Many thanks to the Union Tribune. Too bad the North County Times doesn't have the courage to publish something like this. I guess they are at the mercy of the Big Boys that think they run the government of Encinitas. Kudos to Teresa and Maggie. I hope that this is the beginning of a new era in Encinitas politics. The "handcuff ordinance" was also defeated at last nights Council meeting. What's happening? Could change actually be coming to our fair City? Next to go has to be Glenn Sabine.He is not worth his salary and benefits.
You might see Jerry trying to flip any day now. Let’s see? I think people are awaking to the fact that Jerome is bought and paid for by the developers and public employee unions. He is going to take some serious crap this year until November elections. Reap what you sow!
Glen Sabine is an asset to our community. You are being unfair and advertising that you are uninformed.
These two panderers are taking their lead from several residents who are obviously emotionally ill. Just check out the first thirty minutes of every City Council Meeting to understand this post.The fact that these two Pols proudly announce their affiliation with these two pour souls who are on some kind of childish Jihad against the City Council just points to how bankrupt both their personal philosophies are.Oh, to have grown-ups leading us.
Anon 6:46 is going on the personal attack because he can't win on the issue. The issue is open government and Danny, Jerome, and Bond shut that down long ago. Houlihan just watched from the sideline. Teresa has ALWAYS spoken up for open government. Lynn and Russ are either totally stupid or totally crazy. Either way they are way out of touch. It is clear that no one on the council wants anything to do with those two, so nice try. Can't win on the issue so you try to associate Barth and Houlihan with two total lunatics? Again nice try.As for Sabine, he does what he gets paid to do, but it is way over the top to call him an asset to the community. Is he an asset to La Mesa too? The La Mesa episode show that he is an asset, but only to the council majority that he serves. He does what he is told, very well. Is it true that he didn't utter a word when the brown act issue came before the council?
Not only did Glenn not utter a word when the Brown Act cam forward, he did not include Prop. 59 in his information to Jerome. He did Jerome and the City a disservice. He relied on 1964 law, which has been amped up a bit since that. He has cost this City quite a bit of money, even forgetting the Braun case. It really is time for him to go IMHO.
If Barth and Houlihan fail to attend the closed council meeting then they are failing the citizens of this city!! They were elected to represent the citizens at ALL city meeting, not just those meeting they want to attend!!RECALL THEM AND GET REAL COUNCIL MEMBERS!!! RECALL RECALL RECALL!!!
Only Teresa did not go to the sessions. Maggie went. Also, isn't it interesting that Angela Lau is no longer covering Encinitas and now the Tribune is putting out the editorial? I wonder if she got sick of not being able to get information from the City and gave this information to her editors. That is the way it might seem from the editorial. The reason the NCTimes won't print it is because Adam Kaye doesn't care all that much about Encinitas, as they don't pay him enough to care. Just a thought.
Glenn didn't utter a word during the meeting becasue none of us got to. We didn't get to speak until after Teresa presented her information. We didn't get Sabine's rulings until late in the evening and didn't get a chance to even look at what he "daylighted" until after the meeting was over which was about 11:30M. Kevin Cummins asked to give us a chance to look over things, but no one was in the mood as it was so late. At least that is the way I rememebr it.
RECALL THEM!! Recall them, I pay my taxes so that all council members attend ALL council sessions!! If B&H want to sit out various meetings, then they need to adjust their earnings to reflect their lack of interest in ALL meetings. RECALL THEM. RECALL RECALL RECALL!!
Anonoymous is right. The Brown Act and Jerome's "daylighting" of information" came at the very end of a long meeting. Jerome "daylighted" his information first. Kevin asked if we could have some time to look at the information; the crowd groaned as it was already about 10:30PM; Teresa then went on went on with her presentation. There was never time to go over what Glenn had given Jerome so none of us could speak to the fact that both documents were 1964 vintage. They did not include Prop. 59, and any person with a computer could have downloaded the same information. So it does beg the question as to why this was privileged informaton to begin with? That is what I remember. Please correct me if I am wrong.
How about recalling the council members who are too stubborn to change their ways?You KNOW something is wrong when the UT goes after Jerome and Dalager. The UT has looked the other way for years over what these guys pull off. The UT editorial was against Jerome, Bond and Dalager so why not recall the boys and then install REASONABLE notification, that still allows flexibility.The UT thanked Barth and Houlihan not Stocks, Bonds, and Dalager. Is that too much to handle that you have to strike out so that no one notices the wounds? JUST A LITTLE SENSITIVE AREN'T YOU?
