Sebastopol City Councilman resigns!

[Barry]

Article published - May 9, 2008
Sebastopol council to discuss Pierce replacement


By ROBERT DIGITALE
THE PRESS DEMOCRAT

https://www1.pressdemocrat.com/article/20080509/NEWS/129139625


The Sebastopol City Council will hold a special meeting Tuesday to consider filling the vacancy caused by this week’s resignation of council member Sam Pierce.

The council may immediately appoint a new member to fill or keep the seat vacant until the November election. Pierce’s term ends this year.

Mayor Craig Litwin indicated he is leaning toward appointment.

“I hope that we can find someone to fill the position so that we can keep working hard in completing Sebastopol’s business.”

Litwin maintained it takes five members to do the work that comes before the council’s various committees.

The special meeting will be 5:30 p.m. at the Sebastopol Youth Annex.

Pierce, a councilman for more than three years, resigned Thursday, two days after a raucous meeting at which he raised questions about the conduct of Councilwoman Linda Kelley.

Pierce unsuccessfully sought to get his colleagues to conduct an inquiry surrounding Kelly’s conduct during her trial this spring on charges of vandalizing a truck belonging to a friend of Pierce. He said Kelley’s attorney had suggested that the police department and he had somehow conspired against Kelley in the matter.

After his attempt failed, Pierce left the meeting as members of the crowd booed and a dozen speakers took to the podium to criticize him.
© www.pressdemo.com (https://www.pressdemo.com)

[Lenny]

I think he went back to his science job utilizing clear thinking and rational thought processing. I hope he recalls how after serving the public for so long!

[PeriodThree]

I am bothered by the recent dust up. During her court case Linda Kelley's attorney apparently made statements alleging a conspiracy between Sam Pierce and the Sebastopol police to falsely charge Kelley with vandalism.

Making charges like this would be against the Sebastopol Council code of conduct. Pierce attempted to have the council investigate the incident, but no other council member would second his motion.

Larry Robinson was not present, but the other two council members refused to second Pierce's motion. Since a motion requires a second, the council members were rather explicitly issuing a vote of confidence in Kelley by their failure to investigate the issue.

I am disgusted with Kelley's actions in this, and her drunk driving, but I am nearly as disgusted with our other council members and with Kelley's supporters.

I would like to specifically call out for criticisms Patricia Dines, Magik, and Helen Shane for their comments at the meeting. Shane gets special 'you are ignorant' points for her quote that Pierce's actions were 'unconstitutional.'

I am disgusted with Kelley, and think that drunk driving and vandalizing cars are pretty disgusting in a council member.

for her quote in the paper "

[Zen Ben]

Dear Citizens of the People's Republic of Sebastopol:

I hope that there is some soul-searching that follows in the wake of this fiasco. You must know that the Right-Wing is highly amused by the meltdown of the "Green" Sebastopol city council. They take it as proof that we are not competent to govern. In their view, we are not mature enough to be entrusted with real world power, so we should leave that up to the adults (i.e. the conservatives).

I am particularly troubled by the reports from members of the Sebastopol council that the environment has become so toxic that they no longer want to participate. There are members of our team on the Left who have been infected with the Fox News/Bill O'Reilly/Karl Rove eliminationist political discourse. They believe that their one issue is so important that the rules of civil discourse no longer apply, and that those who take a different approach to a complex issue can be demonized and de-humanized. That kind of attitude poisons the soil in which civic identity is formed. I would like to see some dialog on what West County folks think constitutes a healthy political culture.

Zen Ben the Elder

[shellebelle]

I appreciated Sam, he seemed really nice and caring. Returned emails and conversed. Larry Robinson does as well.

I can't say that for any of the other members.

Sad too that Linda Kelley who at this point is a huge liability for the city remains in office.
https://www1.pressdemocrat.com/article/20080102/NEWS/801020325

I'm not used to places where driving drunk is considered "okay" by their employers especially when that employer is a city and in some respect the 8500 residents! Sad sad place to be in - What a bad lesson for the Sebastopol youth!

I am sorely disappointed in the Sebastopol City Counsel.

[Zeno Swijtink]

I think he went back to his science job utilizing clear thinking and rational thought processing. I hope he recalls how after serving the public for so long!

Of course Sam Pierce never left his engineering job. Typically, council members in small towns like Sebastopol serve the public while holding a full time job.

The job is becoming increasingly complicated, with the constant barrage of new Federal and State mandates and regulations.

In the 2007/8 Sebastopol budget only $20,100 was budgeted for Mayor and 4 City Council members, and 2 Video Recording Operators.

The lion share I think is going to the Video Recording Operators, and the City Council members receive very little I believe, certainly not the kind of money that supports a family.

[Zeno Swijtink]

I am bothered by the recent dust up. During her court case Linda Kelley's attorney apparently made statements alleging a conspiracy between Sam Pierce and the Sebastopol police to falsely charge Kelley with vandalism.

Making charges like this would be against the Sebastopol Council code of conduct. Pierce attempted to have the council investigate the incident, but no other council member would second his motion.


Rich,

What is Sebastopol's Code of Conduct for City Council members?

Unless it is very clear that Kelley, thru actions of her attorney, violated this Code I understand very well the reluctance of the other Council members to second the motion. Sanctioning Kelley in any way, esp. when done based on a non-council issue involving another Council member, means disenfranchising that part of the constituency that Kelley represents, in favor of Sam Pierce's. It would have turned a possibly completely private matter into something of public consequence.

Voters will decide about the political fate of Linda Kelley.

I agree with you that the conduct of some of the speakers who spoke against Pierce and stabbed him in the back is contemptible. One may disagree with his judgment in this case - he must have known there was no second for his motion and could have resigned without bringing it forward - he is an honorable man and has worked hard on several important issues for the city.

It is time for some wise women and men to convene a conference to return to more civil discourse in town.

[PeriodThree]

Rich,

What is Sebastopol's Code of Conduct for City Council members?

Unless it is very clear that Kelley, thru actions of her attorney, violated this Code I understand very well the reluctance of the other Council members to second the motion. Sanctioning Kelley in any way, esp. when done based on a non-council issue involving another Council member, means disenfranchising that part of the constituency that Kelley represents, in favor of Sam Pierce's. It would have turned a possibly completely private matter into something of public consequence.


Zeon, your argument reflects a view of civic society which is at odds with my own.

Kelley engaged in conduct which was at _absolute best_ questionable. ie. Drunk driving, possibly keying the car of the friend of another council member, and (apparently, and this is key) having her attorney assert, in court, that another council member had engaged in a criminal conspiracy with the police.

Those are not 'non council' issues, and they are certainly not 'completely private.'

An investigation is _not_ a sanction - so basically, zeno, I have to take huge issue with your point. Not investigating a person who appears to be a simple criminal drunk who either slandered her fellow council member, or allowed him to be slandered, is wrong.

If Kelley's attorney even hinted that Pierce and the police conspired to bring false charges than Kelley is a terribly nasty and awful person.

I think that Kelley did this - but I might be wrong.

If she did it, than I literally cannot express my feelings about her without dropping into extreme anger and profanity.

And here is the thing: I honestly believe that Kelley did everything which she is charged with doing, but because the other council members wouldn't second I can't know.

Because of the weakness of Craig Litwin (my 'favorite' weak asshole council member), and Sarah, we can't know what really happened.

Thanks Craig! You cretin.

Let us be serious: what is proper about this hideous person, Kelley, who has managed to turn being a drunken criminal scum into some sort of victim hood?

Patricia Dines and Kelley and this whole crew are, well, it is hard to not simply state: simple trash.

The very public (and admitted to) charge of drunk driving is not private. Kelley is a drunken criminal who should be out on her ass, but hey, that is completely private.


Rich,

Voters will decide about the political fate of Linda Kelley.

I agree with you that the conduct of some of the speakers who spoke against Pierce and stabbed him in the back is contemptible. One may disagree with his judgment in this case - he must have known there was no second for his motion and could have resigned without bringing it forward - he is an honorable man and has worked hard on several important issues for the city.

It is time for some wise women and men to convene a conference to return to more civil discourse in town.

Kelley simply needs to be off of the council.

[shellebelle]

What is Sebastopol's Code of Conduct for City Council members?

I was going to end with this but I think it belongs first.


I think that the City of Sebastopol, not as a government but as a community, have taken a huge risk and liability by allowing Linda Kelley to remain in office. The citizens have endorsed a person who apparently has on several occasions "loss"control of her person and caused another damage/harm in the course of the event and has at least one DUI. I hope that the citizens review and assess the risk and liability of continuing their relationship with Linda Kelley with a discerning eye before it costs them financially.

That said -

I thought this was a good question but I was surprised the answer was not online. I did find other interesting things though.

Code of Ethics:
I am sure there are a set especially after the 2005 Grand Jury Recommendation (see response #2)

https://www.sonomasuperiorcourt.com/download/GrandJury/GJResponses2005/Housing/ResponseMayorSebastopol2005.pdf

I wonder where they are.

