Click here for a complete list of our election recommendations.

For Tuesday’s election, only one school district in Santa Clara County has proposed a bond measure to raise money for constructing and rehabilitating education facilities.

Sunnyvale School District voters should approve Measure C. But they and all Californians should recognize the teachable moment the measure presents about inequities in how we fund school construction.

The lesson starts with understanding that issuing bonds is a form of borrowing, much like a mortgage. The money must be paid back.

So, school bond measures are also property tax measures, with the money raised used to pay off the debt. The total tax needed depends in part on the amount of money borrowed, interest rate for the bonds and duration of the payback period.

The responsibility for paying off the bonds is divided between property owners based on the assessed valuation of their properties. Those properties include homes and commercial properties.

The moral of the story: If a school district has a lot of high-valued commercial properties within its boundaries — like, say, those belonging to major technology companies — the impact on homeowners is less.

Sunnyvale is one of those school districts blessed with key technology companies. And that’s how the district can propose to issue $214 million more in bonds and still have relatively low homeowner tax rates for paying off the loans.

Here are the numbers for Measure C: The $214 million in new borrowing would be added to three prior voter-approved bond measures. Combined, the four measures would have about $900 million in principal and interest to pay off by about 2059.

Without Measure C, property owners next year would pay about $33 for every $100,000 of assessed value. Measure C would add another $15 per $100,000 of assessed value.

If Measure C passes, the owners of a single-family home in the district with an average assessed valuation of $864,000 would see their annual supplemental tax bill for the district’s school bonds increase from about $285 to $415.

That’s very low for so much bond debt in a small district, but it’s possible in large part because of the values of commercial property in the district. Most school districts in the Bay Area would be envious.

To be sure, because the Sunnyvale district only covers students for pre-kindergarten and K-8, property owners must also pay taxes on bonds for the Fremont Union High School District, which also includes much of Cupertino.

That district also benefits from being able to spread out bond costs over its lucrative commercial tax base. Between Sunnyvale and Cupertino, the Fremont Union district has properties owned by companies such as Google, Apple, Lockheed, LinkedIn and Applied Materials.

For comparison, Hayward, where commercial and residential property values are less, is proposing a bond measure that would result in about the same amount of total debt, but the tax rate would be about 75% more.

The other key factor to consider in evaluating Measure C is how the bond money would be spent. And there, Sunnyvale has a well-thought-out spending plan for upgrading and modernizing schools that’s spelled out in the district’s facilities master plan. They’ve broken down the allocations for each of nine different school sites.

The inequity between school districts in California is stark. Homeowners in the Sunnyvale district are lucky they don’t have to spend more on school bond taxes. Leaders of other districts wish they could so easily afford the same.

Click here for a complete list of our election recommendations.

When it comes to improving our school buildings, there’s no free lunch.

Four East Bay districts are proposing bond measures to raise money to construct or rehabilitate education facilities. But, bonds are a form of borrowing, much like a mortgage. The money must be paid back.

So school bond measures are also property tax measures, with the money raised used to pay off the debt. The total tax needed depends in part on the amount of money borrowed, interest rate for the bonds and duration of the payback period. The responsibility for paying off the bonds is divided between property owners based on the assessed valuation of their properties.

For our evaluations of the bond measures, we look at the districts’ plans for spending the money and the details of the financing. We also consider other supplemental school taxes that property owners already pay for past bonds and for ongoing district operations.

Here are our recommendations:

Antioch Measure B – Yes

Antioch is a tale of two cities — and that applies to school property taxes, too.

In the older parts of the city, residents in 2008 and 2012 voted to tax themselves modestly to make the payments on $118 million of bonds for upgrades to aging schools.

Meanwhile, in the newer sections of Antioch, built since 1989, property owners had been paying so-called Mello-Roos taxes to fund the construction of the schools there. Those taxes expired in 2016.

School officials have identified and prioritized over $1 billion of repairs and upgrades needed in schools across the city, about half of which are in the newer part of the city.

In 2020, the district sought voter approval in the newer part of the city to issue $105 million in bonds for school improvements there. It barely failed, garnering 54.62% of the vote when it needed 55%.

This time around, with Measure B, they are proposing a districtwide bond measure of $195 million. It’s still only a small portion of the need in Antioch. But it’s a reasonable start.

The bonds would be issued over about the next six years and would be paid off by 2059. No bonds would be issued for more than 30 years.

Paying off the bonds would cost property owners across the city up to $48 per $100,000 of assessed valuation. For a home with a median assessed valuation of $307,210, that works out to payments of about $147 annually.

