|
Getting your Trinity Audio player ready...
|
With political campaigns under way for mayor and two seats on the City Council, along with two competing ballot initiatives on Nov. 4, the dialogue at City Council meetings is getting a bit testy.
Take Tuesday night when Councilmembers Cindy McGovern and Matt Sullivan tried to extend the 5 p.m. deadline set for today to file rebuttals to arguments filed last Friday in support or opposition to the two initiatives. One placed on the ballot by a citizens’ coalition, Save Pleasanton’s Hills, calls for an immediate ban on hillside development and tighter controls over the city’s 29,000-unit housing cap. The second, put on the ballot by a majority of the City Council, might do the same but only after public hearings and reviews by committees and commissions.
McGovern and Sullivan, who signed up to write rebuttals, asked to extend tonight’s deadline to 5 p.m. Monday. City Attorney Michael Roush said the extended deadline would be within the guidelines of the Alameda County Registrar’s office. He also said it would take a unanimous vote of the council to consider extending the deadline.
“I think when we agreed to this deadline, we thought this was the maximum time we had,” Sullivan said. “I’m having difficulty pulling this together.”
Sullivan said he was leaving on a business trip to Southern California and could use the extra time to finish up his rebuttal on Monday.
“I have other work I have to do for a living,” Sullivan said. “This job (on the council) doesn’t pay my rent.”
But Council members Jerry Thorne and Cheryl Cook-Kallio said no, that they would not support extending the deadline, and the 2-2 vote on the motion to extend (with Mayor Jennifer Hosterman out of town) killed the proposal.
“We’ve known about this deadline for some time,” Cook-Kallio said. “I have other work to do, too. And this is keeping me from doing that other work.”
Visibly upset, Sullivan retorted: “The only thing I have to say about this is that we talk a lot about having an open public process for these initiatives. If this is an example of that, I don’t know what we’re in for.”
The debate Tuesday followed dueling letters between former Councilwoman Kay Ayala, a sponsor of the citizens’ initiative on the Nov. 4 ballot, and Roush over the language used in the city-sponsored measure.
In her letter, Ayala said the stated goal of the council-backed initiative is misleading because it is an advisory measure only, not a legislative act. She asked Roush to amend the ballot title to include the words “Advisory Vote Only.”
“The council composed a ballot title for the initiative (that) is misleading, as this title is substantially the same as the citizens’ initiative,” Ayala stated in her letter. “This is…inaccurate as there is nothing in this initiative that protects ridgelines or controls growth. Therefore, the title of the initiative should be changed.”
His recommendation to the council was to keep the initiative language it had adopted and let voters decide if they want to reaffirm and readopt the Land Use Element and Conservation & Open Space Element policies and programs of the (1996) General Plan, which already provide the kinds of controls being sought by the citizens’ coalition.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Just to be clear, it is Matt Sullivan NOT Matt Campbell.
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.
(Comment deemed inappropriate by Pleasanton Weekly Online staff)
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.
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.
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”.
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.
wh0cd367277 [url=http://costofviagra2017.com/]cost of viagra[/url]