Tuesday, October 11, 2016

Rumor to disqualify a City Council candidate ends

A city council candidate must be a resident of the City of Pacifica, period. (Clarified at  City Council by City Attorney, Michelle Marchetta Kenyon, 10/10/16).

Image result for holding your breath picture
Misrepresentation stinks.
Image result for holding your breath picture
Holding breath, rather
than apologize? Sure.
The rumor circulated and promoted by Dan Stegink (and any of his like-minded NIMBY friends) that claims working for the federal government disqualifies a city council candidate in this city's non-partisan election is FALSE.

Further, the rumor may have been part of a deceptive scheme intended to harm the most qualified City Council candidate running for office, incumbent Mary Ann Nihart.

To continue working toward a better City for us all, support and vote for Mary Ann Nihart.  
Also, support and vote for Sue Vaterlaus, who will protect progress in this city.

Reference. Dan Stegink's website pacifica.city, which breeds such rumored trash. Come on Dan, you can do better than this.  Note photographs. Holding nose by Lynn Hilton from Daily Mail, 10/22/11. Kind of looks like Stegink from How it works/Science/Dave Harfield,7/16/16.

Kathy Meeh 


Anonymous said...

Rumor? Deceptive scheme? Not according to Mary Ann herself. Here are the first few lines of a recent Tribune article:

"City Council member Mary Ann Nihart expressed a feeling of being in limbo at the last City Council meeting.

As a federal employee, she would be unable to run for office in a partisan election under The Hatch Act. Pacifica has always held non-partisan elections. However, with the endorsement of Deidre Martin by the San Mateo County Democratic Party, the City Council election could be deemed a partisan election.

Nihart wrote to Jeffrey Adair, the chair of the San Mateo County Democratic Party, to ask him to reconsider the endorsement of Martin. Adair replied that the executive board will take no further action.

This leaves Nihart in an unsettled spot, not knowing if she will be able to continue her campaign for another term on City Council. She brought it up at the latest City Council meeting."

Anonymous said...

Sue Vaterlaus was taking some heat in this forum for not responding to a question that was posted on her very own website http://www.suevaterlausforcouncil.com/ The question was about dog parks and it was very reasonable and very important to the 40% of the households in Pacifica who own dogs. Add to that the fact that Sue herself owns a dog who is often brought to city parks and allowed to illegally run off-leash. The name of her dog is Sierra. Sue dodged the question for over two weeks because it was controversial.

At any rate, here is how Sue Vaterlaus deals with questions she doesn't like: she now has removed the comments section altogether from her website so that the questions no longer appear. WOW! She would rather continue to break the law with her own dog off-leash rather than come up with a viable solution for all dog guardians throughout Pacifica at the risk of losing a few votes from dog haters or those who put the environment ahead of everything (including common sense). We have had enough deception and two-faced politics on City Council dating back to Vreeland (and probably before). We don't need any more.

I know I don't want Deidre Martin for City Council. That's a given. We certainly don't need another Sue Digre. But now Sue Vaterlaus has also lost my vote. Anyone who dodges important questions is not worthy. We definitely can do better for Pacifica.

Anonymous said...

Sue Vaterlaus is a better candidate than Mary Ann. She's strong and won't take any guff from these nimbies that want to flood Sharp Park with their Amended Retreat. When we bought our house she was like a pit bull on them.

Kathy Meeh (about the disqualifying rumor) said...

748, oh gee, the rumor was also posted in the local newspaper. And what would the hatched-up NIMBY endorsement of the SM County Democrats Central Committee have to do with "deemed a partisan election"?

A simple fact check search indicates there is no partisan campaign issue, and to understand that appears not to be that complicated: US Legal/Hatch Act.
Absurd, is the promotion of such a questionable rumor without prior verification; and outrageous, is and the cozy "insider information" across County-NIMBY lines it took to do just that.

Anonymous said...

Mary Ann didn't show up at any of the debates because she was in Utah, not because she wasn't allowed to. There's another debate for Pacific Coast Television this Friday and you can bet she'll be there and shut these Nimbys up for good.

Kathy Meeh (your 2 votes count) said...

Don't waste any votes. Not voting for a candidate may be a vote for the opposition.

1017, we don't know your question-- but based on the comment, given the opportunity I might delete your comment too.
1030, both Nihart and Vaterlaus will help this City.

Anonymous said...

1017 is a lie I have met Sues dog. She is a lover and treats that dog like the queen she is. I will vote Vaterlaus first and Nihart second.

