Reposting with correction: A concerned citizen reported an error. The city’s attorney did not write the initiative. As required by law, he wrote the initiative summary for the ballot. See correctiuon below:
Reportedly, Karen Pinkos, City Manager of El Cerrito, characterized statements that she was involved in the library tax as “a lie.”
That framing relies on a narrow legal distinction that may be defensible on paper—but it collapses under ethical scrutiny and lived experience.
The issue is not whether the City Manager is legally permitted to advocate for a ballot measure. The issue is whether city leadership can credibly deny involvement in a project and funding strategy that the city has actively advanced, financially supported, and structured to begin collecting revenue long before a library is ever built.
The Money Comes First — Long Before the Library
Under the current proposal, the city is positioned to receive upwards of $15 million in tax revenue before the library project actually begins—if it begins at all.
That fact alone raises a fundamental governance question:
- No final design
- No guaranteed construction timeline
- No secured build sequence
- And multiple unresolved alternatives still under discussion
How can residents be asked to prepay tens of millions of dollars for a facility that has:
When money flows years ahead of delivery, accountability must be airtight. Instead, it is being blurred.
A Track Record That Makes This Riskier
This concern is compounded by something residents already know from experience: El Cerrito has a documented track record of depositing tax-generated revenues into the General Fund without separately tracking them by purpose.
That means:
- Funds approved by voters for specific reasons are often not siloed
- Once deposited, they become functionally indistinguishable from other revenues
- Oversight relies on trust rather than transparent accounting
In that context, assurances that “the money is for the library” are not enough.
If $15+ million is collected years in advance, placed into the General Fund, and not individually tracked, residents are being asked to rely almost entirely on institutional goodwill rather than an enforceable structure.
That is not a theoretical concern. It is a governance risk grounded in precedent.
Denying Involvement Doesn’t Eliminate Responsibility
Against this backdrop, denying involvement in either the project or the tax becomes more than semantics—it becomes avoidance.
The city manager has:
- Commissioned library studies and alternatives
- Paid consultants to develop scenarios
- Integrated the library into redevelopment planning
- Issued a $350,000 loan to the developer tied to the broader plan
- Advanced a tax that begins collecting far in advance of construction
Those actions require staff leadership, executive oversight, and managerial coordination.
Calling claims of involvement “a lie” depends on redefining involvement so narrowly that it excludes everything residents can plainly see.
Equally important, the city’s attorney, who sits beside the city manager at every council meeting, Sky Woodruff, as required by law, wrote the summary of the initiative for the ballot. The city’s attorney rewrote it after Attorney Jason Bezis wrote him a letter saying there were seven false or misleading statements in the ballot measure summary.
That may be legally convenient.
It is not ethically persuasive.
Why This Distinction Fails the Public Test
Residents are not alleging election law violations. They are asking a simpler, more reasonable question:
Who owns the decision to ask the public for money now, without guarantees later—and without dedicated tracking once it’s collected?
Legal distinctions do not answer that question.
Ethical leadership does.
That leadership would sound like:
- Yes, the city has advanced this project
- Yes, the tax and the project are linked
- Yes, the money comes in well before construction
- Yes, our current accounting practices raise legitimate concerns
- And here is how we will protect the public interest
Instead, residents are being told that their understanding is false.
This Is How Trust Erodes
Trust is not lost because people oppose a library.
It is lost when:
- Large sums are collected long before outcomes are certain
- Funds are not transparently tracked
- Leadership denies visible involvement
- And legitimate concerns are dismissed as lies
This is not about legality.
It is about honesty, stewardship, and respect for the public’s intelligence.
When tens of millions of dollars are at stake—and when history suggests those dollars will be absorbed into the General Fund—splitting legal hairs is not leadership.
It is precisely the moment when ethical clarity matters most.
El Cerrito Committee for Responsible Government (ECCRG) 