Also the https://www.ci.sebastopol.ca.us/pdfs/finance/SafePracticesHandbook.pdf barely touches on alcohol and driving/violence while intoxicated. And has not been updated apparently since 2004 - YIKES!

[Barry]

Rich,

This is another disrespectful post. You are welcome to disagree with people but you are not welcome engage in name-calling and other forms of disrespect here.

Barry



Zeon, your argument reflects a view of civic society which is at odds with my own.

Kelley engaged in conduct which was at _absolute best_ questionable. ie. Drunk driving, possibly keying the car of the friend of another council member, and (apparently, and this is key) having her attorney assert, in court, that another council member had engaged in a criminal conspiracy with the police.

Those are not 'non council' issues, and they are certainly not 'completely private.'

An investigation is _not_ a sanction - so basically, zeno, I have to take huge issue with your point. Not investigating a person who appears to be a simple criminal drunk who either slandered her fellow council member, or allowed him to be slandered, is wrong.

If Kelley's attorney even hinted that Pierce and the police conspired to bring false charges than Kelley is a terribly nasty and awful person.

I think that Kelley did this - but I might be wrong.

If she did it, than I literally cannot express my feelings about her without dropping into extreme anger and profanity.

And here is the thing: I honestly believe that Kelley did everything which she is charged with doing, but because the other council members wouldn't second I can't know.

Because of the weakness of Craig Litwin (my 'favorite' weak asshole council member), and Sarah, we can't know what really happened.

Thanks Craig! You cretin.

Let us be serious: what is proper about this hideous person, Kelley, who has managed to turn being a drunken criminal scum into some sort of victim hood?

Patricia Dines and Kelley and this whole crew are, well, it is hard to not simply state: simple trash.

The very public (and admitted to) charge of drunk driving is not private. Kelley is a drunken criminal who should be out on her ass, but hey, that is completely private.



Kelley simply needs to be off of the council.

[shellebelle]

I disagree Barry name calling has been brought to your attention by me on several posts and you found it "creative" and took no action.


Rich,

This is another disrespectful post. You are welcome to disagree with people but you are not welcome engage in name-calling and other forms of disrespect here.

Barry

[Zeno Swijtink]

Zeon [sic!], your argument reflects a view of civic society which is at odds with my own.

(..) An investigation is _not_ a sanction - so basically, zeno, I have to take huge issue with your point. Not investigating a person who appears to be a simple criminal drunk who either slandered her fellow council member, or allowed him to be slandered, is wrong.


Rich, you are writing your diatribes without any knowledge of the City's Code of Conduct for City Council members.

The Council is not a court of law, cannot and should not try Kelley again. Only to the extent that the Code of Conduct addresses the charge made by Sam Pierce which had to do with alledged "suggestive" remarks made by Kelley's lawyer, can it act.

We need to text of Sebastopol's Code of Conduct for City Council members to discuss that.

Your foul language make you part of the problem of uncivil behavior that eats at people's ability to participate in civic affairs.

[PeriodThree]

Zeno,

In your original post, which was emailed to me, you wrote ' Shame on you!'

You then appear to have reconsidered, and removed that from the public record.

Perhaps I deserve shame, and perhaps not, but it bothers me that it appears that you silently changed the post in order to throw an insult at me and then remove it from public view.


Rich, you are writing your diatribes without any knowledge of the City's Code of Conduct for City Council members.


I am confused how my knowledge or lack of knowledge of this code of conduct changes anything. Pierce wanted an investigation, but no one backed him up, and then they allowed public insults of Pierce.

That is all contemptible of the Council and the usual suspects in the audience like Shanes, and Dines, and Magik. (The usual suspects who are always out there doing things which in my view damage my town).




The Council is not a court of law, cannot and should not try Kelley again. Only to the extent that the Code of Conduct addresses the charge made by Sam Pierce which had to do with alledged "suggestive" remarks made by Kelley's lawyer, can it act.


The council was not 'trying' Kelley, they were asked to investigate her behavior. That investigation is not a trial. But it seems that
we are going to have to agree to disagree on your views versus my views of the power of the Council. I disagree with your interpretation of the law which covers Council investigations.




Your foul language make you part of the problem of uncivil behavior that eats at people's ability to participate in civic affairs.
[/quote]

(This is another section that you changed from the original)

You mean my belief that Craig Litwin is a cretinous asshole makes me part of the problem of uncivil behavior?

I can accept your views. My views are that Craig Litwin's behavior makes him a major part of the campaign against reason which appears to be the goal of an active segment of our community. Shanes, and Dines, and Magik, etc, are all part of that campaign.

[Lenny]

The lion share I think is going to the Video Recording Operators, and the City Council members receive very little I believe, certainly not the kind of money that supports a family.

It appears to me that may be said of honesty, integrity, and appropriate values as well.

[Lenny]

I was going to end with this but I think it belongs first.
I hope that the citizens review and assess the risk and liability of continuing their relationship with Linda Kelley with a discerning eye before it costs them financially.
That said -

I thought this was a good question but I was surprised the answer was not online. I did find other interesting things though.

Code of Ethics:
I am sure there are a set especially after the 2005 Grand Jury Recommendation (see response #2)

https://www.sonomasuperiorcourt.com/download/GrandJury/GJResponses2005/Housing/ResponseMayorSebastopol2005.pdf

I wonder where they are.

Well, Shellbelle, you are up for being my new hero!
Thanks for that post on Page 3, which was dated August 2005, and THE MAYOR of our town claiming to have it done by August '06. I couldn't find it on the town website!
Of course, as you may know, there really is no grand jury unless folks, like the ones here, join up! And then it's only for a year, so that one in 2005 is no longer around! But applications will be taken:
https://www.sonomasuperiorcourt.com/index.php?v=gjury_info

And, of course, THIS incident is subject to their perusal, if ANYBODY sends them a complaint about it. I guarantee if they receive one, it WILL BE considered. Be clear, as it may be worth more than :2cents:

[Zeno Swijtink]

I am confused how my knowledge or lack of knowledge of this code of conduct changes anything. Pierce wanted an investigation, but no one backed him up, and then they allowed public insults of Pierce.

As I indicated earlier I am as upset as the next person by public insults thrown at Pierce, but I am not clear what the chair of the meeting could have done to prevent these insults, and stayed with the rules for public commentary of the council.

You may not care about the details and wording of the Code of Conduct but the City Council is bound by it, and I am happy we have a City Council that cares.

You can based your actions just on your private sense of right and wrong, but if you are ever going to be on the City Council I hope you can see beyond that.

[shellebelle]

Zeno,

I have some thoughts and I think I am seeing your post differently but I still want to respond to it here.

1st - You are right we don't have the written ethics in our hands. The fact it is not in our hands is an issue. It should be public knowledge. Available for constiuents to review on whim. Much like the ethic a "Realtor" are bound to can be found online we should be able to be equally informed about our elected officials "pledge" to us!

2nd - The fact that after two rather major events both with financial repercussions - one at the "City of Sebastopol's" expense! - that Linda Kelley remains in office without being "investigated" is unbelievable and ludicrous!

And just to put things in perspective for others here is an article outlining both cases which I feel is fairly balanced showing both sides equally.

https://www1.pressdemocrat.com/article/20080416/NEWS/804160390/1033/NEWS&template=kart


As I indicated earlier I am as upset as the next person by public insults thrown at Pierce, but I am not clear what the chair of the meeting could have done to prevent these insults, and stayed with the rules for public commentary of the council.

You may not care about the details and wording of the Code of Conduct but the City Council is bound by it, and I am happy we have a City Council that cares.

You can based your actions just on your private sense of right and wrong, but if you are ever going to be on the City Council I hope you can see beyond that.

[PeriodThree]

The details and wording of the Code of Conduct would matter if they had conducted the investigation. Since the motion failed to get a second the question of whether or not Kelley has violated the Code of Conduct doesn't seem to be relevant.

I am confused at the order of things - apparently there was the motion, it failed to get a second, Pierce left the meeting, and _then_ public comment on the motion occurred. This seems backwards somehow - like, why is there public comment on a motion which will not be voted on? But presumably this made sense at the time.

But here is the thing, quoting from the press democrat "Pierce and Kelley looked one another in the eye as he said he would withdraw his motion for the conduct evaluation if Kelley would "firmly deny any suggestion of a conspiracy."

Kelley, however, remained silent."

I can not see an alternate explanation here other than either Kelley does believe there is a conspiracy, or Kelley was too obstinate to give Pierce that reassurance.

Then Pierce left, and people threw crap at him.

Classy supporters Kelley has.




As I indicated earlier I am as upset as the next person by public insults thrown at Pierce, but I am not clear what the chair of the meeting could have done to prevent these insults, and stayed with the rules for public commentary of the council.

You may not care about the details and wording of the Code of Conduct but the City Council is bound by it, and I am happy we have a City Council that cares.

You can based your actions just on your private sense of right and wrong, but if you are ever going to be on the City Council I hope you can see beyond that.

[Zeno Swijtink]

The details and wording of the Code of Conduct would matter if they had conducted the investigation. Since the motion failed to get a second the question of whether or not Kelley has violated the Code of Conduct doesn't seem to be relevant.

