Marymount Plans To Improve Parking!

At about 8:45 A.M. this morning, I got an Email for our city's 'Listserver' program that I feel EVERYONE needs to sign up for.

In today's 'episode' came the drawings for an upgrade for more on-campus parking spaces at Marymount College, in Rancho Palos Verdes.

First, here is a link to various articles concerning Marymount College in R.P.V. via Planning and Zoning. It provided information about a wide variety of topics related to Marymount College and its plans in the near term and drawn out over time.

http://www.palosverdes.com/rpv/planning/marymount/index.cfm

Now, here is the link to the drawings submitted for discussion concerning a new parking lot that may just get built in place of the existing playing field on the college's Palos Verdes Drive East main campus.

http://www.palosverdes.com/rpv/planning/marymount/PARKING-LOT-PROJECT-PLANS-3-16-2012.pdf

According to information supplied by our Planning Department, the drawings illustrate a new parking lot area that fits into the Conditions of Approval for The Marymount College Facilities Expansion Project, approved in 2010.

According to 'rpvlisterserver' our City Council is scheduled to consider the plans at its April 17 meeting. (Probably it would be more accurate to consider that our City Council may begin to consider the item at its April 17 meeting.)

I feel everyone should take a look at the drawings and hopefully consider this a good thing for all of us.

It is a good thing, I feel for Marymount's reputation because it just may be a demonstration as to their compliance with calls for getting college-associated vehicles from parking on public roads.

It also serves as one piece of evidence that Marymount's administration MAY finally try to make improvements on their R.P.V. campus that are part of the Expansion Project's goals.

Does this mean that the entire Expansion Project will truly get underway, with a real path towards completion? I don't know.

What will surely be lost is the large playing field now being used on Marymount's campus. Whether we will ever see a new field constructed on the west side of the campus remains to be seen.

Along with this latest news about going forward POSSIBLY with a new parking area, is some new work on utilities for buildings on the campus. Improving utilities for buildings where some of them may be slated for demolition or major reconstruction with the Expansion Project's guidelines.

I'm going to tentatively give positive credit and 'warm fuzzies' to the folks at Marymount College who have decided to move forward with at least a small portion of what was approved for doing, some time ago.

To me it is a step in the correct direction. Taking parked cars off the streets near Marymount's campus is a good thing for everyone, I think. It provides more security for those who have their cars off public streets and in a parking lot. It offers better traffic management by both the college and the city. It allows more room to maneuver on Crest Road, a road the L.A.County Fire Department uses when necessary.

All in all, I think this is a good, yet small step forward with The Marymount College Facilities Expansion Project.

Tuesday's Meeting

Ten members of the public sent in speaker cards for the portion of last night's meeting of the Rancho Palos Verdes City Council regarding the portion of the meeting set aside for the Report and possible motion(s) dealing with Rules and Procedures and Council and Commission and Committee Protocol.

It turned out to be just the continuance of an issue that seemed mostly settled last December 20.

The current Rules of Procedure for Council, Commission and Committee meetings in our city was approved by this very Council last December 20.

After all the issues surrounding what happened in the last two weeks, only one portion of the 'new' Rules of Procedure was voted on a passed, albeit, by a split vote.

SECTION 5, ORDER AND PREPARATION OF THE AGENDA was discussed and a motion passed by a 3-2 vote to implement only that new set of wording for how city council agendas are set.

Mayor Misetich made the motion, seconded by Councilman Knight, to allow this portion of the new set or rules to go into force while postponing any decisions on the remainder of the Rules of Procedure until the second regular city council meeting this coming May.

Councilwoman Brooks offered the third vote to approve the motion while Councilman Duhovic and Mayor Pro Tem Campbell offered the two 'No' votes.

Before all the discussions about the new report began there was a written apology verbally stated by our city's City Manager dealing with what is now claimed to be a premature release of something like a 'working document' and not any type of "Draft Proposal" report, by the Sub-committee charged with helping to create the new Rules of Procedure and Protocol/Code of Conduct/whatever you wish to call it

Mayor Misetich also offered some apologies as to how the recent dust up in our city happened and Councilwoman Brooks also offered he type of explanation about how and why the document dated "March 14" got into the hands of the public.

In Ms. Brooks' comments, she used the words "Code of Conduct" numerous times as well as "Values-Based Ethics Policy" as if those sets of words are still in the 'new' Draft Protocol. She even went back to how things were created in other cities and she seemed to not quite get that "Code of Conduct" appears in ZERO places in the March 16, 2012 report.

