Encinitas mayor-sharing deal unraveling The council initiated option allows individual council members to place an item on the agenda for full council discussion at a public meeting. It is unfortunate that some critics do not recognize that asking questions and debating issues in an open forum is a more transparent and honest approach.We wonder who those critics are who can't see that a move to take away Kristin Gaspar's turn as mayor in a unanimously agreed power-sharing deal after Barth has already had her turn is just "asking questions and debating issues in an open forum."
And we wish Barth had had this philosophy of open debate on Prop A, the most important recent public policy issue in Encinitas. But perhaps open debate is only appropriate for high school drama.
Nevertheless, Lisa Shaffer did take to her public Councilmember Lisa Shaffer Facebook page to defend the move.
We were really looking forward to an answer to those questions. Then another of Shaffer's constituents came along and commented.
Finally, Shaffer responded. You can see her response here.
I feel very little trust and transparency in these actions.
ReplyDeleteThis "conversation" business comes from Gus' vocab.
ReplyDeleteIt looks like Vina is encouraging the majority of 3 to do bring this up as a distraction away from the fact that he has not presented an actual budget.
DeleteThis is drama to take our minds off of the fact that they are pushing through more crazy financial decisions that Encinitas residents will be stuck paying off for years to come.
9:34 AM
DeleteDid you just pull this out of your butt?
11.37
DeleteSo where is the talk that encinitas is broke, has no money for projects, is raising fees on citizens, is discussing installing parking meters, is discussing raising taxes, has debt service it can't afford, roads it can't fix and parks it can't maintain please show me where kranz Shaffer of Barth talk about this
5:26 PM
DeleteAll in your head.
Gaspar is owed nothing in politics you must have the votes,I think she told Teresa that before stabbing her in the back when she jump to vice mayor under Stocks .
ReplyDeleteexcept the problem is Lisa and Teresa called Gaspar unethical for that. Now that they have the votes, Teresa and Lisa are willing do that for which they criticized Gaspar. They are all uncivil and unethical.
DeleteTwo wrongs don't make a right.
ReplyDeleteSo true, 9:29. The best thing that could have happened to Kristin Gaspar and Mark Muir, politically, was that Jerome Stocks was voted out of office. I had conversations with both of them when I attended the ad hoc subcommittee meetings for raising our SDWD rates. I shared with them that there was a strong perception that Kristin had been mentoring under Stocks, and they both were tied to developers. I talked about how many of us felt betrayed re Prop A, and Barth, Shaffer and Kranz, but that we knew everyone on Council in their ballot statements, and Glenn Sabine in his non-facutual so-called impartial analysis had turned the conjecture and speculation of the Rutan and Tucker "independent" (pro-development) report into outright lies. I know that lies and liars are strong words, but sometimes strong language is well-deserved.
DeleteI wasn't sharing this with them to criticize, but to explain what I felt the public perception was, of Council, and of the City Manager, City Attorney and staff. They treated me with respect. They allowed me to sit at the table, with staff, the consultant, next to them, as I was the only member of the public in attendance.
Whatever you feel their motivations are or were, their actions to me were kinder and more inclusive. When I attended the subcommittee of Barth and Shaffer on Council policy and protocol, I was made to feel like a leper. I wasn't allowed to ask questions; I could only speak for three minutes before Lisa and Teresa went on for nearly two hours, asking Kathy Hollywood questions, getting her feedback, but shunning me. Teresa and Lisa were intent on eliminating time donations for individuals, and there was a strike-out copy of the written policy to prove it, for those members of the public who, thankfully, attended the next subcommittee meeting.
All of you who are saying, oh that's just politics are ascribing to situational ethics, over integrity. Teresa said a long time ago, Council could make all the rules and agreements in the world, but if a person doesn't have integrity, he or she will find a way to bend the rules and to cheat. Dan Dalager was a classic example of that.
Kristin and Mark have been receptive and courteous to me, as an individual. They have not de-friended me on Facebook as Teresa and Tony did, when I objected that people had to pay to hear the State of the City Address last year. Mark and Kristin had each offered me a free ticket, but I respectfully said no, I was going to boycott, because I felt, at the very least, the State of the City Address should be repeated at City Hall, during a regular Council Meeting, as an agenda item, to which the public could make comments.
Now, despite a public information request, Teresa Barth and the City Manager (Gus Vina was on the State of the City Committee last year and this year; Peder Norby was last year, and probably this year, as well) will not inform me who the other members of this year's State of the City Committee were. I am told by the Clerk's office, through Claudia Bingham, that event was privately sponsored, so the City doesn't have that information. For public/private partnerships, the City should provide information requested through CPRA requests.
Lisa Shaffer would never accept my friendship, on Facebook to begin with. But when Teresa and Tony de-friended me, Lisa somehow changed her privacy settings so that I couldn't read comments on her Councilmember Lisa Shaffer Facebook page, nor could I comment, myself, as I could, before. I could still see the main post, shared, here, by WC, before she deleted it, just not EU and Lorri Greene's comments. Lisa Shaffer is becoming notorious for either deleting comments and posts from her own page, or having them deleted, as she did on Encinitas Patch, not because of foul language, or abusive comments, but because she is "above" answering relevant questions put to her.
Contrary, a right can undo a wrong.
DeleteSounds to me that 12:11 is an extremely needy individual. Someone please give her some attention.
DeleteI guess you need attention for your repeated, inane posts, that have NOTHING to do with WC's topic on this thread.
DeleteShaffer is running scared. Her academic credentials lead people to erronously believe she had some innate ability to make decisions and act accordingly. It is now obvious she is hiding under the bed and not rocking the USS Vina. In the Ivory Tower, empty rhetoric was acceptable - in real world politics, some direction is called for - she has none.
ReplyDeleteShaffer runs when really challenged.
DeleteHow does Muir's agenda item to not hire any additional employees until the city's finances can be reviewed, have anything to do with this??? At first it was that he was trying to sabotage Pacific View and playing politics (I don't get either of those comments) and now all of a sudden it perfectly alright to raise these question. Lisa, get your story straight before you open your mouth!!!
ReplyDeleteIt is amazing that Shaffer and Barth seem surprised by the reaction to their moves.
ReplyDeleteThey also have an overinflated sense of the importance of holding the appointed mayoral position at the time of the election. They should ask Stocks how that went.
Their problem is that they have an overinflated sense of themselves.
Hey All-How about we let this alone and talk about who is running for Council. So far, we have Alex Fidel, Catherine Blakenpeare( sorry if spelled wrong), maybe Brandenburg, is there anyone else? We can't do anything about this particular situation at this time, so why don't we move on?
ReplyDeleteDon't vote for Brandenburg, he's always come off as totally clueless in town halls in the past. Fidel doesn't have a chance. That leaves you with Graboi and Brakespeare.
DeleteWhat does anyone know about Graboi?
DeleteJulie Graboi is running for council and have my vote!! Go JULIE!!!
ReplyDeleteThe way I see it is that Tony desperately wants to be mayor. Why? Well, that should be pretty obvious. Just go to his FB page and you will see all you need to know. His Mustang group has parties at bars all over town. He loves his new friends, that wouldn't give him the time of day before he was on the council, he will get paid more, and he gets the spotlight, maybe for the first time in his life. I understand that. Only one problem. He doesn't understand that being on the council is more than social. It comes with responsibility, both fiscal and practical. He has to read stuff and understand it. He has to vote on things he may not understand, so he goes with T and B. Every once in a while he goes with Muir. If anyone believes for one minute that Shaffer and Kranz, didn't talk about what they filed to be on the agenda this Weds. must be living under a rock. It is almost statistically impossible for them not to know what the other was putting on the agenda, as they both added it I think on the same day. Personally, I don't care if Teresa is mayor for the whole year. What I find offensive is the way it is being played out.
ReplyDeleteAnd you expected more from the petty politicians in Mayberry by the Sea ?? Naive simpletons one and all.
DeleteShaffer has a very annoying and condescending way of commenting on the decisions of her fellow council members (especially Gaspar and Muir) in her weekly newsletter. Who appointed her to be the reporter of the council's actions? That judgmental tone of the other council members cannot build any sense of team spirit within the council's dynamics.
ReplyDeleteIn this case, she strongly criticized Muir for "playing politics" several times after the decision to buy PV. And now she says she supported his asking of the questions. That is the kind of support nobody needs. If anyone was ever "playing politics", it is Shaffer, and she is terrible at it.
Doesn't it smell like a Brown Act violation that these two related agenda items ended up on the agenda without any prior public discussion? How could that have happened without at least Kranz and Shaffer having discussed the situation before and deciding to take the action?
Right, but you're inferring that tone via the written word. I would add that Lisa verbally does come off with a condescending tone, which I think is partly her, partly the academic background. Something she needs to work on, but if she's only going to run for one term, who knows.
DeleteSadly, we are never going to get satisfaction with a Brown act violation. We didn't get it when Bond/Stocks got together on a regular basis and we're not going to get it now.
The Brown act is a good idea, but is clearly unenforceable..
Can anyone really imagine Tony the Dunce running a council meeting, week after week?
ReplyDeleteHold on for the comedy.
This all stinks to high heaven. I would not like to think our own local representatives came up with this without slimy gus' big city influence in affect. Wake the heck up council! Fire this interloper and the ca and try to lead for a change. You are our voice. I have trouble finding any evidence of that in any council actions since this piece of slime has come on board as our, not yours, city manager. The power to be there for us is in your hands and not slimeys. Show a little backbone and tell gus where he can stick it. Until he is out of here, you, our council,not his, are failing your publics trust in you. Without that none of you will survive any election process. I find it so disheartening that recent reports of Tony exhibiting aggressive behaviors in closed sessions toward fellow council members has occurred. After his lowness' similar behavior I hoped this would have become a thing of the past. Not so apparently. Prop A folks we have a strong council candidate in Julie that will not kowtow to any of this crap. Now if we can just come up with a strong mayor to join with her in a united front for true change we can show princess the door and the remaining three which way the wind is finally blowing. Sure they will still have a majority but the way forward will be undeniable. Get on board or be shown the door. Honor those who chose to serve our nation this weekend.
ReplyDeleteLISA’S AGENDA
DeleteThis is very simple.
Shaffer is a councilwoman with an office two doors down from Kristin Gaspar.
Shaffer claims she has to know Kristin Gaspar’s intentions towards higher office.
Shaffer could walk down, knock on the door and ask,“ Hey, Kristin, have you made up your mind on whether you are going to run for Council the Mayorship, or maybe, if my prayers are answered, retire from politics?"
Kristin looks up from the financial paperwork on the new million dollars a year in debt-service the council majority has signed the city up for and says,” I don't know, Doctor Shaffer, I have till July 13th according to the City Clerk and County Registrar of Voters, before I have to decide."
Rapid Eye Movement
Shaffer's blood-pressure blips and she shakes her head back and forth,"Er, no, not really, Kristin, I've decided I HAVE to know what your decision is this Wednesday night, because if you believe ‘Teresa, Tony and I’ are going to live up to our agreement with you last December, you are sadly mistaken. In fact, you'll find this out at 5:00 pm today anyway, I've agendised this exact question: and this news just in, if you tell me that you are running for Mayor, then Teresa, Tony and I have discussed it, repeatedly, and we will all vote to extend Teresa for the rest of the year as Mayor and you will not be the Mayor from mid-June till next December like we agreed. And then after that, we will make your life so miserable that either you will decide for yourself not to run for Mayor in the fall, or we'll come up with some other reason to stop your campaign. Possibly Kooties, or worse!"
