Sunday, September 22, 2013

Priorities

What is the most important thing that Encinitas City Council should be working on, but has been ignoring? Unfunded pension liabilities? Growing road maintenance backlog? Transparency in government? Excess staffing levels and pay and pensions? High-density development destroying community character and quality of life?

Reform-minded Encinitans were cheered when the new council changed its policies to allow individual Council members to initiate agenda items, breaking the longstanding stranglehold of the mayor over the agenda.

So what do our new council members, elected on a campaign platform of community character, open government, and fiscal responsibility, want to do first with this new opportunity?

Let's go to Mayor Barth's newsletter:
Consideration of Enrolling in Earth Hour City Challenge of the World Wildlife Fund.

This is a request from Deputy Mayor Shaffer using the recently adopted process that allows for a council member initiated agenda item.


124 comments:

  1. I'd rather see the council spend an hour reviewing a detailed history and explanation for why the city has not finalized a subregional plan for the MHCP.

    http://www.sandag.org/?projectid=97&fuseaction=projects.detail

    I've been asking about this for years and only get the same vague responses from city officials. A couple times I successfully lobbied to get this brought into a public meeting (a token "i'm concerned too" gesture) only to have our representatives not require:
    1) a timetable for completion
    2) triggers for the issue to come back to the public meeting if the project fell behind the timeline.
    3) a public website tracking all of the coming and completed milestones and links to all of the documentation and correspondence regarding the project.

    This is not over the top for a project really should have been completed many many years ago (when there was still open space to be purchased in town, rather than out of town).

    Getting this done has substantive impacts directly in Encinitas is already a responsibility of our city. It is a government function.

    A hour on the MHCP will not be as cozy as talking about earth hour (which doesn't have an articulated viable end game).

    KMC

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Open space is bad for developers and pensions.

      Priorities.

      WCV

      Delete
    2. Thanks, KMC, for caring about priorities and Multi Habitat Community Program? I am not good with acronyms, could you explain? I thought we were talking about multi-habitat open space acquisition, but apparently not?

      Before our new Council Majority "came on board," at the July 11, 2012 City Council Meeting, Council decided to defund the MHCP, without explaining the acronym. Kristin Gaspar did question this. Jerome Stocks, laughed at her suggestions of resetting some priorities. Gus Vina assured Council, and the public present at this Community Center Special Meeting, that there would be goal setting and examination of priorities, and we would all get an opportunity to weigh in before the budget was set. That hasn't happened.

      This is from the 6/11/12 Agenda Report, so over a year ago:

      "This program consist of an early implementation of basic property maintenance/management program of City owned habitat property and to develop an incentive program for HOA's with environmentally sensitive property to provide basic property management stewardship. The PPCP (Private Property Clean-up Program) is also included within the program, which is a 50/50 cost sharing program that removes encampments located on private property; $15,000 is being retained to administer the PPCP."

      Delete
  2. The voice of the blog activist speaks again and has now answers.You should run for office instead of running you're mouth

    ReplyDelete
  3. A city worker wakes early. Oh why not, they have the rest of the week to sleep.

    ReplyDelete
  4. A small city being run into the ground by incompetents and special interests. Barth,Shaffer and Kranz are major disappointments, as they were feel good shills only. The 6 figure pensions of city administrators is going to sink the future of the city budget - it is a gravey train for these robber-barrons. The future does not look bright.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. They get the boobie prize for being "nice" to staff and developers while they fiddle and let Rome burn! I am sick of hearing their platitudes about nothing while avoiding the real issues.

      Delete
    2. Flaming torches and pitch forks!!! Lock them and staff out of city hall.

      Delete
    3. Also, I hope that we can discuss at the Special Oct. 2 CC Meeting "all things election," the idea of putting the Mayoral Election on the primary ballot, so that for once, our mayor could be elected by a MAJORITY, of registered voters, and not a simple plurality, as our council members are.

      Election by a plurality allows councilmembers who do not represent the majority of the public to be elected again, and again, as fueled by special interests, as happened with Jerome Stocks.

      Also, once someone gets elected to office, the "power of incumbency," is too often enough, with special interests lining up with incumbents whom they have been able to leverage influence as "symbiotic partners," so that these "plurality incumbents" can get elected again and again in essentially "bought" elections.

      Special interests will always be there, trying to influence the outcome, too often trying to manipulate people with doubt and fear. But if we put the election of our mayor on the primary ballot, then it would be fantastic to know that a true MAJORITY of the people have voted for her or for him.

      Word is that Teresa Barth will not be running again. Her being a "lame duck" is the only reason some of us can imagine that she would be so insensitive to what former supporters expected of her. One of the first things was that with a new Council Majority we would get a truly effective Sunshine Ordinance. Promises had also been made that we would get a new City Attorney.

      Delete
    4. Skip long boring rants.

      Delete
    5. What promise, made specifically when about the atty? You can't just snap your fingers and make that happen, there's a process. Does Sabine suck, yes. Did Teresa hire him, no....

      Delete
    6. Sabine is a contract attorney. The process is for the council to decide it's time for a change. They unanimously don't want a change.

      Delete
  5. True. I removed my shades long ago. Even rose colored glasses won't help until these folks are shown the door.

    ReplyDelete
  6. What happened to the cap and trade? Will Encinitas residents reduce their carbon footprint through the ICLEI mandated procedure?

    Will ICLEI or our city government get to sell the those units to a polluting industry?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. On the one hand, the Council keeps talking about the rise in sea levels and the increased carbon foot print as though their policies will address what is happening. On the other hand, they grant tiny wetland setbacks to developers, thus ignoring the threat of rising waters and floods that will be unsafe for the people who live in the houses they build. Which is it?

      If there is global warming and rising oceans, don't allow for developers to build in flood plains! Consider what happened in Colorado last week!

      Delete
  7. Goal setting would help the public to have input with respect to our priorities, so Council could be in alignment with those.

    This year, goal setting has been put off "indefinitely," as far as I can see, by the Strategic Planning process, which focused, first on team building between Council and staff, then defining the City's "vision." Then Council was to have someone, a community outreach specialist? a PR person? go through the motions of selling the "vision" to the public. It isn't a case of the vision being created after input from the public, but the reverse.