Councilwoman Brooks may continue to think she may be able to bring those words and their meanings according to her back at some future date, possibly along with the 'pledge' offered in the March 14 document.

As I wrote in a previous post, the newer wording of the proposed Protocol for Council and Commission and Committee members doesn't bother me all that much and in talking with many who also spoke at last night's meeting, they are pleased that the March 14 "DRAFT" Code of Conduct" was claimed to not really be a "DRAFT" and that it is long gone.

I use the word, "DRAFT" because even though our City Manager and others claim that the March 14 document made public, actually contains the word "DRAFT" on an angle on the pages of the March 14, Rules of Procedure, which included Section 13 CODE OF CONDUCT.

I can post a photo of the page, if folks wish to claim 'we' didn't see the word "DRAFT" on that particular document.

As for the discussion between the members on the council on Mayor Misetich's motion, I found it interesting and I am pleased members spoke their minds about it, somewhat.

Councilman Duhovic voiced concerns with the wording and 'wordsmith' needs of Section five, which again, deals with how City Council agendas will be created.

I thought all the verbalized comments by members helped me understand better, the Section as well as former Mayor Ken Dyda's explanation of how agendas were created when he was the Mayor of our city.

What I didn't hear however, was how agendas were created during the term of the only other former Mayor who spoke at the meeting. Perhaps the way those agendas were created didn't fit into the form she was supporting in the new Section 5, but I think it would have been good for us to know how city council agendas were created during her time as Mayor and that may have helped the overall discussion move along, better.

In the end, it appears that everything can be changed, yet again. The Rules of Procedure approved less than five months ago by this council will take another two months before they MAY be changed, yet again.

Of course, there could be a vote that simply states that the 'wheel' recreated on December 20, 2011 does not need to be reinvented or even polished all that much, by close to the beginning of June.

After all, isn't there supposed to be a time when our council deals with items higher on their own list of priorities than trying to reinvent the wheel?

A WEDNESDAY Meeting to Discuss The Much Ado About Nothing

First, I haven't read the 'new' DRAFT Rules of Procedure and Code of Conduct because I just downloaded it and I am still in some shock that this whole, what I call a boondoggle is at where it is at, right now.

A bit of background, now. When this new C.C. makeup talked about their goals, establishing a new set of Rules of Procedure and Code of Conduct was Number One on their list.

NOT! That is NOT TRUE. Heck, it didn't even make it into the top ten, according to one very knowledgeable resident. It is the council's TWELFTH highest goal.

But no matter, A NEW WEDNESDAY MARCH 21, 2012 is now listed on our city's web site and THE ONLY new business is the 'new' draft documents that city staff could not get published for public consumption by 5:00 PM today.

The Brown Act requires a minimum of 72 hours between the time an agenda can be set, staff reports are published and the public informed and the meeting time in which the item will be discussed and possibly voted on.

Okay, again it's my blog so I can make conjecture, provide opinion and I ABSOLUTELY encourage any and all to also make conjecture, provide opinion, offer facts, and provide your own comments, which I will publish.

What is so darn important about this issues that it requires a WEDNESDAY meeting, outside the regular 1st and 3rd Tuesdays meetings?

I've already read the apology and excuse from our City Manager and I'm not buying it as far as I can throw that boulder that traveled to LACMA. Perhaps a certain C.C. member worked with our City Manager and staff to try, all day, to get the documents ready before 5 P.M. but that is just possibly my imagination.

Tuesday's meeting as YET ANOTHER item about setting goals and priorities. Gee, haven't they had since December to finish that, finally?

I WILL read the entire new document and note some changes that may be different than the March 14 DRAFT document that at least one city offical might want you to ignore.

To say the fit has hit the shan with at least one Council member doesn't give enough credit to the fit or the shan.

I thank everyone who has viewed this blog in the last day or so and I offer no reasonable excuse as to why I haven't been more involved with what has been happening in, I mean TO our city, and its residents, lately.

I do marvel at the number and diversity of thought among so many of our residents and I can only be very proud when far lefties like me can join with those all the way through the center and well into the far conservative regions, all seeming having some common problems with what the council's Sub-committee is trying to put into law.

I hope to be able to report that at least one member has received crystal clear messages from lots and lots of our residents and business owners. I hope to be able to report that there is no longer any type of 'pledge' any volunteer in our city is required to sign or adhere to.

