Should Sonoma County sell it central landfill to a private company?

At this morning's forum in the Santa Rosa City Council chambers, state Assemblyman Wes Chesbro, D-Arcata, wasn't eager to provide an unqualified answer.

To a question from the audience, he said, "The management of a landfill by a government agency does, I think, create a level of accountability that can help make it managed in a way that's in the best interest of the local community and the environment."

But, he quickly added, government can also insist on agreements with private companies that create the "leverage" necessary to protect public interests.

As the lead speaker at this morning's forum on the future of the local landfill, Chesbro focused instead on the important of recycling.

The emphasis, he said, should be on the option - to sell or not to sell - that generates the "greatest reduction in waste and global warming."

The topic isn't sexy. Attending something called the "Landfill Forum" sounds like an act of desperation, what you do if there are no more openings in the lecture series on Best Compost Practices.

But Monday morning's forum (8:30 a.m. , Santa Rosa City Council chambers) happens to involve a decision that could have lasting economic and environmental consequences.

In Sonoma County, we brag about our devotion to a sustainable lifestyle, but if we get this wrong, we will have a lot of explaining to do.

The story begins with the Board of Supervisors' plan to sell the county's central landfill on Mecham Road, south of Cotati.

Supervisors say they want to get out from under the costs and liabilities associated with repairing a plastic liner that is leaking bad stuff into nearby groundwater. Officials say it could cost $50 million to abandon the landfill, or $100 million to make it operational again.

But environmental groups and the county's largest solid waste hauler, North Bay Corp., warn that the sale could leave local consumers at the mercy of a private monopoly, a corporation that would raise rates, discourage recycling and import garbage from other counties.

In a September letter, the Sierra Club urged supervisors to reconsider their plan, noting: "Public ownership of the landfill guarantees that the environmental values of this community, as reflected by our elected leaders, will come before the profits of corporate executives and shareholders."

In this conflict, the exchanges are not always friendly.

In December, former county Supervisor Ernie Carpenter, a consultant to North Bay Corp., accused county officials of inflating cost estimates, violating the state's open meeting law, and applying "heavy-handed pressure tactics and threats. . ."

In reply, Phillip Demery, county director of transportation and public works, denied the allegations and concluded, "The comments in Mr. Carpenter's letter are what one might expect from someone who has a vested competing financial interest in seeing this process fail."

Ironically, both sides claim their solution would promote recycling and reduce the current practice of shipping Sonoma County garbage to distant locations.

Since the landfill was mothballed in 2005, the county has spent $15 million a year to transport 300,000 tons of garbage to somewhere else. That's 65 truck-and-trailer rigs every day - trucks that burn energy, spew greenhouse gases into the atmosphere, add to traffic congestion and contribute to the deterioration of highways.

So, which side is right? And why isn't this decision the subject of a broader public debate?

Enter a consortium of civic and environmental groups that includes the League of Women Voters, the Leadership Institute for Ecology and the Economy, the Sierra Club, Sonoma County Conservation Action, the Sonoma Ecology Center and the Climate Protection Campaign.

Not all the sponsors of Monday's forum oppose the sale of the landfill. Tanya Narath, executive director of the Leadership Institute for Ecology and the Economy, and Ann Hancock, executive director of the Climate Protection Campaign, told me their groups haven't take a position.

"We're not seeking a specific solution or trying to bludgeon the county," said Hancock, "but to bring people together to have them talk about it."

But Narath and Hancock agreed that their participation reflects their organizations' concern that this decision is fast approaching without a serious conversation about the consequences.

It doesn't help that the proposed sale is being reviewed behind closed doors. The county says a real estate deal involving rival bidders can't be negotiated in public, but the secrecy leaves the public in the dark about the broader policy issues.

The situation also highlights the problems associated with California's scatter-shot approach to regulation. In this case, a single-purpose agency, the North Coast Regional Water Quality Control Board, wields the authority that is pushing the county toward a decision to sell the landfill.

But what if reducing the risk to groundwater near the Mecham Road landfill means more air pollution, lower recycling rates and climate change? Which is worse for the environment?

Whatever the outcome, a coherent society would establish a forum for weighing the inevitable trade-offs.

Meanwhile, no one has yet explained why a for-profit company would be so eager to shoulder the financial liabilities that the county is so eager to jettison.

And, whether publicly or privately owned, success may depend on the capacity of the county and the nine cities in Sonoma County to share the obligations associated with operating a landfill.

For now, what we know for sure is that a credible decision will require greater transparency from local government, plus a regulatory approach that recognizes that real life is complicated.