One other possibility is that the fact that the motion did not get a second meant that the other members of the City Council saw that Pierce's allegation, even if true, had not the merit it takes to open an investigation in the light of criteria set out in the Code of Conduct.

This makes knowing the Code of Conduct important for anyone who wants to judge the city council.

[shellebelle]

Thank you but there is more to this for me.

Everyone makes a mistake. We all do. Linda Kelley though seems to have been making several really egregious decisions and seems to be in a pattern of loss of control.

When it has already been noted (by the Grand Jury and really common sense, and probably an attorney somewhere) that preventative steps (To me a code of ethics is much like an employee handbook - it's an agreement of how one will act while "on the job" which when you are an elected official you are "on the job"all the time!) the creation of the code was needed. In fact the Grand Jury asked that "Council Members" be "trained"on it Sorry Larry here you were wrong - training on ethics is apparently necessary!

Linda Kelley who was listed on the City letterhead at the time of the response to the Grand Jury. She was a in a smaller position yet I am sure she was well aware of and potentially participated in the definement of the "Council Code of Ethics" and would in essence "know" them inside an out.

She admitted she drove drunk! She paid a fine in the vandalism case that though they claim it is not restitution the sum equaled exactly what the victim claimed he was owed. She plea bargained down in essence both criminal acts! PLEA BARGAIN - Now, I know, to most that is not an admission of guilt but in my world if you need to "plea bargain down" at the intelligence and education level Linda Kelley is at then I have to admit I see her as guilty - okay the 9-3 vote against her helped push me over the edge! She did not plea bargain down with some small town DA representing her and do so due to unreasonable pressures or in ability to understand why and what she was plea bargaining for.


https://www1.pressdemocrat.com/article/20080416/NEWS/804160390/1033/NEWS&template=kart
Kelley, 54, a two-term council member, will be required to pay fines for the so-called "wet-reckless" charge but will not serve time in jail or be required to perform community service.

She will be on informal probation for two years and could face stiffer penalties if she is charged with a DUI in the future, Judge Dana Simonds warned her.

After a three-day trial last month in the vandalism case, a jury deadlocked; their final vote was 9-3 for conviction of Kelley.I see a pattern developing that is a concern.

I see that this person represents the City in ways I am appalled by and has spent City funds to defend herself. And feels she is due that defense (see the article for her comments that convey this) . I see a deficit in the City which she speaks on in the little video survey and I sit and wonder - Why is she still in office? How much of that deficit is due to having to defend her and to a greater insurance premium. Since she now has a history and thus is going to be covered at a greater rate.

HOW MUCH HAS LINDA KELLEY COST THE CITY OF SEBASTOPOL? Certainly she cost them in the WiFi arena, potentially now in the North east Plan and then there is the legal defense, insurance etc.

Yes we should submit this to the Grand Jury but also to the Press Democrat and the Sonoma West Times and News. This should not be swept under the rug any further than it has been.

Sam should be applauded for taking the risk and taking a stand - THANK YOU SAM!

PS. I've never met Sam and I may not like him in person once I do but these events show - Sam wasn't in it for the power but for making a difference. Again - Thank you Sam!



Well, Shellbelle, you are up for being my new hero!
Thanks for that post on Page 3, which was dated August 2005, and THE MAYOR of our town claiming to have it done by August '06. I couldn't find it on the town website!
Of course, as you may know, there really is no grand jury unless folks, like the ones here, join up! And then it's only for a year, so that one in 2005 is no longer around! But applications will be taken:
https://www.sonomasuperiorcourt.com/index.php?v=gjury_info

And, of course, THIS incident is subject to their perusal, if ANYBODY sends them a complaint about it. I guarantee if they receive one, it WILL BE considered. Be clear, as it may be worth more than :2cents:

[shellebelle]

I agree - she could have just admitted her mistake. She could have owned up to her indiscretion but she had to be "right" even if it meant lieing and being wrong.

9-3 the jury voted against her - ONLY 3 people believed her! She plea bargained to avoid an other trial and to "save the city from paying for it" hellooooo! This woman appears to be a manipulator and just harmful to the community in general.


The details and wording of the Code of Conduct would matter if they had conducted the investigation. Since the motion failed to get a second the question of whether or not Kelley has violated the Code of Conduct doesn't seem to be relevant.

I am confused at the order of things - apparently there was the motion, it failed to get a second, Pierce left the meeting, and _then_ public comment on the motion occurred. This seems backwards somehow - like, why is there public comment on a motion which will not be voted on? But presumably this made sense at the time.

But here is the thing, quoting from the press democrat "Pierce and Kelley looked one another in the eye as he said he would withdraw his motion for the conduct evaluation if Kelley would "firmly deny any suggestion of a conspiracy."

Kelley, however, remained silent."

I can not see an alternate explanation here other than either Kelley does believe there is a conspiracy, or Kelley was too obstinate to give Pierce that reassurance.

Then Pierce left, and people threw crap at him.

Classy supporters Kelley has.

[shellebelle]

Or that they knew that enough strong opposition wasn't in place and that going against Kelley would strengthen the opposition to the north east Plan!

That those who are really evaluating the ability of Sebastopol to remove blight and increase revenue (shrinking potentially that massive deficit - which of course her trial impacted) were not likely to believe they had to be present for the meetings since this was a "no brainer". But the North East Plan is not a"no brainer"and Kelley appears to be very much in opposition same as she was with WiFi.

Kelley could be the greatest negative impact Sebastopol has ever had financially.


One other possibility is that the fact that the motion did not get a second meant that the other members of the City Council saw that Pierce's allegation, even if true, had not the merit it takes to open an investigation in the light of criteria set out in the Code of Conduct.

This makes knowing the Code of Conduct important for anyone who wants to judge the city council.

[Zeno Swijtink]

Zeno,

I have some thoughts and I think I am seeing your post differently but I still want to respond to it here.

1st - You are right we don't have the written ethics in our hands. The fact it is not in our hands is an issue. It should be public knowledge. Available for constiuents to review on whim. Much like the ethic a "Realtor" are bound to can be found online we should be able to be equally informed about our elected officials "pledge" to us!

2nd - The fact that after two rather major events both with financial repercussions - one at the "City of Sebastopol's" expense! - that Linda Kelley remains in office without being "investigated" is unbelievable and ludicrous!

And just to put things in perspective for others here is an article outlining both cases which I feel is fairly balanced showing both sides equally.

https://www1.pressdemocrat.com/article/20080416/NEWS/804160390/1033/NEWS&template=kart

I agree with you that the Code of Conduct should be easily accessible on the City website. Since none of us was able to find it, it seems unlikely to be there, and it certainly is not easily accessible. The PD also fell short, one would expect the paper to have a byline explaining the Code.

Your second point I don't understand. Are you talking about the wi-fi discussions and the NE Area Plan?

If so, I think you confuse your legitimate (even though you live in Rohnert Park) political opinions with the rules of the political process we all need to be able to be part of, independent of our specific political opinions.

Linda Kelley is not an employee of the town. She represents her constituency on the Council. Asking for her investigation because she has positions that in your opinion could cost the town money shows a warped view of the political process I think.

[Zeno Swijtink]

Thank you but there is more to this for me.

I see that this person represents the City in ways I am appalled by and has spent City funds to defend herself. And feels she is due that defense (see the article for her comments that convey this).

Linda Kelley did not use City funds for her defense. You misread the article.

[Zeno Swijtink]

9-3 the jury voted against her - ONLY 3 people believed her! She plea bargained to avoid an other trial and to "save the city from paying for it" hellooooo! This woman appears to be a manipulator and just harmful to the community in general.

This comment makes you sound like one of the women knitting at the foot of the guillotine. Replacing the American system of justice for the Rule of the Mob.

https://3quarksdaily.blogs.com/3quarksdaily/images/2008/03/27/guillotine.jpg

[shellebelle]

So then Zeno here was what I read. WHat did I misread?


Kelley on Tuesday described the vandalism case as a "fabrication" and said the $500 payment was intended to save taxpayers from the cost of another trial.




Linda Kelley did not use City funds for her defense. You misread the article.

[shellebelle]

When I spoke of cost the main one is

Kelley on Tuesday described the vandalism case as a "fabrication" and said the $500 payment was intended to save taxpayers from the cost of another trial. and
"In an effort to resolve the alleged vandalism case from last August and not waste taxpayers' resources on a possible retrial, I have agreed to pay a $500 witness fee that reimburses Mr. Zinsley for his lost work and expenses for coming to court," Kelley said in a written statement.The second would be that she potentially will "relapse" in some way and cost us more $$$$ as a community than just trial charges.


Also I do not live in Rohnert Park but it was the best choice. I live in the county property between Sebastopol and Rohnert Park which lists me with a Santa Rosa address. My desire to school my child and move to Sebastopol creates for me a need to be invested in the City.



I agree with you that the Code of Conduct should be easily accessible on the City website. Since none of us was able to find it, it seems unlikely to be there, and it certainly is not easily accessible. The PD also fell short, one would expect the paper to have a byline explaining the Code.

Your second point I don't understand. Are you talking about the wi-fi discussions and the NE Area Plan?

