≡ Menu
Share

The case for campaign contribution reform grows with each passing election.

Take the city of Monterey, for instance, where a reform-minded city councilwoman, Libby Downey, was knocked out of office in November by an opponent who raised nearly six times as much money, much of it from a segment of the business community that Downey had tangled with.

The successful candidate was Dan Albert Jr., son of the longtime Monterey mayor. In a three-candidate race for two seats on the council, he pulled in $53,365 compared to $9,411 for Downey and $8,549 for Alan Haffa, who retained his seat.

Downey and Haffa have led the city’s efforts to reform leasing practices at city-owned Fisherman’s Wharf, where some longtime tenants who negotiated sweetheart lease deals with the city decades ago are allowed to sublease the space to other businesses at greatly increased rates without the city receiving any share of the additional income.

The effort to change that and other practices has been met with furious resistance from wharf tenants, who have repeatedly  accused city officials of attempting to turn the wharf over to chain restaurants at the expense of local, family-owned operations. With Downey’s departure, the city has softened its approach to negotiating more taxpayer-friendly leases at the wharf. The city’s resolve weakened further when Councilman Timothy Barrett, previously in the Haffa-Downey camp on the issue, was somehow persuaded to switch sides. Haffa is now expected to be outvoted 4-1 on wharf matters, so the established wharf interests appear to have regained their grip on  city leasing policy.

Albert’s contributors listed in the most recent campaign spending reports include the Monterey Commercial Property Owners Association, $2,500; and two closely related entities, the Monterey Bay Action Committee and the Monterey Hospitality Association, $5,000 apiece. The $5,000 contributions came after the election and were presumably intended to help Albert build his treasury for a re-election effort. He also took in contributions from Monterey Fish Co., Randy’s Fishing Trips, the Cannery Row Co., Portola Hotel, Marriott Hotel and lawyer Tony Lombardo, who represents the Shake family interests on the wharf.

Incidentally, or not, in his previous role as associate superintendent of the Monterey Peninsula Unified School District, Albert was an active participant in the pay-to-play system of awarding school bond contracts to companies that provide most of the financing for school bond measure campaigns.

The Monterey district was not alone, of course. School districts throughout California and beyond traditionally financed bond campaigns with contributions from bond underwriters and construction companies that would directly benefit from the resulting school construction contracts. In California, the state Treasurer’s Office only last year enacted regulations that prohibit contracts from being awarded to the firms that financed the corresponding bond measures. Bonding companies can still contribute to bond measure campaigns but they cannot then recover their investment directly by receiving contracts in the same communities.

No one has accused Albert of any illegal or unethical activities. The connection between school bond campaign financing and subsequent contracts has been so clear for so long that the built-in conflicts of interests were widely viewed as a necessary cost of getting schools built or repaired.

While Albert was the local school district’s chief business officer, his wife, Sharon, ran the successful Measure P campaign that raised more than $100 million in 2010, and she received considerable and justifiable praise for her efforts. With district officials barred from direct involvement in bond campaigns, companies that went on to receive sizable construction or finance contracts contributed the bulk of the money needed to persuade voters to approve the MPUSD bond program. A sizable share of the resulting construction work went to campaign contributor Harris Construction of Fresno, now under investigation for a bid-rigging scheme in Fresno. Others contributing to Measure P and then benefiting from the construction program included the Piper Jaffray and Stone & Youngberg bond firms, Keygent Advisers, a San Francisco bond counsel and a Fresno architecture firm.

Efforts to limit campaign contributions locally have surfaced from time to time but most have sputtered as local political action committees such as the Monterey Bay Action Committee and the Salinas Valley Leadership Group have stepped up to support the most commerce-friendly candidates. At the moment, however, momentum appears to be growing for new, tougher rules that would affect candidates for the Monterey County Board of Supervisors.

{ 20 comments }
Share

IMG_0690Monterey City Councilman Timothy Barrett frequently aligns with colleagues Libby Downey and Alan Haffa but has taken a sharp turn to oppose their effort to reform the city’s archaic leasing policies for the city-owned Fisherman’s Wharf.

