Some positive news is surfacing about the Covid-19 Pandemic. According to the following data resource, California will see its peak in hospital resource needs on April 14, 2020. The link is accessed here, you may need to copy and paste to get to the link. http://covid19.healthdata.org/united-states-of-america/california\

The other bit of good news is that it appears that the need for hospital beds, ventilators, and staff will not overwhelm us here in California. In other words, the needs can be met. 

I was able to participate in a telephone conference call with Sonoma County Supervisors David Rabbitt and Lynda Hopkins on Monday. In Sonoma County, the shelter in place and social distancing seems to be working very well and Sonoma County is well below the originally projected number of cases and number of deaths that were being forecast. The Supervisors explained that what is good in flattening the curve, is not as good in economic recovery. As we spread out the pandemic over a longer period of time, we gain positives from not overwhelming our health care system, but negatives in that the virus will be with us longer. I think that is a tradeoff most of us would gladly accept. The Supervisors explained their data shows Sonoma County “peaking” in early to mid-June. The Supervisors believe the “shutdown” in Sonoma County will last through June. There are discussions taking place right now as to how to reopen for business once the virus has hit its apex and is gone. The idea is to reopen “non-to low risk” businesses and events first, with the riskier opened after an additional period of time. So that means our Father’s Day Car Show is in danger of having to be postponed or cancelled. Our Exec Committee will be deciding whether to cancel or postpone the Father’s Day Car Show this Friday.

The other information that has become abundantly clear, is the people making the decisions as to what constitutes an essential service and what does not, are very powerful people these days. For the most part, the decisions that define essential jobs is being determined by public health officials with some assistance from county counsel. We have been very fortunate in that most of our construction projects are considered essential, and unless the municipality itself has shut down (City of Santa Rosa for instance), work continues. This fact can change. Please remind yourselves and your crews when they are working out in the public arena, there are others that see them that may have had to shut down their businesses. We do not want people to give our industry “pushback” about working, so we need to be very good and very visible practitioners of social distancing, wearing masks, and being careful to wipe down surfaces and wash our hands more often than before. To that end, the ECA has collaborated with George Petersen Insurance Agency and Jim Persons to host a free Safety Tip Webinar Wednesday at 10 am (flyer is attached here). We have invited the North Coast Builders Exchange to participate as well, and the safety tips are for both housing construction and general engineering construction workers. I forwarded the news about the Webinar to the five Sonoma County Supervisors and to the heads of PRMD and Transportation and Public Works in Sonoma County. It does not hurt to point out to those in influential positions that ECA members are being very safe and should be allowed to keep working!

I have gotten a question about what expenses an employer needs to reimburse those workers who are working from home. Some good guidance can be seen about that by clicking on this link—

While this shutdown is in place, there has also been lots of “back and forth” on the Measure M sales tax extension that many of us depend on for a large portion of our workload. As the Federal Govt talks about yet another stimulus package that would consists of, or include, an infrastructure rebuild infusion of capital, we have to be mindful that our little area will not get those “big bucks” if we are not a “self-help” area that pays for some of our infrastructure work via self-imposed sales taxes. That is what we do, and it entities us to receive lots of matching funds that otherwise would go elsewhere. We would still have to pay for those Federal funds, we just would not get them if we did not have some sort of Measure M in place. That is why, despite the proposed split of sales taxes not being exactly what we want to see, we (the ECA) need to be willing to accept and support am imperfect tax measure. You can look at the proposed “Go Sonoma Act” that is being considered and voted on Monday, April 13, 2020 by the SCTA Board.  The ECA will submit a “position” letter this Friday to the SCTA Chairwoman Susan Gorin. I have already drafted what I will advise our Exec Council to say, but this Friday the Exec Committee will vote on the final version to go out to Chair Susan Gorin by Friday night at 5 pm. One of the main things we will be recommending (if the Exec agrees with me), is to strongly recommend to Ms. Gorin that they not put this sales tax measure on the ballot in November. People have been too damaged economically and it would seem to be a total “disconnect” that would not be favorable to passing the measure. You can review the 30 pages of the Go Sonoma Act and what it was based upon by clicking on the link here—

So, we recognize that we are all in tough times while we battle this virus. But keep your hopes up, the end is almost within sight and the shelter at home is working very well.

Stay safe people and we hope you join us tomorrow for our webinar.

That’s All Folks!