If so, I think you confuse your legitimate (even though you live in Rohnert Park) political opinions with the rules of the political process we all need to be able to be part of, independent of our specific political opinions.

Linda Kelley is not an employee of the town. She represents her constituency on the Council. Asking for her investigation because she has positions that in your opinion could cost the town money shows a warped view of the political process I think.

[shellebelle]

LOL Or those of us who have common sense.


This comment makes you sound like one of the women knitting at the foot of the guillotine. Replacing the American system of justice for the Rule of the Mob.

https://3quarksdaily.blogs.com/3quarksdaily/images/2008/03/27/guillotine.jpg

[Zeno Swijtink]

So then Zeno here was what I read. [Kelley on Tuesday described the vandalism case as a "fabrication" and said the $500 payment was intended to save taxpayers from the cost of another trial.] WHat did I misread?

The costs of any trial (building, scribes, judges, prosecutors etc.) is paid for out of State Funds, so by the tax payers of the State of California. [Some part of this (local county prosecutor??) may come from County coffers, I am not sure.] It does not affect the City of Sebastopol's budget.

People have to pay for their own defense, unless they cannot do that in which case they are assigned a court appointed defender. Kelley paid for her own defense.

[shellebelle]

Oh OKAY - (Saracasm) State Funds makes it better?

I am not convinced that the costs coming from other coffers makes it any better. I do understand your point and you are right.


The costs of any trial (building, scribes, judges, prosecutors etc.) is paid for out of State Funds, so by the tax payers of the State of California. [Some part of this (local county prosecutor??) may come from County coffers, I am not sure.] It does not affect the City of Sebastopol's budget.

People have to pay for their own defense, unless they cannot do that in which case they are assigned a court appointed defender.

[jofish]

Thanks Zen Ben for your call.

There are some ground rule for civil discourse that have been proven over time that seem to have become lost in Sebastopol. Generally real dialogue (and consequently real democracy) require:

Listening: the honest effort to deeply listen to another for the purpose of understanding. This also requires listening to one's own reactions and monitoring when you react or shut down.
Respect: Accepting the validity of every speakers viewpoint. This does not mean one has to agree, but dialogue requires that we accept that everyone has a view point that deserves respect.
Suspension: Simply, the capacity to accept that you might not be right or fully informed. Suspension of certainty. This capacity is critical for building consensus--it is the malleability of democracy. Without it we are locked into our positions.
Voice: To speak clearly and honestly one's truth.

(For those who are interested, more information on these 4 characteristics of Dialogue can be found in Dialogue: The Art Of Thinking Together by William Isaacs.)

As I look over this thread and the debates over NE Area or Laguna Vista, I am struck by how often we fail to reach the level of simple civility, much less real dialogue.

I do not believe there is a way forward toward a sustainable and livable Sebastopol that includes personal attacks (on Sam Pierce, Linda Kelly, Helen Shane, Magik, or anyone else). I also do not believe there is a way forward if we are all so certain of our rectitude and rightness, that we do not allow ourselves to be changed by new information and new insights.

It is sad that, by and large, the Sebastopol dialogue is one that relatively few participate in. This has the potential for skewing the dialogue toward the poles. My personal reaction to this is less of a willingness to engage. Why get attacked?

In the end, the world we create is the one we speak. When we oversimplify situations, make sweeping generalizations, vilify others, and fail to attempt real dialogue, we end up right here...a place that seems ungovernable. Not a particularly pleasant place, in my view...

Joseph


Dear Citizens of the People's Republic of Sebastopol:

I hope that there is some soul-searching that follows in the wake of this fiasco. You must know that the Right-Wing is highly amused by the meltdown of the "Green" Sebastopol city council. They take it as proof that we are not competent to govern. In their view, we are not mature enough to be entrusted with real world power, so we should leave that up to the adults (i.e. the conservatives).
Zen Ben the Elder

[Zeno Swijtink]

Pierce wanted an investigation, but no one backed him up, and then they allowed public insults of Pierce.

My information is that the city attorney advised that the Council needed to allow public input even after the motion did not carry.

I agree with you that some of that input had better stayed unspoken, but within the rules of democratic discourse the Mayor seems to have had no other choice.

[PeriodThree]

The Mayor had lots of choices, starting with offering a second on the motion.

His failure to second, especially after Kelley refused to repudiate her charges, is explicitly an endorsement of Kelley's hideous and unethical conduct.




My information is that the city attorney advised that the Council needed to allow public input even after the motion did not carry.

I agree with you that some of that input had better stayed unspoken, but within the rules of democratic discourse the Mayor seems to have had no other choice.

[Zeno Swijtink]

The Mayor had lots of choices, starting with offering a second on the motion.

His failure to second, especially after Kelley refused to repudiate her charges, is explicitly an endorsement of Kelley's hideous and unethical conduct.

No, the Mayor judged that Pierce case did not fall under the Rules of Conduct. He acted appropriately and in the interest of the City and of democratic procedures.

[PeriodThree]

This is a classic failure which happens when people are allowed to police themselves.

Even if you think Litwin did the right thing, there is no way in which this is a matter of 'democratic procedures.'

One council member is accused of violating the code of ethics which govern council members. One member thinks this should be investigated. For purely political reasons the other council members refuse to investigate.

This is akin to Bush ordering the AG not to investigate the administration.

The Mayor could not have had the information needed to decide whether or not the Kelley Case (not the Pierce case - remember, it is Kelley who stands accused) fell under the Rules of Conduct.

Let me repeat: Litwin could not have known when he failed to second. The whole point of the 'motion-second-discussion-vote' sequence is that it is in the discussion phase when the arguments are made.

No: this was a failure. Yet again Litwin and Kelley acted unethically to bring shame on our town.




No, the Mayor judged that Pierce case did not fall under the Rules of Conduct. He acted appropriately and in the interest of the City and of democratic procedures.

[shellebelle]

I don't knwo if possible but if Kelley was truly up standing as is said and innocent why didn't she second it. I mean if I was her I'd want my name cleared.



Let me repeat: Litwin could not have known when he failed to second. The whole point of the 'motion-second-discussion-vote' sequence is that it is in the discussion phase when the arguments are made.

No: this was a failure. Yet again Litwin and Kelley acted unethically to bring shame on our town.

[Zeno Swijtink]

This is a classic failure which happens when people are allowed to police themselves.

Even if you think Litwin did the right thing, there is no way in which this is a matter of 'democratic procedures.'

One council member is accused of violating the code of ethics which govern council members. One member thinks this should be investigated. For purely political reasons the other council members refuse to investigate.

This is akin to Bush ordering the AG not to investigate the administration.

The Mayor could not have had the information needed to decide whether or not the Kelley Case (not the Pierce case - remember, it is Kelley who stands accused) fell under the Rules of Conduct.

Let me repeat: Litwin could not have known when he failed to second. The whole point of the 'motion-second-discussion-vote' sequence is that it is in the discussion phase when the arguments are made.

No: this was a failure. Yet again Litwin and Kelley acted unethically to bring shame on our town.

What you seem to argue is that one should always second such a motion, i.e. a second is not really necessary.

This is clearly absurd. The Mayor should be allowed to judge whether the motion has sufficient merit.

[Zeno Swijtink]

I don't knwo if possible but if Kelley was truly up standing as is said and innocent why didn't she second it. I mean if I was her I'd want my name cleared.

The Sebastopol City Council is not the right place to get her name cleared, to the extent that the settlement with the DA's office has not done that. As a formal body it does not have the capacity to do such a thing in a formal and orderly manner.

[shellebelle]

Well I am still very saddened by these chain of events. I find the fact Kelley chose to not hold herself accountable to be disgusting and sadly this means tome that we hold our small children to higher standards than the adults who run the city. Such a sad statement to be made by a supposed responsible and intelligent adult who is suppose to be role modeling for the youth of Sebastopol.



The Sebastopol City Council is not the right place to get her name cleared, to the extent that the settlement with the DA's office has not done that. As a formal body it does not have the capacity to do such a thing in a formal and orderly manner.

[Lenny]

What you seem to argue is that one should always second such a motion, i.e. a second is not really necessary.

This is clearly absurd. The Mayor should be allowed to judge whether the motion has sufficient merit.

As one who enjoys the absurd, I miss your point here. Litwin, on his own, judged the issue to be moot and moved off point and on to opening the matter up to the crowd that roars, thus putting time and a noisy distance to the issue that may have shown SOMETHING, maybe even that Kelly had integrity and was absolutely right in what she said in court. Maybe there was a conspiracy between the police and Pierce. Kelly could have given voice in this proposed investigation, to what a court cannot bear as the rules of evidence for conspiracy in a court setting are infinitely difficult. We'll never know!
Is that what you mean? That Litwin saved us an embarrassment by silencing an inquiry to a statement given under oath? And how did he know? But stopped it anyway?
You are correct, sir, this is absurd!

[PeriodThree]

I don't quite see where you read what I wrote that way. You argued that failing to second was in the "interest of the City and of democratic procedures.

What Litwin, and the other spineless council members, did by not seconding was to make a public rebuke of Pierce and to open him up to a crowd of scum to savage him.

