Thursday, December 07, 2006

Letters

I had to laugh, as I couldn't agree more with this letter from Donny Carroll in today's Eureka Reporter. Oh, I suppose I could disagree just a little bit: Eureka is a unique place, but so is everywhere else.
********
Our very own Greg "Vote Local Control" Connors once again enters the limelight with yet another letter to the Eureka Reporter. Didn't you just have one published, Greg?

Anyway, not sure just what he's trying to say. I'll assume, after reading what he's posted on the various blogs, he's suggesting that elected leadership is preferable to appointed leadership. I have a hard time swallowing that, Greg.

It will take some work to convince me that just because someone gets elected by the 50.5% of those that chose to vote, he or she will do any better job than someone is appointed by our representatives on the city council.

Of course, those representatives might well have been elected by that same 50.5% of the people themselves!

47 Comments:

At 9:37 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

The national Dems have it right. They're not going to impeach President Bush because it's more trouble than it's worth and politically suicide.

Maybe the local Dems should take heed and pick their battles more carefully.

I'm disappointed in the "machine" on the Left. With tyhe demographics of this county our showing was poor in the last election. I think it's because they went as far left as possible in the candidates they chose.

National Dems won because they went centrist, moderate, and populist (i.e. blue collar) with their candidates.

And guess what? Our county's Dems are on the ascent as a demographic, but it's mostly moderates not leftists.

Next time, don't run Nan Abrams or back Dave Meserve. Recruit centrists and back people like Wheetley. (spelling?)

Just my two cents. There shouldn't be one single competitive race in this county, and if we ran the right candidates there wouldn't be.

-JMan

 
At 10:03 AM, Blogger Greg said...

Fred, it's not about whether elected official are better than appointed officials. Democracy is the alternative to government by appointment. We pretty much settled that in the 18th centurty.

 
At 10:05 AM, Blogger Greg said...

For the record, again, JMan - HCDCC did not endorse Dave Meserve and did endorse Mark Wheetley. What's your name?

 
At 10:09 AM, Blogger Fred said...

Democracy be damned, Greg!

We've had council members appointed before without a big stink being raised. It'll be hit and miss, just like elections are. Even if the one you voted for wins, he or she might prove to have been a big mistake to vote for.

That's no different that appointing someone, with the possible exception that there might be more deliberation and knowledge of the issue at hand amongst the people doing the appointing than some voter(s) who don't pay any attention to the issue until they get to the voting booth.

 
At 10:21 AM, Blogger Greg said...

Democracy be damned, Greg!

OUCH.

 
At 10:24 AM, Blogger Carol Ann said...

Fred said : "Democracy be damned, Greg!"

Feeling grouchy today, Fred? Watch what you wish for.
And it Conners with an 'e' not an 'o'. Thanks!

 
At 10:25 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

I'm not smearing the HCDCC Greg. I'm making a general point about being issue driven or party driven.

You seem have fairly liberal views and that drives your candiate preference and what you're willing to stand up for.

I proposing you should be more of a classical party boss, ensuring the party is strong and that we win elections. Don't back idealists and try to foist them on the moderate masses. Back electable representatives and use the machine to push them left.

This sounds very "Rovian" but I'm not endorsing corruption, just a strategy that will pick up more seats and represent the overall populace better.

You really dislike the anonymous thing, don't you? Cheers!

-JMan

 
At 10:28 AM, Blogger Fred said...

Carol wrote, "And it Conners with an 'e' not an 'o'.".

Ooops. Mistake noted.

 
At 10:32 AM, Blogger Greg said...

It all comes under "attack the messenger" instead of "discuss the point"--a far easier tactic from behind your cloak of anonymity. Climb out from under your rock and be counted.

 
At 10:39 AM, Anonymous mresquan said...

Fred,aren't libertarians generally worried about too much government intervention?It would seem to me that this sort of thing(appointment of a council seat)would rile up any libertarian.Do you really want your government to tell you who else may be governing you?Hell,I'd think that you'd be happy with the seat left vacant as long as possible.
As far as my personal opinion,I'm actually not so against the appointment,so long as the mayor does not cast the deciding vote,since all applicants must come through her in the first place.If she makes the appointment,and 3 councilmembers approve of it then I would argue that a consensus has been reached.

 
At 10:47 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Greg,

I'm not coming out from under my rock, so decide to engage me if you will.