John

I am trying to not inundate you with information that is readily available elsewhere. In some cases, I will provide links to important and time sensitive articles that our ECA Members might find useful. Needless to say, there is an abundance of news available out there. Let me “segment” the Soapbox so you can pick and choose what is of most interest and importance to you.

Health Orders

1. A County by County and City by City informational page has been created by the Association of General Contractors. I have included it here for your information here
2. Latest Local News article on Sonoma County Health Order here
3. The Actual Health Order of Sonoma County Text and other specific information can be found at this link
4. Bay Area Counties Extend and modify health order- link

Small Business Assistance

2020. Simple forms, quick loans start Friday, April 3, 2020. The official source of info is here–
2021. For Businesses with no employees, a separate program will be out on April 10, 2020. Keep reviewing the SBA website.
2022. Exchange Bank did a Webinar already and the slides are included here 

Local Information and Meeting News

1. Sonoma County Alliance General Membership Meeting 4-1-2020-to watch the meeting, click here–
2. The ECA has a weekly meeting with Supervisor David Rabbitt and several other Executive Directors via ZOOM. As information arises, I will bring it to you in our Newsletters. If you have any questions for Supervisor Rabbitt email them to me at john@nceca.org.
3. Contractors Licensing information regarding Essential Services and Health Order Exemptions – here
4. The Social Distancing and Shelter In Place seems to be helping in the North Bay Area. The rate of spread is being lowered. We are not out of the woods yet, but it seems to be working—FINGERS CROSSED!!

E. From David Rabbitt:

1. How long will it last? We do not know. Modeling is encouraging as we seem to be “flattening the curve”.
2. How fast can we recover? Property taxes still due. That is a State issue to change. Counties have no say in it.
3. Construction Dive is a great source of information, and I have provided a link here. It should be noted that there is general consensus that the 4^thQuarter will be a huge one for the General Engineering Contracting Industry- link

Again-there is a lot more news out there, but most of it is available to all of you and I will not inundate you with the info.

Finally-the ECA is in contact with George Petersen Insurance about setting up a free Webinar dealing with safety protocols for the “new” normal for working safely in a pandemic situation. More to come soon.

That’s All Folks!

John

*****************************************************************

Information and resources to help you and your business and your employees get through this emergency.

Personal Protection to avoid the spread of the CoronaVirus: link

“Shelter At Home” orders issued last week by Governor Newsome: link

What exactly are essential services excluded from the Shelter At Home directive?: link

Donating personal protective equipment. If you have additional PPE to donate, here is where to donate: NEW PPEs in their original packages can be donated to the Salvation Army at 93 Stony Point Road, Santa Rosa, Monday – Friday from 9:00 AM – 3:00 PM.

YouTube video from Mark Soiland, Soiland Company Inc., and Tennis Wick, Permit Sonoma on Where to donate masks: link

Attached is a letter with other Chambers and business organizations. It provides the case for immediate economic assistance for our business community and provides recommendations for ways to provide this assistance. Link

Find information about filing for Unemployment Insurance (UI) at: link

You can also access a step-by-step video tutorial: link

While the Job Link offices are currently closed, staff is working by telephone to respond to questions related to EDD and unemployment claims. Please call (707) 565-5550 for more information.

Help For Your Local Business:

Access local small business assistance by visiting: link

You can also call (707) 565-4667 with specific questions about how the Shelter in Place Order affects your business, or (707) 565-8079 with questions about unemployment claims or staff layoffs. Every level of government is working to soften the economic blow to people and businesses. Please bear with us as we sort through the fast-moving changes and build up new communications capacities. We will keep you informed of each development.

Local Businesses That Are Open (you can register your business here as well):

See a list of the GO LOCAL member businesses who are open online, for delivery and take out by visiting: link

To get your business listed as open, here is some help:

Are you on the Business is Open list? – The Press Democrat (and all Sonoma Media Investments [SMI] publications) wants to inform the public about the status of local businesses – who is operating and in what capacity. Inclusion is free and easy. Just answer the questions on this form and you’ll be included.

Updates On Local Corona Virus News:

Use our new “Dashboard” to monitor the local status of Coronavirus (COVID-19) in Sonoma County at: link

Complete list of California’s essential workers: link

Small Business Assistance

Small Business Administration (SBA) – The SBA has programs for Disaster Loan Assistance. Visit their website for the latest information and how it may help your business

ECA NEWSLETTER 3-12-2020

John’s Soapbox

“Taxation Without Representation”

I got a couple of comments after last week’s Newsletter about why I would “bash” transit dollar increases being proposed in the new Measure M, and then conclude that we would probably support the Measure anyway.

