Supervisor Uilkema announces plan to retire Comments on Stories, posted by Editor, Danville Weekly Online, on Nov 16, 2011 at 6:54 pm
After two decades of public service in Contra Costa County, District 2 Supervisor Gayle B. Uilkema announced that she plans to retire at the end of her term in January 2013. The supervisor, who also served for 19 years as a Lafayette City Council member with four terms as mayor, said she simply felt it was time to leave office.
Read the full story here Web Link posted Wednesday, November 16, 2011, 6:10 PM
Posted by Harald A. Bailey, a resident of the Alamo neighborhood, on Nov 16, 2011 at 6:54 pm
In tribute to Gayle and her exceptional efforts to reach out to our neighborhoods early in issues we need to say thank you and best wishes in your future.
What becomes the issue is a distasteful candidacy by Tomi van de Brooke that so obviously disserved our region as voice for the arbitrary and defamatory reality of Mary Piepho's seedy politics. It becomes an opportunity to judge the potential of H. Abram Wilson to be the popular candidate in district 2 or look to drafting an extremely talented Vice Mayor Candace Andersen of Danville.
Whatever Gayle leaves behind as welcome change in the 24/680 south corridor and her immediate outreach in neighborhoods, we are now required as voters to look forward. We need a highly interactive and engaged supervisor that knows the role is service to the will and interests of communities.
I agree that Walnut Creek and our 24/680 south corridor have those undeclared servants and we need to be ready to invite their service and celebrate their candidacy.
THANK YOU, Gayle and know neighborhoods will carry on your intelligent service.
Posted by Informed resident, a resident of another community, on Nov 17, 2011 at 10:21 am
I am sure a new district (which she fought against) would have presented new challenges. Most likely the addition of having at least one credible candidate and possibly others lined up to run against her added to Supervisor Uilkema's decision.
I think she made a good decision for herself, the county and the district.
As for Mr. Wilson, I like him, but it is appears the voters don't. Losing 3 elections in a row is very telling. Especially when the last election simply would have returned him to a seat on the city council.
Besides all of that it is a little late to jump into a supervisors race. Anyone that would consider it, should have done so when the new districts were announced.
Tomi Van De Brook will make a good replacement and should serve the county and region well.
Posted by jrm, a member of the Vista Grande Elementary School community, on Nov 17, 2011 at 10:48 am
Informed Resident, as part of your information gathering you should know that I and many others are going to work to remove all vestiges of the Nejedley cabal from the offices they hold. Mary's brother has a sweetheart health insurance benefit that we pay for as part of his DVCC Board status. Tami as well. Add to that the whole cemetary board shenanigans involving Mary and her husband months ago and you finally have increasing sunshine on their feeling of entitlement and power as a vestige of the Father's reign long ago.
As Pete Townsend and The Who sang..."Won't Get Fooled Again!" the turkey they slice at their family table on thanksgiving was paid for by all of us, and we paid dearly. Thank goodness the Contra Costa Times is on their trail.
Posted by Good Politician , a resident of the Danville neighborhood, on Nov 17, 2011 at 12:00 pm
Its time to solicit some good honest leadership now that the seat is open. I do not think Tomi Vanderbrook is the best choice based on her special interest. Hopefully there will be more to choose from.
Posted by Informed resident, a resident of another community, on Nov 17, 2011 at 12:27 pm
I believe it is apparent to anyone who reads this blog, that from your first post you are on a mission. Perhaps more of a vendetta. The only question that remains for me and probably others is what is really causing your behavior? As far as using the verbal tactic of “many others”; all prior Nejedly/Piepho elections would point to the harsh reality that you make up a minority. Further, a dozen or more of your friends may seem like “many” to you, but in a county of over 1 million, it is not many at all.
My issue remains, I am against any one that attacks others based on rhetoric and innuendo and you continue to do just that. You use partial truths to construct a point which is misleading. For example(s) you are attacking all things “Nejedly” but the reality remains; if Mary’s brother has health insurance by being on the board which he serves (and I believe he does), then don’t ALL of the board members enjoy the very same benefit? So why pick on him? Your point may be taken, if he was the ONLY one or he was the one responsible for creating the benefit, voted for it, etc., but you have failed to make that point. You simply chose to paint him as a bad for you, because you are resentful. Then you also tried to throw Tomi Van de Brook under that very same bus which you are driving.
