(10/26/08) Op-Ed re: Prop 8

Recently, I asked someone I know and respect about his position on Prop. 8.  The reason I did is that I know he is very active in the Catholic church, and I was curious as to whether he was toeing the Church line, or if he was taking a position in opposition to the Church.  The man is married and has three kids.  Here is his response.  He did ask that I credit him by initials only, as the issue is quite volatile with some people, plus the fact that this was originally written as a private communication between two individuals, and was not intended to be published.  However, after I read it, I thought it was so well thought out and reasoned that I asked him to allow me to share it with my readers.  Hey there, Bill.
Thanks for asking my opinion - you are definitely in the vast minority who knock on the door of the "fool on the hill!"
 I happen to oppose Prop. 8. In all honesty, I don't know who is "authorized" to determine the definition of marriage. What we see today is a tradition handed down from probably the earliest societies to populate the earth. These folks, our forebears, certainly had nothing to fall back on to determine the rudimentary bases of society. The "usual" sex drive in human beings has lead to heterosexuality, and that to procreation, and that to the establishment of societies. And if one follows the Judeo-Christian bible (and perhaps the tenets of other faith systems), the heterosexuality concept continues. But then, not all human beings subscribe to the bible.
I don't see homosexuality as merely a choice. I think it is way more complex than that, and that everything we know about it at this moment in the history of mankind isn't even the snowflake that has fallen onto the tip of the iceberg.  I know there are some species in nature that begin their lives as one gender, and end their lives as another gender. I don't see "choice" being a part in that transformation. I've also heard it said by people (whose thought processes I trust) that there are some bi-sexual species in existence as well. Those species can continue to ensure the continued existence of their species without the need of a partner of the opposite gender. So if God created those species, and armed with the knowledge that God doesn't make junk, then it must be a good thing.
 So, continuing along that line, it seems logical to me that the human race could possibly have similarities with those other "unorthodox" species, with "different" types of genetic composition within one species. All this leads me back to my first statement: who is the authority to dictate how it is to be?
The single fact that I do know is that I personally, am not that authority, that I and the vast majority of the electorate are woefully and absurdly un-qualified to speak to the subject, and I also have no reason to believe any leader of any religious or philosophical group or movement has been given such authority or specific subject knowledge either. I'm left to believe the "Yes on 8 folks" are speaking solely from their guts.
 So, if homosexual couples wish to marry, not only is it fine by me, but I further believe they have the right (as in bill of rights) to do so. I really don't believe society, as we know it, will vanish from the face of the earth without the likes of Prop 8. Ergo, I oppose Prop 8, and will be voting accordingly, even as an active member of a religious or philosophical group or movement which in fact strongly supports Prop. 8.   

J.N., Upland

J.N. has promised me a second installment, in which he promised to explain "how I can take a position in direct opposition to the church in which I profess my faith and still continue to be a full fledged member and fully intend to remain a full fledged member...without my being a hypocrite."  I'm really looking forward to that, and plan to post it upon receipt.

News Net 11/4/08 Election Endorsements

I don't have confirmed opinions on all the issues done yet, but I'm posting some of the ones that I've already made up my mind on.  As I learn more, I'll post more.

President/Vice-president - Obama and Biden (I prefer Obama, but could live with it if McCain should win - heck, I've lived with worse for 8 years.  But I can't be okay with Palin.  That's the deciding factor for me.)

28th District US Congress - David Dreier (I don't agree with many of his votes, but he's only 1 vote of 535, and he DOES have that important rules committee position.  He'd have to really do something egregious for me to vote that position out of the San Gabriel Valley.)

CA 59th Assembly District - Anthony Adams (first time I met Mr. Adams, I wasn't impressed, but I've been very impressed in my last two meetings with him.  He's a straight shooter, you can believe he's telling you what he feels/believes, and not just what he thinks you want to hear.  Was impressed with his analysis of the budget crisis.)

Prop 1A, High Speed Rail Line - Yes (It's expensive, but waiting will only lead to increased costs.  And it's time California became a leader in transit, instead of our current way behind position. This is an investment I think will more than pay for itself in the long run.

Prop 3, Children's Hospital Funding - No (Even though they endorsed it, the LA Times said this in their endorsement: "Many of these institutions have large endowments and prodigious fundraising capabilities. And yet, only four years after persuading voters to support a $750-million bond issue, almost $350 million of which remains unspent, they've come back to voters for an additional $980 million."  That says to me that there's already $350 million available, and right now the state's broke.  Let's take a look at it when the $350mil is gone, at the rate its been spent so far, that's more than three years from now.)

Prop 4, Abortion Waiting Period and Parental Notification Initiative - No  (There are some situations where children shouldn't have to notify their parents.  If this bill passes, the only way to not notify them legally, is to put in writing that the parents are repeat abusers.  That doesn't sit well with me.)

Proposition 7, Renewable Energy Generation - No  (I'm for finding alternative energy solutions, but this poorly written bill isn't a solution, it's a problem in its own right.  It gives power to one agency, without taking it away from another.  It can only be rescinded by a two thirds vote, though it's only a majority needed to pass it, so if there are problems with the bill as it's written, they'll be hard to fix.  The way it's written it will actually (most likely) slow down the solar energy growth by eliminating credits for solar power generated by smaller companies.)

Prop 8, Eliminates Right of Same-Sex Couples to Marry Act - No (I don't have a problem with the CA Supreme Court approved status quo, and see no reason to change things to something I consider discriminatory, which is what a Yes vote would do.  Really don't like the lies and/or purposefully deceptive tactics I see from the Yes campaign.)

Prop 10, The California Renewable Energy and Clean Alternative Fuel Initiative - No (I'm all for clean alternative fuels and jumpstarting an effort to reduce our dependence on foreign oil, but I don't think this is the initiative to do it.  As I understand it, companies could license a clean air vehicle in CA, get up to $50,000 bonus  per vehicle for doing so, and then move the vehicle(s) out of state the next day.  Doesn't seem like a good use of the $2.875 billion allocated for these rebates)

Prop 12, Veterans Home Loan Funding - Yes (We need to do whatever we can, within reason, to provide assistance to our veterans.  this is within reason)

Measure R, Traffic Relief - Yes (Here's the Ballot language: "Traffic Relief. Rail Extensions. Reduce Foreign Oil Dependence.  To synchronize traffic signals; repair potholes; extend light rail with airport connections; improve freeway traffic flow (5, 10, 14, 60, 101, 110, 138, 210, 405, 605, 710); keep senior / student / disabled fares low; provide clean-fuel buses; expand subway/Metrolink/bus service; dedicate millions for community traffic relief; shall Los Angeles County’s sales tax increase one-half cent for 30 years with independent audits, public review of expenditures, all locally controlled?"  My response - all that for $25/year?  Certainly.

Measure TT - Yes (It helps the schools, and the shortcomings of Measure Y have been addressed. Requires oversight. Sierra Madre Upper Campus needs serious help, even just to ensure the safety of the students, this is a start)

(9/28/08)  Biden for Vice-President

(3/23/08) Editorial by Bill Coburn 

City Clerk Nancy Shollenberger responded to my e-mail asking if she would reimburse the City for expenses incurred due to her error on the Sample Ballot by saying that she would be making a public announcement at the Kiwanis candidate forum and the City Council meeting this Tuesday.  The implication is that Ms. Shollenberger will be announcing that she will reimburse the City for costs associated with the mistake she made on the sample ballot.  We'll have to wait and see.  But it is appropriate that Ms. Shollenberger reimburse the City for the cost of fixing her mistake.  Other City Clerks have lost their jobs over similar issues.  But the costs as they stand today are a small part of what the City will have to pay if the loser of this election chooses to challenge it, which would be a very reasonable course of action in a situation like this.  So Ms. Shollenberger’s error has again exposed the City to potentially major expense, just as her error from 1993 to 2001 did, when she failed to make sure City ordinances had been published.  Two such major errors, along with other smaller ones through the years, indicate that the exemplary record Ms. Shollenberger claims, isn’t quite what it’s made out to be.  Ms. Shollenberger has worked long and hard for this City, but as the Pasadena Star News said in their City Clerk endorsement of Karma Bell, it’s time for a change. 

