Personal Vendetta: Revenge (synonym vengeance) is a harmful action against a person or group as a response to a (real or perceived) grievance.
Despite Mayor Sue McCloud’s consistent rhetoric for the past ten years about “common sense and mutual respect for one another’s views” and moving “forward together,” Sue McCloud has hyper-polarized our community by vilifying individuals with accusations of “character assassination,” “personal attack,” assailing individuals' arguments as “misinformation” and pursuing personal vendettas.
Case Study I: John Mandurrago, Property Owner and Developer
Years ago as a Planning Commissioner, Sue McCloud wrote and distributed a fax to her fellow planning commissioners regarding a proposed project which concluded “if we all hang together on this we can kill this project.” Not only was this act a violation of the Brown Act, but she later as mayor pursued a personal vendetta against John Mandurrago. In a recent letter to the editor, John Mandurrago explained, as follows:
Having lived and done business in Carmel for over 22 years, I have watched Mayor Sue McCloud pursue personal vendettas and expose Carmel to extraordinary legal liability.
In 1999, for example, a Carmel City Hall employee handed me a fax that was addressed to all planning commissioners discussing one of my projects. The fax was sent by Sue McCloud and, after putting forth substantive arguments against my project, it concluded “if we all hang together on this we can kill this project.”
Several elected Carmel officials told me McCloud’s fax was unethical conduct and a violation of the Brown Act. I was quickly offered a settlement in exchange for not suing the city. This is why McCloud was not reappointed to the planning commission.
Shortly after McCloud was elected mayor, Rich Guillen asked me to meet with him and McCloud at Carmel City Hall. McCloud had a scowl on her face, leaned over the table, and threatened me. She said “things are going to be different from now on.”
Carmel residents and Carmel business owners deserve an ethical mayor. Sue McCloud is not an ethical mayor.
Moreover, John Mandurrago’s Petition filed in Monterey County Superior Court against the City of Carmel-by-the-Sea on February 27, 2009 (M97273), states, as follows:
Carmel’s almost four year delay in certification of the EIR is wholly arbitrary and irrational subjective EIR requirements based on vindictive ill will aimed at Petitioner and his project and is intended to delay and ultimately deny the Project based on animus, ill will and wholly arbitrary and irrational subjective requirements “such as loss of great architecture” when the City has no written regulation, policy, resolution, General Plan, zoning ordinance, or any factual documentation to support this funding of unmitigated substantive adverse impact in the environment pursuant to CEQA.
The above recited actions of Respondents’ and Defendants’ in depriving Petitioner of his state and federal protected constitutional rights were done with evil motive or intent, or with reckless or callous indifference to Petitioner’s rights requiring putative damages to be imposed.
Case Study II: Melanie Billig, President of Flanders Foundation
If the criteria used to determine the fate of the Flanders Mansion Parkland Property had involved the integrity of Mission Trail Nature Preserve and planning policy, namely the elimination of in-holdings, not the creation of in-holdings, then Mayor Sue McCloud would have solicited proposals for the lease use of the Flanders Mansion, placed the proposals on a public meeting agenda for public consideration and negotiated in good faith with representatives of the Flanders Foundation. Instead, for ten years, Mayor Sue McCloud campaigned exclusively for the sale of the Flanders Mansion Parkland Property resulting in two “rubberstamp” city councils voting in 2005 and 2009 to authorize the sale of the Property; and even after a Monterey County Superior Court Judge ruled in 2007 against the City in Flanders Foundation v. City of Carmel-by-the-Sea, et al. (M76728), the mayor continued authorizing expenditures of taxpayer dollars toward the sale of the Property, rather than consider lease options. Therefore, a reasonable inference is that Sue McCloud was guided by personal animosity towards the individual behind the lease use of the Flanders Mansion Parkland Property, Flanders Foundation President Melanie Billig.
Case Study III: Jane Miller, On-Leave Human Resources Manager
In on-leave Human Resources Manager Jane Miller’s court file pertaining to her lawsuit against the City, information shows that four former senior management city employees had claims similar to Jane Miller, namely “hostile” work environment and being force into early retirement, and in at least two of those cases, the city employees waived claims to secure a monetary settlement. Furthermore, in all four cases, the City negotiated with the attorney for the four city employees until a settlement was reached. However, in the case of Jane Miller, the mayor and city council not only failed to response to Jane Miller's attorney’s May 2008 letter and Jane Miller’s October 2008 letter, but they failed to negotiate in good faith prior to Jane Miller filing her lawsuit against the City in June 2009. Additionally, Mayor Sue McCloud demeaned Jane Miller with her dismissive "it's nothing" characterization of Jane Miller's legal complaint. Therefore, a reasonable inference is that Sue McCloud’s decisions were guided by personal animosity towards the individual personifying city employees with complaints regarding “hostile” work environment and being forced into early retirement.
In conclusion, the mayor of Carmel-by-the-Sea is expected to speak to all Carmelites, not merely to her supporters, and build consensus through argument and persuasion - not by vilifying individuals and pursing personal vendettas. Moreover, Mayor Sue McCloud’s personal animus against individuals has guided her governmental decision-making, rather than an objective analysis of the merits of the issues, including the fates of the Walter Burde bank building and Flanders Mansion Parkland Property and the complaints by city employees of sexual harassment, employment discrimination and retaliation. To wit, 736 Carmel voters who voted for mayoral candidate Adam Moniz recognize the aforementioned, while the 847 Carmel voters who voted for incumbent Mayor Sue McCloud will someday in the future have to account for their support of the current mayor of Carmel-by-the-Sea.
4 comments:
There is no doubt in many minds the mayor & administrator & asst. administrator colluded to draft and send the letter to John Hanson going back on their earlier commitment to him and his family when John was deployed to Iraq. Public media exposure put enough pressure on Sue McCloud to reinstate John’s pay differential and family health benefits.
Many also believe Sue McCloud has been a serial violator of the Brown Act for years. Publicly, the mayor and council diminish the importance of the Brown Act and portray it as an impediment to effective government. Too bad we have to put up with her for at least another two years. I would have preferred her retirement.
After the passage of months and months and many residents wanting answers to the city’s judgments leading to the sending of the letter notifying John Hanson that his benefits and pay differential would not be met by the city, the mayor and city administrator have refused to give us an explanation. Because they refuse to give an explanation, we are left with the only plausible explanation, retaliation for his deposition for Jane Miller before he left for Afghanistan. Ironically, Jane Miller also claims retaliation, along with harassment and discrimination.
Do we have the courage to stand up and support Jane Miller, Stephanie Pearce and all the others or do we sit by like cowards and condone the actions of Sue McCloud while she victimizes employees and residents in our name?
Before Sue McCloud was able to stack the commissions and boards with her people, she targeted commissions and boards made up of people with views and priorities different from her agendas. The members of he former Community & Cultural Commission, she treated them like obstreperous children, telling them they took too much of her time because they were asking tough questions about the proposed SCC to manage Sunset Center. The long and short of it is because the commissioners did not rubberstamp Sue’s agenda for Sunset Center, she eliminated the commission. She managed to do about the same thing with the former Carmel Art Board, whose members became so frustrated with the lack of consultation and disrespect shown them, all of them resigned together. So the city suffers because Sue has to either micromanage everything herself or have members beholden to her carry out her wishes.
Post a Comment