Permanent Link:
http://calpensionsbrief.blogspot.com/2013/05/city-council-campaign-reform-3.html
The proposed change in voting procedure to "preferential voting system" has been known to elect political leaders who are not always up to snuff. Can we say that the current "plurality wins" system has always chosen models of civic virtue and those with the wisdom of Solomon in running the state? I'm guessing that is a "not exactly, but..." forming in your mind. (Article on preferential voting here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Instant-runoff_voting )
I have worked with my sons on AP US History two
times now and I, at least, have learned quite a bit. My reading of the
reasons behind the American Revolution were NOT "you guys are
incompetent - get better management and we'll be fine." It was more
along the lines , of "we want to be able to make our own decisions and
choose our own leaders - for better or worse."
The single most
important factor in maintaining a stable and effective government is
assent of the governed. Take that away, and you have at best cynical
corruption and ineffectiveness, at worst, revolution. It would be NICE
to have the most competent people win but we don't know how to decide
that - yet. (Maybe there will be an iPhone App for that soon - c'mon
Apple! - You screwed up maps and now we can't get perfect government?
What the heck, guys - if only Steve Jobs were still around, he'd fix it.)
In a 3-way contest between A, B, and C, if A wins
with 40% of the vote while B & C were mostly alike in their views,
you have 60% of the populace who feel disenfranchised and resentful. If
B wins as the 1st or 2nd choice of a majority, those voting for C can
say, "well, she wasn't my first choice but it is better than having A in
office". Similarly those voting for A can say, "well, the voters have
spoken, and I lost - at least C didn't get in". More importantly, the
positions most similar to those of 60% of the population are represented
and if they don't turn out, those voting for the position know on some
level that their views were put to the test and did not succeed. An
important step in getting a better government.
Thursday, May 23, 2013
Wednesday, May 22, 2013
City Council & Campaign Reform - 2
Permanent Link:
http://calpensionsbrief.blogspot.com/2013/05/city-council-campaign-reform-2.html
(see also:
http://calpensionsbrief.blogspot.com/2013/05/city-council-campaign-reform-1.html )
Another step forward in City electoral reform would be "preferential voting".
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Preferential_voting and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Instant-runoff_voting
This is also called "instant run-off" and is used in a number of countries (including Australia) and several cities in the US, including San Francisco and Oakland. For example, in a 3-way contest between candidates A,B, & C, each voter has the opportunity to vote for one candidate AND indicate a second preference. If, for example, candidate C gets the lowest number of votes, those who voted for C and indicated a 2nd preference would have their votes counted toward that candidate. This enables two candidates with similar views to to run against a single candidate of opposing views without worrying about splitting the vote. It saves the expense of run-off elections which can further drain the funds of the candidates and make them even more dependent on big contributors, or tilt towards those with the most money.
I am told that both CM Whittum and CM Moylan have tried to get the county to provide the software so Santa Clara County cities can implement this. I think more pressure needs to be applied, and if Sunnyvale voted to go to this method, it would pretty much force the county voting registrar to get the software that Oakland and San Francisco use.
http://calpensionsbrief.blogspot.com/2013/05/city-council-campaign-reform-2.html
(see also:
http://calpensionsbrief.blogspot.com/2013/05/city-council-campaign-reform-1.html )
Another step forward in City electoral reform would be "preferential voting".
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Preferential_voting and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Instant-runoff_voting
This is also called "instant run-off" and is used in a number of countries (including Australia) and several cities in the US, including San Francisco and Oakland. For example, in a 3-way contest between candidates A,B, & C, each voter has the opportunity to vote for one candidate AND indicate a second preference. If, for example, candidate C gets the lowest number of votes, those who voted for C and indicated a 2nd preference would have their votes counted toward that candidate. This enables two candidates with similar views to to run against a single candidate of opposing views without worrying about splitting the vote. It saves the expense of run-off elections which can further drain the funds of the candidates and make them even more dependent on big contributors, or tilt towards those with the most money.
I am told that both CM Whittum and CM Moylan have tried to get the county to provide the software so Santa Clara County cities can implement this. I think more pressure needs to be applied, and if Sunnyvale voted to go to this method, it would pretty much force the county voting registrar to get the software that Oakland and San Francisco use.