Those in the older part of the city would also continue to pay off the bonds approved in 2008 and 2012, bringing their total, including the Measure B bonds, to $128 per $100,000 of assessed value, or $394 annually for that home with a median assessed value.

The spending plan is modest, and the taxing plan is reasonable. Voters should approve Measure B.

Hayward Measure I – No

The Hayward district has a legitimate need to upgrade aging schools. But this $550 million bond measure is too large.

Voters in 2008, 2014 and 2018 approved the district’s issuing $816 million of bonds. Now school officials are asking for permission to borrow another $550 million.

The principal and interest on the outstanding bonds and the ones proposed in Measure I would cost taxpayers $2.4 billion over the next 34 years.

Consequently, property tax rates for school bond repayments would jump 62% in two years, to $154 per $100,000 of assessed value in 2026, according to district estimates. That works out to $836 annually for an average home with an assessed value of about $536,000.

At the same time, since the 2014 voter approval, district enrollment has declined 16%. And district projections show that trend continuing in the years to come.

The district, in trying to sell Measure I, has emphasized the need to relocate Bret Harte Middle School because it’s seismically unsafe and to build a new facility. Bret Harte has only about 560 students, or roughly 3% of the district’s total.

We certainly don’t want students housed in dangerous buildings. But the $110 million cost of rebuilding the school is not justification for a bond measure of five times that amount.

Fiscally responsible voters should reject Measure I.

Moraga Measure D – No

In 2016, Moraga school officials went to voters seeking borrowing authority to raise money to upgrade their elementary schools. We supported it at the time.

District officials had conducted a study that identified $18.5 million of construction projects at the schools. They added in another 14.5 million for contingencies, soft costs and escalation. With that study, voters approved $33 million of bonds.

Now the district is back, this time seeking another $52 million. They’re using similar boilerplate ballot language about needing to upgrade classrooms, replace leaky roofs and windows and provide modern technology.

But unfortunately, this time, there is no clear plan with a budget and priorities. They’re putting the cart before the horse, asking for money before they figure out how to spend it.

The measure would add about another $300 a year to the property tax bill for an average homeowner.

As it is, property owners pay $833 annually for parcel taxes for the operations of the Moraga district, which serves kindergarten through eighth-graders, and Acalanes high school district.

And they make payments to cover the bond costs of the two districts of about $55 per $100,000 of assessed value. Measure D would increase the bond payments to about $86 per $100,000 of assessed value. Put another way, the owner of a home with an average assessed value of about $943,500 would see annual payments for bonds increase from about $520 to about $811.

Moraga’s financing plan would be reasonable if there was a clear spending plan for the money with delineated priorities. But that’s lacking. Vote no.

San Leandro Measure J – No

When the San Leandro school district sought voter approval in 2020 for another school bond measure, we recommended against it, noting that it would be the fifth one on the property tax rolls.

Now the district wants property owners to pay the tab for a sixth bond measure, this one for another $174 million, on top of $514 million authorized in prior years. It brings the total amount of approved bonds to a whopping $80,000 per student and the future debt service — principal and interest — to over $1 billion. This is for a district with just 8,600 students.

Property owners already make annual payments equal to $180 for every $100,000 of assessed valuation. For an average home in the district, with an assessed value of about $482,000, that works out to $867 annually.

District officials claim the measure won’t raise taxes. Indeed, the way they propose to structure the debt for Measure J would not increase the annual tax rate for all the bond measures.

But that’s in part because they plan to postpone a significant portion of the Measure J repayments for more than a decade, until bonds from some of the earlier measures are paid off. That postponement will drive up the borrowing cost and the total price for taxpayers.

There’s another problematic issue with Measure J: District officials plan to spend about a third of the money on designing, acquiring and constructing rental housing units for teachers and staff, including all related amenities and facilities.

What exactly that would entail is not clear. How the district could provide housing more cost-efficiently than private developers is also not clear. And while stating in the measure that none of the bond money would go to teacher salaries, providing subsidized housing is just another form of compensation.

Yes, we need to help our teachers, police officers, firefighters and other essential workers live in the communities where they are employed. But there’s already an approved countywide housing bond measure that adds to property tax bills. Having every school district and city pile on with their own housing measures is not the answer.

But even without the housing element of Measure J, the economics of the plan, like for the one in 2020, do not make sense. Voters should reject it.

Click here for a complete list of our election recommendations.

Four East Bay school districts seek voter permission in the March 5 election for what they say are extensions of existing parcel taxes.

Two districts honestly and transparently present their measures to voters. Two are hiding tax increases.

Here are our recommendations for the four measures:

Alameda Measure E – Yes

Property owners in the city of Alameda currently pay two parcel taxes for school operations and two others to help retire bonds for school construction.

