of Ideas (Sage, 2011), Communicating Terror; The Rhetorical Dimensions of Terror and Political Communication in American Campaigns.  Though Tuman has taught classes about politics and been paid to be a political consultant, he has never run for office himself.  He lives in the Crocker Highlands. He has a B.A. in political science from UC Berkeley and a J.D. from Boalt School of Law at UC Berkeley.

Larry Lionel Young, Jr.:

Young is, indeed, the youngest candidate at age 30. Registered Independent, he works for Prudential California as a real estate agent but has been a substitute teacher in Oakland’s public schools for four years. He has also worked in adult education and at the West County and Marsh Creek detention centers.  He lives in Adam’s Point and has a B.A. in speech communication from Cal Poly and an MBA from the University of Phoenix.

This version of the story has been corrected. A previous version stated incorrectly that Donald Macleay worked for the Canadian government.

Connect with Oakland North on Facebook, or follow us on Twitter.

By CLARE MAJOR

While the presidential election and Prop 8 rule the headlines, one less-noticed proposition could have seriously-noticed local impacts.  Children’s Hospital Oakland could receive $98 million if Proposition 3, the Children’s Hospital Bond Act of 2008, is approved Nov. 4.

Proposition 3 would authorize $980 million in general obligation bonds to fund grants for the construction, renovation, or related improvements of California children’s hospitals.  The bonds would be repaid over 30 years, for a total estimated cost to the state of $2 billion, or $64 million per year.

Children’s Hospital and Research Center Oakland, located on 52nd Street in the Temescal neighborhood, is one of thirteen potential Prop 3 beneficiaries, including eight private and five University of California children’s hospitals.  Children’s Hospital Oakland hopes to use the funds for construction to bring its facilities into compliance with state seismic retrofitting standards.

Children's Hospital Oakland

The California Children’s Hospital Association, which advocates for the eight private children’s hospitals, has spent almost $6.4 million in support of Prop 3.  While there is no organized opposition to the initiative, critics have raised questions about the wisdom of more spending during a budget crisis.  They have also pointed out that there are still unused funds from a nearly identical 2004 bond measure, Proposition 61.  There are also general concerns about the use—or, some say, abuse—of the California initiative process to fund private organizations with public money.

In February of this year, Alameda County voters rejected Measures A and B, parcel tax measures which would have funded construction at Children’s Hospital Oakland.  Neighborhood opposition in Lower Temescal was fierce, as the hospital’s plans were to build up and to expand its footprint, either buying adjacent homes or seizing them through eminent domain.

“The previous administration of Children’s Hospital had worked with the neighbors and come to an agreement about how far the hospital would expand,” said Amy De Reyes, Health Policy Analyst for Supervisor Keith Carson, “and this new plan had it going far beyond that.  The neighbors were incredibly well organized and they did a great job of getting their message out—they wanted the hospital to stay, but they had land there, and there were other alternatives [for the hospital to expand].  And they really did force the hospital to go back and reevaluate.”

Dr. Bertram Lubin, Director of Medical Research for the Children’s Hospital Oakland Research Institute, said the new expansion plans that Proposition 3 would fund are different.  “We’re going to build a new hospital on the property that we currently have,” Lubin said.  “It’s not going to be something that imposes any physical constraints on the neighbors.”

Part of the funding for this new construction would come from the hospital’s $60 million share of Proposition 61 funding.  Approved by 58% of California voters in 2004, Prop 61 authorized $750 million in general obligation bonds to fund children’s hospitals.  As of June 1, 2008, about $403 million of those funds had been distributed.

Ted Costa, president of People’s Advocate and co-author of the ballot argument against Prop 3, said hospitals are being disingenuous about their needs.  “Four years ago, I saw this initiative [Prop 61] on the ballot and I said, ‘OK, children’s hospitals, I’m OK with that,’” Costa said.  “And then a group of the administrators from all these hospitals got together and said, ‘That worked so good, let’s get another billion.’”

Lubin, however, maintains that the Prop 61 funds, even combined with what Children’s Hospital Oakland has in reserve and with potential Prop 3 funds, won’t be enough to cover the $400 million cost of complying with the state’s seismic standards.  Rising construction costs and limited funds mean the hospital will rely on major donors to make up the difference, but those donors’ support is contingent upon Children’s Hospital Oakland receiving the Prop 3 funds that would supply its share of the budget.

