Thursday, September 22, 2016

Will Mary Ann Nihart have to drop out of City Council race?


http://pacifica.city/

If you want Mary Ann to remain in the race, I'd suggest emailing the San Mateo County Democratic Central Committee at contact@SMCDems.org.

Here's what I wrote -


I apologize if I'm not totally understanding the situation below.

I'm reading something about Mary Ann Nihart, who is currently on the Pacifica City Council and running for re-election, asking the San Mateo County Democratic Central Committee to withdraw its endorsements for Pacifica City Council and instead remain neutral.  Apparently there's a law where federal employees like Mary Ann aren't allowed to participate in elections where a political party endorses candidates, but the San Mateo County Democrats decided to endorse candidates for the City Council election. Her options seem to be to drop out of the race, stay in the race and face disciplinary action by the Merit System Protection Board, or quit her regular job.

Please grant her request to have the San Mateo County Democrats remain neutral in the Pacifica City Council race. Mary Ann is one of the most effective, balanced and thoughtful council members we've had in Pacifica in years, and blocking the ability of Pacificans to return her to council seems very "un-Democratic" and not very "pro-choice." I have absolutely no doubt that she would be the top vote-getter in November's election for Council, and I'm sure it would engender a lot of ill-will towards the San Mateo County Democrats if it appeared your organization was meddling in a local council election in a way that prevented Pacifica voters from returning a very popular candidate to office.

I used to be a Democrat but switched to Decline to State about 15 years ago. I still tend to vote with Democrats simply because my values align more closely with them, but one of the reasons I left the party was because I thought the Democrats were going into the same gutter as Republicans, where playing political games was a higher priority than doing what was in the best interests of the public. Please don't reconfirm that impression.


Thank you,
Steve Sinai

Heck, it wouldn't hurt to email the following Ex Officio Members of the San Mateo County Democratic Central Committee -

Congressperson Jackie Speier - https://forms.house.gov/speier/webforms/email_jackie.shtml

State Senator Jerry Hill - http://sd13.senate.ca.gov/send-e-mail

State Assemblymember Kevin Mullin - https://lcmspubcontact.lc.ca.gov/PublicLCMS/ContactPopup.php?district=AD22


Posted by Steve Sinai

49 comments:

Vince the Voter said...

So the same strategy that has run this city into the toilet is employed on a respected Council member working hard for us all the time. Nihart has developed more relationships over the hill than any council person in recent member. She gets results. That will all end if this horseshit isn't taken care of. I would expect this out of the Sierra Club not the dems in San Mateo County. This insidious curse that Pacifica has to fight is spreading. He, nobies, put your candidate up fair and square. DON'T CHEAT!

Anonymous said...

It will be interesting to see if the law is followed, rather than ignored as is often the case. Ms. Nihart's reaction indicates she has a serious problem. Amusing that the automatic reaction here is that there's some dastardly plot. Next we'll be treated to "the election is rigged" sort of stuff. Well, conspiracy theory has never been bigger than it is today.

Anonymous said...

8:05 Come on admit it. The Deirdre Martin camp is jumping for joy. They have no shame.
Go ahead do your victory dance. Get Nancy Hall to sing a victory song.
Normal Pacificans are smarter and gutsier than you think.

Anonymous said...

Nihart didn't do anything wrong. If Nihart has to drop out of the race, it will be because a small number of party-first, partisan hacks at the San Mateo County Democratic Committee have arrogantly decided that they will be the ones who determine who Pacificans get to vote for in a nonpartisan election. So yes, that is a rigged election.

Over on Ripfart the hippies are jumping up and down like excited monkeys knowing Martin will be guaranteed a council seat and the gang of no will have a 3-2 majority, ethics be damned.

Inquiring Minds said...

Why was it ok for Vreeland to be on the city council as a federal employee while it's not ok for Nihart??

wake up pacifica said...

