From Pacifica Patch, 2/27/12, 12:42 pm. "Councilman Jim Vreeland Resigns over health issues."
"Councilman Jim Vreeland officially tendered his resignation late this morning. He had told the Pacifica Tribune earlier this month that we was planning on resigning, although no details emerged until today. "I regret to inform you that I am facing health issues that leave me unable to fulfill my duties as a member of the City Council,” he wrote. “I therefore respectfully offer my resignation from the City Council, effective 12p.m. Feb. 27, 2012.” Vreeland said he's proud of all the council has done during his time on it, and wishes he could continue to serve. Read more
Posted by Kathy Meeh
32 comments:
Great. I am glad that he is leaving is better for him and for the city. Why we need to have five council members. Pacifica needs money. In my opinion don't replace his seat. Stay with four. Honestly . Enough is enough . Chances are that our city might replace Vreeland with someone that is just like him. Every single opportunity to be just like them.
This has been long over due. I feel bad if anyone is ill but important city business was not getting done.
Dejarnett is next if he keeps missing meetings.
Now, the council should not appoint anyone but let the people vote for a replacement candidate in November rather than holding a separate special election which would be very expensive.
Hutch,
It doesn't matter who gets appointed as long as the proper process is followed. Section 36512 is very specific about this upcoming process but there are a multitude of options for choosing a replacement council member.
I favor a commission like appointment to finish off Jim's term. It allows anyone who would like to apply for the job to do so. It's not an election but it is a lot more democratic than simply appointing a previous council member as some here have suggested.
The only special election they can hold would be in November. These types of elections have to follow the regular schedule even though the circumstance of the vacancy is special. They have to act within 60
days and they actually do have choices beyond just treating this like a commission seat and rushing to appoint someone. That someone will serve until November 2014. State Law provides several other options including enacting an ordinance so they can appoint a temp til the November election. That way business can go on now and the voters can choose whom they want for the long-haul in November. Council should not hijack this important right.
Good bye and good luck to Jim Vreeland. Pete will roll along just fine as long as his absences are excused. No problem getting a doctor's excuse there. I think public pressure from all sides really moved Vreeland out. Good job Pacifica!
The City Attorney will be looking at CA Gov't Code 36512 for council's options on filling the vacancy.
There are options, and council is certainly not compelled to make an
immediate longterm (32 mnths) appointment. That choice belongs on a ballot.
@ Todd, do you really believe that it doesn't matter who gets appointed? This is way too important to leave to a few people. Let the voters decide in November. And that's what Section 36512 allows.
@ Anon 518 I agree, Vreeland resigned due to public pressure. Great job Pacifica
@ Anon 538 yeah I say let the people decide in November.
Vreeland resigned for two reasons.
1. He knows Pacifica is knocking at Bankrutpcy's door.
2. He knew he had no political future outside Pacifica
Ride them waves Jimmy
Look folks, it's obvious Jim should never have run for re-election last year. Since Leo was the next highest vote getter it is his seat fair and square to me. However Section 36512 doesn't seem to allow for that without some sort of appointment process. Council in the end will determine what they want to do. The quickest and simplest thing to do is a regular appointment process.
Todd, we will not allow a divisive, anti growth, pro tax, Sierra Club recommended person to be appointed.
We're not going backwards here. We've had enough of the three horseman (Digre, Dejarnett and Vreeland.
To say that because Leo Leon was a runner up over a year ago is no reason to consider him now.
The Council should and will leave it to the people to decide in November.
Bray
no one cares what you think
I voted for Leon in Nov 2010 but need a second look now. As everyone might recall, the council candidates went through three debates, answered various questionnaires, were the subject of newspaper stories and interviews. They walked neighborhoods and talked to voters face to face. A 3-4 month campaign fleshes out what a candidate is about and tests their leadership and ideas.
I want an election not an appointment. I do not care to delegate my ability to personally question a candidate and vote to a city council interview session that may last only 2 hours. I want debates and questions and answers. I would hope the Pacifica Democrats, the Chamber, the unions and the Beach Coalition, etc, all have forums. A council interview is no substitute.
