Pacifica Tribune, 2/21/12. Letter-to the-editor "Remove Vreeland" by Bob Hutchinson
"Editor: Our city is in crisis and Mr.Vreeland has continued to be absent without excuse. Quorums have not been met and important city business is not getting done.
 |
| Sorry you're sick but its time to go |
Per California Code - Section 36513 I demand Steve Rhodes immediately designate Jim Vreeland's office vacant and a replacement be appointed per protocol.
(a)If a city council member is absent without permission from all regular city council meetings for 60 days consecutively from the last regular meeting he or she attended, his or her office becomes vacant and shall be filled as any other vacancy.
(b)Notwithstanding subdivision (a), if a city council meets monthly or less frequently than monthly and a city council member is absent without permission from all regular city council meetings for 70 days consecutively from the last regular meeting he or she attended, his or her office becomes vacant and shall be filled as any other vacancy."
Posted by Kathy Meeh
35 comments:
Patience, Hutch. CA Gov't Code 36513 can be used and section A applies to this Council, but Mr. Vreeland hasn't met the criteria, yet. If the dream of so many fed-up Pacificans does comes true, either through Mr. V's dignified resignation or via Section 36513, then we all need to pay real close attention to how Council fills the vacancy. Real close because there are options (CGC Section 36512) not all of which are acceptable. After waiting so long for change we can't let them snatch it away by treating the vacancy like some commission appointment.
Yeah I know. And the no growth contingent is already thinking of replacements. No way we can let a Peter Loeb type get on the council.
assisted living item has been removed from Monday's council agenda. That presumably means Vreeland not attending....
Or not. Who knows. Attend the meeting. Will be fun!
nope
anon920 could be the people involvd in the project can't make it this time
No way we can let a Peter Loeb type get on the council.
Peter Loeb, Fred Howard and all the friends of Pacifica set the city into a no growth hippie village.
I hope these nobies and hippies are proud
and where were you during the takeover
Chapter 9 Attorney, so true. I'm concerned we might get railroaded here. The usual suspects are clamoring about following some so-called protocol that requires council to fill the anticipated vacancy by just appointing someone to serve out the whole 2.75 years of the term. If I'm not mistaken, that protocol applies to vacancies on commissions and committees not to elected offices. Elected office is the big leagues and the people should make the choice. I don't believe the Pacifica Municipal Code actually addresses filling a Council vacancy. You bein' an attorney and all you might know better, but seems to me that among the options given in CA Gov't Code 36512 such a City Council vacancy can be filled by a temporary appointment and the call for a "special" election for November 2012 to let the voters decide who serves the remainder. Coincides neatly with the general election. I believe this would require Council simply to enact an ordinance specifying such. This option allows a quorum so the business of council can finally continue and it also protects the rights of the voters to decide in a timely manner who represents them. There are other workable options in Section 36512 but this one's a goody.
Eternal vigilance, etc. or we will get railroaded, again. You can count on it.
Leo Leon on council. Meetings would never finish before 2 am. He talks talks talks just to hear himself talk!!!
Don't even know if he still wants the job, but he's the wrong guy for it.
Leon worked for the Post Office right?
We need someone who will be tough on the unions, not an X government worker.
Besides if Loeb and the other anti progress folks want Leon he has to be bad for Pacifica.
They've had their shot. And look where we are.
Who are some suggestions for a replacement that is going to help us out of this muck and mire?
Leon's a retired public employee? Damn! At least we know he can afford to serve.
Why are people so hung up about an appointee? Just have a damn election.
Any appointee is going to be so controversial that Council will catch hell no matter who they appoint.
The Leo Leon supporters are still scratching their heads trying to figure out how Len Stone got in and with the most votes ever over their handpicked successor to Julie. He is definitely not the person for the job and Susan Vellone was only 300 votes behind him. How Vreeland got back in is still a mystery so that goes to show you that "incumbent" and name recognition go along way for the people that have no clue what is going on in this hamlet.