Anonymous said...

you can bet she'll be there and shut these Nimbys up for good." She may show but I'll bet she doesn't say anything to shut anybody up. Mary Ann has never taken a clear position on anything except for things that don't matter.

Anonymous said...

Sue Vaterlaus is a stand up lady that says what she thinks.
I will be voting for Sue Vaterlaus and any breathing candidate still standing next to her on election day whose name is not Deidre Martin.

Anonymous said...

Sue V is great and has really done lots for our community. I voted for her twice but lets face it Mary Ann has been out for Mary Ann for a long time now. Lets get some new blood in there. Sue and maybe one of the other gals and lets work together and get something done for a change. This city council has been paralyzed for fear of getting sued or what have not. Time for a change.

Anonymous said...

11:07 Dan you are so full of shit. Please get a job or move away. Even us NOBY's don't appreciate your psycho antics.

Anonymous said...

@11:01 - "Lie"??? Never said she didn't love her dog. Reread the original post and tell me specifically what is a lie. You can't. And while you're at it, tell me where the questions on her home page went. And since 11:01 is no doubt Sue Vaterlaus herself, I'm confident that she can explain why she removed the questions in the first place. My theory: she is playing it somewhere on the fence so she can avoid controversy and not lose any potential real estate clients and/or voters. Yes, she is pulling a Vreeland.

Anonymous said...

I'm voting Sue Vaterlaus first, Mary Ann second, Duffy third and Martin never, and I suggest you do the same.

Anonymous said...

Vaterlaus first, then Mary Ann. I like it, count me in.

Kathy Meeh (Nihart leads, some NIMBIES obstruct) said...

1107, Mary Ann Nihart frequently leads the way. Both her ongoing knowledge of this City's past, and her representation of our City at SM County government level has been an important asset for this City.
Example, view her broad contribution to the Regional/County/City Sea Level Rise Consideration, Item 8 discussed at City Council last night.
(The 10/10/16 City Council meeting will be available on YouTube within a few days for those who missed the live meeting.)

Anyone who saw last night's City Council meeting (and other City Council meetings) would understand that your comment that "she doesn't take a clear position" is FALSE.
Mary Ann is also efficient. Last night at that meeting, Mary Ann deferred to the City Attorney to clarify that her city council candidacy is valid.
Hey, the City Attorney advised for an individual to qualify, "a city council candidate must be a resident of our City"-- that's it, nothing more, over and out!

Yet prior, negating that fact and not seeking City clarification, Dan Stegink (and some of his friends) built and supported an ongoing FICTION.
Doesn't that seem duh, unethical, and even evil to you? (But it's not the first time this kind of unfair political behavior has happened from NIMBIES).

Heironymus Merkin said...

Mr. Stesnunk, you are one transparent maroon. If you want to disguise that many of these posts are yours try mixing up your writing style. Anyone that has seen your stuff on rip knows your style, sloppy, confrontational, and ineffective.

Anonymous said...

Watch the last meeting Kathy, Mary Ann said she had gotten a lawyer and she does have a problem. It was a little confusing the way she said it but she really did say it. I like Sue Vaterlaus. I don't like Deirdre Martin, though.

Kathy Meeh (the "problem" is the messenger) said...

440 again, advisement from our City Attorney: "a city council candidate must be a resident of our City." Nothing further, federal and state employees are not excluded. DONE.

The Hatch Act was a weak excuse to target and strike at highly qualified, incumbent Mary Ann Nihart's candidacy for City Council. The Hatch Act deals with partisan (Party), not non-partisan (such as City/County Officials) elections.
Apparently the alleged "problem" was imagined, cooked-up (in an attempt to influence the election).
And, if an attorney (other than the City Attorney) was also consulted by Mary Ann Nihart, that is what most prudent, intelligent people would do. Wouldn't you?

Steve Sinai said...

Dan's only been in town for two or three years. He's obviously not aware that Jim Vreeland was on City Council and a federal employee.

Anonymous said...

Mary Ann was the one who raised the issue of the Hatch Act and that the Democrats' endorsement of Deirdre created a partisan election out of a non-partisan one. Mary Ann said that she got Karen Ervin to agree to not seek the Democrats' endorsement in the election 4 years ago for this very reason. Raising the Hatch Act was not done by Mary Ann's opponents, it was made an issue by Mary Ann herself. The problem was not imagined our cooked up by anybody but Mary Ann. She contacted the Democrats to get them to rescind their endorsement of Deirdre with the excuse that the endorsement made it a partisan election and therefore she either had to not run, quit her job, or face the possibility of losing her job and her pension. She is the one who said all this. Nobody else did. These are all facts that can be confirmed.