Lisa’s Agenda Continued
Delete"Lisa, why would you do this?" Kristin asked her fellow councilwoman.
"Oh,” exclaims Shaffer,” and in an unrelated coincidence, Tony has agendised his decision not to accept the Deputy Mayor's seat in June."
"Why?" asks Kristin.
"Because Tony believes that its inappropriate for a temporary Mayor to run for Mayor, and you know we've conned him into.. I mean, he has decided to run for Mayor against you this Fall."
“First,” Kristin asks somberly, “Does this mean I can’t count on your endorsement for Mayor? Or do you need to talk with Teresa and Tony about that?”
“I doubt it!” Lisa simmers.
Kristin continues.
"So, because Teresa has blown up her political career and decided not to run for Mayor, and Tony has decided to run for Mayor, I don't get a turn of being Mayor, because ‘you and Teresa and Tony’ have cooked up this excuse because you are tired of answering questions about overpaying for Pacific View?"
"Exactly, er, I mean, No, this is just an, er, a forum I think Teresa said when ‘she and I and Tony’ all discussed it for the third time this morning. It has nothing to do with budgets or finance or anything like that."
"Remember last year, Lisa, when you called the Union Tribune and tattled on Mark Muir because of some word that was wrong in an e-mail invitation?'
"Yes, Kristin, I do."
“And remember, when you found out that Mark Muir had already edited the thing that you thought he was guilty of and you freaked because the reporter was going to print in his story that you called him and tried to 'Narc' on Mark?"
'Kristin! What does that false story by that lying reporter have to do with this Wednesday?"
"Well, you told the press this time that you saw an invitation to an event where, again, Mark Muir, had misprinted that I was running for the Mayor's seat when that was a mistake and wasn't true because I haven’t decided and I called him up and told him so."
"That's probably a lie, but what about it?" Asks Shaffer.
Lisa’s Agenda Continued
Delete"The first time, you could have just called Mark and asked him 'What is up with that?" And Mark would have given you the answer. But, it was your intention to be hurtful.”
"Or, like now, you can always walk down a couple doors and ask me something like,"Hey Kristin, someone sent me an e-mail that looked like you were raising money to become Mayor and you said that you hadn't made a decision, so, you are a big fat liar and I am going to expose you as such this Wednesday night at the Council meeting!”
“And then I could answer you by saying,’ Thanks for asking me to my face, Lisa. No, I have not made a decision and I asked Mark to make the changes to his invitation to communicate my indecision so as not to mislead folks.' and then, ‘you wouldn't have had to have three meetings with Tony and Teresa’, and you wouldn't have to embarrass yourself in public again."
"Because, Lisa, all you are proving by this tactic is that you don't have the integrity or class to call Mark or I, you are a backstabber, pure and simple. And your true intent is to inflict pain on others. And poor Tony for being sucked into this."
Lisa bites her tongue and turns red and Kristin reaches crossed her desk and offers up,” Mint?"
Lisa shakes her head ‘No’.
“Was there anything else?” Kristin asks.
“Yeah,” answers Shaffer, “Who is Ralph M. Brown again?”
The Moral of this story is: neither Lisa Shaffer nor Teresa Barth have the ability to play fair, or just take a meeting and express to their peers that they are not in agreement without personalizing and condemning those they oppose.
Lisa's Agenda-Finale
DeleteBelow is a verbatim passage from Lisa Shaffer's May 9th weekly newsletter entitled 'Mea Culpa': after reading it you will once again see clearly that someone else, wasn't sure how to identify Kristin because of the nearly unprecedented shared-power agreement between Barth and Gaspar that most citizens are aware of: but notice Shaffer's tone, the snark, haughtiness and lack of maturity in a piece written for constituents to read: an online photo from the Leichtag Foundation website that Kristin had no knowledge of prior to it being posted. Yet, Shaffer is incensed."Who does she think she is!? She's not the Mayor yet!"
Shaffer's unabridged newsletter from 5-9-14
"Some eyebrows have been raised at the sight of the label "Mayor-Elect Kristin Gaspar" appearing in publications and websites. We haven't yet chosen our first elected mayor, so you may wonder what's up? Last December we were scheduled to make our last selection of mayor under the "old" rules - the five Council members vote and choose one among us to be mayor and one to be deputy mayor. In November 2014, the voters will elect a mayor directly for the first time. So last December was our final internal decision. Councilmember Gaspar was concerned that someone on the Council running for mayor while also serving as mayor might have an advantage, and proposed that nobody who was a candidate for mayor should be mayor in 2014. At the time, neither she nor Teresa was willing to make a definite statement that they would not run. So a compromise was proposed to divide the year and have Teresa as mayor for the first six months and Kristin for the final six months. Well, now Teresa has said clearly that she does not plan to run for mayor. Kristin has not said what her plans are, but has begun to use the title "Mayor-Elect." So we might ask whether it's time for her to state her intentions before the proposed transfer at the end of May. What do you think?"
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
What do we think?
We think you must not believe the average hardworking resident isn't going to recognize that you are a 'Mean Girl', that's what we think.
We think you have revealed to us, regardless of your age, a lack of received wisdom, this is not the verbiage of a wise and mature leader, eh? More appropriate for ...?
Again, the County, State and City all have given Kristin Gaspar until
July 13th to decide: so, again, Shaffer should try being honest with the public and maybe herself and just say out loud,"I hate her! I hate her! I hate her!" And if I can stop her from ever being Mayor, I will gladly." That would probably be healthier for all of us.
Yes, thanks. I enjoyed reading this, and it rings with truth! Also, it's funny.
DeleteDump Shaffer because my street still sucks....
DeleteIt will take more than Shaffer to get your street fixed. Dump them all.
DeleteAren't you the people who brought us this council??
DeleteNow you've got buyers remorse. And you want us to trust your judgement again?
Thanks, but no thanks!
Whoever wrote this "BRAVO"!
ReplyDeleteOh, Andreen and his mini paragraphs...
ReplyDeleteCall this "karma" for GASbag.
ReplyDeleteIf you knew anything about Karma, you would know that one isn't supposed to "call someone's Karma down" on him or her. It's similar to "Judge not least ye be judged."
DeleteMatthew 7:1-3 KJV - Judge not, that ye be not judged. For with what judgment ye judge, ye shall be judged: and with what measure ye mete, it shall be measured to you.
Also, making fun of someone's name could have Karmic consequences on you; right 12:07? Posting anonymously doesn't exempt you from a higher power of action, personal responsibility, and counter-action.
Lynn, I have every right to post anonymously.
DeleteI was ok with you in the beginning, but now you have begun to irritate me. There is no need to act or pretend that you are better than someone else and that is how you come across. So, I am now joining all of the others and will not defend you one more time. In your post, you judged me, but yet you post a Bible verse. You are a hypocrite plain and simple.
Go suck a lollipop.
Wasn't it you, Lynn, who called some of our council members liars???
Delete12:52, please read my comment at 12:11, above, or I"ll just repeat part of it, here.
Delete12:49, I don't blame or judge anyone for posting anonymously. I simply was pointing out that it's easy to make fun of someone's name, without sharing yours. That seems hypocritical to me.
[From my comment at 12:11] So true, 9:29. The best thing that could have happened to Kristin Gaspar and Mark Muir, politically, was that Jerome Stocks was voted out of office. I had conversations with both of them when I attended the ad hoc subcommittee meetings for raising our SDWD rates. I shared with them that there was a strong perception that Kristin had been mentoring under Stocks, and they both were tied to developers. I talked about how many of us felt betrayed re Prop A, and Barth, Shaffer and Kranz, but that we knew everyone on Council in their ballot statements, and Glenn Sabine in his non-facutual so-called impartial analysis had turned the conjecture and speculation of the Rutan and Tucker "independent" (pro-development) report into outright lies.
I know that lies and liars are strong words, but sometimes strong language is well-deserved.
[We all make decisions, and yes, we all make judgments, everyday. I think calling someone's Karma down on her, or condemning her by insulting her family's name is different than realizing that someone who is not being factually correct, and who twists the truth for political reasons, is telling lies.]
I wasn't sharing this with them [Kristin and Mark] to criticize, but to explain what I felt the public perception was, of Council, and of the City Manager, City Attorney and staff.
12:49, look to and own your insecurities. Because you don't realize you may be in denial about your own feelings of inferiority, is no reason to project your lack of self confidence onto me, wrongly claiming that I pretend to be better than anyone else.
DeleteThat is a misconception and incorrect conclusion on your part. I don't pretend to be better than anyone. We can all treat one another with kindness, even if we disagree.
Sometimes it becomes necessary, for those who are aware, to point out factually incorrect statements, which are disingenuous.
Lynn, from this point on, whatever you say, whatever you do, I will simply ignore and not read your posts. I agree with all the others that they are way too long, filled with unintelligent blabber, and above all don't make a hell of a lot of sense.
DeleteI know you want to defend your little friend GASbag, and that is your right to do so. We know who she is tied to (developers, Stocks, out of town money) and if you don't mind that, that is your privilege. But, you do speak with forked tongue. Can't have it both ways sista.
And, by the way, it's nice not seeing you at council meetings wasting, and I do mean WASTING precious time.
At this point, there are a lot of people who ignore what you have to say. If you want to make a difference, run for council. Stop telling council how to do their job.
3-2 vote to keep Barth as mayor for the remainder of her term Makes good sense.
And, by the way, I watch the council meetings on the television and see Lynn there. In my opinion, its very nice seeing her contributing to council meetings. Dissent is necessary for a healthy public sphere.
DeleteShe's a pathalogical dissenter. Some things don't need dissension. It's nice for others to have their time at the mic.
DeleteHooray, 1:59. I'm delighted that from now on you will simply ignore and not read my posts. But I doubt that you will keep your word, and it's so easy not to, when you don't own your own posts, lol.
DeleteThank you, Kyle. I agree with you.
You are a pathological bully, 7:06. Council Meetings and agenda items are designed to encourage public discussion. Time is not wasted by Council, staff and the audience's hearing from public speakers. Time is not wasted in seeking our input, feedback, suggestions, and sometimes, criticisms. Otherwise everything could be done behind closed doors.
Have you heard the expression, "all politics are local?" My perception is that we can make the greatest difference, participate most directly, at the local level.
I only dissent with actions and behavior that I feel are hurting our City, as a whole. I do care, passionately, about open government, because that helps to assure accountability, honesty, and fair play.
Whether some annonymous poster or posters disagree with me, or whether or not they want to believe that I care very much about our City and all my fiends, neighbors and community members, is none of my business. Your opinion of me is your problem, not mine.
7:06, you are pathologically, and pathetically obsessed with me and with dissenting from my opinions, which I do own. Please do skip my posts, as they obviously are leading you to feelings of inferiority and personal condemnation.
Citizens don't want to be pulled into this stuff! Just do your jobs and make sure that Vina is giving you a complete and accurate budget so that you can make decisions about priorities.