Note: The begins at 8:30 a.m. Monday in the Santa Rosa City Council Chambers. The session will be telecast live on Santa Rosa community-access channel 26 (and re-broadcast throughout the week.) If you want to learn more, a list of speakers and panelists, plus an impressive collection of reports, letters and other information is available at the Leadership Institute's Web site. Click here.

If you live in Santa Rosa, you know which days schools are in session. You can tell by the traffic congestion.

Once upon a time, kids walked or rode their bikes to school. Now - for a variety of reasons that could be the subject of a longer conversation - parents choose to use the family car (or cars).

The New York Times today reports about an Italian town where kids use the "foot-bus," which is a bus route with no bus. Adults dressed in yellow vests follow the route, gathering children for the walk to school. The Times reported that similar experiments are under way in other countries, in Boulder, Colorado, and in Marin County. Communities are finding ways to encourage students to walk or to ride their bikes.

The objective, of course, is to reduce traffic congestion, energy consumption, the emission of greenhouse gases and the incidence of childhood obesity.

In Sonoma County, we talk a lot about protecting the environment, building walkable communities and burnishing our reputation as a bicycle mecca, but our talk doesn't always lead to real-life solutions.

If you think your community ought to do more to promote travel by means the other than a gasoline-driven automobile, you can read the New York Times story by clicking here.

A spokesman for Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger called this afternoon to offer "context" to the Sacramento Bee story on the recent growth in the state government work force. I linked to the Bee story in this morning's blog post. Here.

The aide did not deny the substance of the Bee story, but he argued that Schwarzenegger has worked diligently to cut spending wherever he could.

You can judge for yourself. Here, in its entirety, is the "fact sheet" sent along by spokesman Aaron McLear:

FACT SHEET: GOVERNOR ON SPENDING REDUCTIONS

Under Governor Schwarzenegger's administration, the rate of General Fund spending growth has been lower than under recent California governors - including Republican governors. Furthermore, the Governor has taken steps, through two Executive Orders, to tighten the belt within his own administration and reduce costs, just as every family and business in California is being forced to do.

From February 2008 To February 2009, The Governor's Efforts To Realize Savings Within His Administration Has Saved $318 Million In Payroll And Other Staff Costs. Governor Schwarzenegger has taken steps to cut his own office budget - and is continuing to do so.

- The Governor's office budget has dropped from $19.7 M to $19.0 M over the past year and will drop at least 10 percent more before July 2009.

- Governor's office payroll has dropped from 174 to 150 employees over the past year. We will continue to reduce the number of positions in the Governor's Office.

- All Governor's Office employees are taking a 9.3% reduction in work hours and pay in collaboration with the Governor's furlough order.

- The Governor's February 2008 Executive Order to cut 1.5% from his Administration before June 30, 2008 saved $200 million.

- The Governor's July 2008 Executive Order to restrict hiring and travel has saved $118.7 million through February 2009 "it is ongoing. Under Governor Schwarzenegger, The Rate Of Increased State General Fund Spending Has Grown Slower Than Under Other California Governors In Recent History - Just 3.7 Percent. That number includes Republican governors Ronald Reagan, George Deukmejian and Pete Wilson.

- General Fund spending has also increased slower than inflation and population growth. This stands true for the 2004-05 fiscal year - this Governor's first budget since he inherited the 2003-04 budget from Gray Davis - to the recently enacted budget for the 2009-10 fiscal year.

- How does this compare to prior administrations? The rate of General Fund spending growth was:
13.6 percent under Reagan
8 percent under Deukmejian
4.6 percent under Wilson
6.3 percent under Davis
3.7 percent under Schwarzenegger

Governor Schwarzenegger Has Ensured That State Government Is Tightening Their Belts Along With Every Other Californian Family And Business To Achieve A Savings Of $1.4 Billion. Through furloughs, position elimination, the elimination of some state holidays and the changing of overtime rules - state government will save $1.4 billion.

-The Governor achieved additional savings when he signed the 2009-10 Budget Act using his blue-pencil veto power.

The Governor cut the budget of Constitutional Officers by 10 percent.

The Governor requested that legislators also aim to achieve a 10 percent reduction in their budgets.

The Governor cut $400 million from the CDCR budget, but directed Secretary Matthew Cate to actively work with the Legislature to pursue reforms that will achieve these additional savings in ways that maintain public safety.

What are these people thinking? The Sacramento Bee reports today that the state government work force continues to grow - despite a supposed hiring freeze and budget shortfalls that are pushing the state to the brink of bankruptcy. A spokesman for Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger even claimed that a reduced rate of growth in the number of state employees proves what a great job the governor is doing. You can read his tortured logic here.

