Monday, February 20, 2012
Pacifica City Council Meeting 2/14/12
I attended the city council meeting the evening of 2/14/12, Valentine's Day. I set aside personal plans to do so as other folks likely did.
If I understand correctly, the city council itself set this meeting date. The date was set and about 50 people attended but apparently it was too difficult for two members of the city council to attend. All the folks who had showed up hoping to accomplish something were in essence told that nothing would be accomplished. This was a slap in the face to all Pacificans. You set a meeting date and then DO NOT BOTHER TO ATTEND? If Mr. Vreeland and Mr. DeJarnatt do not care to be on the city council then just say so. Someone else can do it, no one cares. This city needs help and by not attending meetings and holding up our processes, absent members are condemning Pacifica to failure at many levels.
For future meetings, the city council should inform people that the meeting is cancelled due to lack of interest, just as the Valentine's Day meeting was held for no apparent reason.
Most people at the meeting spoke of wanting to keep our police, fire and city services. Not one person endorsed using the Sheriff's office for policing. We like our cops! They are OUR cops! The police dispatch center is already gone and evidently response time for our police has been slowed down dramatically. Imagine the response time if Sheriff's deputies attempt to find some of our streets. Committees that meet at the police station now need a baby-sitter to watch the lobby. Excellent planning: dump the dispatch so now we have to provide a baby-sitter for your meetings? We have City Hall and the Community Center for meetings -- use them. Lack of foresight has caused this issue.
I was disappointed and insulted by our city council and the non-meeting. Do not try to tell Pacificans about your work when we come to your changed-date meeting and your own members do not care enough to attend. Everyone they must attend or someone else can do their job.
We are proud of Pacifica. It's beautiful and friendly and a bit quirky and it's home.
The entire populace of Pacifica deserves an apology for the fiasco of the "meeting" held on Valentine's Day evening. Aside from those present having a chance to voice an opinion, the evening was a joke. That sort of rudeness from elected officials to their constituents should not be tolerated.
Submitted by Rebecca Lorenz
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
53 comments:
I think you'll like them just as much in SMC Sheriff's uniforms. Coming our way, with or without more taxes. Has the new dispatch plan really caused slower response times? Any facts to back that up? You know, maybe they'll move faster in a different uniform.
The dispatch change and evening police station closure to the public worries me. Dispatchers who live in our community understand the city with better knowledge and fewer mix-ups.
And, having the police station open at night may make a huge difference in citizen protection, including saving a life. An open police station is one place where safety in a citizen emergency would be assured.
Saving money by moving-out the dispatch, and moving-in the Sheriff Department? There's a human cost to that.
No doubt about it. We're going to see some tough decisions made and changes from our old familar and comfortable ways. Life will go on.
One of the top 3 letters to the editor of all time.
You nailed it!
It's time for Rhodes to remove Vreeland. And probably Dejarnett too. They were bad for Pacifica when they showed up. Now they just don't give a $#IT.
Again, the City Manager does not remove the Council people. It is a process that involves time and the Council people themselves. It is getting old that every problem in this town is the City Manager's fault or responsibility to correct. He is one of the hardest working Managers we have had and I have seen at least five since I have been in this town.
No disrespect but do you even live here Chris? I've been here over 30 years and seen it all.
As far as Steve Rhodes removing Vreeland, you should read the state statute. It appears he CAN be removed after unexcused absences.
This says nothing about the council removing him Chris.
California Code - Section 36513
(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.
Hi Hutch..I do live in this town for over thirty years and have run a business in town for twenty-eight years. I said the process takes time, which is sixty consecutive days of unexcused absence, and the City Council people because again the City Manager does not remove the Councilperson after sixty days, the remaining Council does and cites there is a vacancy.
Believe me when I say if you say you have seen it all, I can swear to you I am sure I have seen more.
The vacancy cited in CA Gov't Code section 36513 occurs automatically and is then filled, probably at the next council meeting, in the usual manner. Filling the vacancy is council's job. In this current situation that would probably be a temp appointment, hopefully from the community and not the last election. The seat is then filled for the remainder of Vreeland's term (2 Years) in the general election in November 2012.
All anyone should expect from Mr. Rhodes is that he no longer use any latitude in how he evaluates and records Mr. Vreeland's absences. City Council directs Mr. Rhodes. Mr. Rhodes is responsible for deciding, based on the facts before him, if an absence is excused or unexcused. There is, at the very least, the appearance of a cover-up and that must end. This town deserves transparent and efficient government and shouldn't have to resort to a recall to get it.
All I know is I've seen too much of this crap from Council. And I do hold them responsible for not putting this town first in this Vreeland meltdown. Steve Rhodes works for them not vice versa. Either he's handled the Vreeland thing the way they wanted or they bailed and left it to his discretion. Either way, Pacifica loses as usual.
Enough chances already. Vreeland needs tough love.
The city council hires and fires the city manager. It's not the other way around.
The sheriff's dept will not need the entire police station which appears even now to be very roomy. Perfect location for city hall, PB&R and Planning offices. Sell off the old Francisco and Santa Rosa Av properties asap. Face our reality while we still have choices, come up with a good contract for police services, save money and just get on with it.