Without naming names, I am of the personal opinion that every single person who spoke against Pierce after his motion had failed and he had left the room did something supremely dishonorable.

And they did it in order to support a person who inarguably is a drunk driver, and I assert is a simple vandal.

Refusing to second a call for investigation of your political ally is dishonorable.

But then, I honestly believe that Litwin is a deeply dishonorable politician.


What you seem to argue is that one should always second such a motion, i.e. a second is not really necessary.

This is clearly absurd. The Mayor should be allowed to judge whether the motion has sufficient merit.

[Zeno Swijtink]

As one who enjoys the absurd, I miss your point here. Litwin, on his own, judged the issue to be moot and moved off point and on to opening the matter up to the crowd that roars, thus putting time and a noisy distance to the issue that may have shown SOMETHING, maybe even that Kelly had integrity and was absolutely right in what she said in court. Maybe there was a conspiracy between the police and Pierce. Kelly could have given voice in this proposed investigation, to what a court cannot bear as the rules of evidence for conspiracy in a court setting are infinitely difficult. We'll never know!
Is that what you mean? That Litwin saved us an embarrassment by silencing an inquiry to a statement given under oath? And how did he know? But stopped it anyway?
You are correct, sir, this is absurd!

Litwin did not judge this on his own. He judged it for his own decision not to second. City Council member Sarah Glade Gurney, a lawyer, also did not second. They may have received advise from City Attorney for all we know.

Kelly herself has never said, for all we know, that there was such a conspiracy. Sam Peirce only has said, as far as I know, that Kelly's attorney "suggested" this, apparently he did not say that the attorney has said this.

[PeriodThree]

It appears that part of Kelley's defense in her criminal case was that her fellow council member and the police acted improperly in some way in bringing these charges.

That is a serious claim. It is possible she did not make that claim, although the fact that her attorney tried to impeach Pierce's testimony by asking him about their political differences seems to support that the claim was made.

It is generally considered unethical to falsely accuse a fellow council member of a personal vendetta.

It is also generally considered unethical for a council member to falsely accuse the city departments of their city of misconduct.

It certainly appears that Kelley's attorney made one or the other or both claims.

The open question is whether or not those claims are true.

That is not a criminal matter, but rather, a matter of her ethical duty to the city council and to the city. As such, the only place where that question can be resolved is by the council.

So, with respect, the Sebastopol City Council is the only place to get her name cleared.




The Sebastopol City Council is not the right place to get her name cleared, to the extent that the settlement with the DA's office has not done that. As a formal body it does not have the capacity to do such a thing in a formal and orderly manner.

[Zeno Swijtink]

And they did it in order to support a person who inarguably is a drunk driver, and I assert is a simple vandal.



Rich, not that this is at all relevant here but could you swear and declare solemnly that you have never ever in your whole life driven a car on the public road while being legally more drunk than Kelley was (level 0.09 percent; legal limit for driving is 0.08 percent).

Just like to have that on record for when you will be running for school board or city council. :wink:

PS If some others also wish publicly to declare that I won't object.

[PeriodThree]

Not only is it not at all relevant, it is a deeply deeply offensive ad hominem argument.

You are trying to minimize the crime which Kelley admitted to by implying that it is okay since 'we all do it.'

But that is a deeply offensive and destructive argument.

One Kelley supporter asserted that Kelley wouldn't vandalize a car because she was 'too smart' to do something so dumb.

But we know that Kelley is not too smart not to do something dumb. Her drunk driving demonstrates that. (I personally am positive that I am not too smart to avoid all dumb things).

Did she act unethically in this case? I assert that she did. The failure to investigate was unethical.




Rich, not that this is at all relevant here but could you swear and declare solemnly that you have never ever in your whole life driven a car on the public road while being legally more drunk than Kelley was (level 0.09 percent; legal limit for driving is 0.08 percent).

Just like to have that on record for when you will be running for school board or city council. :wink:

PS If some others also wish publicly to declare that I won't object.

[Zeno Swijtink]

Not at all. The opposite in fact. What I am trying to do is making it impossible for you ever to run for a public office since I would be deeply troubled if a person like you, who makes random allegations based on hearsay, and uses slurs and fighting words, to hold public office.



Not only is it not at all relevant, it is a deeply deeply offensive ad hominem argument.

You are trying to minimize the crime which Kelley admitted to by implying that it is okay since 'we all do it.'

But that is a deeply offensive and destructive argument.

One Kelley supporter asserted that Kelley wouldn't vandalize a car because she was 'too smart' to do something so dumb.

But we know that Kelley is not too smart not to do something dumb. Her drunk driving demonstrates that. (I personally am positive that I am not too smart to avoid all dumb things).

Did she act unethically in this case? I assert that she did. The failure to investigate was unethical.

[Zeno Swijtink]

I think at the moment all you have to give is hearsay. Certainly a attorney should ask witnesses about their relations with a defendant and can do so without implying anything in particular. Such things a jury should know and do whatever they think it means.

Since all the material on which such a charge as yours should be based is part of the public court record, if it leads to anything concrete, this could be a op-ed piece in the PD or a posting on WaccoBB. No need to have the City Council judge this.

If it is a matter of hearing further testimony then the City Council is certainly not the place to discuss this.



It appears that part of Kelley's defense in her criminal case was that her fellow council member and the police acted improperly in some way in bringing these charges.

That is a serious claim. It is possible she did not make that claim, although the fact that her attorney tried to impeach Pierce's testimony by asking him about their political differences seems to support that the claim was made.

It is generally considered unethical to falsely accuse a fellow council member of a personal vendetta.

It is also generally considered unethical for a council member to falsely accuse the city departments of their city of misconduct.

It certainly appears that Kelley's attorney made one or the other or both claims.

The open question is whether or not those claims are true.

That is not a criminal matter, but rather, a matter of her ethical duty to the city council and to the city. As such, the only place where that question can be resolved is by the council.

So, with respect, the Sebastopol City Council is the only place to get her name cleared.

[Sonomamark]

Waaaaaaaiiiiiiiiit a minute, Zeno.

As one of the more logical and rational contributors to this board (an increasingly rare distinction, I'm sorry to observe), I'm very surprised to see you make this error.

Linda Kelley didn't key someone else's car, if she did that (and 9 out of 12 jurors apparently thought she did), nor disparage a fellow city council member by implying that he, in collusion with the Sebastopol police conspired to "get" her--if she did that-- in the name of "her constituency". If you're really saying that, you're saying that those people support that kind of behavior. Maybe they do, but they aren't on the record for it, and I think Kelley has to stand alone in responsibility for this dustup.

Your argument implies that any politician who does wrong should be left unmolested until voted out of office, because her/his constituency "shouldn't be disenfranchised". The concept is plainly false.

This wasn't a private matter. It was a city council member on trial for criminal acts (which makes it public), and who further made an argument that it was corruption on the part of another city council member that led to her arrest and trial (also public).

Please, let's be reasonable about this. If it were Arnold Schwartznegger, everybody here would be shouting for his head.

Personally, I'm appalled, and I've seen enough to be happy to go on record that I think Kelley should be removed from office.



Mark


Rich,

What is Sebastopol's Code of Conduct for City Council members?

Unless it is very clear that Kelley, thru actions of her attorney, violated this Code I understand very well the reluctance of the other Council members to second the motion. Sanctioning Kelley in any way, esp. when done based on a non-council issue involving another Council member, means disenfranchising that part of the constituency that Kelley represents, in favor of Sam Pierce's. It would have turned a possibly completely private matter into something of public consequence.

Voters will decide about the political fate of Linda Kelley.

I agree with you that the conduct of some of the speakers who spoke against Pierce and stabbed him in the back is contemptible. One may disagree with his judgment in this case - he must have known there was no second for his motion and could have resigned without bringing it forward - he is an honorable man and has worked hard on several important issues for the city.

It is time for some wise women and men to convene a conference to return to more civil discourse in town.

[Zen Ben]

Barry,

Your judgment regarding this post is correct. This is a case study of the problem that I referred to in my earlier post:

"There are members of our team on the Left who have been infected with the Fox News/Bill O'Reilly/Karl Rove eliminationist political discourse. They believe that their one issue is so important that the rules of civil discourse no longer apply, and that those who take a different approach to a complex issue can be demonized and de-humanized. That kind of attitude poisons the soil in which civic identity is formed. I would like to see some dialog on what West County folks think constitutes a healthy political culture."

We still have not addressed the broader issue of the quality of political discourse. This may not be the forum for such an investigation. All the talk so far is the back and forth about who said what, rather than taking a deep breath and looking at the toxic dynamic that has been set in motion.

Personally, I am appalled by the attack on my friend Craig Litwin, who I have worked with on numerous issues and who is a real asset to the community. He is the kind of person who we want in politics: progressive, bright, committed. His organization, SCCA, is one of the most important players in moving forward a "shared prosperity with environmental sustainability" agenda in the county. For God's sakes folks, he is not the enemy.