Barrett has distributed what he is calling an “information paper” to argue essentially that the city treats commercial tenants at the wharf unfairly even though several are operating under below-market rental agreements negotiated decades ago.

Unfortunately for Barrett and others who have taken up the tenants’ cause, he sabotages his argument with erroneous information, including a huge exaggeration of the taxes generated by the wharf merchants.

Early in his paper, Barrett features a list of “incontrovertible facts.” One is that the city is spending some of the wharf income on impermissible expenses. He writes that state law requires all income derived from tideland properties to be expended in the tideland zone but he cites no examples of money improperly spent. The implication is that wharf income must be reinvested in the wharf, though state law and city policy clearly allow for the money to be used for other tideland purposes such as harbor dredging.

The heart of his case that the city is impermissibly profiting from the wharf and not reinvesting all the rental income into the wharf for maintenance, improvements or other expenses. He argues that the wharf enterprises are subsidizing the city and suggests it should be the other way around.

What’s wrong with his argument is simply this. If all the income from rental property had to be plowed back into the property, what would be the point of owning the property? Would any commercial landlords intentionally adopt a break-even business plan? The city could operate the wharf as a non-profit venture by offering discounted rental rates, but it would need to offer leasing opportunities to all comers and require them to provide a public service component beyond the catch of the day.

Which brings up another of Barrett’s “incontrovertible facts.”

Without much thought, apparently, Barrett writes this: “Incontrovertible Fact: Wharf 1 generates approximately 25% of the City of Monterey sales tax revenues. Sales tax revenues accrue to the General Fund where they support City services such as fire and police, services which benefit the entire community.”

The problem here is that the wharf generates only 4 percent of the city’s sales tax revenue, according to City Manager Mike McCarthy in a memo to the council last week. Not 25 percent. Not 10 percent. Four percent.

Barrett must not have thought about the scale of the wharf operations – a dozen or so restaurants, some gift shops, some fishing and cruising operations – and compare it to the scale of the rest of the sales tax-generating businesses in the city. Such as Del Monte Center, downtown, the Fremont and Lighthouse business corridors and, of course, Cannery Row.

You may have seen Barrett’s 25 percent figure repeated in a letter to the editor of the Herald the other day. That doesn’t mean it’s right.

Finally, Barrett falls for a big piece of the PR campaign being waged by the wharf merchants in support of the status quo. They have argued, without evidence, that the city’s effort to modernize the leasing structure would bring in chain restaurants and eliminate some of the unique and local operations there.

Barrett writes, “On multiple occasions during comments delivered to the Monterey City Council, proponents of the City’s Leasing Policies / Guidelines have indicated a desire to see corporate chains on Wharf 1 where locally owned and headquartered businesses now exist.”

I emailed Barrett over the weekend and again Monday to ask him if he could cite specifics. I haven’t heard back from him. Downey said Monday that she has not heard any city representatives say anything of the sort. She and Haffa, the chief proponents of reforming the lease policies, have made it clear repeatedly that they want the city to maintain the local character of the wharf.

The council takes up the issue of wharf leases again Tuesday night. With Barrett’s defection from the reform camp, it seems likely that the wharf interests will continue to chip away at the reform measures and that people who signed wharf leases years ago will continue subleasing the properties to others for multiples of what they are paying the city. It amounts to profiteering at the expense of taxpayers.

There’s a lot of tradition in a place like Monterey, the good kind and the not so good.

Here’s Barrett’s white paper and the city manager’s response.

{ 17 comments }
Share

Sofia, Bulgaria - November 4, 2014: Homeless man is sleeping on a bench in the center of Sofia. Years after joining the EU Bulgaria is still the poorest country in the union.The Monterey City Council quickly righted a wrong on Tuesday.

The council unanimously passed an urgency ordinance to locate a safe-parking place for six homeless people on a city-owned parking lot on Pacific Street. In so doing, it’s possible that the city’s solution could work out even better than a proposal the city turned down two weeks ago.

