Posted:
08/28/2012 05:08:40 PM PDT
Updated:
08/28/2012 05:08:40 PM PDT
The
debate goes on about whether or not City Council should have met in
closed session to discuss potential police outsourcing. In the meantime,
city staff has released the two proposals City Council discussed.
Director of Administrative Services Ann Ritzma and the City Attorney Michelle Kenyon said closed session was the right place to discuss the potential police outsourcing.
"Any time a city contemplates contracting out union work, they are required to give direction to their labor bargaining team in a closed session," Ritzma said. "If City Council decided to do it, it would be negotiated at the table with the labor unions. The City Council decided not to contract out, therefore it is no longer a closed session item."
The City Attorney said City Council met to discuss labor negotiations on several dates.
"The sheriff's proposal and the proposal from South San Francisco are public record and we are going to make them available to the public. There was a request for the public record and it was released," she said.
Jim Ewert, general counsel of the California Newspaper Publishers Association, and Terry Francke, general counsel for Californians Aware, said the decision to hear that matter in closed session was not appropriate.
"Closed session is authorized for hearing reports from the city labor negotiator and giving further instruction about things that are being bargained," Francke said. "Whether or not the city hopes to outsource police services is not a bargainable issue. That is not something they are required to negotiate with employees. That's up to their discretion. I don't believe that topic belongs in closed session."
Read more...
Posted by Steve Sinai
116 comments:
So the legal debate continues. Anyone surprised? Thanks for releasing the proposals. Now, how about the rest of it? How about council and the city report on that vote they took in closed session? They can do it at the next regular council meeting. Just come clean. Let's follow the spirit, as well as today's popular and convenient interpretation, of the Brown Act. What's to hide? Pete was always vocal about his opposition. What about the other 4? And release that consultant's report. Since council and the city didn't feel up to the task of analyzing the proposals, release the consultant's findings. What were the service parameters? Is there flexibility? Again, what's to hide?
And finally, has a new contract been signed with the Pacifica PD?
the actual numbers for cops (without fire) are these:
http://www.cityofpacifica.org/civica/filebank/blobdload.asp?BlobID=4851
page 23
2011-2012 amended budget =8,920,048
2011-2012 projected 9,016,597
so the current savings are $1.5M a year, or about $100,000 a month. Every month the city delays debating this matter cost the taxpayes another $100K in spending we probaly would not be doing if the Sheriff ran the dept.
Come clean city council. Anything less than full and prompt disclosure of everything associated with your latest civic embarassment is suspicious.
The proposals won't tell the whole story. You all have lost the public's trust.
$100,000 is lost per month while city council dithers. Current police budget is $8.9M and the sheriff bid is $7.4M.
We could save $1.5M a year. But right now we save zero.
@636 who said anything about anything "being up to Pete"? This isn't about Pete alone. And we do not yet have all the facts. Lots of unanswered questions remain. And Pacifica is about to slide off the cliff.
I'm going to try an experiment and run a clean comment thread for this topic. So if you want to to express your opinion, do so without overused phrases such as "Sneaky Pete," or referring to cops as lazy-bums.
If it's unintelligible gibberish, or refers to Agenda 21, it also won't get posted.
"The proposal from the San Mateo County Sheriff shows a budget of $7.4 million in total gross expenses, includingpersonnel costs of $6.2 million. It guaranteed a position for all Pacifica police full time employees for the next 30 days, but not beyond that. The proposal was to staff one lieutenant, four sergeants, 12 deputies, one additional canine deputy and an additional deputy two nights a week, three detectives, two support staff, three community service officers and various pieces of equipment."
About three years ago, former Chief Saunders told me that police staffing in Pacifica was at the legal minimum. I'm curious to know how the manpower (sorry girls) proposal from the Sheriff compares to what we currently have.
Call the DA's office to complain if you feel this was a violation of the Brown Act (650) 363-4636
The general council for Californians Aware and general council for the Ca Newspapers Publishers Assoc feel this was a definite violation of the Brown Act. And that the outsourcing report had nothing to do with negotiations.
It's pretty clear by Dejarnetts statements he was behind taking outsourcing off the table and keeping it from the public.
"None of the three of us were consulted at all before Len and Mary Ann chose to take that action."
Thank you Steve Sinai!
