As Planning Commission Liaison Tomas Clifford said in comments (11:15 am): "The meeting will take place on Tuesday Feb. 14 2012 at 7:00 p.m."
Let us know if you happen to show-up at city council chambers tonight. As Chris Fogel said in comments (10:25 am), its confusing.
Posted by Kathy Meeh
70 comments:
Thanks for posting this, Kathy.
I didn't get a response from the city clerk and no one answered when I called/emailed this morning, so it appears to be a holiday closure like you initially posted.
What are the Vegas odds that Vreeland shows up tomorrow night?
What are the Vegas odds that Vreeland shows up tomorrow night?
I think he'll be there if for no other reason than there's no indication within the agenda that there won't be a quorum with regards to the assisted living facility. We had advanced notice that he wouldn't be attending last time.
But really, this whole thing is an absolutely embarassment:
1) The public has no idea what's going on.
2) We can't find out what's going on because we can't ask the City Council directly (they don't respond to direct questions during the public comment period).
3) To compound things, our only paper, The Tribune, won't ask about it on our behalf and report.
According to my records, during 2011 there were 24 City Council Meetings. DeJarnatt missed 5 of them. Vreeland missed 11 of them. We've only had 2 City Council Meetings in 2012 and Vreeland has missed both.
Really, this is rate of absenteeism is absolutely inexcusable and is unacceptable in any workplace that I know of -- even DeJarnatt's 20% no-show rate for 2011.
There may be legitimate HR reasons for the absences, but one should have the selfless awareness with regards to the responsibilities of being a City Council Member. They are our representatives and if they are unable to fulfill their civic obligations (by being there to represent us), they need to do what's best for the City and step down.
What have we come to when the City can't conduct business (ala getting the Assisted Living Project through Council) due to absenteeism, and won't inform the citizens as to WHY?
These are perhaps the most critical times Pacifica has had to face in its history, and we're doing it without full representation of Council.
The absenteeims has to stop and the public needs to know what's going on!
If he doesn't, will that be an excused or unexcused absence, and who says so?
Quit asking only council and start asking the city manager, too. By email, at council meetings and in the Tribune and the San Mateo Times. Shine some light on this travesty. The city manager (or his assignee) decides whether a council absence is excused or not and that is a key issue. How is that decision being made? How much latitude is given? This is not about divulging confidential medical info--no one expects that, but we have a right to open and honest government--and that is not what we're getting. Hound these people and let them know they don't operate in a vacuum and they are part of the problem.
Uh oh, did no one tell Vreeland the meeting is tomorrow? Sighted tonite in the parking lot. Now he'll sulk.
No Vreeland and no Pete!!
I don't know what to say.
Unbelievable!
So... no quorum on the assisted living center yet again and thus it is tabled yet again.
Are you kidding? What happened? Was there even a meeting? Any comments about the absences? Was Vreeland's absence excused or unexcused during roll call?
Damn! I'll be old enough for assisted living before this one gets approved.
Told ya, Vreeland showed up last night.
What a joke!
Len and Mary Anne, trying to conduct City business, Sue reading the paper, Pete and Vreeland's chairs empty again.
The ship is sinking and most of the crew has bailed.
that was enjoyable last nite!
If there were any doubts if a recall is needed they are disappearing fast.
Was this an excused absence?
council meetings are for you little people. The great Jimmy V is above you peons and your meetings..
Take that
You can't touch me and you know it!!
Nihart was visibly pissed. Good. I hear Vree was unexcused. Who gives a rat's ass. He needs to be out. Pete needs to be gone. Assisted living project has been delayed 2 months because of a dysfunctional city. Fix it!
Call AND email Rhodes and demand he declare Vreelands office vacant per California Code - Section 36513
Rhodes 650-738-7301 rhodess@ci.pacifica.ca.us
Send a copy to the trib elarsen@bayareanewsgroup.com
And Mary Ann and Len
LenStonePacifica@gmail.com nihartm@ci.pacifica.ca.us
(a)If a city councilmember 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 councilmember 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.
Vreeland's missed meetings are usually excused until last night
Section 36513 does not apply until he pulls this for the rest of Feb and March
Totally frustrating, the public's business does not get done
Big decisions and dysfunctional council! Len and Maryann can't do it all. What a mess!
Why wasn't Pete there? At least the Palmetto public hearing could have gotten done. The assisted living people had their consultants at the meeting. I feel the City folks should pay them from the money Pete and Jim did not earn. How embarassing for this City. It doesn't matter how hard we work to get things done if the people who were elected to govern this City don't find an every other week meeting important enough to attend. Show some pride and resign if you cannot fulfill your duties. This would be much better than the stigma of RECALL.