“If Prop 3 doesn’t pass, we’re in trouble,” said Lubin.  “We’d have to go back to the drawing board and figure out how we’d survive.”

In California, bonds generally fund major infrastructure projects such as roads, educational or prison facilities, and water projects.  The long repayment periods—in Prop 3’s case, 30 years—spread out the high cost of infrastructure improvements over time and distribute it across the broad pool of taxpayers who benefit from these projects.  General obligation bonds such as those in Prop 3 must be approved by voters and are repaid from the state’s General Fund, which is fed primarily by tax revenues.

A key argument put forth by proponents of Prop 3 is that it doesn’t raise taxes.  However, as David Vasché of the Legislative Analyst’s Office explained at a July hearing of California’s Senate Health Committee, though bond measures don’t directly raise taxes, the money to repay them comes from the taxpayer-supporter General Fund.

“You’re basically trading off different things in the budget,” explained Vasché.  “For every dollar you add in, you have to take a dollar out for something else.”

Lewis Uhler, President of the National Tax Limitation Committee and co-author of the argument against Prop 3, says  this bond initiative is a special-interest abuse of the initiative process.

Children’s hospitals, he asserts, are attempting to push through bonds that benefit their own interests rather than the public’s.  “The initiative process, its purpose is to give the people ultimate control over their own government,” he said.  “And when expenditure measures are placed on the ballot for bonded moneys, those moneys should be used for the benefit of all citizens—roads, that sort of thing—rather than for the special interest proponents of such a measure.”

Uhler also argues that public funds have no business going to private institutions.  “They try to claim that their non-profit nature gives them a degree of public-ness, but they’re still privately owned and controlled,” he said.

But when 60% of  Children’s Hospital Oakland’s patients rely on state funds to pay for their care—and those funds aren’t enough to cover the hospital’s actual costs—the line between public and private becomes blurred. ”Essentially, Children’s Hospital Oakland serves as the county hospital—the public hospital—for pediatrics,” said Amy De Reyes.

“We’re barely able to survive because of the safety net that we provide and because we don’t turn away kids, regardless of their ability to pay,” said Bertram Lubin.  “We’re not a profit-making industry; we rely on philanthropy.”

Amy De Reyes worries that Children’s Hospital Oakland may decide to leave for an area with better-paying clients.  “Because of the quality of Children’s Hospital Oakland, our focus at the Alameda County Medical Center has been on adult care and specialty services,” said De Reyes.  “They really have picked up all of those clients.  If they were to go, we have no capacity to absorb them.  Absolutely none.  And that terrifies us.”

Lubin, however, says Children’s Hospital Oakland has no plans to leave the city.  “That is not on the table right now,” he said.  “We’re committed to serving this community.”

Ultimately, taxpayers will be deciding just how much money $2 billion really is.  While paying for the bonds would cost Californians only about $1.75 each per year, there are three other bond measures on the November ballot competing for their money.  Also, California is currently $53 billion in debt for outstanding general obligation bonds, with another $68 billion already authorized.

“When our state budget deficit was $15 billion in one year alone, and it looks like were facing six to eight billion to just close out the year, $2 billion over 30 years is not very much,” said De Reyes.  “But it’s still a lot of money.”

By KRISTINE WONG

Oct. 30 – Decades ago, Barbara Lee—now the outspoken Democratic congresswoman from the East Bay–deliberately chose not to register to vote. As a Mills College student in 1972, Lee was required to work for one of the presidential campaigns, or risk failing a class.

“For the first time, I said ‘I’m going to flunk this course,’ because I’m not going to get involved in politics,” she recalled. “ ‘These guys aren’t speaking to the issues that I think are important,’” she remembered thinking to herself.

But later that year, when Shirley Chisholm – the first African American woman elected to Congress – spoke on campus, Lee had a change of heart. “You speak to all the issues that young women care about,” she told Chisholm after her speech.

In reply, Chisholm told Lee that she needed to register to vote to if she wanted to change the system, according to Lee. Inspired by what she heard, Lee ended up coordinating the Chisholm’s campaign’s Northern California office for her class project.

