Wednesday, November 2, 2016

Incumbent City Council candidate Nihart withdrawal, some confirmed answers

Kathy O'Connell, City Clerk was kind enough to send by email the following completed information from the City of Pacifica, this evening, 11/2/16.

"Answers to questions about Councilmember Nihart's withdrawal from the Election, 11/1/16."
"The City of Pacifica has received a number of questions related to the recent news that Council member Mary Ann Nihart has withdrawn from her candidacy for re-election. While we can't and won't respond to questions that require drawing conclusions about the political process, we offer the following information to help clarify the situation:

Image result for City Council Candidate Mary Ann Nihart, Pacifica, CA picture
We won, so did Mike.
And this City government improved.
1.  Can Councilmember Nihart finish her current term of service? 
     a.  Yes, she can. The Hatch Act applies to campaigning.
2.  How will the vote be interpreted when the ballots are counted?
     a.  Councilmember Nihart's name will still appear on the ballot. If Councilmember Nihart is elected, her letter to the City Clerk effectively operates as a letter of intent to relinquish her office as of the end of her current term of office. Voting and counting of ballots will not be affected, and the election will proceed as normal
3.  How will people be notified that she is not running for the position?
     a.  It is up to the candidate to announce that she is not running for the position.  Nihart issued a press release and an open letter to the community that both appeared in the Pacifica Tribune on November 2, 2016.
4.  What happens if she receives enough votes to be one of the top two vote-getters?
     a.  Councilmember Nihart's letter to the City Clerk effectively operates as a letter of intent to relinquish her office as of the end of her current term of office. She has also indicated in the press release that she has decided to continue her professional position with the VA.  Therefore, the seat will become vacant.
5.  How will the vacant seat be filled?  
    a.  The City Council has two options: the new Council may appoint anyone it deems appropriate to fill the vacancy seat or it may hold a special election on the next regularly established election date not less than 114 days from the call of the special election.
6.  When will we know what is going to happen?
     a.  The new Council will be seated at a special meeting on December 14.  It will be the first opportunity for the Council to discuss future steps so we will know more then.

We realize that you may have additional questions, but for now, this is the information that is available."
Reference. Press Release, 10/28/16, pdf pages 3, "Pacifica City Council candidate for re-election Mary Ann Nihart announces withdrawal from 2016 Election."  Facebook, Mary Ann Nihart," "Pacifica City Council."  Related article. Pacifica Tribune/Mary Ann Nihart Open Lettter, 11/2/16, "Why I must withdraw from council race." .... "The initial review of the endorsement, web sites of the candidates, and the SMCDCC website by the Office of Special Council found the circumstances were not sufficient to consider the race partisan. However, early in October, an anonymous complaint was filed against my candidacy and further evaluation of the Pacifica City Council race resulted in my receipt of a 'cure' letter. ..."

Note photograph from Pacifica Patch/Gideon Rubin (Open Post, 11/7/12, City Council Election 2012... Karen Ervin standing left, Mary Ann Nihart smiling right. "With 100 percent of the precincts reporting, incumbent Mary Ann Nihart and former Pacifica School District Trustee Karen Ervin took the most votes in the race for the two four-year term council seats. Pacifica School Board member Michael O'Neill won the most votes in the race to fill the spot left by Jim Vreeland, who resigned earlier this year for health reasons. O’Neill will serve a two-year term. ..."

Posted by Kathy Meeh


The Local Libertarian said...

What to do next:

1) Vote for Nihart and see to it she wins.
2) Nihart will relinquish her seat
3) Get the city council to re-appoint Nihart being that she won the popular vote
4) OR call for re-election, delay the process till a viable replacement candidate is identified
5) Go to Polls

.. the immediate objective right now should be to ensure Nihart wins.

Get out and vote!

Anonymous said...

deirdre martin has become the true political manipulator. She waves her partisan endorsement from dems over the hill at every opportunity-- not one lives in Pacifica.. Now Martin has embraced the Ca State dem party endorsement in a flyer she is having passed out this weekend. Pacifica voters and our community will now be in third place behind Martin's partisan endorsers.....

