While I was glad to see the back of the last mayor and council, I am beginning to worry about the effects of the old guard members on the new council. Why is it that decisions that seem obvious to the rest of us require months of delays and hundreds of thousands of dollars spent on consultants? And while, like the rest of the country, our infrastructure is crumbling, why does the Redevelopment Agency want to spend nearly a million bucks to bring a circus downtown? To top it all off, why has the council voted unanimously to unreasonably abridge the public’s freedom to speak in public meetings and limit the citizens’ ability to “petition the government for a redress of grievances” as per the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution?
Mayor Reed was swept into office promising to bring “sunshine” reforms to the council and city government. While headway has been made in the council’s approval this week of some of the recommendations made by the Sunshine Reform Task Force, namely making records and meetings more accessible and more frequent publication of calendars, the circumstances of when closed meetings may be taped and made public is in dispute. While the mayor and Councilmen Liccardo and Constant are correctly urging the council to support the taping of closed meetings, the majority—i.e., the rest of the members—are deliberately dragging their feet. The secret closed meetings of the Gonzales years are exactly how we got into trouble before. The voting citizens sent a strong message to the council that we want an end to secrecy, and, certainly, this is one of the biggest targets of Reed’s reform movement. Yet, Williams, Campos, and the other usual suspects don’t want to commit to approving the taping of closed sessions. Here is a tip for the foot draggers: The public wants ALL meetings of the council to be a matter of open public record, whether held behind closed doors or not. Tape everything and make it easily available.
Remember when last year’s hot weather brought the city’s lack of usable swimming pools to the fore and the council decided to spend a small fortune on consultants for a plan? Well, after another pool-less summer, the plan came in and is basically what everyone who blogs on this site said should be done a year ago. Three pools are to be repaired and reopened and some new ones built. The cost of $2.6 million was approved by the council last week, but the mayor has said that given the city’s financial state, the projects will have to get in line like everything else. While that makes sense under the circumstances, it’s too bad we don’t have the fee paid to the consultants back.
Here’s a thought: Instead of spending $700,000 or more to bring Cirque du Soleil a few blocks closer to downtown, how about we put that money toward fixing the three pools in time for next summer. Next, stop wasting money on extravagances like the Grand Prix that don’t benefit the average San Jose citizen and put that money in the pool kitty. Then, find some competent entity to stop the bleeding and professionally run the Mexican Heritage Plaza and toss the extra hundreds of thousands we are wasting there every year (not to mention the consultants’ fees) into the hat. That ought to put us over the top on the pool fund, but if we need any more, you can rest assured that there is bound to be another consultant who can tell us how to get it.
Note
Speaking of the Mexican Heritage Plaza, there is a meeting tonight at City Hall from 6 p.m. to 8 p.m. chaired by the mayor and Councilmember Campos to find out what the public thinks about the future of the MHP and how it might financially support itself.
Off topic, but in light of today’s article in the Mercury, I would like to hear Tom Mc Enery’s thoughts, and others, on History San Jose’s need for more city funding. As Mayor, you clearly understood the relationship between tourism/city pride and preserving our history. We now have a budget deficit and a Mayor who has the worst voting record (when it comes to supporting our heritage) while on council. It looks like it is a case of the chicken or the egg. We have no tax base, partially due to lack of tourism, so we have no money to invest in our heritage. How can we stop this downward spiral?
Greg #1
Thanks for your post.
Here is a link to a page on the city council site showing each member and when their terms end:
http://www.sanjoseca.gov/council.html
You can also contact them and access their calendars from there.
I believe Williams, Chirco, Pyle, Campos and Cortese will be termed out in 2008 and 2010 as you will see.
I think we are at the point of considering a ballot vote to remove these pleasure items- circus, Grand Prix, etc. from the Council’s hands until – without borrowing- the City can meet minimum levels of street repairs, sidewalk repairs, etc.