Agree with you Sinai but there are state laws governing the election process. And there are options within those laws that can be adopted in Pacifica and would work well. All Pacifica has on the books is how to fill a vacant commission seat by appointment. Woefully inadequate and we'd be stuck for the remainder of Vreeland's term. One of the options under state law is that Council can appoint a temp to serve until the November election. Surely they can find someone apolitical, probably retired, active in Pacifica. That way business can be done but the voters still get to choose in November. I don't care if council catches heat for an appointment. It goes with the job. And the November elections are just around the corner. Legal time limits for an election rule out the June primary. Check it out CA Gov't Code section 36512.
If Vreeland does actually go, this is going to be fun. If Council tries to treat this as a commission vacancy Pacifica and appoints someone it's for the rest of Vree's term and if they're appointing people how can they not go with the next runner-up, Leon? Hardly the desired result, is it? It doesn't work because this isn't a commission vacancy it's a vacant elected office with more than 2 years of the term remaining. Plenty of options under state law and council can enact one. Any appointment should be short-term and functional and the vacant seat settled by election this Nov. Leon and everybody else can run again. Always best to let the voters choose.
"If Vreeland does actually go.." (Anon 551).
That is the question. Unless the city requirement is fulfilled, coucilmember Vreeland might not "volunteer" to leave, regardless of what he said to the Tribune.
Looking for a neutral interim city council member until the November election, why not ask past city council member Cal Hinton first? He would probably step-in, unless conditioned by family health. He is qualified, understands city issues; the learning-curve would be low and the duration understood. But, this is just another possible easy-solution from a citizen opinion.
True true, chickens before they hatch and all that. Cal Hinton, if able, would be fine by me as an interim til Nov but some might then say why not Julie Lancelle. Just saying, you know? Might be better to stick to those with fewer or less obvious ties to the job. There's a handful that come to mind with unquestioned integrity, civic interest and experience, deep roots, no obvious political ambitions, discretion, and free-time.
"I don't care if council catches heat for an appointment."
I bet you'd care if someone you didn't like was appointed.
"...but some might then say why not Julie Lancelle." (Anon (659), good point.
I think that appointment would be fine too. Regardless of their "civic interest", it seems to take new council members a long time to "get up to speed". Either Cal Hinton or Julie Lancelle would be able to function right-away. As you said, "just saying".
Steve, I'd prefer a non-political
appointee with advanced math skills, a backbone, and who can work well with others, but no I really don't care that much about who is appointed as a temp (til Nov) as long as the seat is up for election in 2012. My big concern is that council will decide it is bound to use the same protocol it follows to fill commission and committee vacancies and under that rule the appointee serves the entire remainder of the term til Nov 2014. This is not a commission seat it is an elected office. CA Gov't Code provides several options for Council. I want the voters to decide this Nov who belongs in that seat, not our city council.
Just looking for a quorum so we can move the ball down the field, either way.
Then let the voters decide in November.
Works for me.
Bring on the Bruce!
That's the spirit! Bruce Banco or Susan Getchell-Wallace, either would be excellent as an interim councilperson til the election. Both are up-to-date on city financial disaster by way of their work on Financing City Services. Both have integrity, solid business backgrounds, analytical skills, discretion, deep and broad-based community ties, and I don't think either one would want to run for the office, ever. Good choices.
Me! Me! Me! I want to be on Council!
Aren't you?
City Council better hurry and make a move to replace Vreeland. The domino has fallen. Stockton is next. Save the children and old folks first and everyone else is on their own. Get involved know who your neighbors are and learn to repair your shoes, darn your socks and grow some vegetables. Any teachers out there that want to do some side work tutoring? Put it in the paper.
“Our employees and the citizens of Stockton who receive city services have borne the entire brunt of our restructuring efforts so far and now it’s time for others to do the same,” Deis said in a report to the council. “We can’t ‘grow our way’ out of the problem and no amount of forward-looking financial planning will properly fix it.”