Our only solution is to vote for maryann and sue. If maryann resigns her victory to save her job under the grossly unfair Hatch Act enforcement (the previously mentioned partisan nature of the race Martin seems to enjoy) we can press City Council to appoint Maryann to the now vacant seat she just won. We can send partisan involvement in our council race and martin off at the same time.

Anonymous said...

If they go to a special election because Keener or Digre refuse to do the right thing and appoint Nihart, sge can run in that election because it will start out as non-partisan. Our friends over the hill just need to make sure it stays non-partisan.

Anonymous said...

dem party bosses like Deirdre. Half her mail is from partisan dem sources. I recall 2 mailers more than a month ago, then the dem county paid for one. Now this weekend Deirdre is very excited to announce on her facebook page yet another partisan flyer, from the state dem party no less. What did she promise these party bosses to get so much attention in return?

Anonymous said...

Deirdre is a phony and her NOBY supporters are salivating.
They can't wait to stop everything in Pacifica that doesn't directly benefit them and Deidre is ready to dutifully carry out their orders.
Say goodbye to the Library, quarry development, Beach Blvd development, Palmetto Business District improvement, the best qovernment staff Pacifica ever had, traffic improvement, street improvement, hometown cops and fire and infrastructure repair and improvement.
Say hello to more land giveaways to GGNRA, managed retreat and bankruptcy.

Anonymous said...

Any attempt to get around Hatch Act by appointment is definitely partisan and a violation. All eligible candidates would thus have no benefit of electoral process and investigation would be in order.Pacifica's election would be a sham!

Anonymous said...

859 post-- you have it all wrong, or you prefer to not understand and to spin the situation off the chart. The city election officer said in the Tribune and in the appointment FAQ that normal appointment process would apply to the open seat. Anyone can apply. Even you. Even Nihart. The open seat appointment is a blank slate. If hatch act applied, the election officer certainly would have said so.

Anonymous said...

859, delusional much! There is not one shred of truth to what you posted, not one. It's so wrong that I can't believe a living, breathing human wrote it. What are you smoking! Question to you, are you on Deirdre's payroll?

Anonymous said...

City election officer can be wrong and challenged.It was a mistake for Mary Ann to be on ballot because of Hatch Act mis-interpretation.A higher authority changed the election .This Hatch Act problem was brought up at council meeting and discounted. Now the whole election process is messed up with political wishful thinking!

Anonymous said...

Cynthia Kaufman is Deirdre's campaign manager. She is no stranger to the saying "the means justify the ends".
Take a gander at this:

Cynthia Kaufman is the Director of the Institute of Community and Civic Engagement at De Anza College where she also teaches Philosophy. She is the author of two books on social change “Getting Past Capitalism: History, Vision, Hope (Lexington Books 2012) and Ideas for Action: Relevant Theory for Radical Change (South End Press 2003).

She is a lifelong social change activist, having worked on issues such as tenants’ rights, police abuse, union organizing, international politics, and most recently climate change.

Expect a socialist direction for Pacifica, even more so than it already is, if she were to win, which she isn't.

Anonymous said...

Dan Stegink from Linda Mar North · 1h ago

Council Candidate Mary Ann Nihart has withdrawn from the Pacifica City Council Race. There will be four names on the ballot, but only three viable candidates, Bridget Duffy, Deidre Martin, and Sue Vaterlaus.
"There are 2 seats that need to be filled and 4 candidates. All candidates are viable candidates. " - Bridget Duffy

Wrong! Once again Mr. Stegink misses the truth by a mile. Mary Ann remains a viable, able, and honest candidate. Unlike one person on his list.

Anonymous said...

Stegink always complains,is negative and finds fault. He talks, endlessly. He also is a huge supporter of Deirdre martin per the signs at his house. So, beware.

Anonymous said...

Mary Ann is not a "viable" candidate. She cannot be elected in this election. The City Clerk says her letter to the city "operates as a letter of intent to relinquish her office as of the end of her current term." In other words, if Mary Ann is 1 of the top 2 vote getters, she will not be elected. Can you grasp that?