And Redev- is it really making San Jose better for the average resident? Or should it be folded down to get the budget all in one place.
In our personal lives we cut the fat- movies, trips etc. before cutting basics. The City does the opposite. Nero isn’t just fiddling as the pavement crumbles and the parks turn to weeds he ordered a player piano to make the party more fun.
The city is so clueless. Clear the land for Wolff’s stadium and let him do the work of bringing in Cirque du Soleil. I’m sure he’d take that load for a chance at a downtown venue. Then it’s an even greater “extraordinary benefit” to the city.
Jack great topic
Council wasting our taxes:
Move Circus to downtown $700,000
Grand Prix $4,200,000
Golf Course Net $2,000,000
Swimming pool consultant -$500,000
Consultants Report- More taxes with service cuts – $250,000
while Council votes more tax millions to businesses and cuts services
Mr. Van Zandt,
If you and others want to come out against subsidies that will help our downtown, that is perfectly fine. That said, I look forward to your article on how downtown San Jose could increase foot traffic/critical mass without spending a dime of taxpayer money (pss…sometimes you have to spend money to make money).
As for “crumbling infrastructure,” GIVE ME A BREAK! As someone who spends a lot of time in Seven Trees/Evergreen, I can tell you that streets are being repaved, libraries are being built, and sidewalks are perfectly fine. Are there some potholes and cracks that could use filling? Some tree roots uplifting sidewalks? You bet, but it isn’t as bad as many of you put it! But the “crumbling infrastructure” argument is good for those completely against San Jose spending money on anything fun, exciting, and that generates money for the city.
jack 1st of all the council memebrs calendars are not up to date or even close to being current. Second Mayor Reed needs to get ready for a union fight about the city employee retirement issue. What a warped mind. Remember Mayor Reed your the Mayor, not an Attorney representing the City of San Jose while in public office. Sort of a conflict of interest by trying to do both… that’s what the city attorney is there for. The city needs to get rid of leaches like Team San Jose and any other group that uses citizen tax payer money to survive. I think that our fine city has gone to the dogs and now they are crapping all over the place. Council gives money out like a crack dealer handing samples out to get junkies to buy from only him. I think that San Jose is heading for bankruptcy in the very near future.
Well just thought i’d put my 2 cent’s in wait a second a money grubbing non-profit just stole it! Now I have nothing at all~!
Jack:
Great Piece! #4 suggests that the RDA should be folded into the overall budget. Redevelopment Agencies were set up “to eliminate blight.” They don’t even pretend to do that anymore…they’ve become their own franchises, and it’s time for the people to take back the reins. Why aren’t there any citizens on the RDA Board? Why don’t the people get to elect the members of the RDA Board? I propose that a citizen-based RDA oversight committee be formed in an effort to provide the people with a voice as to how they want RDA money spent. This committee could serve much like the planning commission, with the RDA Board/council still having the final say. Put some smart people on this oversight committee, and business as usual would come to a quick halt. (Remember, RDA money can be used to pave the streets if they’re in an RDA zone, and almost a quarter of the city is designated as such).
