"MINUTES"
CITY COUNCIL MEETING
CITY OF CARMEL-BY-THE-SEA
December 2, 2008
X. Resolutions
A. Receive a status report on the Forest Theater Renovation and adopt a Resolution entering into an agreement with RFM Architects for architectural services in an amount of $131,000.
City Administrator, Rich Guillen, presented the staff report.
Mayor McCloud opened the meeting to public comment.
Stephen Moorer, Executive Director of PacRep, Representatives of the Forest Theater Guild and Children’s Experimental Theatre and Residents of Carmel, including Carolyn Hardy addressed Council. Concerns about the construction period were expressed; specifically the desire to have construction accomplished during the months of Fall 2008-Winter 2009.
Mayor McCloud closed the meeting to public comment.
Council Member ROSE moved approval of a Resolution entering into an agreement with RMF Architects for architectural services in an amount of $131,000, seconded by Council Member HAZDOVAC and carried by the following roll call:
AYES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: HAZDOVAC, ROSE, SHARP, TALMAGE & McCLOUD
NOES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: NONE
ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS: NONE
ABSTAIN: COUNCIL MEMBERS: NONE
C. Consideration of a Resolution authorizing an interim agreement with the City of Monterey to provide Fire Department administrative and Division Chief services.
Public Safety Director, George Rawson , presented the staff report. The expenditure is the “status quo.”
Mayor McCloud opened the meeting to public comment.
No public comments.
Mayor McCloud closed the meeting to public comment.
Council Member ROSE moved adoption of a Resolution entering into an interim agreement with the City of Monterey to provide Fire Department administrative and Division Chief services, seconded by Council Member TALMAGE and carried by the following roll call:
AYES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: HAZDOVAC, ROSE, SHARP, TALMAGE & McCLOUD
NOES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: NONE
ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS: NONE
ABSTAIN: COUNCIL MEMBERS: NONE
XI. Orders of Council
A. Receive report and provide policy direction regarding options for future Carmel Fire Department management.
This Agenda Item was not presented at the City Council Meeting as scheduled on the Agenda. Instead, this Agenda Item was presented under IV. Extraordinary Business.
Pulbic Safety Director George Rawson presented the Staff Report.
City Manager of the City of Monterey Fred Meurer and Monterey Fire Chief Sam Mazza addressed the public at the meeting. City Manager Fred Meurer presented a history of fire departments consolidation, excess liaibility carriers concerns, financial realities and finally his commitment to provide fire department services to the City of Carmel-by-the-Sea by consolidating what had once been three fire departments into one "extraordinary" fire department, if the City Council should decide to commit to consolidation.
Interestingly, during deliberations of the City Council, all City Council Members articulated their endorsement of moving forward with the contract option with the City of Monterey, all except Mayor Sue McCloud.
(Source: Archived Videos, Regular City Council Meeting, December 2, 2008)
Showing posts with label 2008 Campaign for City Council. Show all posts
Showing posts with label 2008 Campaign for City Council. Show all posts
Wednesday, December 03, 2008
Wednesday, April 30, 2008
Dennis Wolfe: "if you want to play political games with the security of your citizens then you...must be held severably and individually accountable"
ABSTRACT: At the Special City Council Meeting on April 3, 2008, during Appearances, Dennis Wolfe of “Citizens for Ethical Leadership in Government” commented on behalf of “local citizens” regarding Carmel-by-the-Sea's fire protection services. “Citizens for Ethical Leadership in Government” finds and exposes "situations where local governments violate the spirit of the Brown Act and our State’s Open Meeting Laws.” His comments are transcribed. REFERENCES, including summaries of Wolfe v. City of Fremont (144 C.A.4th 533), are presented.
At the Special City Council Meeting on April 3, 2008, during Appearances, Dennis Wolfe of “Citizens for Ethical Leadership in Government” made the following remarks:
“My name is Dennis Wolfe. I live in Fremont...and I have a state-wide Political Action Committee “Citizens for Ethical Leadership in Government.” We find and expose situations where local governments violate the spirit of the Brown Act and our State’s Open Meeting Laws. The clerk has material for you regarding my monumental recent state-wide precedent-setting decision regarding the Brown Act upheld in the State Supreme Court last year.”
“Right now, I would like to focus on the matter at hand regarding the fire safety. At the request of local citizens, I have been reviewing your actions, or should I say lack of action, regarding the delivery of adequate fire protection services for Carmel. It’s an apparent sleight-of-hand that seriously impacts the safety of all who live or do business here. And unfortunately, for you, as you are hearing from at least two people here, and probably hear from more voters are becoming very aware, that something is not right with respect to what you are doing. Carmel does not have adequate fire protection services and the responsibility for that rests squarely on your shoulders. Are you afraid to tell the citizens right before reelection that the cost of protecting the city has gone up and that could mean higher taxes? Well, no worries, I just did it for you. No one minds paying more if they’re receiving value for their dollars. Hidden agendas have unintended consequences, by continuing to run away from the reason you were elected and that is, one of those reasons is to ensure Carmel has adequate fire services. I guarantee that casualty insurance carriers are going to find out about it. I know. I’m a licensed casualty broker and have been in this business 32 years. They are going to seize upon your stall tactics and instantly recognize the real increase of the risk created by you. They’re either going to redline Carmel, their going to raise premiums so high that property owners are going to scream bloody murder or they’re simply going to cancel coverage. Three options. And that’s going to cost citizens a lot more than a justifiable tax increase if you need one. So one day if Carmel were to go up like a chimney because of inadequate fire protection services, you are going to bare a large part of the blame. How will you respond to the citizens in the days after a fire like the disaster in neighboring Pebble Beach? Did you know how close Carmel came to being wiped out back then? I do. I guarantee the Fire Department here knows. Ignore the risk and any sharp attorney is going to take you to court over the perceived liability that you bare. Suddenly, personal political agendas will not seem worth the prize on that day. Therefore, I urge all Carmel citizens to put you on written notice through their lawyers, if you want to play political games with the security of your citizens, then you should and must be held severably and individually accountable, you cannot operate with impunity, there is a prize to pay for assuming risk.”