The two parcel taxes, approved by voters in 2016 and 2020, are due to expire in 2025 and 2027, respectively. Measure E would combine them and extend them to 2034.

While we supported the first tax and opposed the second, the issue now is whether to extend them at the same rates. Given that the money has been baked into the district’s finances, with voters’ approval, we don’t see a reason to upend the funding. Voters should approve Measure E.

Indeed, we commend the district for combining the two measures. It’s much more transparent than the tactic taken by some districts to spread out multiple tax measures between elections and hide the full impact from voters. (For an example of obfuscation, see our comments on Berkeley Measure H below.)

The two Alameda school parcel taxes, when combined under Measure E, would total 58.5 cents per square foot of building area. For an average-sized single-family home in Alameda, that works out to $1,067 annually.

The tax contains a cap of $15,998 per parcel, which has drawn opposition because it advantages the owners of properties larger than 27,347 square feet. That’s a building roughly half the size of a football field.

The 2016 and 2020 measures contained similar caps that prompted a court challenge of the latter measure because of the inequity. But the challenge failed. While there is a legitimate public policy debate over the wisdom of such a cap, the issue in Alameda has now been settled by voters and judges.

In addition to the two parcel taxes, property owners also pay an annual tax, about $111 per $100,000 of assessed value, to cover bond payments on money the district borrowed for school construction. For the owner of an average residential property in the district, assessed at $680,960, that’s about $756.

Total Alameda supplement taxes for schools are hefty. But Measure E doesn’t increase them.

Albany Measure G – No

Albany already has some of the highest supplemental school taxes in the East Bay. Now district leaders are seeking more while deceiving voters about it.

Like past Albany measures, Measure G doesn’t pass the transparency test. Voters should reject it.

The ballot wording claims the measure is “renewing parcel tax authority.” No, it’s not. It’s completely changing how the tax is calculated, from a flat amount per parcel to a tax based on building square footage.

The owner of an average single-family home would face about a 42% increase. The revenue raised from the tax would be doubled. And the sunset provision in the current tax would be eliminated, meaning voters would be stuck with it forever, complete with its 3% annual increase.

It’s not just Albany school officials who are misleading voters. They are being enabled by County Counsel Donna Ziegler, who prepared the deceptive “impartial analysis” that fails to explain the core changes and tax increases, and City Council members and the League of Women Voters’ local president, who signed illusory ballot arguments that claim citizens somehow could repeal the measure at any time. They should know better.

Albany property owners currently pay two annual parcel taxes that subsidize school district operations. The first, approved by voters in 2009, is currently $591 annually and has no expiration date. The second, currently $490 and expected to hit about $515 next year after an inflation adjustment, was last renewed and increased by voters in 2020 and is due to expire in 2027.

It’s that second tax that Measure G would make permanent and radically change. Measure G would raise $4.8 million, double the amount currently brought in by the 2020 measure it would replace. Rather than a flat amount per parcel, the tax would be levied based on square footage of buildings.

The idea of making owners of larger buildings pay more is reasonable. But Measure G is more than simply a redistribution of tax burden: It would also increase the amount for people of modest means. The owners of a single-family home with an Albany average size of 1,326 square feet would face a tax increase next year from $515 to $729.

That’s in addition to the tax of $591 per parcel from the 2009 measure. And it’s piled on top of taxes for the district’s construction bond debt that next year will cost property owners $178 for every $100,000 of assessed value, or $1,134 for a home with an average assessed value of $637,000.

In other words, typical Albany homeowners are going to pay roughly $2,500 annually for supplemental school taxes. For those whopping amounts, they deserve honesty and transparency from school officials. With Measure G, they didn’t get it.

Berkeley Measure H – No

Berkeley has a maze of very costly supplemental taxes that are practically indecipherable to voters.

For starters, they have three different parcel taxes for various parts of school operations — all with annual inflation increases and each with a different expiration date so that voters don’t see the full picture when it comes time for renewal.

Measure H purports to be a renewal of one of those parcel taxes. By our calculations, it’s actually a tax increase. The old tax, approved in 2016, after the included adjustments for inflation, would be about 49 cents per square foot of building space in 2025. Measure H would start in 2025 at 54 cents per square foot.

The increase alone amounts to about $100 a year for a single-family home with 1,971 square feet, which the school district says is the average. If Measure H passes, the total of the three parcel taxes would be about $1,571 for that average-size home.

In addition, Berkeley property owners are paying off bonds from prior voter-approved school construction measures, and the district has yet to issue more than $300 million in bonds that voters approved in 2020, which will likely drive up property taxes in the future. Berkeley failed to provide us an accounting of the projected tax rates that accounted for the future bond issues, so we are using their projections from 2020.