“It’s been a little bit of a rocky road,” acknowledged Mayor Clyde Roberson.

“The way it stands now, it’s really a best-case scenario,” said Councilman Timothy Barrett.

Two weeks ago, the council rejected a proposal by the Monterey Methodist Church on Soledad Street to allow six homeless women to sleep in their cars overnight in the church parking lot. The safe-parking program would be operated by One Starfish, a Methodist group.

The council expressed support for One Starfish, but ultimately bowed to Methodist Church neighbors who said their area is already overrun by homeless people, many of whom live in the gullies and hillsides around nearby Del Monte Shopping Center. Among other concerns, the neighbors said they worried that the women parked at the Methodist Church site might not be safe in a neighborhood populated by a rougher element of homeless men.

While rejecting the Methodist Church as a site by a 3-2 vote, the council asked city officials to find an appropriate city parking lot to handle the safe-parking program.

That action generated criticism from activists who said that the council seemed to be more concerned about inconveniencing neighbors than meeting the needs of desperate homeless people.

City staffers scrambled to survey its parking lots for accessibility and safety, and ultimately found a lot at 735 Pacific St., across the street from Monterey High School. During the day, the lot handles parking for the city’s finance and human-resources offices.

The urgency ordinance allows One Starfish to operate the safe-parking program on the lot immediately.

Response to the city’s action on Tuesday drew praise from all circles, including representatives from One Starfish. In particular, they pointed out that Assistant City Manager Hans Usler and Community Services Director Kim Bui Burton moved swiftly to find a parking lot that meets the concerns of both the homeless and the community.

{ 19 comments }

New plan emerges for homeless parking in Monterey

Share

Sofia, Bulgaria - November 4, 2014: Homeless man is sleeping on a bench in the center of Sofia. Years after joining the EU Bulgaria is still the poorest country in the union.A new plan to provide safe overnight parking to six homeless women is to be presented at the Monterey City Council meeting at 4 p.m. today. The location — a city lot next to the Police Department.

The City Council had voted 3-2 last week against a use permit that would have allowed six homeless women to sleep in their cars at the Methodist Church on Soledad Street as part of the church’s One Starfish program. (See previous Partisan article here.) Supporters expected approval but Councilwoman Libby Downey decided at the last minute to vote against the plan because of strong opposition from church neighbors, who said they had already been dealing with negative interactions with homeless people.

Downey said afterward that it was a difficult decision that some had misinterpreted as a slap at the homeless and the One Starfish program. She said she remained fully supportive of the program and her only concern was the location. Since the vote, she has worked with city staff to come up with an solid alternative, and she said Tuesday morning that she believes they were successful.

With council members Alan Haffa and Timothy Barrett strongly supporting programs to aid the homeless, look for approval of the new plan.

{ 10 comments }
Share

Sofia, Bulgaria - November 4, 2014: Homeless man is sleeping on a bench in the center of Sofia. Years after joining the EU Bulgaria is still the poorest country in the union.City Council votes 3-2 not to offend the neighbors

Minnie Coyle, the late mayor of Monterey, was known for many things, but a single sentence published in the Monterey Peninsula Herald possibly best describes her legacy.

“Almost like Horatio at the Bridge,” the Herald declared, “Monterey Mayor Minnie D. Coyle symbolically stood at the city gates last night ready to protect the citizenry from the ‘flower children.’”

The issue, of course, was the city’s crossed-armed resistance to organizers of the Monterey Pop Festival.

Now enter our new Horatio and his small army — Monterey Mayor Clyde Roberson and the council majority — to protect the citizens from six homeless women who are trying to make their way in this desperate world.

By a 3-2 vote on Tuesday, the Monterey City Council denied a use permit that would have allowed six homeless women to sleep safely in their cars at the Methodist Church on Soledad Street.

