What is the political purpose of a 94507 MAC? Comments on Stories, posted by Community courtesy, a resident of another community, on May 26, 2009 at 6:51 am
For Dolores Fox Ciardelli, Editor, The Danville Weekly
After a long weekís review of Contra Costa County District 3 proposal for formation of a new county agency in 94507 to conduct the policies and directives of Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors and Departments, one question remains. What political advantages will Mary N. Piepho and her chief of staff gain from formation of a Municipal Advisory Council compared to the political costs that will be generated among neighborhoods throughout District 3?
**a question asked by Karen, Diablo Vista (Alamo) region neighborhoods forum (by e-exchange)**
In review of e-exchange discussions during the past week, a MAC formation by district 3 will reignite the disapproval of the current supervisor and her chief of staff. The likely result as response is increased immediate interest in RECALL to be sponsored with allied neighborhoods throughout district 3. Thus, Karenís question is a request to you and your staff to provide published answers to the political purposes of a 94507 MAC.
Posted by informed resident, a resident of another community, on May 29, 2009 at 7:34 pm
It is very evident that it is the prerogative of any and all county supervisors to create these MAC's. This applies to any unincorporated community (in case you were wondering, I looked it up). I read it as the responsibility and "right".
Perhaps some additional review of this process would help, because it appears some people like Hal believe a MAC would or should serve as an independent government. It is very clear it is not allowed. I suggest he does more reading instead of just throwing out political barbs.
While you are at it do as I did. Inquire as to what it takes to recall any elected official. You might not be so willing to throw out such casual threats.
Get involved, get informed.
And a special question for Hal; Can't the people of your e-chains speak for themselves or are you the self appointed public information officer?
Posted by Hal Bailey, a resident of another community, on May 30, 2009 at 8:39 am
It is appropriate that messages specifically aimed at me and for my response be directed to me by e-mail:
Member, CDSI Research Fellowship
In addition, I recommend that such personal e-mail be done from a secondary yahoo mail account so those that wish to personally question my neighborhood courtesies can maintain their privacy. Simply select three letters and three digits (individual numbers) for an yahoo e-address: EXAMPLE: ATF401@yahoo.com (defunct). Since June 2000, neighborhoods have maintained their privacy by using such secondary e-mail addressses and have successfully communicated among their majority in our region.
I will look forward to expanding my courtesy to neighbors not currently participating in our region's neighborhoods.
Posted by Informed Resident, a resident of another community, on May 30, 2009 at 10:25 am
This is not the CIA-Nor a federal inquiry, just a simple question on a public forum/blog. No need to hide. No need to suggest what is appropriate and not. This is a forum, and the question could have been answered with a yes or no.
Dialogues between two (real) people often take place without having to go into a cloak of secrecy! Isn't that your criticism of certain groups or Governments? Now you are suggesting the same? Your suggestion on secondary (fictitious email addresses) exemplifies the point.
It remains a simple question.
If you believe your 20-60 thousand friends exist, coax them into voting next time around for an initiative, recall, ballot measure or political official of your liking. In the meantime, you should curtail the insinuations. It's like crying wolf.
Posted by Halamo, a resident of another community, on May 30, 2009 at 5:01 pm
Dear Dolores, for your laughing and dancing pleasure.
My answer to all questions is "Yes, I have not stopped beating my wife because I never started."
Now that is cleared up, let's ask: "What political advantages will Mary N. Piepho and her chief of staff gain from formation of a Municipal Advisory Council compared to the political costs that will be generated among neighborhoods throughout District 3?" That is the subject of the forum and I am not.
Posted by Informed Resident, a resident of another community, on May 30, 2009 at 10:29 pm
Dancing? Dancing around a question maybe? For someone who loathes politicians, the double speak you offered certainly raised the bar. Thanks for presenting a non answer.
Since that is not cleared up, I present a new question; Who are you asking the rhetorical "political cost" question to? If it is Mary Piepho shouldn't you be asking her? Maybe you have? Or are you just looking to provide yourself increased opportunities to provide your own commentary? Oh you are a cagey one. No one would have seen that coming!
You see Hal, your domination of these forums has become subject matter (widely known). What a twist of fate, huh?
Because this is an 'open forum" which allows anyone to ask loaded questions and provide a variety of answers (and innuendos) it affords the same opportunity to hold you accountable for your postings. Please don't try to play the victim.