Wake Up and Evolve
Zen Ben the Elder

P.S. Check out my letter to the editor in today's Press Democrat. My intent is to model how do have a serious political difference without resorting to ad hominem attacks. We can have a vigorous exchange of views without devolving into incivility.




Living Wage Unites Progressive Candidates<?xml:namespace prefix = o ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" /><o:p></o:p>

<o:p> </o:p>
Editor:<o:p></o:p>
<o:p> </o:p>
The Third District Board of Supervisor’s debate this week underscored the critical differences in the underlying economic paradigms of the candidates. Support for the proposed <?xml:namespace prefix = st1 ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:smarttags" /><st1:PlaceType w:st="on">county</st1:PlaceType> <st1:PlaceName w:st="on">Living Wage</st1:PlaceName> ordinance unites the progressive candidates, providing a clear contrast with one candidate, Sharon Wright, who is still mired in the failed Wall Street/ Chamber of Commerce low-road model that has driven the <st1:place w:st="on"><st1:country-region w:st="on">U.S.</st1:country-region></st1:place> economy into the ditch under the Cheney/Bush administration. The people who have taken the time to “read the memo” and understand the emergent high road economic model rather than merely repeat the exhausted slogans of a dying conservative political movement know that raising the wage floor for working folks through measures like the living wage is part of the solution as we move into the 21<SUP>st</SUP> century.<o:p></o:p>
Our politics have become more evolutionary than ideological, as we head into this new era. In scientific literature, it is often noted that when a new paradigm arises that better explains the existing data, the adherents of the old paradigm will continue to rationalize their position until they pass from the scene, sliding slowly into irrelevancy. <o:p></o:p>
The “Wal-Mart” economic paradigm, based on keeping wages low, off-loading medical benefit costs onto the public sector (while slashing the tax base that supports it), outsourcing the manufacturing base to serf labor centers in Asia, breaking unions to reduce labor’s bargaining power, and setting up environmentally unsustainable trans-continental supply chains has clearly outlived its usefulness. Our duty as citizens is to ensure that adherents of this failed doctrine should not be permitted to hold positions of political power from which they can continue to retard our social evolution. <o:p></o:p>
<o:p> </o:p>
Ben Boyce<o:p></o:p>

[Zeno Swijtink]

Personally, I'm appalled, and I've seen enough to be happy to go on record that I think Kelley should be removed from office.

Mark

Mark,

You're responding to a rather old message in this active thread, so allow me to be brief.

Removed? By whom? Since she was not convicted of criminal charged State Law does not remove her. If I remember correctly the City Council cannot remove her. It's only mob heckling that will force her out. Or a recall election by upright citizens like you :):

[Lenny]

Not at all. The opposite in fact. What I am trying to do is making it impossible for you ever to run for a public office since I would be deeply troubled if a person like you, who makes random allegations based on hearsay, and uses slurs and fighting words, to hold public office.

Whoa!
Not the he needs any defense I may offer, but it is obvious that a call for integrity, clear thinking, direct observation and succinct communication are not requirements, in your opinion, to run for office?
Around here, it is obvious that you are right! But why would you prevent another from running? Or worse yet, support one who has demonstrated just the opposite? Not that it is worth my :2cents:

[Zeno Swijtink]

Whoa!
Not the he needs any defense I may offer, but it is obvious that a call for integrity, clear thinking, direct observation and succinct communication are not requirements, in your opinion, to run for office?
Around here, it is obvious that you are right! But why would you prevent another from running? Or worse yet, support one who has demonstrated just the opposite? Not that it is worth my :2cents:

If you read my postings carefully you'll see I have not supported Kelly. I supported the City Council for not accepting a motion to investigate Kelly under the Rules of Conduct.

[Zeno Swijtink]

I am bothered by the recent dust up. During her court case Linda Kelley's attorney apparently made statements alleging a conspiracy between Sam Pierce and the Sebastopol police to falsely charge Kelley with vandalism.

Making charges like this would be against the Sebastopol Council code of conduct. Pierce attempted to have the council investigate the incident, but no other council member would second his motion.


Attached is the code of conduct policy for the City of Sebastopol.

[Valley Oak]

Zeno has stated something that I've had in the back of my mind for a while now. I would also be deeply troubled if a person like Lenny or Ron Paul ever took public office (Ron Paul is a House Representative from Texas).

I would actively campaign against any such candidate by walking every street in Sebastopol and knocking on every door to support a rival against the Libertarian/Republican asshole.

Edward


Not at all. The opposite in fact. What I am trying to do is making it impossible for you ever to run for a public office since I would be deeply troubled if a person like you, who makes random allegations based on hearsay, and uses slurs and fighting words, to hold public office.

[shellebelle]

Good Job Zeno!!!

And look!!! We now can see that Linda Kelley ha DIFINITIVELY VIOLATED the City Council Code of Conduct.

I do not have confidence in Linda Kelley to govern the City of Sebastopol in a responsible and unbiased way.

Linda Kelley has violated the Code of Conduct in the second WHEREAS, - local government can govern affectively only if it has the confidence of their community,

And at least 4 other codes

Linda Kelley violated Code #2 with her Drunk Driving
Linda Kelley violated Code #3 with being accused, tried and fined for the vandalism incident.
Linda Kelley has violated Code #18 by creating a negative environment and conflict.
Linda Kelley violated Code #20 by creating a question of confidence and integrity regarding her own actions.



Attached is the code of conduct policy for the City of Sebastopol.

[Melodymama]

Zeno wrote: "I would be deeply troubled if a person like you, who makes random allegations based on hearsay, and uses slurs and fighting words, to hold public office."

Not that I approve of such, but in this country it seems that in order to get elected to public office the capacity to use and abuse hearsay and especially with fighting words is just the ticket. It is what we are seeing every day. I do not know how we excuse this to our children.

What is needed is that we allow each other to be truthful, even admitting our faults or weaknesses, and this be seen as a strength. It is honesty and mutual respect (warts and all) that is necessary to trusting and governing with ethics. To expect anyone to be clean as the driven snow is what got us into the inauthentic and double speak manner that abounds in business, politics, schools, sports, etc.

And we should still strive to be honest with ourselves and others in constructive and humble ways. We ARE all in this world together, and negative energy begets more of the same. :2cents: take with a grain of salt, cinnamon, honey, goji berries and dark chocolate. Laura

[MsTerry]

Zeno has stated something that I've had in the back of my mind for a while now. I would also be deeply troubled if a person like Lenny or Ron Paul ever took public office (Ron Paul is a House Representative from Texas).

I would actively campaign against any such candidate by walking every street in Sebastopol and knocking on every door to support a rival against the Libertarian/Republican asshole.

Edward
You might achieve the opposite if it is YOU with your temper walking the streets...............

[Zeno Swijtink]

Good Job Zeno!!!

And look!!! We now can see that Linda Kelley ha DIFINITIVELY VIOLATED the City Council Code of Conduct.

I do not have confidence in Linda Kelley to govern the City of Sebastopol in a responsible and unbiased way.

Linda Kelley has violated the Code of Conduct in the second WHEREAS, - local government can govern affectively only if it has the confidence of their community,

And at least 4 other codes

Linda Kelley violated Code #2 with her Drunk Driving
Linda Kelley violated Code #3 with being accused, tried and fined for the vandalism incident.
Linda Kelley has violated Code #18 by creating a negative environment and conflict.
Linda Kelley violated Code #20 by creating a question of confidence and integrity regarding her own actions.

A WHEREAS is not part of the code.

Being convicted of a misdemeanor does not violate Code #2.

Kelley was not convicted in the vandalism incident, it was settled out of court. There was no fine. Being accused and tried is not a crime (remember, innocent until proved guilty??).

Kelley has not "created" a negative environment and conflict. If being part of lawsuit by itself creates a negative environment and conflict the Rules would be unconstitutional. Anyhow, Pierce only claimed that it was Kelley's lawyer who had acted objectionable by making a "suggestion."

#20 is not itself a rule. It talks how the Rules should be complied with. Since the issues under discussion do not concern the operations of the City there is prima facie no reason for the public to stop having full confidence in the integrity of City government.

Realize that I am not defending Kelley. I am defending the City Council. I think there was nothing or too little to go on to open an investigation for violation of the Rules of Conduct. What if they had opened it and found that there was nothing or too little to act on re Kelley. Would that have opened up Pierce to a charge under the Rules of Conduct?

I know both Kelley and Pierce, although not well or intimately. Re the DUI conviction I have read about the confession and follow the State rule that a misdemeanor is no basis for removal.

The vandalism story is murky, there is no material evidence (like a key of Kelley's with paint residue matching the van's) and belongs in a novel by Irish Murdoch. I do not know what to believe or how relevant this all is.

[shellebelle]

Okay I see your points.

I really want to answer this in detail so I am just sort of palce holding here until I can focus on it away from work.


A WHEREAS is not part of the code.

Being convicted of a misdemeanor does not violate Code #2.

Kelley was not convicted in the vandalism incident, it was settled out of court. There was no fine. Being accused and tried is not a crime (remember, innocent until proved guilty??).

