Pacifica Tribune letters-to-the-editor, 4/3/12. "Recall" by Therese Dyer.
 |
| "Everything" to the east isn't fixed |
Pete's response was that he wasn't going to run again, A good time to step down when the Titanic is sinking, Jim, you had 15 years to make a difference. What did you do besides cut ribbons? I've never even heard you give a report on any meetings that you attended. I'm still waiting for your state of the city message. You can then list all your accomplishments so we can give you some kind of proclamation. You called the 27 proponents who signed the Notice To Recall "malcontents." You could have said we disagreed with your policies.
The other letter was by Paul Slavin who, if he ran in November I would vote for. He said it all in a nutshell, except that he thought the recall was a half-baked idea brought out by frustration and anger but he also said he could understand the reason for the recall effort. Paul, if you come aboard we can become fully baked and make a difference."
Posted by Kathy Meeh
57 comments:
A small clarification to Therese's clarification: I did not say that I could undertand the reason for the recall effort; I said I could understand the anger and frustration that motivated it. The recall itself seems an irrational, unnecessary, perhaps even vengeful response to that exasperation. The only possible difference I can see it making is to further polarize a divided community.
Paul Slavin
Forget it Slavin. Therese Dyer defies clarification. Someone on here or Riptide compared Therese, in full froth, to Madame Defarge.
It fits her perfectly.
Anonymous 341, of course you and "rational" Paul may have missed the point. Digre and DeJarnatt have earned this recall effort. Digre has 2 more years to protect Pacifica from needed city development.
And, your "full froth" opinion linking Riptide credibility to what you say is ridiculous. Avoid the facts, while "blaming the messinger" tactics is unworthy of even you Anonymous.
Anon408, Don't know which is more credible, Fix or Riptide. Riptide has pretty pix and better grammar, but so what? Can't recall where the comparison of Ms. Dyer to Madame Defarge first appeared but it's spot on. Political messengers are rarely neutral or altruistic and their motives and delivery are relevant and fair game. Why would we separate this messenger from her message? Time will tell if she's credible and persuasive or a complete turn-off with the voters.
Anonymous 622, about Therese and others who would Recall inept or crafty city council members who followed an anti-growth agenda, and worked to structurally bankrupt this city: there is no defense for your 3:41pm fictional villain character assassination comment. And, there is no logic to your twisted "the messenger must be neutral" comment. This is a Recall effort, not a social club meeting.
Notice of intent to Recall for cause was printed in the Tribune 3/14/12.
Oh crap. I was afraid you were going to say that. Whatever you said.
Road map for you to follow, Anonymous 750. Good luck!
If anyone wants to read the opposite (but equal) of Meeh, go read Carl May on Riptide. Tons of partisan comments and kooky conspiracy theories, but just as lacking on substance.
How much you want to bet that all roads on that map lead to the quarry?
Well I believe the threat of recall has already succeeded in getting Vreeland to resign. It's certainly putting pressure on the two remaining. And if focuses attention on councils decisions especially where development is concerned.
Not bad for crackpots.
In your dreams, Hutch
People bitching about Vreeland not showing up to council meetings likely had a lot to do with his decision to resign, but I don't believe for a second the recall threat had anything to do with it.
Sinai what did you do about Vreeland and his attendence problem? Nothing but hitch on your little chat room blot????!
Pressure and complaints from the public, including those showing-up at city council, letters-to-the-editors, the chant from the blog, and the Recall action probably all contributed to Vreeland resigning. And, DeJarnatt announced he would not run for city council again in the Fall.
Remember some people said they only wanted to Recall 1: Vreeland. They did not start a Recall effort, they just bitched. Those who did start a Recall effort began with 3: Vreeland, DeJarnatt, Digre. The Recall of all 3 for failing to fix the economy of this city over 10 years is justified. That's pressure.
Regardless of opinion, the Recall effort is in process and moving forward. Hopefully the effort will contribute to educating the public, and assist in making better election choices-- thus, avoiding further city economic damage.
That's because there was a legitimate reason to recall Vreeland.
Pouting and stomping your feet like a spoiled child because you disagree with someone's policies is not a legitimate reason.
"..there was a legitimate reason to recall Vreeland." Anon 423
Yes, and there are legitimate reasons to recall the other two as well.
Anon 423 "Pouting and stomping your feet like a spoiled child"
Why do you hate Democracy?
@Kathy, I agree. The threatened recall, this blog, letters to the Editor, etc., all pushed Vreeland out and helped Dejarnett decide not to run.
The recall has already been a huge success. and yes Kathy, it should serve to help educate the public before choosing a replacement for Vreeland.
"there are legitimate reasons to recall the other two as well"
I don't agree with most of Sue and Pete's decisions, and that's the only reason I've heard to recall them. That's not a legitimate reason for recall; that's a reason for not re-electing them.
"That's not a legitimate reason for recall"
You're entitled to your opinion as wrong as it may be. So don't sign the petition. But there's plenty of us that will.