Really? How do you know? Where are the records of excused absences?
Bravo! Last night was called an unexcused absence for Vreeland. What about the previous one? It's public record. When did the 60 day clock really start ticking?
State Gov't Code section 36513 states the office automatically becomes vacant if a city councilperson is absent without permission from all regularly scheduled council meetings for 60 days consecutively from the last regularly scheduled meeting he attended.
The City Manager, a public employee, is the gatekeeper for council attendance and decides if absences are excused or unexcused. It looks like there has been some latitude and perhaps even a cover-up. The people have a right to transparent, honest and efficient government. We haven't been getting it in Pacifica and it looks like we're going to have to insist. Air it out!
Council's attendance records are public records. When did the 60 day clock start ticking? Hasn't Vreeland now missed all three 2012 meetings? Was he excused or unexcused for Jan 16 and Jan 30?
One thing's for sure--no one at city hall is going to volunteer this info. But they can't hide it
or refuse a request for information.
Rhodes isn't alone in this. He reports to council. They're not likely to pressure one of their own. Keep claiming ignorance or hands are tied. The whole think reeks.
Excused absence=means you call in and say you won't be at the meeting.
absent=means he didn't even bother to call in.
which tells me he doesn't give a shit!!!
Either he doesn't care or he's so sick he can't care. Either way, it's a sad thing to see. Meanwhile, city biz has to go on. Not calling in is definitely unexcused, but calling in doesn't always make it excused. The city manager has latitude and may or may not accept the excuse. Early on in this tragedy, lots of latitude may have been appropriate and helpful to Vreeland. It isn't any more and it serves no one's best interests. Certainly not the public's best interests. Mr. Rhodes and council need to be very firm and consistent and restore the public's faith in their ability and integrity.
Vreeland's last attended meeting was early December. The next scheduled council meeting isn't until the 28th. In my book, that's more than 60 days. Now the question is were the absences excused or unexcused. Many times in the past, the city clerk had to ask the city manager during roll call what the absence was and he would respond "excused". If the city clerk isn't aware of the reason until after the meeting started there is something wrong. If Vreeland called in I would assume that someone would have taken a note. We live in OZ!
Although we are a couple of weeks from full operation, Pacifica Index is intended to be a resource for those wishing clearer and more accessible information regarding City Council Meetings, Minutes, attendance and other related municipal governance issues. It is a privately run site with no City affiliation.
Where we hope "the Blue Papers" will really shine is in The Index portion of the website which will cross-reference subject matter within the appropriate City Council Meeting Agenda and Minutes. We are still a number of weeks away from the launch of this service.
It should be noted that Pacifica Index has been created to encourage greater government transparency and its role should not be seen as that of an advocate's. We take no side on political matters such as a recall, for example. Please see the site's Mission Statement for further clarification.
who owns and moderates/edits pacifica index?
Pacifica Index (433), nice visuals on the website front page, seemingly very good educating information.
Even so, transparency requires accessible data links to back-up the bold front page information. Example, Vreeland missed 11 city council meetings. Okay, which ones, what dates? California city codes, California election code, general law cities vs. charter cities, etc.-- where are those embedded direct links?
And, if your information is "neutral", you still need to identify who you are, including an "about us" statement. That's expected, its professional and a matter of trust.
City Council attendance is obtained via City Council Minutes and/or the Meetings themselves. Attendance is noted on the first page of each set of Minutes. The Minutes may be found as a tab within the Index portion of The Blue Papers. Previous years will be added shortly.
Thank you for having a look and for your comments. Pacifica Index is still a few weeks away from providing the full array of information that was initially intended.
I agree that the ownership of PacificaIndex.com shouldn't be hidden. Right now, the site is registered to a company in Pennsylvania.
The idea behind the website is very good, but you have to wonder what the person behind the site is hiding.
Their name?
Whiz@430, welcome to the wonderful world of latitude. Mr. Rhodes has considerable latitude in dealing with Mr. Vreeland's absences and deciding whether they are excused or unexcused. And, he reports to council. How often does he hear from Mr. Vreeland? It would seem that such excessive and chronic absentiism is probably medical in nature. Is bona fide documentation being provided to cover each of these absences? Doubtful. Was last night really the first unexcused absence or just the first that was handled correctly? The clock is ticking now but when did it start? Do we in fact have a vacant council seat? The city should promptly provide the public with historical information regarding Mr. Vreeland's absences from July 1, 2011 til now and indicate whether they were excused or unexcused. Also, tell us how that is determined and if it differs from the rules for city employees and why. Certainly no regular city employee would be allowed to make such a mockery of their job and the city. Why should Mr. Vreeland be allowed to do this while he holds a position of public trust?
