I’m very humbled by the unanimous support my colleagues on the Planning Commission have expressed for my application for the City Council vacancy.  Here’s the text of the letter they sent:

August 19, 2007

Mayor Peterson
Vice-Mayor Shinn
Councilmember Allen
Councilmember Hoffmeister

Re: City of Concord, City Council Vacancy

It is with the highest level of trust and regard for his skills, that we endorse Planning Commissioner Guy Bjerke for the current vacancy on the Concord City Council.

Guy Bjerke has demonstrated a strong commitment to the city in his six years as a member of the Planning Commission, two of those as Chairman.  His decisions and comments are thorough and are always presented with a basis of sound reasoning.  Guy is able to bring his vast work experience to the commission, allowing for all of us to gain the knowledge to make informed decisions.

It was Commissioner Bjerke who suggested the change to take the "numbers for the CNWS" out of the 2006 General Plan Update that allowed the community to re-embrace the possibilities of the CNWS.  He has demonstrated an understanding of that process and potential costs of the CNWS, while leading a commission making decisions on planning decisions affecting Concord today.

Each of us has worked with Guy Bjerke as a business associate, a long time personal friend and our time as commissioners together.  If the council is looking for the best candidate, that understands the current and future needs of the city, who brings skills and background to make those difficult decisions for Concord, then we believe Guy Bjerke is the right person to fill the vacancy.

Bill Brumley – Transpac Liaison
Kevin Costa – Chair
Rich Jensen – Vice-Chair
Gene Sylls – DRB Liaison

As you may have read in today’s Contra Costa Times or Lisa Vorderbruggen’s blog or Bill Gram-Reefer’s Halfway to Concord blog – I am one of 19 applicants from which the City Council may choose a successor to the late Councilmember Michael Chavez.

The public interviews are slated for Monday evening, August 27 at 5:30 p.m.

For those who stumble upon this site looking for more information about me – here’s what I wrote on why I’m seeking the vacancy.

I am seeking the Council seat to offer my business experience, knowledge of planning and land-use, and consensus building approach to issues. My number one goal is to keep Concord a great city to live, work and raise a family.

My wife, Denise, and I grew up in the Ygnacio Valley. We have lived in Concord for 18 years raising our children – Amanda (19) and Brandon (16). I have a B.A. in Government from CSU, Sacramento and am enrolled in the Masters in Public Administration program at CSU, East Bay – Concord Campus.

I have spent a significant part of my career working in the private sector for business oriented non-profits explaining public policy processes to executives and business realities to public officials. I am now working in the public sector to improve the jobs/housing balance and reduce traffic congestion.

As a Planning Commissioner I am familiar with local issues and neighborhood groups. I supported the Commission’s efforts to broaden public participation in the General Plan Update by attending numerous PTA meetings at local schools and led the effort to remove the Concord Naval Weapons Station "preliminary numbers" from the GP Update to avoid tainting the Community Re-use process.

I have good working relationships with other elected and public officials throughout our county and will be an effective advocate for Concord.

I’d love to hear your thoughts either in the comments (moderated due to spam) or via email – guybjerke at comcast.net.  Thanks.

Page 3 of today’s Contra Costa Times has this headline:

John Muir expansion gains approval

As a member of the Concord Planning Commission that has yet to formally consider the project that caught my attention. (The online version uses a different but still misleading headline.)

"Although there are still a few lingering details to work out, John Muir Medical Center officials have approved a long-awaited expansion at the Concord campus that will cost $50 million less than expected."

What?  "…a few lingering details…"  Nothings been approved.  The John Muir Board has decided to move forward with the project and seek city approval.  Cost $50 million less than expected?  Let’s see…what’s that second paragraph say?

"Last month, hospital officials said plans to expand the Grant Street facility had become too expensive, having skyrocketed to $200 million from $100 million just two years earlier, because of rising construction costs. Plans approved unanimously by the John Muir board of directors last week came in around $149 million."

Is it just me or doesn’t that say that the project is now $49 million more than expected?  Or does it depend on when you’re doing the expecting?  Two years ago or last month.

Probably good news for Concord  – just a strange way to write it up.

Patches (Bill and Aileen Gram-Reefers’ dog) has written a commentary – Coughing Up Concord’s Smelly Campaign Myths – worth reading over at Halfway to Concord.  The dog is quite bright and makes some interesting points.  I don’t have any pets so I’ll have to make my points my own.

1.  Contributions to campaigns are not legally considered financial contributions to the candidate and do not create a financial conflict of interest.  Admittedly the perception is created, but the legal line is pretty clear.  Patches is correct that people with business interests in a community tend to be regular contributors.  Campaigns cost money and the candidates generally ask for help from everyone – but few respond.  I think the real question is how do we encourage the regular folk to participate and make the occasional contribution?

2.  I agree that the free speech issue gets confusing – kinda like chasing your tail.  But I can’t quite understand Patches thinking that polling a community about their views on issues makes it likely the winning candidates will not have the "consent of the governed" as he puts it.  The election itself gives the winner(s) the consent of the governed that bothered to vote.  Not always pretty but our system until we change it.

3.  Candidates or their advisors who knowingly collaborate on independent expenditures that benefit them are breaking the law.  I agree that Patches has a lot of dots to connect in this local race, but it’s been my experience that candidates and consultants take that rule very seriously.

4.  See point 1 above.

I think one thing that Patches and I probably agree on is this – regardless of how you view the campaign – it’s important to vote next Tuesday.

At tonight’s Planning Commission meeting – Planning Manager Deborah Raines taught the Commission a new word-

axiomatic

She used it in the staff report and twice during her presentation.  I thought it must be the "secret word" in a "You Bet Your Life" episode.  Here’s one of Google’s definitions: