Anti-Greenberg Mailer

We are in shock!

In our 40 years in Sebastopol, we have never seen such a hostile hit piece as the one below!
We should all be in mourning if this is how our local politics are being played out.

To the people who created this vicious piece of character assassination: Is this really how you want political discourse to be played in Sebastopol? Do you want to see hit pieces full of distortions against your candidates? Are we just going to bludgeon each other in the middle of main street until only one person is standing?

Is it so terrible that Jonathan has suggested that the city should participate in reopening the hospital?
Is it a crime that he has suggested that the city help keep the library open?

It is a sad day in Sebastopol.

Dan Smith and Joan Marler

Sealwatcher,

Thanks for your reply.

When you see something like this it makes you wonder if you are in the twilight zone or some alternate reality where Carl Rove is the puppet master behind the screen. This is right out of the Rove playbook where you attack your opponent for his strengths, in this case support for the hospital and the library.

I hope to find out that the people I know on this list never saw the final copy. I frankly can't imagine them doing this any other way.

Farmer Dan

We received one of those in our mailbox today, too. Pretty surprising! A pretty lame screed, at that.

There are a few people painting the latest political salvo as "negative campaigning". I am referring to the "NO ON GREENBURG" postcards that went out to Sebastopol voters this week. Some claim that, though they weren't Greenburg supporters, they'll now vote for him because of this mailer.

Well, my name is on that mailer, not because I am a fan of negative campaigning, I am not. But because I believe it's message.

What that mailer also demonstrates is a consensus across Sebastopol's political spectrum. The other names on that postcard come from different political viewpoints. These are people who have battled passionately against each other in the past, now coming together because they also believe that Jonathan Greenburg is not the candidate who should be elected to our City Council.

Look - anything other than a "Yes" could be considered negative. But don't vote because you think a postcard may have crossed the line. Vote because you believe in a candidate. That's why I am voting for Patrick Slayter, Una Glass and Sarah Gurney.

I am sorry to see this mailer. It's an example of ugly politics. The only thing that would make it even worse would be for it to be anonymous. However I have to say that I am disappointed in the otherwise respectable people that have added their names to it.

Starting with Helen's quote "Jonathan recently tried to tout himself as having a leadership role in the challenge to CVS" and continueing on, it deals with half truths and a skewed point of view that it represents as facts.

Regarding Jonathan's role in CVS, I think it is fair to say that he had a leadership role in the challenge to CVS. Yes, he wasn't part of the lawsuit that eventually ended in a compromise. I think it unfair of Helen to discount all the work done Jonathan, and many others, did in galvanizing the community's resistance to CVS's move. One of the things they did accomplish was to elect a city council majority that opposed the move.

Furthur, Jonathan doesn't believe the "council can wave a magic wand " to re-open Palm Drive Hospital. His plan, first published on WaccoBB I believe, calls for moves that are within council's prerogative to assist in the hospital's re-opening. Is his proposal sufficient to re-open the hospital? Of course not. But the council should do anything it can do to help. I don't think he is confused at all. He's just making a big campaign issue about some relatively small moves that the council can make to help.

The same goes for his leadership role on restoring library hours. Was he The leader? No. Was he A leader? Yes. Can the city fund the Sebastopol library? I think it can (correct me if I am wrong). Is that good policy? Maybe not. But he is not confused.

Just as Jonathan may have overemphasized his leadership role, this flyer overemphasizes and distorts Jonathan's positions.

I am shocked by this scurrilous mailer. I believe the people of Sebastopol will have a similar reaction. The Press Democrat also begs to differ from the anti-Greenberg faction. This is from today's editorial explaining their endorsements for City Council:

"In truth, what Sebastopol voters face in this election is a difficult choice among four intelligent, professional individuals who have a demonstrated desire to help the community....Greenberg has shown great promise as a community leader. For example, he was the primary agitant behind getting Measure M, a one-eighth-cent sales tax measure, on the Nov. 4 ballot supporting Sonoma County libraries. Greenberg’s biggest problem is not political factions, it’s furniture. There simply aren’t enough open seats on the City Council....[T]he region would be well-served to have him remain politically involved, asking hard questions."

The whole editorial is here: https://www.pressdemocrat.com/opinio...rney-glass-and

I've been out on the street by the Library this morning, and someone commented on how sad it was that this kind of smear campaign has come to Sebastopol. I like the phrase "paid for by Sebastopol unified for effective leadership to oppose Greenberg for council 2014." They created the organization for the specific purpose of attacking a candidate. If you ask me, this is a first strike. Greenberg may have singled out Slayter, but he didn't go as far as to say "unqualified to serve" or "bad for Sebastopol," he pointed out a few things Slayter did or did not do in regards to some important issues. Thats fair. This mailer (interestingly in the same shade of green as Jonathan's own brochure) was at least printed on recycled paper, because it's going right into my paper recycling. I'm glad the general response online is shock and outrage. If we can overcome these political pitfalls here on a small scale, maybe we can overcome them on a much larger, national, global scale too.

Barry,

Thanks for your response.
It is important that we all speak out.

Whether we agree with or support Jonathan Greenberg for city council is not the question.
We have seen the 'swift boating' of candidates before and the harm it has done to our country.

This is classic Carl Rove, attacking someone at the last minute with distortions and lies about their record and it is playing out across our country to keep many qualified candidates from running and many more from being elected. This piece is from that mold and nothing Jonathan has done to criticize council members or said comes even close to this. They may win the election, but we all pay the price because future elections will follow this example.

Farmer Dan aka Dan Smith

Barry wrote:

"Can the city fund the Sebastopol library? I think it can (correct me if I am wrong)."

On Pages 9-10 of the “First Amended and Restated Joint Powers Agreement for the County-Wide Provision of Library Services by the Sonoma County Library”, Section X.B.2, dated April 7, 2014, it states:

“Nothing in this Agreement shall be construed as prohibiting a Member, person, or other entity from providing a gift, devise, endowment, donation or bequest (“endowment or donation”) to a particular regional branch library for a specific purpose, or prohibiting a particular regional branch library from accepting such endowment or donation; provided, however, that access to any such conferred benefit at the regional branch at issue must be made be available to all Sonoma County residents, and the endowment or donation not be used to extend or expand hours of service at the regional branch(es). The Commission may elect to develop policies, procedures and requirements in its bylaws to establish conditions for endowments and donations.”

See: https://sonomalibrary.org/sites/defa...es/JPA2014.pdf

The Sebastopol City Council deliberated community-based supplemental funding for the Sebastopol branch to reinstate hours on two occasions. At the conclusion of their deliberations, the City Council voted to support this, and sent a letter to the Joint Powers Agreement Review Advisory Committee indicating their support. It fell on deaf ears.

Community-based supplemental funding for expanded hours of operation for a specific branch was not then, and is not currently, allowed by the Sonoma County Library JPA.

While restored hours through additional local funding are highly-desired by many people (including the Sebastopol City Council) and easily trumpeted as a campaign issue, they are prohibited.

After being rebuffed by the JPA Committee, it was felt that a stronger likelihood of success would be found in a County-wide funding effort. Thus, the efforts began that resulted in Measure M, which is supported by the entire Sebastopol City Council.

A discussion of Community-funded hours (“Sebastopol: Council strongly wants option for community-funded hours…” “Language changed in revised Amended JPA to remove option for community-funded hours…” ”Unanimous agreement to proceed with current language removing option for community-funded hours, recognizing it is time to move forward.”) can be found at: https://www.sonoma-county.org/libraryjpareview/documents/jpa_minutes_20140219.pdf

It should also be noted that the City of Sebastopol/Sebastopol City Council has provided the vast majority of the funding to date to re-landscape the exterior of both the Sebastopol Library and the adjacent Sebastopol City Hall.

The address for "Sebastopol Unified For Effective Leadership To Oppose Greenberg For Council, 2014" [which paid for the mailer] is 200 Nelson Way # 5, Sebastopol, CA 95472. That is the mailing address for Craig Litwin.

This mailer is not what one would expect in an enlightened community.

From what I know of Mr. Litwin and some of those who endorsed the mailer, their behavior in this instance is far below that which I have normally witnessed. Everyone makes mistakes and hopefully we learn from them.
.
A subsequent public apology mailer paid for by those same persons responsible should be in order.

Barry wrote:

"Can the city fund the Sebastopol library? I think it can (correct me if I am wrong)."

Barry, the answer to this question is pretty complex. The Council cannot pay for augmented hours now, but members of the Council were split on supporting this when we had the chance to a year ago. Patrick Slayter was opposed to local funding, and I quote what he wrote at that time below in blue.

What is not complex is how groundless the accusations in this mailer are. The flier presents a litany of insults, but only two statements that resemble facts about my record.

The first states that I "believe the Council can wave a magic wand" to reopen Palm Drive Hospital. I never said anything about a magic wand, but I have widely expressed a five point plan, which can be found here, about what the City Council does have the legal jurisdiction to do--and should be doing, right now.

The second alleges that my advocacy for local library hours augmentation was based upon a lack of understanding of "how our city operates."

I was, in fact, the County''s leading advocate for amending the County Joint Powers Agreement law regarding local library funding. At the time, I described why this was important in the only Press Democrat commentary on this subject, which I wrote here.

Last October, the Joint Powers Agreement committee headed by Supervisor Mike McGuire that had been meeting to revise the agreement that governed County libraries was split on the important issue of whether to allow cities to augment the 40 hour library hours week that had been implemented countywide. In addition to speaking of this to the JPA Committee and the Library Commissioners, I brought this issue to the Sebastopol City Council, urging them to support local augmentation of hours. I reported on this issue extensively on Wacco, in more than a dozen posts and follow ups in a thread that titled:
Seb Council Opposes Local Funds to Restore Libraries. What Do You Think?

it can be read here:
https://www.waccobb.net/forums/showt...t-Do-You-Think

At the time, I was a long way off from persuading either Library Commissioners or Members of the Board of Supervisors from putting this on the ballot. I knew that after two years of the worst hours cutback in history, the only sure way to restore service to thousands of library users in Sebastopol would be to win the legal right to locally fund the augmentation of these hours. Restoring all hours in Sebastopol would have cost $110,000 per year. This would have amounted to 9% of last year's budget surplus, all of which, instead, went to replenish the city's reserves.

Here is what I wrote then, in the first of a series of a dozen posts I made on this thread:
​"It has been more than two years since Sonoma County libraries suffered an unprecedented 25% cutback in hours, locking their doors on most evenings, and on Mondays, for the first time in a century. Here in the 12^th wealthiest county in California, we are now into the third year in which more than 100,000 of our fellow citizens, including young children like my own, seniors and the needy without Internet access at home, and readers countywide, are met with either overcrowded facilities, or locked doors.

Meanwhile, our local government seems unwilling to do anything about it. Last June, our Board of Supervisors refused to even discuss my request, backed by more than 1,800 Sonoma County citizens who signed our petition, that the County fund the restoration of hours. Now, just few weeks ago, at a sparsely attended City Council meeting, Mayor Michael Kyes joined City Council Members Robert Jacob and Patrick Slayter, in shocking local library advocates by opposing local augmentation to basic library hour—the most likely prospect citizens have to restoring normal library service in Sebastopol starting next July.

Their reasoning was that they are committed to “equitable” service countywide. The draft of a new Joint Powers Agreement (“JPA”) governing County libraries had calls for a base level of service for all libraries—the 40 hours we now have (reduced from 52 hours two years ago). But the draft JPA allows, for the first time, local funders or city taxes to augment funding and fully restore these hours. In Sebastopol, this would cost about $110,000 annually. On October 15, three of the four Council members demanded that this possibility (not obligation) be removed from the JPA."

Council Member Patrick Slayer was asked to explain his opposition to this effort. He wrote:

"I firmly believe library hours should be expanded and in no way were my comments to the contrary. What I don’t believe is good for library patrons, and our entire county community, is a situation where one branch is able to raise funds locally, be it through donations or local taxes, and expand operating hours for that single branch. I believe this would create a situation where the wealthier county communities could support their libraries and the lower income communities could not.

These lower income communities are already underserved by our county library system and creating a system whereby this inequality is compounded is unpalatable to me. To think that the Sebastopol branch is more important than the Cloverdale branch is shortsighted and egotistical. The children and seniors in Cotati and Rohnert Park should be able to visit their local branch on Mondays, and just because Sebastopol can (possibly) afford to provide the funding to expand hours doesn’t mean that the residents of Guerneville can, even though both branches are of equal import to each community."

Sarah Gurney argued for local funding from private sources to restore hours, as did Council Member Eder.

I'm not a fan of late mailers, but I don't see this as particularly mean and not out of the Rove playbook. The piece is simply stating the opinion of the signers, who genuinely believe that Jonathan would serve the community better as an observer and commentator.

I would call the Rove characterization vicious. It seems to me if one condemns negative campaigning, one would not do it themselves.

As for Jonathan, he set himself up for this stuff to happen. I believe he is a sincere crusader, but that sometimes he gets carried away with his passion. He has written thousands of words, and within those words one can find many misstatements designed to bolster his positions, whether on purpose or not, it's hard to tell. He attacks Jim Horn, calls me and others "attack dog", claims leadership in efforts that he was a part of, and mistates numbers in support of his criticisms, the latest of which is to claim that the City Council raised some staff salaries by as much as 20%. The city manager corrected that misperception in a letter to the PD, saying the Fire Chief got a 2.75% pay raise.

He also stated that the General Plan update costs over $800K, when it is under $400K.

Finally, this is my last comment about all this. It takes two to dance, and Jonathan played his part in attracting partners, it's just that the partners in this dance are dancing to different tunes, and that creates tangled feet and frustrations. After all this is over, I hope we can find a sweeter tune, a progressive one we can all agree on. The City Council is the best ever, let's keep the momentum going, regardless of the outcome of this election.

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by Barry:

I am sorry to see this mailer. It's an example of ugly politics. ...

---

Richard:

Please point out in the mailer where [as you claim] it simply states that the opinion of the signers is "that Jonathan would serve the community better as an observer and commentator." I am not seeing this simply stated opinion because the mailer in fact states that Mr. Greenberg "has few - if any - qualifications to serve." [Period]

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by Richard Nichols:

I'm not a fan of late mailers, but I don't see this as particularly mean and not out of the Rove playbook. The piece is simply stating the opinion of the signers, who genuinely believe that Jonathan would serve the community better as an observer and commentator.

---

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by Richard Nichols:

I'm not a fan of late mailers, but I don't see this as particularly mean and not out of the Rove playbook. .

---

from the mailer:

"A master at twisting facts and logic, Jonathan..."

sorry, if you don't see that as particularly mean (or ad hominem, to stick with a recent meme here) you don't see very clearly. I don't have any problem with people being mean when that's their deliberate intent and when it's called for. I do have issues with it when it's bullying (which it's not here). And everyone has their own opinion as to when it's appropriate. But I think you're fooling yourself if you don't think that's what this mailer is, and apparently I'm not alone in finding it inapproprate in this context. Back & forth debates on Wacco are one thing, but to me the mailer feels like dirty politics.

What Mr. Greenberg's previous post omits is that the Sebastopol City Council revisited the issue of community-based additional funding for expanded hours at the Sebastopol library branch at their meeting on January 7, 2014.

After deliberating the issue, the City Council authorized Mayor Jacob to sign a letter stating the City's position on a number of issues related to the then-evolving Sonoma County Library Joint Powers Agreement (JPA).

Among these were support for community-based funding, per the Draft JPA, and support for a County-wide measure for library funding.

The vote was as follows:

Ayes: Eder, Gurney, Slayter
Noes: Jacob
Absent: Kyes

Please see Page 15 of the official minutes (attached).

Interestingly, the thread referred to above by Mr. Greenberg has a final posting date (by "Moon") of February 22, 2014, without any posts after the January 7, 2014 City Council meeting (Mr. Greenberg was in attendance at this City Council meeting and addressed the Council regarding this subject) that address the revised position of the Sebastopol City Council, including Vice Mayor Slayter. After his final post on December 16, 2013, Mr. Greenberg refrained from additional posts on that thread. I am unclear if he has addressed the revised City Council position elsewhere on Wacco or in other venues.

As Barry has so astutely pointed out; "...the notion that someone is able to change their mind should be appreciated rather than scorned."

The Press Democrat wrote an editorial about the race that I thought I would post here. The article argues that it's circumstance, not character or qualifications, that led to their endorsements. What a more intelligent and fair way to treat another candidate, instead of misleading lies: "confused, inexperienced, unqualified."

Please read the article, which I've pasted at the bottom of this post.

Here's some quotes from the article:

"It’s too bad it has come to this. In truth, what Sebastopol voters face in this election is a difficult choice among four intelligent, professional individuals who have a demonstrated desire to help the community."

"Greenberg has shown great promise as a community leader. For example, he was the primary agitant behind getting Measure M, a one-eighth-cent sales tax measure, on the Nov. 4 ballot supporting Sonoma County libraries."

"...the region would be well-served to have [Jonathan] remain politically involved, asking hard questions."

https://www.pressdemocrat.com/opinio...rney-glass-and

Richard,

You said: 'As for Jonathan, he set himself up for this stuff to happen.'
This is blaming the victim for the crime, yet another deflection from responsibility.
I notice that only one of the signers has put up any defense of this piece and this one is anonymous.

Farmer Dan aka Dan smith

An Open Letter to Craig Litwin and Larry Robinson:

Dear Gentlemen:

You have both been online today [Friday 31 October 2014] at WaccoBB.net.

Please explain yourselves to our online community with regard to your participation in creating, endorsing, and paying for the Anti-Greenberg mailer.

I know you both to be outstanding members of our community and a demand for an explanation [or apology] is not unreasonable for me to request. If you remain silent on this issue, some of my respect for you will be lost.

Thank you.

Michael Anthony Carnacchi

Thanks for pointing this out. What I really meant to say is that the mailer is just the opinion of the signers, and in my opinion "Jonathan would serve the community better as an observer and commentator."

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by Michael Anthony:

Richard:

Please point out in the mailer where [as you claim] it simply states that the opinion of the signers is "that Jonathan would serve the community better as an observer and commentator." I am not seeing this simply stated opinion because the mailer in fact states that Mr. Greenberg "has few - if any - qualifications to serve." [Period]

---

Richard,

Thanks for the clarity of your position, which now sounds much more reasonable.
How about some clarity around ''As for Jonathan, he set himself up for this stuff to happen.'
Isn't this blaming the victim and excusing the mailer writers?

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by Richard Nichols:

Thanks for pointing this out. What I really meant to say is that the mailer is just the opinion of the signers, and in my opinion "Jonathan would serve the community better as an observer and commentator."

---

If I may - when a person running for office is deceptive or inaccurate, at best, then people will call him out on it.

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by farmerdan:

Richard,

Thanks for the clarity of your position, which now sounds much more reasonable.
How about some clarity around ''As for Jonathan, he set himself up for this stuff to happen.'
Isn't this blaming the victim and excusing the mailer writers?

---

That is a valid point.

If it were me running for office however, I would counter any "deceptive or inaccurate" statements by another candidate by contacting them personally to ask them to correct their data and if that was ineffective; I would respectfully publish the information that I know to be correct next to what my competitor candidate says falsely in a mailer that solely promotes my candidacy.

I would not distribute character assignation propaganda like the Anti-Greenberg mailer because it is not an enlightened response and the kind of backlash that it will receive is now made plainly obvious.

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by eeeeeeow:

If I may - when a person running for office is deceptive or inaccurate, at best, then people will call him out on it.

---

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by eeeeeeow:

If I may - when a person running for office is deceptive or inaccurate, at best, then people will call him out on it.

---

OK eeeeeow, you suggested that people be called out for deceptive behavior so I am calling you out (whoever you are.)

Let's start at the top:

1) Helen Shane's comment is clearly false as everyone in town knows. While Jonathan was not part of the suit, he was clearly one of the leaders in the opposition to CVS. (A position that I strongly disagreed with by the way. My personal opinion is that the city wasted tons of money and created a lot of ill will over a commercially zoned property that someone was going to build out eventually.)

2) Next, you make two claims in one sentence, that Jonathan is 'a master at twisting facts and logic' and that he 'has no idea what our City Council's responsibilities are, or how the council works.' Since you offered no accurate examples of his mastery of twisting facts, this is just name calling. Even a casual observer would know from his extensive council watching that Jonathan is better versed in council operations than almost anyone in Sebastopol so your statement that 'he has no idea' clearly is false.

3) Your statement 'Jonathan misrepresents our city's jurisdiction and doesn't understand how our city operates' also is unsupportable with facts. To my knowledge, Jonathan has never stated that the city had authority of the hospital or the libraries, but has advocated that the council take actions within it's powers to influence these situations.

4) Your statement 'Everyone wants the hospital to reopen' is clearly false. There are many people who do not want the hospital to reopen. They have written letters to the newspapers, showed up at public meetings, and made their voices well known. There are others who are not so public who have personal reasons to want to see the hospital stay closed and are lobbying hard for that outcome.

5) Your statement 'Jonathan believes the Council can wave a magic wand to make it so.' If you asked Jonathan, as I have, I think you would find that you are not a mind reader and that he has no such illusions. (I always think that we should avoid trying to read minds and attribute motivations to people without asking them.)

6) Your statement 'He advocates City money to open the hospital.' Here, you are getting closer to the truth. He has advocated that the City offer a subsidy of water and sewer to help get the hospital opened. This is well within the city's powers I believe. Cities often offer incentives to bring jobs to a town and bringing back 200 high paying jobs should look pretty good to the council. By the way, since the city has capacity in both water and sewer, this would likely cost the city almost nothing to do other than the lost revenue.

7) Your title 'Inexperienced, Confused, Unqualified' would lead us to examine the experience level of the current board for comparisons. I think it fair to say that all started their time on the council without previous experience on city councils. Confused? I guess you are a mind reader here. Unqualified? Seems like there are people a lot less qualified on the Council at present.

The truth remains that this piece is full of distortions (even beyond what I have shown so far.) Trying to justify it as an honest reaction to claims that Jonathan has made does nothing to improve it.

I am not saying any of this to defend Jonathan, who is perfectly able to do so himself. If he put out a hit piece like this, I would be just as critical in public. You might note that when Jonathan was strident about Jim Horn on a thread I started, I took him to task in public so no one is saying that you should not be critical of him (or me) if you feel it is warranted. What I am saying is; please work hard to tell the truth and give examples instead of just name calling so we can all learn something. Otherwise, local politics will quickly slide into the gutter as everyone will see a winning advantage in this behavior.

While there is still time, it would be good to acknowledge that this was a mistake. This is short of an apology, which is something very hard for some to make, especially in public. I'm sure it looked like a great idea before it was sent, but by now it seems clear that it has not been well received and is very troubling to people.

A simple 'I see in hindsight that this was a mistake and hope others learn from this' would be well received. That way, our next Council election might not be so marred.

Farmer Dan aka Dan Smith

I agree with Richard that "Jonathan would serve the community better as an observer and commentator," which he has proven himself skillful to do. Perhaps he eventually would function as an elected official in a small town.

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by Richard Nichols:

Thanks for pointing this out. What I really meant to say is that the mailer is just the opinion of the signers, and in my opinion "Jonathan would serve the community better as an observer and commentator."

---

ARRGH!
Shepherd speaks!
Zombies listen.

Something very strange is going on in politics: An epidemic of deceit, misrepresentation, sensationalist political ads, and political agendas not correlating to the interests of the population. Money, I believe is chiefly to blame. The relatively simple act of initiating a public campaign finance program would solve a significant chunk of all our problems. Politicians would have to start running on what they stand for, and not how well they can sling propaganda.

Jonathan is a man who will put the people, and the interests of our community as a whole ahead of his own personal ideals. Unlike some people who run just because they want to be on a governing body, Jonathan wants to serve. He could walk onto the council unopposed if he joined the planning dept. and waited two years, but Jonathan decided he needed to run in THIS election. The time for action is now, not two years from now, and getting on the council is not the end goal for Jonathan, it never has been, the end goal is having a community that feels like it knows it's government and is darn proud of it for all it does. Not a community that wonders why the city council is plodding along business as usual, keep the status quo, don't build bike lanes, let the hospital fail unassisted, give parks and services one gas-guzzling truck per person, raise taxes to balance the budget and call it a job well done (nothing against balanced budgets, they're awesome, but there's more than one way to skin a ... an animal that people might actually skin).