Steve Sinai said...

6:19, Your explanation makes absolutely no sense. Why would Mary Ann raise the Hatch Act this election when she didn't do it in her previous elections?

Anonymous said...

You don't believe this? It's the fact, Jack. She did raise it in the previous election. As I said, she asked Karen Ervin not to seek the Democrats' endorsement so it wouldn't trigger a Hatch Act issue. Ask Mary Ann or Karen about this. While you're at it, ask Mary Ann if she's the one who brought it up with the San Mateo County Democrats this election. A copy of her email to the Democrats has been posted elsewhere. She won't deny that she sent it. It's the truth. Check it out.

Anonymous said...

Here is the relevant portion of Mary Ann's letter to the San Mateo Democrats:

"I have three choices as I see it:

Drop out of the race all together, effectively changing the council in Pacifica without an actual vote of the people.

Stay in and potentially suffer the disciplinary judgement of the Merit System Protection Board for public employees going through a disciplinary hearing which may result in actions up to loss of employment, retirement, etc.

Look for new employment at 62 not in public service

All of which seem extreme, but this is where we are.

As a first step, I beg you as an executive board to consider the ramifications of this endorsement and vote to remain neutral in the Pacifica election. Thank you in advance for your reconsideration and I await your response.

Respectfully submitted,

Mary Ann Nihart Pacifica City Councilmember and 2016 Candidate for Re-election"

Steve Sinai said...

10:14, I did talk to Mary Ann about it. My understanding is that if the San Mateo County Democratic Central Committee endorses anyone in the Pacifica City Council election, that election goes from being non-partisan to partisan, and the Hatch Act kicks in. The SMCDCC has been endorsing people for the council race every election year, including the ones where EPA employee Jim Vreeland was running, but nobody ever made an issue out of it.

This year someone did make an issue of it, and it's turning into a hassle for Mary Ann. I've heard several people speculate that Sabrina Brennan had a hand in this. I have no doubt local NIMBYs are involved, too.

Not all federal employees are banned from running for political office under the Hatch Act. Someone in Mary Ann's position just needs to get a ruling from a superior at the VA that the Council position doesn't constitute a conflict of interest. I wish it wasn't taking so long, but that's the government for you.

The letter Mary Ann sent to the SMCDCC read like it was a response to something from them rather than her bringing up the issue on her own.

Anonymous said...

Steve, Mr. anonymous doesn't want to listen to reasonable comments. It seems some have taken half of some info and filled in all the blanks to create a vision that fits with their agenda. Brennan is on the Harbor Board I believe and also a member of the central committee. She is also a rabid eco-activist. All the motive in the world to make it a hassle for the strongest council person we've had for years to get the puppet Deirdre elected. Ugly politics.

Anonymous said...

The person who raised the issue is Mary Ann Nihart. Ask her if she was responding to the Hatch Act issue because it was raised by somebody else.

Kathy Meeh (facts are good) said...

Ah, thanks for your follow-up Steve, 5:40. All that you have said makes "perfect sense", with confirmation from Mary Ann Nihart, the candidate.

Unfortunately, the continuing twisted "story" (currently 12 articles from 9/30/16) posted by Dan Stegink on his website), exists out of context, and has never passed the "smell test".

721, good points-- lies and chaos from our local and regional NIMBIES.

Anonymous said...

Mary Ann raised the Hatch Act issue as a reason to ask the San Mateo County Democrats to rescind their endorsement of Deirdre Martin. On her behalf, Jerry Hill contacted the Democrats' chair to ask that they rescind their endorsement of Deirdre Martin. The Democrats declined to do this. Fact.

Roy Rodgers said...

Acid! Someone's on acid and having a bad acid trip. That would be ADD man 9:38. Quick, seek medical aid you have a medical (or more likely, mental) infirmity.
I think some on a different blog told you to stop beating a dead horse, well, that horse is quite dead so get off your tangent.

Anonymous said...

Roy, your willful ignorance of the facts is clouding your perception of reality.

Roy's Friend, Trigger said...

A cloudy perception or reality is a self defense mechanism in this town. As long as you can hold on to just a little bit of reality there is a chance you can survive the insane drivel of Stesnook and his sycophants.