Should Mary N Piepho rescind her written endorsement of Brian Dawson ? Around Town, posted by East County Watch, a resident of another community, on Nov 15, 2011 at 3:03 pm
Endorsed by Local leaders!
"I've known Brian Dawson for a number of years now. I know him to be a compassionate leader who looks out for our community's best interests at all times. Brian has a young family and is very involved as a volunteer on our local school campus. Brian gives tirelessly to others and has been a significant leader on the Discovery Bay CSD. Our community needs to have leaders who will represent the good in Discovery Bay and work productively to improve it. Brian has proven that he is a good listener, forward thinker and is interested in solutions for all. He has earned my vote and I encourage you to support him as well."
Posted by Janet Levine, a resident of another community, on Nov 15, 2011 at 3:34 pm
As far as I know, endorsements don't come with a warranty against all future human errors - its just plain stupid to expect Mary Piepho to have ESP, or to blame her for NOT having it. I've read all the stories about this director, and none of it has anything to do with his ability to serve the community. You people are awful busybodies...
I also would venture a guess, that this was a partial list, since the smart voter website often doesn't allow too much content. I am not sure what your axe is to grind with Mr. Dawson, but singling out and asking an elected leader to rescind a dated endorsement on a Danville blog is a bit bizarre.
Are you also asking all the other elected people on the list to rescind their endorsements? I'm probably not the only one that is curious why you would make such a defined and obscure request.
If you are so inclined why don't you just give the lady (Mary Piepho) a call? Your hit and run blogging smells bad.
Posted by Wendy Hill, a resident of the Danville neighborhood, on Nov 16, 2011 at 8:33 am
And many in Danvillle is glad to be rid of her! Mr. Steve B. must be too close to the incident. What makes anyone think beating your wife and endangering your kid has an integrity handle attached to it. Knocking around your wife and endangering you child is some pretty serious stuff when it comes to leadership and thinking skills. It indicates you have NONE!
Mary Piepho should have supported the efforts to get rid of him or encouraged him to resign instead of trying to hold on to the dream he will turn into anyone with a brain. Her silence only shows support for this Dawson Director and another poor decision on her part. It appears her fan base objects to the violent behavior of the person and her obvious silent is continued support. Didn't she originally appoint this guy with several objections from that community?
And the dummy that took a minute to search out information forgot to mention a few points of interest, which tells you volumes about that comment. What does Dawson's behavior show our children? People with leadership skills should be threatening and violent? The community wants to get rid of this guy before he really hurts someone. Mr. Dawson is a poor example for ANY Director in ANY community. For those new communities that are now forced to have Mary as a representative, Good Luck!
Posted by East County Watch, a resident of another community, on Nov 16, 2011 at 8:46 am
Thanks for your comment informed resident. I see that no one has actually answered a yes or no. Apparently, there is confusion on asking publics opinion on the endorsement.
It's a simple question asking for a simple answer. The relevance of the question pertains to all Contra Costa citizens who value a proper decision by our elected leaders. If anyone believes that an endorsement is not a view of character and integrity by the author seems to be lost or misinformed. The fact that Mary N Piepho's decision and others like it will affect the decisions of the entire county.
Thank you Janet Levine for your opinion. Endorsements do not come with warranties is important. The rest of your comment is nonsense. For the one idiot that thinks only Danville residents read the Danville Express, I feel sorry for you.
Dawson is not the subject. He was appointed by Mary N Piepho under several residents’ protests because of his past. The subject here is Supervisor Mary N Piepho and her ability to choose quality character and leaders for our County Government.
If you are interested in The Dawson events leading up to the Mary Piepho question;
Posted by Informed resident, a resident of another community, on Nov 16, 2011 at 9:20 am
I cannot speak for Steve B. but as someone that follows politics and local issues, I found your comments generally amusing. You claimed many assumptions in your post that don’t hold water. (Your angry tone did not do much to further your position)
For starters, Mrs. Piepho won re-election in 2008 against Guy Houston (a very formidable candidate). As evidenced by the voting numbers, it is quite apparent that many in Danville were glad to have her. Sounds to me like you have some kind of personal grudge.