ReplyDeleteLisa Shaffer continues to be a liar! She needs professional help.
ReplyDelete12:30-Narcissists usually never get help. Think of Stocks. Imagine him seeing someone for his bullying behavior when he was on the council.
ReplyDeleteThanks for the out loud bursts of laughter that this narrative has provided. Making fun can be so powerful when it is based on the truth. Will they ever learn? Doubtful and too bad for what could have been. It is always easier to be on truths side and to let their reputations be in the hands of slimey is hard to comprehend. Wake up!
ReplyDeleteDoes anyone know if a citizen can pull these 2 agenda items from Weds. City Council calendar? That might prove to be interesting.
ReplyDeleteI believe if a council member requests it, only the council member can remove it, otherwise, it is up for discussion.
DeleteUsually, things are "pulled" from the Consent Calendar. Any citizen could ask the Clerk, ahead of time, to make a change to the agenda, so that 12A and 12B are heard first, before other agenda items. Kathy Hollywood informs the Mayor of the public request, and Council votes on whether or not the agenda should be reordered. I believe "changes to the agenda" is routinely Agenda Item #7, on the Regular Council Meeting agenda template.
ReplyDeleteI was considering requesting this change, for 12A and 12B to be heard immediately after Bob Bonde's presentation, because if I can attend the meeting on Wednesday, I won't be able to stay until the end, for health reasons.
12:52, give Lynn or others of us another word for "liars" and we'll use it, if it offends you so much. Just don't offer "untruth," which is about as dumb a way around plain speaking as I've ever seen. It's like being "kind of" pregnant: either you are, or you aren't. Either council members are liars, or they're not. They are. Sorry if the truth is inconvenient, but you need to take up your complaint with the council members.
ReplyDeleteAll have been caught lying about one thing or another, the Prop A ballot statement being a main whopper that all five shared.
If the Seaside Courier is a real paper, Coast Law Group, former friends of T and L, have gone over to the side and are supporting Gaspar. Peck, one of the lawyers there says this is all politics, and one of the paralegals is publicly praising Kristin. Maybe they know something we don't?
ReplyDeleteWho in the hell reads that junk?
DeleteIt's not, it's an advertising sheet by former SD councilman Jim Maddafer. Stocks and the Gaspar's have ads, so of course you will see what limited editorial they have slanted that way....
Delete2:47 I am the poster at 12:52 and I think you misunderstood what I was trying to convey. I simply was pointing out to Lynn that she also speaks ill of others as she was pointing that out to me. I have seen many posts by her calling the council members liars, along with Vina and Sabine. I am not in disagreement with that at all. That is a fair assessment, especially in relation to the Prop A ballot statement. Just making a point that Lynn needs to look at herself first, before commenting on what other people say. In other words, she speaks with forked tongue. I do agree with you that ALL FIVE lied. I am tired of Lynn putting herself on a "pedestal" with an over inflated ego and inferring that all others are not up to her excellence.
ReplyDeleteThis discussion isn't about me. I have never put myself on a pedestal. That you could think that only shows your are projecting your own insecurities. I do not put myself above anyone, and no one has suggested that, except you.
DeleteAs for the forked tongue, bit, you are again being judgmental in condemning me, personally, when I've been making observations and comments about Council, related to the topic being discussed, here; you are again projecting your own forked tongue.
Lynn,
DeleteIt's a fair point. If you don't want to be labled that way yourself, then keep the dialogue at a higher level. People on this board are resorting to the same kind of name calling we complain about at city hall.
And I would add this, you can't write something that supports position or candidate X, then be called out on that, and then comeback that you never "Said" you supported x.
All of us are smart enough to read between the lines at this point, so if you're going to dish it out there, you have to take it, barring the personal attacks or off topic nonsense.
So if someone calls you out for backing Muir in something you wrote, even though it didn't say that verbatim, I think that's fair game.
-Mr Green Jeans
Oh, I know it's fair game to question my backing Muir, if someone thinks that's what I've done. I have only stated I appreciated his agenda item for a hiring freeze; I would have liked to have taken his proposal further than that, and had several times proposed lowering City employee and contractor compensation down to $100K, with a 20% pay reduction for those making $125K and above.
DeleteI also appreciate that Muir and Gaspar didn't want to have another secret, closed session ad hoc subcommittee, which Tony moved to create, with only Lisa and Teresa supporting him. And it was Tony's idea to have himself and Teresa as the "co-chairs." Their secret meetings with another secret subcommittee formed by EUSD were totally unproductive and were NOT successful for the City's arriving at a fair price to purchase Pacific View.
I try to keep my discussions to Council's, staff's and contractor's actions, especially where I see them to be making wrongheaded decisions. Green Man, as I said before, your opinion of me is none of my business; so your interjecting your passive aggressive defense of someone's personal attacks against me, is unpersuasive, and redundant, imo.
Fair point in the first paragraph. The open government angle is also still a top shelf item. Sadly, I don't think we're ever going to get the kind of transparency we want.
DeleteSome political deal making will always go on behind closed doors. From what I can tell, the Brown Act is pretty toothless, much in the manner of campaign financing laws, ie the fines or slap on the wrists are always done AFTER the election or meeting is held. So in other words, after the damage is done.
See, that last paragraph, tell me that's not a personal attack (trying to not be passive/aggressive). I don't defend personal attacks on you, I'm usually the one person on this board telling people to not discuss anything outside the discussion at hand.
Discussing your mode of discourse as it relates to this board, and the topics at hand, is fair game to me, as long as it's not in the vein of a personal attack. I've discussed your speaking ability at council, writing style, effectiveness at communicating via the written word, maybe even questioned motives due to past history with council. But I leave the personal out.
Please walk it like you talk it, and glad you're back on the board, but I urge everyone, let's raise the level of discourse. Too many petty attacks, like the one you laid on me in your last paragraph...
-MR Green Jeans
3:00-Lots of people read it and Gaspar's own website has info about it. Lots of people giving her encouragement.
ReplyDelete3:03 Lots of people know she is tied to developers, out of town money and Stocks puppet and we are trying to rid our city of this kind of stuff. Lots of people do not want her.
ReplyDeleteSHAFFER'S SHAM
DeleteReaders, its not too late to walk the dog back...
Write to Tony and Lisa and demand they live up to their agreement from last December. Barth is a waste of your breath, pretending to be above the fray, when in reality she is far below it.
The single fact that Barth has overlooked the generosity and good manners of Gaspar, in ignoring that Gaspar volunteered to step aside and let Barth have her turn as being Mayor, alone is enough to define Barth's poor character.
Now, to attempt to foist a sham on the public to take away Gaspar's unanimously agreed to term as Mayor embarrasses Encinitas residents throughout the county: people are snickering at our lack of leadership.
Unspoken but hugely present is the fact that the three of them believed they would be hailed as heroes for overspending the $10 mil. During the State of the City Dinner, when Barth et al recognized that there were more people present at the dinner who disliked the overspending than they thought, Barth did what she did when she found out she was being passed over for Mayor in 2008, she acted immediately, angrily and rashly. Note: Muir and Gaspar did agree to make an offer on Pacific view, but only for what its worth: $4 mil. The term 'bamboozled' has found new lifr in Encinitas politics as of late.
Note to Information Act friends: Barth attempted just day's before the dinner, thru e-mail, to force Gaspar to read a speech written by Barth at the SOTC: there are incensed and repeated texts from Barth to prove it. Basically they were "I'm God and you are not! Do what I tell you, Cinderella!" in tone and subject.
Deja Vu: In 2008, not 24 hours went by after the council meeting where Barth was 'passed over' for Mayor, before Barth made serious vindictive charges against her peers: and on Sat. April 5th, Barth pulled out of the Mayor's race out of anger, recognizing that she was going to have to run on her record, stunned that she wasn't perceived as a 'victor', so, instead of blaming themselves for financial recklessness (Who can argue) and voter unhappiness: they are transferring their blame on Gaspar. Natch... Baird must be laughing: 'Ever play Monopoly with someone whose never played the game?'
But its not a done deal yet: call the council and let them know what you think about Shaffer's Sham. Another irony is that Kranz is looking towards Shaffer for political strategy, which, to put it mildly, is not her strong suit. General Custer had a better plan than this.
See all you Indians on Wednesday night for Shaffer/Kranz's Last Stand!
The problem is everybody on this board is trying to imbue Tony and Lisa with what they assume they feel about PV, or about Gaspar, or about anything. Sadly, we're back to Jerome Stocks territory, where we bicker about personality, perceived slights etc.
DeleteThink about it, someone who posts on this board frequently talks non-stop about what is basically a personality conflict with Barth. Meanwhile, other people go on and on about Gaspar being Stock's puppet. Then we have the Tony lives on his mother in law's property contingent, followed by the Lisa is an out of touch academic contingent.
I will say this about Maggie, I disagreed with her on a fair amount of issues, but she always handled everything with class. Now it seems, our politicians are a reflection of the people on this board, a crass, bickering, gossipy mess.
Add to that some political payback, a lack of clarity from Sabine or anyone else with a legal mind to guide the mayoral process, and this is what you get. That's why I voted no on the mayor slot.
What we had was fine, it just needed to be written in legally as far as what the rotation was, period. Instead, we now have this mess.
So if you voted for the elected mayor, take a look in the mirror this morning...
Shaffer seems to be inadvertently giving more strength to Gaspar. I just went to her FB page and there is lots of encouragement.
ReplyDeleteI don't see Gaspar as the victim here,this is simple politics.You have the votes or you don't ,this is just crap.Stop you're crying about poor pitiful Gaspar .Poor baby can't have it booth ways.
ReplyDeleteI don't see Gaspar as the victim either.
DeleteI see this as a self-immolation of Kranz and Shaffer.
Well, for most of us on this board, probably all of us, I think your mind is already made up on Gaspar. How the the rest of the voters who don't pay close attention react is harder to say. I certainly wouldn't want to give her any sympathy by denying her the mayorship if I was on the council, but that's me. '
DeleteWe'll see how all this pencils out down the line. My main take on Gaspar is she's not a person of thought or achievement, and she won't be taking the lead on solving any of our issues.
That said, you could say the same for the other 4 on the council right now as well. The only hope for change I see right now is Julie Graboi. Brakespeare would probably be ok as a status quo candidate, who talks about our beaches and character, but does nothing to shake up city hall...
-El Senor Pantalones Verdes
Gaspar ,I feel so sorry for she doesn't play will with her pers ,can't seem to get along with others.Pull up you're big girl pants or get out of the game if you can't take it.Not so much fun with out the bully JEROME STOCKS to protected you is it.
ReplyDeleteAll is fair in love and politics.
DeleteThis is a really poor political decision.
ReplyDeleteWe all saw what happened to the last council majority that sought to deny someone their rightful turn as Mayor--they came off as petty bullies, and lost their majority.
Wasn't anyone paying attention?
The thing that makes it even more stupid and aggravating is how little there is to gain. The weak mayor role doesn't come with much power that can be wielded--it's a silly title. Stocks got to print "mayor" on his posters--fat lot of good it did him.
I could at least understand, if not agree with the move if the mayoralty had real power. Perhaps then the risk/reward balance would justify taking the risk. But then, if you thought it was such an advantage to hold the title into an election, then who held a gun to your head to agree in the first place?!?! If it's that powerful, then what important concession did you extract from Gaspar I'm December in exchange for it? Nothing!