Mable Yee

Less than a week before the 2008 Presidential election on Nov. 4, Lee’s story is as relevant as ever. After the contested outcome of 2000 and the razor-thin margin of winning votes in 2004, many Americans seem to have realized that just one vote can not only swing an election, but the future of the country. In 2008, more than 3.5 million citizens have registered to vote, according to a survey of state election officials conducted by the Associated Press. Results of the survey also noted gains among blacks, young people, and the rural population.

Despite the rise in new voters, “minority” women, or “women of color” –African American, Asian and Pacific Islander, Latina, and Native American/Alaska Native women — have yet to register and vote in large numbers, according to Mable Yee, the CEO and co-founder of Engage Her, a new online and nonpartisan organization seeking to get a diverse group of women politically involved.

Yee, 56, a former businesswoman-turned-social activist who lives in Berkeley, has worked since last year to uncover the reasons why women of color do not vote.

“The U.S. Census projects that by 2042, the multicultural population will make up the majority of our population,” she said. “If minority women don’t step up to participate and represent ourselves in the political system, we’ll continue to be left out of the power structure that runs this country.”

In 2004, the census reported 47 percent (1.5 million) of Asian Americans and Pacific Islander women, 40 percent (3.3 million) of Latina women, and 28 percent (3.7 million) of African American women – all citizens – failed to register and vote in the 2004 Presidential election. “The number of these women that didn’t vote – 8.5 million – could have made a difference in the 2004 election,” Yee said.

Yee’s research included interviewing women around the country for the book project she also called “Engage Her.” Although Yee emphasized that she did not know all the reasons women of color do not vote, she said many do not cast ballots because they are too busy caring for family or working, do not believe in the efficacy of the electoral system, or have lived under repressive political regimes.

After an outpouring of support from women who had heard about her research, Yee realized there was a potential movement underfoot. Her friend Joan Blades, the founder of Moveon.org and MomsRising.org, convinced her to stop the book project and produce a film instead, for its increased potential value as a teaching and discussion tool.

“Engage Her” features women of color, including Lee and Dolores Huerta, co-founder of the United Farm Workers, who share their stories about the importance of voting. Since the film was completed in September, Yee and a group of volunteers have been screening the film and holding post-screening discussions, hoping to ignite sparks among women of color who don’t usually talk about politics. “We want this film to start a national dialogue,” Yee said. Voter registration forms were also available at each event.

In addition to receiving requests for copies of the film around the country, Yee has also been asked for copies to show in countries as far as China and Liberia.

If anything, the film seems to have struck a chord among viewers, according to Yee, who has seen them laugh and cry while watching the film.

“What’s most important is to build leadership and encourage women of color to make their voices heard on the issues that affect them,” Yee said.

Sandra Pitts-Johnson

Sandra Pitts-Johnson, 56, a resident of North Oakland for the past 35 years, agrees. As Community Programs Manager for Engage Her, Pitts-Johnson said she recognized women in her own family and neighborhood who do not vote for many of the reasons Yee found.

“Women are the foundation of every family,” she said. “They are often too busy with survival issues–like taking care of their kids, putting food on the table, and going to work–to become involved,” she said.

Citing her 85-year old mother-in-law, Pitts-Johnson said she had an idea of why some older African American women do not vote. “We registered her to vote when she moved here from Texas in 1997, because it was the right thing to do,” she said. “But she was resistant, and said it wouldn’t make a difference.”

The older lady’s own personal observations was one of the main reasons why she didn’t vote, said Pitts-Johnson. “She grew up in a time of blatant racism. Although she was inspired by the civil rights movement, she didn’t see any of its results, especially in the last election, where she saw that the system did not work for people of color.”

Engage Her — whose website just launched in September — is focusing on four key main issues: education, health, economics, and the environment. Yee and Pitts-Johnson envision taking their brand of online participatory politics further by attempting to make elected officials accountable.

“Politicians come out for our vote and leave us behind,” Yee said. “We need to mobilize hundreds of concerned women to call in to Congress about issues they care about, as well as publish politicians’ meeting attendance and voting record on a Facebook page.”

In the film, Engage Her co-founder Mina Wilson implores women to become involved, and not only for their own good. “If you don’t speak up, you have no voice,” she said. “If you don’t speak up, your daughter may never get health care. If you don’t speak up, you’re creating another generation of people who are powerless to change their outcomes.”