Finally, this town has changed since the last election 16 months ago. Our challenges are deepening. I am not sure Mr. Leon is up the task. If he thinks he is, he should prove it by running in an election and debate the issues and his 2012 solutions.
Hutch I can't take you seriously unless your wearing your brown shirt.
signed,
the people.
ps: you didn't mind the people not having a voice on this issue, confused some?
There was about 300 votes between Leo and Susan Vellone. If Jim Vreeland had not run maybe more votes would have gone to Susan or maybe more votes would have gone to Leo. The old election is no gauge of who should fill the seat.
Any one who has ever attempted to get on the Planning Commission or has just witnessed the event knows that it is chronyism to the higest degree. Right, wrong or indifferent it is not the way Vreelands' vacancy should be filled. We can limp along till November and then properly elect his and deJarnatte's replacement.
Chris, Mike, Hutch and all you zany Yessie Anon's please feel free to educate yourselves regarding the process for filling a vacated council seat. I know it's reality and so in your eyes can't be trusted but Section 36512 is the rule book governing what happens next.
http://codes.lp.findlaw.com/cacode/GOV/1/4/d3/1/s36512
"Zany?" Why you gotta sling mud at people Todd? It makes you look desperate :)
Are you a Nosey if I'm a Yesie?
BTW, Hutch is my legal ficticious name
And what is in the rulebook that prevents waiting until November Todd?
Nothing? Ok as you were :)
That's right. CA Gov't Code section 36512 rules. I don't want any of the runners-up appointed. They can all run again in November and hopefully someone better runs.
We need better! Stone has been a pleasant surprise. A brain and a backbone. More of those please! FYI, Council may not legally be able to just limp along til November and why would we want them to? There is a provision on the books that allows an interim appointment to serve until the election. That way city business can go forward now and the people also get to vote in November for the regular replacement. That interim appointment should be someone with some math skills and not a freakin' politician. Somebody from FCSTF like Banco, Susan Getchell-Wallace, Karen Ervin? 6 mnth appointment.
Thank God for the law. I don't want the Postman to be appointed but I sure don't want Vellone either. She led and delivered a petition in favor of the tax! Before any real numbers from the sheriffs. Why would a business person do that? Probably because she's married to a newly retired SF cop. We need someone with an unsentimental and very clear view of the problem with our public employee unions. They are the elephant in the corner. And way too much city business is blabbed about in her beauty parlor already.
If all goes well there will be at least 2 vacancies in November. Vreeland's and Pete's. I know Nihart said "if I run" through her tears but she enjoys the spotlight.
Are there 2 good candidates? People who can make the tough, lesser-of-two-evil decisions that will have to be made? Pragmatic people who live in the real world? and have been crash-tested?
Mike O'Neill and Chris Porter come to mind.
Zany Yessie works for me.
Zany! Let me take off my Lucille Ball red wig and say I was only responding to your comment that it seemed "fair and square to you" to give the seat to Leo. I think there are several nuances in the voting system that you overlooked.
learn to read Chris,
CA Gov't Code 36512 (C) (3) is the answer to the problem. Allows an interim appt and a vote in Nov. Seems like the perfect solution. Council would have to adopt an ordinance which would be effective immediately to use this option.
It seems that another option in 36512 does allow for Council to limp along as is til November as long as they call for special election within 30 days of the vacancy commencement. What happens to things like the assisted-living facility with this option? It doesn't get built.
Homework assignment for the Fix Pacifica crew: Familiarize yourselves with CA Gov't Code 36512and it's options.
Why? Because the City of Pacifica has no rule on the books on how to fill an elective position. They do have a rule for how to fill an appointed position, like the Planning or PB&R seats. This is not unusual among cities. In such a situation the CA Gov't Code rules. Knowledge is power, people, and it can be focused for transparent government and change.
Lucy!!!
Hutch said, "We will not allow a divisive, anti growth, pro tax, Sierra Club recommended person to be appointed."
Who is "we," Kemo Sabay?
How can you tell when "Sneaky" Pete is telling lies.
When his lips are moving. He said this last time, that he wouldn't run again.
Lone Ranger, That was the Royal We.
So what, he runs, he doesn't run. He changes his mind. We need good candidates regardless. And who in their right mind wants the job?
What lips?
Post a Comment