REFERENCES:
• City Council Members’ Reaching Consensus In Non-Public Discussions, Prior To Public Meeting, Violates Brown Act
Wolfe v. City of Fremont (2006 WL 3072602, Cal.App. 1 Dist., Oct. 31, 2006)
• Brown Act Forbids Private Consensus-Building by City Councils
A California appellate court ruled in 2006 that under California's local government open meeting law, the Ralph M. Brown Act, a city manager may not build a city council consensus on a matter of city business by meeting privately with each council member.
In Wolfe v. City of Fremont (144 C.A.4th 533), the court held that a city council cannot reach a "collective concurrence" through individual meetings with the city manager. In this case, a citizen contested Fremont's decision to change its policy concerning police responses to home invasion alarms. The citizen, Dennis Wolfe, contended that at a hearing a councilmember said the "council had been fully briefed on the (security alarm) proposal and had expressed their support." In overturning a trial court's dismissal of Wolfe's Brown Act lawsuit against the city, the appellate court said that this statement, if proven true, was evidence of a Brown Act violation. The city manager (or anyone else) may speak to every member of the council. But the court said a city council cannot lawfully reach a consensus about action to be taken through these private meetings because it denies the public meaningful access to the decision-making process, as required by the Brown Act.
• Court of Appeal Denies Rehearing of Its Decision that Resident Stated a Claim against City for Violation of the Brown Act's Requirement that City Council Meetings be Open and Public
On November 30, 2006, the Court of Appeal denied rehearing of its opinion entered in Wolfe v. City of Fremont. In Wolfe, the Court held that a City resident successfully stated a claim for violation of the sections of the Brown Act (California Government Code section 54950 et seq.) that prohibit the legislative body of a local agency from conducting nonpublic meetings.
Specifically, the Court held that the City Council of Fremont violated the Brown Act by privately discussing a new policy promulgated by the city's police department. The Court further held that the resident's allegations led directly to the inference that the council members had reached a consensus through nonpublic discussions that took place among them, thereby violating the Act.
At the Special City Council Meeting on April 3, 2008, during Appearances, Dennis Wolfe of “Citizens for Ethical Leadership in Government” made the following remarks:
“My name is Dennis Wolfe. I live in Fremont...and I have a state-wide Political Action Committee “Citizens for Ethical Leadership in Government.” We find and expose situations where local governments violate the spirit of the Brown Act and our State’s Open Meeting Laws. The clerk has material for you regarding my monumental recent state-wide precedent-setting decision regarding the Brown Act upheld in the State Supreme Court last year.”
“Right now, I would like to focus on the matter at hand regarding the fire safety. At the request of local citizens, I have been reviewing your actions, or should I say lack of action, regarding the delivery of adequate fire protection services for Carmel. It’s an apparent sleight-of-hand that seriously impacts the safety of all who live or do business here. And unfortunately, for you, as you are hearing from at least two people here, and probably hear from more voters are becoming very aware, that something is not right with respect to what you are doing. Carmel does not have adequate fire protection services and the responsibility for that rests squarely on your shoulders. Are you afraid to tell the citizens right before reelection that the cost of protecting the city has gone up and that could mean higher taxes? Well, no worries, I just did it for you. No one minds paying more if they’re receiving value for their dollars. Hidden agendas have unintended consequences, by continuing to run away from the reason you were elected and that is, one of those reasons is to ensure Carmel has adequate fire services. I guarantee that casualty insurance carriers are going to find out about it. I know. I’m a licensed casualty broker and have been in this business 32 years. They are going to seize upon your stall tactics and instantly recognize the real increase of the risk created by you. They’re either going to redline Carmel, their going to raise premiums so high that property owners are going to scream bloody murder or they’re simply going to cancel coverage. Three options. And that’s going to cost citizens a lot more than a justifiable tax increase if you need one. So one day if Carmel were to go up like a chimney because of inadequate fire protection services, you are going to bare a large part of the blame. How will you respond to the citizens in the days after a fire like the disaster in neighboring Pebble Beach? Did you know how close Carmel came to being wiped out back then? I do. I guarantee the Fire Department here knows. Ignore the risk and any sharp attorney is going to take you to court over the perceived liability that you bare. Suddenly, personal political agendas will not seem worth the prize on that day. Therefore, I urge all Carmel citizens to put you on written notice through their lawyers, if you want to play political games with the security of your citizens, then you should and must be held severably and individually accountable, you cannot operate with impunity, there is a prize to pay for assuming risk.”
REFERENCES:
• City Council Members’ Reaching Consensus In Non-Public Discussions, Prior To Public Meeting, Violates Brown Act
Wolfe v. City of Fremont (2006 WL 3072602, Cal.App. 1 Dist., Oct. 31, 2006)
• Brown Act Forbids Private Consensus-Building by City Councils
A California appellate court ruled in 2006 that under California's local government open meeting law, the Ralph M. Brown Act, a city manager may not build a city council consensus on a matter of city business by meeting privately with each council member.
In Wolfe v. City of Fremont (144 C.A.4th 533), the court held that a city council cannot reach a "collective concurrence" through individual meetings with the city manager. In this case, a citizen contested Fremont's decision to change its policy concerning police responses to home invasion alarms. The citizen, Dennis Wolfe, contended that at a hearing a councilmember said the "council had been fully briefed on the (security alarm) proposal and had expressed their support." In overturning a trial court's dismissal of Wolfe's Brown Act lawsuit against the city, the appellate court said that this statement, if proven true, was evidence of a Brown Act violation. The city manager (or anyone else) may speak to every member of the council. But the court said a city council cannot lawfully reach a consensus about action to be taken through these private meetings because it denies the public meaningful access to the decision-making process, as required by the Brown Act.
• Court of Appeal Denies Rehearing of Its Decision that Resident Stated a Claim against City for Violation of the Brown Act's Requirement that City Council Meetings be Open and Public
On November 30, 2006, the Court of Appeal denied rehearing of its opinion entered in Wolfe v. City of Fremont. In Wolfe, the Court held that a City resident successfully stated a claim for violation of the sections of the Brown Act (California Government Code section 54950 et seq.) that prohibit the legislative body of a local agency from conducting nonpublic meetings.