City Council & Campaign Reform - 1
Permanent Link:
http://calpensionsbrief.blogspot.com/2013/05/city-council-campaign-reform-1.html
(see also:
http://calpensionsbrief.blogspot.com/2013/05/city-council-campaign-reform-2.html )
The City Council voted 4-3 tonight (May 21, 2013) against my proposal (not original to me, I assure you) that the City provide matching funds for those who promise not to spend more than a certain amount (I suggested $20,000 total, up to half matching funds). It was a proposal to put it on the ballot this November, along with some related issues to reward and encourage (you can't require) candidates to limit their expenditures. That it was one vote short of passing suggests we might get campaign finance reform next year. I hope it will be a campaign issue this November. Voting for it were Meyering, Whittum, and Moylan.
Those with lots of money can drown out most voices but I disagree that the $ amounts in Sunnyvale are piddly.
This is a small electorate and with a few small campaign contributions from average citizens' contributions and the candidate's own money, it is hard to go above raising $10,000. That pays for maybe one cheap copy paper flyer and some yard signs. In this small pond, $50,000 is overwhelming, in terms of the number of mailers and glossy flyers. I can see spending $10,000 of your own money like Pat Meyering and Dave Whittum did, but very few could convince themselves (and their spouse) to spend $50,000 of their own money.
Over $110K like Mayor Spitaleri raised is essentially buying the election. Most people will decide not to run against that kind of money, and we are all left with fewer candidates to choose from.
I am only too aware of the problems with "independent" PACs spending more but we should "not let the best be the enemy of the good." The proposal is modeled on the public $ matching laws for the US Presidency. Steven Colbert has had a lot of fun and made some very serious points showing how the "Citizen's United" decision by the Supremes let large amounts of unattributable money in. Nothing can stop that short of a constitutional amendment which is what the Democratic Party platform of 2012 proposed.
This proposal would only begin to even the field, not achieve perfection. Candidates could decide not to limit themselves as both Romney and Obama didn't this last campaign. The claim by Obama campaign is that the amounts Romney wanted to spend were so huge that it would have been suicidal for Obama to agree to it. Both raised record amounts of money, but the amounts that the 501(c) PACs spent were essentially useless after the primaries.
http://calpensionsbrief.blogspot.com/2013/05/city-council-campaign-reform-1.html
(see also:
http://calpensionsbrief.blogspot.com/2013/05/city-council-campaign-reform-2.html )
The City Council voted 4-3 tonight (May 21, 2013) against my proposal (not original to me, I assure you) that the City provide matching funds for those who promise not to spend more than a certain amount (I suggested $20,000 total, up to half matching funds). It was a proposal to put it on the ballot this November, along with some related issues to reward and encourage (you can't require) candidates to limit their expenditures. That it was one vote short of passing suggests we might get campaign finance reform next year. I hope it will be a campaign issue this November. Voting for it were Meyering, Whittum, and Moylan.
Those with lots of money can drown out most voices but I disagree that the $ amounts in Sunnyvale are piddly.
This is a small electorate and with a few small campaign contributions from average citizens' contributions and the candidate's own money, it is hard to go above raising $10,000. That pays for maybe one cheap copy paper flyer and some yard signs. In this small pond, $50,000 is overwhelming, in terms of the number of mailers and glossy flyers. I can see spending $10,000 of your own money like Pat Meyering and Dave Whittum did, but very few could convince themselves (and their spouse) to spend $50,000 of their own money.
Over $110K like Mayor Spitaleri raised is essentially buying the election. Most people will decide not to run against that kind of money, and we are all left with fewer candidates to choose from.
I am only too aware of the problems with "independent" PACs spending more but we should "not let the best be the enemy of the good." The proposal is modeled on the public $ matching laws for the US Presidency. Steven Colbert has had a lot of fun and made some very serious points showing how the "Citizen's United" decision by the Supremes let large amounts of unattributable money in. Nothing can stop that short of a constitutional amendment which is what the Democratic Party platform of 2012 proposed.