Pete Campbell
Jack—Old New City Council indeed! Right on! Even Chuck and Sam and PO and Constant
(Cortese has disappeared) are way deep into
hugging snakes like Gonzo, Cindy and the others on the present council: First thing Chuck did when he was mayor was go at dawn to cheer on the bureaucrats. Bet they were at coffee, not at the Rose Garden pruning. Obviously there are some good ‘crats, but a BUNCH need to know that accountability is NOW. Chuck and Sam are not yet famous for making the staff accountable. As it is, they’ve got him right where they want him. In their present form they are heavy duty bigtame waste, waste, waste. The other slitherer is the neighborhood associations, which ALL the Council, including the new good guys are slaves to. PO is so proud of appointing a Kaiser wound care nurse to the Coyote Plan group!! No one sees the need to include someone who can actually plan a dinner. All the Council seems to think that the neighborhood nimbys walk on water—or at least have the power to keep them in office, of ultimate importance. And #2, Old San Jose, bitching about no money for “heritage”, whatever that might be, despite spending millions right now on moving that old house onto the corner of 3rd and William—on Sam’s watch—a boondoggle that Cindy cooked up. No one thought to mention the millions the city has spent on defending itself from a stream of lawsuits by the PAC folks—who would like taxpayers to fork over more—for h-e-r-i-t-a-g-e! The infrastructure is crumbling, the new downtown is like Sisyphus’s rock, lots of money spent, no real result, comes to the same place as the broken pools and streets. George Green
Jack,
I agree 100% with what you’ve said. I do wish to say one thing though, I was present at the Council Meeting during the IPA’s report. The way the crowd was acting really frightened me. I was getting fearful for my safety. Watching a Council Meeting on TV, and actually being there are two different things. Watching it on TV, you miss the mood in the room, and you don’t see or hear what’s going on behind the speaker being televised. It was pretty bad.
Also, I have seen too many people get up and say some really cruel, rude, and uncalled for things to the Mayor and Council. I’m not always happy with the things the Mayor or Council says or does, but I think there’s a proper and respectful way to convey those feelings without being disrespectful. Yelling at, berating, and calling the Mayor or Council names, is not okay with me. I’ve seen that happen in Council Chambers too many times over the past two years. It’s counter productive, and hurtful.
Kathleen #11
Thanks for your post. You bring up some interesting and important points that need discussing.
I have been to a few council meetings myself and have not experienced the rowdy behavior seen at some of them as you have seen. People should always be respectful listeners and speakers. Anyone who creates a clear disturbance to the proceedings or incites others to do so should be removed from the chamber for the duration of the meeting.
However, on the other hand, limiting speakers from the public to one minute as is now the case is completely unreasonable (even though there are ways around it, like taking ten friends and reading a ten minute speech in turn). Even the old regime allowed two minutes.
As we all know, ten minutes can sometimes seem too short for some matters while 60 seconds can seem an eternity with others. It seems to me that three minutes is a more reasonable limit, with the mayor having the right to extend a speaker’s time as may seem necessary or upon the request of a council member on behalf of the speaker.
Posters and banners should be of a reasonable size to make their point and in no way obstruct the view of another citizen or the proceedings. Speakers should be responsible and take time to prepare their remarks, stay on point and be concise.
The public can also submit their views in writing by email or snail mail. I have found my own council member, Sam Liccardo, very responsive to emails and he always gives whatever I say due consideration and responds quickly, even if we do not agree. I don’t know about the other members, but Sam is definitely doing it right which is why he continues to get my support.
I would love to hear what other bloggers have experienced in communicating with their council members and what they believe is a reasonable limit to place on public speakers at council meetings.
Jack,
I agree, one minute is not a fair amount of time to address the Mayor and Council, unless you are standing up to support an item. I agree with JMO, a simple Yes or No, I support, or oppose this is good enough. That is of course UNLESS you know the Mayor and Council are going to vote against or for the item you want to pass or fail.
I personally attended Council Meetings in May, and June with about 10 others, who opposed an exemption to the outdoor sales of live animals, being brought before the Council by Animal Services. I asked the Mayor’s Chief of Staff if I could speak on behalf of the group, and be a lotted their time, or at least get 5 minutes. I was told no, the Mayor doesn’t want groups having spokes persons, he’d rather hear from each individual. So much for trying to shorten a long line of speakers.
Secondly, the reason I oppose the one minute rule is because both city staff, and lobbist get so much time to influence the Mayor and Council to do things their way that, by the time it actually gets to a public meeting, their mind is already made up. It is unfair to those of us who don’t have time to go from Council Member to Council Member to speak to them. Also, often times you get stuck talking to their aides instead, and they have absolutely no say in how the Council Member will vote, and often times don’t even know the stand they will take. So much for being involved in government’s process.