Hutch, nothing to be gained here by a rush to judgement or a premature end to the public scrutiny...other than a sigh of relief at city hall.
We deserve all the info, the vote, the report, all of it. Without full and open disclosure there can be no accountability and perhaps no recourse. Our city is in jeopardy. Are we stuck with this decision if it was unlawful? There are a lot of questions still unanswered.
8 hatbathsI voted for Len Stone so I want him to know the following;
Yesterday , in broad daylight, a mother with her two children were victims of a armed robbery in manor district.
At the same time that was happening a young woman was beat up and assaulted by a 300ib woman , inside Kenny's Cafe on Crespi. The victim was taken away in a ambulance.
The economy is very very bad right now and people believe they have the right to rape and rob and pilage. I won't stand for it and I won't stand by the side while our Peace Officers are used as pawns. We need security. Our children and community need to be protected.
I was under the belief that council had to report out any "vote" they took in closed session. It seems that some sort of tally was taken. If that is the case some concerned citizen perhaps should send the same DA that clamped down on the planning commission a demand letter to investigate the closed session proceedings. Planning commission violation was bad enough but to have a decision done behind closed doors concerning the fiscal integrity of our city is unacceptable. If you condone this backdoor bargaining then I'm sure you condoned what the planning commission attempted to pull off. You probably would support any commissioner that decided to run for council, too.
Oh come on Anon 7:15 (or Officer Mcillicutty), we read the police beat, 99.9% of our PD's time is spent on traffic violations, vandalism, domestic disputes etc.
The sheriff would do just as well at protecting us.
I understand Mary Ann and Len pandering to Y'awl by their empty jester for releasing the report. I have no fears it was simply a cynical move on their part, especially by Mary Ann as she is up for re-election.
If we pay the city attorney and directed her to hire the consultant and paid for that I don't see how any sort of attorney client privilege can be claimed to protect the document. If senior staff is stonewalling the report that isn't councils fault.
If you want to pitch folk a head look no further than Steve Rhodes. As city manager this is all on him.
Sorry Todd, your fellow NIMBY's (Pete & Sue) are square in the DA's sites. I know you want to discredit Mary Ann so there's a chance she will lose. Nice try.
Pandering Todd?
I don't know about that. I do know that report was being kept from us. Mary Ann and Len demanded it be released. Pete squealed like a pig and VIOLA! The report was released.
Pete has said all along he has been agains Police outsourcing. He wanted his sales tax and when Mary Ann and Len blocked it he threw a fit and said he'll vote to cut Recourse Center funding if we don't pass the sales tax. I believe this was all for spite.
And of course Sue went along with it muttering to herself.
Council directs the city manager, not the other way around. If there's a problem, it's likely because Sue, Pete and Ginny initially decided not to release the documents. Don't blame Rhodes.
It's always fun to watch Todd try to pin the blame for everything on the three people who, against his wishes, have openly stated the city needs more economic development - Mary Ann, Len and Steve Rhodes.
First off, please let me say that I believe everything used by council to make this decision should be open for public view. Whether one agrees with the decision or not, it seems like the transparent thing to do.
Second, if I were Stone or Nihart, I'd be drafting letters behind the backs of the other 3 council members as well....to cover my tracks. During the Financial Task Force meeting towards the end of April, both Stone and Nihart claimed they did not have the Sheriff numbers, and therefore could not put a tax on the ballot. They stated in the council meeting shortly thereafter that they had not received that information yet, so they could not make a decision redgarding the tax. Hmmmmmm....
We find out with the City's release of numbers that they DID in fact have this information back in April....Some would call that dishonest.
Regardless of where they stood on the tax issue, why would they not come out with this information when they had it? Why did they tell the public they didn't have it, when in fact they did?
It sounds like Stone and Nihart are trying to paint themsevles to be rosey when they are just as sneaky when it comes to pushing an issue in their favor.
@Anon 7:15: So you think the person who wrote in support of the PD is a police officer? Maybe so....but did you stop and think for a moment that some of us in the community actually support our PD, or even more so, keeping local control of our public safety services? That's what I love about reading these blogs....as soon as someone steps up with something positive to say about the city, or a department within the city, it becomes clear that this type of opinion isn't tolerated.
You base your opinion by what you read in the paper? Good luck with that one......