"reflect their lack of interest in ALL meetings"Take a deep breath Mr. Stocks Supporter. That is so transparent it is funny. No one person is going to believe that barth was avoiding those meetings because she would rather be somewhere else. Barth obviously puts more time into the job than perhaps anyone other than stocks. Stocks is trying to be a professional politician and doesn't have much else to do.
At the Dec. 12 meeting Jim Bond teleconferenced from Las Vegas but he stayed on the line only for part of the meeting...so he could vote on the council appointments for 2008. He disconnected when the Disorderly Conduct item was discussed...and failed because it was a 2-2 vote...even though he spoke in favor of the change when it was first presented. So RECALL RECALL RECALL what do you have to say about councilmembers who pick and choose what part of a meeting they will attend?
Who voted 2-2? Oh, let me guess.Seems to be a couple of posters who have nothing better to do but bash Teresa. Get your facts straight before mouthin' off willya? Try reading the newspaper, and last time I checked you can see the CC meetings on TV. Remember last year when Jerome was far far away and was there via the phone?
NICE POINT 'life is good',We should RECALL RECALL RECALL Bond for not representing his constituents and items that need his vote. Did anything pass/fail because Barth boycotted?Houlihan and Stocks both maintained through entire meetings while on the phone.
All Barth and Hoolihan have to do is interest the Jarvis foundation and co opt them into a law suit. But they won't. They are not interested in doing what is right and that is making The council boys comply with the law.
I don't think that we need a lawsuit. The point has been made by the U.T. Besides we would have to pay Glen Sabine to represent the City and he would make even more money than he already does off of us. Why does everything have to be settled by a lawsuit anyway? Teresa pointed the stuff out and the public became aware of it. Next November the citizens will get to decide who they want to be on the city council. Seems easy enough to me. Let's leave the lawyers out of it.
recalling anyone is expensive and very likely a waste of time and energy. if you believe otherwise get the necessary forms and information from the clerk and go stand at shopping centers and post offices and gather your signatures.imho both teresa and maggie are gold nuggets, and valuable assets to this community.teresa has found she LOVES being a council member.jim bond announced when first connected that he was in an area where his cellphone connection was shaky at best. imho he would have stayed connected if possible.if you are set on eliminating glenn sabine please list the attorney you would replace him with and their qualifications. Mr Sabine seems knowledgable and interested in representing the council whom he serves.lynn and russ are consistent in their positions. they use "open mike" time which is their right. you may not support their positions but you should support their right to speak.i spent time on wed. discussing ordinance 2007-13 with both the sheriffs dept and the city manager. my concern was that it not stifle dissent or typically orderly disordrly discussion of issues that arise in the city. i explained that my view of encinitas, based on the last election, was that we were a blue city in a red county. i explained that i found this to be refreshing and that i attributed the phenom to a city of thinking citizens and that i did not support any "chilling effect" on such citizen participation. the concensus was that the timing was certainly poor, that an ordinance of this type should have been more clearly addressed when we incorporated.i still believe that to have to use this ordinance would be political suicide for the chair or mayor of any council or committee. i know that it would never "chill" me and i would be disappointed if it had that effect on any of our more active and vocal citizens.
Dear Gil:The problem with listing attorneys to replace Glenn is that the City will not even give them a chance to "bid" on a contract. There are several attorneys and/or law firms that I have talked with who would gladly represent our City Council and City. It is pointless to list their credentials when the Council will not even consider changing attorneys. If you don't believe this, ask any of the Council members. I have repeatedly asked them to consider at least bidding out the contract. So far it has not happened. Perhaps you might have better luck. If you think that Glenn does a good job for our City, then I would love to show you all of the documentation I have collected from the years 2002 until now.I am not an attorney, however, I have shown them to a couple of people who are. They were not impressed. What happened at the Dec. 5th Council meeting should give us a hint at what kind of services we get. Jerome's privileged information that he "daylighted" was based on 1964 documentation and did not include Proposition 59, which beefed up the Brown Act. It would seem, even to a person who is not an attorney, that Glenn should have included Prop 59 in his analysis. However, we are all entitled to our opinions. I am only one person, and will admit, I could be dead wrong.