    Personally, I would like the acquisition of Pacific View, for an arts and learning center, a true community center, to be a priority. The vision of the Artist's Colony, which I share, would be for community volunteers to assist in refurbishing and maintaining the existing classrooms. They could then be rented out. Through a minor or major use permit, some of the classrooms could be converted to caretaker artists' living quarters. For low income artists, this conversion could be subsidized by developer in lieu affordable housing fees as the low income housing at the Boathouses property was, in an amount exceeding $800,000.

    I want Superintendent Baird of Encinitas Union School District to be reasonable about the selling price of the donated lane. It was donated for the local community.

    Another priority of mine is for Council to enact a Sunshine Ordinance that would hold our City to a high level of transparency. This assures more honesty and accountability.

    One way for this to happen would be for Council to set up a Commission or Committee, consisting of members of the public and perhaps one or two Council Members, that is to have open meetings. This could be a standing committee or an ad hoc committee, but any and all subcommittee meetings, or commission meetings, should be noticed and open to the public.

    Council has been having more closed sessions again, now, than in the past. Our City Attorney has gone backwards on reporting the nature of cases out of closed session. After Lisa Shaffer and Tony Kranz were elected, but before they were seated on Council, Glenn Sabine reported Hollerbach v City of Encinitas as a personal injury case, out of closed session on Novermber 14, 2012.

    When Sabine last reported the same case, with respect to the July 10 Special Meeting closed session re the Hollerbach case, he began using the term "tort liability," to refer to the nature of the case. This is less clear to Council and more importantly, to the public. The public is entitled to know how many personal injury cases or property damage cases are being filed against the City. I asked, repeatedly, that this could be clarified. Mayor Barth refused to direct Glenn Sabine to be more specific, as he had been, before.

    Promises had been made by Barth, Kranz and Shaffer, that a Sunshine Ordinance would be enacted with a "new Council Majority." That hasn't happened. Lisa Shaffer had some good ideas about adding some new commissions. That was nixed. Instead of an Open Government and Ethics Commission being established, or a subcommittee, Council added the word "safety" to the Traffic Commission, so that it is now the Traffic and Safety Commission. More just "going through the motions."

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Caretaker artists living quarters??? That will require a vote of the people because PV is not zoned as living space. So Prop A has come back to bite you in the ass, so be it.

      See you in court...

      Delete
    2. Prop A is a good first step to taxpayers taking back the decision making from this worst council of all time. I hope that other initiatives follow!

      Delete
    3. another one to skip.

      Delete
    4. You are WRONG, anon 1:10. With a minor or major use permit, a vote of the people is NOT required to have caretakers' residences on public property. There is a caretaker residence at Cottonwood Creek Park, and that is not zoned residential, to my knowledge.

      Prop A opponents wrongly claimed that the Boathouses property could not have a museum there, were Prop A to pass. More false propaganda, which is absolutely INCORRECT. With a minor or major use permit, there can be limited exceptions to zoning so that there could be caretakers' residences on public land, or retail at the library, as there is, now, or a museum on residential property, such as one of the Boathouses, as was promised by the Encinitas Preservation Association when it bought the property with subsidies through the City of well over $800,000.

      Get over yourself!

      Delete
  8. Another priority I have, and this could have been a subject for the ethics and open government committee is to allow more direct democracy. It would be fantastic if we could have more meaningful measures put on the ballot by Council. The initiative process is challenging, and can be much more expensive for the City, especially if enough people support a particular issue, by signing petitions, that a Special Election is called for.

    For about $23,000, or for a ballot measure with multiple questions, for about $17,000 per question, Council can put a question on the ballot. Voting is the truest form of a "needs assessment." Special interests do try to influence the election results, of course, but the general public has made the right choices, most times. We vote for what we want and need, and for what we feel would be best for our entire community, as we did for Prop A, despite all the negative propaganda put out by staff, Council, its sponsor/subsidiary non-profit business associations, and development/building industry interests.

    For instance, some of are never going to agree on the need and desirability of five roundabouts and lane elimination. Staff and Council, and L101MA is insisting they have community support, because of the workshops. I've been going over the reports by Peltz and Associates from the 209 Page Staff report from 1/13/10. Once again, as with the Rutan and Tucker "independent report," and Glenn Sabine's not impartial "imaprtial analysis" published in the Sample Ballots, for Prop A, the numbers have been twisted, as were the presentations at the workshops and to Council.

    There has been a huge amount of division within the community, from the beginning, about the desireability of 5 roundabouts and lane elimination for motorists. The only roundabout that was "enthusiastically supported" at the initial workshop, Part B, when those who took the "walking tour" went back to City Hall, was the one at Grandview. That is the roundabout that would be most problematic in terms of taking of private property, as well as grading and drainage issues. The roundabout at La Costa was "strongly supported," according to Peltz and Associates, which failed to quantify the number of people who actually voted for each category, or each level of support. Also the contracted consultant failed to state how many groups of 10-12 people those returning from the "walkabout" broke into at City Hall. There was a sign in sheet that listed 49 people, but the consultant "guetimated" that between 100 and 120 were present for the "walking audit." No numbers were given for the number of people who participated in the "design charrette" at City Hall, afterwards. But the "walking audit" was split into one group for the north end of the project, and one for the south. It should have been easy to have the bus drivers (if there was more than one bus) count the number of people who went on the walking audit tour. Numbers were not given, because far less than 30 people supported five roundabouts and lane elimination.

    That is not majority community support for the project, as planned. A ballot measure would determine, once and for all, what kind of community support there is for the Highway 101 Streetscape Project from La Costa to A Street, with five roundabouts, four of them one-way roundabouts at 3 way intersections, adjacent to the RR, and lane elimination, effectively both northbound and southbound, on 101, through the one-lane roundabouts, at 15 MPH.

    Instead of calling people crappy names, L101MA Board of Directors should support a ballot measure, if you truly believe your plan has widespread community support.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. At the most widely attended Workshop #3, at City Hall, nearly 2/3 of those filling out the survey voted against five roundabouts and lane elimination. This past 9/11, Ed Deane tried to downplay that meeting saying that many of the people attending had not gone to workshops #1 and #2. That is because the workshops were, for the most part, attended by self-interested, "Stakeholders," among which adjacent residents and businesses who, at the time, refused to be bullied by pressure from those who favored five roundabouts and lane elimination, were never counted!