(Head slap.)
I disagree. I think it made them look bad, but what lost the majority was a lot of people being sick of Jerome's act. He'd been in there a long time, and had alienated a lot of people.
DeleteCouple that with the bad news coming out with the early signs a week before the election, coupled with the enthusiasm for Shaffer and by default Tony, and you had Jerome getting the boot.
Muir getting in shows that it was more about Jerome and dislike of his whole aura than it was about a referendum on Teresa's treatment. I think that's the insular nature of politics in this town talking.
9 out of 10 people have no clue on all the machinations of the council. Almost all of my neighbors ask me one time right before the election who to vote for, except for my one neighbor who like Stocks/Bond/Gaspar.
Nobody wants to have their wagon attached to a lead balloon, and that was Stocks in the last election...
I agree with the above, we did it to ourselves, that's why I voted against the elected mayor.
-Mr Green Beanie
In fact, I see a parallel between this mayoral succession issue, and the negotiation for Pacific View.
DeleteStep 1: Under value the asset. Propose things and make agreements that set public expectations that the thing in question isn't all that valuable.
Step 2: Let a few months pass.
Step 3: Contact the other members of the Council majority, and convince each other that the asset in question is highly valued. Agree to change your collective position on the matter.
Step 4: Panic, and overreact. Take some action out of proportion to the situation. Take undue risks.
Step 5: Get defensive. Act surprised that everyone else is surprised. Deal poorly with the fallout.
Oh,dear me I can't seem to make up my mind will I run or won't I .I am so confused, so many choices dear me .What a cry baby pathetic crap makes want to puke THE DAMSEL IN DISTRESS think NOT
ReplyDeleteI have to say, if Gaspar was smart, she wouldn't run anyway. Let someone else make the mistake of being mayor. She can stay on the council with her seat and wait for the tide to turn. Muir's the one who should run from his safe seat....
ReplyDeleteMuir only knows where the food is. He has no clue about politics other than to protect the FF. NO to Muir for mayor. It would take a toll on his already poor health.
DeleteSo much for the not getting personal. For all I know, Muir is in great health. Do you go to the Dr.'s with him?
DeleteThen Council Member Teresa Barth voted, along with the rest of Council, to put the elected mayor on the ballot, the same day, at the Community Center, on July 11, 2012, she voted, with the rest of Council, to "scrub" the Open Space and Habitat Fund, the flooding funds and various other funds and to float another bogus lease revenue bond (with NO lease revenue stream) to pay for the Hall Sports Park Construction and Moonlight Beach Improvements.
ReplyDeleteIt really doesn't accomplish anything to go back, green person, and bemoan the fact that we will now have an elected mayor. I voted to codify the rotation, NOT for an election, but I also urged everyone I knew to also vote for a two year mayor, because I knew it was likely that contingent would prevail, as it did. We could vote both ways, for a rotation, and for a two year mayor, instead of a four year mayor, as I'm sure you recall.
I am for more direct democracy, not less. So I can live with the elected mayor. Politics is about the shifting of power, so politics plays into any election process.
Sadly, Teresa Barth's leadership has been a big disappointment to many of us. The State of the City Addresses, themselves, have been divisive. They were not repeated, as was the tradition, at City Hall. They were more about the business/bureaucratic "partnership," and left the average citizen, the "little guy" out of the equation. They were like long commercials for subsidiaries/sponsors, just another rotary club meeting.
I welcome a thriving business community, but the Mayor should recognize that the primary patrons of local businesses are locals. Non-business residents should not be treated as second class citizens.
11:00 And that is only YOUR opinion.
DeleteI have to be honest, Teresa as Mayor is about what I thought. She was better in the opposition, she's not a leader. Not everyone is. No one on the council is a leader, at least not as demonstrated in their actions.
DeleteThe question to me is, what did/do we hope to gain with an elected mayor. Can anyone on the board answer that? Not being a supporter of that for Encinitas, I can't tell you.
I too voted for the 2 year rotation, but only as a fallback if the mayor's role passed. Sadly it did. I still thought it was a bad idea, based on what happened in the past.
A lot of our issues right now, are caused by the last 20 years of infighting. We have to move past the infighting of the Stocks/Bonds camp vs. the non SB camp at this point.
I'm hoping Julie Graboi is the person to help us move in that direction. Everyone else on the council right now is a legacy of the past, and the infighting that went along with it.
I too thought Tony and Lisa could move us in a better direction, but it's not happening.
We need some fresh perspective, from people like TNG, but instead, the cranks on this board chased the dude away. I didn't agree with his plan, but at least he was thinking, and offering fresh ideas.
We need the old ability to find the middle ground, to make stuff happen. If that's passive/aggressive, I'll take it. The other way of payback, conflict etc isn't working....
-El Senor Passivo Agressivo
All of this mayor stuff is so petty and ridiculous when you compare it to what is going on around the world.
ReplyDeleteThe rotation system was working just fine until Stocks and his band of puppets ruined it. Now, it has become nothing more than a "popularity" contest when the mayor has no more weight or credibility than the rest of the other council members.
Why have a mayor? Let the City Clerk put together the agenda. She seems more capable than all five of the council members. In terms of the ribbon cutting ceremonies, let a child do it. What an honor that would be for them. In terms of State of the City addresses, who needs one? We know what's going on. We don't have to be shown by rocks, sand and jars.
This is not The Mr. or Miss America Pageant. Get over your fairy tale dream. Who cares if one stepped aside for someone else, but then another time someone didn't step aside for the other?
Let's get back on track and do the job we pay you to do. Let's focus on the needs of this city and stop the petty, petty politics.
Having an elected mayor for two years is a bad idea. At least under the rotation system, they were mayor for only a year. If the elected mayor turns out to be no good, we are stuck with them.
DeleteAmen, 11:02, amen. Do your job should be the bottom line.
Delete-MGJ
Maybe 11:02 should run for mayor! Very rational comments indeed!
DeleteI don't know or nor have I ever met Lynn (above blogger). But, I certainly agree with what she posts.
ReplyDelete11:20 I would bet my life YOU are Lynn.
DeleteLynn is right on target!
ReplyDeleteToo bad it's the wrong target!
Delete11:20 Oh Lynn you are now talking to yourself. You have gone over the edge.
Delete11:31 Wrong target indeed.
DeleteUnfortunately, while sometimes having salient observations, Lynn has taken up all the oxygen in the room far too many times for many who debate her or see her at oral communications.
DeleteShe comes off far too often as superior, petty and vindictive and is not open to being challenged, questioned or criticized by those who disagree with or have a different point of view of her opinions.
I have never seen her apologize or say she was wrong without some lame excuse or more often an attack back on the accuser.
She assumes much but knows little. People just start tuning her out.
Your an idiot (Kranz)! Lynn is correct.
Delete12:01 I have tuned the idiot out. She has become obstructive, malicious, vindictive, irrelevant and annoying. If she isn't in therapy, I can suggest a good one, other than her friend Dr. Lorri, who deals with pets. Hey, maybe not a bad idea.
Delete12:01 Is that you again Lynn? Posting in response to your post. You can't fool us.
DeleteWhile Lynn has acknowledged small errors, she doesn't reexamine any of her, often hastily, stated positions. She just keeps on digging, mistaking quantity for quality. This, unfortunately, causes many of us to just tune her out. I believe her intentions are good but she becomes just a one trick pony, oblivious to the real world.
DeletePacific View is a case in point. She, along with others, strongly advocated the city doing everything to acquire it. While Lynn didn't say to spend whatever it takes, her recommendations just weren't realistic. Now that the city has responded to the pressure and decided to purchase PV for $10M, she backs away from responsibility (as do others) claiming that's not the way she would have done it.
So now the city will take on a 30 year bond payment of more than $700K (which includes the $3.1M Moonlight lifeguard tower). That a lot of years of budget trade-offs. And that doesn't even get into the construction costs.
Folks, I have chosen to respectfully stop reading or reacting to Lynn's posts directly. Educate yourself on who you are dealing with, and make decisions for yourself on whether to engage her.
DeleteI urge everyone who posts here to Google the public records of Lynn's court case with the City. Read what the judges say about her behavior and arguments. Read for yourself about the bizarre encounter in a parking lot that caused one judge to take herself off the case. Go talk informally to folks at City Hall about why we didn't used to have an armed Sheriff at council meetings, and now we do. Asked them what changed.
It's not a joke, folks. There is a real person behind the posts. Know who you are dealing with.
1:03 Thank you for the pertinent information about this individual. It has been obvious to me that there are personal problems. I will do a google search as you suggested and see for myself.
DeleteI now know why council has looked the other way and have not acted upon her requests, which as I understand, have been almost non-stop. When I have seen her come before council, she takes on the persona of being in charge and telling the council how to do their job. I take great offense to this kind of tactic. It says a lot about the person and I am not impressed in any way, shape or form with her attitude and behavior, not only to the council, city staff, but the people who post on this blog.
Wow! I hadn't realized this happened. Now I know why Lynn has a vendetta on the city attorney.
DeleteFrom an unpublished opinion of the California Court of Appeals, Fourth District, Division One (unpublished only means it shouldn't be cited in other cases, not that it's secret)
Case # D045580 People v. Braun [Marr] Filed October 24, 2006 (Superior Court Case No. GIN023795)
Appeal from a judgment of the Superior Court of San Diego County, Jacqueline Stern, Judge. AFFIRMED.
Instead of quoting the details, here is the first footnote:
"Defendants provide a lengthy and rambling recitation of the proceedings in this matter that is heavily interspersed with unsupported assertions and conclusory arguments suggesting procedural improprieties. The factual summary is unhelpful because defendants do not tie it in any way to their appellate contentions. As stated below, we will not refer back to defendants' factual statement in an attempt to identify relevant proceedings, but even if we elected to do so, we would be unable to apply the arguments because they unaccompanied by comprehensible or reasoned legal analysis."
You can read the whole thing at www.fearnotlaw.com/articles/article7084.html
Yep. We know exactly what they're talking about.
This is the same thing Tony Kranz told me about Lynn.
ReplyDeleteSo much for the hidden elephant in the room. Fair's fair, though. Lynn, what's your response (if you can comment on the case) to the information above, and how it affects your interaction with the city, specifically Sabine, Teresa, or anyone else on the council or involved in the case?
DeleteIf you can't respond for legal reasons, please state that.
How terribly sad these last few posts have been. In fact, I could call it bully behavior, possibly by the same person. People have feelings folks. And, to attack anyone in the way that has been done over the last few posts, about Lynn, is both sad and frightening. How can people have that little empathy? We asked those questions about the young man that killed 10 people in Santa Barbara, and yet, right in our own back yard we have one, or several people, that lack empathy and spew hurtful things upon another person. And yes, this is Dr. Lorri
ReplyDeleteSince I am one of those posts above, I know that there are more than one person. Bullying? Not quite. Not even close. I posted the court case excerpt. The point was, as has been stated above, Lynn takes a position and then never appears to rethink it. She just piles on with whatever she can find whether its relevant or applicable. Or even correct for that matter.