Gil,"teresa has found she LOVES being a council member."I know Teresa and that is a misrepresentation. I think there are only two people on the council who Loooooove to on it. Dalager and Stocks.
2007-13 was a SUPER dumb ass move. Who on earth would think they are going to chill out. This is only going to fire them up. DUH! It was meant to have a chilling effect on LYNN and RUSS, because they are unstable and they make the council concerned. The day they loose it they are going to need to eject them forcibly. This was a message to those two residents. A warning, a warning that was for them to chill out. Lynn still refuses to accept that sometimes 2 minutes is all she gets as the RULES STATE that oral communication is only for 15 minutes. This is a GOOD RULE. It increased the public's right to access the council by making sure the AGENDIZED items are conducted in a more timely manner.
i don't think teresa is a liar. she told me she loves it and i believe her.
I think Dr. Lori has too much time on her hands if she has records from Sabine form 2002. What is she trying to prove. Maybe she would be better off "shrinking" Russel Mars head and leaving Glen alone.
I do love the job...it's frustrating at times but I still love it. I am proud to serve the community. Anon 12/14 12:11pm...Based on what was reported out, there were no 2-2votes at the Closed Session meetings I did not attend.
I watched the Wednesday council meeting on my computer. Lynn Braun, Russell Marr, Robert Nanninga, and the gentleman from PoliceWatch.org spoke against the handcuff ordinance. Only Gil Foerster spoke in favor. The man from Police Watch spoke so loudly and provocatively that I thought he might be removed from the room. He refused to give his name when asked. He challenged the council, but Mayor Jerome Stocks got cold feet.Or did he? I had the impression that Stocks may have realized that this is a damaging issue for his reelection and arranged for James Bond to drop off the phone, so it would not pass on a 2 to 2 vote. The ordinance change was killed, but Stocks saved face by voting in favor but having it fail. Watch the video again and see how Stocks carefully leads the council quickly into the tie vote. He even says that the approval of the second reading will fail. Pretty slick if this is what happened, but then this is just my wild speculation.
Ordinance 2007-13 is a provocative ordinance, i thought everyone behaved as well as the nature of the ordinance allowed. i was a little surprized at the small turnout. maybe many stayed home knowing that jim bond would be tele-communicating from vegas, that cell phone service can be counted on to be particularly "dicey" there, and therefor the issue would fail in a two-two tie. i didn't know that. so off i went. i crossed paths with bob at city hall where he was reading the document. i stayed and got a copy. went and got cookies from VGs. coffee, read and re-read the document and tried to get a feel of, "why are we passing this?" i could come two only two possibilities: 1) we needed it for the system to work safely for all involved, or 2) there was a neferious plot to stifle dissent and lively discussion by members of the community about issues of concern. there IS a big difference between the two. so off i went, post office and bank, then on to the sheriffs station to see capt. don fowler. (braking blog into smaller bites)
at the sheriffs station, the desk person told me she would check and see if cpt. fowler was in house and available. now i didn't have an appointment. i was informed that capt. fowler was not available but sgt castaneda would be able to answer all my questions. sgt castaneda had me in to his office where i explained my concerns. i stated that i believed that the purest public expressions in keeping with the founding principles of our country occurred at the townhall level. i had been attending planning commission and council meetings for 17 years and that i had never been present when it would have been in the best interest of open city government to remove a participant. why are we doing this? what was the chain of command? (how, where and why did capt fowler request the amendents, how did the ball start rolling?)
If B&H don't want to attend meetings then they shouldn't be paid!! No matter how much they may LOVE the job!!! I say RECALL!!! I want council members that want to be at ALL MEETINGS!!!! Not council members that pick and choose at their leisure!!!As for Bond phoning in his presence at a meeting?? You people are just now realizing this action???RECALL RECALL RECALL 'EM ALL!!!
we discussed that the sections were already in the penal code. we weren't writing new law so why is this ordinance necessary? his boiled down response was essentially, "notification". if you do not give notification that some acts may constitute disorderly conduct as determined by an "assemblies" presiding officer and designate who the sergeant of arms is, and there responsibilities to the presiding officer, you have not given the public fair notification of the consequences of "disorderly actions". now, of course their is some risk associated with who is the presiding officer and how that officer defines disorderly conduct. this is why i believe any presiding officer using the "doomsday bomb" must be so very, very careful not to commit political suicide. (as an ending aside to this piece: i am not sure if giving one's name at the start of communication is the LAW, the guy from policewatch.org did not the first time he spoke when he also spoke in an animated fashion.by the second time he spoke, he had established his style of addressing the council, loud/animated. like jerome, i would have let him speak, but hoping he didn't pull out an uzi.)