The district’s projections at the time showed the tax rate for bonds could reach about $126 per $100,000 of assessed valuation, or $933 for an average home in the city. If Measure H is approved, the three parcel taxes and the bonds could bring the total school supplemental tax bill for an average homeowner to roughly $2,500 annually.

Voters should reject Measure H because of the district’s total supplemental tax burden, which contributes to the high cost of owning a home in Berkeley, and the district’s lack of transparency.

Martinez Measure C – Yes

Measure C is an eight-year renewal of an existing $75-per-year parcel tax that voters approved in 2018. The tax provides $850,000 annually, equal to about 1.5% of the district’s yearly budget.

While the use of the money is technically restricted, the categories are broad and effectively cover most academic programs as well as technology equipment and infrastructure. In practical terms, this is a supplement to the district’s ongoing operation costs.

The tax is in addition to separate voter-approved bond measures that next fiscal year will cost property owners $105 per $100,000 of assessed value or about $468 a year for the owner of an average home in the district. Thus, the total supplemental taxes for an average homeowner in the district would be about $543 next fiscal year.

Compared to most Bay Area school districts, the supplemental tax bill for Martinez schools is modest. Voters should approve Measure C.

Click here for a complete list of our election recommendations.

The effort to recall District Attorney Pamela Price has unmasked Alameda County’s broken rules for removing an official from office.

Of California’s 58 counties, 14 have their own charters rather than relying on state law to guide them. And Alameda County has the only charter provisions for recalls that are at odds with state law and current constitutional law, according to County Counsel Donna Ziegler.

That’s why a majority of the Board of Supervisors decided to ask voters in the March 5 election whether the county should instead follow state recall rules. The answer should be a resounding yes.

Measure B would not affect whether the ongoing Price recall ends up on a future ballot. Supporters and opponents of the embattled district attorney should unite to approve Measure B — to bring Alameda County’s recall process into the 21st century and into conformance with the rest of the state.

What Measure B does

Alameda County currently relies on nearly century-old charter provisions, some of which are unconstitutional under subsequent court rulings. Other provisions are simply not practical given the current size of the county.

For example, the charter allows election officials only 10 days to verify recall petition signatures to determine if there are enough to force an election. That might have made sense when the county population was less than one-third of today’s and the recall signature requirement was commensurately less. But it’s ridiculous now when a recall campaign could submit 100,000 signatures or more for verification.

If there are enough signatures, the charter requires that the election occur within 30-45 days of when the county Board of Supervisors calls for it. With more than 900,000 registered voters today, that’s too little time to prepare ballots and set up polling locations.

If Measure B passes, state law would provide election officials 30 days to verify recall petition signatures and, in most cases, for the Board of Supervisors to call an election within 88 to 125 days. That’s much more reasonable.

Measure B would also increase the number of valid signatures needed to qualify a future recall for the ballot — but it would not affect the ongoing Price recall effort.

For a future recall effort, the threshold to qualify would increase from 15% of votes cast within the county for governor at the last election to 10% of all registered voters. That works out today to an increase from about 73,000 valid signatures to 92,000 for a recall involving a countywide office.

That’s reasonable. Recalls should be reserved for truly egregious behavior, not merely political unhappiness with an elected official.

Under Measure B, if a recall succeeds, the Board of Supervisors would appoint a temporary successor who would have to then stand for election to keep the job. Under the current county charter, the replacement is chosen by voters in the same recall election — a recipe for political mischief as we’ve seen with statewide gubernatorial recalls, which include replacement candidates on the ballot.

Finally, Measure B would eliminate the ridiculous county charter provision enabling recall of appointed county officials, such as the county administrator, public works director, elections chief or county counsel.

Those officials should only be accountable to the Board of Supervisors. They’re not elected by voters. They should operate professionally without fear of having to fend off recalls and without having to mount political campaigns to keep their nonpolitical jobs.

Effect on Price recall

If Measure B passes, it would not impact whether a Price recall effort reaches the ballot. But, if there is a recall election, Measure B might improve when and how it’s conducted.

No matter the outcome of Measure B, Price recall backers need only meet the current lower signature requirement and election officials will have to operate under current county charter rules for verifying signatures within 10 days.

That’s because the votes in the March 5 election, including those for Measure B, will probably not be certified until April 2. Meanwhile, Price recall backers must submit their signatures to county election officials by, coincidentally, Election Day. So the signature verification must be completed before Measure B could take effect.

If the signature validation shows that the Price recall submitted enough valid signatures for an election, legal battles would likely ensue.