I hope you all have the chance to read the 'new' DRAFT document. It is at:

http://www.palosverdes.com/rpv/citycouncil/agendas/2012_Agendas/MeetingDate-2012-03-21/RPVCCA_SR_2012_03_21_01_Council_Rules_of_Proc.pdf

It is my opinion that it is ridiculous for ANOTHER meeting being held on WEDNESDAY, just to have this one item in the 'Regular New Business' part of the agenda.

It appears to me that it is a 'rush to judgement' by certain council members who just might want these things to pass without proper review, just minimal review.

Some of what I have written about in two previous posts seem to have found more confirmation, sadly. I won't say I didn't expect this and as many of you know I am not a big fan of Ms. Brooks.

There is great hope and I have some positive feelings about what might happen come between now and Wednesday night. There are much leveler heads than I have in our city and I think they will come forth and help me either get this whole matter put off to the next regularly scheduled C.C. meeting or someone or some two just might find it in their best interests to seek to have this whole 'boondoggle' table to a future date AND at least one more revision.

We'll see. It's going to be yet another bumpy Saturday, I feel.

I'll write a comment to this post after I have digested the 'new' DRAFT and if it still smells the way many folks in our city thinks the last one does, I'll let you know my opinion.

My Comments Comparing The Two Documents

This post was written as I read through the old DRAFT documents and the new DRAFT document that was published for public consumption AFTER 5 PM on Friday, March 16, 2012.

Get some long hand lines, good climbing shoes, great head lanterns and strong gloves because there has been some real caving done between the two DRAFTS.

First, the NEW DRAFT suggests that The Mayor or Mayor Pro Tem, advise the City Manager on the creation of the C.C. agenda, I don't see the language in the particular similar section of the two DRAFTS that state that the City Manager, by herself or himself, creates the C.C.'s agenda.

This is a big change from the March 14 DRAFT. It acknowledges that our elected representatives and not just a city employee have greater impact into the creation of the agenda they all use, instead of having the employee with so much authority and control.

There is new language in the NEW DRAFT that suggests another way for C.C. members to bring a new agenda item into focus via "Forthcoming Agenda Items", but the language seems vague to me in how or who gets to decide whether an item ultimately makes it onto an agenda.

Stay tuned below. I do need to give some kudos to those who helped create a new way for C.C. members to have their issues placed on the agenda.

In the first part of "The Rules of Order" the NEW DRAFT changes from using "Robert's Rules of Order" to "Roesenberg's Rules of Order"

**NOTE (I do admit that I am familiar with "Robert's Rules of Order and I am not familiar with or know much about "Rosenberg's Rules of Order".)

"Rosenberg's Rules of Order" is included within the documents of the NEW DRAFT.

The Government Code that requires the 72-hour rule is Section 54954.2 of the California Government Code and not necessarily in The Brown Act. I was in error about that.

The NEW Section 3.10 states that if three members of the council attend a Civic Event where city business might or will be discussed, the City Manager must be notified and the event will be noticed in accordance with provisions of the Brown Act.

**NOTE* Thanks for this addition, it provides more openness and it also may mean that the public MUST be included in whatever the 'civic event' is, so there can be no 'closed door' civic events if three or more members of the council attend.

Get your spelunking gear on for Section 5, "Order and Preparation of Agenda" because this is where a big cave occurred between the two DRAFTS.

Council members may offer agenda items to be placed on the "Future Agenda Items" part of the regular agenda. After conferring with the Mayor or Mayor Pro Tem, if they or the City Manager refuse to place the item on the agenda, the C.C. member wishing to have their issues made into an agenda item, a vote will be taken during the "Future Agenda Item" portion of the meeting and if the majority of the members agree to have the item placed on a future agenda, it will be.

I think a great number of 'little birdies' screamed to high heaven about the older DRAFT'S 'options' about having just the City Manager create the agenda without direct input by C.C. members or having to deal with the four options suggested in the old DRAFT.

"Future Agenda Items" becomes the newest part of the C.C.'s agenda, just after 'Regular Business' and just before 'Oral Reports'.

Section 5.2 is changed between the two DRAFTS. The NEW DRAFT allows for the next C.C. agenda to come out on Thursday by 5:30 P.M. instead of Wednesday by 5:00 P.M. I have no idea how the individual members feel about having one less day and one fewer half-hour to digest the next agenda.

Section 8.3, subsection 3, The NEW DRAFT added that speakers may not designate their time before the C.C. to others, "absent approval by the Mayor".

**NOTE* This means PERHAPS that if multiple individuals with to provide their time to someone AND the Mayor or meeting leader is not fond of what the speakers wish to talk about, the officer can simply deny the action.