DeleteUnfortunately, a number of people believe her and I fear part of that is because of the shear quantity, and repetitiveness, of her posts. Until today I never knew about the court case. My goal has simply to put it all in perspective. If I attacked anything, it's Lynn's positions and logic. If someone still wants to agree with her, fine, but they now have perspective.
You think any of the above recent comments have come anywhere near the turpitude heaped on the council in this blog? I have not attacked Lynn personally even though she (and you) may consider those personal attacks. Her positions have consequences.
Dr. Lorri, good point about empathy. We should remember that and keep in mind for all our interactions on the board.
DeleteHowever, when you have someone who is in the middle of city politics is Lynn is, commenting on issues with the city and council, it's fair game to ask about that person's objectivity concerning city matters when they have this kind of business going on, or have had.
Can she be objective about Sabine or anyone else personally involved in her case? It's a fair question, and I'm not saying either way.
I don't know if conflict of interest is a fair term, but I don't know how else to state it. If you have an interest in an outcome, or non outcome, you should state it. How else to maintain credibility?
I'm not trying to jump on some punishing bandwagon, Lynn is entitled to her opinion and is contributor to the dynamic of the city. But if you have had this kind of interaction with the city, it will color your interactions and opinions going forward.
-MGJ
All of our perceptions of city politics are colored by our own personal experiences.
DeleteMost people have become involved, at any level, with city politics due to personal issues.
Council, with the exception, possibly, of LIsa Shaffer, all know that I have an issue with Glenn Sabine. But that doesn't make all of the objections that have been publicly raised about him, and his law firm, by Lorri Greene, Kevin Cummins, and many others, any less significant.
When she was judge in our case, Lisa Schall did not inform us that she was friends with Christy Guerin, whom we tried to subpoena, but of course were denied, for the civil lawsuit against us. Schall's and Guerin's daughters played Soccer together. In the Citzens for Quality of LIfe's lawsuit against the City for piecemeal development and an unfounded mitigated negative environmental impact declaration relative to demolition at the former Hall Property, Judge Lisa Schall was wisely, immediately asked to step down as judge for that case, by Attorney Everett DeLano. Had DeLano not made that decision, CQL may not have prevailed in that action.
After CQL's vicotry, in Court, for which I was present, Glenn Sabine told the press, "We wouldn't have done anything differently, we aren't doing anything differently now, and we won't do anything differently in the future," or words to that effect, later quoted in the NCT by Adam Kaye, as I recall.
When question why CQL brought the lawsuit, if nothing was going to change, Sabine's exact words were, "for the nominal victory and attorney fees." That was another case, besides, more recently the case brought by the Save Desert Rose neighbors, which has resulted in the City having to pay for both Sabine and Morrison's and plaintiff's attorney fees when it has been sued for a writ of mandate involving the City's environmental law violations.
Judge Lisa Schall came to my deposition at City Hall. It is inappropriate for a judge to come to a litigants' deposition when she is hearing the case. I was not noticed that Judge Schall would be present. Russell, although he was a defendant in the case, was not allowed to be in the room with me, but had to be behind the glass.
ReplyDeleteWhen I got to my deposition, early, there was a conference table on the floor, in front of the lower dias, to the left, where staff and contractors normally sit when they are speaking to agenda items. I was to be seated at the conference table. The Court reporter said she would sit down at the conference table, as well. I noticed that up on Council's dais was a placcard where City Atrorney Randal Morrison (Sabine's partner in Sabine & Morrison) had written "Judge." Beside it was a pitcher of ice water, and a glass. I asked Morrison if Judge Lisa Schall was to be present. He said yes. I told him I should have been informed.
Russell and I went outside, to where the parking lot meets the sidewalk by the entrance to City Hall. He decided to go alert the Coast News and NCT, which used to have an office nearby, that a judge would be present at my deposition, which is highly unusual. He took off and I waited there, taking deep breaths, trying to calm myself. Lisa Schall was late. When she drove up in her SUV, she walked immediately past me, not going around, even three feet. I said to her, Good morning Lisa Guy-Schall (she changed her name after her divorce, but not the way one's name is usually changed, but in a manner that makes it harder to Google some of her bad behavior, which was previously found under "G" on the Robbing Room website, for example).
Schall said back to me, "Don't talk to me." As she continued through the door, I turned around and merely said, "I wasn't noticed you would be present." Schall repeated, "I said don't speak to me," and flounced through the door. Had I known she would be present, I would have dressed more formally. Moreover, it's inappropriate for the City Attorney to have an ex parte hearing wherein the Judge agrees to participate in a deposition, without our being notified, so we could be present to make our objections.
I then walked into City Hall, into Council Chambers, and took a single flash photo, from my old Vivatar camera, to show that the judge, instead of seating herself on Council's dais, had sat immediately next to where I was to sit, at the conference table. This was very intimidating.
DeleteJudge Lisa Schall gave Deputy Sheriff Ken Jones, who was acting like a Bailiff, a sign, and he immediately put me in a choke hold, and took my camera from me. I was in shock. There had been an eight page order that Schall had granted Morrison stating that we would not be allowed to videotape the hearing, even though we offered to put the video camera on a tripod, so it wouldn't be threatening to anyone, and our recording wouldn't be disruptive. That was when it was determined that Russell had to be present behind the glass, in the Carnation Room.
The deposition began. Randal Morrison began by stating that no press would be allowed. We must have been overheard in the lobby. Then he asked a couple of questions. I was in tears. I had to ask Judge Schall to move a little, so I could spread out my paperwork, as I had to bring my answers to interrogatories to the deposition. She was so close she was breathing down my neck. She said I came "to close to her with my camera," when I was still about 6-10 ft. away when I took the single shot. But when I didn't answer something the way Schall wanted me to she literally began yelling at me, telling me I would be held in contempt. Jace Schwarm, Director of Risk Management, handed me a box of tissues.
All of a sudden Judge Lisa Schall screamed "you get out!" looking over my shoulder. I hadn't realized that Russell had returned. No one from the press was available on such short notice. Apparently, he had stood up, in the back room, where he was all by himself, and shook his head. He had said nothing. He couldn't believe Judge Schall's outrageous behavior. But he followed her orders, and immediately left.
I guess the appellate court didn't buy it. Of course, what would three appellate justices know.
DeleteLynn,
DeleteIf I was you, I wouldn't go into the deposition or the details of your case. Don't give them the city that kind of ammo.
I can appreciate you want to give your side, but it doesn't seem worth the collateral damage.
Legal stuff is a nightmare, I wish you luck now and in the future...
-MGJ
It's an old case. I strongly doubt there could be any further repercussions from that case. The appellate decision is from October 2006. I don't think she has anything to worry about except public opinion.
DeleteJudge Lisa Schall went on for a few moments, then suddenly said, in a loud voice, "I don't have to stay here for this!" She got up to leave the deposition, soon after it had started. I believe she knew it was inappropriate for her to be in attendance, and it was inappropriate that defendants were not noticed she was asked by Morrison to be present. It doesn't matter that Morrison did it through the Court Clerk; it's inappropriate ex parte communication.
DeleteAs she began walking out, I asked if I could have my camera back. She nodded to Deputy Ken Jones, who then opened my camera, exposing all my film of my grandsons. Again, there was only a single photo taken of Judge Stern, positioned immediately adjacent to where I was to sit, at the lower conference table.
After Ken Jones exposed my film, he returned my camera. Morrison gave him a sign to go out to the parking lot. I then asked for a five minute recess, so I could give my camera to Russell, and he could go home. I wanted to tell him I'd call him when my deposition was over.
So, I followed Ken Jones out, to give Russell my camera. Both Ken Jones and I asked "what happened?" I hadn't realized that Russell had returned, until Judge Lisa Schall erratically screamed out for him to "Get out!" Russ said he had only stood up and shaken his head in disbelief. He told Ken Jones and me that Judge Lisa Schall walked very close by him, where he was standing, at the beginning of the blacktop, smoking a cigarette. He said quietly, to her, as she walked by "You should step down."
She screamed at him (before Ken Jones was on the scene, so no witnesses) "Don't speak to me or I'll call the police!" She then roared off, as Ken Jones was approaching. I followed soon after.
We looked up accost in the dictionary. It means to approach and address. Lisa Schall went to the Courthouse, late that morning, or that afternoon, and wrote out a prejudicial order for her own recusal, saying she was recusing herself because defendants had verbally accosted her in the parking lot, and had taken unauthorized photographs.
Still photos were not prohibited by the court order. We had, separately, addressed Judge Lisa Schall, but neither of us had approached her. On the contrary, she had behaved bizarrely, and had approached us, as she slammed out of City Hall and roared off.
Judge Lisa Schall's order of recusal prejudiced our case against us. It was included, as a footnote, in the Appellate Court's decision, by the oldest Justice, Terry O'Hare. The Appellate Court is biased in favor of governmental agencies, and against in pro se litigants. The Appellate Court's decision didn't address any of our objections as to lack of due process. To the Appellate Court, form, in our case, is more important than content, which was not considered, contrary to the Maxims of Jurisprudence.
DeleteThe judge that replaced Lisa Schall, after she voluntarily recused herself, in such a way that our entire case with prejudiced, without any hearings on the alleged facts relating to her reason for recusal, was Judge Jacqueline Stern. She is also a terrible judge.
Judge Schall had continued discovery until the eve of trial, over our objections, only for our depositions. We had 20 hours of depositions, between Russell and me, which cost a great deal of money and time, for nothing. Judge Stern reopened discovery and allowed Morrison to name a bogus non-expert private inspector, non-expert because he didn't have enough training hours to qualify as expert. Morrison made an expert witness declaration, as required, stating Joseph Romeo was qualified, and providing his work address and phone number.
We objected to discovery being reopened, expert witnesses being belatedly named. We objected to Romeo's lack of expert qualifications. But the jucge ordered a last minute inspection of our pre-existing accessory structure, legally permitted in 1953, on the eve of the new date for trial, soon after Easter of 2004. We had notified Risk Management and the Court Clerk that we would be out of area for Easter Holidays, but Stern seemed incensed that we were not available during the first inspection attempt.
After another ex parte hearing, and after Judge Stern had said there were to be no more warrants in our case, we agreed to an inspection, on the Judges order. When Joseph Romeo again came to our gate, when we were present, with our own friend as a witness, and a plain clothes police officer as another witness, he had no paperwork, not even ID. He didn't have a copy of the court order, but the deputy sheriiff had ID, and I said that we would allow the inspection under duress of a court order. We opened the gate, with Russell saying: "I allow, I allow, I allow!"
Joseph Romeo, said, "that's all I need," and walked away, about a half block south, where he had parked his old, oxidized red car. Russ followed him a few steps down the sidewalk, videotaping, and had videotaped the entire encounter at our front gate. Romeo yelled "stop following me," and Russell did, although there was no danger to Romeo, who, as I said, was accompanied by a plain clothes police officer, with his badge and ID hanging from his neck.
DeleteJudge Stern had another hearing during what should have been trial call. She would not allow us to show our video, which we had submitted to the Court, as evidence, because we didn't have an official transcript prepared for it. She refused to allow an evidentiary hearing, so that we could cross-examine the deputy sheriff present, or Joseph Romeo, who were never present in court.