Kelley has not "created" a negative environment and conflict. If being part of lawsuit by itself creates a negative environment and conflict the Rules would be unconstitutional. Anyhow, Pierce only claimed that it was Kelley's lawyer who had acted objectionable by making a "suggestion."

#20 is not itself a rule. It talks how the Rules should be complied with. Since the issues under discussion do not concern the operations of the City there is prima facie no reason for the public to stop having full confidence in the integrity of City government.

Realize that I am not defending Kelley. I am defending the City Council. I think there was nothing or too little to go on to open an investigation for violation of the Rules of Conduct. What if they had opened it and found that there was nothing or too little to act on re Kelley. Would that have opened up Pierce to a charge under the Rules of Conduct?

I know both Kelley and Pierce, although not well or intimately. Re the DUI conviction I have read about the confession and follow the State rule that a misdemeanor is no basis for removal.

The vandalism story is murky, there is no material evidence (like a key of Kelley's with paint residue matching the van's) and belongs in a novel by Irish Murdoch. I do not know what to believe or how relevant this all is.

[MsTerry]

I have to agree with Zeno, even though the circumstances around the "keying" are highly circumspect, neither you or I know what really happened.
Innocent people do get accused of things and guilty people do get away with things. Such is life, but if she did it, she will have to live with that lie, even if she told the ones nearest to her that she didn't...........


Okay I see your points.

I really want to answer this in detail so I am just sort of palce holding here until I can focus on it away from work.

[shellebelle]

Zeno,

That you are going to "support" a City Council that should have investigated and removed all doubt, who should have erred on the side of lets install confidence and show we are not afraid of ourselves is a personal choice. I disagree with this of course.

To believe Rich would not have value in office because he differs in opinion strongly and with passion is appalling. Passion and differences are what create balance.

I also think that there is a weird thing happening here.

An investigation is not a conviction.
An investigation should be viewed as a chance to evaluate a situation and see where it falls.
An investigation may not prove a wrong any more than it may not prove a right.

And at this point the Sebastopol Code of Ethics not only needs review but not by the current council who seem to read it very vaguely.

2. Councilmembers shall comply with the laws of the nation, the State of California and the City of Sebastopol int he performance of their public duties.

I am not sure how anyone can read that paragraph and find that there is not reasonable doubt. And since it was asked of them to investigate, to the best of their ability, and present said facts to the public in such a manner as to create a sense of public confidence (which is also part of the Code of Ethics - to not damage public confidence by their personal actions) I am unsure why anyone would choose to not do so.

To me a 9-3 vote is not a vote of confidence. To me a "fine" is certainly not a vote of belief. But then again I didn't and don't fully believe OJ or Hans Reiser either - silly me.

I wonder how much of this is also something we can't see behind the scene.


Not at all. The opposite in fact. What I am trying to do is making it impossible for you ever to run for a public office since I would be deeply troubled if a person like you, who makes random allegations based on hearsay, and uses slurs and fighting words, to hold public office.

[PeriodThree]

I am deeply offended by your attack. Since you are one of the more rational voices on the board, and it seems that I can be personally attacked by you, while being shamed in public by Barry for comments directed at public figures, I have asked for my account to be removed.

Suffice to say I disagree with your reasoning. If you or anyone wants to email me or get together for coffee or the like shellbelle has my contact info.


Not at all. The opposite in fact. What I am trying to do is making it impossible for you ever to run for a public office since I would be deeply troubled if a person like you, who makes random allegations based on hearsay, and uses slurs and fighting words, to hold public office.

[Lenny]

Ed, we agree, in part. I too would be deeply troubled if I ran for public office, so we are safe there. I would also actively campaign against me and stand shoulder to shoulder with you and tell folks not to vote for me.
Nor would I do it for a most Texans.
And as for A-whose, well come on, have you ever known a guy that wasn't? Me neither.


I would also be deeply troubled if a person like Lenny or Ron Paul ever took public office (Ron Paul is a House Representative from Texas). I would actively campaign against any such candidate by walking every street in Sebastopol and knocking on every door to support a rival against the Libertarian/Republican asshole. Edward

[Valley Oak]

How many rounds of coffee is this bout going to have? Are there tickets for sale? Any bets on who the winner will be? Front row seats?

Edward


I am deeply offended by your attack. Since you are one of the more rational voices on the board, and it seems that I can be personally attacked by you, while being shamed in public by Barry for comments directed at public figures, I have asked for my account to be removed.

Suffice to say I disagree with your reasoning. If you or anyone wants to email me or get together for coffee or the like shellbelle has my contact info.

[Valley Oak]

I bow to your witty retort, Lenny. Touché.

Edward


Ed, we agree, in part. I too would be deeply troubled if I ran for public office, so we are safe there. I would also actively campaign against me and stand shoulder to shoulder with you and tell folks not to vote for me.
Nor would I do it for a most Texans.
And as for A-whose, well come on, have you ever known a guy that wasn't? Me neither.

[shellebelle]

I have the front row seat Ed. Rich asked to be removed and since I too couldn't figure out how I asked Barry to do it. I hope in a way that preserves Rich's posts.

Other than that - if you are looking for intelligent conversation and thus looking for Rich just holler. I know where to find him.

I know the loser is Wacco. Sad. :crying2:


How many rounds of coffee is this bout going to have? Are there tickets for sale? Any bets on who the winner will be? Front row seats?

Edward

[MsTerry]

I think some emotions are getting a little overactive here.
Considering your baseless and fact-less accusations Zeno was referring to in his post, he did come to a very rational conclusion.:

I would be deeply troubled if a person , who makes random allegations based on hearsay, and uses slurs and fighting words, to hold public office.read it again and see how cerebral he is about this one.
It is not an attack,just a sentiment.
Do you think you offend people?


I am deeply offended by your attack. Since you are one of the more rational voices on the board, and it seems that I can be personally attacked by you, while being shamed in public by Barry for comments directed at public figures, I have asked for my account to be removed.

Suffice to say I disagree with your reasoning. If you or anyone wants to email me or get together for coffee or the like shellbelle has my contact info.

[Zeno Swijtink]

I am deeply offended by your attack. Since you are one of the more rational voices on the board, and it seems that I can be personally attacked by you, while being shamed in public by Barry for comments directed at public figures, I have asked for my account to be removed.

Suffice to say I disagree with your reasoning. If you or anyone wants to email me or get together for coffee or the like shellbelle has my contact info.

I am sorry you are leaving the board. If I had known that my aside, which was a little tongue-in-cheek, as some people may have noticed (the smiley, the reference to running for school board, the grammar) would become one of the reasons for you to make this drastic step, I would have phrased the underlying issue differently.

[Melodymama]

" I would have phrased the underlying issue differently." wrote Zeno S.

I think the affirmation that this board is connecting conscious community is all we need to remember. Being concious goes to the heart of consideration and respect for all. All opinions are what they are, neither good nor bad. To judge them as good or bad or imply that they are more or less is not conscious. Putting anyone down, even in jest is usually a learned way to diffuse. Consciousness is remembering that intelligence and experience is just part of wisdom. The vital part is more about the understanding that we all hold pieces to the puzzle. This provides an opening to the differences and the beauty that becomes the tapestry. When we can become conscious of the amazing breadth of that, it offers a lifetime of opportunity to learn and discuss, rethink and refine. No one has THE answer. The solutions are always evolving. When we offend each other so much with so little thought given, it is the end of true communication. I do not think this is anyone's intention, but we have not had a lot of practice being truly conscious and considerate of all. I am still a neophyte of this. Lessons are learned and we move forward, hopefully together, because we are going to need each other and more open thinking.

Take two (whatever you choose), do the Hokey Pokey, and do not call me in the morning. Laura:wink:

[Lenny]

I think some emotions are getting a little overactive here.
Considering your baseless and fact-less accusations Zeno was referring to in his post, he did come to a very rational conclusion.:
read it again and see how cerebral he is about this one.
It is not an attack,just a sentiment.
Do you think you offend people?

He may have offended some but I've never found any of his posts offensive. They've been clear, concise, well reasoned, and poignant. I've never seen him commit any ad hominem errors, nor did I find his statements in this matter baseless. Sorry, but three strikes and your out. Sorry he is as well.

[MsTerry]

He may have offended some but I've never found any of his posts offensive. They've been clear, concise, well reasoned, and poignant. I've never seen him commit any ad hominem errors, nor did I find his statements in this matter baseless. Sorry, but three strikes and your out. Sorry he is as well.
Lenny,
I can't expect you to read all postings, but you might want to re-write your comments after reading this.quote below (I believe this is what Zeno had in mind when he wrote his piece.

<!-- / icon and title --> <!-- message -->
Ms. Terry,

I hate the freak aspect of Christianity, but for you to post 'Are christian hollidays a gateway to pedophilia?' reflects a disgusting and hateful aspect to your character.

Are you always a nasty and judgmental and horrible person, or is it only when Christianity is involved?Ad hominem, ad nauseum

[shellebelle]

Ms Terry,

You offend often! Now you and Zeno attack Rich. I'm really saddened by your actions/words and yes offended again.

See the problem really is that in this very emotional conversation about a City Council member Rich challenged you to think. He challenged ethics and judgment. Linda Kelley made poor decisions and had a serious lapse in judgment not once but twice (that are public knowledge). She should be held accountable by the community.