Here’s Some of the Issues To Consider:

1. SB1 was passed and the extra fuel excise taxes we pay for a gallon of gas and diesel, only get distributed to Cities and Counties that are “self-help” regarding self-imposed taxation to contribute to their road maintenance.  If Measure M goes away, so does our share of SB1 dollars.  We would still pay into the SB1 “pot”, but we would get nothing back.  Bad Deal!
2. It is the California Air Resources Board who comes out with guidelines for Counties to follow as to lowering their GHG’s (GreenHouseGas emissions). CARB recently raised the level they are demanding the Counties to lower their GHG emissions.  In order to comply, Counties have to meet the higher reduction rates, or at least demonstrate that they are sincerely trying.  With autos and trucks contributing over 60% of the GHG’s, the only way to significantly lower our GHG’s is to reduce vehicle miles travelled.  The only quick way to reduce vehicle miles travelled (or show a good faith effort to do so) is to get more people on public transit.  This was one of the reasons Measure I was supported by the ECA and “yours truly”, but the voters rejected it.  Getting more people on public transit would require cheaper or free fares, and/or more convenience to the “new” public transit rider they are seeking.  Therefore, the budgets for public transit will be raised so they can provide more routes and get those routes closer to prospective rider’s home and travel destinations.
3. Even though more bike paths do not seem to be a high priority to most of us, it is to a lot of potential voters. Also, the type of bike paths is important to note.  Many of the folks I have sat down with and discussed Measure M with, want to see “Category 4” bike paths created.  These are ones that, in a simple explanation, offer separated pathways for motorized cars and trucks, self-pedaled bikes and ebikes along with skateboards and scooters, and those that are on foot.  At the ECA we kind of should like this concept since it is our firms that would be building those Category 4 bike paths.  With the Bicycle Coalition not endorsing the SMART Train tax measure, the reasons for their lack of support need to be realized-they did not like the promise of lots of bike paths that did not get built.  So, it is important to consider their wishes or risk them not supporting a revised Measure M.
4. Finally-without a “big anchor tenant” like widening of Highway 101, which is what we had in 2004 when Measure M was passed, it will be more difficult to entice voters to vote for a revised Measure M. Most “run of the mill” voters will not care that we will lose SB1 money, or that the only way to lower GHG’s is to get more folks on the bus transit mode of transportation.  Most voters will react to “WHAT’S IN IT FOR ME?” When they consider approving a sales tax measure.  In crafting Measure M ballot language, it is important to include a little “something something” for ALL VOTERS, not just those that want to see potholes filled.

Just so you are aware, I have been working diligently with business groups and environmental groups to try to come up with “hard limits” to what we would, and they would, find acceptable.  Nobody is going to get either what they “deserve” or what they want.  The idea is to craft something that is “PASSABLE” by the voters.  If Measure M goes away, we will really be screwed with “taxation without representation”.

That’s All Folks

John

***************************************

As everyone is aware, the Coronavirus is impacting every facet of our lives.  We are no exception.  We will cancel our Board Meeting for March (which was scheduled for March 17, 2020), and instead, we will hold an extended Executive Meeting with our Officers to determine a few items:

1. Do we suspend Public Officials Night to be rescheduled later?
2. Do we have our Board Meetings “call in” rather than in person when we renew them in April?

These are big issues and I need our Exec opinions to deal with them.  I hope this Newsletter finds you and your family well, and that your business is not getting hurt too badly.  Let’s hope we get a handle on this Pandemic quickly and we can go back to living our lives but with some health care changes.  Get healthier, wash your hands more often for starters!!

I am very concerned about Measure M. I realize the ballot measure will not be voted on until November, 2020. I have reported on who is on the ad hoc committee (Bagbee, Landman, Gurney, Gorin, Rogers and Rabbitt) that has been doing the polling and deciding on how to write the legislation to go before the voters. Rabbitt, has consistently demonstrated a commitment to “fix” our roads on a consistent basis. I wrote about this ad hoc committee in the weekly ECA Newsletter on August 29, 2019 and said we would be tracking the efforts of the ad hoc committee and their polling efforts. I was concerned then, and now I am in crisis mode. Why? Because I think the ad hoc committee has made a mistake with the Measure M sales tax extension to such an extent that several of our groups that are traditionally friendly to transportation issues will either not support the Measure M tax extension in its current form, or will actively oppose it. That opposition, if it occurs, would effectively kill the effort to extend the much-needed Measure M sales tax extension.