Instead, Randal Morrison submitted a statement he had filled out for Joseph Romeo, who had signed it on the day of the "failed" inspection. Morrison told Judge Stern we had been harassing Romeo because we had called his place of employment, and then sent a fax to that number. In Romeo's affidavit, he stated, for the first time, that this was to be a "side job," and that the inspection firm he worked for wasn't involved. That wasn't what Randal Morrison swore to in his expert witness declaration. As in pro-se defendant, I am legally entitled to present my written objections to someone designated as an expert witness for Plaintiff. We did not harass Romeo in any way. We wanted him to do his inspection. This was a pre-calculated plan to have us found to be in default.
Morrison's scheme worked. Judge Stern found us to be in contempt for "discovery abuse," and resorted to the "ultimate sanction" of sticking our answers to Morrison's complaint. We were then unable to be present, to give testimony, provide evidence, or cross-examine witnesses for the subsequent so-called default prove up. Judge Stern's Final Order, only said that we had so many days to legalize our accessory structure, which we felt and continue to feel was and is legal. We attempted to legalize, at least three separate times, through the affordable dwelling unit policy, which Jeff Murphy claims is part of a still existing "amnesty." We were disallowed by Patrick Murphy and by City Attorneys Sabine and Morrison, although we went through the process of submitting as is plans, and a certified cashier's check.
The Appellate Case's opinion is very dismissive of us, as in pro se defendants. It never addresses the fact that we were denied, all along, a hearing on the administrative warrant, which was wrongly executed, without notice, and with threats of forced entry, and which exceeded the limits of the garage.
DeleteLegal briefs are complicated, repetitive and most people would find any of them very challenging to follow. The City was charged because Randal Morrison had to resubmit his initial reply brief to our opening Appeal brief, because he included photos of the police standing around in our small studio which is attached to, but separate from our garage. The entire structure was built with a permit, on record, in 1953. Neither the City nor County maintain actual permits prior to incorporation, but there are schematics with a dotted line, showing that the garage was always separate from the habitable residential space. The garage door slides open in such a manner, that cars could never have parked on the south side of the later permitted structure.
At this point, I don't care what kind of ammunition I give Sabine and Morrison. They were not truthful, and should be replaced for many reasons, besides my personal reasons, which is their lack of civility and fair play in our case.
I never got a hearing on then Judge Lisa Guy-Schall's order of recusal. I never defended myself before the Court of Appeal or any other judge on that order, because there was no opportunity for a hearing. It was just a "done deal" which greatly prejudiced our case. We should have immediately gone to Federal Court for a Civil Rights violation re the choke hold, and exposing all my film. But we were overwhelmed. By the way, we tried, repeatedly, to get legal representation, and Russell did have an attorney, at the end. When he argued that we were being bulldozed worse than any case he had ever seen, Judge Stern's answer, as recorded in the Court transcript was, "They could have had an attorney all along!" She didn't deny that we were bulldozed, she tacitly admitted that we were!
DeleteI meant to say at 3:28:
DeleteAgain, I only took a single still photo taken of Judge Lisa Schall, at City Hall, seated at the conference table, immediately adjacent to where I was to sit, down below Randal Morrison, who was asking questions from staff's dais, the lower dais, to the left, as one faces Council's dais. We were at a right angle to, and I was looking away from the Carnation Room, which is the room behind the glass partition.
Judge Lisa Schall said I came "too close to her with my camera," although I was at least six feet away when I snapped the shot.
What happened to the Marr's is well known and anyone who wants to look at the facts can see in was injustice carried out by several people at city hall with a vendetta.
ReplyDeleteYa, sure. The appellate justices must have been in on it.
DeleteThe facts speak loudly. It was an injustice and those responsible know what they did.
DeleteThe facts do speak loudly. Read the opinion. Maybe the error was that Lynn tried to represent them and made a muddle out of it. I see trying to blame others is nothing new.
DeleteTurn in your law license, they are hiring at in & out.
DeleteLook. I'm the one who posted the quoted footnote from the opinion. To me, the reason for the case, the garage conversion, was irrelevant. Since Lynn often claims to understand the correct interpretation of legal statutes like the Naylor Act, the Brown Act, etc., I found it enlightening that the appellate justices couldn't make heads or tails from her legal reasoning (they said it a little more politely). That has a direct bearing here.
Delete3:44 PM
DeleteDid you already get hired? In-N-Out can be pretty picky.
How many people who represent themselves in court win? Basically none. And it says wonderful things about our city attorney's awesome legal prowess doesn't it?
DeleteHow foolish is it to try. Nice try on the attempted transference by the way. The above quote was all about the Brauns [Marrs]. Nothing about the city attorney. You just can't let it go.
DeleteWe were talking about a job at in N out. Perhaps transferring to a manager position is a worthy goal to attempt.
DeleteYou just can't let it go, 4:00. I think it is ALL you who has been attempting to bully me by bringing up this case. I am NOT posting anonymously; so if you bet your life on that, I feel even sorrier for you. You are pathetic in your obsession with me.
DeleteWC's post ISN"T about me or the case you keep posting, even though it was removed once before.
As I've said before, it's nearly impossible for someone to buck authority. But what if our revolutionary founding fathers and mothers had that attitude? Would we still be an English Colony?
Better to have tried and lost, than never to have tried at all.
Lynn, sorry, I can't speak to why people would bring up the case, because I don't know everyone's motives.
DeleteBut is fair to say that you can't claim to be objective when discussing matters related to city hall, which isn't to say you should be after what happened. I'd be pissed to if I was in your shoes.
However for the rest of us, you can't blame us for wanting to know why you write volumes on every subject, often without context, leaving a lot of scratching our heads both here and at council as to the reasons. I guess we know now......
Even before I knew about this, I was going to vote for Keehn, based on what I read about some of Schall's reversals.
-MGJ
If you don't like my voluminous writing, green apologist for bullies, please just skip my comments. No one is forcing you to read them.
DeleteIf you or anyone else thinks reading my comments is a waste of your time, then you are free to skip them, or to take a three minute break, if I am speaking at a Council Meeting, and you are watching from home, as you've before alleged.
Admit you choose how to spend your own time, responding to me, or reading what I write, or listening to what I say, although I haven't been to a Council Meeting in some time.
To whomsoever this applies, please stop trying to blame me for your wasting your own time. Learn to accept some personal responsibility and personal choice. Because some Appellate Judge doesn't appreciate my writing style, and has a built in prejudice against self-represented litigants, which is obvious from his ruling, doesn't mean that the City was factually, legally or ethically correct in its actions against my home, my family, and my civil liberties. And yes, the City Attorney and his law firm's pre-meditated and malicious actions against us, in which Randal Morrison did lie, under penalty of perjury, and falsely testified in his opinions, most not made under penalty of perjury, absolutely has colored my opinion of our City Attorney's performance, overall. But my personal case is not the only factor in my low opinion of Sabine and Morrison. I personally heard Randal Morrison bragging to an associate, in the audience, in Court, before our case was called, about all that he had "got away with" in Federal Court. He said that although the Judge had warned him, he still found in Morrison's favor. This was a laughing/bragging matter to Morrison. He obviously didn't know that I could hear his entire conversation.
But regarding the current topic of conversation, posted by WC, I don't think Glenn Sabine should have stated, last December, that Council "wasn't precluded" from a sudden change of policy and protocol in the codified mayoral selection process.
I am only posting this after reading all of Lynn's posts here. Poor Lynn. She is the victim. All have conspired against her. None of it is her fault. THEY are out to get her. Her motives are pure. To refute her logic is to bully even though if words per linear foot is any measure, I'd say Lynn is in the lead.
DeleteAnd just to be clear, I couldn't care less about Lynn. I don't wish to prevent her from from giving her opinion (besides it's not my blog). I just want others to see her opinions in context.
4:07 PM
DeleteStill bitter about not being hired by In-N-Out. I said they were picky. Maybe if you knew how to properly spell their name you would have been hired. You can always try McDonald's, they'll hire anyone.
In one ear & out the other. But in your profession listening is just faked anyway.
DeleteAnd what profession would that be?
DeleteYou forgot? After all those years of college? Well ein an aut only has one size of fries so this could be easy.
DeleteOh that profession! Yes, the one that allows me to fake you being clever! Nothing like taking a modicum of wit and then driving it into the ground. Yes, I am impressed. You soooo got me.
DeleteWhat next, fart jokes? Stay classy!
lawyers only think they are clever
DeleteLynn, I stick to my point about your objectivity, that's it. You are free to say whatever you want, as always. Some points about this issue are valid as usual, and not all of them are, as usual.
DeleteI still think you would be better off not talking about it. But like I said, I'm backing Keehn.
-MGJ
8:14 PM
DeleteI didn't know you were a lawyer. Good thing I'm not. Thanks for playing.
The Marrs are not the only people who have been unfairly targeted by our city. This type of administrative decision is much like when people are audited by the IRS. They are proclaimed guilty and asked to prove they are innocent.
ReplyDeleteNo matter what you think of Lynn's political views, many disagree with the way that this case was handled. Important questions are how much were taxpayers charged in this case, and who was paid the money taxpayers were charged.
You can also look up Judge Lisa Schall on the Robbing Room and Weightier Matters, by Googling those online resources. A recent UT Watchdog article talks about Lisa Schalls three admonishments by the Council on Judicial Performance. So does City Beat, in its June Primary endorsements, http://www.sdcitybeat.com/sandiego/article-12986-our-june-3-primary-election-endorsements.html , recommending our voting AGAINST both Judges Schall and Stern. And no, that's not because of any alleged "vendetta" by me.
ReplyDeleteThe average voter hasn’t a clue how to vote for Judges. We urge you to vote for Carla Keehn, to replace Judge Lisa Schall, who has had three admonishments by the California Council on Judicial Performance. One of these admonishments was for a DUI arrest. After a delay, until after no one filed to oppose Judge Schall in her previous reelection, Schall's charges were reduced down to wet reckless through a plea bargain. Schall was driving the wrong way on a one-way street in Escondido, endangering lives.
Only one other California judge in Contra Costa County, has three CJP admonishments. Most judges are removed from office or retire after two. Lisa Schall doesn’t deserve the well-qualified given to her by the San Diego County Bar Association. Those same lawyers who have appeared and are likely to again appear before Schall are also being solicited to give Schall campaign contributions. Assistant U.S. Attorney, Carla Keehn is much better qualified. Keehn’s pre-approved campaign signs erected in San Diego, were removed by Clear Channel, after behind-the-scenes pressure, when they had been posted for only two days.
Nor does Judge Jacqueline Stern deserve the “qualified” rating she was given by the SDCBA. Although Stern doesn’t have three admonishments by the CJP, like Schall, Stern also isn’t even-handed or objective, and doesn’t exhibit good courtroom temperament. Both Stern and Schall are especially biased against in pro se litigants. Jacqueline Stern recently overturned a jury’s decision, as the Trier of Fact, in a harassment case against an Oceanside police officer, although the officer had admitted his bad behavior, and had been fired. Stern overturned another jury’s decision in 2009, which decision was ultimately reversed by the Court of Appeals. Please vote for Joseph Adelizzi, to vote Judge Jacqueline Stern out of office.