And in fairness to Mayor Reed, Council Members spent HOURS taking up our speaking time with comments and questions that should have been taken care of BEFORE these issues come before Council. I get so frustrated with the BS I hear from staff on issues they’re being questioned about, or are presenting to Council. I often wonder why Council Members aren’t reading notes given to them on these issues, and meeting with department heads to get questions answered BEFORE the meetings. It’s crazy making!
I have no real sucess in getting responses from my Council Member Chirco, or her staff. I have heard others say the same thing. Sad but true.
As to Sam Liccardo being so quick to respond to you, you’re lucky. Maybe it’s because you have a column and could blow him out of the water in public, if he doesn’t respond to you.
I spent 6 weeks trying to get a meeting with him to talk about the abuses of outdoor sales of live animals. Not only didn’t I get a meeting, or even the courtesy of meeting with an aide, I found out that he had met with EVERYONE else on the opposing side. It wasn’t until after Liccardo voted in favor of the issue I opposed, that a few weeks later I heard from a staff member who, “apologized,” for ignoring my meeting requests, and invited me to come in and meet with, HIM, not the Council Member. I of course refused on the grounds of, what the hell’s the point?”
Personally, I think the public’s opinion is not considered in any decisions before the Council, unless they have money, status, a title, or unless it’s right before an election. That’s why I take my voting privillage very, very seriously.
AD #7: I’m happy 4 U that your sreets in 7 Trees R OK by U. Take a drive on Alma between DMV and Bird, and let me know if U think that road is OK. That is but one example of the deterioration of our roadways. I am confident other bloggers here could provide additional examples of the third world quality of many of our roadways. I could also provide a couple of dozen other examples in Willow Glen.
#13 (Kathleen): Sam Liccardo is my councilmember as well, and I can assure you that Jack is correct when he says that Sam personally and meaningfully responds to constituent emails. I happen to know that his dutifulness is not limited to online blogmasters with the power to trash him, or to neighborhood activists like me, but also to ordinary residents who happen to be angry about intractable problems, like illegal fireworks, that Sam did not create and cannot possibly solve by himself. I know because, as a neighborhood activist, I have been copied on some his responses to ordinary residents in my neighborhood.
Now whether he can keep up the pace for a full eight years is an open question, but in the meantime, as you say, we in Sam’s District 3 are indeed lucky.
Kathleen #13
Thanks for the excellent post.
Sounds like we should limit council members and city employees to one minute each!
Your experience with Chirco is pretty much what I have heard from others. I wonder could anything be done to rattle her cage or will she just continue drifting through her term?
Jack,
Thanks for the insight on City Council proceedings. Can you give us a rundown of when the old guard members will be termed out?
I’m with you on the crumbling infrastructure. Our situation is greatly exacerbated by recent actions… pensions that are way out of line with respect to the private sector, unfunded medical benefits, and, as you point out, the Council’s misaligned priorities regarding improvements that generally benefit the entire citizenry – a case of no steak and all sizzle.
#15- I’m glad he has treated you and Jack well. Many of us have not had your wonderful experience with him. Besides the fact that he sits up on the dias laughing, smurking, and carring on private conversations with Pier, while the public is speaking, I have to wonder about those who aren’t “activist, or well known like Jack?”
Many animal rescuers and advocates wrote Sam about their opposition to the changes to the animal ordinance and didn’t receive even a form letter response…..
I don’t classify that as dutiful, I say it’s pretty rude, unacceptable, and we’ll all remember that when he makes a bid for higher office.
Jack,
I heard a great comment made by a citizen during the IPA special Council Meeting, regarding your comment, “Sounds like we should limit council members and city employees to one minute each!
She expressed her anger at being limited to 1 minute, and then told the Mayor and Council that the next time they came knocking at her door to get her vote, “You’ll get 1 minute to talk to me!” I had to laugh because I was thinking the very same thing!