Measure M was passed in 2004 and it is a ¼ cent sales tax measure that provides 80% of the tax revenue for Highway 101 projects (40%), Local Road Rehabilitation -LSR (20%), Local Streets Projects – LSP (20%), Local Bus Transit – LBT (10%), SMART 5%, and Bike Ped Projects (4%).

Now that Highway 101 is completely funded in Sonoma County, the need for 40% of the tax revenue going to Highway 101 widening is no longer needed. Also, since SMART is now up and running, the 5% allocated to help SMART get built, is no longer needed either. That creates a choice for the ad hoc committee as to what to do with the 45% of each tax dollar that can now be applied to accelerating repairs to our battered roads, or, to something else.

It is the “something else” that the ad hoc committee is choosing that is so frustrating to me. It is unbelievable to me how much influence certain special interest groups have on deciding where our tax monies should go. If you were to list your priorities as to where the “new and improved” Measure M funds should go, I would suggest most of us would agree on these priorities:

#1 Fix our local roads. This is my top priority. This is, I believe, the best way to apply sales tax revenue for a sales tax that was designed to help our local Cities and Sonoma County get more funding to fix the 1384 miles of roads that exist in Sonoma County.

#2 Put some dollars into new improvements and infrastructure that eases traffic flow. This could be better signalization systems, improvements to our movement of goods (perhaps more movement of trucking goods at night, rather than during the day), and incentivizing bigger companies to modify their business hours in order to lessen the number of workers on the road during traditional rush hour periods. Maybe some big companies have a work week that runs Tuesday through Friday while others have a Monday thru Thursday schedule. There are lots of things that could be done to encourage telecommuting of workers so they can work from home one or more days a week rather than travel into the office every day.

#3. Do projects and improvements that enhance safety of our roads and bridges.

There is no number 4, 5 or 6 that is critical to me and I suspect there is no number 4, 5 or 6 that is critical to the majority of taxpayers in Sonoma County.

So, what is the ad hoc committee proposing? Their priorities are more like this:

1. A)More dollars for bus transit
2. B)More dollars for bike and pedestrian pathways
3. C)More dollars for policies and projects that reduce climate change impacts
4. D)Fix local roads
5. E)Provide infrastructure that smooths the way for infill high density housing to be constructed

Hmmm.  What we have here is a failure to communicate folks. Not once, did the ad hoc committee reach out to the ECA, the NCBE, the Sonoma County Alliance, the Farm Bureau, or the Santa Rosa Metro Chamber, or SOS for their opinion on how to structure Measure M until March 4, 2020. Despite input from the Sonoma County Transportation Authority Citizens Oversight Committee, the ad hoc committee largely ignored all business related organizations, ignored their own Citizens Committee that has followed Measure M expenditures from day one, and ignored (in my humble opinion) the hugely important reality that most folks want our roads fixed, not more bus transit.

On Wednesday, the ad hoc committee invited a few lucky folks to a small meeting to discuss the proposed “Strawman” split of Measure M tax monies. A “strawman” proposal is a draft proposal intended to generate discussions in the hopes that a better proposal is arrived at by virtue of those discussions.

The most recent polling shows taxpayers have the highest approval rate (83%) for any category of funding for fixing the pavement of local roads. City Managers tell the pollsters their greatest need is additional money to fix their local streets and roads.

With the polling results, and the lack of reaching out to the ECA and other “Business Oriented” Associations, it makes me wonder where the ad hoc committee got their feedback/influence to propose these new tax split percentages:

Raise bus and transit from 10% to 18%, increase bike and pedestrian pathways from 4% to 11%, allocate 25% to a category labeled “connected communities” funding which includes housing/access to transit and infrastructure improvements not well defined, and only authorize 40% for application to fixing local roads.

Recently, my favorite columnist of all time, Dan Walters, wrote a piece that appeared in the Press Democrat about how the billions of dollars the State of California is spending on “climate change” efforts are falling flat with taxpayers. Two executive orders by former Governor Jerry Brown set the goal for electric vehicles at 1.5 million “on the road” by 2025 and 5 million by 2030 (5 million represents 20% of the cars on the road in California). Ten years after the goals were set, and with 10 years left until 2030, we are at 13.4% of our stated goal when you count hybrids and electric vehicles. True zero emission vehicles are at a paltry 7.6% after 10 years of the goal. Sales are not increasing, but rather decreasing as 2019 sales dropped a full 2% over 2018 sales figures.

