Candace Anderson calls out Van de Brooke for support of project labor agreements

Candace Andersen, a candidate for a seat on the Board of Supervisors of Contra Costa County, criticized her chief opponent’s support for expensive labor agreements. Speaking at a fund-raiser in Walnut Creek on Wednesday night (April 18), Andersen, the mayor of Danville, expressed disappointment that Tomi Van de Brooke, Andersen’s chief opponent, has, as a member of board of directors of the Contra Costa College Community College District, supported Project Labor Agreements (PLA’s), which generally require the use of unionized labor.

On construction projects, PLA’s can raise the cost of labor by 20 percent or more.

Both Andersen and Van de Brooke are candidates for the county’s District Two supervisorial seat, which includes such parts of the county as Orinda, Moraga, Lafayette, San Ramon, Danville, San Ramon, Alamo, and a segment of Walnut Creek.

The current District Two supervisor, Gayle Uilkema, a former mayor of Lafayette, is retiring. Uilkema is supporting Andersen’s campaign.

When questioned about the county supervisors’ vote, in December 2006, to raise their salaries by 60 percent, Andersen said that such an increase was excessive.

Andersen is a lawyer. Van de Brooke is a resident of Orinda.

Print Friendly
Share with your friends and colleagues

Author: Bill Gram-Reefer

Bill Gram-Reefer is an expert in Public Relations, Social Media, and copywriting for business, government, non-profits, and public affairs. He offers Internet marketing services via WORLDVIEW PR.

11 thoughts on “Candace Anderson calls out Van de Brooke for support of project labor agreements”

  1. Tomi Va de Brooke ran the worst big spending political campaign since George McGovern. Ugly little one word signs, multiple meaningless mailers and the worst thing of all. Robocalls.
    Tomi could write a book on how to waste other peoples money.

    1. She also wrote the book on how to waste taxpayers money with support for PLAs in Community College District.

  2. Congrats, Candace . . . hope you are seated expeditiously. There is no shortage of work to be done at CoCoCo!

    To Candace Supporters: Candace will need our ongoing support as she begins this new role at a critical time — and in such a fractious political environment. Election Day is the beginning — not the end — of the election process.

    Go, Candace, go!

  3. Tomi Van de Brooke’s focus on social issues unrelated to the Board of Sup role is a diversion from the fact that the county is drowning in red ink. Van de Brooke’s slavish support of unions, to the detriment of taxpayers, is disqualifying. Electing Van de Brooke to the Board equates to pouring gasoline on a bonfire (a bonfire of tax dollars, that is).

    Project labor agreements are detrimental to taxpayers, yet Electeds from all political parties engage in this crony capitalism:

    Candace Anderson is the best candidate for District 2 because she is focused on the critical issue facing Contra Costa County: Providing good value to taxpayers by delivering necessary services in the most economically-efficient and financially-responsible manner.

  4. Has Tomi adopted a giant rodent as her campaign mascot? Given her support of union monopolies it seems like just the right fit. Classy.

    Today’s article in Fox and Hounds Daily offers an explanation:

    And the Contra Costa Times political blog got video:

    This is one campaign mascot that offers something others don’t: Truth in advertising.

  5. Just say “NO” to any political candidate who has ties to organized labor, especially public employee unions.

    Organized labor, especially public employee unions, have a long and well-documented history of being the puppet masters behind the puppet politicians who abuse the taxpayers. Most of the damage is yet to come (e.g. outrageous pensions that are grossly underfunded and should have never been granted).

    1. This thinking ignores support for Anderson from both the Deputy Sheriffs and District Attorneys Associations that both represent “public employees.”

      One ought to make the distinction between these “public employee unions” and the entrenched County Employee Retirement Association (CCERA) that still allows employee spiking and other egregious pension abuse that (like defined benefit plans and next to free healthcare for life) are draining resources needed for core services.

      That Van de Brook would have influence over appointment and oversight of CCCERA as well as influence over contract giveaways is the worst case scenario.

  6. Ms. Anderson needs to bring these issues forward – and so does the media – because they actually show us how Ms. Van de Brooke would lead us into deeper debt by bowing to organized labor at the expense of the taxpayer.

    And remember that Ms. Van de Brooke was Mary Piepho’s Chief of Staff while Piepho’s office was involved with abuse of the Keller Canyon Landfill Mitigation Fund. This is the same office that attempted to appoint Mary’s own husband Dave to the Cemetery district so that he could keep his LAFCO seat. And the same office that appointed a CSD director that was arrested for criminal child endangerment and spousal assault who was forced to resign because of a successful recall effort. Same office that voted to increase their own BOS salaries 60%. Anyone with an ounce of integrity would have demanded the increase only be given to those who are elected AFTER the decision.

    Ms. Van de Brooke is a dangerous woman who continually makes decisions based on self enrichment and her reading of the power politics in the county. And don’t for a minute believe she will protect urban limit lines. If there’s money or power involved she will lock elbows with her pal Mary Piepho and do what it takes to get what she thinks she has coming without any concern for the taxpayers.

    We don’t need another Mary Piepho on the BOS! One is more than enough!

Comments are closed.