      But the third worshop had been actively noticed to the community by owners of Sub Palace and Leucadia Glass. That was the workshop with the highest attendance because more of the "opposition" was present. But after we voted against five roundabouts and lane elimination, as verified through Public Info requests through the Chamber of Commerce, published in "Encinitas First," two more open houses were held. And about a year later, a final workshop, was held at the Community Center, where the questions were "tweaked," so that the lobbyist consultant facilitator and the stakeholders, could get the desired result, the result also desired by Council, with the exception of Dan Dalager, who had to recuse himself, and Jim Bond, who voted no. Bond did so because he said he believed lane eliminations caused by the roundabouts would result in bottlenecking. Jim Bond said too often people push through these kinds of expensive projects, then look back and say, "What the hell were we thinking?"

      Delete
    2. Jim Bond was and will always be uninformed about ALL issues. He says one thing you like and he's your champion, yet yesterday he was part of your hated gang of sausage. Which is it?? Hero or zero??

      Delete
    3. Lynn- host a workshop. Invite the community and skew the results in your favor. No big deal. All it will cost you is time and money which you seem to have plenty of both. I'll attend.

      Delete
    4. City worker, you can show her how.

      Delete
    5. skip. What a waste of life.

      Delete
  9. Thought city employees napped around now in preparation for their big "work week". Must need to plot where more pension $ can be extorted.

    ReplyDelete
  10. Influential board members of the old "Encinitas First" gang at the Chamber of Commerce was anathema to ALL of the coastal business groups - not wanting anything to do with them. Their motive was clear. They wanted to be the umbrella for all businesses in the city and pitted themselves against us instead of working with us. They feared losing financial support from the city.
    When Carlsbad offered Leucadia Merchants Association $20,000 to us to mitigate robbing our traffic flow across the lagoon for a 6 month period, President Ron Edde steeped in to tell them them NOT to give the money to LMA and that the Chamber wanted the money to hold an Octoberfest in Leucadia to help the merchants here during the bridge construction. Carlsbad then didn't give anyone a penny! On top of that the Chamber did nothing to help the merchants here when we needed them and today the Oktoberfest is held on El Camino Real. When the opportunity was presented to have all the business groups host a Visitor Center, the Chamber refused that too.
    Since those days greed ran the Visitor Center they had into the ground, but the complextion of the board since those days has changed immensely for the better. Still, there are some lingering around no longer on their board who will do anything to see no imporvements come to Leucadia, and they work hard at it. Fine. Their motive is probably the same as it was though; jealousy and distain. But they can keep being the rain and we'll keep being the parade.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Regardless of your opinion of the past leadership of the Chamber of Commerce, Fred, a public information request was done, and the results were published. Those results accurately showed the results of the most widely attended workshop's survey, that there is NOT community support for five roundabouts and lane elimination from A Street in Encinitas, with the first roundabout at El Portal and 101, through Leucadia, to La Costa. In going over the results of the workshops, I verified the same thing. ONLY the roundabout at Grandview was "enthusiastically" supported. The roundabout at La Costa allegedly received "strong support. All three of the other roundabouts were "discussed and supported." No actual numbers were provided how the different categories were determined of "enthusiastic" or "strong," or just "discussion" support.

      Once again, Fred, you are veering from the message by trying to bring squabbling and political differences into the question. The question is, for me, if you are so sure that the community workshops facilitated by Peltz and Associates, including Dan Burden are correct, why wouldn't you support the issue of whether or not we want five roundabouts and lane elimination from A Street to La Costa on Historic State Highway 101 on the ballot?

      We have a new Chamber of Commerce now. None of the business groups should be receiving subsidies in my opinion. Now L101MA is the one being greedy, because you are receiving $30,000 as a direct grant, when Cardiff and Downtown Encinitas 101 Business groups are getting $20,000, and the Chamber gets nothing.

      Delete
    2. Howdy Lynn,
      The old Chamber was given $90,000 a few years ago to move their office. I didn't hear you complain about that. Not only that, it was a bad move. Caltrans allows signage on a freeway for a Visitor Center when it's within one mile of an offramp. They moved their office over that limit from the much used shopping center at Wendy's to the upscale secluded shelter of a fancy building on 2nd street making it difficult for visitors to find - and lost their freeway signage to boot. When L-101 moved our office we didn't ask for a dime. When the business groups wanted to share a Visitor Center with the Chamber, the Chamber saw no value in that and refused - wanting to to do it alone. They did. The VC was good part of the time when it was near Wendy's and the people who worked there very helpful and friendly, but I never felt it was a viable expense for the usage it got and I think time proved that. Not unlike some people's squeaky wheels who want more local shuttles going through town. Twice the city has tried a shuttle. The last one cost 10 grand one summer and three months later realized a whopping $350. from ridership. Trust me though, someone will bring the shuttle idea up a third time as a good idea when everyone's forgotten they fail.

      A rift occurred one day between Dan Trifone (DEMA) and Mike Andreen (Chamber). The city was making an effort for us to all play fair together and spent $10,000 for the collaboration production of a small Welcome to Encinitas brochure. When a reporter spoke with Mike about it, the reporter put his own spin on it and made it sound like it was Mike's idea - which I don't believe Mike said. But Dan did evidently and publically demeaned Mike for that and unfortunately the Chamber rift with the biz groups grew wider.
      Anyone who's been quoted in the paper is aware of how accuracy can take a back seat to sensationalism sometimes.

      No, I don't believe a majority of our neighbors are against roundabouts, sidewalks on 101, safer speeds, easier turns, better gas mileage, less car maintenance, better landscape, less accidents and less deaths. Hell, I don't even think most of our neighbors see the improvements at Leucadia Roadside Park as "JUNK" nor want them sent to Disneyland as seems to be the few anti-streetscape folks' sentiment. But you're welcome to your own opinion and if you can pull that much wool over people's heads to make it qualify for a vote, that's your right. For all those reasons, money and time saved from doing that would be ever so better spent elsewhere.

      I'm not veering from anything. But what you want will make plenty of drivers nervously veer when they have to make a left turn onto 101. Maybe you could answer one yes or no question for me without veering. I think I've answered yours.

      Do you think it is safer for a neighbor to make a left onto 101 with 3 lanes of 35 mph traffic instead of 1 lane of 15 mph traffic? Yes or no?