This proposal would only begin to even the field, not achieve perfection. Candidates could decide not to limit themselves as both Romney and Obama didn't this last campaign. The claim by Obama campaign is that the amounts Romney wanted to spend were so huge that it would have been suicidal for Obama to agree to it. Both raised record amounts of money, but the amounts that the 501(c) PACs spent were essentially useless after the primaries.
Monday, May 20, 2013
Meyering Censure Summary
Permanent Link to this posting:
http://calpensionsbrief.blogspot.com/2013/05/MeyeringCensure.html
(Edit 1/25/2014: Sunnyvale is using a new version of video recording presentation which is incompatible with their old version so I am directing everyone to the YouTube versions here:
http://calpensionsbrief.blogspot.com/2013/10/meyering-censure-on-youtube-part-1.html
End edit of 1/25/2014)
The following links contain most of the relevant videos for the City Council Censure motion:
Part 0: Initial Disagreement and Motion to Put a Censure Measure on the Agenda
(Update 5/23/13: A $1M+ payment to Sunnyvale's waste management firm to replace equipment that did not do what was intended comes up. CM Meyering asserts that several members have received campaign contributions from the co. and should recuse themselves and that the deal is overly generous to the co. CM Griffith moves to put a censure motion on the following meeting's agenda.16 minute video)
Part 1:Public Comments on the Day of the Censure Vote:
(Update 5/23/13: 12 minute video of 4 residents speaking about the previous meeting's incident.)
http://calpensionsbrief.blogspot.com/2013/05/censure-vote-of-pat-meyering-may-5th.html
Part 2:Reading of Charges Against Pat Meyering: (10 minute video)
http://calpensionsbrief.blogspot.com/2013/05/censure-vote-of-pat-meyering-may-5th_19.html
Part 3:Pat Meyering's Defense and counter accusation: (17 minute video) http://calpensionsbrief.blogspot.com/2013/05/censure-vote-of-pat-meyering-may-5th_9053.html
Part 4 - Further Public Comment before the vote (very interesting) (Update 5/23/13: About 33 minutes video. Most spoke in opposition to the censure - several from their own unsatisfactory experience with Sunnyvale and other cities.)
http://calpensionsbrief.blogspot.com/2013/05/censure-vote-of-pat-meyering-may-5th_6298.html
Part 5 - CC Members speak and vote: 33 minute video - motion passed 5-1, CM Whittum opposed, CM Meyering abstained.
http://calpensionsbrief.blogspot.com/2013/05/censure-of-pat-meyering-cc-members.html
Related:
A. Referred to several time by Pat Meyering and other City Council Members is the incident where
CM Meyering ceded his time to speak to the Mayor and then a motion was made and quickly passed to cut off debate before CM Meyering could speak:
http://calpensionsbrief.blogspot.com/2012/09/sunnyvales-lesson-in-free-speech-part-i.html
B. Were allegations true? It was not immediately clear to whom CM Meyering was referring when he stated that Council Members had received contributions form waste management. The Sunnyvale Sun initially said there were none. The Sun later corrected their error.
http://calpensionsbrief.blogspot.com/2013/05/campaign-contributions-conflict-of.html
see also:
http://calpensionsbrief.blogspot.com/2013/05/campaign-contribution-information.html
C. Earlier discussion of Conflict of Interest. Steve Hoffman raised the subject during public comments. CM Moylan spoke strongly against him. CM Meyering noted that there was a difference of opinion.
http://calpensionsbrief.blogspot.com/2013/05/ethics-1-sunnyvale-city-council-april.html
D. The original debate was over a waste collection contract. CM Whittum later obliquely referred to issues related to waste management. Collected here are some professionally done videos and reports on civic corruption and waste management:
http://calpensionsbrief.blogspot.com/2013/05/corruption-garbage-collection-1.html