The possibly biggest legal issue would not be affected by the outcome of Measure B. Price’s attorney has signaled that he will challenge signatures because they have been collected under current county charter rules, which restrict recall petition circulators to registered voters living in Alameda County. That might be a tough legal hurdle because the U.S. Supreme Court has found similar requirements for circulating petitions unconstitutional.

Meanwhile, Measure B could have two positive effects on the procedures for a Price recall election if one were held. First, it might alter the date of the election. It’s uncertain whether it would be held on the county charter’s rushed schedule or Measure B’s more reasonable state timeline.

In both cases, Measure B would be an improvement. But it’s unclear whether the measure would affect those procedures for a Price recall election because it’s uncertain when the measure would take effect. Measure B does not contain a specific date it would take effect, only that it would be after approval by a majority of voters.

To be clear, neither procedural issue would affect whether the Price recall, if it has enough signatures, would go to the ballot. It would only affect the process that follows — and only potentially for the better.

The bottom line is that Measure B is a vast improvement over the status quo, ensuring a more reasonable recall process for the future. Voters should approve it.

The measure on the March 5 ballot would authorize the state to borrow $6.4 billion through bonds to fund construction of treatment facilities and homeless housing. Prop 1 would also change the rules for spending billions collected annually from a state income tax on millionaires that voters approved in 2004.

Here’s a look at California’s history with mental health issues, analysis of the measure, arguments from a supporter and an opponent, and our editorial recommendation on Prop. 1:

• News story: Can a $6.4 billion mental health ballot measure solve California homelessness?
• Walters: Newsom wants to resolve state’s long debate over mental health
• Pro: Measure is the best chance in decades to change the system
• Con: Plan will force major cuts in services
• Editorial: Prop. 1 for mental health deserves support

Click here for a complete list of our election recommendations.

Click here for a complete list of our election recommendations.

Three problematic current and former Democratic officeholders and a little-known Republican are vying to fill a vacant northern Contra Costa Assembly seat in a race triggered by legislative musical chairs.

With state Sen. Steve Glazer, D-Orinda, pushed out by term limits and Assemblyman Tim Grayson, D-Concord, vying to replace him, the choice of Grayson’s successor in his heavily Democratic district is also on the March 5 ballot.

Of the four candidates, Democrat Karen Mitchoff, a former Contra Costa supervisor, is the best choice because of her proven record of practical political moderation and her superior knowledge of state issues.

Her 12 years on the county Board of Supervisors, from 2011-23, along with her time on the boards of the Bay Area Air Quality Management District, Association of Bay Area Governments, Contra Costa Transportation Authority and Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta Conservancy have prepared her well about the effects of state policy on regional and county issues.

She is thoughtful in her discussions of topics such as Gov. Gavin Newsom’s mental health proposal incorporated into Proposition 1 on the upcoming ballot (she supports it), his proposal for a Delta tunnel (she opposes it), and an expected Bay Area tax increase ballot measure for public transit (she opposes it until she sees transparency and reforms at BART).

Throughout her career, Mitchoff has done her homework and understood the complexity of the issues put before her. As a result, she has adhered to political positions that balance societal needs with fiscal realities. In a state Legislature often dominated by hard-left Democrats, she would bring a much-needed centrist dose of practicality.

That said, no discussion of Mitchoff is complete without noting her sometimes abrasive or dismissive treatment of colleagues, staff and the public, an unfortunate trait we’ve noted before. Nevertheless, on her record of moderation, her knowledge and her policy positions, Mitchoff is clearly the best candidate in Assembly District 15.

The district covers Concord, Brentwood, Clayton, Martinez, Antioch, Pittsburg, Pleasant Hill and a small portion of Walnut Creek. Nearly 53% of voters are registered Democrats, 19% are Republicans and 21% have no party affiliation.

The other Democrats in the race are Anamarie Avila Farias, a member of the Contra Costa County Board of Education, and Antioch Councilmember Monica Wilson. The Republican candidate, Sonia Ledo, a real estate agent from Concord, declined to be interviewed.

Avila Farias has significant experience working on housing-finance issues, including since 2015 as a board member of the California Housing Finance Agency. But her knowledge base on other state issues wasn’t as strong as Mitchoff’s.

Moreover, we remain troubled by her one term on the Martinez City Council, from 2012-16. She joined a council majority that appointed one of her former colleagues at the Oakland Housing Authority as interim city manager despite the person’s lack of even department management experience. In the decision-making process, the council majority improperly shut out two council members, denying their requests for the candidate’s resume and to interview her.

During her final year on the City Council, Farias ran unsuccessfully for Contra Costa County supervisor, then led a questionable but successful effort to force district elections on the Martinez City Council and school board.