      Delete
    3. Regardless of your opinion of the past leadership of the Chamber of Commerce, Fred, a public information request was done, and the results were published. Those results accurately showed the results of the most widely attended workshop's survey, that there is NOT community support for five roundabouts and lane elimination from A Street in Encinitas, with the first roundabout at El Portal and 101, through Leucadia, to La Costa. In going over the results of the workshops, I verified the same thing. ONLY the roundabout at Grandview was "enthusiastically" supported. The roundabout at La Costa allegedly received "strong support. All three of the other roundabouts were "discussed and supported." No actual numbers were provided how the different categories were determined of "enthusiastic" or "strong," or just "discussion" support.

      Once again, Fred, you are veering from the message by trying to bring squabbling and political differences into the question. The question is, for me, if you are so sure that the community workshops facilitated by Peltz and Associates, including Dan Burden are correct, why wouldn't you support the issue of whether or not we want five roundabouts and lane elimination from A Street to La Costa on Historic State Highway 101 on the ballot?

      We have a new Chamber of Commerce now. None of the business groups should be receiving subsidies in my opinion. Now L101MA is the one being greedy, because you are receiving $30,000 as a direct grant, when Cardiff and Downtown Encinitas 101 Business groups are getting $20,000, and the Chamber gets nothing.

      Delete
    4. Fred, again, you are incorrect. The City of Encinitas sued the City of Carlsbad, and Carlsbad, settled. Carlsbad will be "pitching in" for "traffic calming" mitigation, as required by Coastal Act law, because of the planned development near Ponto Beach that has been approved by both Encinitas and Carlsbad. As detailed on the 9/11 Council Meeting staff report, Carlsbad will be helping to fund the La Costa roundabout if that is ever built.

      However, if there is a high volume of traffic at a roundabout installed at La Costa, there is NO guarantee that a traffic signal would not be later put in there, just as traffic signals have been added to high volume roundabouts nationwide, and in Tijuana.

      Delete
    5. In other words, you can't answer one yes or no question.

      Delete
    6. Fred, you are so WRONG! I did object to the $94,000 subsidy to the Chamber of Commerce to move from the old Smart and Final Shopping Center near Cottonwood Creek, as did several volunteers who worked at the former Visitor Center, there.

      The previous location was easier for people to access and egress to and from the freeway. Plus there was never any parking problems. The volunteers who spoke as public speakers and I were ignored.

      I did not then appreciate that Encinitas First was publishing articles about "Home Boy" Jerome Stocks, and Dan Dalager, when they were running for re-election, and had set themselves up to be mayor. I thought it was a violation that a newspaper subsidized through the City was essentially writing "campaign pieces" posing as "articles," about Stocks and Dalager.

      However, the public information request was legitimate. The information was verified, through the city, as collected and quantified by the City. Because we object to some actions, does not make every action illegitimate, particularly not an official CPRA request. Also, the businesses on 101 were surveyed, and the majority of them did not support five roundabouts and lane elimination, beginning at A Street, to La Costa.

      Delete
    7. In other words, you can't answer one yes or no question so you deflect onto another topic.
      Fine. You're wrong too. The referrence in Encinitas First was "Homie" not Home Boy - ask Mike.
      Thirdly, the folks carrying the business survey you mention forgot to poll me and the merchants I know. Where can I get a copy of that?

      Delete
  11. Roundabouts might encumber a parade.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. 2:45
      lol. Damn, I knew I shouldn't have endorsed them!

      Delete
  12. Question. Suppose Pacific View becomes a wonderful art center. What would the next huge expense locals would champion? I'm just askin'.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. The next "huge expense" is to be $20 Million for five roundabouts that are unwanted by the community, Fred.

      The Interregional Sports Complex known at the Hall Property, which citizens of Encinitas, through those workshops, showed we wanted to be a TRUE COMMUNITY PARK, with less dedicated sports fields, and more open space, trails, and an aquatic center, is costing us well over $60 Million, counting the debt service we are paying off over 30 years.

      The State has laws whereby 2/3 of the public must vote for General Obligation Bonds, because it is widely recognized how cumbersome debt can be, as added to our already high property taxes, for those who didn't purchase their properties in the 80's, 70's or before.

      But the City has "gotten around" the GOB requirements by participating in schemes for "lease revenue bonds," which avoid a public vote. However, these lease revenue bonds, after construction of the projects being financed, are to have LEASE REVENUE STREAMS to repay the bank loans.

      Bogus "collateralization" of City assets, such as the Hall Property Park, the Library (which sits on County land) and the Mossy Public Works Yard are not Kosher, but the City "gets away with it," because the banks lending the money are corrupt, too.

      By law, there is to be a Lease Revenue Stream. Pacific View would have one! Fred, it seems you are being single-minded, shortsighted and selfish, because you are perfectly willing for the City to use taxpayer monies to support your pet project, the N101 Streetscape planned in a manner NOT supported by the community. Why won't you come out in support of a ballot measure to determine if there is community support, if you are so certain the current plans have community support?

      I know, from attending numerous public meetings, that an arts and learning community center at Pacific View does have widespread support, but I would be willing to have that issue on a general election ballot, as well.

      Delete
    2. The roundabouts have already been approved, Lynn. I'm talking the next torch held.

      Delete
    3. Fred, they haven't gone through the various commissions, and the CDP process, as well as environmental review, YET. They haven't been "approved" after hearings which Diane Langager said would be required re and EIR or a Mitigated Neg Dec. They haven't been approved by the Coastal Commission, after appeal. And they HAVEN'T been "approved" by a majority of adjacent residents and local commuters. If you are so sure they have community support, then why won't you support their being placed on the General Election Ballot?

      Delete
    4. The same reason I don't want the improvements at Leucadia Roadside Park going to a public vote to be removed. It's a huge waste of money that's counter productive.

      Delete
    5. 1:28pm, It is not a regional sports park, and the community voted for council members who supported a sports oriented park (twice).

      Delete
  13. Given bikers were out in force in front of union and the noise at 8 pm was deafening for those living around there it would be returning our ruined quality of life.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Where was the sheriffs dept. all those straight pipes are illegal in California . I wish someone would get them to do their jobs. Quality of life issues are big.