“And that’s our objective,” she said. “That’s the work we have to do.”

Link: www.engageher.org

by BAGASSI KOURA

After its first approval 20 years ago, a local park development measure running out of money is back on the ballot this fall. The East Bay Regional Park District is asking residents of Alameda and Contra Costa counties to vote for Measure WW, which would raise up to $500 million through government bonds.

The money raised would replenish a dwindling supply of funds that have been levied since 1988 through Measure AA, the last bond issue aimed at East Bay parks.   Measure AA raised $225 million for the park system, less than half the amount currently being sought.  If the new measure is approved, the parks system would invest the money in over 5 dozen projects, including expanding and restoring an eight-mile park along the East Bay shoreline; establishing an interpretive visitor facility and indoor meeting at Las Trampas; and restoring bird habitat at the Hayward Shoreline. According to East Bay Parks officials, Measure AA has already benefited Tilden Park and its Environmental Education Center, Wildcat Canyon Park, Brooks Island, Eastshore State Park, and Point Pinole.

As the local population increased, East Bay Parks officials said, the district used the funds to acquire new parklands, which prevents overcrowding of recreational spaces. “It allowed us to keep up with the expansion of the population,” said Dave Collins, Assistant General Manager of Finances at East Bay Parks.  Funds raised through Measure AA have preserved 34,000 acres of open space, developed 100 miles of new trails, and funded hundreds of local parks and recreation projects, according to East Bay Parks officials.

Opponents of Measure WW said they feel the funds would be misdirected. “This is an environmental distraction,” said John Grigsby, spokesperson for No On Measure WW, a group of self-identified hikers, mountain bikers, and environmentalists who say they don’t trust East Bay Parks. “Sometimes they leave parks in worse condition than they got them,” said Grigsby, referring to East Bay Parks employees. He pointed out that there are ”1000 miles of ugly, steep, erosive ranch” and service roads in EBRPD parks. “Year after year, he said, the District scrapes away at these roads with bulldozers, graders, and other heavy equipment, and the result is a horrible eyesore.”

Instead, the group is advocating for more money to fund the California State Parks system, which they say is underfunded. “They run their parks much better,” Grigsby said. He pointed out that while East Bay Parks alone spent $143 million last year, the California state park system spent $344 million in 2006.

Measure WW supporters said that because the measure seeks to raise funds in a similar fashion to Measure AA, there is no reason to oppose it. “We really don’t see why anybody won’t support it,” said Kathryn Raymond, Executive Director of the Friends of Oakland’s Parks and Recreation, which supports Measure WW. “We have been paying for these services for years,” she added. She credited her organization with having 500 active families in the region.

Members of No On Measure WW said they are not opposing WW because of the
 country’s faltering economy. “We are not making that argument,” Grigsby said. “People have to decide for themselves.”

If passed, Measure WW will allow EBRPD to borrow up to $500 million from banks and other investors. This money will then be paid back by collecting $10 annually, over 20 years, per $100,000 of a homeowner’s property value.  “We are not asking for a tax increase,” said Collins, who noted that
 the East Bay Regional Park District was created in 1934. “During the height of 
the Depression, he said, people recognized the need to pay for 
community well-being.”

“If people like the current level of maintenance of our parks,” he
 said, “they should know that Measure WW will help maintain it.”

By MARTIN RICARD and CHRISTINA SALERNO

OCT. 28 — AC Transit board Vice President Rebecca Kaplan is facing Oakland school board member Kerry Hamill in a runoff for the at-large seat occupied by Oakland City Councilman Henry Chang Jr., who, after 14 years, will vacate the position. By happenstance, both hail from neighborhoods in the same part of the city. These profiles look at the candidates from the perspective of North Oakland, where they live and have roots.

At-large candidates Rebecca Kaplan and Kerry Hamill

Farmers’ market, public pool, and Telegraph Ave inspire Rebecca Kaplan

Two or three days a week, Rebecca Kaplan makes a short trek to the Temescal Pool, where she swims laps and takes in the fresh outdoor air. She loves using the pool, because it helps keep her in shape and it’s close to her home on 49th Street.

But for Kaplan, the community pool also serves as a shining example of how every neighborhood in the city could thrive if it had the right assets.

