Did Alamo endorse Tomi van de Brooke for Supervisor? Crimes & Incidents, posted by [removed], a resident of the Alamo neighborhood, on Oct 21, 2011 at 11:18 am
After more than a month, it is time to invite Supervisor Gayle Uilkema to explain why Contra Costa County Municipal Advisory Council Members were allowed to violate county MAC policies, as of January 30, 2009, paragraph 11.2,3, by using their titles in endorsing Tomi van de Brooke for District 2 supervisor? It appears that MAC members Bowlby, McDonald, Best and Evans have chosen, through use of their titles, to endorse Mary Piepho’s former Chief of Staff on behalf of all Alamo residents. Such an endorsement runs counter to Alamo’s majority due to the history of abuse and disregard by Mary Piepho and Tomi van de Brooke including creation of a “dead-on-arrival” MAC for Alamo.
Your pursuit of such published answers would be greatly appreciated.
Posted by [clarification], a resident of the Alamo neighborhood, on Oct 25, 2011 at 8:45 am
In a message from Ms. Tomi van de Brooke, she justified the violation of CCC-MAC policy by CCC-MAC Alamo members based on similar violations by Supervisor Uilkema in previous elections. Such violations only misrepresent Alamo residents by implying that Alamo's voters endorse Tomi for District 2 supervisor. If you review Danville Weekly coverage of the 2009 Alamo Community Council meetings that specified the Alamo MAC, you will find Tomi's comments supporting CCC-MAC policies that restrict endorsements using MAC Titles.
Explanation of such violations still remain Gayle's obligation and yours as a journalist. Shouldn't we expect these violations to be an agenda item for public disclosure at the November 1, 2011 Contra Costa County Municipal Advisory Council Meeting in Alamo?
Posted by Jessica Lipsky, a resident of the Alamo neighborhood, on Oct 26, 2011 at 11:04 am
After discussing this topic with Gayle Uilkema, I received this email from this supervisor:
"The MAC policies provide that a MAC, as a body, may not take positions on candidates for any public office, or on any legislative matter. (See Policies and Boundaries for Municipal Advisory Councils, section 11 “MAC External Communications and Representations.” Item3.) The MAC itself may not vote to endorse any particular candidate.
"This prohibition does not apply to individual MAC members acting in their capacity as private persons, as part of the exercise of their First Amendment rights. Acting as a private individual, a member of a MAC may endorse or oppose a candidate for public office. Unfortunately, when a MAC member uses his or her official title in making a private endorsement, this tends to create confusion about whether this endorsement is an official MAC action. For this reason, the better practice is to avoid using official titles when making private endorsements. However, use of the title is not prohibited by the MAC policies."
Posted by [removed], a resident of the Alamo neighborhood, on Oct 26, 2011 at 4:10 pm
Thank you for obtaining and posting Supervisor Uilkema's response and explanation.
It is a matter of legal opinion if employing titles in endorsements violates CCC-MAC policy and legal reviews provided to news services and Alamo neighborhoods say the restriction is specifically against use of MAC titles in campaign endorsements. Further, review of documented commentary made by Tomi van de Brooke, as Mary Piepho's Chief of Staff, at the Alamo Community Council specification of a MAC for Alamo in 2009 was specific in that restriction so MAC members would not endorse an opposing candidate to Mary Piepho.
It shall be the right of your readers to evaluate what is reasonable methods of endorsement under rights of free speech versus the result implied by MAC members' actions as endorsement on behalf of Alamo's majority of residents.
Thank you for your journalism and for Gayle's kind response.
Posted by [an invitation], a resident of the Alamo neighborhood, on Oct 26, 2011 at 5:55 pm
To add to your journalism, I have asked Tomi van de Brooke to explain her complicity and sponsorship of "Alamo MAC" members endorcement of her pursuit of election on behalf of Alamo's majority. Certainly, Alamo residents have demonstrated their rejection of Mary Piepho and her former Chief of Staff, Tomi van de Brooke, by rejecting support, recognition and participation in MAC meetings and policies that enforce lack of interactive discussion in consideration and mitigation of Alamo issues.
It is now Tomi's responsibility to explain her actions in conflict with her specifications for MAC operations during her service to Mary Piepho.
Once more, please use your successful journalism to obtain such explanations from Tomi and then contrast them to MAC members Bowlby, McDonald, Best, Dommes and Evans, in defense of use of their titles in such endorcement of Tomi.
Posted by DVC, a resident of the Danville neighborhood, on Oct 27, 2011 at 10:17 am
What a small world it is in contra costa politics..I just wrote a tuition check to DVC and noticed on the invoice that John Nejedly (Mary's brother) is on the board. That did not surprise me as the Contra Costa Times reported last year on the shocking expense of his health insurance premiums (which I help pay for) that I believe even he admitted were surprisingly out of line when the story broke. What surprised me though is that Ms van de Brooke is now also on the board. I am really dismayed at this continued nepotism and cronyism and I will not support any more members of the Nejedly web of influence. It's time they all got a realy job and stopped supping at the public trough. Vote Mary out of office, do not support Ms van de Brooke and in the next election do not vote Nejedly back on the DVC Board.
Posted by informed resident, a resident of another community, on Nov 4, 2011 at 7:44 pm
As you are a 'student' shouldn’t you consider studying up on your subject matter before you start complaining? Namely, Tomi Van de Brooke has BEEN on "that board" for quite a while and the CCTimes article was not on John Nejedly nor the Community College District (DVC Board).
Nepotism? Do you even know what that means? I sure hope they are teaching you "research" over at DVC because it looks like you may have skipped that class. You made 3 assumptions and all were false.
Your post shows that in the blog-o-sphere you can post opinion as "fact" and hope that someone might actually believe it. Do you always make you voting decisions on erroneous info? Just wondering.