It looks like your memory may be failing. Not only did the cemetery issue you bring up occur a year ago (not a few months) but you try to back it up with reference to editorials? There is probably a reason it was not reported as a story don’t you think? I believe most people recognize editorials for what they are; opinion and speculation. Then again, when you have a lack of fact you cling to things like editorials. In case you missed it, the lead editor was let go after that and the Times editorials have become laughing stock to it’s readers and cause for a countywide boycott of that paper. There is even a facebook page if you are into that.
From what I witness every election is that the Nejedly’s get endorsed by the same publication that you speak of. So much for “being on their trail”. I imagine they will endorse Mrs. Van de Brook in the election, but that is merely speculation on my part and really doesn’t count for much.
Not sure it is even worth addressing the rest of your post; it really doesn’t make much sense. With that I will let you get back to your mission, I mean your work.
Posted by jrm, a member of the Vista Grande Elementary School community, on Nov 17, 2011 at 1:39 pm
Informed Resident...the contents all of your posts indicate you are a hack for the Nejedly regime, and we all see through your blind support for all things Mary. You tried to brush Mary's cemetary embarrassment under the rug by implying it was only an editorial piece yet you omit the fact that the Board of Supervisors enacted a nepotism policy EXACTLY because of Mary's efforts to unethically and surreptiously get her husband appointed. Her resultant tantrum was great viewing on the televised coverage of that particular meeting. I don't have a "mission" to use your words..I do have a tendency however to be highly suspicious of legacy political families that use their familial influence to feather their own nest. Which brings me to you and your recent appearance on numerous community blogs shilling for Mary....nothing wrong with that, this is America and partisanship is part of any democracy, but your prompt and strident attacks on anyone who dares challenge "the Kennedys' of Contra Costa" is really not helping to bolster her fragile base of support. I might conclude by asking that since you so close to her and have an encyclopedic memory of her political history would you ask her when she will shut her Danville office next to our oak tree? Her office is no located in the district she now represents.
Please read this particular Grand Jury report. It should have been named: "The Piepho Diaries" as it comments on illegal diversion of Keller Canyon Funds, Nepotism, and LAFCO commissioners who inappropriately submitted letters to the editor in support of "Developer Advocate" Tom Koch backed Measure F in Brentwood. Each of these topics have Piepho fingerprints on them.
It is more than understandable that the Piepho pals don't like to dredge these things up. Poor Dave was a month away from being the Chairman of LAFCO and then woosh! He's off the DB-CSD and can't even get a seat at the Cemetery District. Getting booted off LAFCO would have been hard enough on the guy, but he lost his big dream of being Chairman of LAFCO. That's not a very soft landing.
Posted by [advisory], a resident of another community, on Nov 17, 2011 at 2:12 pm
As more and more readers of commentary in e-exchanges on your Town Square Forum recognize the campaign rhetoric supporting Mary Piepho and Tomi van de Brooke, few had put together all the participants in such delivery. As many readers in our corridor communities have seen in news service distributions in the past five days, a full listing of participants in Contra Costa machine politics has been disclosed as led by Mark DeSaulnier with the support of Susan Bonilla, Karen Mitchoff and, unfortunately, Joan Buchanan. Simply reviewing the endorsements on www.tomivdb.com will provide such listing of machine politics in 24/680 south corridor. Readers need only Google these names and see much of the news coverage and social media activity that validates political machine participation.
The single leading effort is to keep opponents from challenging Mark’s selected candidates including his support of Mary N. Piepho in district 3 and the recent results in district 2. News service research analysts and counsel have been able to discover documentation of such plans and activities among the aggregated campaigns to maintain the status quo in Contra Costa political control by Mark and his surrogates. Voters are facing June Primary Elections in 2012 where the only candidates for supervisor are selected by Mark with the intent that each run unopposed.
That will be necessary for Mary Piepho with a voter approval rating of 10% in news service polling. As long as she runs unopposed, it is likely a majority of primary voters would not even bother to vote for supervisor and 10% of voters would elect Mary even though the majority opposes her re-election. It is very much like Danville appointing their town council before the last election because voters do not get a choice of voting NO on Mary. Since Tomi van de Brooke was a major part of Mary’s political abuse of district 3 communities, she has only slightly better approval rating due to some support in Lamorinda. But she also has to run unopposed to win against most SRV candidates that might run according to the same news service polling.
So the challenge to districts 2, 3 and 5 voters is to insure a competitive campaign by drafting desired candidates with majority demonstration of support. It should not be difficult because even Mark DeSaulnier has a negative approval rating in our 24/680/580 corridors and could be successfully challenged by candidates drafted by a voting majority. There is little rush to start such individual campaigns because it is to the advantage of the majority of voters now communicating by e-exchanges and social media to introduce their candidates only just in time for qualification for the June Ballot and then mass their majority to elect those candidates. Simply remember, Mary won re-election in 2008 with less than 22% of the eligible voters so her defeat this time should require only a qualified candidate with a following of 25% of voters.