E. Moral and Legal implications - is the motion being considered fairly?
http://calpensionsbrief.blogspot.com/2013/05/MeyeringCensure.html
(Edit 1/25/2014: Sunnyvale is using a new version of video recording presentation which is incompatible with their old version so I am directing everyone to the YouTube versions here:
http://calpensionsbrief.blogspot.com/2013/10/meyering-censure-on-youtube-part-1.html
End edit of 1/25/2014)
The following links contain most of the relevant videos for the City Council Censure motion:
Part 0: Initial Disagreement and Motion to Put a Censure Measure on the Agenda
(Update 5/23/13: A $1M+ payment to Sunnyvale's waste management firm to replace equipment that did not do what was intended comes up. CM Meyering asserts that several members have received campaign contributions from the co. and should recuse themselves and that the deal is overly generous to the co. CM Griffith moves to put a censure motion on the following meeting's agenda.16 minute video)
Part 1:Public Comments on the Day of the Censure Vote:
(Update 5/23/13: 12 minute video of 4 residents speaking about the previous meeting's incident.)
http://calpensionsbrief.blogspot.com/2013/05/censure-vote-of-pat-meyering-may-5th.html
Part 2:Reading of Charges Against Pat Meyering: (10 minute video)
http://calpensionsbrief.blogspot.com/2013/05/censure-vote-of-pat-meyering-may-5th_19.html
Part 3:Pat Meyering's Defense and counter accusation: (17 minute video) http://calpensionsbrief.blogspot.com/2013/05/censure-vote-of-pat-meyering-may-5th_9053.html
Part 4 - Further Public Comment before the vote (very interesting) (Update 5/23/13: About 33 minutes video. Most spoke in opposition to the censure - several from their own unsatisfactory experience with Sunnyvale and other cities.)
http://calpensionsbrief.blogspot.com/2013/05/censure-vote-of-pat-meyering-may-5th_6298.html
Part 5 - CC Members speak and vote: 33 minute video - motion passed 5-1, CM Whittum opposed, CM Meyering abstained.
http://calpensionsbrief.blogspot.com/2013/05/censure-of-pat-meyering-cc-members.html
Related:
A. Referred to several time by Pat Meyering and other City Council Members is the incident where
CM Meyering ceded his time to speak to the Mayor and then a motion was made and quickly passed to cut off debate before CM Meyering could speak:
http://calpensionsbrief.blogspot.com/2012/09/sunnyvales-lesson-in-free-speech-part-i.html
B. Were allegations true? It was not immediately clear to whom CM Meyering was referring when he stated that Council Members had received contributions form waste management. The Sunnyvale Sun initially said there were none. The Sun later corrected their error.
http://calpensionsbrief.blogspot.com/2013/05/campaign-contributions-conflict-of.html
see also:
http://calpensionsbrief.blogspot.com/2013/05/campaign-contribution-information.html
C. Earlier discussion of Conflict of Interest. Steve Hoffman raised the subject during public comments. CM Moylan spoke strongly against him. CM Meyering noted that there was a difference of opinion.
http://calpensionsbrief.blogspot.com/2013/05/ethics-1-sunnyvale-city-council-april.html
D. The original debate was over a waste collection contract. CM Whittum later obliquely referred to issues related to waste management. Collected here are some professionally done videos and reports on civic corruption and waste management:
http://calpensionsbrief.blogspot.com/2013/05/corruption-garbage-collection-1.html
E. Moral and Legal implications - is the motion being considered fairly?
Sunday, May 19, 2013
Censure of Pat Meyering: CC Members Speak - May 5th, 2013 - part 5
Permanent Link:
http://calpensionsbrief.blogspot.com/2013/05/censure-of-pat-meyering-cc-members.html
(Edit 1/25/2014: Sunnyvale is using a new version of video recording presentation which is incompatible with their old version so I am directing everyone to the YouTube versions here:
http://calpensionsbrief.blogspot.com/2013/10/meyering-censure-on-youtube-part-1.html
End edit of 1/25/2014)
After the public comments, Vice Mayor J. Griffith spoke (the beginning of this excerpt, 4:26 on the city tape) in favor of the motion to which CM Meyering replied at 4:30 on the excerpt below. CM Meyering alluded to an attempt he beleives was intended to trick him out of being able to speak. This incident is referred to later by CM Whittum (who expresses regret) and CM Moylan who denies it was a trick and insists it was a valid motion. The incident of 9/18/2012 may be viewed at
http://calpensionsbrief.blogspot.com/2012/09/sunnyvales-lesson-in-free-speech-part-i.html
and
http://calpensionsbrief.blogspot.com/2012/09/sunnyvale-city-councils-lesson-in-free.html
Then CM D. Whittum spoke (6:52 on the following excerpt) expressing regret for his role in trying to close debate at an earlier meeting (incident of 9/18/2012, see links above) and expressed the desire that things de-escalate. He also said that the issue of the garbage contract was important and CM Meyering's comments relevant.