Specifically, the Court held that the City Council of Fremont violated the Brown Act by privately discussing a new policy promulgated by the city's police department. The Court further held that the resident's allegations led directly to the inference that the council members had reached a consensus through nonpublic discussions that took place among them, thereby violating the Act.
Friday, April 18, 2008
Election Analysis, Ballot Controversy & California Elections Code
ABSTRACT: Selected Official Final Election Results for 2008 are presented. ANALYSIS, information about the Carmel-by-the-Sea ballot controversy, including a synopsis and link to the letter from the Chair of the Monterey County Democratic Central Committee to the Carmel-by-the-Sea City Clerk, California Elections Code Section 13210. (e) and COMMENTS are also presented.
Carmel-by-the-Sea Municipal Election
April 8, 2008
Official Final Election Results
Registration and Turnout:
Registered Voters: 2781
Total Ballots Cast: 1373
Precinct Ballots Cast: 329
Vote by Mail Ballots Cast: 1044
Turnout: 49%
Mayor (one seat):
Sue McCloud: 926
Dogman McBill: 312
Total Votes Cast: 1238
Member, City Council (two seats):
Karen I. Sharp: 784
Kenneth K. Talmage: 769
Michael LePage: 747
Total Votes Cast: 2300
ANALYSIS:
• Turnout for the 2008 election was 49%, compared to 48% in 2006.
• Nearly one half of the “Vote by Mail Ballots Cast” (1044) were cast prior to the City’s issuance of a correction to the ballot language.
• Of the total ballots cast in 2008 (1373), 1238 votes were cast for Mayor; 135 voters did not vote for Mayor.
• The number of votes for Dogman McBill (312) and the number of people who did not vote for mayor (135) equals 447; 447 represents about one half of the votes cast for Sue McCloud.
• In 2008, Sue McCloud received 926 votes of 1238 total votes cast, compared to 995 votes of 1344 ballots cast in 2006.
• For City Council, 2300 votes were cast in 2008, compared to 2447 total votes cast in 2006. Since there were 1373 ballots cast in 2008 and voters could vote for two for City Council, the total ballots cast for City Council could have been 2746 votes if every voter voted for two candidates; 446 votes were not cast for a candidate (approximately 1 in 3 voters voted for only one candidate).
CARMEL-BY-THE-SEA BALLOT & CALIFORNIA ELECTIONS CODE:
Letter from Vinz Koller, Chair of the Monterey County Democratic Central Committee, to Heidi Burch, Carmel-by-the-Sea City Clerk
Synopsis: The City of Carmel-by-the-Sea’s ballot for the 2008 Municipal Election for City Council had Spanish instructions, “Vote for no more than 2,” which is correct, and English instructions, "Vote for 2," which is incorrect. In a letter dated March 25, 2008, Vinz Koller wrote that the ballot for Carmel’s April 8, 2008 City Council election is “confusing and misleads voters. It is having a direct and material impact on a current election and violates the State Election Code Section 13120 (e)." Koller requested that the City “inform voters immediately of the error by mailing a correction notice to all registered voters in Carmel and by immediately placing a full page ad in a prominent location in the 3 newspapers” and conduct an investigation into the matter. The election results were certified by Monterey County on Wednesday, April 9, 2008 and Karen Sharp and Ken Talmage were sworn in on Tuesday, April 15. Representatives from the Monterey County Democratic Party said they will "reserve our right to challenge the results" of Tuesday's municipal election in Carmel; they or any voter or Michael LePage, the losing candidate, has 30 days, until May 9, to contest the results of the election. Last Monday, the Monterey County Democratic Central Committee advised the City it would “undertake preliminary steps to contest the election” in Monterey County Superior Court, according to The Carmel Pine Cone.
CALIFORNIA ELECTIONS CODE
DIVISION 13. BALLOTS, SAMPLE BALLOTS, AND VOTER PAMPHLETS
CHAPTER 3. BALLOT PRINTING SPECIFICATIONS
Article 1. General Provisions ................................13200-13220
13210.(e) In the case of all other candidates, each group of candidates to be voted on shall be preceded by the designation of the office for which they are running, and the words "vote for one" or "vote for no more than two," or more, according to the number to be nominated or elected. The designation of the office shall be printed flush with the left-hand margin in boldfaced gothic type not smaller than 8-point. The words, "vote for ____" shall extend to the extreme right-hand margin of the column and over the voting square. The designation of the office and the directions for voting shall be separated from the candidates by a light line. There shall be no line between the headings for federal or legislative offices and the designation of the office and the directions for voting.
COMMENTS:
• An argument for contesting the election results is that one group of voters received one set of ballot instructions and another group of voters received another set of ballot instructions; that is, nearly one half of the 1044 “Vote by Mail” voters voted prior to the City’s issuance of a correction.
• If previous City ballots have been similarly written, in violation of the California Elections Code, then that is not justification for the City's violation of the California Elections Code in 2008.
Carmel-by-the-Sea Municipal Election
April 8, 2008
Official Final Election Results
Registration and Turnout:
Registered Voters: 2781
Total Ballots Cast: 1373
Precinct Ballots Cast: 329
Vote by Mail Ballots Cast: 1044
Turnout: 49%
Mayor (one seat):
Sue McCloud: 926
Dogman McBill: 312
Total Votes Cast: 1238
Member, City Council (two seats):
Karen I. Sharp: 784
Kenneth K. Talmage: 769
Michael LePage: 747
Total Votes Cast: 2300
ANALYSIS:
• Turnout for the 2008 election was 49%, compared to 48% in 2006.
• Nearly one half of the “Vote by Mail Ballots Cast” (1044) were cast prior to the City’s issuance of a correction to the ballot language.
• Of the total ballots cast in 2008 (1373), 1238 votes were cast for Mayor; 135 voters did not vote for Mayor.
• The number of votes for Dogman McBill (312) and the number of people who did not vote for mayor (135) equals 447; 447 represents about one half of the votes cast for Sue McCloud.
• In 2008, Sue McCloud received 926 votes of 1238 total votes cast, compared to 995 votes of 1344 ballots cast in 2006.
