NIMBIES were attacking Don Horsley for taking his pension during the 2010 campaign, and apparently April Vargas (or her election team) strongly suggested he should NOT take salary if elected. That was part of their negative campaign against him. No way would NIMBIES who oppose progress have voted for Don Horsley.
April Vargas Website, 10/25/10. "Why is Don Horsley Smiling in his mail ads?"
 |
| Don Horsley 38.6%, April Vargas 24.2% |
That is 7 times the average pension of a county worker. In an
interview, Don Horsley stated, “I am the poster child for public
pensions.” Don Horsley's pension is more than what is currently paid to
Sheriff Greg Munks!
Here's what Assemblywoman Fiona Ma had to say in supporting AB 1987 to make pensions like Horsley's illegal for state workers and directing counties to do the same sort of audit: “Pensions provide security for public servants upon retirement, but unfortunately the legal spiking and abuse by some have tarnished the integrity of this benefit. Closing these loopholes are important reforms that takes California a step closer to restoring taxpayer trust.” AB 1987 passed by an Assembly vote of 70-0 followed a 28-1 vote by the Senate. Shouldn't we, as San Mateo County voters, do the same on November 2?"
Here's what Assemblywoman Fiona Ma had to say in supporting AB 1987 to make pensions like Horsley's illegal for state workers and directing counties to do the same sort of audit: “Pensions provide security for public servants upon retirement, but unfortunately the legal spiking and abuse by some have tarnished the integrity of this benefit. Closing these loopholes are important reforms that takes California a step closer to restoring taxpayer trust.” AB 1987 passed by an Assembly vote of 70-0 followed a 28-1 vote by the Senate. Shouldn't we, as San Mateo County voters, do the same on November 2?"
Related - Almanac News, 6/9/10. "The San Mateo County Elections Office's semi-official election results
show Mr. Horsley with 38.6 percent of the vote; Ms. Vargas, 24.2
percent; Jack Hickey, 16.3 percent; Matt Grocott, 14.1 percent; and
Michael Stogner, 6.8 percent."
 |
| No progress. Don't pay, spend, or build |
Half Moon Bay Review, talkabout BLOG, 5/2/10. .... "Don Horsley should publicly state that he will turndown the County Supervisor pension if elected. ,,,, Taxpayers should not reward county employes
who double-dip. San Mateo County lost ONE HUNDRED and FIFTY-FIVE
MILLION taxpayer dollars to Lehman Brothers. Taxpayers cannot afford to
pay double pension to County employees." Comments: "April why are you running this negative campaign against Don?") ...
Posted by Kathy Meeh
69 comments:
You can complain about a vast conspiracy of NIMBYs and negative campaigns, but here's a fact that you cannot deny: Horsley promised not to take a salary to get elected, but once he was elected he flip-flopped and started accepting a salary.
If Horsley can't manage his personal finances even with his enormous pension, why on earth are we entrusting him with the county budget? He should step down and try to get his own house in order before he ruins the county's finances as well.
Anonymous 9:16 AM, Laurie Goldberg said, "I live in an 800 square feet house, everyone should."
Don Horsley took zero salary for two years, but he is entitled to salary. What Don Horsley does with his personal money is unknown to you, and it is none of your business (nor is it my business or public business).
Further there is no indication that Don Horsley has problems managing money, quite to the contrary. He took no salary when the County had financial problems; and now that he has a huge additional expense, he is taking salary to cover the increased cost.
" you cannot deny: Horsley promised not to take a salary to get elected" Anonymous 8:19 AM.
"No salary to get elected", I don't think so, he won by 38.6% vs April's 24.2% of the votes. The negative campaigning against Horsley's existing pension and salary if elected came from April Vargas and team.
Anonymous 9:16 AM, Laurie Goldberg said, "I live in an 800 square feet house, everyone should."
That was Nancy Hall. This is how Pacifica lives not in a mansion like Don Peebles
Who's Laurie Goldberg and what does she have to do with Horsley?
"There is no indication that Don Horsley has problems managing money"
He can't live on $220K and is in such dire financial shape that he had to renege on his campaign promise. If he can't make it on such a huge pension when most of us get by on vastly less, he shouldn't be allowed near the county's budget.
Anonymous 10:17 AM, Nancy Hall may have said the same thing, I don't know. I was quoting Laurie Goldberg.
Your relentless mantra of "this is how Pacifica lives" lacks further explanation and clarity. The "connect" to the way Don Peebles and other wealthy people live is even more illusive (FMV a disconnect).