As to Council Member Chirco, the only thing that would rattle her is a serious recall effort!
The larger problem with the public comment section of any council meeting is that it comes AFTER the decision has already been made. They give lip service to public input. They are merely making a record.
The meeting at which public comment on a matter takes place should be at least a month before the vote is to be taken. I’m not sure it would change many councilmembers minds, but at least there would be the APPEARANCE that they gave a damn about what we had to say.
I have not attended many council meetings over the last decade because it is such a hoax. Whenever I did attend, it was rare that all members were attentive to the public comment. They tended to walk in and out, chat with each other, and pretty much show a complete disdain for the public.
If a group has a lot to say, I wouldn’t consider asking first if one person could speak for five minutes on a topic—I’d just line the five up one right after the other, and each speak for a minute until the whole comment was in the record.
Good comment, Jack! Totally agree that citizen’s speaking time should be 3 minutes; that was the exact allotment I was thinking too. Would be great if we could advertise the city as the city that allows constituents one minute to express their views.
Kathleen—you’ve figured it out, I’ve always called the topics that get the council Done Deals, such as the airport naming.
What does everyone think of the proposed Little Saigon naming? In the past, we never had Little Italy. etc. Hopefully the council will nip this in the bud, otherwise, no telling where this could lead.
# 20- I love diverse cultures. I especially love small businesses because they tend to do a better job of providing products, or service. They enrich the US so much, but I’m disappointed in the lack of immigrants willing to integrate into our society, while keeping their culture. I’ve seen too much isolation on the part of immigrants. Rather than assimilate they tend to, for lack of a better term, stick together in their own communities, churches, neighborhoods, businesses, and avoid us.
I personally have no preference on what they name the business district, but threatening to recall Council Member Nguyen if she doesn’t support Little Saigon, is ridiculous. This is the US, and I think they need to leave old Vietnamese politics, in Vietnam.
Diversity and assimilation are not antithetical concepts.
My first set of in laws were Russian, grew up in Manchuria, and came to the USA at the end of WWII. They kept their language and Russian Orthodox religion at home, and learned English quickly and succeeded in business here. I have the utmost respect for their diversity and their assimilation.
I have no respect for people who come here, assert their RIGHTS, but take no responsibility. They suck off the system; assert rights that Americans would never be accorded in their home country, usually with the assistance of well-meaning but misguided “liberal” thinkers, for whom I have even less respect.
Do I expect immigrants to speak perfect English? NOPE. Do I expect them to make a reasonable attempt to learn the language of the country they chose to come to because it affords them greater opportunity than they could ever achieve in their home country? YOU BET.
Imperial and San Diego counties get every problem pregnancy from Panama to our border, and we pay the bill. The same is true in New Mexico, Arizona, and Texas, I’m sure. That ain’t right, especially since it deprives the children of people who pay taxes here of proper medical care, since we’ve thrown $$ down the rathole for “undocumented” people who manage to make their way to el norte with their medical problems. It’s also an insult to all those immigrants who took the legal way to get here.
#2) (Wonder Woman):
I disagree with you regarding the renaming of the business district along Story Road. I won’t wade into Vietnamese-American politics as to the specific-name to be given to it, but I do think a Vietnamese equivalent of some sort to, for instance, the Japantown we already have is good for the entire San Jose community—just as Japantown is an under-appreciated asset to our city.
I’m very proud to know that San Jose has the largest Vietnamese-American community in the nation. It is one of the many things that makes San Jose a unique and great place. I think we should appreciate it and honor it.
Some things never change.
One minute, two minutes; does it really make a difference?
You’ve just been informed “that. . . ”
You believed it was still up for discussion or hoped she had forgotten about it. You know the drill.
And then she says… “But dear, we talked about that.”
JMOC #19
You hit the nail on the head.