I don't understand your complaint. I'm criticizing the strategy of calling for special elections, not debating the merits of elections vs. appointments.

Can you clarify your objection for me? Thanks!

-JMan

 
At 10:48 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

It would really be fun to see what Greg would be saying if the shoe was on the other foot - if his guy had the right to appoint - we'd be hearing all about how wrong it is to waste precious resources on a foolish special election process - and how the appointment process is a time honored right of the duly elected.

 
At 10:56 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Rose, I doubt it.

Greg seems to have bona fide ideals about the correct way to operate. I get the impression he's a "means' not an 'ends' guy.

Now of course, likely outcomes can certainly affect ones judgement, but I believe Greg is sincere.

It's just not politically expedient IMHO.

-JMan

 
At 11:00 AM, Blogger Carol Ann said...

That is right, JMan, Greg is sincere.

 
At 11:02 AM, Blogger Greg said...

JMan, guide your rock to Greg's List for more from me. Rose, if the shoe was on the other foot, I would likely appoint a crony and would not hesitate to break any tied votes. But I would not try to establish an environment of consensus, with all it's ugly problems.

 
At 11:35 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Greg - go back to Loleta and butt out in Eureka.

Let em appoint and IF there is a split then the mayor casts the deciding vote like usual.

You don't change the rules just because you don't like them.

The usual thing to do is appoint and the person can then run (if he or she chooses to) 2 yrs from now.

Or is it you only hate special elections when it suits you?

go figure.

 
At 11:43 AM, Blogger Eric V. Kirk said...

More speculation as to what Greg might support in an alternate universe. Let's stick to the facts in our universe. You don't know what he'd support in another situation. If he acts inconsistently then call him on it, but it's really inappropriate to call him on what you think he might do.

Quite frankly, I think he would support an election under those circumstances as well, on both moral and practical basis, the latter being that he would not want La Vallee to compromise his mandate and goodwill with the voters by appointing somebody to his own political benefit.

Bass should work hard to find a candidate that could get all 4 council votes. That would be a triumph of leadership. And with a swing vote in place, it'll make things very interesting to watch - and blog!

 
At 11:55 AM, Anonymous mresquan said...

Since Virginia gets to choose who goes through the appointment process,she should not cast the deciding vote.Another example Eric of a Leonard flip flop,back oh almost 2 years ago when Bob Fasic was up for appointment to the planning commission Leonard stated that the mayor basically has too much influence over the appointment process,therefore he voted against Fasic's appointment due to the fact that it was mayor Lavallee who made the recommendation.

 
At 12:51 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Wow, mresquan, you're remembering that all wrong. Leonard voted against Fasic because he wanted LaVallee to find someone who would get at least a 4-1 vote, not a 3-2. Leonard wanted someone who would bring consensus, not create more division. Hmmm... just like he's doing right now.

 
At 1:16 PM, Blogger Eric V. Kirk said...

Since Virginia gets to choose who goes through the appointment process,she should not cast the deciding vote.

Perhaps you're right, but then your gripe is with those who wrote the city charter. In any case, if everybody is reasonable, there won't be a need for a tie breaking vote.

 
At 2:22 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Lance Madsen said Tuesday night that only one person is left alive who is responsible for our city charter-seems extreme to beat someone that old up.

Maybe its time to look into changing a couple things in the city charter-Eric stay in Garberville...any committee people available? Mark?

BTW Mark, Virginia isn't alone in making the appointment-keep up.

 
At 2:23 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Greg said this, he really did, at 11:02 a.m.

"if the shoe was on the other foot, I would likely appoint a crony and would not hesitate to break any tied votes."

So, you are being inconsistent, applying standards to those you oppose, and not holding yourself to the same standard...

I'm pleased you've admitted your stance, but dont you see it as a tad hypocritical???

 
At 2:31 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Of course, those representatives might well have been elected by that same 50.5% of the people themselves!

You're right Fred, the mayor and city council was elected by 50.5% of Eureka in other words-anyone who cared. The other 49.5% have no room to complain-people from Loleta, McKinleyville and Arcata don't either. Fortuna seems to mind their own business, take the hint.

I like that Virginia made a move to ensure that speakers to the council will have to allow citizens of Eureka to go first. Bus or no bus that's who elected the mayor and city council and those are the people y'all were elected to represent.