(3/19/08) City Clerk No Stranger to Controversy – Ballot Error Just the Latest in String of Issues Involving City Clerk

An Editorial By Bill Coburn 

The error on the sample ballot under City Clerk Nancy Shollenberger’s stewardship is just the latest in a series of issues that have occurred

through the years, ranging from outdated handbooks being given to candidates, concerns over judgment regarding partiality, to an eight-year period in which no ordinances

were published, and thus did not officially become law.

Ordinances Not Published for Eight Years

In 2001, it was discovered that none of the ordinances passed by the City since 1993 had been published, one of the steps that is required to make them law.  More than 

80 laws had not officially become law, because they had not been published, leaving the City exposed to significant liability.  Had someone sued the City over its failure to 

enact a law, there could have been severe monetary penalties awarded.  The City Council had to re-pass the ordinances so that they could be published.  Government Code 

40806 states that it is the City Clerk’s responsibility to: Keep a book marked "ordinances" and record in it all city ordinances with his certificate annexed to 

each, stating: (a) It is a true and correct copy of a city ordinance; (b) The ordinance number;  (c) It has been published or posted pursuant to law.   Government Code

36933 concerning City Clerk responsibility states -  Publishes ordinances.

Residents Concerned About “Impartial” Election Officer Taking Positions on Candidates/Measures

City Clerk and Election Officer Shollenberger has worked from her home, without keeping any office hours at City Hall, for years.  Effective Feb. 1st, when the new resolution 

detailing the description of her duties went into effect, she began working from City Hall for 1 hour each week.  But much City business is still conducted at her home, and 

residents travel to her home to pick up documents.  Through the years, Shollenberger has chosen to put up lawn signs endorsing candidates and/or ballot measures, to the 

consternation of many residents who feel that as Election Officer, she should present an appearance of impartiality.  At a recent Candidate forum sponsored by the Rotary 

Club, Shollenberger was asked about whether it was appropriate to have lawn signs endorsing candidates in her yard, which is, effectively, the office of the City Clerk.  Ms. 

Shollenberger acknowledged that this is an issue that has been coming up for years, and that she has freedom of speech, and if City Council Members can put up lawn 

signs, why shouldn't she?  She added that she had consulted an attorney and he had informed her that it was perfectly legal to do it.  Many of her critics feel that whether 

she has a legal right to put up the signs or not, her role as Election Officer makes it inappropriate to do so.  Residents look to their Council Members to take a stand, to 

have opinions, to make endorsements, to, in some cases, lead us by helping us in our own decision making process.  But we look to our City Clerk, our Election Officer, 

to ensure a fair election, free of bias.  And if I'm a voter driving up to Ms. Shollenberger's house to pick up a document, and I see lawn signs endorsing candidates, I'm going 

to have to wonder about that.  If I’m a candidate, and I see that the Election Officer is endorsing my opponent, this too, would cause me to have to wonder.  This wouldn't 

be such a big issue for me if the City Clerk business was all done at City Hall, and it was merely her private residence that had signs up.  I still think it would be wrong to 

do that, but it wouldn't be as big an issue.  But she does much of her City Clerk work from her home.  People go to her home on official city business.  In essence, her 

home is the office of the City Clerk, an extension of City Hall.  And as such, I think it should be free of even the appearance of potential bias for or against candidates.  I 

wouldn’t want to see lawn signs out in front of City Hall.  I also take issue with the fact that she admits that members of her constituency have had a problem with this 

for years, but she ignores them and just does what she wants.