Later in the evening, the council also rejected an ordinance that would give homeless people overnight shelter within the warm and sacred confines of local churches. This last ordinance was considered an “urgency” action, formally and morally, since the weather has been cold and inclement lately and there is significant fretting among those who possess a modicum of compassion that more homeless people might die without shelter.

The bodies of two homeless men were found across the street from Trader Joe’s last month, killed by their apparent inattentiveness and preparedness to prevailing weather conditions. By police accounts, they had earlier declined officers’ offer of help.

Before ruling in the Methodist Church case Tuesday night, the council heard from a long line of neighbors with legitimate complaints about the headaches caused by encampments of homeless people in and around their neighborhood. In particularly, vagrants, beggars and homeless haunt the gullies and backwoods near Del Monte Shopping Center and many of them make the nearby Union Bank property their toilet.

The neighbors described a long list of the bad behavior they must endure, and for that they deserve our pity.

But then they argued that allowing the Methodist Church to use six spaces in its parking lot so that homeless women in cars can sleep comfortably and safely will further degrade the neighborhood.

Each neighbor agreed that the Methodist Church program, called One Starfish, is righteous and beneficial and deserves our support. Many of the neighbors felt compelled to preface their public testimony with statements asserting that they are compassionate and giving people who would give the shirts off their backs to homeless people, as long as said homeless people are situated somewhere other than their general vicinity.

They pointed out that many other parking lots are better suited for such activity. Indeed, there exists a quiet and functional parking lot, away from the madding crowd, behind City Hall and Colton Hall that might be used. And they do have a valid point. A Capitol Idea, one might say.

And, ultimately, it’s one of many other sites the council might consider now that it rejected the Methodist Church parking lot.

Still, even after the council voted against the Methodist site as a safe parking place for harmless homeless women, the neighbors’ problems haven’t been solved. The council action Tuesday did not a thing to remedy the vagrancy problem in that neighborhood.

For the record, councilmen Alan Haffa and Timothy Barrett cast votes in support of One Starfish.

While the One Starfish issue was a localized rejection, the council’s action on church shelters was more of a citywide rebuff of compassionate treatment of folks who are down on their luck.

This was an outright rejection of the I-Help model of grace and humanity, egged on by homeowners who declared that offering those who are less fortunate than the rest of us a dry, warm place for the night only encourages them.

Almost 50 years ago, the Herald scribe who covered Mayor Minnie Coyle was not the only bemused observer of her brigade of finger-waggers. Also on the scene was Jann Wenner, founder and publisher of an upstart magazine called Rolling Stone.

Wenner’s account of the unfolding drama, published in 1968, feels appropriate today: “And so it began to happen in Monterey: a bizarre enactment of the entire American tragedy.”

{ 24 comments }

How could I forget to follow the money?

Share

161ccd73a48f7d274937e3f79228a2a6Gramps also told me to always check campaign contributions when writing about political issues but, doggone it, I forgot to do that before writing the piece about the smackdown attached to the leases at Fisherman’s Wharf in Monterey.

Sure enough, there were some contributions that may help explain why Councilman Ed Smith thinks the existing policies are just fine and why he hasn’t joined with  Alan Haffa, Libby Downey and Timothy Barrett in trying to put some business sense into the process.

I haven’t been able to find Ed’s campaign reports from his first attempt at a council seat, but when he ran last year he got the following contributions from folks who’d like to preserve the sweetheart arrangements at the wharf:

Chris’ Fishing Trips, $250.
Mercurio Brothers, $250.
Monterey Bay Boat Charters, $100.
Cafe Fina, $250.
Ben DiGirolamo, $100
Sam Balesteri, $1,000
Monterey Bay Silver, $250.
Coniglio Family Trust, $250.
Benji Shake, $200
Mary Alice Cerrito Fettis, $100.

The names of some people with wharf interests were conspicuously absent from Smith’s reports. I’m guessing, and it is only a guess, that some of them might have been behind a $2,000 contribution from something called the Monterey Bay Action Committee, with a Carmel address. The thing is, I don’t know what the Monterey Bay Action Committee is but something tells me it’s the Peninsula’s answer to contractor Don Chapin’s Salinas Valley Leadership Group. If you know, please chime in. If I’ve got it wrong, please chime in very loudly.

