A time for resignation or recall, Mary N. Piepho Comments on Stories, posted by Community courtesy, a resident of another community, on May 17, 2009 at 8:33 pm
Since June 2008, the recall of Mary N. Piepho, as district 3 supervisor, has been the focus of alliance of communities throughout Contra Costa County and specifically among >60,000 neighbors within district 3. This current district 3 supervisor illustrates the inability to perform at board level in serving the specifications of neighborhoods throughout our district 3. Further, this supervisor operates with propriety over the functions of our district that she only represents on our behalf and authority.
The many neighborhoods from Alamo Region to the Delta communities simple suggest that Supervisor Piepho resign and save the reasonable consideration of her removal by recall. As a remnant of a failed conservative approach, based on unilateral authority not intended for her office, Ms. Piepho should resign in consideration of her failed qualifications to serve.
As suggested by Alliance of communities, central and east county, ad hoc committee for recall of district 3 supervisor, as suggested by Jennifer.
Hal, as a community courtesy to the Alliance of Communities, District 3
Posted by Community courtesy, a resident of another community, on May 18, 2009 at 5:34 pm
After thousands of e-exchange comments it has been decided that Candace Andersen should replace Mary N. Piepho as soon as possible. It seems that education and experience does matter to voters and in a recall election Ms. Andersen would be obvious in her exceptional capabilities by comparison to the high school graduate that currently is abusing the district 3 majority.
We are getting so good at one-election-after-another, why not make the election really matter to a majority in district 3?
**commentary by Jennifer, North Iron Horse neighborhoods, Iron Horse corridor neighbors**
Posted by informed resident, a resident of another community, on May 22, 2009 at 11:24 pm
Hal and Jennifer,
Don't know if you are both "Hal" but in any case you have really gone off the deep end!
You wrote; "Since June 2008, the recall of Mary N. Piepho, as district 3 supervisor, has been the focus of alliance of communities throughout Contra Costa County and specifically among >60,000 neighbors within district 3."
Did you just miss the Supervisors re-election? The one that was against Guy Houston? You remember right? How could you forget? After all, you were so convinced that Houston was a shoe in with his higher education and powerful endorsements. You want us to believe those 60,000 people you speak of forgot to vote?
Resign, Recall and .........Candice Andersen? Let us get this straight, the Supervisor has nothing but successes and you actually think she might read your drivel and resign? Is that supposed to be a punch line to your joke? Funny stuff!
Keep swinging at the air, yelling at the rain or posting to yourself if it makes you feel better. It really defines you.
Posted by Community courtesy, a resident of another community, on May 23, 2009 at 7:53 pm
Your readers, and participants in TDW's Forum, must realize that the current supervisor won election with less than 22% of the eligible voters. More importantly, the swift boating of Guy Houston simply turned-off voters, as planned by Contra Costa aggregated politics, with the expected reality that no one would vote for the tyranny of the first term of Mary N. Piepho.
With a 23% approval rating (public polling results), Ms. Piepho and Contra Costa politics gain enough majority to win election. Those surprised by her election now seek a true vote of the majority.
A lesson learned and not forgotten.
Hal, as community courtesy
**edited from Melissa's comments on RECALL the district 3 supervisor**
Posted by Halamo, a resident of another community, on May 24, 2009 at 7:30 am
**from a collection provided to H-P employees by David Packard upon his retirement**
Life is not a game.
It has no rules, no time periods,
and no agreement on win or lose.
It is not individual, and only relationships
that mend, meld and go away.
Gamesmanship exists in artificial environments such as sports, education, and politics wear power can set rules. In Contra Costa aggregated politics, we see governments, districts, institutions, corporations, unions, associations and more create artificial rules for political behavior.
Anyone that steps publicly beyond worship of such politics will be attacked by surrogates of such political structure, not on content validity and purpose, but simply by "defamously speaking."
Posted by Informed Resident, a resident of another community, on May 31, 2009 at 11:27 pm
They say the truth hurts. Just like the bad tasting medicine that you have to take if you want to get well.
So how long should Mr. Bailey continue with his verbal attacks against local government and many local officials without someone calling it for what it is? You don't have to like my style. I'm just offering a little reality check; sorry if that offends you.
Posted by Community courtesy, a resident of another community, on Jun 1, 2009 at 8:25 am
As editor, you recognize the value of discord in this overall FORUM to the proof of readership you provide your advertisers and justification you provide your publishers. Such discord become most productive in creation of commentary when the "defamously speaking" becomes the exchange between commentators, i.e. "Courtyard Cafe".
The composite campaign, under pseudonym "Informed Resident", that is surrogate to district 3 actions in our region has made "defamously speaking" create the opposite of your desired result. In personal "swift boat" attacks, that composite campaign has driven diverse commentary from your FORUM and made your FORUM their domaine.
It now is a matter for counsel to handle the personal nature of such campaign attacks. But more importantly, it is of grave matter to you to reclaim invitation to all commentary by your readers.
Posted by Informend Resident, a resident of another community, on Jun 2, 2009 at 8:02 pm
It appears that you now are trying to define what is acceptable and what is not on a public newspaper forum.
I am at a loss to understand your belief that forums are not for the exchange of information and that this exchange often leads to opinions being challenged. Have you ever visited other newspaper forums besides this one? Exchange and disagreeable dialogue is the rule, not the exception. In stark contrast to your suggestion, it remains popular opinion that this dialogue invites readership.
I politely suggest that you visit a few other sites and see that commentary is subject to both agreement & disagreement.
While I appreciate your efforts in trying to label me (another false assumption on your part)but I am not a member of a "composite campaign". I am merely an informed resident with an interest in the function of local governments and the roles of elected officials. I am sorry if that comes as a disappointment to your assumptions.
Do you see the irony in your suggestion of "defamously speaking" and then your projection within your statement "personal swift boat attacks". The kicker is your conclusion that I am making this forum my domain-now that is rich coming from you Hal. I learned one dimensional tactics when I was still in grade school. Better known as "the pot calling the kettle black".
Counseling would be useful. Just not in the way that you are “defamously” recommending it. Let's not forget that this entire thread is posted on topic of a "campaign attack" that you started! You know the one; "A time for resignation or recall, Mary N. Piepho".