I, for one, would rather not outsource the PD.
Neither would I Steve.
To address your other comment about the chain of command, council is not directing staff. Council is agreeing to directions senior staff is preparing for council. Listen a little bit harder, usually the direction to staff is to come back with a recommendation or two. Either way it's a TAMATA/TOMATO thing at best and clearly needs tweaking.
Excuse me Anon 937, Where do you see any evidence that Mary Ann and Len had numbers on outsourcing back in April?
Me neither Steve. But we are just about bankrupt and if we are saving $100K a month I think we have to seriously weigh all the facts which we are just now getting after over 7 months of delays.
I don't think that supporting PD and outsourcing have opposite results. If we don't fix our severe budget problems we could face bankruptcy and at the very least have to lay off many officers.
Outsourcing COULD be a way to protect all their jobs and keep current service levels while saving $1,500,000 per year.
From my understanding the only officers against outsourcing are senior staff because they would lose some benefits.
Call inspector Maher at the San Mateo DA office to complain about criminal Brown Act violations (650) 363-4636
Better yet, write him a letter demanding an investigation
400 County Center, 3rd Floor
Redwood City, CA 94063
I did
I heard that the sgts and lts go to being regular sheriffs deputies.
I heard this from someone who is in the know.
If outsourcing the police is such a great idea, why aren't all the cities in San Mateo County doing it?
they are Dano they are
anon 715 if these awful crimes happened, they happened on the watch of the Pacifica PD you are so intent on keeping. Send in the sheriffs asap for financial reasons as well as maintaining, if not actually improving, public safety. You have a false sense of security.
If someone unraveled all of this they would indeed find there are no heroes. Outsourcing numbers were available in Feb or March of this year. Rhodes was told by two council members to sit on them. He wasn't happy about that but he reports to them not vice versa. There are no heroes in this disaster. None. Just some sleazy opportunistic politics.
Brown Act violation? It's borderline, despite the very predictable enthusiasm of the newspaper groups. Parts of it have been suspended, including the requirement for council to report to the public on votes or actions taken in closed session. And really folks, Pacifica hasn't been conscientious about that for 2or 3 years. Guess we were ahead of the pack in being devious. It figures.
To get to the truth would take a full investigation of everything concerning outsourcing going back to February, who knew what and when, and what was Mr. Rhodes instructed to do with those numbers early on. Whether the approach is through the Brown Act issues or some other complaint, it should go back at least to February. A pretty good smoke screen has been set up but the truth is out there. And, there are no heroes. Not this time.
Let me ask you, Anon@1:45 -
If outsourcing the police is such a great idea, why aren't all the cities in San Mateo County doing it?
I don't know that the sheriff's dept would even want to deal with Pacifica. Pacifica's leadership is regarded as buffoons and fools by so many at the county level. More every day.
@937 anon not only did those two have the numbers, they instructed Rhodes to keep them under wraps.
Too bad somebody else didn't write a letter back then alerting the public to this self-serving duo.
The Sheriff's Department made a proposal, so they obviously don't mind dealing with Pacifica's leadership.
Danno 222 All the cities in San Mateo County aren't broke, mismanaged, misled, deceived, etc.
Pacifica is. Just lucky!
Todd, love the "empty jester". Nothing funny about those two. How long before the public catches on and how much damage can they do before then? Maybe they'll turn against each other?
anon 1pm That is what usually happens when a larger organization takes over. I'm not going to worry about the great pay and benefits, before and after, of 35 people at the expense of a city of 40,000. What kinda of effed-up city bungles saving $1,500,000 per year?
Pacifica.
Sinai, months ago versus now? Maybe so, but they probably raised the price after this latest pathetica escapade.
aw crap not more letters.
Hey Dano - Lookum
One year after San Carlos outsourced its police work to the county Sheriff’s Office, officials from both agencies say the partnership is going great
http://www.sfexaminer.com/local/peninsula/2011/11/outsourced-policing-works-san-carlos#ixzz254MwloiC
Millbrae entered into a binding contract on Tuesday with the San Mateo County Sheriff’s Office to outsource its police department starting in February 2012. http://millbrae.patch.com/articles/millbrae-signs-agreement-to-outsource-police
Also Half Moon Bay, Granada, Princeton, Moss Beach and several other San Mateo cities have had Sheriffs for years.