The fifth member of the City Council, Mayor Clyde Roberson, is also opposed to changing the wharf leasing policies. He ran unopposed for his seat and didn’t receive campaign contributions. So that’s not it. It would be great if he would give us his take on the topic.

{ 32 comments }
Share

161ccd73a48f7d274937e3f79228a2a6CORRECTION PENDING: Based on information from the city, I reported in this post that the average lease rate at the wharf properties is about $1.65 per square foot. I have since been informed that the rate actually is about 65 cents. In his comment below, Willard McCrone states that the “minimum” lease figure is 61 cents. I have not yet been able to fully to determine which of those figures is better for comparison purposes.  In the meantime, anyone with actual numbers is invited to share them in the comment section below. Please attribute.

Gramps didn’t say a lot but what he did say was worth hearing. For instance, he offered fairly often that whenever someone tells you how honest they are, you should make sure they haven’t already lifted your wallet.

When we’d ask why he was so quiet most of the time, he’d answer, “When you don’t know what you’re talking about, stop talking.” Good advice, and I am reminded of it because of how much is being said these days by those who don’t understand the issues in the heated debate over the city of Monterey’s leasing practices at Fisherman’s Wharf.

The topic is much more complicated than you might expect, but to hear the wharf tenants and their pals tell it, it’s simply that the city wants to gouge local businesses without regard to reality or ramifications. The thrust of their argument is that the city is making it up when it says the wharf tenants are paying less than market value rent, but the reality is that the city has ample facts and figures to support its position. In other words, the tenants are attempting the age-old technique of repeating the same fiction over and over until the repetition causes people to start believing it. The key is to keep contending it’s the other side that’s lying. It works in politics, after all, and this debate is all about power politics.

Unfortunately, the facts here are open to fairly easy distortion because the individual leases and sub-leases have been negotiated at various times over the decades and because the wharf isn’t your typical bricks and mortar building on dry land. And because the city owns the property below the wharf and not the structures themselves, the tenants want us to believe the city is trying to extract gold from plain, old mud when, in fact, the city’s watery real estate is about as prime as it gets.

Also complicating matters, the tenants in some cases built the structures that house their businesses. In some cases, the leaseholders long ago sub-leased the property to other tenants, creating a situation in which the leaseholder is making a pretty profit while the city is receiving a relative pittance. Apples to apples comparisons become difficult but that does not mean that the city can’t support its position. The city has obtained expert opinion from some of the region’s most knowledgeable specialists in commercial real estate and applicable law.

Notice that the tenants aren’t broadcasting any numbers, actual figures about how much they’re paying, or not paying. Instead, they keep accusing the city of ignoring facts and numbers. Say it often enough and people will believe it.

TENANTS HAVE PLENTY OF OTHERS TO DO THEIR BIDDING

Many of the current leases that the city wants to rewrite as they expire were negotiated and renewed at less than arms’ length by past councils populated by friends and associates of the tenants. As a result, the rent being paid by many of the businesses is well below market rate, no matter what you are being told by those who don’t really know.

Among those pretending to know is KSBW-TV, which maintained in a recent editorial that the City Council “has started down a short-sighted, ‘never-mind the facts’ path, aimed at changing leases for long-time wharf businesses.”

You’ll notice that the editorial has little to say about the facts that the city supposedly is ignoring. It doesn’t mention that the average monthly lease rate of around $1.65 per square foot is 50 cents to $1 below prevailing rates on the Peninsula.

The tenants argue that the city must allow long-term leases, longer than 10 years, so they can finance improvements to the properties. KSBW simply accepts their assertion that the city won’t allow longer leases even though newly adopted city policies say options beyond 10 years are available. When? When contemplated improvements could not be financed if the business was limited to a 10-year ease.