Council Refusal to Increase Compensation Leads to Shollenberger “Giving Up Duties”

The subject of additional compensation for taking minutes has also been controversial in town, on three separate occasions over the last twelve years.  Government Code 

40801 states that the City Clerk shall - Keep an accurate record of the proceeding of the legislative body in books bearing appropriate titles and devoted exclusively to such 

purposes, respectively.  The books shall have a comprehensive general index.  Government Code 36814 regarding a City Clerk’s duties states that the City Clerk – Keeps 

a correct record of the Council’s proceedings.  In November of 1996, City Attorney Charlie Martin recommended to the Council that they set the City Clerk’s pay to be a 

stipend of $250/mo, plus a fixed fee of $650/mo for secretarial services.  Council Member Maryann MacGillavray was opposed to the idea, and moved that the pay be set 

at $250, without the additional pay for secretarial services, but the motion died for lack of a second.  After much discussion, the Council voted 4 to 1 to continue the City 

Clerk’s payment as proposed by Attorney Martin.

In 2003, Shollenberger billed the City $650 for August, when there had been no City Council meetings, and therefore no minutes, and then City Manager Tammy Gates 

refused to pay Shollenberger.  Shollenberger asked to have the matter agendized.  At the October 13, 2003 City Council meeting, Gates described the current duties of the 

City Clerk: for the $250 stipend, the City Clerk was to sign resolutions and ordinances, sign agreements, act as Notary, administer Oath of Office, and handle Litigation

Requests.  For an additional $650/mo, she took minutes of the City Council meetings, ensured that Fair Political Practice Committee forms were complete and forwarded 

to the FPPC, published ordinances in the newspaper and sent copies to the publisher of the code, and did general filing of resolutions, ordinances and minutes.  An 

additional $5,500 was allocated for conducting the election.  Shollenberger was requesting additional compensation, increasing the $650 minutes fee by more than half 

to $1000, and raising the fee for conducting the election by more than one third, to $7500.  Shollenberger said that if the Council does not agree to the revised fee structure, 

she would be willing to give up the duties described for the election and the additional $650/mo. Shollenberger added that she now felt that the issue of her compensation 

needed to be addressed.  “This has been a growing problem for me, and I can no longer tender to the City competent services for a fee that is not financially worthy of 

my doing.”  Ten members of the community stepped to the microphone to show their support for Shollenberger.  Then Mayor Bart Doyle then closed the public portion of 

the proceedings.

Council Members Doug Hayes and Tonya Torres noted that as far as they were concerned, Nancy had refused to do the work she was elected to do unless she got a 

raise, with Hayes adding that if Shollenberger was willing to continue at the same rate, he would like her to continue. Torres noted that the City was in the middle of a 

serious budget problem and they were trying to make this work for everybody, but the Council had been presented with an ultimatum.  Council Member Rob Stockly 

stated that before the next election, the duties and compensation of the City Clerk needed to be clarified.  Council Member George Maurer showed strong support for 

the City Clerk.  “Nancy put her foot down and she was right to do it.”  Mayor Doyle stated that the problem needed to be resolved, and that if money is more important 

than public service, maybe it is time to step down.  

Doyle moved that the pay remain as it was, but the motion died.  Council Member Hayes moved that the election amount be increased to $7500 for the next election.  

That motion died, too.  Ultimately, the meeting ended with the status quo, with a call for a resolution at the next meeting or the first meeting of November.  At the October 

27th meeting, it was decided to re-define the City Clerk’s allocation of duties, following the April 2004 election.  The City Clerk would have specific responsibilities associated

with the stipend pay, and oversight of the remaining duties, with clerical functions delegated to a staff member.  That staff member was paid $500/mo.  

When staff member Debbie Humphrey recently left to take a new job, there was a void at the minutes taking position.  City Clerk Shollenberger was contacted to obtain 

information regarding duties and compensation she would be requesting for said duties.  Shollenberger said that she would continue to do the $250/mo. duties for that 

stipend, and would be willing to keep the election rate, now at $6500, the same.  However, in a letter dated Dec. 14, 2007, she requested an increase in pay for the 

clerical duties to $1000/mo.  On Jan. 2, 2008, correspondence was received from the City Clerk stating that she would leave the matter of her compensation to the Council’s discretion.  