Get the numbers and then decide which one we can afford based on the complete costs of each option, sheriffs dept or PPD. Either one of these groups can do the job but if the sheriffs can save us money and thus prevent other cuts to services and programs then they are the best choice for this town.
For the entire town.
Vreeland has been AWOL since before the Nov 2010 election. He is simply not getting the voters' business done as he is supposed to do as an elected official.
He should fess up and resign. Or Council should establish its own ethics rules that council members actually have to attend to the voters' business. One might think that type of rule self evident and not necessary, but Vreeland's lingering disappearing act tells us otherwise. Once an ethics rules is in place, he gets called out.
Finally, it is just a matter of time before he is gone. He currently has 2 1/2 years left on his term, which expires jan 2015 (the election is nov 2014) When Vreeland leaves, an election should be called to replace him. No reason to have an appointed, unelected council member sit in that seat for 2 1/2 years. We need an election-tested candidate who has debated the issues to sit on council, not someone's friend who hustles three votes to get appointed.
Vree has had more chances than Dejar-man. Time for the no-show man to no-show anymore. Let the city do there business. He's missed the last two years, at least, of budget discussions and votes. He suckling at the citys tit. He should be made to reimburse the applicant for the number of times he's been gone. This is ridiculous!
Is that such a good idea? Not so sure that a code of ethics devised by council and used by them to dispose of someone elected by the voters is even legal. Is it even wise? They all took an oath but Council has sat by and watched this meltdown by one of their own for 2 years or more and done nothing but allow it to continue. Yes, allowed it to continue. How many of those absences were really unexcused? Plenty. They should have forced the issue long ago. Now, they claim they couldn't do anything, and they want a crutch and, BTW, more power. Just do your jobs, in the open, and with Pacifca's best interests your first concern.
If Vreeland goes soon council can appoint a temp from the community to serve til the Nov 2012 election. They don't have to go by the last election results to make the appointment. Given their problems with decision-making (worse in an election year), they could put names in a hat and fill the temp job that way. Whoever wins in the general election this November would serve the balance of Vreeland's term/2 years. Of course he's not gone, yet.
What Vreeland's chronic and excessive absences tell us is that council put one of their own above the needs of Pacifica. They may have done so at the start with the best of intentions but this has been going on from before the last election. What are their priorities and where is their sense of duty? Did all of them lose their way, their priorities, sense of duty?
The election runner up was Leo Leon
of the Planning Commission. Think it over.
Leon Leon is not qualified after he showed his disdain for open government by being so deeply involved in the planning commission Brown Act violation last year. A total fiasco.
Let's get to the real facts.So who is responsible for Vreeland being voted in for City Council?
The Voters. Period.
It's time that the Vreeland faction recognizes that they have made a dire mistake and will cost the labor faction within our City. Sure, times were good and everybody was doing very well financially. Now we are asking the Labor force to make concessions, which they are. 3.7 million in cuts. Why are the City Administrative people not making cuts as well? It's a two way street.
Second, I am concerned when Len Stone talks about how our Government is run and "we" have to make a difference in the process and we need to make a change on how business is done. Sounds like he is touting his fathers politics. Can you say, TEA PARTY?
Of course he's qualified, he's just not the right guy... not if we want to see development in this town. What little will come our way in the next 10 years deserves every chance. And the assisted-living facility needs to go forward. Didn't he vote against it on the Planning Commission because of location or the need for additional study? That concerns me.
Can we say Shut Up! Stone is doing his job and looking very critically at yours so the other day you call anti-democracy, threaten recall, and now you whip out your TeaParty card. Pathetic.
Get back to work.
It's hard to figure out who's worse... The anti-tea-bagger wingnuts or the tea-bagger wingnuts.
They cancel each other out and Rick Santorum wins. Uh, let me look at those options again.
@944Anon you're funny. No group that I know of did quite as well in the good times as the "labor force" as you call the public employee unions. A greedier group you're not going to find in CA. It's time to return some of that "good times" money to the tax paying public to use on programs and services for the tax paying public. Not to worry, your fat pensions will still be waiting for you unless of course the collective greed of public employee unions sinks the State of CA. Oops.
Leon Leon is a retired postal worker. Geez, you think we have problems now? Pacifica will not survive the work and spending habits of the post office!!
In pacifica, the commies, oops, I mean the democrats, are getting nervous. I don't know whats worse ; a nervous commie or a sick democrat. Calgon take me away.
"In pacifica, the commies, oops, I mean the democrats, are getting nervous."
Another really NOT smart comment from you, Anonymous (845). Most of us want a balanced, functional city. This kind of absurd political bias is nowhere, and means nothing except inside your fuzzy head.
"Vreeland told the Tribune he has had medical issues over the past year and has recently been admitted to a hospital. He said he is planning on resigning his seat on City Council because of these ongoing medical issues."
"City Council is expected to discuss the matter of Vreeland's repeated absences at the next council meeting."