(At least two City Council members contacted KSBW to quarrel with its version of the “facts” and to ask for an opportunity to rebut the editorial. They were told that they could post a response on the station’s website but couldn’t meet with the KSBW editorial board or have their objections aired. Though the station’s editorials end with “KSBW welcomes responsible replies to this editorial,” that doesn’t amount to an offer of air time and doesn’t imply those responses will be shared with anyone, according to News Director Lawton Dodd.)

The editorial makes the argument, which others are repeating with limp evidence, that the new lease procedures could drive local businesses off the wharf, potentially leading to an invasion by better-financed national chains. Never mind that the city is well aware of the great value of local tenants. The specter of chain restaurants was also raised in a recent Monterey Herald commentary by the Monterey Hospitality Association and the Chamber of Commerce, which were enlisted by the leaseholders to lobby for the lucrative status quo.

Operators of Sapporo and the London Bridge Pub in this building don’t rent their space from the city but from another leaseholder who rents from the city. If the city was receiving the market rate, the restaurant owners would be paying above market rate. How likely is that?

It deserves mention that among those fighting to keep the current lease structure intact is chamber and Hospitality Association stalwart Ted Balestreri of the Cannery Row Company, one of the city’s biggest landlords and holder of the master lease on the property that houses Sapporo Steak & Sushi and the London Bridge Pub at the foot of the commercial wharf. Though that property isn’t on Fisherman’s Wharf, it is subject to the revised leasing practices. While Balestreri’s supporters use the prospect of national chains as a scare tactic, it should be noted that tenants of some of the Cannery Row Company’s best real estate are the Bubba Gump Shrimp Co., and El Torito, both part of large national chains. (By the way, Balestrieri has said that the Bubba Gump operation on Cannery Row was pulling in more sales per square foot than any other restaurant in the country.)

COUNCIL MEMBERS GETTING HAMMERED FOR DOING THE RIGHT THING

After considerable discussion and consultation with their real estate experts, the City Council, by a 3-2 vote, has approved some 20 new leasing policies and soon will take up two more that would directly impact the wharf. We can expect the leaseholders to fight mightily over the coming months to roll back some the 20 measures and to fight hard against the two current proposals.

The first would require the wharf businesses to cover the expenses assigned to common areas and facilities such as a commercial trash compactor. Unfair, say the businesses. But ask why the city should be required to continue subsidizing these enterprises and the answer is likely to veer into politics rather than business practices.

The second proposal would set a limit on the square footage that could be leased by any one entity. The concern, of course, is that some of the wharf’s most successful entrepreneurs, such as the Shake family, could dominate the wharf property. The Shakes are accomplished restaurateurs but the city rightly fears that having one tenant with the majority of the leased space could put the city at a great disadvantage: Reduce the rent or we’ll pull out.

In another Herald commentary, Chris Shake took issue with the views of Planning Commissioner Willard McCrone, whose research of the leases played a large part in the current reform effort.

Shake wrote, “Commissioner McCrone has no facts or evidence to prove his assumptions that the wharf tenants are paying below-market rent; his assumptions are completely false and have no basis.”

Did Shake then provide facts and figures to disprove McCrone’s assertions? Nope. Nothing at all. He publicly labeled McCrone a liar without a hint of evidence

The fact is, and this is an actual fact, that debate over the wharf leases has turned into a hardball case of politics that has supplanted what should be a professional negotiation. Another fact is that the tenants amount to a politically powerful lot, flexing muscles they have built through decades of political and charitable contributions, family ties and associations with other political and commercial powers.

MESS WITH THE LEASEHOLDERS AND EXPECT TO GET ZAPPED

Often in a debate such as this, taxpayers’ groups would step up to support the government’s position because below-market rental rates essentially require taxpayers to subsidize the enterprises. But the most active taxpayer group on the Peninsula is the Monterey Peninsula Taxpayers Association, which is closely allied with the Hospitality Association, which has taken up the tenants’ cause.