How about some comment from all the recall supporters on just how you actually envision all this working out. What's the endgame? Who do you see sitting in those council seats after a successful recall? And don't say that, "Anyone is better than Pete and Sue", because that is certainly not the case. Things can always get worse. So if this is not a half-baked idea, let's hear the rest of the plan. Who are the new councilmembers? Therese? Hutch? Anonymous?
Anybody's better than Pete and Sue
Anon 341 said "Someone on here or Riptide compared Therese, in full froth, to Madame Defarge."
Strong women are always a bit intimidating to insecure and/or short men.
I find Theresa to have only the best interests of Pacifica in mind. She has devoted her time and money to fight the true villains here.
There is only one reason why Jim resigned, and that is because of his serious health issues which prevented him from participating in city business. In fact, he waited until there was absolutely no other choice left for him but to resign, because of the quorum issues that has been coming to a head. And as for Pete, he said when he ran the last time that he absolutely would not be running again, and has never veered from that commitment.
There is no way that the recall had anything at all to do with Jim or Pete's decisions.
Ian. First of all are you Vreelands public relations man??
2nd did he personally tell you this?
And are you ok with getting paid by the city that is in a fiscal emergency??
Maybe you can get him on Wavelenghts to have answer to the taxpayers???
Just stopped by the check what all the blog talk was about. The speculation and attacks on this website are crazed. The blogs continue like this, and yes I mean all of them, there will be no intelligent, thoughtful, and moderate citizen who will ever run for city council. Only crazy people would put up with the constant attacks. None of this does the city or the reader any good. I'm out of here.
I totally agree with Ian.
"I'm out of here."
Anonymous 231, oh not you again. Same
crazed comment from Pleasantville as last time.
Note: The youtube trailer to Pleasantville (the movie link above) takes 2:34 minutes, enjoy!
Crazed.
Perfect description for 90% of Meeh's commentary (see above for reference).
Thank you, Ian Butler. I was going to write the same kind of thing, but you said it much better and clearer than I could.
"Crazed."
Oh, you're not "out of here" yet, Anon@ 4:01pm, and 2:31pm? Guess you're not such a fan of Pleasantville after all.
"..he waited until there was absolutely no other choice left for him but to resign,.."
Ian (145), yep 1 1/2 years later Councilmember Vreeland did step-down. And, Vreeland said HE would not run for city council again, prior to when he did run again. DeJarnatt will not run for city council again? I believe him, but who knows?
Even if DeJarnatt does run again, what's the point of having a recall vote on him at the same time he's up for re-election?
I do not agree with Ian. Vreeland would have stayed as long as he could and continue to play the game of having his absences "excused" so the clock would not start running on missing four meetings in a row to be unqualified to continue office. If he cared about any of the projects in question, he would have gotten there somehow or had a conference call vote or whatever he needed to keep business running in Pacifica. Don;t forget he was still getting paid and getting his health insurance paid while he was almost completely out for near to two years. Please thing this rationale over and then restate your position. I have nothing against Vreeland but these are the plain unsugared facts, As for DeJarnatt, he said at the last election he wasn't running again and low and behold, he did. Now that Leo Leon stated he is not running, who will champion DeJarnatt's causes? The only reason I believe Dejarnatt is not running again is because his cafeteria cash was cut in half or completely cut off so there is nothing really in it for him to run again. He also missed quite a few meetings and talks to citizens as much as Obama comes to Pacifica and talks to them. He will say at council communications that he talked to people but can't remember who. Not in touch anymore with the citizens.
"Not in touch anymore with the citizens." (Anon 8:58)
Then again, DeJarnatt has been "in touch" with some citizens for 15 1/2 years. He "saved" this city from economic development. Late, but a valid reason for Recall. Remember the Recall effort was legally advised and set-up for 3 councilmembers (Vreeland, DeJarnatt, Digre), all of whom helped "save" Pacifica from economic development. DeJarnatt also helped obscure city information, such as: "Tar balls" vs. a known to city council sewer spill. The city has "never been in better economic shape." (2008), etc. Without the exact wording from the Recall Initiative, that's in part "the point" as I understand it, Steve (4/8, 7:25pm).
The city cannot afford to have such irresponsible city councilmember leadership going forward. Their tenture has been a betrayal of "for the benefit of all the people" city and citizen trust. Too much productive land gone, too little significant economic development (time and money lost). "Never again", (hopefully).
ian butler said...
"There is only one reason why Jim resigned,"
Right, because Vreeland always did what was in the best interest of Pacifica. LMAO. The guy was the epitome of an inept corrupt official. Makes sense that he only resigned only when the townspeople were lighting their torches.
And what is this mysterious illness that nobody can dare speak of? Even as the entire Pacifica PD searches for him. I think since he was on our dime while missing so many meetings we should know.
Sounds very personal anon8:18. Seems like we should own these public officials and every personal detail of their lives, but we don't. Crawl out from under your rock and go ask him what ails him. Then you can run around with some new info. Share that corruption charge with him, too, why don't ya? Face to face.
Get back to us on that.