So as your readers review further campaign dogma from various machine politics supporters on your Express Forum, they should take time to fact check the commentary via news media, social media and various new services websites. More importantly, your readers should become engaged in their neighborhoods and the outreach among neighborhoods to insure that voters have competitive campaigns from which to choose the candidates that serve their will and interests.
It would be encouraging if you were to offer such fact checking and clarity.
Posted by Informed resident, a resident of another community, on Nov 17, 2011 at 3:07 pm
Such a predictable and cross response from you. We can debate all day on each other’s positions which is what this blog is for. If I did not know any better I would surmise that you just threw a “tantrum” yourself, but that is just my opinion. I continue to read only assumptions and innuendo from your point of view, inclusive of your posting above. Please post some fact and I will consider your points more objectively.
In case you missed my previous statement, I am no more a “hack” for the Nejedly regime as I am a hack for factual and relevant information. If that troubles you, then I cannot help you. You on the other hand keep running back to the same old worn out hearsay and innuendo. I am not brushing anything under the carpet, I am merely trying to get you to recognize the reality shown on the record. I could personally care less about anyone’s appointments, but what I do care about is what really occurs in our county. The record is very clear on this, and it is not what you suggest with your fouled opinions. The board did enact a policy but not because an infraction occurred. It was to prevent one from occurring in the future, which was pointed out in the deliberations. It is exactly what the record shows however I am not going to do your homework for you. Your claims suggest that was done because there was nepotism, but the reality is it was to prevent nepotism in case it ever comes up. Let’s not deny that Supervisor Piepho recused herself from the appointment process, which was a matter of record-or do you want to continue deny that fact also? Tantrum? Yep, right out of the editorial pages. Maybe you better watch it again (the county has video links posted) but again, I am not going to do your homework for you. There was no “tantrum” as you describe. What I saw were many valid points offered up by Mrs. Piepho cautioning against a poor, knee jerk policy, which was suggested by the same supervisor (Gioa) that supported and recommended Mr. Piepho’s appointment. Jrm, you clearly see only what you wish. However, reading into what you believe occurred has very little merit except to you. I chose the facts and public record over your opinions, so if that makes me a Nejedly hack in your eyes so be it.
Further if you don’t have a “mission” what is your previous statement supposed to mean? “I and many others are going to work to remove all vestiges of the Nejedley cabal from the offices they hold.” That sounds like a mission to me. I see you are not one to let facts get in the way of your opinions.
Ironic that you speak of the importance of democracy, America and partisanship. If the Nejedly family, Kennedy family or any other political family bothers you, then your issue is with the voters and democracy, not me.
You should know something about me if you haven’t already figured it out. I have grown tired of reading posts about ANYONE (Nejedlys or any other persons) that are nothing more than veiled attempts at misrepresentation. So as long as I have the time to post fact substantiated by official record you are going to be quite unhappy. Your labeling of them as attacks when they are about the issues, and not about you, is quite telling of your frustrations. Do you feel that you are somehow pardoned from hypocrisy when you “attack” others, Nejedly family, Supervisors, families, candidates, etc., with your innuendo? Somewhat of a double standard and it makes me take issue. Stop doing it and I will stop bringing up the facts up to counter your opinions. Until then expect more from the same. If you still think I am some kind of shill, then try picking on someone else.
Lastly, by using the phrases like “Fragile list of support” only shows me desperation. Once again the Supervisor in question knocked the pants off Guy Houston not so long ago. I’m fairly sure you remember that well. Back then, I read how he was going to easily prevail, so you might imagine I am a little cynical of your overall message. My message to you is in a county of over one million any and every elected person is going to have a faction of constituents that don’t agree with their positions. I often disagree with them myself. The only difference between you and I is that I like to look at things from a factual position instead of an opinionated one. I find more credibility in that. Perhaps you should give it a try, you might get better results.
Sorry that office thing is bothering you. Wish there was something I could do about it.
Posted by Informed resident, a resident of another community, on Nov 17, 2011 at 3:31 pm
Thank you for proving my points, even though you did not mean to. Ooooops!
Anyone reading the web links will see that the stories which were written, are far from the assumptions, innuendo and editorials. They were about the procedure and concern surrounding the issue. There were no stories reported on actual nepotism occurring. Thank you again for verifying all my previous points.
