Petaluma Tomorrow

LETTER TO THE EDITOR BY JOAN COOPER IN RESPONSE TO RECENT RUSTAD CARTOON

PT member and leader of Friends of Shollenberger Park Joan Cooper’s LTE concerning Rustad cartoon was published on Petaluma 360

Cartoon is Divisive

Published: Thursday, February 10, 2011 at 3:00 a.m.
Last Modified: Thursday, February 10, 2011 at 10:19 p.m.
Editor: Cartoonist Steve Rustad’s suspension was all too short for his offenses. His latest cartoon on the city and community groups suing the county to protect Petaluma’s investment in the Petaluma Wetlands and Shollenberger Park is more of the same misinformed and divisive Steve.

Fact: Building an asphalt plant next to the river and wetlands and degrading Shollenberger Park is not a positive addition to the mix at Haystack. Shollenberger is a free, accessible and healthy destination for working people, teens and young families and everyone who perhaps cannot afford health clubs or golf courses, but value exercise.

Fact: The opposition to Dutra is made up of a mix of all ages and economic levels — folks trying to make ends meet, health professionals who understand the health implications of a pollution source like Dutra, retirees and runners who need fresh air, all regular park users.

Fact: People against Dutra are also pro-business. We want to attract businesses that don’t produce excessive toxins and traffic jams and more asthma for our children to suffer. We want to create real employment opportunities, more than the seven to 10 promised jobs from Dutra’s fully automated factory.

Fact: Automation means fewer humans working, so employees of the established asphalt plants in Sonoma, you may say goodbye to your jobs, if Dutra gets in. (And Argus editors, when are you going to stop insulting women in your Rustad cartoons, portraying them as sexual objects?)

Joan Cooper, Petaluma

DEADLOCKED COUNCIL — VOTERS REJECTED AS THE ANSWER

The January 31 special Council meeting to address the open seat ended, to no one’s surprise, in a deadlock. There was no agreement on applicants between the developer funded Healy-Albertson-Harris coalition and the remainder of the council.  Three attempts were made to reach a decision on the open seat before it was agreed to table the matter for another meeting.

At the January 3^rd meeting HAH rejected the will of the voters by opposing the simple and democratic solution of appointing Jason Davies to the seat.  Davies was the “next highest vote getter” in the November Council election, 1.3%, 700 votes behind Albertson.  At the special meeting HAH moved to block voters from having any future say in filling the vacancy.  They opposed any opportunity to take the question back to voters in a special election.

SOMEBODY WHO DOSEN’T PARTICULARLY WANT IT

Michael Healy wrote in a letter to the Editor of the Argus that the person who might be the “right fit” for council is someone who doesn’t particularly want it.  Then he encouraged people to apply – a direct expression of someone wanting it.  What he appeared to be saying is that Mr. Davies wants the seat too much and the voters  want Mr. Davies too much. And, what we need is someone who isn’t willing to be vetted in an election, but wants the Council  seat just enough to fill out an application.

Mr. Healy has the “hunch” (apparently much more important than votes cast in November) that there is a person out there “not aligned with either perceived faction on the council” who is the “right fit.” The suggestion is that Mr. Healy and the developer funded HAH faction ( a reality, not just perception) will present us with that person.

Given his publically stated opinion, one is then forced to ask why Mr. Healy “expressed interest” (the equivalent of a vote but one that does not count) in Ray Johnson three times at the January 31^st Council meeting.  Perhaps running a campaign that resulted in Mr. Johnson coming in 6^th demonstrates that did not “particularly” want the seat.  Now, all Mr. Healy needs to explain is Johnson’s independence from developer interests and the politics of HAH.

SPECIAL MEETING OF CITY COUNCIL ON JANUARY 31^st WILL FOCUS ON FILLING THE OPEN COUNCIL SEAT

This is a critical meeting which will determine who, if anyone, will fill the vacant seat on the council.  This meeting will try to solve a short-term problem, the current vacancy, but leaves open the long-term problem – there is no defined process for filling vacancies, and recent practice does not reflect the will of the voters.

There is an easy short-term solution to the problem: appoint Jason Davies.  There are 6,719 reasons to appoint Mr. Davies, and at least 22 more than anyone else on the list – the votes of Petalumans. The current plan is for the Council to vet applicants based on Council defined questions. Voters have no say in what was asked and what criteria will be used to make the decision.

The long term solution: amend the city charter to reflect the will of the voters and put in place a reasoned process for filling vacancies.

Petaluma Tomorrow will spearhead a change to the charter, which will champion the role of voters and provide a reasoned and a consistent process for filling vacancies in the future.

While the voters are excluded from the process, we can at least see information about those who applied by clicking on applicants.

MASTERFUL LEADERSHIP BY MAYOR DAVID GLASS

The January 24^th Council meeting was a test of whether the new City Council could agree on critical issues or would be condemned to consistent deadlock.  Fortunately, the masterful leadership of Mayor David Glass resulted in agreement regarding the appointment to commissions, including the coveted SCTA.

Glass, reintroduced, with minor revisions, the win/win recommendation for appointments he presented at the January 3rd meeting.  Those recommendations were rejected by the HAH coalition when Council Member Harris was not appointed as Director of the SCTA. The Mayor reiterated that the recommendation maximized the requests of everyone. He also made clear that he genuinely desired but did not need the cooperation of the HAH coalition. The Mayor commented that, he could and would be willing to stick with appointments as they were at last year, and fill open appointments at a future meeting.  Under this scenario not only would Council Member Harris not be appointed as Director to the SCTA but also several requests of others (including those of Healy and Albertson) would not be possible.

Mayor Glass’s leadership triumphed.  His success reflected a genuine attempt at cooperation on his, Barrett’s and Renee’s part, combined with a clear understanding on the part of HAH that getting almost everything you want is better than getting not much of what you want.  It is also likely that the pro developer coalition saw political disadvantage in continuing their obstructionism on this issue.