#20 WW
We didn’t have Little Italy, but we did have Goose Town. I agree with Don G, unique cultural areas like Japantown help make San Jose great. I once heard someone refer to San Jose as a stew, not a melting pot. Each ingredient blends with the other yet keeps its unique form and substance. The total is greater than the sum of the parts.
Kathleen, the composition of voters in D9 precludes any recall effort. We are stuck with the useless Chirco for another 3.5 years, trust me.
JMO, you are so right. I just got an estimate for some landscaping work from a guy who has been in the business for over 25 years. He couldn’t even spell the word “grass” correctly. There is no excuse for this. If he was even remotely interested he could have picked up enough English over that period of time to know how to read and write the basic terms of landscaping and gardening. But since he is comfortably located in a part of town where Spanish is spoken almost exclusively, he skates. This is WRONG.
#26 My mother grew up in Goose Town and my father in Tar Flats. My inital writing may have been too concise; I too like all cultures, find San Jose becoming very cosmopolitan, however, there are so many now that I feel the naming of a particular area would be a precedent we would later regret. America is a different place today that when the original immigrants came and assimilated. Many recent immigrants have no intention of assimilation. What about all the Hispanic people around Story and White Rd? Wouldn’t officially naming the area Little Saigon create more tension?
#28- The naming of the Vietnamese business district is causing a problem. A real BIG problem for Council Member Nguyen. There are those who are threatening her with a recall, if she doesn’t vote their way on the name they want. I think it’s pretty sad.
These hard working people flee to the United States to obtain freedom, and bring politics from their old country here. I don’t get it. They go through all kinds of hell to get here, and then they demand that things are done the way they want them done, or else. Seems a bit hypocritical, and a bit undemocratic to me~
We must remember that the name Little Saigon will be with us for eternity. As much as I sympathize with Councilperson Nguyen, she will not be in office for an eternity. Bullying should not be an acceptable means to get one’s way.
I concur totally #29.
But it’s not all that hard understand.
If you’re a minority around here and have a pandering local gov’t that’s all to willing to roll over at the drop of a hat to show off their multiculturalist pedigree, wouldn’t you be pressing full speed ahead too?
http://blog.qusan.com/uploaded_images/notme-744357.jpg
BTW, if ‘Little Saigon’ happens to go through, I’m gonna start a petition post haste to change the ‘Mercury News’ to ‘Little Pravda’.
Jack,
It just hit the press that Silva was fired by the Mayor and Council today. Any thoughts on this?
Don #23—I didn’t get the memo. When did SJ surpass Orange County as having the largest Vietnamese population outside VietNam?
We have a place to compare the issue of Little Saigon with—Miami. In Miami we have anti-Castro Cuban exiles who are highly political.
In San Jose, as evidenced by the Hon Lien/Kansen Chu campaign, we have accusations of communist sympathies by the anti-communist faction of local Vietnamese.
Getting the City of San Jose involved in this internal struggle would be a huge mistake.
If the business owners there want to do something privately, so be it. But for there to be an official city imprimatur on a particular name…I don’t think so.
Kathleen# 32: were you really up posting to this blog @ 12:32 a.m.??
All I had time to read in the Murky News this a.m. was the little sidebar that listed specific findings of the arbitrator, Karen somebody-or-other, as I recall. I know nothing of her credentials.
However, the specific findings she made, combined with the statements Jerry made which were aired on KLIV this morning, make it clear to me that there was a HUGE disconnect between Jerry and the arbitrator on what happened, and its significance. Jerry focused on the fact that no-one ever complained, and that his office has a history of longevity among its employees. The arbitrator focused on the fact that seemingly the entire office was a hotbed of sexually charged conversation.
It is interesting (perhaps odd) that Jerry was named in the EEOC filing, but is not a defendant in the civil complaint.