The facts remain just as I posted them and the story states no wrong doing on the part of Piepho.
(Taken right from the news story)
"Mary Piepho normally appoints members of the
cemetery board, with the other supervisors
confirming her picks, but she recused herself when
her husband, David Piepho, applied. Gioia
recommended that the supervisors choose David
As for the rest of your post it simply demonstrates all you can do is post innuendofrustration as follows;
… It should have been named: "The Piepho Diaries"
Readers on this blog should read the documents you provided, because you are entitled to your own opinions but not your own facts.
Posted by East County Watch, a resident of another community, on Nov 17, 2011 at 5:42 pm
What about the rest of the cemetery story......... Mary Piepho prematurely closed the application process and blamed it on the clerk’s office. Then when the proper advertising and application process was demanded by the public things changed dramatically. Her tantrum on local TV was an embarrassment to the entire county. There was an obvious borderline back door hidden agenda. This time she got caught just like her hubby on the stipends. I do not know why the other "Negedly" complaints are appearing here. I do know the one Negedly ( Mary) spearheaded a 60% raise on herself. Now that is a loyal taxpayer’s friend. Who wouldn't follow that duck to the bank with our tax dollars? All the board should be ashamed to follow such a self server. The real funny part is giving a few cents back recently to make it look generous against the several millions of dollars in unfunded liabilities that will eventually be on the shoulders of us voters. We have a sincere duty to the general public to unseat takers. We have a civic duty to keep special interest politicians ( PLA Vanderbrook ) out of office.
Posted by [absence], a resident of another community, on Nov 17, 2011 at 6:50 pm
All of this commentary is addressed to your journalism. You have the exceptional journalism of Dolores to address these commentaries with none being conclusionary. You have exceptional news service resources shared with your PA HQ. Why not simply cover the story and eliminate Informed Resident(s) misconception that this is a conversation based on campaign rhetoric and false assumptions among commentators.
It is all now confirmed and available by exceptional journalism.
Secondly, Informed Resident(s) commentary is increasingly degrading Mary Piepho's and Tomi van de Brookes' approval ratings without real contribution to either campaign. If you take journalistic control and use the exceptional resources from news services, Tomi and Mary get a fair assessment of their actions together in District 3.
Otherwise, your Express Forum destroys Mary and Tomi by their interpretation through over-active and misinformed supporters.
Posted by peggy, a resident of the Alamo neighborhood, on Nov 17, 2011 at 6:59 pm
I was especially delighted to get a new supervisor. Ms Piepho and Tommy were involved in many take-aways from Alamo-starting with the removal of SRV Regional Planning commission. That was followed by the forcing of MAC on Alamo and the removal of the R7-A, Zone 26 committees. She is bad news, and a very self serving person owned by the developers.
Posted by Informed resident, a resident of another community, on Nov 18, 2011 at 12:38 am
East County Watch,
Even though you have conveniently strayed away from the topic, you are making this far too easy. Apparently you did not even bother read the links you posted?? YOU provided the factual answers to your own falsified statements! Either you are completely in denial or so blind that you cannot see.
From your own web link #1; (CCTimes) “While preparing background materials for the
supervisors to review the cemetery appointment,
administrators found that the Board of Supervisors'
clerk's office had failed to advertise the position,
and reopened the application period.”
From your own web link #2; (Brentwood Press) “According to Julie Enea, senior deputy administrator for the county, the agenda item was pulled primarily because it was discovered that the available seat on the cemetery board had not been properly posted by the office of the clerk of the Board of Supervisors.
“I knew it had not been posted when a question came up on the agenda by someone who asked where the announcement of the application had been posted,” said Enea. “And what we discovered was that the clerk’s office had failed to actually post it in the required places, so the process is essentially starting over … referring it to the Public Protection Committee may serve a few purposes.”
From your own web Link #3; (Grand Jury Report) In violation of California’s Maddy Act (Gov. Code Section 54970-54974) the Clerk of the Board
failed to advertise/post this opening to the public.
The rest of your post is right back to conjecture, innuendo, spin and mostly recycled material that you can’t quite get to stick. For some strange reason you think if you repeat the same inaccuracies over and over someone might actually believe you. You are under estimating other citizen’s ability to think for themselves. Providing bad information gets old quickly and you have repetitively shown you are quite a source for just that. It's obvious you are confused about what civic duty entails, and based on your statements you have never understood the true meaning of credibility.
By the way it is VandeBrooke.
p.s. [advisory], [absence] aka; Hal,
I cannot even begin to address your idealistic comments, I don’t have the time or inclination to play in your make-believe world this evening. Perhaps another time.
