A retraction from a City Councilman, a charge of candidate
collusion and a comment on power and retribution
‘I Misspoke’ About Making Proposals for Open Government Behind Closed Doors
Dear Editor,
At the recent candidate debate sponsored by the Gilroy Dispatch, I mentioned my proposal for the City of Gilroy to adopt policies that would bring more openness to government. I misspoke about which meeting this issue had been addressed. My proposal for transparency at City Hall was brought up in the open session on March 29, 2007.
My proposal was to:
1. Store copies of email that will allow for easier public review.
2. Disclose salary ranges of all employees by position without disclosing personal information.
3. Make closed session disclosures more informative to the public.
4. Direct the city administrator to inform the Council of any job-related changes among the city department heads.
I appreciate the chance to clear this up. I recommended these policy changes as steps toward re-instilling public support of City Hall. These proposals, with the support of the Council, are in effect. However, there is still more to do.
I encourage the public to give me input on how we can make city government more open and accessible to the public. As always, I can be reached at: ro***********@*****il.com or 408-842-2141.
Roland Velasco, Councilmember
It’s Clear There’s Campaign Collusion Going on Between Gartman, Woodward
Dear Editor,
Craig Gartman and Perry Woodward should have gotten their story straight before talking to the newspaper. The article on Sept. 22 headlined “Candidates Unite to Shake up Council” describes the cozy relationship between mayoral candidate Gartman and Council candidate Woodward.
After reading the article, I looked up the candidates’ websites and a few things struck me as odd. I re-read the article and was able to put my finger on the inconsistencies. First, in the Dispatch article, Woodward tries to distance himself from Gartman by insisting that, “He hasn’t endorsed me and I haven’t endorsed him.” Yet, according to Gartman’s website, candidate Woodward IS endorsing him for mayor. There is clearly more to their “unification” than they are willing to disclose to the public. Second, I also noticed that Woodward’s “voter survey” has a question about the current mayor’s job approval (who happens to be Gartman’s opponent, not Woodward’s).
If Woodward is simply running for City Council and not secretly coordinating behind the scenes with Gartman, why would he devote an entire survey question asking about something in which he has no stake? Given all of this, I find it extremely hypocritical for Woodward to advocate for “Sunshine Laws” in his guest column of the same day, when he and Gartman are so clearly trying to pull one over on the public.
He seems to be taking a page from the book of his new mentor – Gartman – on how to “grandstand-your-way-into-office.” How disappointing. We don’t need this type of deceptive campaigning in Gilroy. I urge these candidates to stop trying to dupe the voters and to just stick to the issues.
Eleanor Villarreal, Gilroy
Dare Question the City Administrator or Mayor and Look What Happens
Dear Editor,
Christopher Bone ($1.4 Million in Water Funds Misspent? – Sept. 19) writes: “What was supposed to be a run-of-the-mill approval of water rate hikes …” at the Sept. 18 City Council meeting changed when “Councilman and mayoral candidate Craig Gartman aired allegations against the city – based on anonymous sources” as to “whether $1.4 million from a water fund was improperly spent to finance downtown beautification.” The council voted unanimously ” … for city staff to investigate …” the charges.
Is this the same city staff that, under city administrator Jay Baksa, prepared and enacted actions council learned of “after the fact?”
Bone’s writing quotes Gilroy’s “leaders” – Mayor Al Pinheiro and Jay Baksa – reacting to Gartman’s charge.
Pinheiro reveals how little he’s learned about mayoral responsibilities. Following Gartman’s statement that “he [Gartman] planned to investigate the allegation himself … ,” Pinheiro chastised the councilman, saying, “He should’ve brought the information to himself [Pinheiro] and Baksa in a more subtle manner.” What presumptive arrogance!
Is your more “subtle manner,” Pinheiro, to have the issue slid onto the consent calendar for council approval without telling the public? You and Baksa got caught doing that with Baksa’s “enrich the 40-plus employee’s games.” When did you and Baksa proclaim yourselves Gilroy’s dictators that all must go to for anything?
Voters elect council members who will, hopefully, represent their views in city operations. These elected officials are not serfs who must seek yours or Baksa’s approval to do their job. Gartman seems to be the only councilman willing to do what he was elected to do – look out for Gilroy’s best interests.
Baksa, as expected, reacted to Gartman’s views with carefully-crafted, holier-than-everybody anger. His concern and thoughtful response, as reported by Bone: “Enough of this ‘I’m going to investigate this myself’ crap.” So very incisive, Mr. Baksa. You should join the mayor in learning a simple truth: If Gartman chooses to investigate such a serious allegation, where do you get the right to tell him no? It seems you and the mayor don’t want any voices questioning the shuck-and-jives you’re running, a well-documented list presented by Debbie Bradshaw (Letters – Sept. 19).
It seems you’ve forgotten, Mr. Baksa, you serve the council – it’s not your personal servant group.
Note to Maria Blankley: What is wrong with dissension if it gets those able to act to thinking toward action? You say (Letters – Sept. 20): “… The mayor must lead by example, be respectful of others and form consensus by getting council members to talk and debate the issues together.” When has Pinheiro led in anything? How much respect has he shown those who question his myopic mediocrity? Is trying to slide things through council without discussion “getting council members to talk and debate?”
James Brescoll, Gilroy