Who knows; maybe it will give you something new to consider as you move forward?
Posted by Hal Bailey, a resident of another community, on Jun 1, 2009 at 8:03 am
AS a courtesy to our regionís neighborhoods, I would like to thank all contributors to discussions of a Municipal Advisory Council (MAC) to be located in the 94507 (Alamo) segment of our region. After several exchanges, including the composite presentations of political factions in support of a MAC, your readers now have a clear picture of the politics and emotions of MAC consideration. As a MAC results, it will be a matter for neighbors and their counsel to determine any role for the MACís five council members and two alternates within our regionís political and planning considerations.
Posted by Halamo, a resident of another community, on Jun 4, 2009 at 5:28 pm
Neighbors are trying to understand "Baby Steps" as if suggesting we eat the elephant one bite at a time. There are no babies involved in Contra Costa aggregated politics and the by-product of district 3's closed-fisted control of county advisory committees. A MAC is a gatekeeper structure for the unilateral power and will of district 3.
Clearly, current CCC-MACs illustrate the failure of supervisors in using what should be a valuable relationship with communities. Take a look at the results since June 2006!!
Posted by Hal Bailey, a resident of another community, on Jun 8, 2009 at 8:02 pm
Please remind contributors that content, and not contempt, is a requirement. Nothing said in contempt is meaningful and serves only those that oppose a position. In 94507, a majority will not recognize a MAC and will subvert its advisory. That is the challenge that needs commentary by those that wish a MAC and cannot afford its destiny as a failure.
At some time there must be content in your forum and it is your reality to find it!
Posted by Informed Resident, a resident of another community, on Jun 9, 2009 at 1:05 pm
What part of "place for sharing community information and opinion" does not apply to freedom of speech? Perhaps you did not get the memo? You know, the OPINION part...
I must admit I missed the notice where you were deputized to be a moderator on this forum. Is it your job now to interpret the "rules"? I see now, that if you don't like someoneís position you cry foul.
Since you are offering up your constant opinion I simply do the same and question your contrived representation. You just don't like it!
The content of the forum is just that-information, commentary and more importantly dialogue. Not a one sided opinion by someone who is convinced they represent thousands within the community.
I am only one voice. You on the other hand believe you are many but I doubt if anyone is really buying it.
Now since you insist on having the last word, let's get back to the topic.
Posted by hal bailey, a resident of another community, on Jun 9, 2009 at 7:06 pm
The reality of district 3 actions is now to be displayed on June 11. The response from the majority in 94507 will be delivered by their support, or lack thereof, of the resulting MAC. As the DAZE continues in concession by community groups, only the reality of the majority, too often thought apathetic, will determine how our region exercises majority voice and required compliance.
Let's once again let it be a surprise in similar manner to the majority that voted against their exclusion and the lack of definition of a TOWN named Alamo.
Posted by Community courtesy, a resident of another community, on Jun 10, 2009 at 9:29 am
Unfortunately, we never gained disclosure of the political purpose of a few proponents and opponents of incorporation in their current pursuit of a MAC. Of course we didn't expect district 3 to disclose the political agenda for a 94507 MAC.
What did happen as a result of your forum is the display of such politics' avoidance of content in their commentary. Regional neighbors in e-exchanges distributed such commentary and discussed 94507 MAC politics to be expected provoking significant study of current MACs and the communities they fail to serve. Conclusion? A 94507 MAC will be defined by district 3 to fulfill the autocratic purposes of the town council defeated by a majority of voters.
Posted by Informed Resident, a resident of another community, on Jun 12, 2009 at 12:20 am
Just an educated guess here Hal, but I am thinking the political purposes of a MAC are stated in the Government Code, somewhere on the County's website and publications.
If you have not figured it out, the one thing I will not do, is your homework. You have to take some responsibility here. The answers are there, you just need to look.
As far as my opinion; a MAC would offer an accountable communication link, to and from the Supervisor's office & in turn to and from the County. I am under the impression that county departments have allowances for MAC input, whereas there is no place for input from unofficial sources such as the AIA or other private groups. You could ignore the MAC and force the AIA and see how that works out.
If your question was geared more toward the Supervisor Mary Piepho's political agenda I have not seen one. I heard she had no interest in Houston's or Tauscher's seat so she may not have a political agenda. You would have to ask her directly or if not, then continue to joust with your windmills.