• For City Council, 2300 votes were cast in 2008, compared to 2447 total votes cast in 2006. Since there were 1373 ballots cast in 2008 and voters could vote for two for City Council, the total ballots cast for City Council could have been 2746 votes if every voter voted for two candidates; 446 votes were not cast for a candidate (approximately 1 in 3 voters voted for only one candidate).
CARMEL-BY-THE-SEA BALLOT & CALIFORNIA ELECTIONS CODE:
Letter from Vinz Koller, Chair of the Monterey County Democratic Central Committee, to Heidi Burch, Carmel-by-the-Sea City Clerk
Synopsis: The City of Carmel-by-the-Sea’s ballot for the 2008 Municipal Election for City Council had Spanish instructions, “Vote for no more than 2,” which is correct, and English instructions, "Vote for 2," which is incorrect. In a letter dated March 25, 2008, Vinz Koller wrote that the ballot for Carmel’s April 8, 2008 City Council election is “confusing and misleads voters. It is having a direct and material impact on a current election and violates the State Election Code Section 13120 (e)." Koller requested that the City “inform voters immediately of the error by mailing a correction notice to all registered voters in Carmel and by immediately placing a full page ad in a prominent location in the 3 newspapers” and conduct an investigation into the matter. The election results were certified by Monterey County on Wednesday, April 9, 2008 and Karen Sharp and Ken Talmage were sworn in on Tuesday, April 15. Representatives from the Monterey County Democratic Party said they will "reserve our right to challenge the results" of Tuesday's municipal election in Carmel; they or any voter or Michael LePage, the losing candidate, has 30 days, until May 9, to contest the results of the election. Last Monday, the Monterey County Democratic Central Committee advised the City it would “undertake preliminary steps to contest the election” in Monterey County Superior Court, according to The Carmel Pine Cone.
CALIFORNIA ELECTIONS CODE
DIVISION 13. BALLOTS, SAMPLE BALLOTS, AND VOTER PAMPHLETS
CHAPTER 3. BALLOT PRINTING SPECIFICATIONS
Article 1. General Provisions ................................13200-13220
13210.(e) In the case of all other candidates, each group of candidates to be voted on shall be preceded by the designation of the office for which they are running, and the words "vote for one" or "vote for no more than two," or more, according to the number to be nominated or elected. The designation of the office shall be printed flush with the left-hand margin in boldfaced gothic type not smaller than 8-point. The words, "vote for ____" shall extend to the extreme right-hand margin of the column and over the voting square. The designation of the office and the directions for voting shall be separated from the candidates by a light line. There shall be no line between the headings for federal or legislative offices and the designation of the office and the directions for voting.
COMMENTS:
• An argument for contesting the election results is that one group of voters received one set of ballot instructions and another group of voters received another set of ballot instructions; that is, nearly one half of the 1044 “Vote by Mail” voters voted prior to the City’s issuance of a correction.
• If previous City ballots have been similarly written, in violation of the California Elections Code, then that is not justification for the City's violation of the California Elections Code in 2008.
Saturday, April 12, 2008
Media Capture & An Uninformed Electorate
ABSTRACT: Media Capture by City Hall was a ubiquitous and transparent phenomenon during this past municipal election campaign; that is, collusion between the local media and City Hall, particularly Mayor Sue McCloud, to influence and dictate the outcome of the election. What is meant by “Captured Media” and the failure of the local media to uphold the “principles of journalism” is discussed.
Media Capture by City Hall was a ubiquitous and transparent phenomenon during this past municipal election campaign; that is, collusion between the local print media, principally The Monterey County Herald, Monterey County Weekly and The Carmel Pine Cone, and city council incumbents, particularly Mayor Sue McCloud, to influence and dictate the outcome of the election.
What is meant by “Captured Media?” In the context of the City of Carmel-by-the-Sea, “Captured Media” is characterized, as follows:
• Promulgates propaganda and suppresses negative or unfavorable information.
• Vital issues are never substantively presented to the extent that the issues do not enter the public’s consciousness.
• Ignores and under-covers stories.
• Fails to hold politicians accountable for their actions with follow-up questions and context.
• “Bad” politicians are never identified because their records are never scrutinized.
• Results in high incumbency reelection rates.
Theorically, the media is supposed to empower citizens to make good electoral decisions by informing citizens on the vital issues of the day. However, the media can do so only if the media strives to uphold the “principles of journalism,” especially “JOURNALISM'S FIRST OBLIGATION IS TO THE TRUTH,” “ITS FIRST LOYALTY IS TO CITIZENS,” “ITS ESSENCE IS A DISCIPLINE OF VERIFICATION,” “ITS PRACTITIONERS MUST MAINTAIN AN INDEPENDENCE FROM THOSE THEY COVER,” ”IT MUST SERVE AS AN INDEPENDENT MONITOR OF POWER,” “IT MUST STRIVE TO MAKE THE SIGNIFICANT INTERESTING AND RELEVANT” AND "IT MUST KEEP THE NEWS COMPREHENSIVE AND PROPORTIONAL.” Moreover, when the media fails to uphold the “principles of journalism” and has a “cozy” relationship with government, the news content is unduly influenced by government to the extent that government is no longer accountable to citizens.
In the local media’s coverage of the City of Carmel-by-the-Sea, particularly the past municipal election campaign, instead of striving to uphold the “principles of journalism,” the media were purveyors of candidates’ propaganda, slogans and talking points. Furthermore, the media ignored the issues of the day and failed to make the candidates answer substantive questions about significant issues, including questions about “open government,” the City’s budget and overall fiscal condition, the future of the Carmel Fire Department and consolidation, historical and cultural assets, Carmel’s “urbanized” forest and storm water discharges into Carmel Bay.
In closing, when the media coverage of the past municipal election campaign is characterized by “we print what we’re told,” unreported stories on significant issues and unasked questions, Carmelites are not making electoral decisions as informed citizens on the issues of the day. As a consequence, uninformed citizens are all the more susceptible to viewing as credible the media’s editorial commentaries and endorsements, no matter how unfounded and unreasoned.
Media Capture by City Hall was a ubiquitous and transparent phenomenon during this past municipal election campaign; that is, collusion between the local print media, principally The Monterey County Herald, Monterey County Weekly and The Carmel Pine Cone, and city council incumbents, particularly Mayor Sue McCloud, to influence and dictate the outcome of the election.