Posted by jrm, a member of the Vista Grande Elementary School community, on Nov 18, 2011 at 8:14 am
Informed Resident...I must tell you what was the tipping point for me on the Nejedly cabal...the April 2011 revelations that part time elected board members were soaking us taxpayers for expensive health insurance premiums, both the Chronicle and the Contra Costa Times reviewed the data that had previously been withheld from the public. Analysis of the data revealed that the board member raking in the highest perk was none other than James Nejedly, James is a board member of the Central Costa County Sanitation District and the annual cost for his insurance coverage is $35,636.00 per annum. That was the highest perk in all the Bay Area. As I read that I thought that just isn't right, we elect these people to these obscure boards without really knowing anything about them, and James is taking advantage of the system for his own benefit. Take all the shots at me you want I.R. but I am on the right side of the ethics equation and many people feel the same way I do. James get a $35,000 per year policy at no cost to him and he got elected solely because of his last name.
Posted by East County Watch, a resident of another community, on Nov 18, 2011 at 9:14 am
I must agree with jrm regarding the Nejedly children riding the coattails of their father's self earned respect and reputation. They are not even close to filling his legacy. Honesty, integrity, ethics, and morals are to come by let alone practice.
Vanderbrook, VandeBrooke, I apologize for the typo. I do not apologize for her link to the Piepho's. That is something not to be proud of. Maybe Supervisor Uilkema can recommend an honest Politian to succeed her legacy. She has worked long and hard for Contra Costa. I wish her a relaxing enjoyable retirement.
Posted by jrm, a member of the Vista Grande Elementary School community, on Nov 19, 2011 at 8:36 pm
Oh god, please make sure the fine citizens of Contra Costa keep paying the Nejedly family now and forever more..and may we hope and pray the press does not further reveal the extent of our covert nepotism..
Posted by Informed resident, a resident of another community, on Nov 20, 2011 at 7:55 pm
Sorry guys, took the weekend off. jrm I will try to get back to you regarding your questions when time permits.
There is much more to life than blogging. (You might give it a try).
p.s. Whoever the imposter was that posted as "Informed resident", (above; Nov. 19 2011 @ 1:06 a.m.) thanks for filling in. Your services will not longer be needed and I flagged your post. You might want to rejoin Halfway to Concord.
Posted by East County Watch, a resident of another community, on Nov 28, 2011 at 3:41 pm
I can only conclude that the negative commenter’s lacking facts and appear to deflect the corrupt ways of certain career politicians in this county benefit them personally. I have concerns for the general public based on the poor performance of Supervisors and their staff these past few years. This County is in debt a billion dollars. We need a real set of Supervisors to stop this madness and stand up to the special interest.
I entertain constructive factual information other than pwe,pwe, fantasy island, and Towne Foole. The previous negative commenter’s must be children below the actual voting age.
We need adult responsible honest leaders to run for office. We need someone without special interest influence, someone who we can trust, someone who can get Contra Costa back to respect it deserves. It's time the public take responsibility and replace all the Supervisors except Gioia.
Posted by Informed resident, a resident of another community, on Nov 28, 2011 at 4:43 pm
East County Watch,
Your hypocrisy and deflection is astounding-perhaps you should invest in a mirror.
You want constructive and factual? How about this;
The current board of Supervisors LOWERED the County's debt by 1 Billion dollars. You know, the DEBT that was generated by previous boards??? With your hours of time to research I am completely amazed at your ability to have overlooked such detail and only post negatives.
You have a board of supervisors who have stopped the madness, but the bigger question remains; when will you stop your own madness and recognize what has been already accomplished?
Posted by East County Watch, a resident of another community, on Nov 30, 2011 at 10:29 am
Informed Steve is playing the blame game. This is the protocol for incumbent promoters. Blame all the problems on someone else other than the responsible leaders. You probably do not hold Obama accountable even though he spent four times as much in two years as Bush did in four years. Maybe you can have them make Piepho Bucks like Obama Bucks. You probably think that will fix everything. You have to come up with something better than blaming others informed Steve. We need NEW Supervisors that can deal with reality.
Informed Steve is playing the blame game. This is the protocol for incumbent promoters. Blame all the problems on someone else other than the responsible leaders. You probably do not hold Obama accountable even though he spent four times as much in two years as Bush did in four years. Maybe you can have them make Piepho Bucks like Obama Bucks. You probably think that will fix everything.
You have to come up with something better than blaming others Informed Steve. That excuse is getting really old with the taxpayers.
We need NEW Supervisors that can deal with reality.