That fact that Don took no salary for 2 years is admirable. I wonder how many of you would do that?
So he kept his word. I see nothing wrong with him taking a salary after two years. He deserves it. It's his money. I don't blame him a bit.
Incredible to watch the spin campaign by Kathy and Hutch, and characterizing the outrage at a broken promise as a NIMBY issue. No, Hutch, he did not keep his word. That's the only issue here. He made a promise when he was running for election. Now, half way through his term, he broke that promise.
Hutch, you constantly complain about out-of-whack city salaries and benefits, but now you're fine with Horsley double-dipping with $120K on top of the $220K we're already paying him. Can you see how someone might find that hypocritical?
He kept his word? You mean kinda/sorta? I realize Horsley's a politician but using a sliding scale to measure honesty is a pathetic new low for Hutch and Kathy! The amateurish attempt to be spin doctors is pretty fun, though. Kinda/sorta.
You follow up "Hutch and I have each stated the facts" with the pure speculation that "this was an ongoing campaign carryover against Don Horsley from the April Vargas campaign".
Your conspiracy theories rival those of the right-wingers you constantly argue. And they aren't facts.
Any questions about what's going on here?
Thosse two are stuck on the hamster wheel again.
Anonymous, 12:44 PM, etc. Clearly the spin is all yours. Stand-up and take a bow.
Hutch and I have each stated the facts. Whereas you have failed to prove you point, zzzzz. And now we all understand, this was an ongoing campaign carryover against Don Horsley from the April Vargas campaign 2+ years ago.
Again, Don Horsley is entitled to his earned pension and salary. And as Hutch said at 11:47 AM: "That fact that Don took no salary for 2 years is admirable. ...So he kept his word."
Interesting how some people drag-out that "hypocritical" word when they run out of reasoning. You cobbled that word into a comment of insults to me this morning, and I spammed it.
Thankfully Don Horsley is our Supervisor and represents the balanced interests of our county and our District. The alternative would have been April Vargas and the NIMBY team. Well, we're looking at that ideological display. And if you've tagged on because you think our representatives should work without pay, that's your ideology but not common wisdom or the law.
It's perfectly legal that Horsley took his salary and pension. All of you would do it. So would I.
Yes, I'm against double dipping and outrageous wages, pensions and benefits being written into union contracts and agreements. But as long as they are I don't blame any employee for taking what is legally theirs. Again, YOU would. So stop being hypocritical.
So like I said, he kept his word by not taking a salary for 2 years. Do you expect him to do it forever?
"you think our representatives should work without pay"
No, I think that our representatives who say that they're going to work without pay should keep their word and not lie like a rug.
Hutch, the "forever" is part of your spin cycle. Ditto for the "it's not illegal". No one else is talking about forever. And no one is saying it's illegal. And you know it. We're talking about four years--that's the term of office Horsley ran for and was elected to serve. He pledged to not double-dip if elected. He has broken his pledge to the voters. Situational ethics is rampant among our so-called public servants. This is just another example of it. An example made more egregious by the fact that Horsley was in law enforcement for decades. And, no, I'm not saying double-dipping is illegal. I'm saying he really should know the difference between right and wrong and that sometimes doing the right thing has a personal cost.
Hell yes I'd double-dip but I wouldn't be so arrogant and entitled as to promise the public I wouldn't and then change my mind.
You keep your word or you're a liar. The term was always four years-from election to election- not something renewable every November. Not a smart move but that's our Don.
"Do you expect him to do it forever?"
No, just the length of his term. It may sound crazy, but I expected him to keep all of his campaign promises.
Anonymous 3:02 PM, in a newspaper article printed recently (HMB Review I think), Don Horsley is quoted saying, "I didn't say forever." And he was clear that the reason he did not take salary initially was because the County was broke when he came into office. He also said he didn't remember his not taking salary being particularly known (and frankly as a member of the public neither do I). Times change for the County, and for individuals and their families. That's just life, and Don Horsley has always been entitled to salary.
Yet, in Supervisor Don Horsley taking salary after 2 years, you find issues of "situational ethics, right and wrong, higher standard for law enforcement". Oh brother, that a whopper! All these claims of virtue and broken promises promoted under Anonymous (no name) cover, how very ethical.