If I am missing days at work because of an illness better believe my boss has a right to know why.
Your boss does not have the right to know the specifics of your illness. If you have to prove you're ill, get a note from your doc. Otherwise, fahgeddaboutit.
HIPAA, the health info privacy federal law, allows the employer to request medical information from an employee, but it prohibits the release of that information by the employer to all but a very short and job related need-to-know list. And, it is a law with real teeth for any employer who screws up intentionally or through ignorance. Heavy fines are common and jail time is not unheard of for the transgressor.
Most companies I deal with these days no longer have sick days. Instead, they have "personal days."
You don't have to tell the boss why you're taking the day off.
As I recall Vreeland's 2011 attendance was about 50%. His 2012 attendance was about 0%. In private industry, the guy would be terminated halfway through last year. Or if he were placed on disability leave, HR would know the reason and the reason would be qualified.
City councilmember is a key decision making position, not some job that does not make a difference (if any of those jobs exist these days).
Government is not private industry. Let's hope it stays that way.
Well thanks to Vreeland's negative attendance record, city council now has a strict meeting attendance policy for city council decision makers.
I'm sure there were people within City Hall who knew what was going on with Vreeland's illness. That doesn't mean they're obligated to make it public. It's probably illegal for them to do so.
Council had no guidelines and less common sense in dealing with a colleague's excessive medical absences. Probably with the best of intentions they gave him lots of leeway, recorded all his absences as excused, and they did this for far too long. They'd probably still be doing it if the public had not begun to focus their anger right where it belonged on Council and the City Manager. Were they inept or actively involved in a cover-up? They stopped calling the absences excused and set the stage for the office to be vacated. Mr. Vreeland resigned shortly thereafter. Best thing for him and his family and for Pacifica. And now we have a quorum!
The public accomplished this by lighting a fire under Council's butt. They weren't about to take the heat for Vreeland. The recall bunch had no impact. None. They lack credibility and are their own worst enemy.
Anon@1102, You've got to be kidding. I'm sure it's the best they can come up with but don't kid yourself..it's very weak.
Of course someone knew all the details, probably Rhodes and the respective Mayor and city attorney.
But it is illegal for them to share that info. I think they just let the situation with Jim get away from them hoping that he would recover and return. He had been a huge presence in that group for so long and they treated him accordingly. Public pressure made them get their priorities in order. Thank God!
Made up stories once again. Haven't you noticed public pressure does not impact this council. They got stuck with the inability to make votes happen and they had to come up with something else. Finally got Nihart's attention and if you listened to the council meeting, she made it happen. Yes, Nannie Nihart took care of them once again.
"They got stuck with the inability to make votes happen and they had to come up with something else." (Anon 629)
City regulations for everything, none for city councilmembers when ongoing city decisions must be made? But by default (delaying a development again) they finally figured-it-out more than 1 year later-- how comforting and brilliant is that?
PS: Citizen outrage helped.
Public outcry absolutely led to Vreeland's resigning. He showed no signs of forfeiting a paycheck for doing nothing. His disregard for Pacifica is apparent in his taking money from the people while not performing his duties while City business went undone.
Aren't WE the people who paid his salary entitle to know why he was absent on OUR dime? If employers have a right to know then so do elected officials constituents.
The law says medical issues are private.
Not in all cases Steve.
As pointed out earlier an employer has a right to ask why an employee is taking off sick. Being that we are paying the councils salary, which Jim collected while not fulfilling his duties, I think the people have a right to ask why.
And FYI most Californians still get sick days not personal days.
No, as pointed out earlier, an employer does not have the right to ask about the specific nature of the illness.
Of course the employer can ask why an employee is absent. However, if the absence is due to medical reasons the employer is prohibited from sharing the employee's confidential medical info with others. So, the employer can request the info but they cannot share it. Very few exceptions to the HIPAA laws and Vreeland's situation is not one of them. Still wondering? Check out HIPAA on line.
Personal days and sick days are a matter of company policy or union contract and there are endless variations out there. It's a nice way for an employer to handle short term absences without getting into the headaches of confidential info, gatekeepers, etc.
Key or another other job classification, 45-50% absent without an excuse, butt out the door.
Public pressure got Vreeland out of there. The no quorum thing on that Oddstad project brought it to a head because it really made council and staff look stupid. Don't forget for a minute that while Vreeland took advantage it was Council that let this thing continue for many months until the public lit a bonfire under their butts. Isn't that the norm for politicians? And then comes the back-patting and PR.
Outraged, fed-up Pacificans got it done and they're the only ones who deserve a pat on the back for their efforts.
We'll never know how many of those earlier absences should have been unexcused. We won't know but somebody else sure did. There was and still is a lot of latitude in making that excused/unexcused decision. When he resigned Vreeland had 2 of the required 4 consecutive unexcused absences to get his seat declared vacant. What changed in Mr. Vreeland's situation to explain going from excused to unexcused? Public anger ignited by the lack of quorum and Vreeland's outrageous attendance record.
Post a Comment