This is outrageous even for Pacifica.
Pacifica Index might come in handy if PCT and TV coverage of council meetings gets cut.
I wrote Rhodes demanding he remove Vreeland.
He wrote back "this item has been scheduled for discussion at the February 27th City Council meeting."
I can't imagine Rhodes being able to remove Vreeland on his own.
Interesting situation Rhodes is in.
I think no one at city hall wanted to deal with this but it's not going to stop and the heat has been turned up--as it should be. Vreeland needs help and this town needs a complete council. I wonder how many of the absences last year were actually unexcused and just got shoved under the rug with the excused label misapplied? We probably had a vacant council seat under the State Code at some point and we didn't even know it. Let Vreeland know there's no more latitude and maybe he'll resign. If not, use the existing law at the first opportunity. Rhodes needs to protect himself in this mess. I think he can and will.
"He wrote back 'this item has been scheduled for discussion at the February 27th City Council meeting.'"
Carnac the Magnificent predicts no quorum so no discussion.
Here's Johnny!
Discussion when? Closed session?
Like M.C. Hammer always said.
You can't touch this!!!
I think the readers of this blog might start calling Elaine Larsen at the Tribune, 738-4542, and ask that the Tribune start reporting on this bizarre absenteeism by Messrs. Vreeland and DeJarnatt.
Yes, I know the paper does a very bad job of covering the news, but it still reaches an audience bigger than all the local blogs combined. I've been going back and forth with them on doing the unfunded pension liability story and it's going to hit the paper one of these days.
Pressure needs to be brought on them to do their job, and focus on city government stories that matter. One poster talked about contacting the S.M.Co. Times. You can forget about that former good news source - they were gutted by staff layoffs last November. There are exactly two reporters left covering the north part of the county.
So call Elaine and demand that the Trib do its job, it's all that's left.
aIt looks like City Council may-- may-- be moving on the absenteeism issue. Nihart spoke briefly about the creation of a code of ethics. She spoke very obliquely about the subject and in a very coded manner.
I wonder why they can't just come straight at the problem and use words such as "councilmember" and "absent" together in the same sentence?
There were two Public Hearing items on Tuesday's calendar (assisted living center & Palmetto improvements). There was no quorum for either of them and so no action was taken to move either of these projects forward. So these City improvements languish further in a time when such projects are sorely needed.
The three Council Members in attendance seemed embarrassed by the whole thing, as well they should be -- this is unacceptable.
Oblique and coded speech? Unable to face the issues straight on? Predictable over-reliance on codes and committees and task forces? Didn't these people take an oath of office? Politicians, Fogel, politicians. Small-town variety for sure, but the behavior is unmistakeable. At least they had the decency to be embarassed by this farce. Let's see what they do about it. My money's on Rhodes. Stop excusing Mr. Vreeland's absences and enabling bad behavior and do your job, Mr. Rhodes. This town is counting on you.
Lionel Said "Pressure needs to be brought on them"
Couldn't agree more. There was only one letter in the Trib about this whole mess this week. You all need to speak up. The Trib has dropped the ball but as Lionel said they reach more Pacificans than all the blogs put together. And you can be sure the council reads those letters too. You need to push them to do the right thing.
Write a letter elarsen@bayareanewsgroup.com
"Right now, the site is registered to a company in Pennsylvania."
That's just the domain registrar (1&1 Internet) who must have acted as a proxy to protect anonymity on whois searches.
Correct. What we're saying is that the website owner shouldn't be hiding their identity.
Check your calendars if you've had enough. If we accept the state law-and why wouldn't we-the last meeting Vreeland physically attended was 12/12/11 (64 days ago) but he was excused from the 1/9/12 meeting so it would seem that the 60 day clock found in the CA Gov't Code section 36513 started ticking on 1/10/12. The minutes on the city's website indicate he was absent and not excused from the 1/23/12 meeting and, as we know, absent and not excused from the 2/14/12 meeting. Looks like the 2/27/12 meeting would be it as the 60 days ends on March 9th. A no show or an unexcused absence on 2/27 and his council seat would automatically be vacant and need to be filled in the usual manner. Oh please, just let it end.
Could it be that easy? I think the clock starts with the unexcused absence of Jan 23 so there are 2 more meetings to miss Feb 27 and Mrch 12. And 60 days is on mrch 22. Not at all sure tho and probably need a lawyer. Better odds than a recall and easier.
How do they pick a replacement? Term isn't even half over so probably by election in June? Maybe a temp til then? Chosen very carefully from the community not the runner-up from last election unless we really don't want the assisted living built.
Shhhhhhh, don't let Vreeland hear you
As if.
He knows how it works and always has. Just like those that covered up for him at council. We're the only suckers.