Ultimately, the decision was made to continue with the pay scale of $250/mo stipend, $650 for clerical duties such as minutes and FPPC forms, and $6500 for elections. 

Effective Feb. 1, Shollenberger again became responsible for these duties, at the same rate she had rejected four years earlier.  As a condition of the new resolution, she 

is required to keep regular “office hours” at City Hall, particularly during election season.

Candidate Statement Tells Only Part of the Story

Although Shollenberger decided to stop taking minutes when the Council decided not to increase her compensation, her campaign statement reflects an abbreviated

version of events.  The statement says that “A select few City Council Members decided to change the Minute Taking process.”  It does not reflect the fact that the

decision to change the process was made after her decision to give up the minute taking responsibilities because the Council would not agree to her request for increased compensation.

Candidates Given Outdated Candidate Handbook

Candidates in this year’s election were given a 1995 Candidate handbook by the City Clerk.  The problem with that is that at least one ordinance has changed since 1995,

 in 2003.  This means that candidates in the last 3 elections have received handbooks which inaccurately reflect the current Sierra Madre election ordinances.

Lack of Attention to Detail Nearly Misinforms Voters About Vote By Mail System

I recently decided to do an article on absentee ballots, because this year's election falls during spring break for Sierra Madre schools.  I informed our City Clerk of this,

and asked her about the process so that I could provide the information in my newspaper article.  She sent me two sentences.  And one of those had an error in it.  Her

response was "Sample Ballots will be out between March 10-13 and the request for vote-by-mail ballots is on the back.  You can request from March 13-April 1st." 

No mention of Permanent Vote By Mail ballots or how to initiate that process.  No mention of emergency absentee ballots, which can be gotten between April 1st and

election day.  And her statement that you can request from March 13 was off by 3 days, as you can actually request beginning March 10th, per the Election calendar

posted on the website of Martin and Chapman.  Martin and Chapman is the large Orange County consulting firm Shollenberger uses and the City pays to conduct the

election, above and beyond the $6500 Shollenberger receives for conducting the election.

I then asked for more information, about a couple dozen questions.  She responded to many of them, but not all.  There were about half a dozen questions that didn't

get answered.  But her failure to answer questions is not as big a deal as the whopper of an error that was included in her e-mail to me.  I quote: "As long as a Vote By

Mail ballot is postmarked by April 1 we will count it or the resident can take it to the polling place."  This seemed a little strange to me, and since I was going to be

attempting to inform readers throughout the San Gabriel Valley, I wanted to double check the info, so I called her at home.  She was very gracious, accepting my call

a little before 9 in the evening, which she really didn't have to do.  I asked her, "...if a voter sends you their ballot and it's postmarked April 2nd, and you receive it April

5th, 3 days before the election, you're still going to discard it because it's postmarked after April 1st?"  She said that was the case, that they had to be postmarked by

April 1st or brought to the polling place.  As the conversation continued, though, she realized her error, and acknowledged that she had made an error, that she must

have been thinking about the application for an absentee ballot, which have to be postmarked by the first, that she could in fact accept absentee ballots right up until

election day.  Had I not questioned the date, I would have misled readers throughout the San Gabriel Valley, based on Ms. Shollenberger's misinformation.

Thank goodness this year we have an alternative candidate to vote for.  As a friend of mine, a true old time Sierra Madrean that has lived here for decades, said to me

recently, “Karma Bell looks very good.”