Anonymous said...
Nothing funny about those two. How long before the public catches on and how much damage can they do before then?
It's too late, Pete and Sue have already done their damage.
Anonymous 2:29 said...
@937 anon not only did those two have the numbers, they instructed Rhodes to keep them under wraps.
You have absolutely no proof of that ridiculous statement. The outsourcing report wasn't even available in April. Besides Mary Ann & Len have both been leaning towards outsourcing if the numbers added up. Pete and Sue have been fighting it.
You've been had anon 350.
@anon 350: respectfully, check the date on the sheriff proposal. It's in black and white.
@937 anon That story just won't die
and where there's smoke there's usually fire, especially in Pacifica. The minute you forget politicians are always self-serving you're going to be badly disappointed in their behavior.
It won't die because it's true and a complete, independent investigation of this issue, and all parties involved in it, would be a smart move for Pacifica. That is, if we want the truth. What we've been presented so far is
tainted by politics and highly suspicious.
"@anon 350: respectfully, check the date on the sheriff proposal. It's in black and white."
Are these proposals online somewhere?
I can't find them. Pacifica Index says they filed a Public Records Request to the city, which make me think the city isn't going to make it easy for people to access them.
Does everything have to be a conspiracy?
Its right on the page in black and white.
What, the city won't make it easy?
I'll be darned.
"Its right on the page in black and white."
What page of what report?
The Police outsourcing to the Sheriff report.
The police proposals from SSF and the San Mateo County Sheriff's Office will be of little use to the public, and here's why:
Pacifica had a somewhat decent idea of the numbers early on; they knew what the pricetags were for outsourcing police services among similarly situtated cities along the Peninsula and could extrapolate from those. Also, don't forget that the Pacifica Police Department placed a bid for serving HMB (which ultimately went with the County Sheriff), so there's comparative data there as well.
So, the City had a ballpark idea about costs back in December '11/January '12 as anyone familiar with the workings of the Financing City Services Task Force should know.
BUT...
As Councilmembers, Staff and Financing Task Force members admitted, you couldn't truly get an accurate take on the costs without an analysis of many differing factors such as:
* service levels
* staff numbers
* response times
* physical locations
* hire/transfer guarantees
And here's the important thing: making a truly accurate assessment of the costs vs. the service levels offered by all three police service providers is beyond the capacity of City staff and Councilmembers, therefore the need for the outside consultant to perform this evaluation.
So, without the actual outside consultant's report (from Management Partners), the raw data from the various proposals will be of little use to anyone. Readers should note that Council has called for the release of the proposals and NOT for the release of Management Partners' analysis of the proposals which is truly the most useful piece of information when it comes to evaluating police services in Pacifica.
And at last request, the Management Partners report was withheld under attorney/client privilege. We'll see if things have changed and Pacifica Index will place this all online when we obtain copies. The City Clerk is out until next week, so unfortuntely there will be a delay.
Well Anon 834 it would seem that if the only people that have seen the report are council, Rhodes, Ritzma you must be one of them if you saw it.
Hmmm, who would have motive to implicate Mary Ann and Len?
Be really careful Anon 834, the DA may be searching your hard drive soon.
"Pacifica had a somewhat decent idea of the numbers early on; they knew what the pricetags were for outsourcing police services among similarly situtated cities along the Peninsula and could extrapolate from those. Also, don't forget that the Pacifica Police Department placed a bid for serving HMB (which ultimately went with the County Sheriff), so there's comparative data there as well."
I doubt that staff knew what the process would cost. I doubt they even tried to get info until very recently. The city manager should be summarily fired for handling this whole mess in such a botched manner. You'd think this wasn't a top priority from the leisurely way the staff approached it.
And then we have a city attorney who conceals public information under the guise of "attorney/client privilege." This attorney and her law firm should be shown the door as well.
Atta boy Index. Thanks for the follow through.
Relax everyone! Jacques Closeau clocked in at 957AM. He is on the case. Sans pink panther.
It's a game of strip poker this city is playing. IMHO Stone knew the numbers were good and always wanted to outsource, it wasn't happening, so he went rogue. The stakes were too high for Nihart so she followed. What! You think she's gonna stand with Pete, Sue and Ginny? This year? Crowd gets nasty and the city peels off those proposals pretty quick. Cheap thrills. This crowd wants to see it all. Peel off that report you hid behind the attorney and you all can dance another day.