THE BIGGEST DIFFERENCE between the current and NEW DRAFT RULES are, deals with Council members' ability to create agenda items. In the current rules, there is no language at all about whether or how a C.C. member can have his or her item added to the C.C.'s agenda.

I do give credit to the Sub-committee members and the City Manager and her staff for thinking about this and making the MUST changes between the old DRAFT and the NEW DRAFT. I feel it is important to include language as to how individual members of the C.C. can have their issues added or not added to their own group's agenda.

Sadly though, after you read both the current Rules of Procedure and the NEW DRAFT document, you may find, as I do that, apart from the one big change I mentioned, the NEW Draft is much ado about nothing new.

Time to take a break and refresh.

Gone, gone, gone is the proposed SECTION 13 "Code of Conduct" in the older DRAFT document.

The word 'pledge' is nowhere to be found in the NEW DRAFT.

Also the "Values-based ethics policy" wording is gone.

After the NEW DRAFT Rules of Procedure, there is the current Rules and Procedures dated December 20, 2011. It allows readers a view of that the current rules are and the NEW DRAFT rules might become.

After the current rules are documented, a NEW document, "PROPOSED COUNCIL AND COMMISSION/COMMITTEE PROTOCOL" document is included. I haven't read or do I know if there is or was any other document of this type for our C.C., Commissions and Committees, so it might be new ground for myself and others.

What I can write is that, as a former Traffic and Safety Commissioner and knowing what I know about or resident volunteers who work on our Council, Commissions and Committees, the whole thing looks unnecessary, in R.P.V.

We have a great city, with all kinds of different, but caring folks. I think that I can trust the judgement of residents who I usually disagree politically with because I know that they have our city's best interests, as they see them, in their hearts and minds.

We don't have to agree on anything or everything to understand that our city is lived in, worked in and loved by intelligent, creative, giving, and helpful citizens. I don't feel we really need the "Protocol", which is just another word to replace "Code of Conduct"

The volunteers who make up the various groups that serve all of us don't appear to have any profit motives behind their service.

If there are those, and there may be one out of several hundred who have served, who is not up to the highest standards we expect from ourselves and others, it is a pretty good bet that others in our city know what is going on and if and when 'bad' stuff occurs, I feel we can see the issues solved without having to look towards a set of protocols or codes of conduct.

HOWEVER, if the majority of the C.C. members feel the NEW DRAFT proposal for the protocol meets what they feel they would like to have on the books, I didn't find anything I would really argue with, in the document, at first reading.

I do find the first sentence or two of section 17 about not having a speaker state their volunteer status when speaking to another body in our city is a bit 'loopy'. I think we are a small enough city that most folks may just personally know the speakers who volunteer for our city when speaking in our city, to our other great volunteers.

In summary, it certainly appears that what has gone down recently, with all the phone calls, emails, confrontations, anger, questioning and everything else, after all that is done, what we find is not much new and something we may just not need.

My objection to Section 11.3, Silence when a vote is taken, has been included in other Rules of Procedure and it still on the books with the current set.

I do strongly feel that if there had not been such an uproar with the old DRAFT, a new one would not have been much different than the old one, so it means to me that our residents' voices have been heard by those who really needed to listen.

The differences between the OLD DRAFT and the NEW DRAFT does make it appear that the OLD DRAFT attempted to create fundamental changes in a way that did not increase openness, advise and consent, and more community involvement. In fact, the OLD DRAFT appeared to stifle even a portion of the First Amendment of The Constitution of the United States of America.

What his whole boondoggle also proves is that our residents ARE involved, DO care and ARE WILLING to do what is needed at times where the need exists.

The wheel did not need to be reinvented and our residents stated that, as a matter of fact. We just needed to put a little polish on the chrome wheel cover, which the NEW DRAFT does, I feel.

Now, if you will help me get Section 11.3 changed, I would very much appreciate that.

I feel silence when voting demonstrates a lack of courage or a willingness to stand up and by one's reasoning for how one voted.

I continue to feel that there must be only three audible responses when a vote is called. A member of the Council, Commission or Committee may respond in the affirmative, negative or they must verbal their abstention from voting on any matter.

The current and NEW DRAFT states that 'Silence is to be taken as an affirmative' to a called question or motion. I think it allows voters to not be obliged to verbalize their position and there is certainly nothing 'open' or honest about refusing to verbally acknowledge their voting position on a matter.

I don't know yet the specific language I would change, but I strongly think that silence must not be allowed on any vote, by any member, on any question or motion.