2:19 Because Vreeland was a useful tool for the wacko NOBY's so of course they did everything they could to keep it on the down-low.
Make no mistake, the shameless NOBY's will shine the brightest spot light on this as they can to cheat their way back into a majority council of NO.
They don't care about Democracy. They don't care about a free and non-rigged election. They don't care about honesty. They have no integrity.
Even though some of them are crying FAKE alligator tears, they only really care about their "I got mine screw everybody else" agenda.

Anonymous said...

6 people on dem committee made a decision that nullifies the votes of 23,000 pacificans, and none of the 6 live in Pacifica.

Hutch said...

This is ridiculous.
#1 She's still running and dropped off signs at my house today.
#2 Don't believe anything you hear from people who lie about everything. Who says that letter is not forged, manipulated, taken out of context?
#3 There has been no formal agreement ratified and finalized to endorse any candidate so nobody is violating anything.
#4 See #2

Anonymous said...

Hutch, are you saying Dan Stegink isn't a credible source of information? ;-)

Steve Sinai said...

Well, Dan did report that the quarry developer was going to build over 600 apartments. He got that one right, didn't he?

Anonymous said...

I guess laws are for the little people to follow, not public officials who are supposed to have a clue as to the rules.

Larry said...

Sinai, I thought it was "almost a thousand". He's attacked the library as well. Stesnick has no regard for the truth. I wonder if his dustup with the library is a result of his attempt to muscle his way into being president of Cabrillo PTO. He was trumped by three active moms that ran as a slate and skunked him. I understand he then went to the principal and had a hissy fit and was told to hit the road. Sour grapes Stesnunk? If you read his blog read it while keeping in mind his past assertions.

Anonymous said...

@5:28 what are you referring to? If it is Nihart, you are missing the point. The Hatch Act is disciplinary. The Office of Special Counsel investigates Nihart for her behavior regarding prohibited practices for a Federal employee in the executive branch. The prohibition is us, running for office in a partisan election. Read the opinions on the Office of Special Council website. They are the only ones that get to decide what is partisan. Actually that part of the discussion on Riptide makes sense.

If she gives up her job, then she can continue running for office. You all act like there is a big Pacifica drama going on. Mary Ann is the only person that really has a stake in this. I, for one, feel for her. I am not at all sure I would chose Pacifica over the amazing career she has had as a nurse. Google her sometime. She is involved in so many things nationally why would she risk it to be in a basically volunteer job on the Pacifica City Council. I mean really. We will be lucky if she finds a way to stay.

Tom Clifford said...

Well said Anonymous 11:45

Steve Sinai said...

Mary Ann shouldn't have to give up her job to run for Council. As mentioned above, Vreeland was a federal employee and was on Council. Mary Ann is a federal employee and has been serving on Council.

The only reason there's a problem is because the San Mateo County Democratic Central Committee decided to endorse candidates in the current election. If the SMDCC stays neutral, then there's no problem.

Anonymous said...

Did the San Mateo County Democratic Central Committee endorse candidates in the 3 Pacifica City Council elections that Vreeland was in?

Anonymous said...

It's quite obvious someone wanted her out. Either someone higher up in the Democratic Party or someone in San Mateo County.

Just goes to show you everyone from the President to the lowest employee on the pay roll can be removed with one phone call.

Steve Sinai said...

From reading Mary Ann's letter, it looks like this was the result of a miscommunication, and the SMCDCC didn't realize the problems it was causing by endorsing for the Pacifica council race. What I'm taken aback at is the SMCDCC's reluctance to withdraw its endorsements and the arrogant response of the guy running the organization in which he basically said the party comes first and it's tough luck that Mary Ann was affected.

Cliff said...

The guy running it is not fit to run a committee with this power, in my opinion. Over pompous narcissist some may say. And the trappings of a set up are too blatantly obvious. I believe Sabrina Brennan from the Harbor District, of eco fame, also sits on the committee, Connect the dots.

Steve Sinai said...