What is meant by “Captured Media?” In the context of the City of Carmel-by-the-Sea, “Captured Media” is characterized, as follows:
• Promulgates propaganda and suppresses negative or unfavorable information.
• Vital issues are never substantively presented to the extent that the issues do not enter the public’s consciousness.
• Ignores and under-covers stories.
• Fails to hold politicians accountable for their actions with follow-up questions and context.
• “Bad” politicians are never identified because their records are never scrutinized.
• Results in high incumbency reelection rates.
Theorically, the media is supposed to empower citizens to make good electoral decisions by informing citizens on the vital issues of the day. However, the media can do so only if the media strives to uphold the “principles of journalism,” especially “JOURNALISM'S FIRST OBLIGATION IS TO THE TRUTH,” “ITS FIRST LOYALTY IS TO CITIZENS,” “ITS ESSENCE IS A DISCIPLINE OF VERIFICATION,” “ITS PRACTITIONERS MUST MAINTAIN AN INDEPENDENCE FROM THOSE THEY COVER,” ”IT MUST SERVE AS AN INDEPENDENT MONITOR OF POWER,” “IT MUST STRIVE TO MAKE THE SIGNIFICANT INTERESTING AND RELEVANT” AND "IT MUST KEEP THE NEWS COMPREHENSIVE AND PROPORTIONAL.” Moreover, when the media fails to uphold the “principles of journalism” and has a “cozy” relationship with government, the news content is unduly influenced by government to the extent that government is no longer accountable to citizens.
In the local media’s coverage of the City of Carmel-by-the-Sea, particularly the past municipal election campaign, instead of striving to uphold the “principles of journalism,” the media were purveyors of candidates’ propaganda, slogans and talking points. Furthermore, the media ignored the issues of the day and failed to make the candidates answer substantive questions about significant issues, including questions about “open government,” the City’s budget and overall fiscal condition, the future of the Carmel Fire Department and consolidation, historical and cultural assets, Carmel’s “urbanized” forest and storm water discharges into Carmel Bay.
In closing, when the media coverage of the past municipal election campaign is characterized by “we print what we’re told,” unreported stories on significant issues and unasked questions, Carmelites are not making electoral decisions as informed citizens on the issues of the day. As a consequence, uninformed citizens are all the more susceptible to viewing as credible the media’s editorial commentaries and endorsements, no matter how unfounded and unreasoned.
Thursday, March 13, 2008
PART II: August Beacham, President of the Carmel Professional Firefighters, & City Council Candidate Michael LePage on the Carmel Fire Department
ABSTRACT: After August Beacham spoke during Appearances at the City Council meeting on Tuesday, March 4, 2008, Michael LePage, Candidate for City Council, spoke about the Carmel Fire Department. Specifically, LePage spoke about his dismay that “the Council has chosen not to put the Fire Department consolidation issue on the agenda.” “The community deserves to have an open hearing on this so that they can hear all the information that surroundings this issue and it can be discussed.” LePage then requested that the Council put the Carmel Fire Department merger with Monterey and Pacific Grove Fire Departments on the April 2008 agenda.
City Council
Regular Meeting
March 4, 2008
VI. Appearances
Anyone wishing to address the City Council on matters within the jurisdiction of the City and are not on the agenda may do so now. Matters not appearing on the City Council’s agenda will not receive action at this meeting but may be referred to staff for a future meeting. Presentations will be limited to three (3) minutes, or as otherwise established by the City Council. Persons are not required to give their names, but it is helpful for speakers to state their names in order that the City Clerk may identify them in the minutes of the meeting. Always speak into the microphone, as the meeting is recorded on tape.
Good Evening. Honorable Mayor and City Council. I’m Michael LePage. The first responsibility of the City is to protect the health, safety and welfare of the community. I am greatly dismayed that the Council has chosen not to put the Fire Department consolidation issue on the agenda. This is an issue which directly affects the safety and the well-being of the community and our residents. The City Administrator has stated that this consolidation issue is not being put on the agenda because of the election cycle. This sends the wrong message to the community and should not be a reason to keep an item of such great importance to the community. The community deserves to have an open hearing on this so that they can hear all the information that surrounds this issue and it can be discussed. I request that the Council put, give this the attention it deserves, and put it on the April agenda. Thank you very much.
City Council
Regular Meeting
March 4, 2008
VI. Appearances
Anyone wishing to address the City Council on matters within the jurisdiction of the City and are not on the agenda may do so now. Matters not appearing on the City Council’s agenda will not receive action at this meeting but may be referred to staff for a future meeting. Presentations will be limited to three (3) minutes, or as otherwise established by the City Council. Persons are not required to give their names, but it is helpful for speakers to state their names in order that the City Clerk may identify them in the minutes of the meeting. Always speak into the microphone, as the meeting is recorded on tape.
Good Evening. Honorable Mayor and City Council. I’m Michael LePage. The first responsibility of the City is to protect the health, safety and welfare of the community. I am greatly dismayed that the Council has chosen not to put the Fire Department consolidation issue on the agenda. This is an issue which directly affects the safety and the well-being of the community and our residents. The City Administrator has stated that this consolidation issue is not being put on the agenda because of the election cycle. This sends the wrong message to the community and should not be a reason to keep an item of such great importance to the community. The community deserves to have an open hearing on this so that they can hear all the information that surrounds this issue and it can be discussed. I request that the Council put, give this the attention it deserves, and put it on the April agenda. Thank you very much.
Thursday, February 14, 2008
In the Interest of an Informed Electorate: QUESTIONS COVERING SIX AREAS sent to City Council Candidates
ABSTRACT: In the interest of having an informed electorate, QUESTIONS COVERING SIX AREAS, including the areas of "Open Government," City's Budget, Fire Department, Historical & Cultural Assets, "Urbanized" Forest and Storm Water Discharges into Carmel Bay, will be sent immediately after posting today via email to Mayor Sue McCloud (smccloud@ci.carmel.ca.us), Council Member Karen Sharp (karensharp@yahoo.com), Ken Talmage (kktalm@aol.com), Michael LePage (mlepage@lepageconstruction.com) and sent via USPS to Dogman McBill (P.O. Box 926). Instructions on how to post their answers are given and they are thanked for their cooperation and interest in informing Carmelites of their positions.