Pitchforks and torches outside city hall
Too bad Pacifica taxpayers are apathetic.
I read the complete report. Its right in front of your faces
What a tease. Where can the rest of us see the report?
anon509 you ain't seen nuthin' yet!
Those aren't even the taxpayers.
Do you mean you read the actual consultant's report? Are you FCSTF? Was there something in there other than an analysis of the proposals? A timeline? C'mon since it's been put in a time capsule, why don't you share with the rest of the class?
If there's a case for the DA, it might be the blatant use of the attorney to block public access(so far)to the analyst's report. That was no serendipitous accident. Hardly shines as good public policy or honest government. The rest is just local squabbling and they know all about how it is in Pacifica. That report should be released at once.
So much speculation. So little knowledge of what really went on.
You're right, Steve, and that's the complaint actually. Too much clumsy secrecy throughout the process makes every action or reaction look suspicious. I've heard the rumors but I don't care if they sat on early numbers and I don't care if the reasons were political or wanting to wait for the analyst's report. Or both. Just don't care. Those numbers and that report have been ready for months. And that's a fact. It's time to come clean you 5 and make full disclosure. What a mess! And, we're still broke, we've apparently tabled a plan that could save $1,500,000 per year, public trust is further damaged, transparency is a joke, no reserves, and so forth. What have any of you accomplished? It does kind of make one wonder.
amen to that Steve
Hutch
Please tell me you don't agree with him
Not on some things Anon 10:02.
But this is going to be a sheet storm. Mark my words.
I have copies of the initial proposals, but I can't post them yet. The Sheriff's Office proposal is dated April 16, and SSF's proposal is dated May 8. They didn't look like definite bids, as both proposals had some details that still needed to be worked out.
Each one was only a few pages. Most of the people on the local PD could probably have looked at them and known immediately whether they would have provided equivalent or better service for less money than we have now.
Members of the general public, and the council, probably couldn't. In that respect, I agree with Pacifica Index that a third-party needed to come in and put the bids into perspective.
So, the fire merger was supposed to save the city money and it turns out it has been a wash.
Not only considering we will need two new fire stations soon.
Sinai, first you said you didn't see them now you have.
Please make up your mind
I'm looking at the salaries and benefits of Sheriff's deputies and SSF officers, and the benefit costs per year are incredible.
For example, a Sergeant who works for the Sheriff makes $119,858 in salary. I don't have a huge problem with that. But my jaw hit the floor when I saw the cost to the county for benefits is $117,635.
Adding in other costs like Workers Compensation and uniform allowances, the total cost for a Sergeant is listed as $306,463.
Sheesh!
"Sinai, first you said you didn't see them now you have."
Haha. I guess that's the way it works. At first you don't see them, and then later on you see them.
Someone sent me a copy of the proposals today.
sounds like the old hubba dubba bubba or the check is in the mail I promise
Steve, Chief Tasa called last spring to go over the "numbers." He was confident his department could match any proposal if not out right beat it in a fair fight, or competitive bidding war. The issue at the time was Rhodes/Ritzma were not negotiating with them nor had they even approached the 4 police-person's associations to negotiate. Steve and Ann were just flaunting this threat to intimidate our local PD and more importantly garner support for a tax hike so no one would need to take a wage cut.
Steve, the issues I have with Rhodes and Ritzma have nothing to do with pro/no growth ideologies. As people I think Rhodes is a gracious person and Ann a genuinely caring individual. My issues are simple basic concerns about their competency and intellectual ability to work a problem. They rely on maneuvers rather than straight forward process.
I appreciate we don't agree, and I don't expect us to pretty much ever, but just look at HOW Rhodes does stuff. Look at how he says stuff. At what he assures council is happening then at what really happens.
I've had calls from countless residents about his style of negotiation. He virtually always threatens law suits if he doesn't get his way or demands concessions to cover his ass after making a promise to council that can't be kept. Whether it's land purchases for trails or dealings with national company's that provide service to residents, Rhodes is an amateur at best and a brat at worst. He's considered the worst kind of city manager, he's considered a joke.