In 2020, she won election to the Contra Costa County Board of Education. Two years later, in the wake of the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision overturning Roe v. Wade, she called for a boycott of the Fourth of July holiday. We share her anger over the high court’s decision but question the message she, an elected member of a county school board, was sending.

As for Wilson, her record on the Antioch council has been troubling and lacking in principle.

She was part of a three-member majority, led by Mayor Lamar Hernandez-Thorpe, that hired a city manager without experience for the job who lasted just a little over a year before being placed on leave and eventually resigning. The same council majority could not hang on to a highly qualified, reform-minded police chief who abruptly retired after just 18 months in Antioch.

Most disappointing was Wilson’s defense of Hernandez-Thorpe’s behavior. An independent investigation sustained sexual harassment allegations that Thorpe grabbed the buttock of one woman and the bare leg of another, both of whom were subordinates when he was executive director of a troubled health care district. The district was subsequently disbanded, with its assets and liabilities turned over to Contra Costa County, which subsequently settled legal claims by the two women for $350,000.

After the 2022 release of the investigation, Wilson stood silent, saying only that she wouldn’t be “pulled into the middle of this.” Asked again last month to explain her position, Wilson said commenting would be unfair to Thorpe because, she claimed incorrectly, the county had not released the investigation findings.

The report was a public document. The county released it at the time to this news organization, which made it publicly available and separately provided a copy to Wilson. We provided another copy to Wilson last month. She has remained silent since and did not return our call on Wednesday.

As we said in 2022, when she ran for reelection to the City Council, Wilson’s silence, her refusal to call out Thorpe and stand up for the women he harassed, is especially troubling given that Wilson’s day job is working to help people who are victims of human trafficking.

Each of these candidates is problematic. But Mitchoff is the best informed and the best choice in the March 5 election.

Click here for a complete list of our election recommendations.

It’s not often that voters get to pick a new jurist for one of Santa Clara County’s 77 Superior Court judgeships.

Usually, California judges, who must stand for election every six years, time their retirements midterm to allow the governor to appoint their successors. That allows the successor to later run for election to a full term with the advantage of incumbency and, consequently, the likelihood of no challenger.

But periodically a judge doesn’t play by the unwritten rules. This election cycle, one of them, Judge Vincent Chiarello, opted to wait out the clock, to delay his retirement long enough so that the choice of his replacement has been left to the voters, not the governor.

Three qualified candidates are campaigning in the March 5 election to replace Chiarello. One of them stands out above the rest. That’s Jay Boyarsky, who brings 30 years of experience in the District Attorney’s Office — the first 17 as a line prosecutor and supervising deputy district attorney, the last 13 as the person who manages the daily operations for an office of 655 employees, including 190 prosecutors.

Boyarsky is District Attorney Jeff Rosen’s top assistant. He’s the person who makes the office run. A graduate of UC Berkeley School of Law, he understands the law, the court system and how to manage caseloads. He’s supported not only by prosecutors, but also by judges, police chiefs, police unions, a broad spectrum of elected officials and even criminal defense attorneys.

That last support, he says, is because he’s not a “true believer” who thinks police never make mistakes. As he considers whether cases should be prosecuted, he brings an open mind — the same sort of open mind that a judge must have on the bench.

Boyarsky faces two opponents, one from inside his office and one from outside.

Johnene Stebbins, a UC Davis law school graduate, has served in the same office as Boyarsky since 1998. And she has racked up a list of supporters that also includes judges, police unions and some elected officials.

Nicole Ford, also a UC Davis law school graduate, is in private practice. For the past 8 1/2 years, she has been a solo practitioner, specializing in family law and appearing most of the time in Santa Clara County Superior Court.

Evaluating candidates for Superior Court judge can be challenging for voters. The candidates are restricted by judicial ethics rules from engaging in political or campaign activity that could compromise their independence and impartiality on the bench.

So don’t look for broad pronouncements from any of the candidates. Rather, look at their records. They each bring solid experience. But none more so than Boyarsky.

Click here for a complete list of our election recommendations.

Proposition 1 is pricey. It’s complex. It’s a bold but imperfect approach to managing the state’s worsening mental health crisis.

Driven by Gov. Gavin Newsom, the measure is the only statewide proposition for the March 5 election. Contrary to the suggestion in its ballot title, it probably would not make a major dent in California’s overall homeless crisis.

But it would target a critical segment — those who are on the streets because they are not getting mental health or addiction treatment they desperately need. The measure offers an alternative to California’s current siloed approach that too often provides housing without treatment or treatment without housing.

Prop. 1 is a necessary step that voters should support.