If people in Arcata are so civic minded maybe they can volunteer to fill potholes or something. People in Loleta need to stay home and watch the cows and smell the 'fresh' air. People from McKinleyville need to volunteer for car pool or something ---that's just too far to drive to mind somebody else's business.

 
At 4:23 PM, Blogger Eric V. Kirk said...

Maybe its time to look into changing a couple things in the city charter-Eric stay in Garberville...any committee people available? Mark?

Reminds me of the SNL skit "subliminal man?"

 
At 4:43 PM, Blogger Carol Ann said...

This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

 
At 4:47 PM, Blogger Greg said...

2:23, My writing has been about the falseness of the consensus decision-making model in a democracy. The issue is about Eureka charter politics.

The rules as written are that Mayor Bass is to make the appointment and is fully entitled to break a tie. My position is that I expect her to do just that, without apology. Just because I supported her opponent does not mean I am against Virginia, or that I would get that into Eureka politics. People are right in that I do not live in Eureka.

My attempt is to communicate about the falsity of using "consensus" as if it were a democratic decision-making model. My goal is to support democracy.

Issues of process require a little more information than you seem to possess. Those who would turn such a discussion in to a personality clash are usually on the defensive somehow.

 
At 6:21 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Greg you are an idiot.

 
At 7:44 PM, Anonymous mresquan said...

Anon 12:51,you're saying that Leonard will prevent Virginia from casting the deciding vote,fairly bold prediction.But if he doesn't want to hear an earfull about his decision to not back Bob Fasic,and to back an appointee this time around after a 3/2 vote,he better do the same thing he did in Jan.of '05,and ensure nothing gets passed without a 4 to 1 vote.

 
At 7:46 PM, Anonymous mresquan said...

Oops,I guess that means a 3 to 1 vote.

 
At 8:26 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

From our fearless letter writer himself, flip flopping over on eric's blog...See Greg, this is what I mean by your being inconsistent...I actually went back to your post from the Ron Kuhnel Recount thread and found this, posted by you (GREG) found at the sohumparlance:

"What a lot of rationalizing. A lot of people died for your right to vote. If anyone should take the heat for the cost of a special election, maybe it should be Virginia. But the election should be held. Anything less is anti-democratic and an insult to American patriotism."
10:47 AM GREG SAID THIS

Now you are saying that in fact YOU would have appointed someone, and not care about consensus...Flip, meet FLOP...Furthermore, and a point that I think is worth pondering is that you are scared to death of an appointment thats 3-1 or 4-0 without Virginia voting...you want her to cast a tie breaking vote so you can rail against her for that for the next two year...

But back to the facts...you in FACT when the chance for an election was still on the table called the appointment process anti democratic and an insult to American Patriotism, yet now that the appointment process has been approved, you admit it's something you yourself would do...

 
At 8:49 PM, Anonymous mresquan said...

Um 8:26,how exactly did Greg contradict himself? I must have missed it,but where and when did he say he would appoint someone?Not trying to attack anyone here,but I don't understand the complaint being made in the above thread.And where has Greg ever said anything,even in relation,about being scared to death of a 3 to 1 or 4 to 0 vote,so Virginia wouldn't have to break the tie?Just curious as to what made you come to that conclusion.

 
At 8:55 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Mark, did you see the part where he said that the special election should be held and that anything less would be an anti democratic, only to admit later that he himself would use the appointment process? You dont see anything at all inconsistent with this?

One more thing, I never said that Greg said he was scared to death of a consensus pick, thats my speculation...

 
At 8:58 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Mark asked:
"I must have missed it,but where and when did he say he would appoint someone?"

Greg said this, he really did, at 11:02 a.m.

"if the shoe was on the other foot, I would likely appoint a crony and would not hesitate to break any tied votes.

So yes, Mark you did miss this; and I'm not trying to attack anyone either, I just like to point out hipocracy when I see it...

 
At 9:05 PM, Anonymous mresquan said...

Sorry,I don't see the latter part where he said he would use the appointment process.I'll go back through previous posts to find it.Just trying the discussion rational here.

 
At 9:11 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Mark, I respect the passion of others' beliefs, but when they set differing standards for others and are consistently inconsistent, it's hard to have an honest dialogue with them...btw, thanks for putting in the time volunteering at the elections office.
Paul

 
At 9:21 PM, Anonymous mresquan said...