The council members pushing this effort should be congratulated. Instead, they have found themselves under heavy attack. For many years, well into this century, the city’s real estate matters were overseen by a fellow who had virtually no previous experience with real estate. At one point lasting more than a year, the city forgot it owned a condo intended to provide affordable housing, so it sat vacant. This is not a fact, only a theory, but some suspect that city officials made a conscious decision to let themselves be outmatched in negotiations with the wharf tenants. It was simply easier thatr way.

Going forward, support for professionalizing the leases comes from council members Libby Downey, Alan Haffa and Timothy Barrett. Mayor Clyde Roberson has gone the other way. Whether that has anything to do with his previous service on the council, between 1981 and 2006, isn’t clear one way or the other. Also going the other way, Ed Smith, who has championed the tenants’ case at every opportunity.

When I came to the Peninsula as city editor of the Herald in 2000, I asked assistant city editor Calvin Demmon, a wise adviser, about the Cannery Row Company.

“Cannery Row?” he said. “That’s the third rail of Peninsula politics.” For those you too young to get the reference, it comes from electric trains. The third rail is the one that carries the juice. It’s the rail that one doesn’t mess with.

Those are some of the facts. There are others that we’re not prepared to discuss because we haven’t studied them well enough. To some degree, then, we’re following grandpa’s advice, and we’re hoping that others who haven’t studied the issues will follow along for now.

{ 12 comments }
Share

UPDATES WITH DETAIL ON COURT-ORDERED COUNSELING AND FINE

A candidate for the Monterey City Council was arrested 14 years ago after he allegedly assaulted his former girlfriend while she worked out at the Monterey Sports Center, but he says there is no truth to the allegation.

Timothy Barrett, now 58, was formally charged with a misdemeanor following the arrest but the precise charge and the outcome are no longer a public record because the court file was destroyed in 2007. Barrett said Monday that he had admitted to one count of disturbing the peace, and was ordered to attend 10 counseling sessions and contribute $300 to the YWCA, which operated a shelter for victims of domestic violence.

“I’m not a perfect man but I believe I am a good man,” he said. “I believe I am an honorable man. I have never struck a woman, ever.”

Timothy Barrett

Timothy Barrett

The Monterey Police Department report documenting the May 16, 2000, arrest was routinely purged as well but a Sports Center incident report provides some details. (Report Page 1 here. Report Page 2 here.  The Partisan obtained the report by filing a Public Records Act request with the city of Monterey after rumors about the arrest began circulating shortly after Barrett announced his candidacy last month.

The Sports Center report says the woman was riding an exercise bicycle in the cardio room when Barrett came up behind and said “I hate you” before grabbing her neck and shoulders. She told him to leave her alone but “he proceeded to punch her in the back twice,” according to the report. After the woman got off the exercise machine, the confrontation continued.  The report says Barrett was swinging at the woman and she was attempting to bat his hands away.When a manager broke up the confrontation, Barrett ran to the locker room and the woman went to the weight room to find her new boyfriend, the report says.

The report says, “Apparently Tim has a history of assault in the past,” but that information is not attributed.

Monterey police were called. After examining both parties for signs of injuries, officers handcuffed and arrested Barrett.

Barrett was well known to the staff of the city-owned Sports Center because he had worked there as a swim trainer. He now is a computer consultant and owner of a company known as Digital Streaming Network. He also is an advocate for the homeless and was active in the Occupy movement. He is one of three announced candidates for two seats on the council in the November election. The others are incumbent Nancy Selfridge and retired Monterey police officer Ed Smith.

Barrett said he had approached the woman only to talk and placed his hand on her shoulder.

“She became irate,” he said, “so I backed off.”  He said the police arrived shortly and asked if he had touched her. He said he had put his hand on her shoulder.

“That’s when they arrested me.”

Barrett said he hopes voters understand that the report puts him in a false light and understand that he is “a man of compassion.”

Disclosure: Barrett served as a technical adviser to the Partisan before its launch, and Royal Calkins, creator of the site, attended an organizational meeting for his council campaign.

{ 19 comments }