This is the problem, isn't it? State government believes it lives in an alternative universe where it doesn't matter what's going on out there in that world where businesses are contracting, people are losing jobs, local agencies are imposing widespread layoffs and tax revenues are plummeting.

In state government's view, its work is too important to be subject to economic reality. Is this attitude nurtured by isolation and by Sacramento's inflated sense of its own importance? Sure, it is.

But whether it's right or wrong, it's unsustainable. State government can't go its merry way while the people who are paying the bills have less.

Last week, the state's ongoing budget deficit jumped another $8 billion. A government that thinks it shouldn't have to sacrifice in hard times is bound to generate deficits - until the house of cards comes crashing down.

"We have to have the courage to confront what isn't working."

- Carl Wong, Sonoma County superintendent of schools.


After too many years in which Democratic politicians pandered to teachers' unions and school bureaucracies, a new Democratic president last week declared that it is time to move on.

Putting aside the old politics, President Obama called for merit pay for teachers, new charter schools, uniform achievement standards, extended school days and "steps to move bad teachers out of the classroom." He also said Americans should be prepared to increase spending for education.

Here was a plan guaranteed to offend all the usual suspects, whether they are insiders who resist all forms of innovation, or conservative ideologues who want to pretend that America can be prosperous in the 21st century without providing students the books, computers and science labs necessary for success.

"For decades, Washington has been trapped in the same stale debates that have paralyzed progress and perpetuated our educational decline," the president said, "Too many supporters of my party have resisted the idea of rewarding excellence in teaching with extra pay, even though we know it can make a difference in the classroom. Too many in the Republican Party have opposed new investments in early childhood education, despite compelling evidence of its importance."

Within the Democratic Party, some will portray this as a conflict over educational strategies, but it's more about generational change. For the good of the country, it was past time that someone initiate a different and more relevant conversation.

Good things happen in every school, but at a time of profound social and technological change, public education remains among the most change-averse institutions in American society.

In November, the Atlantic magazine profiled Michelle Rhee, who is the new school chancellor in Washington, D.C., a town where tens of thousands of kids are trapped in failing schools.

Rhee, the magazine reported, fired 98 central-office workers, 24 principals, 22 assistant principals, 250 teachers and 500 teacher's aides. She also closed 23 under-used schools and began the restructuring of 26 other schools. And she proposed a performance-based compensation package that would pay the most effective teachers more than $100,000 a year.

Speaking of generational change, Rhee is 38 years old, and Adrian Fenty, the reform mayor who appointed her, is 39.

In Sonoma County, about 9 percent of the 71,000 public school students now attend a charter school. But efforts to create charter schools met stiff resistance in the beginning.

After a failed 1994 effort to create a charter school, one parent told me, "We were ground down by dealing with the union."

"We had signatures from teachers who thought it was a great idea - before the union told them not to sign it," said another parent.

Today, four-year-old Roseland University Prep, the county's most prominent charter school, has become a model for how schools might re-invent themselves, especially when it comes to inspiring Latino kids to attend college.

Last May, the school awarded diplomas to its first graduating class. Forty-six of those 62 graduates are now attending college.

No one can spend time at Roseland Prep without being impressed by the energy and optimism that seems to sustain both the faculty and the students.

Sonoma County Superintendent of Schools Carl Wong calls it "one of the shining stars of what we can do with a charter school."

Not all charter schools are successful. A statewide study, said Wong, found that the "jury is still out" on whether charter schools produce higher achievement levels than other schools.

But there is no doubt they provide students and parents with additional choices - and the flexibility to move beyond the one-size-fits-all approach to education.

Change doesn't come easily for public education. From personal experience, I know that you can write all the pro-education columns in the world, but if you write a column endorsing a new direction - say, charter schools or school district consolidation - the angry letters and phone calls will follow.

Shame on you, they say, don't you understand that these changes will destroy public education?

Well, no. I never understood how it was good for public education to protect a school system that wasn't working for many kids. And I never understood why public education in Sonoma County couldn't survive with fewer than 40 school boards and 40 school superintendents.

At local schools, I've met talented and idealistic teachers, eager to do what is necessary to help kids. They deserve every dollar they are paid - and then some. But their unions ought to concentrate on salary demands, not on the politics of obstruction and on rules that stand in the way of school improvement.

No one is suggesting that any single reform will transform education, but it doesn't make sense not to try other solutions when what we're doing now isn't working.