Wednesday, February 27, 2013

Pacifica Index, City Council meeting review, 2/25/13

and other recent civic meetings.

                 Pacifica Index                  

City council meeting of February 25, 2013


With permission from Chris Fogel, Editor & Publisher
Posted by Kathy Meeh


Anonymous said...

Thanks again Chris!

todd bray said...

Hmm, Chris if you start taking donations let me know.

Anonymous said...

Council or the sucommittee of O'Neill and Digre should look hard into the rents and deals at the Sanchez Art Center and the Pacifica Co-op Nursery. The Art Center has long been the object of public suspicion about rents and utilities and terms. Everything could be fine but it's time to shine a light on it. The Co-op nursery has a rumored sweetheart deal with the city for $1 annual rent. Their 20 year lease ends soon and they can afford much much more. Hey, since it's unlikely any of current council sends their kids there, maybe we can get a little more rent now? Ya think?

Anonymous said...

These deals are public record. If ya wanna know what the deal is, go get the record.

Nah, that's too obvious. Instead let's imagine a conspiracy and create suspicion and rumors. That's the way we do it in Pacifica. It's more fun.

Anonymous said...

Maybe people wouldn't "imagine" stuff if the council, city attorney, city manager etc didn't hide information and keep everything secret like the PD outsourcing and why they took it off the table without any input by the public.

Anonymous said...

Hahaha, anon254, wouldn't you just love that. Whip out the word conspiracy and we're all supposed to go oops, excuse me, and withdraw. I don't see it that way.

Government in Pacifica has long suffered from a well known lack of transparency and the corresponding lack of public trust. It happens. And, no, the solution to that problem is not individual, piecemeal, research by residents with common, oft-repeated concerns. Council certainly knows the concerns and they know the solution to the problem, indeed, they've included the solution in their latest goals, ie, transparency, better communication and earning the public trust. None of that is going to come about by saying "you people can look it up yourself".

Concerning the leases, the public has the right and perhaps even the duty to make sure that public property is handled fairly and wisely. That really shouldn't be hard for council to demonstrate. Probably won't even require a consultant. When every dime counts this council would be uh wise to count every dime. Every lease, every donation-in-kind, whatever, should be reviewed. If that's not part of O'Neill and Digre's task, it should be. Mike O'Neill has the right skillset for this one. The oversights, sweetheart deals, bad deals, and other inequities from the past--and, yes, there really are some--just need to be corrected. A little before and after report wouldn't hurt. Then they can brag.

Anonymous said...

Anyone who thinks previous councils didn't give special treatment to their friends through advantageous leases, etc. is a fool or thinks the public is. We cannot afford these give-aways of public resources. This council either grows a pair and really corrects the problems or they're just as guilty.

Anonymous said...

Very good point, 2:54. Most of the anonymous wingnuts on this blog would rather level ridiculous conspiracy theories with zero proof than spend a little bit of effort to answer their own questions.

Anonymous said...

Take it a step further. Only a

fool, a participant or a

beneficiary would deny sweetheart

deals were given out by earlier

councils. Many of those deals

still going on. Why is that?

Anonymous said...


i find the use of anonymous indicates a shocking lack of transparency, but i can't stop myself

some anonymi wingnuts are calling other anonymi "wingnuts" in a discussion involving transparency. that's priceless.

idk, just because we had cronyism before and ineptitude now, is it a conspiracy? nah, it's just pacifica!

Anonymous said...

644 You can put down your shovel when you hit bottom.

Anonymous said...

What is the problem?!! In the middle of our unrelenting fiscal disaster it's an honor to subsidize with my tax dollars some self-proclaimed artistes and a nursery school all the power class brats have gone to. I applaud the priorities of this and earlier councils. Brave move. Visionary leadership.

Anonymous said...

yeah. let's have vague accusations, unsupported innuendo, and lazy-ass internet crapitude instead of actual facts. anybody that objects must be on the take too.

Anonymous said...

Well 825, I don't like anything that harshens my mellow. Let's paint the room yellow, think pretty thoughts, believe all we're told. That should work.

Anonymous said...

hmm Anon 825 yeah our council held secret meetings and votes on outsourcing. They suppressed a public document under false pretences.

How's that for "vague accusations"

Anonymous said...

You all have amnesia. Every City, County, State, Fed Government operates the same way. What is wrong with you people??? It's like you can't remember what happened an hour ago and then are stunned when the same shit keeps happening over and over and over. Get a fricken life. You can never change our government. It is too Big and Powerful and worse, HUNGRY. Gobble Gobble Glup! Who's next?

Anonymous said...

Tell that to the city council, mayor and police chief of Bell CA Anon 752. Oh you'll have to get a pass to see them in prison.

Anonymous said...

Haha good old Bell, CA. Population about 37,000. Where the city officials, elected and appointed, were able to give themselves enormous salaries. I think the city manager was earning well over a million and others $750,000. The Chief of Police made nearly half a million. Much more than their counterparts in enormous LA. They were able to do this after they held a special election in 2005 to become a charter city--so they could make their own rules instead of following the CA Muni Code. Less than 500 votes were cast in that special election and most were by absentee ballot. Hmmm.

They got caught in 2010 when LA Times reporters were investigating official corruption in a neighboring city and someone mentioned the generous salaries in Bell. The power of the press.

The Bell City Council was making over $100,000 for their very part-time jobs. Investigators noted that was just a bit in excess of the average of $4,800 earned by city councils in towns of similar size. $4,800. That would be the CA Muni Code standard for a city of just under 40,000, ie, $400 per month. Many, perhaps most, get no benefits. That's the take in most cities of that size.

So, those bumbs were all charged with misappropriation of public funds. Jail time and court-ordered restitution followed. Their CalPers pension contributions were also reduced to erase the effect of those bloated salaries.

Now, our city officials certainly don't make anything near those numbers but their salaries are still pretty hefty when compared to our meager resources and, sometimes, even when compared to the neighbors. And our leaders? What kind of examples are they? Over the years Council has managed to give themselves a base of $8400 per year and the chance to make nearly $20,000 per year through that infernal cafeteria cash option. They also granted themselves medical and pension benefits. They got all these goodies just a few years ago. Probably about the time Ritzma rolled in, originally as head of Human Resources. It's all perfectly legal although ethically ripe. What an example to set...grab as much as you can as long as you can off the carcass of Pacifica. How can they possibly even ask city employees to accept real cuts to wages and benefits? How?

Anonymous said...

Council is not part of any bargaining unit therefore their wages and benefits can be reduced at any time. Can we put that on the Nov ballot too. It would be interesting to see who runs for re-election with a $400 a month salary and no benefits. Maybe people who really care?

Anonymous said...

Maybe a couple of those now serving
have the right stuff? How about they act as individuals and lead the way? Take only the standard $400 per month. No benies unless they really have no other health insurance options and absolutely none of that cafeteria cash. No pension for a part-time elected position. The whole issue of pensions for city councilmembers, usually self-granted, is already on the state's radar. Pacifica has a chance to be a reform leader! Len Stone is already performing his public service without pay. He'd be thrilled to get the $400 per month.

Our elected council should lead by example before they ask others to sacrifice. Once they're leading by example, the gloves can come off. Pacifica is dying and labor costs is one of the reasons. Get in the fight you 5.