“It’s really wonderful having it here,” she said Tuesday on a walk through the neighborhood. “But it also makes me feel like every neighborhood should have one.”

Kaplan, a 38-year-old civil rights attorney, is running for the citywide seat.  But she has been campaigning on a platform partly inspired by her roots in her own North Oakland neighborhood, the Temescal district, where she has lived for the last five years with her partner.

Her idea calling for the establishment of more farmers’ markets throughout the city? That came from Kaplan’s experience watching the Temescal Farmers’ Market grow from nothing into a vibrant neighborhood center of activity.

Her plan to attract more businesses along the Broadway corridor? That was inspired by seeing the Telegraph Avenue corridor flourish with busy storefronts and steady pedestrian traffic.

Temescal district’s revitalization, which was based on small, niche businesses, may not work for every neighborhood in the city, she said, but she believes it can provide a few lessons.

“I feel like sometimes in local politics, we get stuck in thinking about economic revitalization as having big shopping malls or nothing at all,” Kaplan said. “The most important thing for Oakland is that other option: that we can have economic revitalization that serves the local neighborhoods with small shops and big stores. We shouldn’t have to choose.”

She is also calling for problem-solving officers in all of the city’s 63 police beats.

While Kaplan held a steady lead in the June primary with 40.2 percent of the vote, she has been facing criticism lately that she has lofty ideas with no way to pay for them.

She chuckled at those notions Tuesday, quickly pointing to some of her experience.

When she first proposed the all-nighter bus service for AC Transit, she said, most people didn’t believe she could get the support or funding to pull off the plan. But she found a way to work with her board and the San Francisco Board of Supevisors to get the service off the ground, and spearheaded the effort to put regional Measure 2 on the ballot in 2004, which was approved by voters to raise bridge tolls by $1 to pay for transit and highway projects and which led to the creation of the Night Owl bus service.

“When you have a good idea and a big enough group of people supporting that idea, then you can go out and get it,” she said. And Oakland city officials usually don’t do that, she added, either because of fear, lack of funds or lack of time.

Those who know her from the neighborhood agree, saying Kaplan’s lofty ideas aren’t built on empty promises.

Carlo Busby, co-owner of Sagrada Sacred Arts bookstore on Telegraph, said he has grown to know Kaplan as both a customer and a friend. He thinks Kaplan would make a good addition to the council, and not just because she would provide new blood. Her ideas are also built on her compassion for people and the connections she has made with them in her own neighborhood and beyond, Busby said.

That has been shown by her dedication to getting involved in neighborhood issues and coming up with creative ideas to solve them, he said. “I think she is the type of person that values the individual person, that makes sure that they’re cared for,” Busby said, “and that believes government should be doing something to ease people’s burdens.”

Kerry Hamill wants a more walkable city

Kerry Hamill considers her Piedmont Avenue neighborhood a perfect example of the type of “walkable communities” Oakland needs to develop as the city grapples with growth.

Boutique shops, restaurants and other resources are plentiful in Hamill’s neighborhood. She walked to Kaiser Hospital to give birth to both of her children, now 13 and 17. Each morning, she rides the No. 11 bus to work at her job as a BART manager.

In North Oakland, “We have some of the most active, healthy neighborhoods where people have demonstrated what they can do to bring about change,” said Hamill, who has lived in the area for 20 years.

“I want to create more of those villages in Oakland,” Hamill said during an interview Tuesday in the lobby of the BART offices in downtown Oakland. “I want to create new neighborhoods.”

Hamill, 52, is vying with Kaplan for the open at-large seat on the Oakland City Council. The former reporter for the Contra Costa Times first ventured into politics in the 1980s to work on Democratic State Senator John Burton’s campaign. She left journalism to work on subsequent political campaigns, and served as the chief of staff for Senate President Pro Tem Don Perata until 2000.

Hamill transitioned from behind-the-scenes worker to public figure after her children enrolled in Oakland public schools. Dismayed at the poor reading abilities of her children’s classmates, she decided to run for a seat on the Oakland school board. She has served on the board for the last eight years, improving literacy programs, reading scores, after-school programs and youth recreation opportunities, including the development of the “Field of Dreams” baseball field near 45th and Telegraph Avenue.