Dear City Council Candidates:
In the interest of having an informed electorate, The Carmel-by-the-Sea WATCHDOG! requests your answers to QUESTIONS COVERING SIX AREAS.
To respond, click http://villageinforest.blogspot.com/ or type URL in search engine box. At the end of “Thursday, February 14, 2008” post, click on “Comments” and type your answers into the box, then click “Name” circle, type your name and click “PUBLISH YOUR COMMENT.”
Thank you for your cooperation and interest in informing Carmelites of your positions.
Sincerely,
The Carmel-by-the-Sea WATCHDOG!
QUESTIONS COVERING SIX AREAS:
• On “Open Government:”
As a Carmelite, have you read the 2005 Monterey County Civil Grand Jury Report on Open Government? If you have read it, what is your understanding of “open government?”
What would you do to promote “open government” in Carmel-by-the-Sea?
• On the City’s Budget and Overall Fiscal Condition:
What are your budget priorities?
What are your plans to address the growing deferred maintenance needs of our village?
Given the magnitude of deferred maintenance, what is the optimal range for the City’s reserve fund levels? Do you think $9 million in reserve funds is justified because the “the city’s $9 million in reserves is offset by the debt it carries from the Sunset Center renovation,” as expressed by City Council Member Ken Talmage?
Do you think “prudent fiscal management” and “budgeting conservatively” means the current practice of more and more deferred maintenance and larger and larger reserve fund levels with each successive year?
• On Future of Carmel Fire Department:
Have you read the Citygate Associates “Fire Department Consolidation Feasibility Analysis for the Cities of Monterey, Pacific Grove and Carmel” report? If you have read it, what is your position on the finding that the City is under funding our Fire Department by $400,000/year?
What is your position regarding consolidation?
• Historical & Cultural Assets:
The Scout House: Would you budget for maintenance, improvements and ADA compliance measures for the Scout House so that it can reopen as a Community Center?
Forest Theatre: Have you read the "Forest Theater Facility Master Plan (2001)" by Brian Congleton of CONGLETON ARCHITECT AIA? If you have read it, why shouldn’t the City annually budget for the multi-phase implementation of the Congleton Plan now?
Flanders Mansion Property: Would you have an open mind about the proposed sale of the National Register of Historic Places Flanders Mansion property? As a City Council Member, would you base your vote on the long-term interests of the city, not short-term financial gain or the desires of the mayor?
Sunset Center: Is a management subsidy of $750,000 for FY 2007/08 to Sunset Cultural Center, Inc. justified relative to the budgets of other City departments; that is, compared to FY 2007/08 budgets of $721,001 for Community Planning & Building, $457,661 for Forest, Parks and Beach and $508,200 for the Capital Improvement Program.
• On our “Urbanized” Forest:
Have you read Consulting Arborist Barrie D. Coate’s studies entitled “A View of the Future Forest of the City of Carmel,” “Results of a Review of Trees in a Two Block Transect of Carmel” and “Suggested Replacement Trees for Use in the Carmel Forest?”
What amount in taxpayer dollars should be annually budgeted to implement the studies’ recommendations, including the completion of a comprehensive Inventory of Public & Private Trees in Carmel-by-the-Sea?
Given a $13 million annual budget and nearly $10 million in reserve funds, is a Forest, Parks and Beach Department FY 2007/08 budget of $457,661 sufficient for maintenance and reforestation? If $457,661 is not sufficient, what should the FY 2007/08 budget be for the Forest, Parks and Beach Department?
Do you believe all “parks,” including Forest Theatre and Mission Trail Nature Preserve, should be well maintained?
• On Storm Water Discharges into Carmel Bay, an Area of Special Biological Significance (ASBS):
Do you agree with the Mayor’s and City Administrator’s tactics of expending $250,000 in legal fees in an attempt to obtain a “waiver,” which was later denied, and filing for an “exception” with the State Water Resources Control Board for ASBS state mandated discharges? If you do not agree with these tactics, what is your plan to meet the state mandated requirements?
Dear City Council Candidates:
In the interest of having an informed electorate, The Carmel-by-the-Sea WATCHDOG! requests your answers to QUESTIONS COVERING SIX AREAS.
To respond, click http://villageinforest.blogspot.com/ or type URL in search engine box. At the end of “Thursday, February 14, 2008” post, click on “Comments” and type your answers into the box, then click “Name” circle, type your name and click “PUBLISH YOUR COMMENT.”
Thank you for your cooperation and interest in informing Carmelites of your positions.
Sincerely,
The Carmel-by-the-Sea WATCHDOG!
QUESTIONS COVERING SIX AREAS:
• On “Open Government:”
As a Carmelite, have you read the 2005 Monterey County Civil Grand Jury Report on Open Government? If you have read it, what is your understanding of “open government?”
What would you do to promote “open government” in Carmel-by-the-Sea?
• On the City’s Budget and Overall Fiscal Condition:
What are your budget priorities?
What are your plans to address the growing deferred maintenance needs of our village?
Given the magnitude of deferred maintenance, what is the optimal range for the City’s reserve fund levels? Do you think $9 million in reserve funds is justified because the “the city’s $9 million in reserves is offset by the debt it carries from the Sunset Center renovation,” as expressed by City Council Member Ken Talmage?
Do you think “prudent fiscal management” and “budgeting conservatively” means the current practice of more and more deferred maintenance and larger and larger reserve fund levels with each successive year?
• On Future of Carmel Fire Department:
Have you read the Citygate Associates “Fire Department Consolidation Feasibility Analysis for the Cities of Monterey, Pacific Grove and Carmel” report? If you have read it, what is your position on the finding that the City is under funding our Fire Department by $400,000/year?
What is your position regarding consolidation?
• Historical & Cultural Assets:
The Scout House: Would you budget for maintenance, improvements and ADA compliance measures for the Scout House so that it can reopen as a Community Center?
Forest Theatre: Have you read the "Forest Theater Facility Master Plan (2001)" by Brian Congleton of CONGLETON ARCHITECT AIA? If you have read it, why shouldn’t the City annually budget for the multi-phase implementation of the Congleton Plan now?