Transit only accounts for 10% of all California transportation, and that figure is declining. Despite adding 530 miles of commuter train lines in Southern California, ridership has steadily declined since the peak ridership in 1985. To see the article I am using to quote these figures, click here

Public transit has been falling in California since 2014 according to a UCLA report issued just last week. BART has seen a loss of 10 million night and weekend passengers in the last four years.

These trends create a rather strange confluence. According to the Embarcadero Institute, a Bay Area think tank, as California transit systems expanded service, they increased their spending from $10.4 billion in 2014 to $12.3 billion in 2018 — most of it from taxpayers, not riders — but their ridership declined from 1.5 billion passengers to 1.3 billion during that same period.

With the voters speaking loudly and clearly as to the Measure I tax extension for the SMART train, are our leaders not hearing the voters outcry no “No way” when they keep trying to appeal to our sense of morality to curb carbon emissions by taxing us? I think the ad hoc committee for Measure M is afraid of opposition from bike riders and bus riders. In order to appease those folks, they are floating their proposal to jack up spending so those groups will not oppose Measure M. However, by doing this, and not asking the pro-business organizations their opinion (or simply ignoring our opinions), the ad hoc committee risks pissing off those folks that should be most in favor of extending a sales tax to fix our roads-US!

Does anybody really think that we should be doubling the expenditures on bus transit? When I look at the buses around town, I sure do not see them in an overcrowded state. I love walking and bike riding. But I do not want our roads to wait while we build more bike paths that are “wanted” but not needed.

The ECA will probably support a Measure M sales tax extension. Whether it has 80% being applied to fixing roads or only 40% to fixing roads, it is in our best interest to support it. However, we risk losing big at the polls if the 83% of the voters are not listened to for fear of pissing off some bike riders and bus advocates. What the ad hoc committee should be doing is catering to the 83% who want to fix our roads.

I want to extend Measure M to fix roads, not to add bus routes.

What about you? How do you feel about it? Do you want to keep paying a sales tax to have more empty buses or to fill more potholes?

Duh—–

That’s All Folks

John

As voters face how to vote on the one substantive new tax issue (Prop 13, not Measure I which is not that substantive in my humble opinion), I decided to do some investigative work on why our CA schools need an infusion of $15 billion. I have seen and heard a lot of confusion about this 2020 version of Prop 13. The most clear and concise explanation I can find, is included here for your information.

My question is why do we need $15 billion for brick and mortar assistance when we passed the Lottery in 1984? I thought the Lottery was supposed to supplement our spending needs???

When the California Lottery was passed in 1984, I thought additional school funding needs were a thing of the past. Here is what the Lottery is obligated to do for splitting up the Lottery funds from us “SUCKERS”:

The breakdown has remained more or less the same since the voter-approved 1984 Lottery Act was passed, since it mandated a specific formula: 50 percent for prizes, 34 percent to schools and 16 percent for administrative and marketing costs.

Rough numbers since the Lottery started in 1985 through fiscal year 2017/2018?

Over $34.2 Billion has been given to schools. link

Are you as surprised as I am by that number?

In 2015/2015, Ca spent $76 Billion on public schools. Here is where that money came from:

Sources and Funding for K–12 Education in 2014–15 (in millions) link

 So how much is that per student?

Proposition 98 Per-Pupil Funding, 2009–10 through 2014–15 (in thousands) link

Ok. So how does that spending rate compare with other states? Although methodology counts, California ranks 46^th out of 50 states in spending per student. link

Anybody else amazed at that figure?

Did you know that school districts pay around 85% of their annual budget on labor compensation? Teachers and counselors, janitors and administration folks. That is a lot of billions of dollars!

So do we need more spending? If we are to compare our spending to other States-the answer is YES. 46^th out of 50 is not spending too much in my opinion.

The trade-off is that this year’s Prop 13 also includes a requirement that all the workers on the $15 billion worth of funded projects, must be union members. That kind of kills it for me. I am certainly not opposed to unions, as most of you know, but I am personally opposed to qualified non union folks paying their taxes and not being allowed to enjoy working on the projects those taxes fund. Seems kind of unfair to me.

So in answer to the question of “how much should we give to our public schools?”. I say we should give an amount that results in fair opportunity for the students as well as fair opportunity for the contractors bidding the work that those tax dollars fund. I do not know the right dollar amount, but I do know the right moral amount-zero dollars if we limit who can attend the public school. Zero if we limit who can work on the school projects.