Bond, Dalager, and Stocks were treading on first amendment rights. They know the consequences.
continuing at the sheriffs office the sgt wrapped up the notification need with "if the sign doesn't say 'no trespassing' how are you supposed to know?" unable to beat a dead horse i proceeded to the "how?' how did this ball start rolling? did it start with a council member? did it start with capt. fowler sitting down with a copy of our municipal code for some light reading over coffee and seeing some things that bothered him about fulfilling his function as master at arms? what was the chain of command? the sgt expressed that it was his understanding that the request to examine the code had some direction from the city manager's office. ahhhh. as an informational aside i asked if it had been drafted by the sheriff's attorneys or by city counsel. the sgt. informed me it was done by city staff. ok. as i prepared to depart i told the sgt that i needed to be on firm ground with the facts and banged the wooden bookcase in his office for emphasis. he told me he thought the ground under our discussion was firm. i told him that i appreciated his time and that i was on my way over to see the city manager. so back to city hall to see if phil cotton was available, again i had no appointment but what the hey. i got to city hall and asked the wonderful receptionists to see mr cotton and ate a piece of their chocolate as i waited. phil cotton was available and came out to talk with me.(it's pretty late now so i have to continue in the morn. gives others a chance to chime in and kinda keeps everyone in suspense for a few hours. gives the conspiracy theory folks a chance to blog.)
what was the name of the cockroach that could only typed in lower case?
the lesson of the moth by archy
I think the Editorial and the two letters to the editor that went along with it are excellent.Thanks to Teresa Barth, Maggie Houlihan, Hector Lopez, Bernard Minster and everyone else who supports open government which leads to accountability and public trust.I agree with the poster who suggests that those speaking for recall of Teresa and Maggie are all wet. The Union Tribune editorial stated: "Why, exactly, is Encinitas having so many closed meetings? If Barth and Houlihan feel the public's business is being conducted unlawfully behind closed doors, they properly should boycott the sessions, immediately notify the city attorney as well as personal attorneys, and alert the public through the media. Our thanks go to Barth and Houlihan for providing us this opportunity to enlighten the public on how public bodies should conduct their meetings. Our thanks also go to the law firm of Foley & Lardner for a thorough description of the Brown Act and related statues at www.foley.com (place the key word Brown Act in the publications blank)." Poster degrading Barth and Houlihan and others, calling folks unstable or a possible threat is probably Jerome and his dirty tricksters trying to do damage control, change the issue from one of open government and honesty, to manipulation through fear and prejudice.Yes, watch the video archives and use your own judgment. Jerome Stocks and Dan Dalager are the ones who seem as though they are staring off into space, making no eye contact. Do they know when the cameras are on them I wonder?
Jerome’s vote against open government is just another nail in Jerome's coffin. All the facts will be summarized in his future bids for office.As to selecting a City Attorney- It better be based on Qualifications and not low bid. You don't want some flunky lawyer representing Encinitas. Glenn has done a fine job at protecting our City from F street porn that would attract more scum in the dark corners ready to grab our kids to our neighborhoods, shutting down the scummy place in Encinitas, and going after Carlsbad for planning to not pay for their impacts from Developing Ponto. If you have dirt on Glenn, air it and we can all be the judge if he should be fired. Dr. Lori- Without proving facts, it just sounds like you have a personal vendetta against the guy. Please list the facts separately like 1, 2, 3.... And on and on. Thanks,Local
phil cotton and i sat down in the reception area and i explained my concerns with the ordinance in much the same way i did with the sheriffs. why, after so many years with the laws already on the books, was an ordinance such as this one necessary at this time? mr cotton's thrust was that times were different from when we were younger, that he had observed in his short time as city manager, instances where decorum became a bit "dicey". that these were times when i was not in attendence at the "assemblies". i ignored the concept of a deteriorating society, i moved to this area from bezerkley, in comparison encinitas is a walk in the park. again i tried to focus on the chain of command for this ordinance. i told him that if it originated from a council member i wanted to know which one and why. he assured me time and again, that it was at his direction that the ordinance was born. that he steered it to the sheriff's office and to the city counsel. mr cotton's inference was that post 911, even the hamlet of encinitas was a different place and that it was in the best interest of the safety of councils, commissions and attending citizens to announce that uncontrolable disorderly conduct would not be acceptable. i again explained that i could not support the ordinance if it originated from a council member and/or if it stifled dissent or disorderly orderly discussion of issues before city bodies, a "chilling effect". he again assured me that was not the intent. i asked that he speak to the council and the citizens during the background anaylsis of the ordinance and assure the community publicly that this was not the intent, that dissent and discussion were welcome on issues before city bodies. he was non-committal on my request. in closing he added that the ordinance was necessary to insure the peace of the peace officers acting as sergeant at arms. the discussion began to bog down about here and i thanked mr cotton for his time and left. returning to my "den" i was left to ponder the information provided during my search, as i ate another VG's cookie facing a blank pc screen.
