Send this story Print this story

Adjust text size

Uploaded: Friday, August 22, 2008, 8:02 AM                                             

As campaigns get under way, council's a bit testy
Extension of today's initiative-analysis filing deadline loses as two sides feud

by Jeb Bing
Pleasanton Weekly Staff

Posted by Fran, a resident of the Danbury Park neighborhood, on Aug 22, 2008 at 2:05 pm

This should be no surprise to anyone. Mr. Sullivan is well known for going into attack mode when someone does not agree with him. This goes back to his days on the Planning Commission as well.

Posted by disgusted with majority, a resident of the Another Pleasanton neighborhood neighborhood, on Aug 22, 2008 at 3:50 pm

Sullivan and McGovern wanted to extend the deadline, which is allowed by Alameda Co registrar, by THREEE days (and really ONE business day since it's a weekend). With a business trip as a conflict for Sullivan, were is the harm in the extension? The other council members have done stuff like that before. Oh wait a minute, they don't like the citizen's initiative. I guess that explains it. Thorne and Kallio are about as biased as they come. Heaven help us if we lose McGovern or Sullivan.

Posted by anonymous, a resident of the Another Pleasanton neighborhood neighborhood, on Aug 22, 2008 at 5:53 pm

Just back in June Cook-Kallio requested that item be heard when it was scheduled because of a work conflict the following meeting and Sullivan absolutely refused.

He continued the item anyway. Then complained when the council majority scheduled a special meeting during his vacation. Biased?????

The delay by Sullivan was an attempt to silence the input of a councilmember.

People plan based on the schedule.

Posted by disgusted with majority, a resident of the Another Pleasanton neighborhood neighborhood, on Aug 22, 2008 at 6:04 pm

IT'S ONE BUSINESS DAY!!!! Continuing an item for another council meeting is 2 weeks, this is one business day!! I don't know the reason Sullivan continued the item you're talking about, but could there have been a reason behind it? Depending on what kind of item, could it have been due to someone from the public not being able to do it at that time? I don't know details and you didn't give any, so no way to judge. But again, it's one business day. And the reason Kallio gave was that having more time (a weekend) would prevent her from doing other work. HUH???????? Makes no sense, that is the reason it appears to be biased.

Posted by anonymous, a resident of the Another Pleasanton neighborhood neighborhood, on Aug 22, 2008 at 6:12 pm

So his job is more important than hers? and schedules don't matter. It is just one day. So it shouldn't have been a problem to get it done. It was the council that set the schedule with Sullivan voting yes.

Posted by Disgusted with Delays, a resident of the Country Fair neighborhood, on Aug 22, 2008 at 6:24 pm

So Sullivan and McGovern want to delay a deadline which they agreed to? Is this why the general plan is several years late? Time for Sullivan and McGovern to go and bring in people who aren't going to whine about their work or their role on the Council. Mr. Sullivan, there is a big difference between an 'open public process' and your inability to stick to your own agreed upon deadlines.

Posted by Deadlines are deadlines, a resident of another community, on Aug 23, 2008 at 5:17 pm

One day before your 21st birthday you can't get into a bar. The next day you can. Whether its a workday or not..... Campbell knows the demands of the job he ran for and was elected. I don't understand the "this job dosen't pay my rent" comment. Has he all of a sudden taken a stance of doing his job only based on the income it provides? I don't recall him running based on the money he could make at this job.

Posted by anonymou, a resident of the Another Pleasanton neighborhood neighborhood, on Aug 23, 2008 at 5:57 pm

Just to be clear, it is Matt Sullivan NOT Matt Campbell.

Posted by Sarah, a resident of the Avila neighborhood, on Aug 23, 2008 at 6:26 pm

When there is the ability to extend the deadline and no harm in doing so, it is unreasonable to be uncooperative. Divisive for no constructive purpose.

Posted by aaron, a resident of the Carlton Oaks neighborhood, on Aug 24, 2008 at 12:28 pm

(Comment deemed inappropriate by Pleasanton Weekly Online staff)

Posted by anonymous, a resident of the Another Pleasanton neighborhood neighborhood, on Aug 24, 2008 at 12:34 pm

What Cheryl and Jerry did was mean-spirited. There was no reason why they could not extend the deadline since the election code allowed for it. The problem started when the city did not distribute the previous arguments until Monday so the whole weekend was lost. Matt has a real job and was traveling for business so he could not spend time on ths arguments during the week.

Cheryl's lame excuse saying she did not want to spend any more time on the arguments was uncalled for. SHE did not have to spend any more time on it. She could have turned in her arguments on the Friday and then the others would be turned in a few days later. Or she could of held on to them for a couple of days. It was just out of spite that she did not allow the extension to go forward.

She sounds like one of her good students that says that they don't want to have a deadline extended for a paper, although that student finished the paper, as he did not want others to spend more time and get a better grade. The arguments for the initiatives here are not graded on a curve so there is no harm in allowing the extension. She completely lacks emphathy for others.

It looks like this will be business for usual for a while. The council majority created a divisive environment by voting to put a competing initiative against the citizens initiative on the ballot. I wish I could vote out the council majority who voted for this competinig initiative that is tearing our community apart. Unfortanately, only one of them, the mayor, can be voted out right now.

Posted by anonymous, a resident of the Another Pleasanton neighborhood neighborhood, on Aug 24, 2008 at 7:33 pm

Ask the student who does their work on time if the extension is ok. Cook-kallio has a real job too. Sullivan is not the only one who has to balance his time. He also wasn't the only person writing the rebuttals. he had help. Maybe he was having trouble getting signers.

Posted by frank, a resident of the Pleasanton Heights neighborhood, on Aug 24, 2008 at 8:53 pm

This particular group and its satellites seem to be all about extensions. The Oak Grove appellant (Ayala) got a first, requested extension to August 5 for its opening brief, missed that date, and then recently requested an extension of the drop-dead date on Monday, August 25 to August 27, a mere two more days. Of course, they waited until Wednesday, August 20 to request it. They game the timelines continually to play out their position, just like that which is the subject of this thread. It always seems like, "gee, I need another day or two".

Posted by anonymous, a resident of the Another Pleasanton neighborhood neighborhood, on Aug 24, 2008 at 9:16 pm

I think the last 'anonymous' poster did not understand that extending the deadline did not produce any more work for anybody. Cheryl did not have to work on her arguments past Friday if she did not want to. I am sure if Cheryl was out of town at a conference and she was the one asking for an extension because her "real job" required her to be out of town part of the time, she would be crying fowl if the extension was not granted to her.

I agree that you don't want to delay actions but delaying the date the arguments was due would not have delayed anything for the ballot, would not take any more time from a staff member, and would not have taken any more time from Cheryl. There is no reason except for mean-spiritness to not grant this extension.