The measure divides into two sections: First, it would authorize the state to borrow $6.4 billion through bonds to fund construction of treatment facilities and homeless housing. Second, it would change the rules for spending billions collected annually from a state income tax on millionaires that voters approved in 2004. It’s the latter part that’s the most controversial.

But let’s start with the bonds, for which repayment from the state general fund would cost an estimated $310 million annually over the next 30 years.

Of the $6.4 billion, $4.4 billion would be used to build facilities to treat 6,800 people with mental health or drug and alcohol issues. That would have a major impact on a state that, according to the nonpartisan Legislative Analyst’s Office, needs capacity to treat 10,000 more people at any one time.

The other $2 billion would go toward housing homeless people and those with mental health, drug or alcohol problems. The money would go to local governments to convert hotels, motels and other buildings into housing and to construct new dwellings.

However, the anticipated 4,350 units would minimally impact the problem of more than 180,000 Californians living on streets. More problematic, veterans make up about 6% of the homeless population, yet over half the $2 billion would be set aside for veterans. That makes no policy sense. Those provisions seem politically driven to attract special-interest support and votes.

Then there’s the reallocation of proceeds from the voter-approved, so-called “millionaires’ tax.” The tax provides a revenue stream for California’s 58 counties to fund mental health services, currently generating more than $3 billion a year. Counties use the money to treat a broad range of mental health issues with a strong focus on prevention, early intervention and community-based care.

Prop. 1 would restructure how this money is used, with a stronger focus on housing and those suffering from severe mental illness. How Prop. 1 would affect current county programs and services varies widely, depending on how each county spends its money from the millionaires’ tax now.

Counties would be required to spend 30% on housing interventions for people who are homeless or at risk of becoming homeless. Another 35% would fund services and intensive treatment for adults diagnosed with severe mental illness. That leaves 35% for behavioral health services, with about half of that funding earmarked for early intervention programs. The proposal would also offer counties some flexibility, allowing them to shift limited funds between the strict categories with state approval.

For perspective, counties currently receive about $10 billion to $13 billion a year from state and federal funding, including the millionaires’ tax, on mental health and drug or alcohol treatment, according to the legislative analyst. The fight is over how to allocate about a third of that money.

It’s understandable that some are upset by how this might affect services in some counties and that counties will have less spending flexibility. Indeed, it will force counties to spend their money more efficiently and tap new sources of funding, such as those made available by recent legislative changes in state Medi-Cal reimbursements.

That said, the state has limited resources, the current distribution of money is not getting the job done and the problem requires a statewide approach. To provide a clearer picture of federal, state and county efforts in California to address mental health issues, Prop. 1 would also require counties to report how they spend all the money from those sources.

Newsom wants to try something new. Voters should give him that chance. But they should also hold him accountable to ensure that Proposition 1 delivers promised improvements.

Click here for a complete list of our election recommendations.

No local elected officials have more power than our Superior Court judges. It’s critical that they are honest, impartial and free of political influence.

Which is why Alameda County voters should elect Michael Johnson, an attorney and pro tem judge with a long list of professional accomplishments and a deep respect for the ethical canons of the judiciary, to the only court seat on the March 5 ballot.

And why his opponent, Mark Fickes, who publicly bragged about his vote for embattled District Attorney Pamela Price to win an endorsement, should be removed from his current post as a court commissioner and should not become a judge.

Identified as Office #12 on the ballot, the seat at stake is currently held by Judge Evelio Grillo, who opted not to seek reelection this year after more than 20 years on the bench.

Johnson is well-prepared for the job. He was a high-ranking civil litigator and business lawyer for AT&T and Warner Brothers for over 20 years, handling consumer and regulatory matters and issues pertaining to government contracts, health care and technology.

During that time, he also served as president of the Alameda County Bar Association and president of the board of the association’s volunteer legal services program that helps indigent people who cannot afford a lawyer. He also served as general counsel to the Charles Houston Bar Association, which works to address unique challenges facing the African American community.

He was selected to serve on the California State Bar committee that evaluates lawyers’ qualifications to become judges. He is now a volunteer settlement conference mediator for Santa Clara County Superior Court. And he has served for the past five years as a periodic volunteer temporary judge in Alameda County, predominantly handling traffic cases.

Before applying for the volunteer job, Johnson had to undergo similar judicial training to that required of Fickes for his post as a paid commissioner handling similar cases. But apparently Fickes, who has held his post less than a year, didn’t pay careful attention to the ethics training.

Canon 5 of the California Code of Judicial Ethics states that, “a judge or candidate for judicial office shall not engage in political or campaign activity that is inconsistent with the independence, integrity, or impartiality of the judiciary.”

