Mayor's Race Heats Up with More Mailers, Endorsements

East Bay Times offers its choices for mayor and City Council, compares Menesini to a "wad of gum on the back of a shoe"; what to make of the latest round of mailers

The East Bay Times published its Martinez election endorsements on Wednesday, recommending Brianne Zorn for mayor and Jay Howard and Ben Therriault for the two open council seats.

I thought the best line in the Times’ editorial, however, focused on perennial candidate Mike Menesini, who still hasn’t gotten the hint from voters that they’ve moved on from his political career, even if he hasn’t moved on from them. Menesini was mayor for 18 years before Rob Schroder’s current 20-year stint, and had an even longer tenure on the City Council before being bumped off in the 2014 election. Yet, he keeps coming back (and special interest groups keep funding ludicrous mailers in his support, which I’ll get to in a bit). “Like a wad of chewing gum stuck to your shoe, he seems impossible to get rid of,” the Times wrote. That could be an interesting visual for a mailer the next time Menesini runs for something.

In endorsing Zorn, the Times wrote:

A botanist and environmental scientist, she’s smart, articulate, well-informed on city issues and exceptionally communicative with her constituents.

She wants to restore trust in city government while better supporting its undersized staff. When she ran for City Council two years ago, she pressed for the independent redistricting commission and was a driving force in making it happen after she was elected. Zorn has led the charge for change. She would be the mayor the city needs.

For the District 1 council seat, the paper gave Howard a tepid endorsement over Nakenya Allen, saying he “has some understanding of the city’s issues, which gives him the edge in this race, but he is too quick to call for city-worker raises without understanding the budgetary implications.”

The endorsement for Therriault over incumbent Debbie McKillop in District 4 was more effusive. “He understands the political benefit for residents of District 4, a region south of Highway 4 that historically has been overshadowed by council focus on downtown issues. Voters who want change should back Therriault.”

For those who are not aware, I was a longtime journalist at the East Bay Times (and Contra Costa Times before it) before leaving the paper in 2018. Here’s how I would suggest voters treat these endorsements: as one of many tools to use in making your choice, while recognizing that they come with a heavy grain of salt.

The grain of salt is simple. After years of deep staff cuts by its hedge fund ownership, the Times no longer covers Martinez politics and city government in any meaningful way, meaning it has a very limited understanding of the issues and concerns facing the daily lives of residents. And whereas endorsements were once made by an actual editorial board that consisted of at least three opinion page editors who all weighed in on the choices, they are now made solely by longtime political writer Daniel Borenstein.

Borenstein, a friend, mentor and former colleague of mine, possesses a grasp of municipal governance and local political dynamics that I believe is unparalleled in Bay Area journalism, so his endorsement choices are credible and worth your consideration. At the same time, he is one person interviewing and assessing candidates for elective office in every city in the East Bay, so there’s only so much he can be expected to know about the particular candidates and specific issues in any one town. And like any person, he brings his own unique perspective, priorities and biases toward what he considers most important in a mayoral or council candidate or a particular election race, and those things may not align with every voter.

These endorsements still carry weight but, in my opinion, not nearly as much as they would have 10 or 20 years ago.

MAILER MANIA: Are your mailboxes getting full yet? Like me, you’ve probably gotten hit with a slew of them over the last week. Here’s a quick rundown of what I’ve seen.

1. The Menesini mailers go to the dogs and become a Halloween joke. When the election is over, someone should save the pro-Menesini mailers for posterity, because they’re just so out of this world. I loved the latest one sent from the Build Jobs PAC of him holding his two dogs in his lap (is one of them named “Checkers?”). When all else fails, trotting out the pooches is always a good trick to drum up a few votes (FDR did so famously with Fala, which if memory serves, was not too much before the time Menesini launched his political career in Martinez … sorry, I couldn’t resist). Speaking of tricks, the pro-Menesini mailer paid for by something called “Citizens for Property Rights & Responsible Government, Sponsored by DeNova Homes, Inc. and Affiliated Entities” is truly from the Halloween Twilight Zone. Featuring a menacing jack-o-lantern and what I guess are supposed to be haunting photos of Zorn and fellow council members Mark Ross and Lara DeLaney, the mailer accuses the three of “tricking” Martinez voters into raising property taxes for 30 years to pay for the Alhambra Highlands open space purchase (something tells me DeNova Homes had other ideas for the land). Don’t know about you, but I don’t recall hearing strange voices in my head from the council troika now running for mayor when I voted on the Highlands ballot measure in June. But maybe the “political consultant” who worked that one up has some focus group data showing that voters like to be told they’re ignorant dupes in mailers. Who knows?

   

   The latest pro-Menesini ad tries to scare voters just in time for Halloween.

2. Speaking of dogs. Ross also rolled out a dog photo in his latest mailer (he at least had the decency to provide his dog’s name). In all seriousness, it wasn’t a bad-looking mailer, heavy on substance and light on the fear/scare tactics that drip from Menesini’s. Playing up the endorsement of former Martinez police chief Manjit Sappal is a smart move.

   

   Mark Ross’ dog Mina plays a starring role in his latest mailer.

3. Sean Trambley’s 1973 flashback. Trambley has made the council’s failure to produce a new General Plan in nearly 50 years a cornerstone of his campaign, and he goes all in on it in his “Made in 1973” mailer that reminds voters who are facing sticker shock at the pump that gas was 39 cents a gallon the last time Martinez wrote a General Plan (along with flashbacks to the Nixon presidency and Oakland A’s World Series dynasty). The mailer then goes into details about why the General Plan is important to the city’s development and growth and what he believes the lack of an updated one has cost Martinez over the years. I’m just not sure how well it will connect with voters. During my newspaper days, there were few stories that would make readers’ (and some editors’) eyes glaze over like ones about a city’s General Plan. Most voters have no idea what a General Plan is and why it’s important. Trambley does an admirable job of trying to explain it in the mailer; I’m just not sure many voters will take the time to educate themselves.

   

   Sean Trambley takes us back to the early 1970s in his ad about the city’s failure to write a new General Plan.

4. A Fresh Approach. Zorn’s mailer is smaller than the others (a postcard, not a foldout), and that may be its strength. It’s concise and to the point, hits on all her key qualifications for the job and highlights on all her top priorities (including actual specific proposals such as creating a youth position on all of the city’s standing commissions, as opposed to vague generalities that dominate many mailers). But there’s no dog to be seen (as is the case with Trambley’s mailer), so the jury’s out on whether that omission will make a difference to voters.

Brianne Zorn’s mailer focuses on her experience and fresh approach, but where’s the dog photo?

A final note on mailers. If you’re going to take the time to look them over, make sure to also check out who is paying for them. While most mailers come directly from the candidates’ campaigns, another thing that distinguishes the Menesini mailers (beyond their silliness) is that multiple ones have come from independent expenditure groups (i.e. special interest political action committees) “not authorized” by the candidate’s campaign itself. As a voter, this is a huge red flag for me in local elections. If special interest groups are going to go through the time, trouble and expense of sending out their own mailers on behalf of a candidate, that indicates a high degree of confidence that the candidate will give them exactly what they want if elected. Then the question becomes whether what they want is what’s in the public interest (often, the answer to that question is a definitive no, IMHO).

Do you have a different take on the mailers you’ve seen and what impact, if any, they will have on the election, or thoughts on the East Bay Times endorsements? Would love to hear your thoughts. Feel free to share your perspective in the comments.

|