The result of any one's use of silence should indicate they should have not run or asked for the position and they should not be reelected.

I Read It. I Saved It.

I found and saved the DRAFT Rules of Procedure and Code of Conduct (partial in the document, I suspect) that Mayor Misetich and Council member Brooks worked on as Sub-committee members of the Council.

Apparently, for the last 39 years or so, our former Mayors and Council members did not know anything about Rules of Procedures and Codes of Conduct, I write sarcastically.

Of course you and I know they did, but that didn't stop two elected members and the City Manager-led staff to create a new DRAFT set of items, just like trying to reinvent the wheel, I feel.

In the larger document, a mention of "Spirited Debate" among residents of our city appeared to be something negative to those who wrote the documents.

Our city needs and must have spirited debates to best offer our residents and businesses the greatest freedom to make decisions that affect so many people.

There are several areas I have some trouble with and what I have been hearing and reading lately, I'm not the only one who has some real questions for at least three individuals.

"Values-based ethics policy" Whose values must folks conform to?

"Pledge" This is a thorny issue because why must talented, intelligent, creative, helpful and great volunteers sign or conform to a pledge when they ALL probably have the best interests of our residents and businesses in mind from the get-go?

It also might be a violation of what is left of our First Amendment right of free speech and assembly.

There is one procedure involving the taking of votes that I have an issue with.

In the DRAFT Rules of Procedure, if a vote is taken and someone remains silent, that silence might constitute an affirmative vote.

I think this is very bad because it allows the silent one to 'skate' or 'skirt' the issue being voted on.

The best way to conduct a legal vote is to require the voter to say 'Yea', or something like that, "Nay", or something like that, or "Abstain" or "I Abstain".

We are currently in "Sunshine Week" where openness, honesty, and clear representation is called for, not 'back room politics' or something like that.

The vote on the DRAFT was originally scheduled for "March 14" NOT a regularly scheduled meeting of our C.C. and NOT being held at either City Hall, Hesse Park, or P.V. I.C., but rather at an non televised meeting area at the Officers College of the Salvation Army.

Thankfully, some folks finally were made to realize that it would look quite bad if the Rules and the Code was passed with fewer than five C.C. members at a non-regular location and not televised.

But wait! There's more.

Folks from the far right are joining with middle of the roaders and folks like me on the far left to let everyone know that something is quite amiss by this whole thing.

While I have no facts to back up the following, since this is my blog, I get to include conjecture, guess, and opinions, not necessarily based on facts, BUT based on what I have seen, heard, read, or know from history.

My conjecture is this: I think the "Sub-committee" which included Mayor Misetich and Council member Brooks had most of their work done by Council member Brooks. Our Mayor travels quite a bit and he has been out of the country and traveling around inside our country, which is his right and his professional responsibility.

I think Council member Brooks, after the 'One Hour Rule' was rescinded may have taken more than full advantage of meeting with staff members, including spending lots of time with our City Manager.

I feel we should demand from the Sub-committee members a full explanation as to how, when and why these DRAFT documents were created and who, besides Sub-committee members provided input into the creation of the documents.

WE elected our C.C. members to represent us with opinions, oversight, guidance, advice and consent and when it now appears that much of their authority and the rights and authority of Commissions and Committees and especially our Planning Commission might be curtailed in deference to work by one city employee, there must be some real examination done.

It does appear in writing that, while there are four options that may allow C.C. members to mandate the placement of issues on their own agenda, most of what is conveyed is that the City Manager, now and forever, might have the authority to dictate, completely what the C.C. sees and does and also what the Planning Commission sees and does.

The Planning Commission is also a body that can make legal decisions and they must also be provided with certain authorities and rights also provided now to the C.C.

It is also my opinion that Ms. Brooks stuck her foot into too much of a power grab for the City Manager, for reasons I still don't know...but I can ponder about.

As for "values", I feel Ms. Brooks and our City Manager have not used their very best to represent our city, during this process and many folks think that the 'values' offered and demonstrated by those two individuals are not 'values' they share.

Bits And Pieces 55

I've been doing other things and haven't been watching was has been going on lately.

First though, if you visit our very own Terrace Cinemas and buy a large drink, guess what they say should happen if you say to the counter person, 'I like walking the dog'?

You get a FREE hot dog during March. I didn't take advantage of the free candy provided in February, but I just might head to our great multiplex when "Hunger Games" comes out because Terri, as one of the Library Aides at Miraleste told me, it is a very hot book for Intermediate School readers.

