A 3rd Term for Shirlee Zane? NO THANK YOU!

[Glia]

"Two terms is enough for anybody." -- Shirlee Zane, 2008

... Except in her case, it is has turned out to be one too many. And now she is running un-opposed, which is really disturbing. If public campaign financing were available, that would very likely not be the case.

Keep in mind that Zane is responsible for Sonoma County wasting over a million dollars and a whole lot of time and energy on the water fluoridation debacle. Part of the fluoridation pushers' formula for snowing local/regional governments is to find a fool on the governing board -- usually a female fool -- and do the "social justice" and "children's health" dog-and-pony show. Boy-howdy, did she fall for it like a rock trying to swim.

Combine this glaring example of poor judgement with her emotional instability and related issues, and you have someone who really should not be in public office. However, she would be a good choice for running the county's mental health department!

What are the options? Is Sonoma County stuck with this person on the BoS by default?

- Kirsten

[rossmen]

Zane is running unaposed, the identified progressive, she is the outlier on the bos, willing to be the lone vote for or against, agree or not she has integrity. She is the swing vote, whoever wins in the fifth. And whoever wins will have the same incumbent advantage as zane, gorin, kelly, even carrillo. Would the creeper have won if he ran again? Probably, even a beloved former sup couldn't beat the incumbent advantage. When I see him he looks so happy, holding his young son. I didn't think much of his representation, wrote nasty things about him, but it was always clear he worked hard and cares about people. It speaks well of him that fatherhood and exposure of personal problems brought him to step down.

"Two terms is enough for anybody." -- Shirlee Zane, 2008

... Except in her case, it is has turned out to be one too many. And now she is running un-opposed, which is really disturbing. If public campaign financing were available, that would very likely not be the case. ...

[Glia]

On the whole, Zane is a good person who means well. Her heart is in the right place, and she gets points for that. But she is weak and has poor judgement, along with some psychological issues (I'll politely leave it there) -- and IMO should not be on the Board of Supervisors.

The "devil we know" incumbent advantage, as you astutely call it, is a very real problem making it difficult for new people and new ideas to get in.

Zane is running unaposed, the identified progressive, she is the outlier on the bos, willing to be the lone vote for or against, agree or not she has integrity. She is the swing vote, whoever wins in the fifth. And whoever wins will have the same incumbent advantage as zane, gorin, kelly, even carrillo. Would the creeper have won if he ran again? Probably, even a beloved former sup couldn't beat the incumbent advantage. When I see him he looks so happy, holding his young son. I didn't think much of his representation, wrote nasty things about him, but it was always clear he worked hard and cares about people. It speaks well of him that fatherhood and exposure of personal problems brought him to step down.

[jesswolfe]

Thank you for bringing up stigma. Way to smear someone with the mental health stigma brush.

Whether or not she has "psychological issues" really isn't the point. She's been a strong advocate for improving mental health services in this county, mainly because of the suicide of her husband years ago. Whether she has her own issues puts her in good company with a significant number of people in this country and in this county, who work pretty darn well despite that, and try in this toxic environment to allow themselves and their families to thrive. It's done in silence, because when you start talking about "psychological problems" it comes with all kinds of disparaging words, ideas and actions that are meant to demean and hurt, not help.

Talk about her work, talk about her votes, talk about specific decisions, because that's what matters. Leave the stigma behind.

Blessings, Jessica www.daughterofthediviners.com

But she is weak and has poor judgement, along with some psychological issues (I'll politely leave it there) -- and IMO should not be on the Board of Supervisors.

[Glia]

I do not understand your "stigma" reference.

My suggestion that she would be a good person to run the county's mental health department was a 100% serious one. She is very well qualified by her education and professional background. It is something that she cares deeply about -- for decades. Her experience with county administration, budget, etc., makes her qualifications even stronger.

Mental health care is something that has long gotten short shrift, especially in California after Gov. Reagan bulldozed the state's mental health system. Getting people the help they need and keeping the mentally ill out of jails and prisons benefits all of us. If she can do that effectively, brava!!