      The shark

      Delete


  14. "Consideration of Enrolling in Earth Hour City Challenge of the World Wildlife Fund.

    This is a request from Deputy Mayor Shaffer using the recently adopted process that allows for a council member initiated agenda item."

    Another ICLEI ploy in conjunction with the WWF.

    Cities in 15 countries, including six from the previous round as well as Brazil, Belgium, Denmark, Finland, Mexico, the Netherlands, South Korea and Indonesia will participate in the upcoming round of the Earth Hour City Challenge, which will be run by WWF in collaboration with ICLEI - Local Governments for Sustainability and the Swedish Postcode Lottery.

    ICLEI and WWF regularly host webinars to introduce the Earth Hour City Challenge and the carbonn Cities Climate Registry to interested cities.

    ICLEI has become more secretive. You must sign up with them to learn which cities are participating.

    ReplyDelete
  15. The WWF has become a front for ICLEI's new scheme - Bonn Center for Local Action and Report. Use your brains city council - you are being controlled by a subversive group in Germany.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. That's right, they dropped mind control gas from their black helicopters cruising overhead....

      Delete
    2. No, they didn't have to drop mind control gas. The council members are willing stooges.

      Delete
    3. Well, as long as they're willing stooges....

      Delete
  16. I hope this topic gets 150 comments.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I hope at least some council members are reading this and, if for political purposes only, consider doing the right thing. Then again, who am I kidding?

      Delete
  17. OK after wading though all of th BS posted. Did anyone read the staff report? Shaffer is responding to numerous citizen requests sent to her on this issue. NOT just whiners on a blog by so called activist AKA couch potatos.

    ReplyDelete
  18. Couch potatos with a voice. Now spud along.

    ReplyDelete
  19. 7:55 PM Shaffer knows the connection. She loves iclei.

    ReplyDelete
  20. Who said a dirty commie under every bed ? Ronald Reagan,you people are very scarey.Progressive NO Regressive I think.

    ReplyDelete
  21. A pathetic whine me thinks

    ReplyDelete
  22. Note that Shaffer's citizen responses are always couched in the passive voice: "No one in the City has told me about that yet," "I've not asked, personally," and dead silence if the citizen pushes her to pursue.

    Doesn't fall within my definition of a response.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. That pretty much sums up my experience with Lisa. She won't usually even say hi to me when I say hi to her first.

      Delete
    2. Boo Hoo! She's not there to give you a hug, she's there to work....

      Delete
    3. Hard to tell what she's doing work-wise when all she can offer is her own boo-hoo "Nobody told me" to pretty much everything. Pay attention to what she writes and says very closely...she is the master of rather obviously playing the blame game.

      Delete
    4. She and the others are duplicitous. That is why they look miserable up there.

      Delete
    5. I bet she's doing more than Gaspar and Mark Muir. Sounds like a lot of sour grapes to me. I mean, do we want Stocks, Bonds and Danny back? Nothing will ever be perfect, I think I a lot of people got the false notion that their vote in the last election would equal perfection at city hall. Anyone who's been around for more than a minute knows that's not how it works. Like it or not, change will take time...

      Delete
    6. What votes this year would have gone differently under a Stocks/Bond/Dalager council?

      Delete
  23. In my opinion, Lisa Shaffer has failed to show good leadership on those priorities which she did bring up at Council Meetings, such as adding more commissions. Why wouldn't she support an Ethics and Open Government Commission or Committee?

    Also, Lisa Shaffer brought up the idea of evaluations for our City Manager and City Attorney, and we know how that turned out!

    Fred, instead of always diverting back to your favorite subject of how wonderful roundabouts are, could you answer the question, do you or do you not support more direct democracy and allowing a true needs assessment through more questions being put on general election ballots, including the question of roundabouts?

    Roundabouts were voted down in the cities of Cotati and Del Mar at the last general election. In Cotati, the public put the question on the ballot through the initiative process, as we did here, with Prop A, but at a Special Election for Prop A, because public support for that initiative was so widespread, as demonstrated by the number of petition signatures gathered, over 8,000, thanks to the diligent, hard work of grassroots volunteers.

    In Del Mar, City Council put the question of roundabouts on the ballot, as that change required an amendment to their Specific Plan. Pam Slater-Price, who, thankfully also advocated FOR, Prop A, as you did, Fred, advocated AGAINST roundabouts in Del Mar, for the same reason as many adjacent residents are here, slower emergency response times (already subpar on the Coast, in Leucadia) and more traffic cutting through our residential neighborhoods (and a school zone on Vulcan).

    Also, as in Solana Beach, many here object to the tremendous costs of the roundabouts. We feel the money for the roundabouts, $20 Million, and the money for three more underpasses, $19.2 Million, BOTH AMOUNTS would best be combined and should instead go toward undergrounding the train! The community would vote to support that!

    Do you or do you not support a public vote, Fred? Or should we just passively let the Leucadia 101 Mainstreet Association's Board of Directors and City staff tell us what is "good for us?" When given the opportunity to vote, the citizens, voted AGAINST Council, staff and L101MA's Board of Directors recommendations against what we DO WANT AND NEED; we voted IN SUPPORT of the Citizen's right to vote by voting YES on Prop A.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. At some point though, we can not have a vote on every single issue. Our democracy doesn't work that way, whether it should or not is another issue. We elect our chosen representatives, and if we don't like them, we can vote them out every four years. Anyone here who disagrees with how it's going now, I invite you to run in 4 years or support someone else. And BTW, you would need Federal $ to underground the train, the city will never have enough resources by itself. Why did Solana Beach pull it off? They had good leadership that got the money while the Jim Bonds of the world up here fiddled...

      Delete
    2. We tried...they failed us. Who knew?

      Delete
  24. The public has already been given a voice Lynn at may meetings and workshops. You want to stall that. There is overwhelming support for Leucadia Streetscape. I'm all for democracy but not wasting people's time and money taking giant steps backwards thwarting safety, efficeincy and beauty for Leucadia because of a few irrational people who think the improvements at Leucadia Roadside Park are "JUNK". Now, please you or any of your anti-roundabut crowd please enlighten me and answer my yes or no question regarding left turns onto the hwy.