CM Moylan then spoke (12:19 below) in favor of the motion reciting various incidents in which he said CM Meyering had violated ethics. One of the items was related to the former acting City Attorney, whom I understand to have been a former City Attorney temporarily filling-in while the City tried find a permanent City Attorney. CM Moylan also spoke to the accusation that he conspired with other City Council members to trick CM Meyering so that CM Meyering would not be allowed to speak to the issue. CM Moylan said he did not conspire and that it was a valid motion. (Incident of 9/18/2012 see the two links above.)
CM Davis (29:15 below) then spoke briefly in favor of the motion.
Then a vote was taken (32:30) resulting in passage of the motion 5-1, CM Whittum opposing, CM Meyering abstaining. The CC then moved on to other business.
http://calpensionsbrief.blogspot.com/2013/05/censure-of-pat-meyering-cc-members.html
(Edit 1/25/2014: Sunnyvale is using a new version of video recording presentation which is incompatible with their old version so I am directing everyone to the YouTube versions here:
http://calpensionsbrief.blogspot.com/2013/10/meyering-censure-on-youtube-part-1.html
End edit of 1/25/2014)
After the public comments, Vice Mayor J. Griffith spoke (the beginning of this excerpt, 4:26 on the city tape) in favor of the motion to which CM Meyering replied at 4:30 on the excerpt below. CM Meyering alluded to an attempt he beleives was intended to trick him out of being able to speak. This incident is referred to later by CM Whittum (who expresses regret) and CM Moylan who denies it was a trick and insists it was a valid motion. The incident of 9/18/2012 may be viewed at
http://calpensionsbrief.blogspot.com/2012/09/sunnyvales-lesson-in-free-speech-part-i.html
and
http://calpensionsbrief.blogspot.com/2012/09/sunnyvale-city-councils-lesson-in-free.html
Then CM D. Whittum spoke (6:52 on the following excerpt) expressing regret for his role in trying to close debate at an earlier meeting (incident of 9/18/2012, see links above) and expressed the desire that things de-escalate. He also said that the issue of the garbage contract was important and CM Meyering's comments relevant.
CM Moylan then spoke (12:19 below) in favor of the motion reciting various incidents in which he said CM Meyering had violated ethics. One of the items was related to the former acting City Attorney, whom I understand to have been a former City Attorney temporarily filling-in while the City tried find a permanent City Attorney. CM Moylan also spoke to the accusation that he conspired with other City Council members to trick CM Meyering so that CM Meyering would not be allowed to speak to the issue. CM Moylan said he did not conspire and that it was a valid motion. (Incident of 9/18/2012 see the two links above.)
CM Davis (29:15 below) then spoke briefly in favor of the motion.
Then a vote was taken (32:30) resulting in passage of the motion 5-1, CM Whittum opposing, CM Meyering abstaining. The CC then moved on to other business.
Corruption & Garbage Collection
Permanent Link to this posting:
http://calpensionsbrief.blogspot.com/2013/05/corruption-garbage-collection-1.html
The issue that was being debated at the time Vice Mayor Griffith moved to put a motion to censure CM Meyering on the agenda was related to a garbage collection contract. In the debate on the censure motion, Councilman Whittum alluded to issues that have arisen in other cities related to garbage collection. Cf: http://calpensionsbrief.blogspot.com/2013/05/censure-of-pat-meyering-cc-members.html
Here are a few items related to crime and garbage collection:
1. YouTube - Smithsonian Institute - 2 minutes on Mafia control of garbage collection in NYC:
"
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WaDVK-aRd18
2. "Waste Management World" - Article (2013) starting with "Twelve members of three New York crime families have been charged with racketeering conspiracy in the waste industry after multi-year investigation. ... A further 17 defendants are facing charges." Contains 3 links to articles detailing similar problems around the world.