Flanders Mansion Property: Would you have an open mind about the proposed sale of the National Register of Historic Places Flanders Mansion property? As a City Council Member, would you base your vote on the long-term interests of the city, not short-term financial gain or the desires of the mayor?
Sunset Center: Is a management subsidy of $750,000 for FY 2007/08 to Sunset Cultural Center, Inc. justified relative to the budgets of other City departments; that is, compared to FY 2007/08 budgets of $721,001 for Community Planning & Building, $457,661 for Forest, Parks and Beach and $508,200 for the Capital Improvement Program.
• On our “Urbanized” Forest:
Have you read Consulting Arborist Barrie D. Coate’s studies entitled “A View of the Future Forest of the City of Carmel,” “Results of a Review of Trees in a Two Block Transect of Carmel” and “Suggested Replacement Trees for Use in the Carmel Forest?”
What amount in taxpayer dollars should be annually budgeted to implement the studies’ recommendations, including the completion of a comprehensive Inventory of Public & Private Trees in Carmel-by-the-Sea?
Given a $13 million annual budget and nearly $10 million in reserve funds, is a Forest, Parks and Beach Department FY 2007/08 budget of $457,661 sufficient for maintenance and reforestation? If $457,661 is not sufficient, what should the FY 2007/08 budget be for the Forest, Parks and Beach Department?
Do you believe all “parks,” including Forest Theatre and Mission Trail Nature Preserve, should be well maintained?
• On Storm Water Discharges into Carmel Bay, an Area of Special Biological Significance (ASBS):
Do you agree with the Mayor’s and City Administrator’s tactics of expending $250,000 in legal fees in an attempt to obtain a “waiver,” which was later denied, and filing for an “exception” with the State Water Resources Control Board for ASBS state mandated discharges? If you do not agree with these tactics, what is your plan to meet the state mandated requirements?
Monday, February 11, 2008
QUESTIONS Carmelites Should Ask of All the Candidates for City Council
ABSTRACT: All candidates for City Council have described Carmel-by-the-Sea as a “unique,” “special” place worthy of protection and preservation. Beyond platitudes and campaign slogans though, what does protecting and preserving this "unique," "special" place mean in pragmatic, practical and concrete terms? QUESTIONS COVERING SIX AREAS, including the areas of "Open Government," City's Budget, Fire Department, Historical & Cultural Assets, "Urbanized" Forest and Storm Water Discharges into Carmel Bay, is presented.
QUESTIONS COVERING SIX AREAS:
• On “Open Government:”
As a Carmelite, have you read the 2005 Monterey County Civil Grand Jury Report on Open Government? If you have read it, what is your understanding of “open government?”
What would you do to promote “open government” in Carmel-by-the-Sea?
• On the City’s Budget and Overall Fiscal Condition:
What are your budget priorities?
What are your plans to address the growing deferred maintenance needs of our village?
Given the magnitude of deferred maintenance, what is the optimal range for the City’s reserve fund levels? Do you think $9 million in reserve funds is justified because the “the city’s $9 million in reserves is offset by the debt it carries from the Sunset Center renovation,” as expressed by City Council Member Ken Talmage?
Do you think “prudent fiscal management” and “budgeting conservatively” means the current paractice of more and more deferred maintenance and larger and larger reserve fund levels with each successive year?
• On Future of Carmel Fire Department:
Have you read the Citygate Associates “Fire Department Consolidation Feasibility Analysis for the Cities of Monterey, Pacific Grove and Carmel” report? If you have read it, what is your position on the finding that the City is under funding our Fire Department by $400,000/year?
What is your position regarding consolidation?
• Historical & Cultural Assets:
The Scout House: Would you budget for maintenance, improvements and ADA compliance measures for the Scout House so that it can reopen as a Community Center?
Forest Theatre: Have you read the Forest Theater Facility Master Plan (2001) by Brian Congleton of CONGLETON ARCHITECT AIA? If you have read it, why shouldn’t the City annually budget for the multi-phase implementation of the Congleton Plan now?
Flanders Mansion Property: Would you have an open mind about the proposed sale of the National Register of Historic Places Flanders Mansion property? As a City Council Member, would you base your vote on the long-term interests of the city, not short-term financial gain or the desires of the mayor?
Sunset Center: Is a management subsidy of $750,000 for FY 2007/08 to Sunset Cultural Center, Inc. justified relative to the budgets of other City departments; that is, compared to FY 2007/08 budgets of $721,001 for Community Planning & Building, $457,661 for Forest, Parks and Beach and $508,200 for the Capital Improvement Program.
• On our “Urbanized” Forest:
Have you read Consulting Arborist Barrie D. Coate’s studies entitled “A View of the Future Forest of the City of Carmel,” “Results of a Review of Trees in a Two Block Transect of Carmel” and “Suggested Replacement Trees for Use in the Carmel Forest?” What amount in taxpayer dollars should be annually budgeted to implement the studies’ recommendations, including the completion of a comprehensive Inventory of Public & Private Trees in Carmel-by-the-Sea?
Given a $13 million annual budget and nearly $10 million in reserve funds, is a Forest, Parks and Beach Department FY 2007/08 budget of $457,661 sufficient for maintenance and reforestation? If $457,661 is not sufficient, what should the FY 2007/08 budget be for the Forest, Parks and Beach Department?
Do you believe all “parks,” including Forest Theatre and Mission Trail Nature Preserve, should be well maintained?
• On Storm Water Discharges into Carmel Bay, an Area of Special Biological Significance (ASBS):
Do you agree with the Mayor’s and City Administrator’s tactics of expending $250,000 in legal fees in an attempt to obtain a “waiver,” which was later denied, and filing for an “exception” with the State Water Resources Control Board for ASBS state mandated discharges? If you do not agree with these tactics, what is your plan to meet the state mandated requirements?
QUESTIONS COVERING SIX AREAS:
• On “Open Government:”
As a Carmelite, have you read the 2005 Monterey County Civil Grand Jury Report on Open Government? If you have read it, what is your understanding of “open government?”
What would you do to promote “open government” in Carmel-by-the-Sea?