    "Do you think it is safer for a neighbor to make a left onto 101 with 3 lanes of 35 mph traffic instead of 1 lane of 15 mph traffic? Yes or no? " Your explaination of WHY will be equally informative.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. My point is that although some members of the public were given a voice, that voice was distorted and tweaked as facilitators and city subsidiaries/sponsors massaged the numbers and tweaked the statistics, spinning it toward their pre-determined goals. I do feel that should be addressed. The same thing was happening with the General Plan Update, through MIG, which had to be rebooted. The public, in the GPU scenario, also supposedly supported MIG's bogus results and invalid "surveys!"

      Delete
    2. And Fred, you keep trying to turn this into a safety issue, when the city's own collision statistics on the intersections where roundabouts are to be installed do not demonstrate they need to be installed due to safety factors.

      We can't reduce the speed limit to 15 MPH at every intersection in the city so that people will have an easier time making a left hand turn at non signalized, non-stop sign intersections. Where I often pull out, to turn left, at El Portal, has never been a problem for me, as it was for you. You are allowing your accident to cloud your logic, Fred, imo.

      FIVE roundabouts, four of them one-lane, forcing traffic to bottleneck northbound and southbound into one lane in each direction, are not the answer. We could redirect the money to undergrounding the train. Talk to Gary Murphy!

      Delete
    3. "Where I often pull out, to turn left, at El Portal, has never been a problem for me, as it was for you"

      I understand some people have a hard time with physics, math and science. A lot of people don't know which end is up when they look at a map. But I was not pulling out of El Portal when my van was crushed. I was T-boned by the other driver who did not stop sailing through the El Portal stop sign. There's nothing cloudy about safety when intersections vs roundabouts. It's clear science.

      I'm glad you've never had a problem turning left onto 101. Many other people have. Some are not alive to talk about it. But you still have not answered my simple yes or no question regarding left turns. Your refusal to do so is telling.

      Delete
  25. The public has not been given a voice, Fred. If you listened to last Wednesday's labyrinthine description attempted by Ed Deane, you know that the workshops and supposed input was sliced and diced and re-assembled so many times, he could not have repeated what he said if his life depended on it.

    Interesting to note that the "voice" supposedly given residents did not include "none of the above" on surveys. Those few who did respond were offered a multiple variant of a Hobson's choice, a "free choice in which only one option is offered."

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. In a roundabout way this is all a mute point since a large % in Encinitas are driving around drunk! From flower capital to # 1 DUI generator.

      Delete
    2. I think how much "voice" we have is a separate issue. I support as much as can be tolerated without debate strangling any progress. To me the issue isn't the current council, it's the bulk of the councils of the last 20 years who didn't give a rats rump for the people of this city. Now we have a lot of issues to face, and people aren't happy anyway thanks to the recession and the realization that the endless bubbles and runups last the remainder of our lifetimes. A lot of that energy is now focused on city hall. It's good to shine the light, but to a lot of the trumpets on this board, I would say "Where were you the last 20 years" when Stocks, Bonds etc. constantly got re-elected....

      Delete
    3. We were there, never voting for those fools...many have theories on what part of town had what loyalties over the years, but thankfully we're moving finally to being on the same page, more or less.

      The problem with the current council is that with Barth, Shaffer, Kranz, we thought we were getting on thing and ended up with more of the same. While the past 20 years have built up to this point, those three are doing zip to address the big problems. Try writing Barth and Kranz: they go aggressive, even with the most politely-worded inquiries; try Shaffer and she goes passive as a wet noodle. Muir and Gaspar were lost causes from the get-go.

      Too bad they're all perpetuating the past - makes it hard to move on.

      Delete
    4. Maybe you need to change your approach, I've had no problem communicating with anyone and Tony especially has helped us address some longstanding issues in Leucadia. Sounds like you're bringing some baggage to the table....

      Delete
    5. He's been defensive ever since he turned coat on supporters over Prop A. That's the "baggage" I guess, but not on the supporters' side...he either can't or won't explain his sudden allegiance to developers interests over residents.

      Delete
    6. Maybe's he's on neither side, but you clearly have an issue with his opposition to prop A., which is your right. I personally agreed with his take. Let's be honest, the developers will not give up in this town until they develop every single scrap of land. Unfortunately, that fight will not go away. Developers develop, if only they had some conscious...

      Delete
  26. It really is time for a new survey set. How many of you know that for the last "Vision" workshops, people voted Yes/No/Deserves Consideration, but that the "Deserves Consideration" votes were turned by staff into "Yeses" and counted that way. Ask staff, they'll tell you, and they'll also tell you they had no problem doing it.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. In other words, neither Lynn, 3:47 nor 3:45 dare answer the question.

      Delete
    2. I'm 3:47 and I don't have an answer for your left-turn question - yet. I'm still trying to wrap my brain around what is real and what isn't re: what the city is proposing.

      I'm not going to get hung up on left turns when the city still can't answer how it is physically possible that squeezing two lanes down to one will not cause a back-up. Think a tube of toothpaste, think a sand timer, come up with your own analogy, but until the city can demonstrate how it plans to escape the laws of physics, I'm not going to get dragged into some left-turn traffic scenario with you or anyone else. Sorry to disappoint!

      Delete
    3. I also attended a meeting for the GPU and voted “deserves consideration” for questions about round abouts in Leucadia. The reason that I made this choice was because I live in a different community, and I didn't want to have a negative impact on Leucadia residents by voting 'yes' or 'no.' By what staff did with my vote in taking what I thought was a request for a refined investigation, and turning it into an answer that benefitted staff members themselves, I did greater injury to my Leucadia friends and neighbors than citizens who stayed at home. I had wanted for Leucadia citizens to decide this local issue, but the staff stole my vote.

      I mentioned this problem and my feeling of voluntary survey participant turned tool to both Daniel Iocafano and Gus Vina, and they both said that they saw my point. Daniel Iocafano admitted that it was "deceptive," and said that he didn't do it. What else could he say when he holds a PhD from Berkeley and an advanced degree in experimental psychology from a British university? I asked Iocafona who changed the answers of ‘deserves consideration’ to ’yes,’ and he answered, "staff."

      This is only a single example of poor professional and ethical standards at the city. The lowest standard of research should be to do no harm. The way that the GPU and other city outreach projects have been conducted has been harmful to residents who participated in them. In addition, we paid over $1.6 million to consultants on the GPU, and there are absolutely no valid results on account of the way that it was conducted and the way that Encinitas staff members corrupted the data.