one other item. i expressed to mr cotton that i thought that the timing was poor for this type of ordinance to be added to our municipal code. he concurred by saying that there was probably no good time to add an ordinance such as this one, that it probably should have been addressed when we originally drafted the municipal code.
sitting at my pc, i originally was going to take an opposing position to the ordinance, an ordinance that i thought would pass 3-2, with teresa and maggie opposed and the "guys" in support. i also believed that russ, lynn, bob, kevin, and others would speak against and express their well founded fears of an increasingly restrictive right to speak freely to volatile issues. i was less certain that mr cotton or counsel would assure the public that this was simply a housekeeping ordinance and that the public's right to voice opinions both popular and unpopular were not being infringed upon. this bothered me and the origination of the ordinance still bothered me. i decided that it was important to address these two concerns in such a way that the public was informed of their inherent right of dissent, and to place in the record the origination source of the ordinance so that it became more difficult for the sheriff's department, city manager or counsel to pull a 'zori' if the ordinance turned out to have originated from a council member.i am glad that the ordinance did not pass at second reading so that i now have time to explore the origination a little more thoroughly. i don't lie. my integrity is what i am. if i find out that i have been lied to, as some folks has hinted, i am going to be wondering in print about the integrity and value of some of our "public servants"."it isn't over til the fat lady sings".
So why did the sheriffs leave when Lynn & Russ left on Wed. night before the end of the council meeting? Were the few people left in the audience deemed "no threat" and by whom?
So, who is the fat lady. I happen to know Dr. Lorri, and can assure many of you that she is tellling the truth about Glenn. Perhaps she is waiting for another outlet besides this blog to reveal her information. Let's face it. Why should should she give it to us, if she plans on using it elsewhere?
"the fat lady" was Kate Smith and the show wasn't over until the fat lady sang. believe it was "when the moon comes over the mountain."
for the conspiracy theorists: who was the unnamed guy from policewatch.org? his loud and animated demeaner might make one think that a strong master at arms and this ordinance really are necessary. was he the real deal or could he have been a pro-ordinance plant to justify need? or was he an anti-ordinance plant hoping to be illegally removed by an unspecting council, mayor, and sheriff when he was only guilty of refusal to state name and loudness? hhhhmmmm.
copwatch dot com was authentic. Otherwise that guy deserves an academy award. He come frequently to speak at oral communication. To bad the former sheriff, Mayor Christy isn't on the council anymore. That would be some pretty awesome fireworks. I would pay $50 to watch that. I still haven't figured out what copwatch guy wants the council to do. Does anyone know?
I think he wants to put head all over Leucadia. Lets support the Bro!
I was at Wednesday's City Council meeting. I too was surprised at the small number of attendees. I was even more surprised at the 2 to 2 stalemated vote.I have seen the man from PoliceWatch.org speak on other occasions. He never gives his name, and I believe he is genuine. I am unsure about the law, but I don't think he needs to give his name. He gave his organization, which has a website. Isn't that enough?I have regularly attended City Council meetings since Phil Cotton became City Manager. I find his comment about "dicey" decorum at recent meetings disengenuous. I haven't seen anything that merited removal of a speaker.Phil Cotton was hired by a majority of the council and takes his orders from them. I simply do not believe that he initiated this ordinance change on his own. Look to the council members who pushed for his promotion and voted for his promotion. That is where you will find the instigators of this ill-advised attempt to stifle public commentary.