As for Brian Dawson, I cannot find anything, anywhere where he has been convicted of anything. Last time I checked Wendi, this was America where you were innocent until proven guilty. You sound like you have already judged Dawson and are already jumping to your next conclusion. I would recommend a little more patience and see how it plays out.
I think Janet Levine (above) said it best. You actually expect a County Supervisor to have ESP or think it would be prudent for her to support efforts “to get rid” of another elected official? Do you even realize how ridiculous that sounds?
Regarding the your comments about me, “the dummy”; Did I not make it clear that I was responding to the original posting regarding endorsements of Mr. Dawson and was not projecting a shotgun blast, as you have done? I have not read a single negative thing about Mr. Dawson’s performance as an official, so perhaps you can enlighten me. Being as you are a resident of Danville I am sure you attend a lot of Discovery Bay Council meetings. Maybe I am just a dummy, but it sure seems like either you have personal issues with Mr. Dawson and Mrs. Peipho or you are connected to someone in that community.
Wendi, remember no one is forced to have elected leaders in their community. Or do you not understand democracy?
Posted by just the facts, a resident of the Diablo neighborhood, on Nov 16, 2011 at 10:06 am
Unfortunately for us, Mary Piepho still represents part of Danville---the unincorporated part in the Diablo/Blackhawk Road corridor, all of Blackhawk, and the Camino Tassajara unicorporated areas. She also still represents Diablo. So, it is certainly the business of the Danville Express to report on Mary's activities.
And on that subject, I hope you are all familiar with her shenanigans (to put it mildly) in trying to get her husband David appointed to the Cemetary District in the Discovery Bay area so that he could retain his seat on the powerful LAFCO. Try googling the story. In response to her unethical, if not illegal actions, the Board of Supervisors adopted a more sweeping anti-nepotism policy regarding appointments to County commissions and districts.
The worst of Mary's current actions that we all should really be focusing on is how Mary is trying to BREAK the URBAN LIMIT LINE in the Camino Tassajara Valley with the laughably- named nearly 200-home "NEW FARM" project. Her buddy, politico Tom Koch, who helped her win office, is shepherding NEW FARM (the land is owned by a former Jordanian minister) with Mary's full support through the County's development review maze. IF APPROVED, NEW FARM WILL BE THE MODEL FOR THOUSANDS MORE HOMES TO BE BUILT IN THE TASSAJARA VALLEY!
Posted by Wendy Hill, a resident of the Danville neighborhood, on Nov 16, 2011 at 10:40 am
Oh darn, you mean she might still represent part of Danville? I hope I am not in the area that has been designated. The comment by East County Watch makes way too much sense. We forgot about the insane exhibition during the Board meeting when she almost had a tantrum when her husband did not get appointed to of all things a Cemetery Board. The Supervisors saw it for what it was. The Board was so disgusted they made a new regulation to stop such a thing. The Boards's actions says a great deal for her lack of ethical conduct and integrity.
If Mary has anything to do with Tassajara she will be lining her pockets and paving every inch of Tassajara Valley with homes. Please observe Mary in action with Koch, it is frightening! I feel sorry for the valley and whats to come if she remains.
Posted by Informed resident, a resident of another community, on Nov 16, 2011 at 10:43 am
East County Watcher,
Yours is probably the most transparent post I have read to date. Mrs. Levine’s comment made complete sense, you need not feel sorry for her-she gets it. Clearly you are trying to stretch an unrelated issue into a hit piece on another elected official, in this case a County Supervisor. Nice try but it doesn’t have legs.
As you can see in the article you linked in your post Dawson hasn’t been convicted and the jury is out. Your assentation that certain individuals need to take action on a verdict that has yet decided seems a bit premature. If this was the wild west, I’ll bet dollars to donuts you would already have a rope in hand.