      Delete
    4. Oh, shut up, Fred. I don't spend my day hanging on your every question on this blog! I answered your questions, belatedly. Don't jump to any more false conclusions than you already have about what anyone may or may not "dare" to do. LOL!

      Delete
    5. No one's dared answer the question yet, Lynn. And if you have answered either yes or no somewhere, we all must have missed it. But you can't blame us for not finding a needle in a haystack so why don't you tell us which it was once again? Thanks.

      Delete
  27. And speaking of left turns, had to share some bozo karma with a funky trolley...

    http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=1d6_1379910191

    ReplyDelete
  28. OMG.... can you ramble on any more with more ignorance. Its obvious Lynn and the KLCC have no common sense.

    The project was well vetted in the public as we heard from the numbers provided at the Council meeting which proved again how huge of a liar Shiela Cameron is when speaking in front of Council.

    No sense explaining things to people who will never get it.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. That you, Charlie Marvin? City worker? YOUR problem is we do get it :D

      Delete
    2. Here, here! Poor Sheila!

      Delete
  29. Pffff. Right. We can see how successful you've been in your lives with your twisted outlook. Keep up the delusions!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Sorry we're getting between you and your projects penciling out.

      Delete
    2. thats not the way I see it.... you are justing wasting time which you seem to have plenty of... cause it appears you do nothing all day and night but push keys to post ridiculous blog comments.

      Delete
    3. Again, so sorry...not.

      Delete
  30. Hi 3:47
    "I'm not going to get hung up on left turns when the city still can't answer how it is physically possible that squeezing two lanes down to one will not cause a back-up."

    All our roundabouts are preceeded by one lane. They all work well. Whenever they clog it is due to stop signs or stop lights - not other circulation improvements. The northbound lane for about a mile was narrowed to one lane for our enire perfect summer and there was no back up problem - just everyone going slower. The cool thing about that is it just takes one car in one lane to make everyone behind them go 35 mph. The northbound lane has only 25% less traffic than the southbound. Hwy 101 already narrows to one lane in parts of Carlsbad, Cardiff, Solana Beach, Del Mar and La Jolla.

    Your sand timer analogy is a good one. It's a continous flow with no stopping. Add 22 stops to the sand in your egg timer and see how much better your neighbor's breakfast tastes over easy.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Fred, don't you DARE to answer my question? Do you or do you not support the public's right to vote on this? That would be a true needs assessment for a project "penciled out" for at least $20. Most people would MUCH rather see TransNET tax funding for three more pedestrian underpasses at $19.2 Million and the $20 Million + for five roundabouts, go toward undergrounding the train. We can do it if we really want to!

      Why not let EVERYONE, not just so-called STAKHOLDERS have a voice, Fred. Those workshops, from the beginning, did NOT have "enthusiastic" or "strong" support for FIVE roundabouts on Highway 101, through Leucadia, beginning at El Portal!

      Delete
    2. I meant STAKEHOLDERS, but most of the voting public does not EVER go to Council Meetings, much less "workshops." The "average" person is NOT counted by the City's bogus contractor/lobbyist/facilitator "workshops."

      Delete
    3. For over 20 years people have had a voice about what we want for Leucadia Lynn. NOT only "stakeholders" but everyone else concerned enough to become involved regardless of what their holding. And like someone else said, you have to draw a line somewhere about every thing you want having a public vote. Truth is most people don't care to even vote and the average voter votes for someone to make good decisions for them and overwhelmingly PREFERS infrastructure improvements to their neighborhoods. But we all can understand there will always be a small group of people who will insist on a public vote to determine wheter or not we should send the improvements at Roadside Park to Disneyland. That's messed up.

      Delete
    4. Fred, you don't have to draw a line AGAINST our getting to vote on a $20 Million project that is AGAINST the wishes of most of the community. Why do we have to draw that line? Because you don't want your "massaged" statistics "overthrown," and invalidated?

      Because most of the people who know about the plans for five roundabouts and lane elimination ARE AGAINST THEM, and a public vote would prove that. TRUTH IS most people don't think that five roundabouts and lane elimination would be an "infrastructure improvement," either for our neighborhoods OR for local commuters. You can try to spin your jive all you want, but you and the Board of Directors of L101MA don't support more direct democracy, don't support a public vote on this, because you are AFRAID you would not get your way, which you have been getting, so far, with our broken promise Council!

      Voting on this is not voting on "everything." I personally feel that the City could afford to spend $23,000 for questions on General Election ballots for public works projects that will cost $5 Million or more.

      It sure looks as though you disfavor a public vote because you FEAR the public DISFAVORS this bogus project, which would be a huge BOONDOGGLE!

      Delete
    5. If Leucadians have had an effective voice for over twenty years, then that means we essentially love Leucadia the way it has been for twenty years. We did want improved sidewalks, and we got big improvements, on those. That is part of the streetscape we absolutely support, on Leucadia Blvd., too, with more at grade crossings and a bicycle railtrail corridor with more bicycle lanes, OFF the highway.

      We want to keep it Funky, Fred. Five roundabouts are NOT funky; it's gentrification and trying to turn us into a generic "mainstreet USA" version of what our small town used to be.

      Funky is not huge, out of place, boulders in Roadside Park instead of the picnic table and benches. Funky is not cattle style fencing, when there was no need for fencing around the park. Funky is not destroying two beautiful old trees because they had some hollows, which is common with mature trees. No botanist, with at least a four year degree's worth of expertise was ever consulted on our historic, landmark cypress trees' being killed, cut down by those who are so sure they're always "right."

      No, the people of Leucadia have had a voice, but not with the City, for the most part. Those that have had a voice with the City are special interests, who before wanted to declare Leucadia BLIGHTED, the same people who try to insist that those who object to four one lane roundabouts placed where they are not recommended by the U.S. Dept. of transportation, want to keep Leucadia "ugly."

      Leucadia is funky; it isn't ugly; but there are some ugly posters, here.

      Delete
    6. "We want to keep it Funky, Fred. Five roundabouts are NOT funky; it's gentrification and trying to turn us into a generic "mainstreet USA" version of what our small town used to be."