Deis said he wants to use the mediation process to work out a compromise with creditors such as bondholders and with labor unions representing city workers before Stockton needs to seek bankruptcy protection.
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-02-24/stockton-california-is-said-poised-for-its-first-step-toward-bankruptcy.html
Reminder:
Julie Lancelle is part of the hippies and nobies that bankrupted the town.
Julie Pete Jim and Sue!!!
Where's John Curtis when we need him. He's been the puppet master for years of countless council members. Sure as hell he's up to speed. Wouldn't it be a scream watching him pontificating up there. Hell, it might be more intersting watching him trying to get up on the dais. I know, that's just mean.
Sinai
being you are "fixing" Pacifica why don't you ask City Council for Jimmy V's spot?
801Anon, That guy in Stockton could be talking about Pacifica and so many other CA cities. Give it a couple years max and those tough decisions we can't seem to make will be so darn easy because there won't be any choices. Poor planning, flawed idealogies, and the mother of all recessions brought us to the brink but it's denial, negligence and shameless self-interest that will put us over the edge.
Vreeland better hurry and do the
right thing. Council is powerless to move him out. Their new attendance policy is on the agenda. You should sit. They are prepared to censure a colleague who has 3 consecutive unexcused absences. That's censure, as in reprimand, rebuke, scold. Not remove, expel, banish. Did anyone expect them to try and remove an elected officer? The only hope is still CA Gov't Code 36513(a) which applies but Vreeland has yet to meet the criteria. So, council will deliver a wake-up call to any colleague approaching the State standard. Wow. A quick read and they have the missing member calling in to the Mayor. Dude, that's harsh. But I bet Rhodes is happy to be off the hook as attendance keeper for his bosses. This being Pacifica there is a smart provision that if it's the mayor who's MIA he calls the Pro Tem. Still vague on what's excused vs. unexcused but some mention of a doctor's note somewhere. All absences will be announced and recorded in the minutes during roll call. The best part for me was that they will also censure (reprimand, rebuke, scold) a member who misses 1/3 of the regular meetings in a calendar year. Apparently they count excused and unexcused for this one. Vreeland made the cut for the honor in 2010 and 2011. Retro honors and red carpet Monday night? Kind of our own Academy Awards. I wanna thank....
The only important part of Council's new attendance memo (2/27 meeting agenda item 12)is at the beginning re filling the vacancy.
They cite CA 36512(b) which basically says "within 60 days of a vacancy council can either fill it by appointment or call a special election . The special election shall be held on the next regularly established election date not less than 114 days from the call for election. A person appointed or elected to fill the vacancy serves the remainder of the term." In this case we're talking about the November general election.
Because we need to fill the seat sooner in order to be able to conduct business some might argue that council's only choice is to fill by appointment. Not true. Under the same 36512 are other options which council can adopt and enact, one of which, 36512(c)part 3, allows for an interim appointment to serve until the November election.
Council has options and should choose the one that allows the business of government to continue while protecting the voter's rights to choose representation.
I agree with earlier posters about a sort of neutral interim appointee instead of runners-up from the last election.
Think about it. There is a solution although we may have to point it out to them.
Anon 412, the council does not "remove" Vreeland.
It's very simple. CA Gov't Code 36513 states that Jimmy's seat IS VACANT if he has 3 unexcused absences within a 60 period.
The council can not write a policy which is weaker than state law.
So if Vreeland misses the meeting tomorrow his seat is vacant. Period.
Hutch I don't think anon@412 said council could remove Vreeland. Not at all. They're saying council is just jumping on the bandwagon with a policy that has no teeth.
Being nitpicky here. You are correct that the State law 36513 is the effective tool to remove a city councilperson for his unexcused absences and it seems to be automatic if he meets the standard, however the State law does not mention a specific number of absences. Rather, it says "...absent without permission from all regular council meetings for 60 days consecutively...". They avoid using a specific number because of calendar variations.
Let's hope he resigns!
Post a Comment