Her children now attend Oakland Technical High School and Edna Brewer Middle School.

“I am fanatical about helping to fill in the gaps for working families, where parents have to work late,” Hamill said. “Recreation centers need to be open for youth programs. They are cheap – pennies on the dollar for the cost-benefit of these programs – and nonprofits in Oakland want to work with the kids.”

Hamill says she is taking a similar back-to-basics approach in her campaign for city council, where she is focusing on issues like keeping parks clean and filling potholes. Hamill’s other goals include audits to determine where waste can be cut from the city budget, developing walkable communities, strengthening the community policing beats and bringing police officers off desk jobs and onto the streets.

Hamill opposes Measure NN, which would add more Oakland police officers through a parcel tax. Hamill said it took too long to hire the officers that were approved previously through Measure Y and she wants adequate training before another measure is passed.

Six current Oakland city council members, including the at-large incumbent Henry Chang Jr., have backed Hamill. Their support has prompted some critics to label her part of the “establishment,” unable to bring much-needed change to the city council.

Hamill dismissed the label, saying she is unafraid of speaking her mind and taking unpopular stances. Her opponent, she claims, changes her positions to appease her supporters. “Leadership means you speak from the heart,” she said. “In my work on the school board. I’ve been an agent of change.”

By MELANIE MASON

Oct. 28–In less than a week, the combined efforts of local and national candidates, political parties, activists, and energized citizens could result in a record Election Day turnout.  Alameda County has added more than 60,000 voters to the registration rolls since 2004; in all, over 800,000 people could be casting their vote.  The challenge of Election Day will be to harness all of this energy and enthusiasm into an orderly, manageable civic exercise. 

Enter the lawyers. 

Andrea Laiacona, an attorney with the Alameda-based firm Weinberg, Roger and Rosenfeld, serves as a voter protection coordinator of AFL-CIO and is helping coordinate the 200 volunteers planning travel to Las Vegas and Reno next week to monitor polling places and answer voters’ questions.  A law degree isn’t required to participate, but almost all these volunteers are lawyers.  

“It’s like all of California is going to Vegas,” said Laiacona, who lives in Rockridge, at a voter protection training session, one of the many she has run in advance of Election Day. 

Laiacona’s most recent training session, convened in her firm’s conference room and complete with the requisite coffee and donuts, featured a 90-minute PowerPoint cheekily titled “What to Expect When You’re Protecting.”  In addition to specifying relevant portions of Nevada election law, Laiacona laid out anticipated issues that could come up on Nov. 4, such as a high turnout of first-time voters, long lines and broken ballot machines. 

Laiacona also warned volunteers of voter intimidation aimed at suppressing turnout on Election Day.  She pointed to two falsehoods reported by Nevada voters: that voters can vote using their touch-tone phone, and that those with outstanding parking tickets or warrants would be apprehended by police at polling stations.  The Nevada Secretary of State, as well as county registrars, has debunked both rumors, according to Laiacona. 

Given the ballot challenges in the 2000 and 2004 national election, talk of voter protection is not simply a hypothetical exercise.  This year, the presidential campaigns are taking no chances, flooding battleground states with lawyers to deal with any problems that could arise.  Speaking of her interactions with the Obama campaign, Laiacona said, “They are really treating this like every county is Broward County or Miami-Dade,” two hotly-contested Florida counties in 2000. 

Oakland attorney Steve Tidrick, past president of the Alameda County Democratic Lawyers Association, believes lawyers are a natural fit for poll monitoring on Election Day.  He said working to protect voters entails “everything you learn in law school: to pay close attention to the facts, to quickly and carefully size up a situation, to report back concisely and carefully whatever is going on.  It’s a set of skills that lawyers, by virtue of their training and practice, tend to have.”

Tidrick is coordinating voter protection efforts for the Alameda County Democratic Party.  His plan for Election Day is to assign his team of ten lawyers to the six Democratic Party headquarters throughout the county, where they will be on call to respond to any problems reported at polling places. 

Noel Knight, an attorney who heads Alameda County’s Lawyers for McCain-Palin, is leading similar efforts, stationing his team of seven or eight lawyers at the registrar’s office, the Alameda County Republican Party headquarters, and select polling sites. 