      What our small town used to be was a a two lane dirt road with no N/S stops at all. Later on it became a 65 mph 4 lane drag strip with only 2 stops between here and Dell Mar until 1967. The first Leucadia was quaint and easy going, but the 2nd was a death trap for decades locals called "Slaughter Alley". I was here for many of those deaths. THAT was ugly. That's also why guard rails cropped up in the 50's. That's why the bottom 4 feet of ALL the trees were painted WHITE before that in the 1940's. THOSE were some ugly additions to our town. Now, right after we return to a calmer, slower speed limit with fewer lanes, you and a VERY FEW OTHERS want to widen the hwy again to invite more cars to fit on it. In your stubborness against the proven benefits of roundabouts, you also don't want our neighbors to make safer turns onto 101 and to make sure they don't, you fabricate myths of gridlock and a boogeyman of high density synonymous with roundabouts. Neither do you use science or examples to back up your claims, but misquote the U.S Dept of Transportation whenever possible. Makes me really wonder WHAT your motivation is. Winning an argument? Power hungry?

      The people of Leucadia have long wanted a restored tree canopy; new sidewalks, attractive street lamps (like the ones we had here in the 1920's) - slower speed limits, better drainage, better bike lanes, better landscaping and whatever else makes Leucadia safer and more enjoyable. That whatever else surely includes the safety, beauty and efficiency of roundabouts instead of the inevitblity of more stop signs/lights. Like it or not Lynn. And it's good to know you support the twisted opinion that the Leucadia Roadside Park improvements are gentrified "JUNK". But beauty is in the eye of the beholder, and MOST of our neighbors welcome the new look with improved landscaping with great plants, funky boulders, natural wood rail fence and vintage style street lamp posts. The park looks better than ever and there's still room to restore the picnic tables, drinking fountain and bar-b-que grill. The small cypress trees you demean that replaced the diseased ones are looking higher and healthier every day. I think they're up to 30 feet but are filling out the space nicely. Standing in the way of these Streetscape improvements is what's ugly.

      Removing the new landscaping and infrastructural improvements at Leucadia Roadside Park so that it may return to it's former state and option of canoe paddling may be prefered by you and a few others but not by the majority. Thankfully. And there's no frickin way I will entertain the nonsense of a belief system like that going to a public vote, Lynn. We've all worked long and hard to achieve attention from the city for these improvements. I'm surprised you live in our neck of the woods and want to work contrary to that.

      Delete
  31. Sorry, not buying it....

    ReplyDelete
  32. While I have no problem with roundabouts, I do have a concern with the timing of construction. Specifically, if the La Costa Ave. roundabout is constructed first there will be fewer traffic breaks on southbound 101 making it more difficult to cross to head north. I'm not sure this has been taken into account.

    ReplyDelete
  33. The biggest waste of time Council time for this year and the next year is the strategic plan by ex-Sacramento/Stockton city official Gus Vina. The uncaring and unthinking 5 Council members want to follow Vina's vision of an Encinitas that looks and smells like Sacramento and Stockton.

    ReplyDelete
  34. I'll second that. Waste of time.

    ReplyDelete
  35. I'll third that...

    Biggest failure of council.. 100% support of Sad Sac and the SP waste of time to let him retire before being fired.

    ReplyDelete
  36. Lynn why don't you run for office? Are you afraid of people like YOU?

    ReplyDelete
  37. Why don't you share your name, anon 11:14? Are you afraid of people like you?

    And why don' you answer my questions about allowing the public to decide before the City undertakes a hugely expensive project that does NOT have widespread public support?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. 6:37, you are the same meatpuppet as 11:14! We know how early you like to get up, and compulsively come to this blog to trash me and turn the conversation nasty.

      Why don't you post under your own name instead of attacking someone who does, potty mouth? Instead of answering my questions about a public vote, you are trying to distract with BS about my running for office. I double dare YOU to run for office, hypocrite.

      My running for office is something you'd like, because you are OBSESSED, but it's not going to happen so get over it, low life.

      Delete
    2. I think you're onto something Lynn. An annoymous mayor. And what an interesting portrait wall at city hall that would make with a mayor in a ski mask. (Not to mention ribbon cutting ceremonies and all other photo ops).

      Delete
  38. 11:14,

    You hit the nail on the head. People like L are called shit slingers. Only throwing a bunch of shit on the wall and they get an endorphin rush when some other KLCC agrees with any of the stinky shit.

    Only complaints and shit, no solutions. Thats why no one takes Lword seriously. We all know she is wacked. You can tell that by just looking at her before she starts the endless rambling..... Actions speak louder than words. Lword has never done anything positive for Leucadia or Encinitas.

    Note to WC- No name calling here. only a discussion about the type of shit slingers we have in Encinitas.

    Another one that fits the "mold" is the Sword. Right?

    I can't wait to see if any KLCC will run for office. That will be fun! What was their last losers name?... what did she get like 2 percent. I think Bob N. got more votes in the last election than she did.

    ReplyDelete
  39. This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete
  40. 6:37:

    You are a hammer, in the hands of a psychopath, pounding relentlessly. You would destroy a million blogs, try to crucify any messenger, if only to get a rise out of your own, rusty nails that you try to use to pound everyone with your distractions and distortions of truth. This is the last time I will bother to respond to you.

    You are beneath my contempt. Don't think we don't know who you are. You have created your own Karma, meatpuppet. Post under your own name, or keep your trashy mouth shut. Bullies always are cowards, but you can no longer hide behind your anonymity, here.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. This comment has been removed by the author.

      Delete
    2. Yeah right. Better stick with bitching... your poetic side is stinkier than your shit throwing....

      Delete
  41. Lynn is good for this community. Having passion for a great encinitas is a gift. Wish more would stand up against greed & injustice.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Try a hobby of shit throwing...

      No solutions only shit against a wall....

      Delete
  42. Thanks, 12:00 Noon :)

    See you at the CC Meeting, tonight.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. doubt it.. no one can stand your ramblings....

      Watch the Council cringe when this total waste of time gets up to speak.

      What a waste of time and tax payer money. You share that commonality with Jerome.

      Delete
  43. 11:14: ARGO

    Lynn- You GO girl!!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. thanks for the clarification.

      Delete
  44. I can tell u what Lynn will say...

    Blah, blah, blah...

    Same as every meeting

    ReplyDelete