By City of Vallejo

The City of Vallejo is requesting applications to serve on a number of the City’s boards and commissions. Vallejo residents who are interested in serving on an advisory body are invited to submit an application and supplemental questionnaire for consideration.

There are currently openings on the following boards, commissions, and committees:

• Beautification Commission(2) terms expire 6/30/28
• Civil Service Commission(2) terms to expire 6/30/28
• Design Review Board(2) terms to expire 6/30/28
• Housing & Community Development Commission(1) term to expire 6/30/28
• Housing Authority(1) tenant commissioner term to expire 12/31/24
• McCune Collection Commission(3) terms to expire 6/30/28
• Participatory Budget Steering Committee(6 members & 3 alternates) terms expire 6/30/25
• Planning Commission(2) terms to expire 6/30/28
• Surveillance Advisory Board – Districts 1, 2, and 3 Members OnlyDistricts 1 & 3 terms to expire 1/2/25 and District 2 term to expire 1/5/27
• Sister City Commission(1) term to expire 6/30/27
• Solano Commission for Women & Girls(1) Vallejo representative can be youth or adult. Term to expire 4 years from date of appointment

For City Boards and Commissions, except for the Civil Service, McCune Collection, and Sister City Commissions, the Surveillance Advisory Board, and the Participatory Budgeting Steering Committee, all appointed members must complete and file a Statement of Economic Interests, Form 700, within 30 days of appointment.

Trending

Community Confronts TEA In Explosive Final Meeting

All City Board and Commission members must complete AB 1234 Ethics training and file a Certificate of Completion within 30 days of appointment.

In most instances, to be eligible for appointment, applicants must be residents of the City of Vallejo. Information regarding the duties of each board and commission and specific criteria for appointment may be found within each application. With some exceptions, appointments are typically for a term of four years.

The application period will remain open until a sufficient number have been received in the City Clerk’s Office

Interviews with the City Council are tentatively scheduled for the evenings of June 3 and 10. Applicants must attend the interview to be considered for appointment on a board or commission.

Application forms and supplemental questionnaires are accessible in several ways:

• The City’s website, located on the Boards and Commissions page
• At City Hall, Office of the City Clerk, 555 Santa Clara Street, 3rd Floor, Vallejo, CA
• By Email at abrahamson@cityofvallejo.net, or by phone at (707) 648-4527

By U.S. Mail: City of Vallejo, C/O City Clerk, PO Box 3068, Vallejo, CA 94590

Oakland Post

Posts by Oakland Post

By Carla Thomas

In an attempt to thwart the recall call campaign against her, Alameda County District Attorney Pamela Price announced at a press conference on Tuesday, April 30, that her team is launching a state investigation on the political action committee funding the recall.

Speaking at Everett and Jones Barbeque Restaurant at Oakland’s Jack London Square, Price accused the recall campaign as undemocratic and says she will fight against injustice.

Price announced that the California Fair Political Practices Commission (CFPPC) was looking into the complaint filed by her supporters against two groups supporting the recall.

Price said the group Reviving the Bay Area appears to be the financial and organizational arm of Save Alameda For Everyone (SAFE), the group leading the recall effort against her. The complaint by recall-opposing group Protect the Win for Public Safety alleges Reviving the Bay Area has breached the law by not filing a third quarter report listing its contributors and hiding its funding sources from the public at least through September of 2023.

Price also claimed that the SAFE recall group is functioning illegally both financially and operationally.

“Between September 2023 and November 2023, they donated approximately $578,000 to SAFE without complying with the laws that govern all political committees in California,” said Price. “We applaud the FPPC’s action to investigate this entity as well as the finances that have also come under question of the SAFE committee, where we’ve learned that they were paying some of the main spokespersons and funding an illegal force that they called a security force.

Trending

Dolores Huerta Endorses Tony Thurmond for State Schools’ Superintendent 

“So there have been a lot of financial irregularities, coupled with the irregular practices of the signature-gathering company PCI Communications that literally paid for hundreds of people to come into our community and gather signatures using bait-and-switch tactics and misleading people and engaging in fraudulent signature-gathering.”

Price also accused the Alameda County Registrar of Voters of not operating properly.

At a press conference at the City Hall Plaza late Tuesday afternoon, SAFE and recall supporters demanded that supervisors set a special election date before the November general election. Supporters of Price and opposers of Price clashed and spoke passionately against each other.

Supporters of the recall feel that Price’s, criminal justice reforms support perpetrators of crime, rather than the victims. They also blame Price for higher crime rates in the county. Price supporters feel that her reforms are necessary to transform an unjust system. “Price’s role is to uphold the law and this recall campaign is an attack on her,” said Oakland attorney Walter Riley.

Recall opponents reject those assertions and say Price’s critics don’t understand the role the county’s top prosecutor plays in the criminal justice system.

Price also said she would be going before the Alameda County Board of Supervisors on Tuesday to challenge the signature count for her recall campaign.

Later in the evening, the Board of Supervisors unanimously voted in support of the recall, citing that enough signatures had been collected for the recall effort to continue.

On May 14, the Board of Supervisors will determine a date for a special election recall or place on the November ballot. According to Price, a special election recall will cost the county 15-20 million dollars and her supporters hosted another rally last week, urging the Board of Supervisors to not approve a special election recall.

#PamelaPrice #Recall #AlamedaCountyDA

Oakland Post

Posts by Oakland Post

Charter cities in California won a lawsuit last week against the state that declared Senate Bill (SB) 9, a pro-housing bill, unconstitutional.

Passed in 2021, SB 9 is also known as the California Housing Opportunity and More Efficiency Act (HOME). That law permits up to four residential units — counting individual units of duplexes, triplexes and residential dwelling units (RDUs) – to be built on properties in neighborhoods that were previously zoned for only single-family homes.

A Los Angeles Superior Court Judge ruled in favor of the cities, pointing out that SB 9 discredited charter cities that were granted jurisdiction to create new governance systems and enact policy reforms. The court ruling affects 121 charter cities that have local constitutions.

Attorney Pam Lee represented five Southern California cities in the lawsuit against the state and Attorney General Rob Bonta.

“This is a monumental victory for all charter cities in California,” Lee said.

However, general law cities are excluded from the court ruling as state housing laws still apply in residential areas.

Attorney General Bonta and his team are working to review the decision and consider all options that will protect SB 9 as a state law. Bonta said the law has helped provide affordable housing for residents in California.

“Our statewide housing shortage and affordability crisis requires collaboration, innovation, and a good faith effort by local governments to increase the housing supply,” Bonta said.

“SB9 is an important tool in this effort, and we’re going to make sure homeowners have the opportunity to utilize it,” he said.

Charter cities remain adamant that the state should refrain from making land-use decisions on their behalf. In the lawsuit, city representatives argued that SB 9 eliminates local authority to create single-family zoning districts and approve housing developments.

Oakland Post

Posts by Oakland Post