We also urge you to vote against Bonnie Dumanis, for District Attorney. Dumanis has been investigated for numerous public scandals. One was Dumanis’ illegal campaign contributions from a Mexican billionaire in her unsuccessful run for Mayor of San Diego. Another is Dumanis’ apparently politically motivated prosecution of a Chula Vista Councilmember. Dumanis also isn’t even-handed and hasn’t been forthcoming in fulfilling California Public Record Act requests. As there will be a run-off for this race, please vote for either Bob Brewer or Teri Wyatt to replace Bonnie Dumanis as DA.
There you have it. Make up your own mind if you choose to engage. Are you debating in good faith with a fellow citizen, or are you poking a stick at someone who isn't all there.
ReplyDeleteYou decide.
Maybe it's possible that the following all conspired and lied to "get" Lynn: the code enforcement officer, the City Attorney, City Council, the County Sheriffs, expert whitnesses, two judges, the appeals court, the Supreme Court (yup, look it up)--and I'm sure I'm leaving a few people out.
Maybe the above secret society exists, I don't know. Judge for yourselves.
But if you conclude that the above conspiracy is unlikely, then please consider whether it is moraly right to continue joking, debating, making fun.
Consider whether it would be wiser to just let it go.
All the city works in concert so that answers plenty. Also those subcontracted by them which covers most of your list.
DeleteWhen public agencies are involved, government officials too often do conspire to break the law.
DeleteThat is why there are lawsuits ongoing in Federal Court now, against San Diego Superior Court:
http://www.weightiermatter.com/uncategorized/family-court-racketeering-case-second-round-third-wave-california-coalition-moves-strike-family-court-omnibus-brief/3946/
And why do you think that although Bonnie Dumanis said there WAS sufficient evidence to press charges for obstruction of justice against two defendants in a case involving a fund raiser for Francine Busby at a private address in Encinitas, after a noise complaint was made, and a deputy sheriff used excessive force and violated the homeowner's Fourth Amendment Rights, the Sheriff subsequently SETTLED for over a million dollars in Federal Court when the former defendants sued, as plaintiffs?
You are the one who keeps bringing me up, attacking me through a case you were not directly involved with (we hope), and then you hypocritically tell me to let it go? Leave me alone and stop responding to my comments, as you had said you were going to.
And if you do respond, don't call me out, personally attacking me for my lack of legal expertise or my alleged paranoia, when you are one of the most obsessive, compulsive, paranoid posters I've ever had the displeasure of reading. YOU LET IT GO AND LEAVE ME ALONE.
4:57 PM
Delete"When public agencies are involved, government officials too often do conspire to break the law."
This is just too pathetic.
That they do conspire to break the law is why there are now racketeering charges being brought against the San Diego Superior Court system by the California Coalition representing family law litigants.
Deletehttp://www.weightiermatter.com/uncategorized/family-court-racketeering-case-second-round-third-wave-california-coalition-moves-strike-family-court-omnibus-brief/3946/ Check out this link, which I also posted, before, if you want to follow through, instead of dismissing me with your out of context, bullying remarks.
Numerous public agencies are banding together, trying to quash the charges, by seeking a dismissal, with sanctions.
That is just too pathetic, and so is your comment, 5:53.
The deputies blew it in the Cardiff case, as did the owners of the property, as did whoever reported it. Bad judgment all around.
DeleteWhen the cops ask for your name or ID, you give it. When your neighbors have a big party, you don't narc on them, especially when it's a political fundraiser. And when you're a cop, you have to learn not to use force in a situation that doesn't require it.
Bottom line, taxpayer money wasted on lawsuits by cops, neighbors and owners acting like jackasses.
We the people are the losers...
The Marr's have done tremendous good for our community and who knows what would happen without their input and watchful eyes. When the council / city manager / city attorney change for the better and their case can be reviewed through objective eyes, perhaps justice can be given to them. It is long overdue.
ReplyDeleteI too hope they get justice, but maybe this isn't the forum for the airing of those grievances, which is basically what has been going on...
DeleteI came to this issue late, but I feel obliged to weigh in. Have any of you read the actual agenda item? Have any of you asked Councilmember Shaffer to explain why she requested the item? What are you all so upset about? What are you afraid of? I believe her when she says that she wanted to have a chance for the whole Council to talk about this unique situation. The decision to have 2 mayors in one year was unusual, and the transition from an appointed mayor to an elected mayor is only going to happen this year. Why is it such a terrible thing to ask the Council to pause and review what was decided? This is the opposite of back-room deals and secret negotiations. This is putting the item on the agenda for a public discussion. Isn’t that what you open government advocates have been asking for?
ReplyDeleteIt is inappropriate to first change the traditional rotational protocol, in December, with a compromise agreement, with all of Council KNOWING that it was unsure who would or would not run for Council or Mayor. Kranz had indicated he wasn't interested in running for mayor. He changed his mind. But that is not sufficient reason for the promise that was made to the public and to Kristin Gaspar and Mark Muir to be "re-deliberated."
DeleteIt appears, that with Shaffer and Kranz, and Barth, there would be three votes to change, again, and have Barth be the first time, ever Mayor appointed by Council to serve for two successive one year terms. Teresa Barth had said she wasn't sure whether or not she would run for mayor, as had Kristin Gaaspr.
Because Teresa changed her mind, or made up her mind to NOT run for elected office, does not mean that Kristin Gaspar should now be punished by being skipped over for the six months as mayor that was promised to her, last December, which six month term was to begin in June. When the December agreement was made, everyone on Council knew that Kristin Gaspar could decide to run for Mayor, after she took her seat as the final Mayor appointed by a majority on Council.
But thanks for bringing the topic back to WC's originating post, 5:08. The reason people are objecting, 5:08, is because none of the questions put to Lisa Shaffer, on her FB page, before she deleted her own post and the following comments, have been answered.
We are objecting because we feel there is a difference between true integrity and situational ethics. A deal, that was made with certain unknowns, should not be undone, because some of the unknowns are now allegedly "known."
We are objecting, also, because this seems like a sneaky way, by having two separate Council initiated agenda items, that are essentially identical, to get around the mandates of the Brown Act. Both Lisa Shaffer and Tony Kranz could have and probably did pre-discuss this with Mayor Barth. That's inappropriate and isn't acting with integrity, and fair play. I know politics often isn't fair, and that people in politics often flip-flop. But that doesn't excuse unethical behavior.
We asked Shaffer to explain. That's when she deleted the Facebook post.
DeleteShaffer has a history of taking umbrage at constituent questions about her actions.
Oversight of the budget is a council responsibility. This reopening of an agreement made last December about splitting the Mayor job does not deserve the same attention. It is insulting and disingenuous to think that this has anything to do with being open and transparent since it appears to be retaliation towards Gaspar for not accepting Gus VIna's Cliff Notes budget.
DeleteThank God some people actually still have standards and expectations from this CM who is paid $250,000 annually!
Tony changed his mind true, but that was after Teresa said she wasn't going to run. I personally would like to see them discuss this again, and not because of the brouhaha, but because it's the first time we're implementing the mayor's role this way.
DeleteI have no doubt there's retribution in some of these decisions, but I think Tony, Lisa and Teresa would have different reasons for making this decision.
Democracy is nasty business, anyone who's followed our council for the last 15-20 years knows that. The bottom line is the same, if Gaspar's smart, she won't run for mayor, for the same reason Barth shouldn't be mayor.
Neither is up to the tasks of the job...
-MGJ
Lisa's big mistake is having a FB page. If you don't want people posting their opinions, don't give them the venue. Once you post something, or let someone comment, everyone cries fowl if you delete it.
DeleteRookie mistake....
Lisa Shaffer also posted a comment on the Seaside Courier article, which comment she can't retroactively delete, as she did her FB post. Here's her comment and my comment, which follows hers, but which are listed in reverse chronological order:
Deletehttp://www.seasidecourier.com/news/city-hall-power-struggle-in-encinitas/article_3937cee6-e2b2-1
lynn posted at 12:46 pm on Sat, May 24, 2014.
Council Member Lisa Shaffer, you don't answer the excellent questions from Encinitas Undercover:
“If Kranz wants to step down as Deputy Mayor, how does that make it a “necessary step” to discuss stripping Kristin Gaspar of her mayoralty?
And if your agenda item was only a response to Kranz’ item, how is it that they both showed up as simultaneously on the agenda without the apparent knowledge of Gaspar or Muir?"
And, as Dr. Lorri Green asked: “What bothers me about this is the same thing happened to Teresa, over and over, with the old council. She kept getting passed over in the rotation. I really don’t understand how you all can go back on what you promised at the beginning of the year, no matter what Tony [Kranz] has decided to do. It was Kristin’s turn to be mayor, and she graciously let Teresa have the first 6 months, and she would take the second 6 months. What has changed?”
Lisa Shaffer posted at 3:38 pm on Fri, May 23, 2014.
"My agenda item for next week seems to have stirred up a lot of comment. For the record, the agenda item is a necessary step to respond to Tony Kranz's decision not to take his appointment as Deputy Mayor, and this gives us an opportunity to review the overall situation with more information than we had last December. If a majority of the Council still thinks the original plan has merit, then we will transition to Mayor Gaspar after next week's meeting. If not, we will take different action. It all depends on having the conversation, and to have the conversation, we have to have it on the agenda. I think we should not fear to ask questions, just as Mr. Muir did a few weeks ago with his agenda item, proposing to revisit past Council decisions. While I disagreed with his proposal, I absolutely support his right to raise his questions through an agenda item."
Instead of answering the well-formed questions, Lisa Shaffer just deleted her post on Facebook, and the questions that were asked. She still hasn't answered the questions put to her on Seaside Courier, where, thankfully, she can't delete he own comment, or the comments of others, as she is notorious for doing both on Encinitas Patch, when Marlena Medford our new Communications Director was editor for Encinitas, or on Shaffer's own FB page.
Shaffer is a dufass - in the academic world, you live in a closed system. Here everyone has to pay homage. In the real world,, she has been exposed - not terribly bright.
DeleteShaffer has a big ego - she has bought into her own self concept of brilliance by merit of having been in academia. She never had to work outside of her artificial environment. and lost perspective of her limited abilities. She is befuddled by the controversies that her inconsistencies have created, so she will now just ignore them. She was a political mistake - dump Shaffer ASAP!!
Delete5:08 PM
ReplyDeleteAhh - the oh so calm and learned answer. The opposite of back-room deals and secret negotiations is called in-your-face actions.
On another front - In-N-Out burgers popularity is running havoc on the commercial parking for other businesses in the vicinity. No parking signs for In-N-Out burgers are at driveway entrances to other businesses.
ReplyDeleteOn Friday street traffic was being directed by In-N-Out employees with traffic cones set up to keep drive thru traffic from entering the parking lot and redirected up to the end of the street and then onto the left side of the street. Can employees be used for traffic control? Where were the sheriff deputies?
Sheriff is at VG's.
DeleteWent there for first time, they do have the happiest employees, I'll say that! The line of cars blew my mind, immediate success.
ReplyDeleteMuir has renamed himself Wimpy. His new office is In N' Out.
DeleteBack n yer hole, Mikey.
ReplyDelete
DeleteHey, it's In and Out Burger, they don't open if they can't succeed. I only go to that area now before they open. Welcome to the new normal in that area...