You can whisper all you want, only action will bring pressure on these folks who feel it not.
No one should be on a city council that has such a serious health problem that they can't attend meetings.
Call or email the Tribune and demand coverage. If you email, be sure to put "Not for publication" in the subject line if you don't want it run as a letter to the editor. I also suggest copying it to jwilcox@bayareanewsgroup.com
That's the publisher who is Elaine's boss. Sorry, pressure has to be applied, it's crunch time.
There was nothing oblique or code about Nihart's comments last Monday. After apologizing to the public, she asked for the city attorney to help with a code of conduct for council members and for the item to be on the next agenda. More important she is doing the bulk of the work on council and Vree-Dejarnatt deem to show up when they want. I think Nihart is done carrying the council. At least she sounded it on Monday and who wouldn't blame her.
For whatever reason(s) Jim's absence is detrimental. Regardless of personal feelings toward him by you lot he needs to acknowledge his issues and free up his place on the Dais.
The next highest vote getter to him during the last election can, and should, be appointed to finish out his term, but that will be decided by people other than any of us here.
There is nothing personal about this issue. Jim should simply resign his seat due to whatever reason(s), or no reason(s) at all, so we as a community can have a reliable attending council member. I'm sure it's an incredibly hard situation for him but he needs to no there is life after council. Jim needs to let go of the rock.
Next highest vote getter? That would be Mr. Leon from the Planning Commission. I want Pacifica to go forward, not backward. That will require an election and other candidates.
@anon1143 Why do we need a code of conduct written for council? They took an oath of office, didn't they? Instead of another silly, probably expensive, feel-good distraction why don't the city manager and council do their jobs and make sure that oath is fulfilled and the public trust is earned? That way neither Ms. Nihart nor anyone else will find it necessary to apologize to the public nor will they have to carry the rest of the council.
We don't have a vacancy yet, but if one occurs soon it would be filled in the Nov 2012 general election. I believe the winner
would serve out the 2 years then remaining on Vreeland's term. Until then, Council can appoint a temp from the community to serve. I don't believe they have to go by the election results and why should they for an appointment of just a few months? Again, no vacancy yet and no guarantees. The
venerable CA Gov't Code covers it all.
A code of conduct is needed because the city currently has no legal recourse to remove a councilmember save for what is described in California Government Code section 36513 which basically requires four consecutive unexcused absences. When a councilmember obtains an excused absence, it "resets the clock" and another string of four unexcused absences is required.
As you can imagine, all one has to do is obtain an excused absence once every four meetings and you'd never have to show up and no one could do anything about it under 36513!
If the City puts a code of ethics in place, attendance requirements can be tightened up, made clear, and action can be taken under it.
I hope this makes sense.
The Council and Steve RHodes are doing their job by unfortunately following the laws that currently govern Council attendance. Do not beat up on Steve. He can do nothing. He works for the Council not vice versa. Vreeland should just step down but he seems to not understand the magnitude of his absence and he is getting paid and getting insurance for not showing up. Part of whatever document is designed should say no pay for not showing up no matter what the reason is.
Chris
Told you Vreeland wouldn't show up!!!
Sounds like staff and Council have together used considerable latitude, compassion, empathy, etc. in the handling of Mr. Vreeland's absences. Now they need rules. Adding something to the City Charter or Muni Code that is legal and binding on Council and removes such "latitude" from the process is great if it can be done legally and is used. A city ordinance on this specific issue would do nicely and that might put monitoring and enforcement in the sphere of the city attorney instead of conflicted Council and senior staff. Give it some teeth.
fingers, toes and eyes all over town are crossed
If this is how the city manages attendance maybe we should look at employees in other depts. Forget it, regular employees aren't allowed to make fools of the city.
Code of conduct is useless unless what you actually mean is a city ordinance on the topic of council attendance. That could be made legally binding if it's enforced
consistently.
Attendance Keeper,
You sure did. Lesson learned.
The next City Council meeting is sure to be an awkward one if Vreeland shows up and the Code of Conduct/Ethics is on the agenda.
(he probably won't show up)
Should the city have legal recourse beyond what exists in the CA Govenment Code for general law cities like Pacifica? There seems to be enough there to work with if common sense is used and the public good is always the primary concern of all parties.
Beyond that, seems like only the voters should have the power to fire elected officials. Who are we giving that power to? Council? Paid staff? No thanks.
If he doesn't show up I want to hear loud and clear whether it's excused or unexcused.
anon11:52. The voters and the courts, if you please. Other than that the tools are already there for those that want to use them.
I think Council and Rhodes were blinded by their own good intentions and sympathy for a colleague. And now it's all about the excuses. No kidding.
Post a Comment