No matter what anyone says, giving back a 6-1/2% pension contribution and then receiving just a 5% pay increase is NOT an increase. It currently amounts to a loss in a climate where workers are continuing to lose real buying power and opportunities.
I wish Tom would do more illustration that PVP Watch does not watch the Palos Verdes Peninsula.
Throughout their Web history, that group of what I feel are ultra-conservative former government or government-allied workers, have dealt with JUST Rancho Palos Verdes issues and issues related to the PVPUSD.
These senior citizens may have gleaned an education direct and/or indirect pay, pension benefits and other income directly or indirectly from governmental entites, all the while bemoaning and badmouthing governments.
I bet Tom and I would agree that PVP Watch members wish to be the puppet masters of some council members.
I think that should Susan, Dora and/or Jerry wish to 'get away' from any moniker of being under any influence of or by PVP Watch, they should do it now, in public and with a sincere determination to make us all know they are not beholding to any group.
I want all voters to be absolutely sure about this, that the three candidates endorsed by PVP Watch will not be influenced by any puppet masters whether any of believe PVP Watch is such a group or not, or with any other group in our city or beyond.
Unfortunately, Tom's last Email comes to me more like a skipping record rather than any new music that we haven't heard before. Tom can and should do much better, I feel.
When there was what I would call an almost ultra-conservative on our council, the divisiveness created brought lawsuits that cost our city thousands and thousands of dollars along with thousands of hours worked by staff that ultimately came up to be worthless when the attorney associated with that former council member never picked up the boxes of records demanded from our city, as the lawsuit seemingly vanished into thin air.
I don't have all the history on that debacle but I do remember some men who I later found out were prominent members of PVP Watch, being central in the arguments surrounding that episode that cost our city so much and created some very foul issues within our city.
I do think that if folks disagree with Tom Long's Emails, they should write their own Emails or even offer a post on this blog that I will gladly publish.
I never have to agree with a post contributor as long as they meet minimum criteria of being truthful and not hypocritical. Their opinions are their opinions and they have every right to express those opinions, whether I agree with them or not.
There is however, one RPV resident who is NOT WELCOME to post their opinions on this blog. Tom mentioned that individual in one of his Emails.
With that person, I learned that even though only one PVP Watch member has publicly stated some reasonable defamation of 'That Email's" writer, nobody else from PVP Watch or the candidates that group endorses have made any public comment about 'That Email' and they really should.
I have come to learn that the author of "That Email" has been asked to steer clear of PVP Watch, but that does not mean in any way, that group has stated in public any rebuke of the contents of 'That Email'. or its author.
Of this I really don't care how 'busy' any candidate is. I think it should be important enough for all candidates to offer their personal opinions, one way or the other, about the contents of Carol's Email.
Silence is not golden to me, in this regard. Guilt by association is still considered guilt, by some and it remains sickly and sad we have not heard from all of the candidates concerning this issue.
I do not want to see our city tarnished with even a hint that some folk who may think of PVP Watch as a prominent group, will not offer a formal rebuke and condemnation of such writings. I am sure they don't take comments written by Tom Long too kindly.
But I do realize that most of this is probably moot by now. With the attendance voting less than a week away, there are probably close to a majority of ballots already mailed into the County Registrar's office.
In Eastview, our ballots contain only ONE item. All we get to vote on is who will represent us on our city council.
We don't get to vote for new members of the PVPUSD Board and we have absolutely no vote on Measure M.
It is extremely important for everyone with any interest or knowledge of our city's workings to vote in this election but I can see lots of Eastview residents, not voting by mail in balloting, simply avoiding going to the polls. And that is a very bad thing!
At least for the rest of our city, there are three items to vote on.
This election is not going to end as pretty as it should, I suspect.
I do know for a fact that there will be fireworks in the aftermath of this election and that saddens me.
There are those more conservative than I am who are looking forward to bashing outgoing council members and I feel that negative energy would be better used in a more positive manner by working on the future of our city.
At least we probably won't see the rant about a 'wealthy' candidate winning as was stated by one candidate regarding the victor over that candidate by another person.
These remaining several days finds my calendar fairly full of casting calls. I may get a couple more posts written before November 8 and I still encourage anyone to submit their own comments or even a guest post to this blog.
On election eve I am a 'hopeless drunk' and I think I have one more zombie role between now and election day. I am not cast as anything other than my regular curmudgeon self on November 8, so I'll probably head to my elementary alma mater's auditorium about 9:00 AM to vote for Dave Emenhiser and Jim Knight.
I'm still befuddled by today's Daily Breeze news about campaign contributions provided to the seven active candidates.
It is really true that Eric Alegria only received ONE contribution to his campaign by a resident of R.P.V.?
Whey didn't the Daily Breeze report that Susan Brooks and Dora de la Rosa received $1,000 from Trump National Golf Course while both Jerry Duhovic and Dave Emenhiser received their $1,000 from "VH Properties", a Trump-associated entity, in New York? There is a difference, you know. Maybe not much, but not mentioning Emenhiser's contribution is a miss. I still fully endorse Dave and Jim.
There are at least two versions of why staff members ultimately sought union representation. Both seem plausible but I think we need full disclosure from unionizing staff members to get to which version is correct.
One version is that the huge differences in higher level staff compensation compared to the compensation packages offered to lower level staff members is the reason staff members sought unionization.
The other prominent version is a fear that a too-conservative new city council makeup will further erode staff members' compensation packages and opportunities.
It really depends on whether you are a conservative or more progressive on which of the two reasoning are more believable to you.
Good night and thanks for reading!
No comments:
Post a Comment