"Did the San Mateo County Democratic Central Committee endorse candidates in the 3 Pacifica City Council elections that Vreeland was in?"

I'm seeing that Julie Lancelle said she was endorsed by the SMCDCC (and the San Mateo County Association of Realtors!) in the 2006 election that both she and Vreeland were running in.

http://www.smartvoter.org/2006/11/07/ca/sm/vote/lancelle_j/endorse.html

Anonymous said...

Plot thickens. Who knew what and when? Vreeland, a federal employee of Environmental Protection Agency, ran in the 2010 election. Dem County committee endorsed at least Sue Digre, maybe others in 2010. Vreeland's websites are down. But Digre's is available, with county dem endorsement:

 https://web.archive.org/web/20111001004239/http://www.suedigre2010.com/
 
However, the fact the county dems endorsed in the race means Vreeland should have resigned the race. Same rules apply now as in 2010. Why is Digre so quiet? And the county dem leadership, this is amateur hour, they endorse ignorant of the rules and the damage they cause to the most effective council member on Pacifica's council?
Seems if anyone should resign, it's the dem county committee members.

Anonymous said...

12:18 It's quite obvious someone wanted her out..........
Can you say John Keener, Deirdre Martin and their merry band of fraudsters. This should tell you just how corrupt the NOBY's really are. Democracy doesn't matter when you've got an agenda to fulfill. Fits right in with Keener's underhanded tactics to destroy West Sharp park.

Anonymous said...

County Dems endorsed in previous races where there was a federal employee. Nothing happened. The current controversy is bogus. Dems endorsement does not turn a nonpartisan race into a partisan one. Mary Ann does not have to drop out of election or risk losing her job. Much ado about nothing.

The Ghost of Partisan Politics said...

C'mon, peeps! By definition, the local City Council election is non partisan. This entire issue is a red herring and proof positive that desperate people will do anything to win an election. Nowhere on the ballot, or elsewhere, is there a requirement (or even a place) for candidates to specify their political party. In fact, I have no idea what party the current candidates belong to and I really don't care. Party is simply not a factor here. You all know that. That the SMC DCC wants to inappropriately butt in to this election makes absolutely no difference with respect to the Hatch Act. This is exactly why it didn't effect Vreeland et al in the past. Again, this is a non partisan election. San Francisco also holds non partisan local elections. There is a reason we do it that way. And staying clear of Hatch Act violations is one of them.

BTW, since political party really has no relevance in terms of local elections, it is absolutely ridiculous for Fix Pacifica and its supporting cast (whose supposed objective is to improve Pacifica and to that end has supported Republicans in the past, e.g., Cal Hinton) to take the extreme partisan position it has with respect to its content and censorship. If anyone makes a case for enforcing the Hatch Act in the upcoming election, it would be the curators of this forum.

Steve Sinai said...

Fix Pacifica doesn't really care what party anyone belongs to. I'd be happy if nobody belonged to a political party. People here supported Cal Hinton because he wasn't a NIMBY.

I occasionally vote for moderate Republicans, but 90% of my votes are for Democrats.

Mary Ann obviously thinks there's a problem, given the letter she wrote to the San Mateo County Democratic Committee. That is, unless Dan at Pacifica.city edited or made-up the letter he posted.

Kathy Meeh (memo to stink.rumors) said...

156, the questionable promotion of the Hatch Act fuss, targeting City Council candidate Mary Ann Nihart 9/21/16, was brought to social media from a too often unreliable source, namely Dan Stegink's pacifica.city.
However in follow-up, also printed on Stegink's website 9/23/16, the San Mateo County Democratic Party Executive Board has "considered the issue and determined that no additional action will be taken at this time," (Jeffrey S. Adair, Chair, 9/23/16).