• On the City’s Budget and Overall Fiscal Condition:
What are your budget priorities?
What are your plans to address the growing deferred maintenance needs of our village?
Given the magnitude of deferred maintenance, what is the optimal range for the City’s reserve fund levels? Do you think $9 million in reserve funds is justified because the “the city’s $9 million in reserves is offset by the debt it carries from the Sunset Center renovation,” as expressed by City Council Member Ken Talmage?
Do you think “prudent fiscal management” and “budgeting conservatively” means the current paractice of more and more deferred maintenance and larger and larger reserve fund levels with each successive year?
• On Future of Carmel Fire Department:
Have you read the Citygate Associates “Fire Department Consolidation Feasibility Analysis for the Cities of Monterey, Pacific Grove and Carmel” report? If you have read it, what is your position on the finding that the City is under funding our Fire Department by $400,000/year?
What is your position regarding consolidation?
• Historical & Cultural Assets:
The Scout House: Would you budget for maintenance, improvements and ADA compliance measures for the Scout House so that it can reopen as a Community Center?
Forest Theatre: Have you read the Forest Theater Facility Master Plan (2001) by Brian Congleton of CONGLETON ARCHITECT AIA? If you have read it, why shouldn’t the City annually budget for the multi-phase implementation of the Congleton Plan now?
Flanders Mansion Property: Would you have an open mind about the proposed sale of the National Register of Historic Places Flanders Mansion property? As a City Council Member, would you base your vote on the long-term interests of the city, not short-term financial gain or the desires of the mayor?
Sunset Center: Is a management subsidy of $750,000 for FY 2007/08 to Sunset Cultural Center, Inc. justified relative to the budgets of other City departments; that is, compared to FY 2007/08 budgets of $721,001 for Community Planning & Building, $457,661 for Forest, Parks and Beach and $508,200 for the Capital Improvement Program.
• On our “Urbanized” Forest:
Have you read Consulting Arborist Barrie D. Coate’s studies entitled “A View of the Future Forest of the City of Carmel,” “Results of a Review of Trees in a Two Block Transect of Carmel” and “Suggested Replacement Trees for Use in the Carmel Forest?” What amount in taxpayer dollars should be annually budgeted to implement the studies’ recommendations, including the completion of a comprehensive Inventory of Public & Private Trees in Carmel-by-the-Sea?
Given a $13 million annual budget and nearly $10 million in reserve funds, is a Forest, Parks and Beach Department FY 2007/08 budget of $457,661 sufficient for maintenance and reforestation? If $457,661 is not sufficient, what should the FY 2007/08 budget be for the Forest, Parks and Beach Department?
Do you believe all “parks,” including Forest Theatre and Mission Trail Nature Preserve, should be well maintained?
• On Storm Water Discharges into Carmel Bay, an Area of Special Biological Significance (ASBS):
Do you agree with the Mayor’s and City Administrator’s tactics of expending $250,000 in legal fees in an attempt to obtain a “waiver,” which was later denied, and filing for an “exception” with the State Water Resources Control Board for ASBS state mandated discharges? If you do not agree with these tactics, what is your plan to meet the state mandated requirements?
Sunday, February 10, 2008
Michael LePage: “I want to help Carmel embrace its future while preserving its special past”
ABSTRACT: Today, Sunday, “Michael LePage for Carmel-by-the-Sea City Council” campaign handouts were delivered to Carmel-by-the-Sea residences. A photo and text of the handout are presented.
Photo of "Michael LePage for Carmel-by-the-Sea City Council" Campaign Handout
The text of "Michael LePage for Carmel-by-the-Sea City Council" Campaign Handout, as follows:
Michael LePage
for Carmel-by-the-Sea
City Council
“I want to help Carmel embrace its future while preserving its special past”
Carmel is truly a unique community. Those of use who live
here feel this every day. Carmel’s spectacular natural setting
and the human scale of its neighborhoods and village define
who we are as a community. I want to become a greater voice
to protect and nurture this special place we call Carmel.
I am:
• A 32 year resident of Carmel-By-The-Sea. My wife, Joanne, and I have raised our family here. Joanne is a 7th generation local resident.
• A 30 year local business owner.
• A 6 year member of the Carmel Design Review Board, 2 years as chairman.
As your Council member I will:
• Be a voice for all Carmelites and their neighborhoods.
• Listen to your concerns and welcome your ideas.
• Encourage and support the arts and cultural events.
• Ensure a healthy and well-maintained urban forest.
• Promote and maintain our parks and open space.
• Work with and support a healthy business community.
• Promote fiscal responsibility and sustainable budget policies.
I ask for your vote to allow me to serve you on our city council.
Vote Michael LePage for City Council on April 8th
Thank you!
Paid for by the Committee to Elect Michael LePage, P.O. Box 2096, Carmel-by-the-Sea, CA. 93921
Photo of "Michael LePage for Carmel-by-the-Sea City Council" Campaign HandoutThe text of "Michael LePage for Carmel-by-the-Sea City Council" Campaign Handout, as follows:
Michael LePage
for Carmel-by-the-Sea
City Council
“I want to help Carmel embrace its future while preserving its special past”
Carmel is truly a unique community. Those of use who live
here feel this every day. Carmel’s spectacular natural setting
and the human scale of its neighborhoods and village define
who we are as a community. I want to become a greater voice
to protect and nurture this special place we call Carmel.
I am:
• A 32 year resident of Carmel-By-The-Sea. My wife, Joanne, and I have raised our family here. Joanne is a 7th generation local resident.
• A 30 year local business owner.
• A 6 year member of the Carmel Design Review Board, 2 years as chairman.
As your Council member I will:
• Be a voice for all Carmelites and their neighborhoods.
• Listen to your concerns and welcome your ideas.
• Encourage and support the arts and cultural events.
• Ensure a healthy and well-maintained urban forest.
• Promote and maintain our parks and open space.
• Work with and support a healthy business community.
• Promote fiscal responsibility and sustainable budget policies.
I ask for your vote to allow me to serve you on our city council.
Vote Michael LePage for City Council on April 8th
Thank you!
Paid for by the Committee to Elect Michael LePage, P.O. Box 2096, Carmel-by-the-Sea, CA. 93921
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)