Now that you have defined your subject, let’s look at the facts. First and foremost from my read, Mr. Dawson was elected by his community after Ms. Piepho appointed him. For all intents and purposes the appointment lapsed and Mr. Dawson won election. So you are in turn saying that the hundreds or thousands of voters that elected Dawson have no ability to judge character. Perhaps you should be holding them accountable for not having ESP or better judgment either. Looks like you are going to need a lot more rope or new blog sites to spread your dirt.
Posted by Informed resident, a resident of another community, on Nov 16, 2011 at 11:30 am
“Just the Facts” and Wendy Hill,
“Just the Facts” should not let his screen name fool anyone. I see tainted opinion or “shenanigans” as the poster put it. I did Google the “story” in question. Turns out it was not a story but an editorial (opinion) by an editor who is no longer even employed by the paper. Illegal actions? County commissions and districts? You might want to look it up “Just the Facts” because the cemetery district is independent from the County! More innuendo or Just the Facts? This is all so available on the internet I am amazed that “Just the Facts” missed the most important ones. Oh well as Steve B. put it, there are certain things you just cannot fix.
Wendy, there is that familiar shotgun blast of innuendo again! I usually don’t like to get into the business of character defense but you are making this way too easy.
The County redistricting got a lot of press three months ago, including the new maps (districts). The articles are very abundant. For someone that has so much inside and detailed information, I have a difficult time believing that you missed the new supervisorial districts. That leads me to question your real motive.
Since all county Board of Supervisor’s meetings are online and available for viewing anytime, I went to the county website and watched the meeting(s) to refresh my memory. Just as I thought, you and “Just the Facts” are wrong again. Peipho was not even involved in the appointment process of her husband. She recused herself (and had to exit the room). In fact, she only participated when he was no longer in the running and she spoke about policy, not her husband. I saw no tantrum whatsoever. A little different than you described it don’t you think? For the record I looked back and saw that it was Supervisor Gioa that made the recommendation to appoint Piepho’s husband. I think if you are trying to speak for the Board of Supervisors you are greatly in error.
Wendy, you last comment seals the deal. Just like you, I don’t want to see Tassajara developed either. …But if you really think that any elected official can “line their pockets” with development than I would simply ask you to demonstrate how this is accomplished. You are the one making the accusations, perhaps it is time to back them up with real world facts, instead of misleading innuendo. Fair enough?
Posted by Steve B. , a resident of another community, on Nov 16, 2011 at 11:59 am
"I do not think Hundreds or thousands of voters elected Dawson as one suggests."
Brian Dawson received 1,692 votes. That is by definition "hundreds" and is only 308 votes shy of 2 thousand. So your credibility just took another hit, John G, I mean east county watcher. Looks like you aren't watching out too hard for whats going on in your backyard.
This is about Mary N Piepho and her decisions running this county not Brian Dawson. He has unfortunately been brought up as one of Mary Nejedly Piepho's decisions.
Since Dawson was elected by the citizens, how is that possibly Mary Nejedly Piepho's fault. You are really in denial if you think that somehow the two are related. The voters obviously agreed with Mary Piepho. Perhaps you didn't. Get over it.
But hey, if she rescinds her endorsement that will really effect an election that has already taken place!
Posted by Wendy Hill, a resident of the Danville neighborhood, on Nov 16, 2011 at 2:37 pm
It is Wendy with a Y and not an I. And I don't follow your political ventures with regard to the record of Mary, Dawson and the rest. I do not hate anyone so stop trying to paint a bad picture. No shotgun here. I work with an agency that addresses domestic violence on a regular basis. Beating up your wife over an argument and endangering your child IS POOR DECISION MAKING SKILLS. Bottom Line. If you took the time to view the results of studies regarding domestic violence it would surprise you. There is not just not ONE incident, there are usually many. There have been several comments about Mr. Dawson threatening others. So why is that? Are they making that up also.
