In his outstretched palm, Atul Lall holds a molar, a wisdom tooth and four fragments of teeth that broke free when a tequila bottle encountered his jaw. Three days before last Thanksgiving, the 32-year-old San Jose native was driving away from the Lucky’s grocery store on South White Road in east San Jose. As he pulled his car out of the lot, Lall says that three men, without apparent reason, ripped him from the driver’s seat and beat him while dousing him with liquor. They called him a terrorist. Almost three months since the incident, the second-to-last of San Jose’s 32 hate crimes reported last year has sparked two separate police investigations. The first continues to search for the three men suspected of beating Lall.  The other, sources confirmed, is being conducted by Internal Affairs, the police department’s watchdog, which is looking into claims that investigators bungled the case and blamed the city’s budget problems for their inability to find the culprits.

The bi-weekly meeting of the Santa Clara County Office of Education (SCCOE) board convenes Wednesday evening this week at Anne Darling School, 1550 Marburg Way. At the meeting, the county board of education will be presented with an oral report on special education services the office provides to approximately 2,150 special needs students from ages 3 to 22. The services—albeit very costly due to the enormous physical, emotional, and educational needs of the students—are a moral imperative.

The $250 million question: Did Mayor Chuck Reed and other city officials knowingly lie about the worst-case scenario for San Jose’s pension crisis? An ethics complaint that included almost 800 city employee signatures was turned into the Elections Commission Thursday. The complaint, filed on the heels of an NBC Bay Area report, states that Reed, Director of Retirement Services Russell Crosby and former city actuary Michale Moehle knowingly used false information to bolster the mayor’s push to declare a fiscal emergency, which may have also had an adverse effect on pension reform negotiations. In an interview Thursday, Mayor Reed defended the worst-case scenario projection.

As someone who embraces public service as an integral part of the American social contract, it dismays me when government moves to minimize the voice of the people it represents. Case in point: The recent flirtation with folding 20 volunteer City Commissions into five. Yes, that’s five.

The list many public employees dread every year—annual salaries—posted to the city’s website. No one came close to matching last year’s top earner, retired police chief Rob Davis, but there were some interesting numbers pertaining to high-profile executives and their subordinates.

For this weeks blog, I am continuing the discussion about providing a fixed percentage of the budget towards police. A nickname for this might be, “We Get, You Get.” The name refers to when the aggregate budget grows, then funding for the most critical service a city can provide—police—would grow. (Providing a sewer system is a close second for the most critical service).

Elected officials come and go, and with that so do certain priorities. It seems that with every budget cycle, certain departments have to prove their worth and their existence. But why should support seesaw when something is so important as the Social Contract? I recommend that the city should commit to a specific police budget each fiscal year. San Jose should allocate a fixed percentage of the budget to the police department that is higher than the 34.7% today of an $885.8 million general fund budget.

With the passage of Senate Bill 654 (SB654), authored by Senate President Pro tem Darrell Steinberg, cities in California would retain Redevelopment Agency’s (RDA) tax increment financing to build more affordable housing. The entire Legislature is set to vote on the bill.

Voters approved Measure O in 2002 to bolster public safety throughout San Jose, and the city started issuing $159 million in bonds. Much of the money was intended for constructing the south San Jose police substation on Great Oaks Boulevard. Nearly 10 years later, those ambitious days seem like a distant memory. The 107,000-square-foot facility—officially completed at the end of 2010 at a cost of $90.8 million—is currently one of five publicly funded buildings in the last 15 months that have yet to open or were closed the same day they were completed.

Due to flat tax revenues and escalating pension costs, the city of San Jose has been forced to cut library hours year after year as well as make million dollar sacrifices in all other city departments. Even with all of the eliminations, San Jose continues to have a budget deficit. We need to re-examine the current delivery model for San Jose libraries and seriously consider how we can incorporate volunteers to fully maximize the hours of operation at all of our libraries.

As the year winds down, you can almost hear the collective sigh coming from City Hall. Or maybe that’s an echoing whoosh from councilmembers, the mayor, city manager and their staffs, who hightailed it for the holidays. Either way, 2011 was a tumultuous year, fierce in the manner civic actors clashed over pension reform, public safety, pot, a potential ballpark, ballot measures, pay cuts, occupations of city property and other issues of varying degrees of importance.

This week, San Jose Vice Mayor Madison Nguyen answered 10 questions selected by SJI staff out of dozens submitted by San Jose Inside commenters. The topics range from the Little Saigon controversy and Nguyen’s relationship with public safety unions to the city’s legal basis for the pension reform ballot measure.—Editor

With San Jose’s budget shortfall coming in at far less than the $80 million expected, the City Council will defer any action next Tuesday to declare a fiscal emergency. New projections put the shortfall at around $25 million. However, Mayor Chuck Reed still wants an election next year to reform employee pensions. The preferred election date for the ballot measures would be June 5, 2012, according to a memo sent out Thursday by Reed and councilmembers Pete Constant, Rose Herrera, Sam Liccardo and Madison Nguyen.

The sick leave payout perk was something that the current City Council inherited from a prior council. Although once considered a nice perk, if the city continues this trend without any change it will continue further on a downward spiral of spending money it does not have.

The day San Jose Inside readers have been patiently waiting for has arrived. The busiest guy in town finally turned in his answers to reader questions that were submitted back in October. After detailing how a Q&A with the chief went wrong, Moore sprang into action with a 4,501-word email. Below are the questions and answers, preceded by Moore’s apology to readers for the delay. We’re sure all of you will understand.

Ensuring that cars travel slowly near schools should be a priority for San Jose. Local governments should embrace tools that make streets safer for pedestrians, especially when those pedestrians are overwhelming children walking and biking to and from school.