In other words, it seems the County Democrats' statement is further validation that local City Councils are NON PARTISAN (nothing new), and potential Federal employee conflict of interest Hatch Act issues do not apply.
Therefore it follows that, unless otherwise revised, the County Democrats' City Council candidate endorsements, including those of Mary Ann Nihart (an executive Federal Employee) and Sue Vaterlaus (not a Federal employee), stand as previously stated.

Anonymous said...

The "Hatch Act fuss" was created by Mary Ann Nihart. If anyone is "targeting" her, she targeted herself. If she hadn't raised the subject, there would be no controversy. It looks like what she was trying to do is get the County Dems to withdraw their endorsement of Deirdre Martin, a really cheesy thing to do.

Kathy Meeh (information in question) said...

446, huh, I saw a mailed flyer that showed County Democrat support and endorsements (I thought) for Mary Ann Nihart and Sue Vaterlaus (these are qualified and earned support candidates).
But, currently the San Mateo County Democrats website shows the only endorsed Pacifica City Council candidate as Deirdre Martin, (a NIMBY with no City office experience). No thanks County Democrats for that endorsement-- what was your rationale? Super duh.
Therefore, this is a correction to my prior 438 comment.

The further question becomes where did Dan Stegink get his source "letter" information, or did he make it up? (Steve and others have asked that question as well).
Was Stegink given private information from a County NIMBY insider? Was this part of a promotion, (a conspiracy), to omit, disqualify, diminish, even smear more moderate, balanced City Council candidates?
And did Stegink even interview, talk to or confirm any of his "information" with any reliable source, namely City Council Candidate Mary Ann Nihart?
(Yet, we've seen dubious NIMBY tactics in prior elections-- that's who they are).

Steve Sinai said...

Why am I getting the feeling nobody has a clue as to what's going on?

Anonymous said...

@Sinai, Stegink has a big Deirdre Martin sign on his fence visible from Highway 1. He's not exactly an impartial observer.

Anonymous said...

4:46, that's the most ridiculous thing I've read here. Are you not Stessnunc in disguise??

Anonymous said...

Steginc hasn't lived in Pacifica long enough to know that his home will become a floating island in the next big storm if Dierdre Martin and John Keener have their way. Us old timers remember very well that his neighborhood and Linda Mar shopping center became giant lakes many times during the storms of 50's, 60's and 70's. This fool thinks that somehow his home will be spared after all defenses are torn down to accommodate sea level rise and "managed retreat". This is narcissism at it's worst, just like Vreeland and now God forbid Donald Trump. Keep up the good work Steginc, the end result will be truly catastrophic for the people of Pacifica but at least we'll be able to count ourselves as lucky to be rid of you.

Anonymous said...

7:03 I guess you think facts are ridiculous. Have you seen the email from Nihart to the San Mateo County Democratic Committee that started this whole thing? Deirdre Martin has nothing to do with this. This is between Nihart and the Democratic Committee.

Anonymous said...

10:32 Surely you jest. Dierdre, Keener and all of the other NOBY political hacks had EVERYTHING to do with this. This is no different than all the other ways they try to divide, misinform andotherwise do anything to make things go their way. These faux-enviros will stop at nothing to keep Pacifica in a time warp bubble.

Anonymous said...

11:20 And your evidence is ... ?

My evidence is the communication between Nihart and the Democratic Committee. Yours is ... ?

Kathy Meeh (memo to stink.rumors) said...

1221 evidence? No name(s), no actual documents, no apparent context in reality; claimed candidate letter and County Democrat Committee insider information-- big stink over nothing that looks credible, or even matters.
How about an apology to the candidate; with the same, posted on the stink blog and every other social media where this ruse was posted?

Also, did your NIMBY Gang manage to change the candidate endorsement of the County Democrats Committee from qualified Nihart and Vaterlaus to under-qualified Martin? If so, influence your pals to fix that.

Abraham said...

Well, I'm a Republican (don't hate me) and all this blather has given me a great idea. Since so many people that run seem to work for the government I think I'll make sure that the Republicans endorse someone to gum up the works for the NOBIES. Take that to heart NOBIES, I have a long memory.