Wow, this blog is getting way whacked. Bottom line Marr, you can't fight city hall. I think you found out the hard way. Scratching head and asking why would someone post something so private and personal for all to see. There are two sides to every story. Would love to hear the other side.
ReplyDeleteBack to the subject. 3-2 vote to keep Barth on as mayor for the remainder of her term. Under the circumstances (which have changed) it is the best route to take.
In Lynn's defense, she only posted it after someone else brought it up. Whether she is fighting city hall is a topic for another day.
Delete7:59 In our defense, she could have made the decision to not post anything. That would have been better.
Delete7:43, the "other side" was shared, through a link, by someone else, and brought up by that same commenter who is and has been obsessed with me, and sees this blog as a platform to repeatedly bully me. That is why I SHARED my story, because readers were only getting one side, mention of a prejudicial, false footnote. The time for the other side to have been heard was in Court, since this all revolves around a court case. But because of Sabine and Morrison's scheming and conspiring with a pro-City, anti pro se litigant judges, we were denied ANY fair hearing with a jury (as promised by Judge Lisa Schall) or without a jury. We were never allowed to argue our case at trial, which would automatically entail an evidentiary hearing and evidence presented, cross-examination of both sides.
DeleteAnd 8:02, don't say "in our defense." You are all the same obsessive bullying person. Your IP evidence can be tracked by the blog administrator, even when you post, again and again, anonymously, attacking me, personally.
What would have been better would have been for you to leave my name and my personal lawsuit out of it. What would have been better would have been for you not to post ANYTHING, since you don't know how to stop with your obsessive bullying.
7:03, it was known that no one was committed to running or not running for mayor in December. Those circumstances have not changed. No one has formally announced. Teresa Barth, knew, when she made the December agreement that she could decide not to run for Mayor. That has not changed.
If our forefathers and foremothers had said "you can't fight higher authority," then our nation never would have been founded. I don't want to fight City Hall, but oI want to hold Council Members accountable for campaign promises they've made, and for votes on agreements that they've made less than six months ago, knowing full well there is an upcoming General Election.
When you say "circumstances have changed," you are making a weak and unfounded excuse for situational ethics, over integrity.
Ordinances and laws change all the time depending on circumstances. The Supreme Court changes their mind on issues. This is not a weak excuse; it is fact.
DeleteOrdinances and laws change. That is different from a politically motivated change in the new majority's agreement, immediately before the General Election, when all the unknowns were addressed when the compromise was crafted.
Delete"Back to the subject. 3-2 vote to keep Barth on as mayor for the remainder of her term. Under the circumstances (which have changed) it is the best route to take."
ReplyDeleteLet me see if I get this straight:
1-Barth, Kranz and Shaffer agreed make Gaspar Mayor from June-Dec. 2014, about 6-8 months ago.
2- Today, Kranz wants to change the deal because he wants to run for Mayor.
3- Gaspar wonders why the deal can't be honored as agreed upon.
4- Therefore, it's best to do what Kranz wants.
That's illogical.
By George, Brian Brady (friend of Gaspar) you got it. That's not the only reason, but let's see if you are smart enough to figure it out.
DeleteLet me see if I can get this straight:
DeleteMy research indicates the 78th District does NOT include Encinitas:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/California's_78th_State_Assembly_district
Brian Brady, husband, father, tea party activist, founding member of the San Diego Republican Liberty Caucus, and small business owner is running for the San Diego County Republican Central Committee is Assembly District 78
Hmm, local Republican central committee types now backing Gaspar, despite legacy of Stocks getting hat handed to him as RINO on Red State blog. Classic.
DeleteYou're backing a non-factor Brady, Gaspar doesn't have much to offer. Demaio's on the other line, better pick it up...
Oh I see a loss for Gaspar, similar to her buddy $tock$. RINO backing does not help her at all.
DeleteRegardless of who Brian Brady lives, or if he's a Republican or not, the Mayorship and Council Member offices are supposed to be non-partisan.
DeleteRegardless of what you Google about Brian Brady, personally, he makes solid points questioning the illogical statements being made.
I suggest you examine the comments and come to your conclusions based on the arguments, not the personality or residency of the person sharing his or her opinions.
People on all sides of the spectrum can agree that all of Council has not been consistent in their ballot statements; City Attorney Glenn Sabine was not factual or accurate in his so-called "impartial analysis printed in the Sample Ballots.
People on all sides of the political spectrum can agree that Barth, Kranz and Shaffer have not kept their promises about more open government. They did not replace City Attorney Glenn Sabine or pass a sunshine ordinance under their "new majority," which is now seeming to be equally bullying as the old majority, that three times passed over Teresa Barth for Mayor.
Kristin Gaspar and Mark Muir voted against another secret ad hoc subcommittee; they wanted all of Council and the public as well as all of the Board of Trustees involved, at OPEN hearings, so the City and the School District could settle on a price fair to both public agencies, who were negotiating, secretly, over publicly donated land, excluding the public and ignoring concerns of the taxpayers.
I guess I missed the last secret council ad hoc subcommittee. All those people in the room must have obscured my vision.
DeleteSame rhetoric over and over and over almost verbatim each time. Must be copy and paste. At this point on this blog, I am tuned out. Some people just need too much attention and are extremely needy.
DeleteHere's my comment on Kristin Gaspar's Facebook Page, re the most recent Seaside Courier editorial piece. I notice that unlike Lisa Shaffer, Kristin Gaspar isn't deleting her own posts and the comments that follow them:
Deletehttp://www.seasidecourier.com/opinion/editorials/editorial-ethics-in-encinitas-just-went-out-the-door/article_b8df1b2c-e2ad-11e3-b63d-0017a43b2370.html
lynn: I don't think purchasing Pacific View is foolhardy. But for the City to pay $10 Million is! The secret ad hoc subcommittee of Mayor Barth and Councilmember Kranz didn't do a good job of negotiating, and using the obvious leverage that the City has to hold the price down.
I think the Seaside Courier's editorial misconstrues that Deputy Mayor Mark Muir and Councilmember Kristin Gaspar didn't want to purchase this legacy property, which will make a wonderful community arts and learning center, which can be rehabbed, maintained and leased by a non-profit foundation, for a continuing revenue stream to the City and to the School District. Now that the City is agreeing to the outrageous purchase price, over three times the only appraisal in the current time frame, current and zoning, using local comps, the City could and should insist upon EUSD's carrying a zero percent interest loan over 30 years.
We are paying off two 30 year bonds for EUSD. And the School District had insisted, when it (wrongly) claimed the Naylor Act doesn't apply, that Pacific View was to be exchanged for a commercial property, for an ongoing revenue stream.
Yesterday at 2:38pm
I think Sabine is doing a fine job for this city, otherwise, he would have been gone a long time ago. I hope that burns someone's ears.
DeleteOh God, now Lynn has Gaspar believing her crap. We need HELP!
DeleteGaspar is just pissed because she wasn't picked to be on the negotiating committee. There is a reason she wasn't the chosen one.
DeleteSpeak for yourself, 9:11, but I agree, you do need help.
DeleteLogic is not crap. It doesn't follow party lines. Neither does integrity. And keep posting how you are ignoring me, or that you are "tuned out, and not responding to my posts, 9:07. That is obviously untrue, by your own focus on me and my comments and your dismissive responses to me.
You can dismiss the truth as "more rhetoric" if you wish, but some are listening, and are not distracted by your red herrings and your personal attacks.
ha, ha ha! Just like Jim Bond used to say, he was sure the City Attorney was giving good advice, and the City was following the law, or the City would be sued.
ReplyDeleteThe City has been and will be sued more and more frequently, including for not following environmental law or open government law. What prevents more lawsuits is the tremendous cost of litigation to individuals, many of them seniors, on fixed incomes. Council has counted on this, because I believe it has long known, or suspected it wasn't following both the letter and the intent of the law.
Perhaps being sued by people like you.
DeleteIn my case, I was defendant, not Plaintiff, 9:14. The City has been successfully sued by Barratt American for Planning Officials' exercising unfettered discretion without Council's approval, by Citizens for Quality of Life and Save Desert Rose for improper mitigated negative environmental impact reports, by Kevin Cummins for failure to provide documents requested through the California Public Records Act, and many more cases, including when the City has settled, so the case hasn't gone to Court.
DeleteIn the case of Barratt American v City of Encinitas, that was a published Appellate Court decision, so it became Case Law.
In our case, in which we were sued, and appealed the default judgment, the State Supreme Court denied review, but took official judicial notice of the affidavit of Deputy Assessor Bob Baker in which he swore under penalty of perjury that our rear improvement to our property was permitted in 1953, with a garage on the north side of the improvement and an attached residential area on the south side of the 600 sq. ft. improvement, separated from the parking area by a doted line on assessor's schematics from 1957 (and by a pre-existing wall between the garage and the bathroom/studio area). Our pre-existing garage still exists, as it always has, separate from, but attached to our additional, PERMITTED, living space. There is no record of a garage conversion, because a garage conversion was never done.
We were sued by "people" like Christy Guerin, Randal Morrison and Glenn Sabine. Because they are or were part of the City Hall infrastructure doesn't mean their power hasn't corrupted them. Might doesn't make right.
I would suggest to the person in charge of this blog to get a handle on this. It is clear there is one person who wants to be in control here and her name is Lynn. If she continues to rant and rave about every issue and comment on every statement, this blog will go to hell in a hand basket. For the sake of the rest of us who like to comment and would like to do so freely without being subjected to her commentary, it would be most helpful. I realize there is freedom of speech, but when one takes control like she does with this blog, with the city council, and other venues, it is over the top. I think we have enough, but I can only speak for myself.
ReplyDeleteThree of my friends will not come on here any more because of her.
DeleteYeah I was about to suggest that.
DeleteAny more posts about Lynn, or by Lynn other than directly related to the post topic, will be deleted.
Thank you so much EU. It is most appreciated.
DeleteSomeone is really terrorized by Lynn.
DeleteIf you don't like it, don't read it - very simple..
DeleteThe subject of this particular blog piece is not about someone getting sued but about what is coming up at Wednesday night's council meeting. Back to the subject please.
ReplyDeleteEU The 10:03 comment should be deleted as you suggested. Thank you.
ReplyDeleteSame with the 10:04 comment which is not relevant to this particular article.
ReplyDeleteI think once EU sticks to his guns on this, it will be much better. Thank you.
ReplyDeleteHow can we trust that Barth won't run for mayor after all, if the troika breaks the deal on Wednesday?
ReplyDeleteThen she would hold the apparently coveted position of appointed mayor at the time of the election.
Oh, that's right, she says she is not running for mayor.
But how can she be trusted that she really means that, if she joins the other two connivers on Wednesday?
And is it really so important to be mayor at the time of the election? Shaffer and Kranz apparently think it is, so they want to prevent Gaspar from having that title. But is it really such an advantage? Ask Stocks.
If I were Gaspar, I would tell them all off on Wednesday that the troika can have their way if they really want because she is running for mayor and she is going to win the election, without the honorary title. Then Shaffer and Kranz would look even more petty than they already do.
Much better already. Stay tuned for Wednesday's meeting. It may not be as bad as some think. There will be lots of discussion.
ReplyDelete