Sharon said...

RE: 11:06 "Expect a socialist direction for Pacifica, even more so than it already is, if she were to win, which she isn't."

Pacifica's NIMBY'S don't know the meaning of that as socialism includes sharing and they are definitely not interested in sharing the geography around here with any one who might come in and actually build some housing.

Truth be Told said...

So there was no concerted effort to taint this election by Martin's people!
Another reason to vote Nihart and let the people of Pacifica speak.

This was sent to my by a well respected local person who is in a position to know that this is true.

"Martin supporters complained incessantly to the Office of Special Counsel to get Mary Ann eliminated from the competition. Very sad and not fair play. I think this situation definitely has cast a shadow on Martin's campaign."

Anonymous said...

Can someone flesh out how voting for Mary Ann doesn't hurt Sue, I worry we're trading a guaranteed Sue for a slight chance of Mary Ann. Has anyone reached out to the nimby side and asked if they would appoint Mary Ann

Anonymous said...

225 Voting Maryann works even if she has to bow out because she's on the forms and because we know she will beat Sue V. Sue V then joins Mike on council and we will have to work Sue D or Keenr to come to our side and declare Maryann the winner at the first meeting after election day.

Anonymous said...

I'll briefly explain the election laws. otherwise call city clerk monday. Nihart is on the ballot. Your vote for her counts. Most armchair experts yakking about this are spreading Deride martin disinformation.
Top 2 vote getters win. So vote Nihart and Vaterlaus. Nothing in Calif election law mentions hatch act, so this dispute does not stop nihart from being on the ballot nor winning.
Hatch act does stop Nihart from accepting the office since the Democrats saw fit to taint the race per federal law and force her to decline an office she otherwise would win going away. In fact Deirdre continues to make sure everyone knows the partisan buy in as she passes out state dem party flyers this weekend.

At council meeting to swear in winners, nihart declines and a vacancy is declared. Council then asks all registered voters over age of 18 not in jail to apply. Nihart applies; Deirdre can apply, everyone. The council appoints. I submit nihart gets the appointment as both the best qualified and also as the one who actually won the office in the Nov 8 election. Appointment process is non-partisan. Nihart can apply without demerit.
So, your vote for Nihart/vaterlaus is not "slight", it's critical... Nihart wins Nov 8, she gets appointed to the vacancy.

Anonymous said...

225, your logic escapes me. Sue and Mary Ann are in a position to win. Why would anyone think that a vote for Mary Ann would hurt Sue. Doesn't make sense to me.

Anonymous said...

Beautiful summary, 3:10. Glad someone around here gets it.

Anonymous said...

Nihart seeking or accepting an appointment to City Council to an open seat vacated by her due to a finding by the OSC for a potential Hatch Act violation would be ill advised. She should seek legal counsel regarding both the Hatch Act and the Pendleton Act. She could put herself in criminal jeopardy.

Anonymous said...

"There may yet be hope for Nihart. Her name will still appear on Tuesday’s ballot for the two spots on the council. If she wins, she would have to give up her seat — leaving it to the council’s four remaining members to pick a replacement.

Because the Hatch Act applies only to campaigning, Nihart could be eligible to be appointed to the vacant seat."

Taken from Matier & Ross article, 11/2/16, SF Chronicle.

Anonymous said...

Mary Ann by holy acclimation! We'll be watching for that white smoke from City Hall.

Anonymous said...

NOBY's and Deirdre are One. They don't care how they get the majority on council as long they get it.
Don't fall for this miscarriage of justice ad democracy.
These guys are the worst slime to hit Pacifica since Vreeland.

Anonymous said...

I don't get it either. I'd like to hear Sue Vaterlaus say this is good for her. I see another possibility where a pretty young professional woman like Karen comes in first just like Karen did, runner up Mary Ann isn't allowed to play and Sue Vaterlaus gets left out in the cold for being a team player when she could've had an easy base hit.

Anonymous said...

Mary Ann can end this appointment legality question and political strife by leaving vacancy open.