Instead of holding her accountable for her actions ~Now come on you claim children so lets be honest would you allow your child at any age to behave as she has without confronting them?~ instead you are trashing Rich for speaking the truth and challenging the acceptance of such actions. :hmmm:

On the other hand - you haven't come out and been present and accountable to us so I don't know why I would expect you to hold accountability in high regard.




Lenny,
I can't expect you to read all postings, but you might want to re-write your comments after reading this.quote below (I believe this is what Zeno had in mind when he wrote his piece.

<!-- / icon and title --> <!-- message --> Ad hominem, ad nauseum

[MsTerry]

Two wrongs don't make a right!
I know I can offend people at times, but I am not in denial about it.
The post Rich wrote about my "paradoxical" juxtaposition, exposes him to be, well, uhm, judgmental to say the least.

Your sudden snappy snippyness leads me to believe that STW is more than just talk. Just make sure it doesn't turn into STD.:thumbsup:


Ms Terry,

You offend often! Now you and Zeno attack Rich. I'm really saddened by your actions/words and yes offended again.

See the problem really is that in this very emotional conversation about a City Council member Rich challenged you to think. He challenged ethics and judgment. Linda Kelley made poor decisions and had a serious lapse in judgment not once but twice (that are public knowledge). She should be held accountable by the community.

Instead of holding her accountable for her actions ~Now come on you claim children so lets be honest would you allow your child at any age to behave as she has without confronting them?~ instead you are trashing Rich for speaking the truth and challenging the acceptance of such actions. :hmmm:

On the other hand - you haven't come out and been present and accountable to us so I don't know why I would expect you to hold accountability in high regard.

[shellebelle]

Okay well at least you admit you are wrong - thats a start for you.

Rich is anything but judgmental. But if truth is judgmental then maybe I am just having definition issues!

And uhhh are you like the only one who doesn't know about Rich and me?

OH WAIT YOU HAVEN'T BEEN PRESENT AND ACCOUNTABLE!




Two wrongs don't make a right!
I know I can offend people at times, but I am not in denial about it.
The post Rich wrote about my "paradoxical" juxtaposition, exposes him to be, well, uhm, judgmental to say the least.

Your sudden snappy snippyness leads me to believe that STW is more than just talk. Just make sure it doesn't turn into STD.:thumbsup:

[MsTerry]

Linda Kelley made poor decisions and had a serious lapse in judgment not once but twice (that are public knowledge). She should be held accountable by the community.
.

ShelleBelle,
You've got to knock it off.
Unless you know something, that we or the jury didn't know, you are just speculating and that is akin to bad gossiping.
She is being held accountable by the community, in fact more so than any other "drunk" driver.
How many drunks do you know that are plastered all over the paper?
She is a danger to society because she drives 10MPH in 35 MPH zone?

[MsTerry]

:heart:


Okay well at least you admit you are wrong - thats a start for you.you are twisting my words, my dear


Rich is anything but judgmental. But if truth is judgmental then maybe I am just having definition issues!Did you read what he wrote, my dear?


And uhhh are you like the only one who doesn't know about Rich and me? I doubt am the only one, my dear, but next guy you get, let me know first. OK?


OH WAIT YOU HAVEN'T BEEN PRESENT AND ACCOUNTABLE!My Dear, if I am not present, who are you talking to?????
:heart:

[shellebelle]

Well Ms Terry, most drunk drivers splatter their victims all over the county!

So silly me I think plastering her across the county is much gentler than some poor public servant getting to knock on someones door and tell them their loved one is dead on the road!

And to be honest I know many people who have been killed by those like Linda Kelley. "Responsible, educated, professionals" who killed. As an RN she has a greater knowledge base than the average professional.

So she was "saved" and luckily so was potentially someone else.



ShelleBelle,
You've got to knock it off.
Unless you know something, that we or the jury didn't know, you are just speculating and that is akin to bad gossiping.
She is being held accountable by the community, in fact more so than any other "drunk" driver.
How many drunks do you know that are plastered all over the paper?
She is a danger to society because she drives 10MPH in 35 MPH zone?

[MsTerry]

You really are on a roll, LOL



Well Ms Terry, most drunk drivers splatter their victims all over the county! I doubt it unless you have some data to back it up.


So silly me I think plastering her across the county is much gentler than some poor public servant getting to knock on someones door and tell them their loved one is dead on the road!I never assumed Linda was rich. As a public servant, she still needs a job to make a living


And to be honest I know many people who have been killed by those like Linda Kelley. "Responsible, educated, professionals" who killed.
I must have missed that part in the PD.
Who did she kill?:hmmm:


As an RN she has a greater knowledge base than the average professional. Correct! legal limit is .08, she had .09


So she was "saved" and luckily so was potentially someone else.We all count our blessings

[shellebelle]

Yeh whatever.

Since I've received that "knock" more than once and once I was lucky enough to get the call on one phone saying my friends (Mom and three children) were dead while my husband got the call on another that his friend had killed my friends.

Yeh I'm sensitive about it.

But besides that - I expect someone in a position of authority and potential role model to take ownership of their actions. I'm not upset that she made mistakes. I am upset that she refused to take ownership of her actions.

Her mistakes are/were human her lack of ownership and accountability thats weak and for some like me - thats where the questions lie.


You really are on a roll, LOL

[shellebelle]

Why? I have always found letting the guy know first works best for me.


:heart:<!-- END TEMPLATE: bbcode_quote --> I doubt am the only one, my dear, but next guy you get, let me know first. OK?
:heart:

[MsTerry]

I'm not upset that she made mistakes. I am upset that she refused to take ownership of her actions.

Her mistakes are/were human her lack of ownership and accountability thats weak and for some like me - thats where the questions lie.

She did take responsibility for her drunk driving, she just didn't relate it to her public service.

[Lenny]

Quote:
<table border="0" cellpadding="6" cellspacing="0"> <tbody><tr> <td class="alt2" style="border: 1px inset ;"> Lenny wrote: https://www.waccobb.net/forums/waccobb/orangebuttons/viewpost.gif (https://www.waccobb.net/forums/showthread.php?p=58664#post58664)
He may have offended some but I've never found any of his posts offensive. They've been clear, concise, well reasoned, and poignant. I've never seen him commit any ad hominem errors, nor did I find his statements in this matter baseless. Sorry, but three strikes and your out. Sorry he is as well.
</td> </tr> </tbody></table>
<!-- END TEMPLATE: bbcode_quote -->Quote:
<table border="0" cellpadding="6" cellspacing="0"> <tbody><tr> <td class="alt2" style="border: 1px inset ;"> Ms. Terry,

I hate the freak aspect of Christianity, but for you to post 'Are christian hollidays a gateway to pedophilia?' reflects a disgusting and hateful aspect to your character.

Are you always a nasty and judgmental and horrible person, or is it only when Christianity is involved? </td> </tr> </tbody></table>
<!-- END TEMPLATE: bbcode_quote -->Ad hominem, ad nauseum


Lenny,
I can't expect you to read all postings, but you might want to re-write your comments after reading this.quote below (I believe this is what Zeno had in mind when he wrote his piece. Ad hominem, ad nauseum

Well, most folks here cut finer points than I, but please allow a feeble effort.
An ad hominem is utilized in an argument or debate in an attempt to refute another, usually the opposing position, but instead of logic the inferior position attacks the person, not the subject.
While the above is a personal opinion attacking your character, there was nothing in that post any attempt to refute the issue itself. I did read the original and felt in a vaguely similar manner in that you never have come off so nasty in all your posts I've read, as a matter of fact. You can still be my hero, and like all other folks, flawed. But then you know my opinion is not even worth :2cents:

[MsTerry]

Gee Lenny,
I want you to be my hero too!
but I am not sure what you are saying???
because this


the inferior position attacks the person, not the subject. and this

there was nothing in that post any attempt to refute the issue itself.confirms what I was saying, but your post reads as if you don't agree.
can you clarify that?



An ad hominem is utilized in an argument or debate in an attempt to refute another, usually the opposing position, but instead of logic the inferior position attacks the person, not the subject.
While the above is a personal opinion attacking your character, there was nothing in that post any attempt to refute the issue itself. I did read the original and felt in a vaguely similar manner in that you never have come off so nasty in all your posts I've read, as a matter of fact. You can still be my hero, and like all other folks, flawed. But then you know my opinion is not even worth :2cents:

[Lenny]

It was not an argument of logic, or a debate, nor a position he was trying to defend. He was simply castigating your character, NOT the argument. Minor but salient point.


Gee Lenny,
I want you to be my hero too!
but I am not sure what you are saying???
because this
and this confirms what I was saying, but your post reads as if you don't agree. can you clarify that?

[MsTerry]

Isn't that called ad hominem?
Besides there was no position I was posting.
And he did mention Christianity twice, so I think he was arguing while casting aspersions .
But you're right, minor detail.


It was not an argument of logic, or a debate, nor a position he was trying to defend. He was simply castigating your character, NOT the argument. Minor but salient point.