Dump Oak Grove "flip flopper" Councilman Campbell Comments on Stories, posted by frank, a resident of the Pleasanton Heights neighborhood, on Apr 29, 2008 at 10:17 pm
The expected occurred at the special council meeting regarding the Oak Grove appeal. Matt Campbell was the only one of the council to flip his position on the original Oak Grove decision. Since on the council, he has established himself as someone who always tries to be on both sides of any issue. When the going gets rough, he accomplishes this by flip flopping. Since he cannot vote half for an issue, he makes up for it by voting one way and then the other way the next time. Now I am for Oak Grove. Now I am not, but instead for the "bigger issue" of protecting referendum rights by voting to put taxpayer's money out to pay for the Ayala faction's decision to appeal a judge's decision, which by all reasonable estimates is not likely to go anywhere legally.
What happened to the rest of us who support Oak Grove and all of those who put years of effort in to come up with the present plan? Let the legislature fix any problems with state election law, Mr. Campbell. How do we in Pleasanton benefit from this appeal?
Mr. Campbell appears to be ill-suited in his official role as a councilman and it would be better to dump him at the next election and get someone with backbone to represent the general population of Pleasanton. That's what we vote them in office for, not to flip flop to please minorities.
Posted by Stacey, a resident of the Amberwood/Wood Meadows neighborhood, on Apr 30, 2008 at 10:30 am
LOL! A bit late in the evening when you wrote that? Maybe PW can provide editing services.
I'm for "flip-flopping" by Councilmembers when factual evidence and research presented to them shows that an opposition's side is more beneficial to the larger community (such as how Sullivan voted on the Stoneridge Drive extension). Though "flip-flopping" done in the name of trying to appease both sides isn't too cool. He's trying to please all of the people, all of the time and in doing so is going to please no one. That's always been Sullivan's style. I understand he's trying to find compromise and bring people together that way, but as a leadership style it makes him appear really weak and ineffective. I'm not sure he realizes this.
Posted by frank, a resident of the Pleasanton Heights neighborhood, on Apr 30, 2008 at 12:54 pm
My apologies to Mr. Campbell. Of course, I mean Mr. Matt Sullivan. In the past I've been known to make this interchange after Mr. Campbell left the council. Perhaps the editors can make the appropriate correction to the headline since it is misleading.
Posted by Jerry, a resident of the Oak Hill neighborhood, on May 1, 2008 at 1:26 am
Ya gotta love it!!! When he supports your position - he's the greatest thing since popcorn. Let him "flip", for whatever reason, and under the bus he goes. What type "democracy" would that be??? Get the clipboards ready, I see a "recall" on the horizon!!!! Let's be sure we have all the necessary documents!!! :)
Posted by Jeb Bing, editor of the Pleasanton Weekly, on May 1, 2008 at 5:52 am Jeb Bing is a member (registered user) of PleasantonWeekly.com
Sorry Frank, but we don't rewrite posts although we monitor Town Square to remove or partially delete inappropriate comments. You can always let this one fade out and start a new one with a similar comment about Councilman Sullivan, if you choose. This town is filled with many good "Matts" so it's easy to mix them up once in a while. BTW: Former Councilman Matt Campbell, who always earned good marks both as a civics teacher at Amador Valley High and during his all-too-brief four-year stint on the City Council, is now a Vice Principal at Foothill High, lives in Danville, has a family and doesn't miss those late night council meetings and all of the homework that goes with them one bit.
Posted by Jerry, a resident of the Oak Hill neighborhood, on May 2, 2008 at 3:39 am
Nope, not directed at your comments.
It seems that while Councilman Sullivan was supporting OG, to some, he was a "Prince among men" but since he "flipped"(on the appeal)he's no longer trustworth to those same "some", so there's a call to get rid of him. I find that amusing.
Posted by John, a resident of the Country Fair neighborhood, on May 2, 2008 at 8:04 pm
I think it is commendable what Matt did in this vote. It shows he has integrity. Matt acknowledged that 5,000 people signed a petition and even though those petitioning disagreed with his vote, he thought they should be allowed a voice in an election on this item. A majority of the Council stated that they voted for this project and they did not want the residents to be able to second guess them. Matt has been consistent in the voices of the individuals before he was on the Council and he has stayed true to it. Whether Matt thought that the election code was clear and stated that the petitioners had to carry a copy of the ordinance, which they did, or that they carried what the officials at the City gave them and it turned out to be wrong, he felt that those collecting signatures did it in an honest intent. Even though he did not agree with the petition, he supported their rights and was willing to have the decision overturned if that is what the residents wanted. It seems the others, now that they are in power, no longer believe in the voice of the residents. That is a shame.
Posted by Smitty, a member of the Amador Valley High School community, on May 3, 2008 at 12:56 pm
It was pretty clear what the vote was going to be, and Matt Sullivan knew there was a very good chance he would be casting a minority vote. For me, that is different than a swing vote and I am not ready to "throw him under the bus" and I am not hearing (except from Frank) that others are either. His position, though I disagree with it, is a fair one to take. How do any of us really know what indirect impacts the court's decision will precipitate?
Although the paper and a few individuals (Ayala loyalists) say "other cities are watching" (sounds a bit like dubya and his "the terrorists are watching/listening"), where are all of these interested watchdogs?
IMHO, Sullivan and Hosterman stuck their necks out as bona-fide environmentalists to support Oak Grove as rigorously as they have. They realized it was a time to compromise and found some real benefits for the City in the open space and trails. Sullivan just has an extreme propensity to re-open an issue whenever a neighborhood or other faction gets his attention. For that, perhaps he loses some support?