Okay I got the post now.Well I hope he was kidding.In my previous thread I meant to say that I was trying to keep the discussion rational here.I hate when I do that.

 
At 10:10 PM, Blogger Eric V. Kirk said...

Greg was simply being honest.

 
At 7:06 AM, Blogger Greg said...

This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

 
At 7:18 AM, Blogger Greg said...

Thanks, Eric - that is my intent. The issue of "appoint" v. "elect" is one issue. I am for elections in democracies. The other issue came up along with the council and mayor's decision to make it an appointment--phony talk of consensus is one of my pet peeves. Let's agree to disagree, do our best, enjoy our wins and take our lumps: that's democracy.

So, my first choice would be a special election. But if the council decided on an appointment I would follow the law, make the appointment, then appoint a charter commission to make Eureka's election laws democratic again.

You others who want to speculate: try asking questions. Thanks.

 
At 8:21 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

It's not like Mark respects other peoples beliefs at all. He called for the Eureka Greens to disband because they wouldn't tow the party line of his controller David Cobb. After he got what he asked for there, he's now going after the Waterfront Greens, calling for them to disband, again because they won't obey orders from Cobb HQ. Mind you, Mark ain't even a Green, making his opinion a little less than relevant.

 
At 8:49 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

"So, my first choice would be a special election. But if the council decided on an appointment I would follow the law, make the appointment, then appoint a charter commission to make Eureka's election laws democratic again"

Greg, Greg, Greg, You said yourself, that if you were mayor YOU would appoint a crony...

 
At 8:53 AM, Anonymous mresquan said...

Anon 8:21,my opinion must be relevant to you as you as you've commented on my take.And I'm sorry Charles that nobody else showed up to your meeting last week,that has nothing to do with me no matter how you frame it.Talk to your fellow waterfront greens and ask them why they don't come to your meetings and participate in building a coalition,at the last attempt of a meeting that I saw at Has Beans Xandra Manns was the only person to show up,so the group is disbanding itself fairly well without my assistance.So the waterfront greens are a certified outfit of the green party now?If that's the case then you should have at least 10 or so registered within the group I would assume.Get your group to get its shit together before coming here to hurl crap at me.
And as an independent voter,I wouldn't mind if all voters saw the negatives of party affiliationism.Political party influence is equally as dangerous as corporate or other moneyed influences.

 
At 8:54 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Eric, yes, he's being honest...whats good for him isnt necessarily good for others...And his honesty here has tripped Greg up - first choice for Virginia in his mind is a special election, and to do anything less "is an insult to american patriotism", but Greg readily admits:
"if the shoe was on the other foot, I would likely appoint a crony and would not hesitate to break any tied votes."
So, Greg, dont shoot the messenger here, these are your words. Eric, I have ton of respect for you as you are consistent, and apply the same standards to everyone, but geez, cant you see where this would stick in someones craw?
P

 
At 9:02 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

The Waterfront Greens met after you left Mark Konkler, they all know you're a mole and were waiting for your departure to get started. There were six folks present, five members since Charles don't count, and they are getting things done without the kind of interference you are interested in perpetrating. They meet again twice this month, but why tell you the time when you just want to show up and spew negativity without contributing a single original thought?

 
At 9:20 AM, Blogger Fred said...

Esquan wrote, "It would seem to me that this sort of thing(appointment of a council seat)would rile up any libertarian.Do you really want your government to tell you who else may be governing you?".

It happens all the time. I don't know that "democracy" in and of itself is a libertarian issue. Tyranny, whether by appointed representatives or a majority vote is tyranny nonetheless.

Probably not the best way to make my point. What I'm trying to say is, from a libertarian standpoint I don't see what real difference it makes if the one who rules your life is elected or appointed.

Even if we have a special election, whoever wins wasn't elected by 49% or whatever percent of the voters lost.

So, from my viewpoint, democracy be damned! I'm not concerned so much with the process but what the end result of that process is. In other words, I'm more worried about what the new council critter does to me (or the city) rather than how he got the seat.

 
At 9:37 AM, Blogger Fred said...

Esquan wrote, "Talk to your fellow waterfront greens and ask them why they don't come to your meetings and participate in building a coalition".

They need to develop a consensus, esquan.

 
At 5:06 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

BTW, Waterfront Greens just met, 9 folks present, which is three times as many people as are even left in Cobb's defunct little unit.

 

Post a Comment

<< Home