I understand the City will be making more facts known to us, and a summary of the hearing. I’ll reserve judgment until I hear it all, except to say that there is clearly a huge gap between Jerry’s view of the office and that stated by the arbitrator.
This needs to be covered by Court TV. The non-legal press is notoriously inept at getting things right when reporting on legal issues.
Simple things like talking about a home “robbery”. Homes are burglarized, they are not robbed. People are robbed. Sounds petty, perhaps, but the understanding of lay reporters on exceedingly simple distinctions like that is quite telling.
Or, they will seize on a sensational point, rather than the real legal issue decided…to sell papers, of course; but in doing so they keep the public misinformed.
Film At Eleven.
Kathleen #32
I am waiting to read the full report that is supposed to be released today before making up my mind. There is so much that doesn’t make sense to me in what I have read so far. There must be a lot more to the story if the entire council voted to dismiss Silva.
Jack,
I completely agree with you. Please share with all of us what you find out. Something big must have happened that we know nothing about. I thought it was odd that they only gave him a week to prepare his defense. God, even serial killers get more time than that~
Jack…anyone—please provide a link to the report Mayor-Not-So-Sunshine-After-All released yesterday.
I agree with Kathleen…there must be a lot that we have not heard. I was surprised when the council refused to grant Jerry another month to prepare his response. They withheld the specifications against him until the last minute, and then refused to grant him a continuance to prepare his defense. Why the rush to judgment? If they had made their case well, another month would not have hurt the city, except to the extent it is paying Jerry while he isn’t working. Is that counted against his 6 months severance? Due process went out the window. Is this political correctness to the max by accepting the allegations of the complainant and denying time to prepare an adequate defense? Or, is it much worse a situation than we have heard thus far?
The City keeps refusing to divulge the names of witnesses, allegedly on privacy grounds. When you sue someone, it’s public, and so are the names of witnesses.
Mr. Sunshine Mayor and the half-old-guard/half newbie councilmembers went along, it seems. People, the employyes involved are PUBLIC employees. They report to US, as in WE THE PEOPLE, since we pay their salaries. Beyond their home addresses and telephone numbers, precious little about public employees should ever be considered to be private, including their salaries. WE THE PEOPLE are entitled to know what WE are paying them.
And not releasing who is on PAID (by the taxpayers) administrative leave on so-called privacy grounds? Ridiculous! WE pay them, so we are entitled to know who is not working yet still getting a paycheck. IT’S OUR MONEY, Mr. Mayor and Councilmembers. We are absolutely entitled to know where it’s going.
This is like a little watergate—all the little politicians circling the wagons, trying to justify keeping information of alleged wrongdoing from the public. Stall, stall, spin, spin.
Yeah, yeah, I expect to hear the usual arguments about prejudicing the appeal by Jerry and the inevitable civil suit. But people, all that information will come out in discovery anyway, so let’s just put it all out there now, and let the jury decide when the trial comes.
Of course, there will never be a trial, because it will all be settled eventually, after some lawyers make money and the City Attorneys office diverts resources to defend. But WE THE PEOPLE deserve an open settlement, not some secret deal between Rick Doyle and Phil Sims on behalf of their respective clients.
All this hush-hush just increases everyone’s suspicions.
Silva Report:
http://www.bayareanewsgroup.com/multimedia/mn/news/silvaauditorreport.pdf
Silva’s lawyer’s response:
http://www.bayareanewsgroup.com/multimedia/mn/news/silvapressrelease.pdf
#38- Thank you very much Jack!
#27- Mark, I checked with a former D9 Council Member, and was told that absolutely NO Council Member is safe from recall.
I fear your are correct about one thing though, we are STUCK with her for another 3.5 years. A bigger fear I have is if her present Chief of Staff runs when she’s gone, or if her husband decides to take a shot at it! Ed’s a nice guy, but he’s been the President of the Neighborhood Association, and I don’t ever see them reach out to any of us for input, nor do I see them letting D9 residents know when, or where they meet!