http://www.waste-management-world.com/articles/2013/01/waste-management-mafia-charged-in-new-york.html
3. "Waste Management World" - Article (2012) titled: "Crime Magnet: New Jersey's Waste & Recycling Industry"
http://www.waste-management-world.com/articles/2011/12/crime-magnet-new-jersey-s-waste-recycling-industry.html
4. Waste management company "Service Corporation of America" and it's crime connections are outlined in the Wikipedia article here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Service_Corporation_of_America
5. Slate magazine article: "Why the Mafia Loves Garbage"
http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/explainer/2008/01/why_the_mafia_loves_garbage.html
6. A discussion on the issue here:
http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=597635
7. Chicago Tribune - 1986
"The grand jury alleged Kelley received at least $6,500 of a $10,000 payoff to help Waste Management obtain an option to purchase property"
http://articles.chicagotribune.com/1986-11-22/news/8603270859_1_michael-lambesis-indictments-city-hall-probe
8. Small town of Forsyth (pop 3800)
http://www.41nbc.com/news/local-news/21025-fbi-forsyth-councilman-arrested-and-charged-with-accepting-bribery
http://calpensionsbrief.blogspot.com/2013/05/corruption-garbage-collection-1.html
The issue that was being debated at the time Vice Mayor Griffith moved to put a motion to censure CM Meyering on the agenda was related to a garbage collection contract. In the debate on the censure motion, Councilman Whittum alluded to issues that have arisen in other cities related to garbage collection. Cf: http://calpensionsbrief.blogspot.com/2013/05/censure-of-pat-meyering-cc-members.html
Here are a few items related to crime and garbage collection:
1. YouTube - Smithsonian Institute - 2 minutes on Mafia control of garbage collection in NYC:
"
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WaDVK-aRd18
2. "Waste Management World" - Article (2013) starting with "Twelve members of three New York crime families have been charged with racketeering conspiracy in the waste industry after multi-year investigation. ... A further 17 defendants are facing charges." Contains 3 links to articles detailing similar problems around the world.
http://www.waste-management-world.com/articles/2013/01/waste-management-mafia-charged-in-new-york.html
3. "Waste Management World" - Article (2012) titled: "Crime Magnet: New Jersey's Waste & Recycling Industry"
http://www.waste-management-world.com/articles/2011/12/crime-magnet-new-jersey-s-waste-recycling-industry.html
4. Waste management company "Service Corporation of America" and it's crime connections are outlined in the Wikipedia article here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Service_Corporation_of_America
5. Slate magazine article: "Why the Mafia Loves Garbage"
http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/explainer/2008/01/why_the_mafia_loves_garbage.html
6. A discussion on the issue here:
http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=597635
7. Chicago Tribune - 1986
"The grand jury alleged Kelley received at least $6,500 of a $10,000 payoff to help Waste Management obtain an option to purchase property"
http://articles.chicagotribune.com/1986-11-22/news/8603270859_1_michael-lambesis-indictments-city-hall-probe
8. Small town of Forsyth (pop 3800)
http://www.41nbc.com/news/local-news/21025-fbi-forsyth-councilman-arrested-and-charged-with-accepting-bribery
Censure of Pat Meyering: More Comments - May 5th, 2013 - part 4
Public Comment Before the Agenda Item is Discussed by the City Council
Permanent Link:
http://calpensionsbrief.blogspot.com/2013/05/censure-vote-of-pat-meyering-may-5th_6298.html
(Edit 1/25/2014: Sunnyvale is using a new version of video recording presentation which is incompatible with their old version so I am directing everyone to the YouTube versions here:
http://calpensionsbrief.blogspot.com/2013/10/meyering-censure-on-youtube-part-1.html
End edit of 1/25/2014)
The video excerpt below starts at 3:53:15 on the May 07, 2013 video available at
http://sunnyvale.ca.gov/CityGovernment/CityCouncil/CouncilMeetings/WatchCouncilMeetingsOnline.aspx
After CM Meyering spoke in his defense, the general public was able to speak for up to 3 minutes per person.
