Dear Editor,

As I've talked with friends over the past weeks, there are two questions we hope that you can give us a truthful, unbiased answer to.

The first is why all of a sudden you are concerned with the mayor and city administrator setting the agenda? In all the years I have lived here, I have never heard you complain about this with past mayors - not when Don Gage, Mike Gilroy or Tom Springer held the office. Why now?

The second has to do with a "Jeers" back in 2005, and I quote from the Dispatch: "JEERS: For city council members Craig Gartman, Russ Valiquette and Bob Dillon, who have been meeting regularly at Jeffrey's Cafe. It's not illegal, but it's not right. Council candidate Dion Bracco has recently joined the fun. Those meetings rob the public from witnessing the spirited debate over issues that should take place on the dais. It's important for residents to see how their elected representatives reach conclusions. Of course issues will be discussed outside the meetings, but regularly "scheduled" outside meetings are ethically out of bounds."

After the July 8, 2008 meeting in which Councilman Bob Dillon is quoted in the Dispatch saying: "I don't give a damn how you feel about it. It's not against the law, and I'm going to do it if I feel like it," Dillon told the mayor with a raised tone and pointed index finger. "You're referring in a veiled manner to the three of us meeting about the sidewalk ordinance at Sunrise Cafe, (and) you're angry about it and want to use the opportunity of transparency (to stop us from meeting). I have to tell you, I'm getting tired of it ... It's an old issue. It's wrong. You're wrong, and you need to get over it."

So, Mr. Editor, is it an old issue? Is it wrong for the mayor to ask for something that you yourself said was wrong almost four years ago? This meeting of the three Council members has been well published in your paper in which public policy was discussed, with decisions being made, and not one word has been uttered about, It's not illegal, but it's not right." To take it to the next level, why have you not asked if a fourth council member was talked to by one of the three prior to the public hearing/study session?

These are just two of the many questions your readers would like answers to or have you become what you have accused many a public servant of doing - flip-flopping on the issues?

Tom Lewis, Gilroy

Editor's Note:

1. Fellow council members brought up the agenda-being-held-hostage issue. The full Editorial Board discussed it and commented.

2. Hardly. Three council members meeting isn't illegal, but it's unhealthy for the process and, in the editor's opinion, wrong. Serial meetings are illegal, and we'll be happy to ask.