Jerry S-You hit the nail on the head. Jerome leads the 3 men majority. He makes all the decisions and Danny and Jim follow along like nice lap dogs should.You want to find out where something came from, you know where to go to ask.
I was told by Angela Lau, before she was taken off our beat, that the Sheriff initiated the Ordinance. The Sheriff cannot initiate an Ordinace without the Council. At that time Jim Bond was Mayor and he coordinated with Phil Cotton regarding the agenda. I e-mailed Jim about the ordinance and he said it was a "housekeeping" item. He also stated that it was aimed at peple like Russ and Lynn. I post this because he e-mailed the whole Council, Glenn, and Jace Schwarm (our Risk management person at the City) about this, therefore I consider it public information. That is why I think it is so interesting that Jim's phone went out when the vote was taken. I am still not sure if that was an accident, or if he decided that perhaps he would rather not vote on it, leaving it a 2-2 tie. This way, Jerome could save face and the ordinance did not pass. Just a wild guess.
wild guesses are acceptable. but i really need to know if phil cotton did this out of concern for safety on "his watch" which is what he told me and i took at face value, or if council members are attempting to squash open and at times lively dissent. now there is no question in my mind that it made the agenda with jim bond's consent cause that is how the system is supposed to work. but was it requested of jim by phil cotton and the sheriff out of concern for public, council, and commissioners safety as they have inferred or did it originate in the mind of some council or commission member with some other intent. big difference.
Dear Gil:If it would help you any, I would be happy to e-mail you Jim's full e-mail to me regarding this issue. Since I do not choose to give my real e-mail address on this blog we can do it one of 2 ways if you are interested. You can either post your own e-mail address and I will respond or you can give J.P. your e-mail address and perhaps he would be so kind as to pass it on to me. I haven't asked J.P.if this is OK but I think he would do it.
dr.lorri did send me the emails which i thank her for. i responded and told her my response was NOT confidential. because i view our conversation as an investigative tool i won't write my response here at this time. she certainly may if she believes it is important to do so. i doubt i will have anything fresh to say on this blog item but will jump in on some future blog if something surfaces that the public should know about.nice to have a blog JP thank you.
Complain and complain and complain....Was a great song in a movie called Rob Roberts with Tim Robbins. It came to mind as I read through these exhaustive comments about the city council meeting last week. Here's what I'd like to add for the regulars here to think about. How does one define themselves as doing the work of "the community" when they choose to abstain from voting on important issues?I see no reason to praise Barth for boycotting meetings that were clearly ran according to the law? Teresa needs to stop trying to win student body president and start making the tough decisions that Houlihan actually has the leadership to participate in. There seems to be more and more times Teresa has simply decided it will get her more back-slapping from her spoiler supporters than actually taking positions that help the community as a WHOLE.Perfect example was the fire station issue, in that instance she whined that she had to abstain from voting because, well, er, she wasn't around when it first was addressed, TEN years ago. Wekk, DUH, no one on the council was, but the rest of them sure seemed to be able to find the balls to take a side instead of being a frickin chicken s*it about it like Barth. She sucks!I expect to see more of her grandstanding and "playing the friend" of the complainers at all times, instead of doing what is right for families and individuals in the community.And while Im at it, I think all this hub bub about 2007-13 is all much ado about nothing either. There already are laws on the books that say if you are disruptive and can not act in a respectful way, the seargent at arms, can be asked to ask you to leave, if you do not, you're in violation of the law, so as usual, many here are making a mountain out of a molehill.
There is a great line from William Shakespeare as well "Me thinks thou does protest too much."
gee rob great to have another authority join the blog. my understanding was teresa did not want to partake in votes that might be made in the dark. it was clear to you that the meetings were legal, less clear to teresa and others. her web-site and email are common knowledge and im sure she would appreciate any definitive insight you have on the subject. please be sure to post when she does things that are wrong for the families and individuals of the community that elected her. better yet, with three council members up for re-election perhaps you should throw your hat into the ring. you might be able to run as rob "deaf ear" roberts. that way those that vote for you will know that u ain't listening to no one.and the hub-bub about 2007-13 partially has to do with the keen insight that you demonstrate: the laws are already on the books so why do we need to add this ordinance to our municipal code at this late date? why do we need to designate the sheriff as master at arms, we can just pick the biggest meanest person at each meeting and designate them as master at arms.and since u just rode into this blog on your high horse, you more than most should know that terrain covered with molehills is much risker for your stead than any mountain it may have to climb. catch a molehill or burrow wrong on horseback and the mount pulls up lame, at the least.i know i said i was through but i couldn't resist.