1. Sandra Pacheco spoke first in favor of Pat Meyering. She cited her personal observations of how city business was conducted in San Carlos.
2. Terry Fowler then spoke in favor of the censure motion (3:10 on the selection here). In response to a question by Mr. Meyering, Mr. Fowler said he voted for Mr. Meyering although as CFO of the Sunnyvale Democratic Club he might logically have been expected to support Democratic Club member Bo Chang who ran against Mr. Meyering.
3. Tap Merrick (running for City Council against CM J. Griffith) then spoke in favor of Mr. Meyering (8:02 here). He mentioned that he had previously endorsed and supported Mr. Spitaleri in his last run for City Council.
4. Andrew Maloney then spoke in favor of Mr. Meyering and in opposition to the motion. (11:29 mark here). He also mentioned his own experience of ten years ago trying to get the downtown plan modified to be a financially viable effort and the frustration he felt contending against a CC aligned with the developers.
5. Mei-Ling Stefan then spoke very eloquently in opposition to the motion. (14:40 here).
6. Andy Frazer (running for City Council against Mr. Gustav Larsson) spoke in opposition to the motion and for a meeting of reconciliation. (17:05 here).
7. Ray Johnson (19:35 on the video selection below) spoke for Pat Meyering.
8. Barbara Fukumoto then spoke in favor of the motion against Mr. Meyering. (23:15 on the selection here).
9. Larry Alba spoke on behalf (26:28) of Pat Meyering.
10. Steve Hoffman (running for City Council against Mr. Hendricks) then spoke in favor of Pat Meyering, urging the citizens of Sunnyvale to vote on the issue of Conflict of Interest in November. (29:48 below).
Permanent Link:
http://calpensionsbrief.blogspot.com/2013/05/censure-vote-of-pat-meyering-may-5th_6298.html
(Edit 1/25/2014: Sunnyvale is using a new version of video recording presentation which is incompatible with their old version so I am directing everyone to the YouTube versions here:
http://calpensionsbrief.blogspot.com/2013/10/meyering-censure-on-youtube-part-1.html
End edit of 1/25/2014)
The video excerpt below starts at 3:53:15 on the May 07, 2013 video available at
http://sunnyvale.ca.gov/CityGovernment/CityCouncil/CouncilMeetings/WatchCouncilMeetingsOnline.aspx
After CM Meyering spoke in his defense, the general public was able to speak for up to 3 minutes per person.
1. Sandra Pacheco spoke first in favor of Pat Meyering. She cited her personal observations of how city business was conducted in San Carlos.
2. Terry Fowler then spoke in favor of the censure motion (3:10 on the selection here). In response to a question by Mr. Meyering, Mr. Fowler said he voted for Mr. Meyering although as CFO of the Sunnyvale Democratic Club he might logically have been expected to support Democratic Club member Bo Chang who ran against Mr. Meyering.
3. Tap Merrick (running for City Council against CM J. Griffith) then spoke in favor of Mr. Meyering (8:02 here). He mentioned that he had previously endorsed and supported Mr. Spitaleri in his last run for City Council.
4. Andrew Maloney then spoke in favor of Mr. Meyering and in opposition to the motion. (11:29 mark here). He also mentioned his own experience of ten years ago trying to get the downtown plan modified to be a financially viable effort and the frustration he felt contending against a CC aligned with the developers.
5. Mei-Ling Stefan then spoke very eloquently in opposition to the motion. (14:40 here).
6. Andy Frazer (running for City Council against Mr. Gustav Larsson) spoke in opposition to the motion and for a meeting of reconciliation. (17:05 here).
7. Ray Johnson (19:35 on the video selection below) spoke for Pat Meyering.
8. Barbara Fukumoto then spoke in favor of the motion against Mr. Meyering. (23:15 on the selection here).
9. Larry Alba spoke on behalf (26:28) of Pat Meyering.
10. Steve Hoffman (running for City Council against Mr. Hendricks) then spoke in favor of Pat Meyering, urging the citizens of Sunnyvale to vote on the issue of Conflict of Interest in November. (29:48 below).
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)