Monday, September 26, 2016

A little more on the Hatch Act from the US Office of Special Counsel

The more I learn about this, the more I think this isn't a problem for Mary Ann.

Following is a 2009 opinion on the Hatch Act.

Posted by Steve Sinai


Anonymous said...

The more I learn about this, the more I think this isn't a problem for Mary Ann.

The very reason she lawyered up and Isn't talking about it. People don't hire attorneys for issues that are not a problem.

Anonymous said...

Who's says she's lawyered up, Stegsunk?
Oh, that's right, you just say shit to stir the pot.

Tom Clifford said...

Mary Ann stated at last nights City Council meeting that she had engaged an attorney.

Anonymous said...

Thank you, Tom Clifford. Facts.

Kathy Meeh (memo to "Facts") said...

919, 410, some people hire an attorney to protect themselves from others. How would the Hatch Act affect our nonpartisan election? That has yet to be explained.

940, concerned about "facts"? How is it that Dan Stegnick was possibly given privileged County Democrat Central Committee information?
And why did these same County Democrats endorse only one (1) inexperienced NIMBY candidate for our City Council: Deirdre Martin.

Whereas, there are two (2) openings for our City Council. And two (2) candidates have prior City Office experience, are much more qualified, and have balanced and progressive views.
Incumbent Mary Ann Nihart has been a highly effective City Councilmember, and has improved our City relationship within the County.
Sue Vaterlaus has served in this City on the Planning Commission, and various City and School Committees.

Help us understand 1) the information delivery stream attempting to disqualify, and omit these two (2) qualified candidates in favor of one (1) only experienced, "nothing for Pacifica" candidate.

Anonymous said...

I don't think, after reading the posted letter here, that anything's certain, and people don't hire lawyers because they have no problems.

Anonymous said...

Facts. Not the innuendo, opinion, and conspiracy theory nonsense that you are spewing.

Kathy Meeh (it's a conspiracy) said...

908, It's easy enough to understand what surely must be default "facts" and "conspiracy" from the action taken by the County Democrats Central Committee.

Beyond the pretty family picture, Deirdre Martin is 1) against Quarry mixed-use development (3rd ballot initiative to include housing); 2) against Highway 1 widening (a several decade studied issue); 3) for managed retreat (which means she's probably also against the Beach Blvd development and the new library); 4) for rent control (that and against the Quarry development probably means she also against affordable housing).
As for 5) "Trust in Government", we have it now with a City Council majority that favors progress. We didn't have it with decades of NIMBY rule prior. And if this inexperienced, NIMBY candidate is elected, we won't have it again.

Whereas, Mary Ann Nihart and Sue Vaterlaus will keep the safer, more practical "for the people" majority balance on City Council, while they work for much needed City solutions.
So, why did the Democrats Central Committee reject candidates who would continue to improve this City-- while going way out of their way to support one single candidate who represents "nothing for Pacifica"? Yep, sounds like a NIMBY conspiracy to me.

Anonymous said...

"Yep, sounds like a NIMBY conspiracy to me."
You have just proven my point.

Anonymous said...

Liberals make up the rules as they go!

When it doesn't work out to their self centered favor they whine and cry how the system is unfair and failed them.

Anonymous said...

1:45 Pacifica faux-enviro NOBY's aren't liberals. They are Fascists.

Anonymous said...

11:5 - they aren't fascists, they're commies.