I'm not buying your stated comments, the alleged 4 year promise by Horsley, or your claims of virtue. And here you go again, at 3:13 PM. The question is, what are your underlying POLITICAL motives? Isn't that what this extended rant is all about? Then again, I could be wrong. Your motive may be retaliation, you may have been an inmate in the county jail.
I assumed Don Horsley would not take his salary for the length of his 4 year term, and I'd have to think that's how most people took it.
His evasive, inconsistent explanation in the Almanac as to why he's now going to take the salary was very disappointing.
I hope there's a pro-business, non-NIMBY alternative in the next Supervisor's election.
Kathy can't deny the fact that Horsley blatantly broke his campaign promise, so instead she focuses on things that have nothing to do with his failure of the public trust (the commenter being anonymous, conspiracy theories about why they don't like Horsley, etc.) It's a typical tactic of someone losing an argument -- they can't argue with your logic, so they have to make irrelevant arguments about who you are.
Thank you, Steve Sinai. The voice of reason.
"You cobbled that word into a comment of insults to me this morning, and I spammed it."
Well, what do we have here? Our own little Maybury, burying the comments that don't agree with her agenda.
I don't know which is more preposterous...Don's defense of Don or Kathy's defense of Don? It's a tie! Certainly Don's is the more disappointing. Of course Kathy muddied the field with her compulsive swipe at anonymous posters. Really big deal.
Horsely is shameless. The county is better off now? No, Don is better off, now. The county is still reliant on new tax measures like the one us suckers fell for in November to keep vital services intact. Thanks for the opportunity Don, glad we could be of use to you.
@525 Anon, You've captured the very essence of Kathy Meeh on Fix Pacifica..."they can't argue with your logic, so they have to make irrelevant arguments about who you are." Ad nauseum.
"Irrelevant?" Funny thing, that's what I think of this series of anonymous comments. But then you are not accountable.
Steve Sinai (5:19 PM) said "I ASSUMED Don Horsley would not take his salary for the length of his 4 year term.." That is his assumption, based upon his view and experience. Not mine. And I stand by what I said.
Anonymous 5:25 PM, you have failed to disclose your agenda. Over the weak discourse of this conversation, this is the 3x I'm asking.
And Anonymous 5:59 PM, comprehensive insult, personal attack comments belong in spam.
ad nauseum
You mean ad hominem.
Oh, right, those are ad hominem attacks Kathy's making.
Anonymous said...
Thank you, Steve Sinai. The voice of reason.
^ Funnest comment of thread ^
Don Horsley NEVER said he would forgo his salary forever. He did it for 2 years which cost him hundreds of thousands. His exact words were "I will not take a paycheck" Well he kept his word. He didn't say "I will NEVER take a pay check.
Just because Sinai and other NIMBY sympathisers believe Horsley should forgo his well deserved pay check don't mean nothin.
Let's say Horsley promised that he wouldn't turn unincorporated San Mateo county into a frog and snake sanctuary during the campaign. If he suddenly teamed up with Brent Plater to do so, you silly apologists would be defending him with "He never said NEVER".
ad hominem. "1 : appealing to feelings or prejudices rather than intellect, 2: marked by or being an attack on an opponent's character rather than by an answer to the contentions made." (Merriam Webster dictionary).
FMV, when an Anonymous continues a theme that Don Horsley lied about taking salary and offers no proof (other than an inconclusive promise), asking that Anonymous about their agenda is a reasonable request. That Anonymous agenda was never disclosed, so that Anonymous by default may be lying. Such a "who are you" request is neither an ad hominem, nor is it a conspiracy.
Here is a soft article from Half Moon Bay Review, 1/3/12 that received little attention because the Daily Journal, 12/27/12 article was first reprinted on Fix Pacifica. The ensuing flap over Don Horsley now taking salary was a big surprise to me. And I'm one of the many San Mateo County residents who did not know Don Horsley was NOT talking salary.
Beyond the issue of public employees taking salary, benefits and earned pension, FMV the refocus should be on public employee pension, salary, and benefits reform. (And not being discussed, private sector social security pensions need improvement).
I think you people frap frap frap too much.
An ad hominem (Latin for "to the man"), short for argumentum ad hominem, is an argument made personally against an opponent instead of against their argument. Ad hominem reasoning is normally described as an informal fallacy, more precisely an irrelevance.
Ad nauseum still applies.
According to recent comments from Michael Stogner over on Patch,
"Supervisor Don Horsley has changed his mind and will honor his promise to only receive $1.00 per year for the remainder of his term.