Anonymous said...

commenter 5:17--- you are a fool and will be ignored.

Anonymous said...

7:04 - At her own peril. The jails are full of remorseful dolts who ignored legal advice. I really don't care one way or amother. Ciao.

Anonymous said...

7:04, are you a lawyer of do you just play one on Fix?

Anonymous said...

It's deridre martin disinformation. Notice they always see dark motives everywhere, negativity and then appeal to higher authority that is unconfirmed...but, surprise, always supports their position. Or they warmly suggest actions that damage Nihart's position in the name of being cooperative-- leave vacancy open, when diredre is the one who will a) lose and b) could have declined the partisan meddling so we could get on with a straight up council election..

So vote nihart. She cannot campaign, will win, resign and get appointed. The vote of the people ultimately will be supported...

Anonymous said...

I wonder if the manuveuring suggested here to implement "the vote of the people" is a bullet-proof strategy for Ms. Nihart? Easy for bystanders to encourage such a strategy, but it's Nihart's neck in the noose. Hope she has good legal advice and takes it. Pacifica is the land that time forgot and not worth the risk.

Anonymous said...

Last night I voted for Sue Vaterlaus and Sue Vaterlaus only. I respect Mary Ann but she's got more problems than she can carry right now and a bird in the hand is worth two in the bush.

Idol Speculator said...

With all this negativity, frequent bad hair days, brain damage and an anemically weak non-vigorous campaign, Mary Ann will certainly finish third. I remember she was Vreeland's campaign manager, and all the Vreeland crowd have migrated away from her to Martin. All the time spent on Regional and ABAG issues have alienated people, who do not easily see results of this great work, let alone appreciate it, and the Pacifcans on the ground have not failed to notice.

Who will the Digre-Martin-Keener council appoint to the vacant seat? I am only speculating, but I would guess that this is already being discussed within the Nimby Network. Two or more characters with familiar names and environmental credibility may already be "putting it out there" to Martin and Keener that they are interested. In the event that it is a Digre-Keener-Vaterlas-O'Neill council, which cannot agree on anyone like the 2010 council agreed on Ginny Jaquith.....these two are likely candidates in a special election: The ever present Julie Lancelle and Deirdre Martin campaign manager Cynthia Kaufmann.

Kathy Meeh, duh! said...

301, not voting for Mary Ann is a vote for the NIMBY candidates. Think about it.

Anonymous said...

@301 Nihart has spread herself too thin for a long time. Doubt the council seat is her first, second or even third priority. Nice to be so publicly lamented, I suppose.

Anonymous said...

this debate has turned to gibberish. Look forward to election results that cannot be explained away by self-serving speculation out of thin air. Idol Speculator said at 301--various things. If Deirdre on council, no appointments because no vacancy. If Nihart wins and then declines the seat, an appointment takes place. The operative statement is Nihart gets elected but because of the fed bureaucratic law Deridre took so much advantage of cannot take the seat. Why in the world would city council not appoint the winner? The winner (empathise) is and was Nihart. Not deridre or anyone else in our special Pacifica fantasy world..

Under what parallel universe would keener or digre summon the gall to say Nihart won, had to decline but she is not worthy of appointment to the seat she just won? And who in town has better creds than Nihart to the seat?

Anonymous said...

20 years ago I teach boxing for children and they always say never leave a fight up to the judges. We leave this up to the judges if we vote for both. When Mary Ann fix her problem she try again, okay, but Sue is ready to go right now so thats who I vote for.

Kathy Meeh (punch back) said...

611, okay you got hit in the head one too many times.
Advantage incumbent City Councilmember Mary Ann Nihart and our City if she is 1 of 2 who wins the City Council election. After all she is on the ballot, and many of us already voted for her.

Then, let the City Council ("judges") decide to appoint her, or appoint someone else (good luck with that); or hold a special election.

94044 said...

Here's my prediction on the outcome, ranked by number of votes. If I'm right, you all owe me a beer:

1_ Nihart
2_ Martin
3_ Vaterlaus
4_ Duffy