So to my point I do not believe Mr. Dawson's continued violent behavior can be supported. The fact is he violently struck his wife because he could not control his anger. It appears Mr. Dawson could not deny striking his wife due to the physical evidence. I am sure the police had not choice but to book him. Dawson has NOT denied striking his wife, he just offered the excuse about his lack of taking his medication (if in fact that is the truth). If you support or sympathize with a Public Official or anyone that strikes a woman and endangers their child then I believe you also have poor decision making skills. Showing our children that Public Officials can act out violently without consequences is insane. You are correct the damage is already done by Piepho and recending her appointment decision will do nothing but make her admit her error.
With regard to Mary not being involved in the appointment process of her spouse is literally silly. I have a bridge I would like to sell you. The duo worked together until the Board of Supervisors had enough and made new regulations to prevent that from ever happening again. Yeh! for the Board.
With regard to the developers and Piepho, you must be really naive or just blind.
Posted by Informed resident, a resident of another community, on Nov 16, 2011 at 4:02 pm
Wendy with a Y,
Sorry for my computer spell check kicking in. I caught it and corrected it in the last post. You have my apology. I made an error. It happens.
Returning to the point, I see you are right back to jumping to conclusions and assuming; both of which are completely devoid of fact or reality.
So you don’t follow political ventures, or political records but yet, you post about certain politicians like you know exactly what they are all about? That makes no sense Wendy. Why so mad?
I see that you have some background on violence issues, but where you lose me is when you attempt to ‘judge’ and convict someone based on allegations. I agree with you, domestic abuse and violence is shameful at best and should not happen in the first place. However the man has not even had his day in court and none of us know what really transpired. In a civilized country you are presumed innocent until PROVEN guilty. I am sure Mr. Dawson would be pleased you are not the one judging him when this proceeds to court. Based on your own words you certainly don’t like Mr. Dawson or Mrs. Piepho, so I wonder beyond the fray what is driving your ‘opinion’.
You have nerve to accuse me of “painting” you a certain way, when that has been your conduct here. As far as the several comments about Mr. Dawson’s behavior I see them for what they are-comments, speculation, no different from yours but also devoid of fact. As you can tell by now, I don’t get my facts from hearsay or reckless comments found on a blog.
You wrote, “the fact is he violently struck his wife”. Is that really a fact or more assumption? You see, I don’t know and I am simply trying to stick with the facts. Aside from that I find it disturbing that you not only jump very direct conclusion but you further them by implicating others.
Mr. Dawson is beyond the county appointment –which for the record (fact) was made by the entire board of Supervisors. He was elected by the voters of his community according the County elections department. Going back a step and trying to place blame on others does no good. Mr. Dawson is solely responsible for his own actions and apparently the majority of voters agreed with Mrs. Piepho.
You have a bridge you want to sell me? Now that is funny, I guess we are back to your assumptions again. I take it you must have fact/evidence that the “duo” worked together. I personally have not seen it so I remain skeptical. From what I have seen and already stated, the supervisor stayed out of the process completely. The other supervisor John Gioa (The same supervisor that you are assuming “had enough”) recommended Mr. Piepho, which he did, because Mary Piepho recused herself from the process. Which part of that did you miss? Once again your assumptions defy logic. This is public record-I found it with ease, you can too. It is so much easier than believing everything that you read in blogs or editorials. Don’t take my word for it, do your own homework.
Lastly, regarding developers and Piepho; What I take issue with is that YOU implied that a county supervisor would be lining her pockets. That usually means financially and would be a crime. That is a pretty serious charge. One would think the DA, Grand Jury or Attorney General would be all over that don’t you think? I asked you to explain (proof), but you failed to do such a simple task. I guess I could ask you the same question you posed; Are you naïve or blind? Or are you just painting?
Wendy It is a pet peeve of mine when people accuse others without one shred of evidence, fact or proof.
If assumption, “what others are saying” aka; gossip and innuendo is how you judge individuals, I would hope that you never sit on a jury.
Posted by East County Watch, a resident of another community, on Nov 17, 2011 at 9:53 am
This thread continues to sway away from the real topic, Mary N. Piepho. It tends to debate Brian Dawson rather than ask if Supervisor Mary N Piepho should rescind her endorsement of him. No one has yet to provide a true opinion to the question. The comments here seem to attempt bringing the subject away from Mary N Piepho and on Brian Dawson. Again, this thread is not about Brian Dawson. It appears some posters are attempting to use Brian Dawson as the sacrificial lamb by taking the subject matter off of Mary N. Piepho. This thread is about Mary N Piepho’s questionable decisions .