Thank You Mr. Horsley."
{Horsley's) official statement will be, “I made a commitment to forgo the salary and I will keep that commitment,”
Good news if it's true. That's what I thought he said and meant right from the start. And for pete's sake don't elaborate on the reason for the about face. We get it, we really do.
Wow, Cooperstown tells the steroid users to take a numbah, Lance is going to fess up, and Horsley decides to keep his word. Woohoo, would it be too greedy to ask that the Niner's win?
Wow, apparently even their beloved Horsley disagrees with Kathy and Hutch.
No way the whiners win today!
Anon 909, wrong again, we only said he had the right to take his salary or not.
909 anon, jeez, politicians will do just about anything.
If Horsley keeps his word, the county saves a half a million dollars for his 4 year term. Now that's my kind of politician. He can scrape by on his $230K annual pension and benies. Any of you other public servants want to match that committment? City Council? Stone, still taking no salary, right? How about the rest of you? City Council? Anybody there? Hello?
Oh yes, Hutch, and what a strategy that was! When someone answers an accusation by defending something that was never challenged, it's an obvious attempt to deflect and divert from the truth. Obvious.
Hutch, no one questioned his right or the legality of double-dipping.
You do understand that don't you?
oh come on Hutch you and Meeh said a bit more than that.
"...he had the right to take his salary or not." Hutch, 11:11 AM
Hutch, absolutely correct. And you said that better than I could.
Here is today's Daily Journal (San Mateo County) article: "his action drew criticism from some, including a resident who ran against Horsley for the supervisor seat and said the move merited recall action." The resident was not named but was probably Michael Stogner, the candidate who won 6.8% of the vote.
Strategy Anonymous 12:13 PM? Do you really think whether Don Horsley took salary affected his 2010 landslide vote? This "Anatomy" FP article reflects the 2010 campaign strategy by April Vargas and team using Don Horsley's existing public pension against him. That didn't work either.
I voted for the best candidate, and that was and is Don Horsley, now President of the San Mateo Board of Supervisors. This salary issue was vague or non-existent to me at that time. Horsley explained his promise was not "forever", and he has already worked in an important job 2 years for "free". If Horsley needs or wants salary and benefits, I am sorry to hear that he has now been pressured into working 2 additional years for "free". (And I suspect he has done that because the negative campaigning against him would detract from his vision of moving SM County issues forward).
Moving on, the Redwood City-Woodside Patch, 1/11/13, article (referring to San Mateo County Supervisors), includes "excerpts from the new president's speech on what his priorities for 2013 are." (The president they are referring to of course is Don Horsley).
“I made a commitment to forgo the salary and I will keep that commitment,” Horsley said in a prepared statement.
It's really that simple. People will accept a politician's broken promise if it's for the greater good, but they won't accept it if it only results in the politician's personal enrichment.
It also came off as sleazy that he campaigned for the passage of a new county sales tax measure without explaining that he intended to use passage as an excuse to break his no-salary promise.
I'll give him a lot of credit for recognizing the problem and correcting it. Now there's a pretty good chance I'll vote for him next time he runs. That wasn't the case a few days ago.
That's right, it really was that simple from the outset and no apologists or diversions could change that. Glad Horsley decided to do the right thing. He's got nearly two years til the next election to put this mistake behind him. Shouldn't be a problem.
Kathy, to be clear, 1213 was talking about the strategy you and Hutch used to defend Horsley's broken pledge, not Horsley's campaign strategy. Trying to defend Horsley's broken pledge by saying double-dipping is legal and he's entitled, is simply a diversion and not a defense. Legality and entitlement were never the issue. Honesty was. And now that Horsley has realized that, perhaps we can all move forward.
"..the strategy you and Hutch used to defend Horsley's broken pledge, not Horsley's campaign strategy." Anonymous, 2:19 PM
What a bizarre, twisted comment from you, and Anonymous 12:13 PM (probably the same).
BTW you never produced any document, video, audio (anything) from 2010 that clearly states Don Horsley would take no salary for 4 years. We do know that Horsley did make some "no salary" arrange with the county that expired 11/12.
To be more "clear" (my opinion), I suspect Don Horsley agreed to take no salary for 2 additional years (4 years total), because a promised negative campaign against him would interfere the the Board of Supervisors accomplishing needed business for the county, including his stated goals for this year.