But as a person he is a nice guy, and Ann is a sweet heart. They are just out of their depth.
Did anyone ever think there is no conspiracy or conflict or whatever? I don't get any of this thread. It seems people here like to stew and fret and make accusations. The letter from Len and Maryanne is a simple one. It does suggest any of these theories. It might be just what is appears to be; just a request. Wow, no harm, no conspiracy, how could that be? What will these bloggers do? Oh me Oh my.
Amen to that. I agree with most of the people on this blog, but their tendency to pervert everything into some nefarious scheme is almost as ridiculous as Bray's Caltrans conspiracies.
Anon 8:54 is applying the law of parsimony ("Occam's razor"), that simpler explanations are generally better than more complex ones. It's the principle of selecting from among competing hypotheses that which makes the fewest assumptions. Ptolemy (c. AD 90 – c. AD 168) stated "We consider it a good principle to explain the phenomena by the simplest hypothesis possible."
Steve said: "a Sergeant who works for the Sheriff makes $119,858 in salary. I don't have a huge problem with that. But my jaw hit the floor when I saw the cost to the county for benefits is $117,635."
"Adding in other costs like Workers Compensation and uniform allowances, the total cost for a Sergeant is listed as $306,463."
And Steve if you also add in how many retired employees and how much we're paying them, the cost for each current employee is well over a million.
This is why the whole system is going to collapse.
anon844 The good Franciscan Friar William of Ockham would find no logical explanation for politics in Pacifica. Jump a few centuries forward and Immanuel Kant reminds us that "The variety of beings should not be rashly diminished." As unsettling as it may be, anything is possible where human beings are involved. Start there.
Here's Pete on the record saying he is absolutely against outsourcing PD and this is back in May before the consultants analysis. He never had an open mind or wanted to wait for more information. He is clear that he wants the sales tax and seems bitter that Mary Ann and Len shot it down.
http://vimeo.com/42033413
anon956 raising that CalPERS and CalSTRS retirement age by 5-8 years across the board ought to slow down that train. Instead of retiring, collecting their pension AND taking another job, they can just keep working the first one! It would make a huge difference.
Wow that's a fairly weak interview by Butler.No hard questions and he pretty much panders to Dejarnett.
Ha I love how Pete says there's only a very small amount of people who oppose him. Yeah right.
He's obviously a spent politician. Admitting he's given up.
Amazing how Ian kisses his arse.
Well Butler won't win any One World Media Awards anytime soon, but he did sit around and ask Pete some really easy questions.
Is the sky blue? Are clouds white? Is water wet? Does Pacifica, have a financial surplus? What is the difference between 7.5 million gallons of raw sewage spilled into the water, vs some tar balls.
Ian, is one of the cleaner cut hippies, so I give him credit there. But all these people do is try to spin around the truth.
Look how good it worked trying to run Peebles out of town.
BUT STOP THE PRESSES!!!
Pete, said it was not a Brown Act Violation.
This is not a test of the emergency broadcast system.
Mayor Pete, said it was not a Brown Act violation.
Please, stay tuned for more information from your Mayor Pete.
This was not a test..
Beeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeep
Yeah there's a heap-o- juicy stuff in that interview with Pete. "A very very small group is against me'" "That why I'm leaving, all the negativity" "No, the recall had no affect on Jim or I leaving" "I have built trails, protected the environment" "Yes we are having some financial difficulties"
The funniest part is when Butler confirmed that Pete wants to cut Pacifica TV funding if the sales tax doesn't pass.
Pete said several years ago he wasn't going to run again.
Vreeland got sick and left.
Stop patting yourself on the back for things you had nothing to do with, Hunch.
Dejarnett had said before his last successful re-election that he wouldn't run again and he DID Anon 551. We were just sealing the deal.
When does Pete, lie?
Every time words come out of his mouth.
A very small group doesn't like me.
We built trails. That bring In zero money.
I seriously doubt this guy can balance a checkbook!
Lets let the sewer system fall apart, the sewer pipes crumble, the pier is falling into the ocean, streets are talking apart and pot holes every where. But we have trails
.
Anon 551 said "Vreeland got sick and left."
Really? Is that what we're calling it now? I think taxpayers have a right to know the truth considering Jim was taking our money.
His ego was seriously deflated when he figured out he had zero chance of a political career over the hill.