Therefore, I stand by my assertion: Zane has some laudable qualities and means well. On the other hand, she has had some episodes of emotional instability and questionable judgement, especially with the water fluoridation debacle. She would be a good person to run the county's mental health department, possibly even the entire social services division, but should not be on the Board of Supervisors.

Thank you for bringing up stigma. Way to smear someone with the mental health stigma brush. ...

[rossmen]

We can dream, and wish, but it will not change what is. We stopped the bos putting poison in the water, against the zane, what will she do next? Name your danger, perhaps she can be an ally, in cleaning up vineyard wiz.

I do not understand your "stigma" reference...

[vlondi]

This city reminds me of Parks and Recreation far too much sometimes. You people are seriously upset that this woman attempted to get fluoride added to the water system? Really?

You know, the water treatment that has been studied for decades and proven to have ZERO ill effects if kept within acceptable limits? Fluoride added to water systems is lower than what is often found naturally. Every civilized country in the world adds fluoride either to their water, or in places where public water isn't feasible they add it to their salt and/or other common foods. It's an incredibly well-documented compound and process that costs almost nothing (a little over $1 per person per year) and has proven benefits.

[Barry]

This city reminds me of Parks and Recreation far too much sometimes. You people are seriously upset that this woman attempted to get fluoride added to the water system? Really?

Let's not get into the fluoride debate in this thread. There's a long thread with lots of good info about it here. The argument that carries the day, IMO, is that the government shouldn't be medicating people against their will, regardless if it is helpful or not.

[Glia]

Yes, we are seriously upset that Zane wasted a million or our dollars -- among several other blunders.
BTW, this is a COUNTY, not a city. Have a big glass of fluoridated water and resume watching TV.

This city reminds me of Parks and Recreation far too much sometimes. You people are seriously upset that this woman attempted to get fluoride added to the water system? Really?...

[vlondi]

Wasted how? Getting fluoride into the drinking water system isn't a waste to the vast majority of people, despite what fearmongers say.

Yes, we are seriously upset that Zane wasted a million or our dollars -- among several other blunders.
BTW, this is a COUNTY, not a city. Have a big glass of fluoridated water and resume watching TV.

[vlondi]

That thread is old and full of fearmongering. Most of the "good" information is incredibly misleading or outright false. It was entertaining, at least.

As for your second point: in some cases the government absolutely should step in when the vast majority of its citizens are of benefit. Things like vaccines, fluoridated water, food regulations, and medical intervention for children are public health concerns that, in most cases, should not be left to individuals. Want to avoid that stuff? Then live on a well, produce your own food, and keep your disease festering children away from the public.

Let's not get into the fluoride debate in this thread. There's a long thread with lots of good info about it here. The argument that carries the day, IMO, is that the government shouldn't be medicating people against their will, regardless if it is helpful or not.

[rossmen]

Yes, this is exactly what I do! The children though, they keep getting loose, climb right over the goat fence, and once teens they don't come home to roost at night like the chickens. The diseases I encourage them to fester don't seem to slow them at all. They grow up and move away :. (

That thread is old and full of fearmongering. Most of the "good" information is incredibly misleading or outright false. It was entertaining, at least.

As for your second point: in some cases the government absolutely should step in when the vast majority of its citizens are of benefit. Things like vaccines, fluoridated water, food regulations, and medical intervention for children are public health concerns that, in most cases, should not be left to individuals. Want to avoid that stuff? Then live on a well, produce your own food, and keep your disease festering children away from the public.

[sharingwisdom]

Your information is incorrect. Most of Europe is unfluoridated and more and more places in the US are stopping it. It's a neurotoxin. Perhaps check out videos of Dr. Paul Connett who spoke here about 2 years ago.

...You know, the water treatment that has been studied for decades and proven to have ZERO ill effects if kept within acceptable limits? ...