Gil,it was worth returning to. You said it perfectly with one exception. Rob is not new to the blog, but I bet you might have guessed that.
I think paying $5 million for fire station upgrades for each station is outrageous. The improvements benefit the quality of cushy living while getting big buck and fat government pensions like 100% salaries for life for watching movies, eating, BSing, washing the truck, Hydrant, tours for kids and miltfs while waiting for the next real call. Gee that five million could have helped alot of citizens in Encinitas besides those chosen few who are lucky enough to be chosen as the Golden Boys of Encinitas. I actually respect the work ethic of most Paramedics and Fire Fighters. But this BS requests for Ritz Firestations is over the top and they know it. Any politician supporting this crap is on the take from the Fire Department union. If we want to know how much the fire department will pay to stooges campaigns to run for office and support every pension increase and building all $5 million dollar firestation for every firefighter in town, let’s ask Jerry.
10 years ago my ass. Try about 3 years ago, when Christy and Jerome started letting the Firemen treat them to free food, booze, and campaign contributions. Hey let all party in Japan on the taxpayer’s dime and they can pay for my birthday party…..And and fast and you can say 911….We need to upgrade three of our existing older fire stations at 5 million apiece…. And we’ll give you huge raises and pension increases to boot. Tell me who owes who favors. I don’t know, Lets as Jerry?
Jerome and his band of dirty tricksters (or are they all him in various stages of inebriation?) is posting again.Read the Union Tribune editorial again, including these paragraphs:"Barth and Houlihan succeeded in having a discussion of the special meeting practice in open session at the Dec. 5 council meeting, but not in changing it. They should renew their efforts. Since most meeting items are docketed by the mayor – a different person each year in Encinitas – and the city manager, a pointed communication to City Manager Phil Cotton that the council minority does not appreciate the current practice and that the council balance may change in November could work wonders. . .Why, exactly, is Encinitas having so many closed meetings? If Barth and Houlihan feel the public's business is being conducted unlawfully behind closed doors, they properly should boycott the sessions, immediately notify the city attorney as well as personal attorneys, and alert the public through the media. Our thanks go to Barth and Houlihan for providing us this opportunity to enlighten the public on how public bodies should conduct their meetings. . ."That says it in a nutshell. Teresa was brave to take a stand. I wish she would continue her boycott, and Maggie would "grow the balls" to join in. But what they accomplished, by voting as they did, and by Teresa's courageous boycott, is a good first step. These continuing Brown Act violations WILL be an election issue, and the City Attorney's and Council's failures do affect many actions the City has taken without proper notice and a thorough exhaustion of administrative remedies, as required by law. Teresa Barth knows this, and Maggie should get on the ball, as the Union Tribune and the North County Times have suggested by their strong editorials supporting open government and the City's accountability to the public.We can work to regain the public trust by facing the facts, and not buying into someone's obvious "spin," twisting the truth back on itself. Jerome Stocks has been grandstanding by saying he supports the Police Intimidation ordinance, because he wants clarity. Right, Jerome.The only thing Jerome Stocks wants clear is that he will use force to marginalize the messengers and to make sure that the mighty (befuddled/devious) majority of three "makes right."Not so. Wait until next November, Jerome. You'll see.
I missed the North County Times article about this meeting. I only thought the Union Tribune had the balls to cover it. When did the NCTimes cover it?
Anonymous on 12/18, Adam Kaye of NCT covered Teresa Barth's boycott of the Oct. 17 closed session before the 10/17/07 Regular Council Meeting on Thursday, 10/18/07, so two months before your post. Then there was a Sunday editorial about the same subject on 10/20/07. After that, with the fires, it seems as though NCT got a bit "derailed" from the City's continuing Brown Act Violations.
Thank you for posting on our blog. Anonymous comments are allowed after moderator review.The moderator works at his leisure.