Hutch, file a public record request.
Enquiring minds want to know.
I don't have to Anon 707. It's common knowledge what happened to Vreeland. And I wouldn't call it "being sick"
impaired yes
Vreeland said he would not run for city council again, but he did, Anon 9/3, 5:51 PM.
As you say Hutch, "sealing the deal" with the recall effort was good.
Degarnett said he wouldn't run and he did also Kathy.
I love how Pete says on the Butler interview. "The recall has nothing to do with me leaving" Then he says "I'm leaving because the negativity is getting to be too much" Then he says "It is a very very small group that's against me"
I don't believe the recall had any effect on DeJarnatt's or Vreeland's decision to step down.
How many signatures did the petitions get?
Pete is leaving for the same reasons Julie and Jimmy V left. They knew the ship was sinking and like rats off a burning ship they all jumped off and left it up.
Sue, will get all the blame by these people for the upcoming bankruptcy.
Stay tuned for another episode of. As the Pacifica Turns!
That's your right to believe what you want Steve but Degarnett is obviously irked by criticism against him and admits on tape that's why he's not running again. So there's that.
1000's of Pacificans signed the recall petition and were made aware of our severe financial crisis and why it's important to elect pro economy candidates in November. That can't be bad right?
Simple question. How many signed?
No simplistic, trivial question 153.
Wouldn't that be a matter of public record? Or, were they too embarassed to turn it in?
"Wouldn't that be a matter of public record? Or, were they too embarassed to turn it in?"
It would be surprising if the recall proponents got more than 500 signatures.
That's being generous.
Haha, all I know is Vreeland is gone and Pete is going. The whole balance of our council is changing and it's for the better. The recall can't take all the credit, but as Mr Dejarnett said on the record "I'm tiered of all the negativity" So I believe the recall did have an effect.
Either way the recall was a very positive thing in that proponents spoke to 1000's of Pacificans many of which were unaware that we we facing a financial sheetstorm.
But if it makes you feel good to thumb your nose go right ahead.
Funny how Steve bows out and starts posting anonymously.
Same thing with the whole REIT debacle.
Afraid to speak your mind?
I never post anonymously.
Funny how someone posts anonymously to complain about people posting anonymously.
I do not support outsourcing the police department. I do think Mary Ann and Len sat on the numbers to kill the sales tax and thereby force outsourcing as the only option. Their cries for releasing the info are obnoxious and self-serving. They could have made those requests at any point during the process. I don't support any of the current council (and I did vote for Mary Ann and Len). Time for Sue to step down and for Pacifica to vote in as many new members as possible. Mary Ann has lost my support. Too bad we can't replace Len too. Who are the candidates on the list most likely to align with? I don't want to vote in someone too aligned with Sue or too aligned with Len and Mary Ann.
Want a change from these clowns? Vote O'Neill for the 2 year seat.
He thinks for himself and has done a good job with the school district's surplus property. Avoid Campbell(enviro) and Spano (Nihart orbit). For the 4 year vote it's got to be Vellone and Ervin. Ervin is Nihart's choice but with only 3 running, what else can we do? Maybe we'll luck out and end up with 3 new faces.
Yes, of course they could have revealed this vital info months earlier. And, acted on it if this city was their first priority. IMHO the election became first priority. At any cost, clearly. That means no tax on the ballot and definitely no action this year on anything as controversial as outsourcing. Once the coast is clear and they pick up another vote on council, they'll trot out outsourcing. Don't clap too hard.
Sinai, had you stayed in Law Enforcement after you got out of the military you would be getting 100k+ pension, health care for life etc etc.
But then the de facto mayor Todd Bray, would have hated you and called you a member of the "princess crew"
Sinai as a lowly patrol officer? Chief Sinai would make closer to $200K in pension and benefits and then consult in the private sector for another $200K per year. Won't be living in this dump of a town.
pacifica is the dublin of dubliners by james joyce.
@402 From Joyce about Dublin...the centre of paralysis...odour of ashpits and old weeds and offal. Of course he was hitting the vino in Italy pretty heavy when he wrote of his Dublin. Pacifica does have its amazing lack of progress, lots of weeds and its own bad odor. We need someone glorious to write about us while they are drunk in Italy.
Post a Comment