Your claims of personal "honesty" are bogus. You hide under Anonymous cover. You failed to disclose your real agenda (now 4th time asking). And you have relentlessly trashed a good public servant, who is valued by me, others, and this county.
spin, spin, spin ... dizzying
Agenda? You gotta be kidding/deflecting. The agenda is keeping politicians honest. None other than Don Horsley recognizes he made a commitment to the voters and after a teeny little mis-step where he reneged on that commitment, he's now going to honor his commitment. Why? Oh, world peace or some such. Done.
Specious response, as expected, Anonymous non-identity, 5:01 PM.
Agenda? You know, who did you vote for last election, what campaign did you work on, how really anti-Don Horsley and what he represents (progress) are you? Stuff like that. "World peace" (your response) is another dodge. 5th time asking, what was your agenda on this issue?
As you say its "done", so you can tell us all about you now. And, oh goody, "keeping politicians honest" is not paying them.
"People will accept a politician's broken promise if it's for the greater good, but they won't accept it if it only results in the politician's personal enrichment."
I couldn't have said it better Steve.
Ian and Steve, needless to say, I do not agree with you.
Salary is not personal enrichment, it is compensation for services rendered. Most politicians anywhere, including all other Supervisors on that County Board take salary.
Don Horsley did not take salary "for the greater good" when he became Supervisor two years ago. The duration of that no salary pledge is less clear. A "no salary" waiver expired 11/12.
Horsley has been pressured into not taking salary for 2 additional years. Leading that charge is Michael Stogner, a loser candidate from the 2010 election.
Kathy, why do you consistently counter factual arguments with unproven conspiracy theories, ad hominem attacks, ans silly straw man arguments?
Fact: He promised not take a salary as part of his election campaign. Fact: He reneged on that promise. Fact: After an understandable public outcry, he decided to keep his promise.
No matter how much you speculate about mystery smear campaigns, argue about "legality" that no one disputes, or whine about people posting anonymously, it won't change those facts.
Anonymous, 10:07 AM, you're misleading and incorrect.
What I said is correct. No speculation, no "mystery smear campaigns."
And, no facts from you.
"you never produced any document, video, audio (anything) from 2010 that clearly states Don Horsley would take no salary for 4 years"
That's a specious straw man argument.
"I suspect Don Horsley agreed to take no salary for 2 additional years (4 years total), because a promised negative campaign against him would interfere the the Board of Supervisors accomplishing needed business for the county,"
That's pure speculation.
"You hide under Anonymous cover. You failed to disclose your real agenda (now 4th time asking)."
That's an ad hominem attack.
"who did you vote for last election, what campaign did you work on, how really anti-Don Horsley and what he represents (progress) are you?"
Speculative ad hominem combo plate.
Anonymous 10:34, you have failed to prove your argument.
You have not provided definitive evidence supporting your claim that Don Horsley would NEVER take salary for 4 years. Yet, you call my complaint against your omission "specious and straw man".
You suggest that an ongoing kafuffle, including a recall campaign promised by Michael Stogner against Don Horsley (President of the Board of Supervisors), would not interfere with and affect Board of Supervisor business????
You call the non-disclosure of who you are and your motives an ad hominem attack. Don't you think we have a right to know? I do.
Your focus on the fact that he didn't use the word NEVER is the worst kind of silly political posturing. You sound like Clinton saying "it depends on what is is". He didn't use the word NEVER on any of his campaign promises. Are you saying that he's free to not honor those as well?
I suggest that you speculating that a band of Stogner sock puppets are causing this is ridiculous. Are Steve and Ian members of your conspiracy?
You attempt to divert to ad hominem logical fallacies and argue about the people who disagree with you because your arguments don't stand up on their own.
Since when do politicians expected to keep their promises Anon 1216? Didn't Jim Vreeland take an oath to show up for work. We still had to pay HIM for not doing his job. And Pete wasn't far behind in absences. I commend Don Horsley for giving up ANY money. It's more than any of you hypocrites would do.
Well golly anon 424 now that Horsely has avoided joining the all too crowded Politicians' Hall of Shame, SMC Branch, you can throw him a party! Bake him a cake. Vote for him again. Is this a great country or what? The great honor of public office, public vilification, then redemption and rebirth--all in a week's time.
For the person who submitted the comment that starts out with, "The more I see the more I think Steve Sinai is closer aligned with the NIMBY's then with people who want to really fix this city," I'll post the rest of it if you resubmit it with your name. (And I believe the name is legitimate.)
Post a Comment