There you have it-John’s politically incorrect opinion!

That’s All Folks

This op-ed piece is not an indictment of the SEIU or any other union. It is an opinion that is opposed to ANY PRE-COMMITMENT (BY AN ELECTED OFFICIAL) OF VOTING ON FUTURE ISSUES TO ANY BUSINESS GROUP, TAXPAYER ASSOCIATION, ENVIRONMENTAL ORGANIZATIONS, UNIONS OR ANY OTHER PERSON.

According to the Webster Definition, a “Pledge” is:

*a thing that is given as security for the fulfillment of a contract or the payment of a debt and is liable to forfeiture in the event of failure.

*the state of being held as a security or guaranty

*something given as security for the performance of an act

*a binding promise or agreement to do or forbear

This Op-ed is about demanding a candidate vote a certain way. I am not taking a position for or against workers choosing to unionize. I think that is a personal choice, and far be it for me to decide what is best for any individual. This Soapbox is about how the candidates predetermine their future votes in order to secure endorsements and campaign contributions. How does the ECA want to be remembered and known?

Several years ago, public employee unions devised a method for determining which candidates they would support. The method included the potential candidate signing what was called a “CANDIDATE PLEDGE”. If a candidate signed the pledge, they got interviewed and would the SEIU could consider endorsing them and possibly contributing campaign dollars to the candidate. If a candidate refused to sign the “Pledge”, the candidate did not even get granted an interview by the SEIU.

Here is a copy of the SEIU Candidate Pledge that was widely circulated years ago:

“As a candidate and elected official, I hereby pledge:

1. To publicly support and actively encourage workers who are organizing a union with the SEIU
2. To publicly support and actively encourage the position that workers should be able to freely choose for themselves whether they want to gain a voice on the job by unionizing without the intimidating effects of any employer interference. This includes publicly supporting and encouraging employers to remain neutral on the question of unionization.
3. To publicly support and actively encourage the position that no taxpayer money should be spent interfering with the right of workers to freely choose a union
4. To publicly support and actively encourage a fair and fast process for determining worker support for unionization including a secret ballot election or card check recognition
5. To publicly support and actively encourage employers to negotiate with the union within 90 days after the majority of workers express their choice in favor of forming a union
6. To publicly support and actively encourage employers to negotiate good faith collective bargaining agreements with their workers and to abide by the terms of those agreements.

At our last Board Meeting, held 2-18-2020, we discussed the ECA Policy on candidates who sign these types of Pledges. The ECA adopted a “soft” approach years ago that basically said “if a candidate has signed a Pledge or a “pre commitment” of a candidate’s votes or actions for future issues, the ECA would consider that fact in whether we would endorse or contribute campaign dollars to that candidate. Other organizations adopted a “harder” approach. The NCBE says “Candidates running for elected offices in Sonoma, Lake, and Mendocino Counties will not be endorsed or financially supported if they have signed a Voting Pledge or similar document of any kind”. The issue came up because when we decided to endorse and support Shirlee Zane in October 2019, she had not signed a Pledge at that time, and she has subsequently signed one. I owed it to the Board to bring it up so they could consider whether to rescind our endorsement, or simply write a strong letter to Shirlee that expresses our dismay that she would pre determine her future voting on issues in exchange for an endorsement from the SEIU. The Board decided to keep our endorsement of Shirlee (her opponent Chris Coursey signed the same Pledge), but they want to consider our policy on endorsing candidates in the future.

Here is what I personally believe the ECA should consider:

1. Because of Zane’s late decision to sign a Pledge, the ECA does no more “early endorsements” of any candidate. We decide 1-2 weeks prior to ballots going out who we are endorsing, and let our Membership know.
2. The ECA no longer will contribute any dollars to any candidate’s campaign until the day of the election. We can never be accused of trying to “buy influence” that way.
3. We adopt a firm rule that is any candidate pledges or promises to vote the way any special interest demands they vote on future issues not yet before them, we will not consider endorsing them or contributing any dollars to their campaign.
4. If we adopt these policies, we make sure all potential candidates and elected officials receive them and understand them.
5. Finally-we will work hard to convince other Associations that endorse and write campaign checks to follow the lead of the NCBE and ECA in all future campaigns for local candidates.

This is my opinion. I Pledge to you that I have not, and will not, ever ask a candidate to predetermine how they will vote in exchange for ECA endorsements or campaign contributions. I will ask them questions, I will question their responses, but I will not promise or pledge support.

That’s All Folks

John