Anonymous said...

Article in today's Tribune says Mary Ann wrote to the chair of the San Mateo County Democratic Party to ask him to reconsider the endorsement of Deirdre Martin.

Are you smarter than a 5th grader said...

This letter made me so dizzy I needed a couple Dramamine tablets.

Kathy Meeh (Labor got it right) said...

957, MaryAnn Nihart asking for no endorsements from the Democrats Central Committee, rather than the endorsement of Deirde Martin, is a good thing.
The Democrat Central Committee currently appears to be another biased NIMBY pipeline within San Mateo County-- advocating, in effect, for "nothing for Pacifica". BOO to that!!!

BTW, what was the basis for the County Democrats Central Committee endorsement of a candidate for our city council who is against our City progress?
Locally, Deidre Martin (and the NIMBY cabal) are against Highway widening, against Quarry development, against affordable housing (but for rent-control).
And not stated in her candidate profile, Martin may also agree with her NIMBY support group's advocacy for ocean caused "managed retreat", affecting instability of our neighborhoods (currently Manor and West Sharp Park).
The NIMBY collective (City, County, Region), as always, offers no real alternative, except obstruction which blocks needed city infrastructure solutions.

The County Labor Unions endorsement got it right! Vote MaryAnn Nihart and Sue Vaterlaus to help this City improve-- protect the City, keep it going.
Think progress and accountable City management, rather than irresponsible City neglect and negligence-- this City has been there, don't go back.

Anonymous said...

Some people are appalled that Mary Ann would ask the Democratic Party to rescind their endorsement of a candidate. It's interfering in a democratic process. It's unethical.

Anonymous said...

The nimbys are appalled that Mary Ann was in the ground breaking for the Harmony @ 1 project. Every time you drive down Highway 1, Fassler, Or Roberts Road we see how well that project is proceeding.

Anonymous said...

1:25 If the NOBY's need something to be appalled about they should look up Nancy Hall's (NOBY song writer and performer) role in the development of Harmony 1. She appointed herself Czar of the Planning Commission and was quite braggadocios about how she forced design changes and turned Harmony 1 green.
Who knew that she was actually making Harmony 1 green with money and boosting the value of her home and those of her friends, the faux-enviros.
Thanks to Nancy and her buddies, this ENTIRE hillside was sacrificed for only ten homes connected with long roads, utilities and very costly infrastructure, that we get to pay for, and are selling in the $4,000,000 price range. Affordable housing?
Dan I know you haven't lived in Pacifica long enough to know these things but you really should do a little more research before throwing shit-balls.

Kathy Meeh (Dirty election tactics are unethical) said...

1250 in reference to your anonymous comment, using your quotes...

The current NIMBY biased SM County Democrats Committee doesn't represent the best interest of this City. "Some people are appalled... it's unethical."

The current NIMBY biased SM County Democrats Committee has endorsed a City Council candidate for this City who is "lite" and NIMBY (Deidre Martin), over those who have earned track records (MaryAnn Nihart and Sue Vaterlaus). "Some people are appalled... it's unethical."

The current NIMBY biased SM County Democrats Committee has not made the basis of its endorsement transparent. "Some people are appalled... it's unethical."

Some local NIMBIES have made a habit of dirty election practices, including adversely targeting NON-NIMBY City Council candidates at election time. "Some people are appalled... it's unethical."

Anonymous said...

That loud click was the Dome of Stupid descending once again over Pacifica.

Anonymous said...

Oh, deftly handled, Maryanne. Kerplop! It's who the Dems endorsed that's the problem.

Anonymous said...

Mary Ann just kissed any slight chance of being a San Mateo County Supervisor good-bye!

Anonymous said...

This Stagnich guy you all talk about sure does post anon a lot.

Fix Pacifica unofficial poll has him down for 90% of the anon posts.

Anonymous said...

Ooooh yeah, 820, he's the Great Satan.