Yet, Fickes last month stood before members of the Alameda County Democratic Central Committee, telling them, in an answer to a question about his 2022 pick for district attorney, “I voted for Pamela Price” and drawing immediate applause by the group.

In contrast, Johnson, who attended the meeting by video conference, explained that he was prohibited by judicial ethics from answering the question.

You need not be a legal expert to understand why Canon 5 exists and why Fickes should not have answered the question. He’s now a court commissioner handling traffic cases and, if elected, he might be assigned criminal cases filed by Price or her subordinates.

Defendants have a right to an impartial jurist, one without allegiance to the district attorney. Fickes declined to participate in our interview process and did not return our follow-up call seeking comment.

Johnson’s campaign has filed a complaint demanding that Thomas Nixon, the presiding judge of Alameda County Superior Court, investigate Fickes. The campaign alleges that Fickes has repeatedly violated the rules of conduct for a court commissioner and judicial candidate. A statement from a court spokesman Tuesday noted that Nixon cannot comment on any complaint received.

The allegations in the current campaign are not surprising to us. Fickes ran unsuccessfully for judge four years ago. As we noted then, he was deceiving voters with his ballot designation as a civil rights attorney. Neither his resume nor professional web page at the time made mention of work as a civil rights attorney.

There’s one very well-qualified candidate in this race. And he’s the only one who deserves consideration. Voters should elect Michael Johnson to the Alameda County Superior Court bench.

Click here for a complete list of our election recommendations.

Three members of the Alameda County Board of Education face ill-prepared challengers in the March 5 election.

None of those challengers merits serious consideration. A couple don’t even understand what the job entails. Instead, voters should reelect Angela Normand, Janevette Cole and Eileen McDonald.

Normand represents Area 2, which includes Alameda, part of Oakland and a small part of San Leandro. Cole represents Area 5, which includes Hayward, Union City and northwest Fremont. McDonald represents Area 6, which includes Newark and most of Fremont.

In Area 3, which includes Piedmont and much of Oakland, Ken Berrick is unopposed. After he filed for reelection to the county Board of Education, Keith Carson announced that he would not seek another term on the Alameda County Board of Supervisors. So Berrick is also one of nine candidates running to succeed Carson.

The seven-member county Board of Education is unlike a typical school board. It has very specific responsibilities and limitations on its authority.

It sets policy and approves the budget for the county Office of Education, which provides schooling for teen mothers and students in the juvenile justice system, teacher training programs, and curriculum development and technology assistance for districts.

The board hears appeals of student expulsions from local school districts and interdistrict transfers. And, in most cases, county boards of education in California are the only appellate venue left for charter schools that may have been unjustifiably blocked by local school boards.

The incumbents running don’t always agree on issues confronting the board. But they each come with solid education background and a clear understanding of the job for which they were elected. The same cannot be said of their opponents.

Area 2 – Normand

Normand, who has served since 2020, is a special education teacher on leave to serve on the California Teachers Association’s board representing Contra Costa and most of Alameda County. While CTA has worked tirelessly to restrict charter schools, Normand, in our interview, expressed appreciation for some of those that the county Board of Education has approved.

Her opponent, John Lewis, a construction manager, could provide no meaningful reason for why he is running. He has never dealt with, or been to a meeting of, the county Board of Education, and did not know what the board does.

Area 5 – Cole

Cole, who was elected in 2020, works for Hayward Promise, a primarily federally funded program aimed at halting generational poverty by providing resources to ensure students go on to college or careers. Cole, who holds a master’s degree in public administration and policy, serves as the program’s liaison with parents, teachers and government officials.

Before she was elected to the county board, she was one of the founding board members of Hayward Collegiate Charter School. While supportive of charter schools, she has stressed that they must be as accountable, diverse and equitable as traditional schools.

Her leading opponent, Guadalupe Angulo, has no education or management credentials and is a steadfast opponent of new charter schools or expansion of existing ones. Charter schools that provide meaningful alternatives in failing districts should not expect a fair hearing if Angulo is elected.

The other candidate in the race is Joe Ramos, a Hayward school board member who did not participate in our interview process. He recently made offensive and disparaging remarks to a senior administrator in his district. “Some of the parents here should take a rope and string you up,” Ramos said. That’s unacceptable language from anyone — and certainly beyond the pale for an elected official.

Area 6 – McDonald

After 20 years on the county Board of Education and 13 years prior on the Newark school district board, McDonald clearly understands her job and has provided a balanced perspective on charter school issues.

Her opponent, John Guerrero, a retired telecommunications manager who is also running for a seat on the Alameda County Republican Central Committee, did not understand the job he was running for. Or, as he put it when he was unable to answer basic questions, “I’m not entirely up on the actual technicalities of it.”