I think Jonathan Greenberg is part of the solution to all this, whether he gets elected or not, but I think he could do a lot more good ON the council. Off the council he comes up against "we're in charge, and there's nothing you can do about it." On the council he can offer his views not just as another community member to be passed over, but as a political representative entitled not only to HAVE his opinion, but to have his opinion officially entered into the public minutes and duly considered by the ruling body of our city.
Many of you have already voted but if you haven't, the moral of this is ... vote Jonathan Greenberg for Sebastopol city council Tuesday Nov 4th.

- KD

The flier suggests Jonathan Greenberg doesn't understand how government functions. For the last couple of years I've had numerous office chats with Jonathan and have come to realize that he understand full well how government functions these days. He just feels that is not the way government should function. Specifically, City Council should push to expand its responsibilities when it comes to issues of critical interest to the electorate, for example the reopening of the hospital emergency room.

By declaring limits on its powers and responsibilities on this life and death issue, Sebastopol's City Council is effectively saying that We the People should know our place.

arisiletz,

Well said!
Interestingly, when I looked at your post, the ad below came up.

I note that it starts with 'healthy, prosperous and inclusive.' We just lost the hospital that has restored people to health for over 70 years and 200 of the best paying jobs in town so I guess reopening our hospital is something Una and Jonathan will both want to go to work on once the dust settles. On the 'inclusive' part, the hospital served everyone regardless of ability to pay. That's pretty darn inclusive in my book. I don't think there is another business in town that does that!

Michael, Una's late husband, spoke passionately about the 3 years of life he had been able to enjoy because we had a hospital in town so I am sure Una is a big supporter of reopening the hospital.

I like 'respectful of people' as well. Given that Jonathan is likely not a zombie, it seems like we might want to be respectful of him in campaigning. Thanks Una for setting a great tone for the future of our hospital!

Farmer Dan aka Zombie Smith

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by arisiletz:

The flier suggests Jonathan Greenberg doesn't understand how government functions. For the last couple of years I've had numerous office chats with Jonathan and have come to realize that he understand full well how government functions these days. He just feels that is not the way government should function. Specifically, City Council should push to expand its responsibilities when it comes to issues of critical interest to the electorate, for example the reopening of the hospital emergency room.

By declaring limits on its powers and responsibilities on this life and death issue, Sebastopol's City Council is effectively saying that We the People should know our place.

---

I have lived in Sebastopol as a homeowner for 30 years, and have never seen anything like this recent flyer. It is obvious that the same tactics used by George W in his 2004 campaign, of having anonymous PACS put out lies as facts, has come to Sebastopol.

All Jonathan did was point out ways our council could, and in my opinion should, have actually done something about the closing of our hospital. However, council members choose to instead just pretend to do something, while in my opinion working to keep the hospital closed. Shame on all of you.

Jonathan also questioned why Slater supported the faulty traffic report that allowed the CVS project to be approved. He brought up other ways he felt Slayter could have better represented the people of Sebastopol, but he never accused him of being unqualified. He questioned the council's defference to city staff, but he never said they were confused.

As to Jonathan being inexperienced, he worked on the commision to help fund people and businesses in need after 9/11 in New York. Jonathan also went beyond the jobs description to help the city keep important services from being moved to New Jersey.

Jonathan is a really sweet, generous, kind, loyal guy, and his experience as an investigative reporter gives me the confidence that he will look deeply into every issue and help the board know all the facts and not just those that special interests want known.

I am a proud supported of Jonathan Greenburg for Sebastopol City Council

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by ahimsa:

I have lived in Sebastopol as a homeowner for 30 years, and have never seen anything like this recent flyer. ...

---

There have definitely been some other last minute scandalous hit pieces is the past, but they have come from the "other" side, the pro-development, conservative side. What makes this piece so disturbing is that it is coming from what otherwise would be considered "good guys" (and gals) who should know better to stoop to such underhanded tactics.

I'll echo Michael's call to ask for some of the key players, including "Boss Litwin" to take responsibility for this. I think an apology is in order. If you want try to defend it, be my guest.