Why are they so fearful of a direct question unless the correct answer does not agree with the Piepho philosophy? Distract and re-direct is a poor example of good leadership. When this does not work, some posters attempt attacking each other instead of providing reasons for a rescind of endorsement or not.
Posted by East County Watch, a resident of another community, on Nov 17, 2011 at 10:11 am
Keep in mind that since Mary N. Piepho was the initial endorser of Dawson, her opinion is very important. Her participation or lack of participation in the recall of Dawson could determine if Discovery Bay CSD will have to pay over $50,000.00 on an election costs.
This is why the original question of endorsement is so important.
Posted by Informed resident, a resident of another community, on Nov 17, 2011 at 11:21 am
East Count Watch,
I see you are still desperate to coax an opinion of someone that agrees with yours. I am sure if you ask the question enough you might get an answer or two you like. However, the inconvenient truth remains; Rescinding an endorsement is meaningless and would be a ridiculous act.
If you don’t think Brian Dawson’s issue is directly related to the question you posed, then you are more transparent than originally thought. The very fact that you believe the supervisor’s dated endorsement is an issue shines some light on your character. You are on a mission, we get it.
If you are so concerned about the welfare and costs related to a recall election, shouldn’t you simply be contacting Mary Piepho or Mr. Dawson directly, if you think that would matter, instead of posting on a blog that is out of your area? Or are you not really that concerned? I would think that is what a concerned person would do first. Why not try that (or have you already?) If it were me, I would be more concerned that the recall people are the ones actually driving the 50,000 cost that you speak of. It appears to me that they are solely in control of that. No one is forcing them attempt a recall are they? If you are an East County Watch then you know as well as the rest of us that read the papers, they are the same individuals that are always attacking the local officials over there. It is no secret even in this part of the county.
You really think an endorsement prior to anyone knowing about Mr. Dawson’s status is so germane to Mary Piepho’s ability to make decisions? That notion is just plain silly. Are you just as concerned about the other endorsements that Dawson may have received (you keep straying from that question yourself). Trying to label your own question as relevant to Mary Piepho’s decision making, doesn’t really fit. It was an endorsement prior to a specific event and is odd that you are trying so hard to stretch it into something monumental. County supervisors make hundreds of decisions every week, (just watch any meeting) and while this is less of a “decision” it is odd that you are trying to put it in that box. Perhaps that is why you are not getting the answer you are craving.
Maybe, just maybe this is more about you. As for that one, by now many of us have come up with an educated opinion. Hope that answered your burning question.
Posted by Dave's long lost brother, a resident of the Blackhawk neighborhood, on Nov 17, 2011 at 10:37 pm
I know Mary well enough to know that she will encourage her appointee to resign after the recall is approved for the ballot. Dawson will claim he is putting the town first and avoiding the cost and the town will appoint another Piepho lap dawg to the town council. Worst case, the decision will go back to the BOS.
If Mary were just a touch less arrogant she would have already helped Dawson see the right course and maybe she woul even be reelected.
And for my Bro, your posts are lapped up by your little club, but most people know that you and Mary have 100% of the responsibility for the accused wife beater on the council. You put on your parliamentarian putz hat and forced the decision to the BOS where the code is that sops follow the recommendation of the supervisor from the district. Blaming the entire board is silly and you know it. But it does give your pals something to high five about.
Posted by Alamo Gets Justice, a resident of the Alamo neighborhood, on Nov 21, 2011 at 10:37 am
Call me anything you like. "Piephoism" will always be "Piephoism" no matter who says it. To sum up the previous couple of responses;
The Piepho's are very high cost maintenance for taxpayers. The Discovery Bay Recall will cost huge dollars, The Urban Limit Line fight for New Farm will cost huge dollars, just keeping High Maintenance Mary will add to the County deficit.