The purpose of these efforts is, according to Tidrick, to serve as “eyes and ears” on Election Day. “In Alameda County, based on past experiences, the problems that arise are typically accidental and unintentional,” said Tidrick, citing common (and easy-to-fix) problems such as polling places not opening on time.  

Knight said he is instructing his team to look out for electioneering for candidates at polling places – signs, campaign workers, “any kind of shilling.” 

A proliferation of lawyers hanging around the polls may lend a sense of drama to Election Day, but Dave Macdonald, registrar of voters for Alameda County, was quick to tamp down any fears of funny business or wrongdoing on the big day. 

“Always people think there’s a lot of voter fraud,” said Macdonald.  “Frankly, I just don’t see it.” 

Tidrick agreed that intentional fraud was unlikely.  “If there are any situations where a particular state has a doubtful outcome – that rarely happens, but we want to be ready for it,” he said. 

Tidrick and Laiacona both tell their volunteers to expect a long day of watching polls, which may not be particularly eventful.  “Don’t go comatose because it’s so boring,” Laiacona told her trainees. 

But both are quick to point out that a drama-free Election Day is nothing to complain about. 

“What I tell my volunteers is ‘if nothing happens during the course of the day, they should feel very happy about the day,’” said Tidrick.

By KRISTINE WONG

Oct. 21 – On the steps of Oakland City Hall this morning, African-American ministers and politicians declared their strong opposition to Proposition 8, the state ballot initiative that would make same-sex marriage illegal in California.

Citing civil rights as well as religious, legal, and personal reasons, they challenged the assumption that the African-American community did not support gay marriage. But while they presented an united front, recent poll results show the majority of African-Americans in California support the ban on gay marriage – indicating the group has their work cut out for them.

Rev. Roland Stringfellow speaks out against Prop. 8

Urging equality for all, Eva Jefferson Patterson emphasized the importance of unity. “We will not allow a wedge to be driven between the African-American community on this issue,” said Jefferson Patterson, 59, a civil rights attorney.

“We’re here to show that not all African-Americans are in lockstep with fundamentalists about gay marriage,” said Rev. Hubert Ivery, 52, of the Twin Towers United Methodist Church in Alameda.  

A poll released last week by Survey USA indicated that 38 percent of African-Americans do oppose Proposition 8, but 58 percent are in favor of the ban on gay marriage.  

Ivery said that the majority of African-Americans are conservative or neutral on the issue, and interpret it through a religious lens. However, Ivery sees this issue differently. 

“Proposition 8 is an attack on the same civil rights historically denied to African-Americans,” he said. 

San Francisco District Attorney Kamala Harris said  Proposition 8 was not good government. “The Supreme Court of California – the highest authority on what is law in California – has weighed in already,” she said. “We are using money and resources to stop something that the Supreme Court has already ruled to be consistent with the state’s constitution.” 

Many also pointed out what they said were misinterpretations of Christianity and the Bible by those in the religious community opposed to same-sex marriage. 

“Scripture does not say anything against gay marriage,” said the Rev. Roland Stringfellow, 39, who works at the Center for Lesbian and Gay Studies in Religion and Ministry at the Pacific School of Religion in Berkeley. “What does Jesus teach? I don’t believe that Christ allows us to take away the right to see our loved ones at our bedside when we are sick, or that the Bible says it’s right for parents to throw a child out in the street because he is gay.” 

Stringfellow said his personal experience as a gay African-American raised in the black church gave him a personal investment in defeating Proposition 8.

Growing up, Stringfellow said, he dreamed of becoming a minister.  He assumed it was not possible due to his sexuality, he said, so he chose to stay closeted while pursuing his goal.

But after he got his Masters of Divinity at the Pacific School of Religion, Stringfellow said, he realized he didn’t have to choose between different parts of his identity. 

After coming out, he said, his family was shunned in their church for his sexuality. “My mom and I had our conflicts,” he said. But they continued to keep talking, despite their differences. “My mother finally got the courage to stand up in church and say that she loved me,” he said. To him, this is proof that continued dialogue can change minds and attitudes about homosexuality and gay marriage within the African-American community. 

Ultimately, Stringfellow said, he sees gay marriage as a matter of integrity and authenticity.  “When people aren’t allowed to love whom they love and marry whom they want to marry,” he said, “they are not being treated as equal citizens.”