We're still waiting for something coming out about Ponte Vista. I do know that iStar Financial, the backers of the project posted a fourth quarter 2011 loss of $35 Million and a total loss for 2011 of $62 Million. Oh well, their troubles continue.

Is it now time for me to say, "I told you so"?

What is now growing more apparent by the day is that folks on all sides of the political spectrum in R.P.V. are up in arms about this "Code of Conduct" and at least one C.C. member's attempt to make fundamental changes in the way our Council members, Planning Commission members and other residents who volunteer their services to all us on commissions, committees and other groups, operate.

There is talk swirling around that this one particular C.C. member may be cahoots with our City Manager to rest far too much power for the City Manager position and do away with many of the checks and balances we have seen in our city, for decades.

Imagine having to tell our City Manager where you are going and what you intend to do if you wish to address other city councils, other cities commissions and staff members.

Consider that what you say, as a volunteer in our city, might get you 'fired' because it may not be appropriate in the opinion of one person.

Imagine having to sign what can only be described as a 'loyalty pledge' if you plan on serving our city as a trained and highly qualified volunteer.

Imagine still, that all of the rumblings have been done in the back room or at the side or our City Manager, by one C.C. member and not via a majority vote of our Council.

Think about our elected representatives NOT being able to vote to place something on THEIR meeting agenda.

Consider that so many of our volunteer Council, Commission and Committee members are very qualified and we know that really do have the best interests of our residents in mind, except probably for one C.C. member.

What has been going on has gotten the ire of liberals, moderates, moderate conservatives and yes, ever folks on the far right side of politics. Many of these folks voted for the one C.C. member now seemingly wishing to put their agenda into play, by going behind the rules and trying to get theirs enacted.

Okay, it's "Our Ms. Brooks" that is the one so many folks are bothered by.

I have been out of the loop all year and I haven't paid too much attention to any individual C.C. member. So don't blame me for instigating anything. I just happen to one of the residents other 'little birdies' talk to.

What is really surprising is who is up in arms and how different all of these folks are. It's certainly not the far lefties like me who are the only ones questioning Ms. Brooks' tactics and goals.

Oh well, again. I had many guesses throughout the campaign that things would be like this and I wasn't too far off.

I think Ms. Brooks wishes she was elected Mayor on the night she was sworn in and she might even trying to be the next Mayor, even though Mayor Pro Tem Brian Campbell should be.

In private and now on this blog I will use the term for Ms. Brooks that I have held back on.

"Mom". I have felt and continue to feel Ms. Brooks believes that since she served on a previous Council and that she believes she knows what is best for all of us, we should all listen to her as if she is our mother, including the four other members of the C.C. and all the Planning Commissioners.

What about this 'values' thing 'Mom' seems to be trying to get enacted in our city? I guess they are only her values, whether you agree with them or not.

And another thing, remember when so many ill informed residents wanted to compare our city to the city of Bell, especially when the Charter City thing was about? If Ms. Brooks and our City Manager are really working together so that C.C. and P.C. members have no right to set some of their own agenda items, how is that any different than when the C.C. of Bell gave all their rights away to their city's manager?

It is amazing to hear some on the other side of politics than I am now wondering if our city might become more like the old Bell, because of one or two people working in dark, back rooms to make changes not too many folks want.

Also, why are 'they' trying to reinvent the wheel?

Tonight and tomorrow night is yet two more meetings about visions and goals this C.C. wants to look at. Haven't they had enough time already to get their groove together.

I hope Mayor Misetich, Mayor Pro Tem Campbell and Coucilmembers Duhovic and Knight understand that important work needs to get done and taking all this time to deal with what Council member Brooks is trying to do is wrong for our residents, all of our residents, no matter what side of politics they are on.

I also hope that Council member Brooks sees 'the writing on the wall' and that she 'gets with the program' and joins the other C.C. members in working together to better our city and not try to demand her values system onto others.

The members of the C.C., all the Planning Commission members, members of the Finance Committee and folks volunteering on the other commissions and committees are ALL more qualified than is seen in most other cities in the South Bay and Southern California. They are all volunteers who provide benefits, oversight, and intelligent opinions and should be respected.

I don't really know how much Ms. Brooks really respects those who don't necessarily agree with everything she says or wants. Time will tell.

I'm still hoping that more residents write to the authorities dealing with The Clearwater Program and let them know that it is best to extend the comment period or better yet, hold it off until we all know what is going to happen with the repair of Paseo Del Mar.