"This cannot go on," Mayor DeJarnatt said. "I don't know what our options are. He can't keep missing meetings. I'm very concerned about him. I hope he's OK, but the business of the city must go on. This is not permissible. I'm worried about him. It wasn't fair to have those projects not heard."
http://www.mercurynews.com/pacifica/ci_20013836
"In pacifica, the commies, oops, I mean the democrats, are getting nervous."
In Pacifica, the great majority are Democrats. Less than 1/3 are Republicans. If the author of the above statement wants to get people to agree with him/her, insulting Democrats (I'm a Decline-to-State) is not a bright tactic.
Hopefully they appoint a Pacifica business person who is not opposed to new development and can be on the side of tough negotiations with the unions.
We don't need another hippie yippie "our ecology is our economy" council member.
BTW, I was a hippie.
Get real Sinai. If the democrats/Commies want to be taken seriously they need to stop with the tea bagger comments. Get it!
""This cannot go on," Mayor DeJarnatt said. "I don't know what our options are. He can't keep missing meetings."
DeJarnatt is next. He has missed quite a lot of meetings himself. The nerve.
"Hopefully they appoint a Pacifica business person ..." Why a Pacifica business person? I hope they appoint a Certified Public Accountant.
"If the democrats/Commies want to be taken seriously they need to stop with the tea bagger comments. Get it!"
If the tea-baggers want to be taken seriously, they need to stop with the democrats are commies comments. Get it?
I'm a Democrat of 35+ years
I'm a moderate. We're not all pinko commies.
Steve Sinai said...
"The city council hires and fires the city manager. It's not the other way around."
This isn't really a firing. The office is deemed vacant and is to be filled like any other vacant position.
I believe Steve Rhodes CAN "deem the seat vacant.", but I may be wrong.
deJarnetts' comments about Vreeland's performance are laughable. His attendance and attention during meetings is nearly as bad. For his family's sake, I wish Vreeland a speedy recovery but KARMA is a very hard thing to beat.
Hutch, the seat becomes vacant automatically under our favorite section 36513(a) of the CA Gov't Code if the criteria in that section are met. It's automatic. Since the city manager is the attendance gatekeeper for council I'd assume he makes an announcement as soon as the criteria has been met and they put the issue of selecting a replacement on the next agenda. It could take a while to meet the criteria. Hopefully Vreeland spares his colleagues and this city all the drama and resigns to work on regaining his health.
This recusal thing is out of control. I'm sure it's done on advice of legal counsel but seems that individual councilmembers exercise some degree of choice within that. Hate to see the bureaucracy of this sluggish city grow, but perhaps we need 7 not 5 council seats. As a General Law city it's up to us.
No fan of Pete but his attendance is no where near as bad as Vreeland's. Pay attention and he's clearly in pain during some meetings. Bad bad back. Perhaps he'll make this his last term and retire.
Hutch, I agree we need some financial skills on council and business owners might have them. But what do you make of the Pacifica business people who presented a petition in support of the increased sales tax option? And did so before all the numbers are in for the sheriff's option? Must be personal and sentimental because it sure isn't analytical or fiscally prudent. Council needs people who can really do the math and also have the backbone to do what's right for the entire community not just a special interest group no matter how close we personally are to them. That's what public office is supposed to be about. We've already had enough of the other stuff.
We still need revenue, regardless of the argument. What saith you?
There is still a structural deficit and we are going downith the toilet.
Nice try, Councilman
Anon@947, Pacifica is definitely circling the drain. Yes, we need more revenue but we also need to really gain control of our expenses. Not enough progress in either category but those things have a way of popping up again. IMHO all the right expense control options have been discussed a lot on here, including outsourcing, reduce the number of pricey dept heads now, trim all the fat, make real wage cuts. We know what needs to be done. Actually doing it is a question of council leadership and backbone at this point. The issues are not going to go away.
On the revenue side this city seems stuck on taxes. It's an easy crutch. Real revenue building is unknown in Pacifica and it will take many years. Now would be a good time to start, wouldn't it? What I think is critical is the removal of all obstacles, whether real or perceived, to development. With changes on council imminent Pacifica has a chance. Start with the eco-warriors in control of the Planning Commission. They should be replaced by a more balanced roster. Remove the entire commission and start fresh. Amidst all the cuts (there is still room to cut hundreds of thousands of dollars) money should be invested in an economic development specialist. Ideally, someone with CA coastal experience. A new Planning and Development Commission and a skilled Economic Development Director. That would be the start of Pacifica's bright future IMHO.
Anon@11:27 another shot of Absolut and we are on the table. Whom ever you are, please run for Council. We need a shot in the arm for reality.
Let me be more clear. We need a replacement that does not turn to taxes to solve all problems. One that realizes this town needs development. And one that will put a chicken in every pot.
Hutch, Chicken and a shot of Absolut to toast a new Pacifica!
We can dream.
IMHO anon 11:27 is already on council and Nihart's right with him. Go you two, go! You are our only hopes.
@Anon546, um, flattered I guess, but not guilty.
Post a Comment