Police Association Blasts Silva Supporters' Letter on Public Safety

A letter sent by a group of supporters of Walnut Creek City Council candidate Cindy Silva has sparked another flare-up in the political battle between Walnut Creek's police unions and Mayor Pro Tem Silva's campaign for re-election.

In the letter, paid for by the campaign to re-elect Silva, the Friends of Cindy Silva says the police unions are "attempting to scare" residents into believing  that the city's public safety is compromised because the city negotiated a contract with police managers that asks them to begin contributing to their health benefits and retirement funds.

The letter asserts that police opposition to Silva's campaign is motivated by their anger about compensation, not a genuine concern about public safety.

The Walnut Creek Police Association, which represents police officers and managers, fired back late Monday against this portrayal of their agenda in a new posting on its website, The Future About Public Safety in Walnut Creek.

On a new page, titled "Silva Campaign Fact Check," the association says that the letter, which was sent to Rossmoor residents, was "so filled with distortions and blatant misrepresentations we felt the need to provide voters and the media with the ability to verify these claims."

The association chose not to endorse Silva in the three-way race for two seats on the council and has instead endorsed Silva's rivals, Kristina Lawson and Justin Wedel. 

Silva said the letter was put out by a group of supporters and sent to 300 Walnut Creek residents who have endorsed her candidacy and contributed to her campaign. She said it did not target Rossmoor residents. 

The facts in the letter are based on data provided by the city in direct response to questions from the candidates about public safety spending, personnel, salaries and crime rates, Silva said.

"The facts are clear," Silva said. "Walnut Creek is a safe city with a low crime rate -- in large part, because we have a very effective police force and because the City Council over many years has been committed to investing to ensure a safe community."

"It is my hope that the campaign can remain focused on the facts," she said. 

On this website, the association expresses resentment of attempts by Silva supporters to put the concerns of police officers in the same category as deep-pocketed out-of-town interests that funded a campaign to defeat a proposed Neiman Marcus in Broadway Plaza.

The Silva campaign seeks to make this comparison, the association says, by reminding residents of the fact that the police association has formed a political action committee and hired a Southern California political consultant. The Silva letter also asserts that police are preparing to spend heavily to influence the City Council race.

A representative with Freeman Public Affairs, a Torrance-based campaign consulting firm that specializes in representing police and other public employee groups, contacted the city clerk's office on behalf of the Walnut Creek Police Association regarding the city's campaign-sign regulations. Freeman Public Affairs regards politics as a "contact sport" and tells prospective clients that it is an aggressive, experienced agency that boasts an 85-percent win rate.

The association disputes the notion that it is anything but local workers and residents with concerns about the direction in which the city is going.

"We are not paid signatures gatherers or out of town property developers," the association says on this website. "We are your police officers, your neighbors, parents, coaches and friends. The message from the Silva campaign and her supporters to us is clear: Be quiet and stop rocking the boat!"

Walnut Creek Patch previously reported that the sworn personnel of the police department — officers, sergeants, lieutenants, captains — have united to go public with their concerns about how the city is run. This higher public profile includes the creation of the website, a Facebook page and the formation of the Walnut Creek Police Association Political Action Committee. Association spokesman Sgt. Steve Gorski said the association hired a Burbank business and consulting firm to make sure the new police PAC is complying with state laws regarding financial and other filing requirements.

A few days before the website became news the city signed off on a contract with the Police Management Association that would freeze salaries and require sergeants, lieutenants and captains to begin contributing to the CalPERS retirement system to the tune of 7 percent. Managers also were asked to begin contributing 10 percent to Kaiser medical premium costs in 2010.

Police have insisted that their concerns go beyond compensation. In the story Gorski explained that the feeling has been growing for some time that police need to play more of  a "checks-and-balances" role in city politics.

Or as the The Future of Public Safety in Walnut Creek website says: "Our frustrated membership feels that reaching out directly to Walnut Creek residents is the only alternative left as the public safety situation in Walnut Creek continues to deteriorate. Members of the city council have shown disregard for concerns about public safety issues time and time again."

The police association takes issue with specific points that Silva supporters make in their letter about how the council, during her four-year tenure, have invested in public safety. 

For instance, the letter offers a partial list of additional safety items that police have received. The letter lists these as "additional Walnut Creek expenditures for public safety 2010-12)." These items include $770,000 in funding for the bomb squad, $38,000 for a prisoner transport van, and $38,000 for the K9 program.

Information provided by the city shows that the above items were "outside the police department's approved yearly budget." Grants covered the cost of the bomb team, asset forfeiture paid for the prisoner van, and a combination of asset forfeiture and donations paid for the K-9 program. 

The website said that the $770,000 for the bomb squad "came from U.S. Department of Homeland Security and not Walnut Creek tax dollars." The bomb squad's equipment and training are funded through federal Homeland Security grants, and the squad provides services through a mutual-aid agreement to all of Contra Costa County.

Silva said this grant funding is considered revenue for the city, and that it's up to the City Council how it will be spent. 

Silva supporters and the police association also are in dispute about the formula used  to determine how much Walnut Creek spends per capita on public safety, as compared to neighboring cities. 

The pro-Silva letter states, "Walnut Creek spends more per resident in public safety than Antioch, Concord, Martinez, Pittsburg or Pleasant Hill." 

Silva said this data comes from the city, and indeed, data provided by the city in response to candidates' request show that Walnut Creek will spend $339 per capita on public safety in its 2010-12 budget, higher than such neighboring towns as Concord ($330); Pleasant Hill ($288); Antioch ($241); or Pittsburg ($308). 

The association insists that "every city calculates their budget figures differently making an accurate comparison impossible." For example, the association said, Walnut Creek includes in its police budget items that other cities don't. These items -- such as as "reimbursable grant funding" and animal-control fees -- can add hundreds of thousands of dollars to the police budget and skew per capita numbers.

This flareup comes a little more than a week after the police association took issue with a Walnut Creek PAC's fair campaign pledge for City Council candidates. While raising questions about its legal soundness, the association also said this pledge fom the Yes for Walnut Creek Political Action Committee was a veiled attempt to censor the opinions of city employees and to show favoritism to incumbent Silva. 

All three co-chairs for the Yes for Walnut Creek group have endorsed Silva's campaign, though the group said it was not endorsing any of the three candidates in the November 2 race. 

Yes for Walnut Creek, a self-described grass-roots nonpartisan coalition made up of residents, business leaders and supporters of the city's arts, recreation and open spaces, asked candidates to sign the pledge, vowing, among other things, to focus on the issues, not misrepresent facts and refuse to engage in personal attacks on other candidates and their families.  

Silva signed the pledge, but Lawson and Wedel resisted, with Lawson raising some of the same concerns about the pledge's legal soundness, in terms of free-speech concerns, as the police association. All three candidates signed the city's voluntary fair campaign pledge, which you can read here.