(3/15/08, modified 3/16/08) Why Sierra Madre Needs Karma Bell

Editorial by Bill Coburn

Karma Bell wants to establish regular office hours for the City Clerk.  And Karma Bell wants to spend those City Clerk hours actually in the place where much City Government business takes place - City Hall.  There's a novel concept.  A City Clerk, who is accessible to her constituents for multiple hours each week, in City Hall.  Karma Bell has shown herself to be an effective administrator, as president of Sierra Madre Little League, Sierra Madre PTA, and Sierra Madre Chamber of Commerce.  Karma Bell has organized and managed the Wistaria Festival, an event that requires management skills far beyond those that a City Election, probably the most formidable task in the City Clerk's job description, requires.  Karma Bell believes that the office of the City Clerk should give the appearance of impartiality.  She'll still have her opinions, but she won't be broadcasting them, recognizing that her position as manager of the City's election requires her to maintain the appearance of impartiality.  She recognizes that sometimes freedom of speech is best exercised by remaining silent.

- And Why Sierra Madre Voters Need to Retire Nancy Shollenberger

There is just so much to say here, I don't know where to begin.  But I'll try, recognizing that this is going to get longer as I find answers to some of the things I'm researching.  Get out your reading glasses, grab a cup of coffee or a bottle of water (or wine, whatever your preference), because this is going to be a long one.

I think I'll start with some of the most recent, and work my way backwards.  Our City Clerk screwed up big time on the April 8th election, and has shown an incredible lack of judgment, transparency and accountability ever since.  Basically, the Argument for Measure P was allowed to be printed in the sample ballot with two glaring errors in it.  Errors that could compromise the integrity of the election.  In the argument, which starts out accurately enough, the Utility Users Tax (Measure U) is twice misidentified as Measure P, and the Police Officer's Association (POA) initiative, Measure P, is misidentified as Measure UA.  The argument, which is signed by all five City Council members, informs voters that the POA has abandoned the initiative, which they had placed on the ballot after collecting the required signatures.  The statement says that the officers had come to the conclusion that their initiative would have "resulted in cutting services the City provides that the Community has come to enjoy and expect."  It states that the POA agreed to accept a more modest salary increase than their measure would have provided, and that the City would provide that increase only if it receives the necessary revenue to do so.    Up to this point things are accurate.  However, in its next two sentences, the argument misidentifies the two ballot measures, stating "Accordingly, the Police Officers Association respectfully asks that the Community vote YES to increase the Utility Users Tax (Measure P) and vote no on the POA initiative (Measure UA)."  The Utility  Users Tax is actually Measure U, and the POA initiative is actually Measure P.   The next sentence incorrectly reads "A YES vote to allow an increase to the Utility Users Tax (Measure P) will provide our public safety employees (police, fire, and paramedics the compensation necessary to keep our experienced and loyal public servants working in Sierra Madre."   It should, of course, identify the Utility Users Tax initiative as Measure U, not P.  Following the argument are the "signatures" of all five City Council members.  If things weren't confusing enough before, they just became significantly more so.

It is the Clerk's responsibility to proof read and submit to the voters an accurate product.  That was obviously not done in this case.  Failure to do so has caused staff to spend time researching the error, and trying to determine how to deal with it.  Now there will be the time spent on preparation of the corrected ballot, the expense of printing it, and the expense of mailing it citywide.  Further, the City Clerk decided to issue a press release as her way of dealing with the situation.  It appears she did not have the City Manager or the City Attorney provide any input on the method of correction, or on the press release she issued.  The office of the City Clerk is a separate entity, responsible only to the voters.  City Council and City Manager have no authority over her, and she is not required to work with the City administration to fix the problem.  However, one would think that with the potential liability to the City caused by her error, a committed team player, who is cooperating with others who are most definitely adversely effected by her error, might consult with them, or at least make them privy to her response to the situation.  Yet she did not even provide a copy of the press release to the City Manager or the City Attorney before releasing it to the press.  And it might have been in her best interest to have had it reviewed by the City Attorney, as her method of dealing with the error includes offering people who have already sent in their ballots the opportunity to receive a replacement ballot.  I've been told by one former Southern California City Clerk that she doesn't know how Ms. Shollenberger intends to replace already received ballots with a replacement ballot without, for lack of a better word, "tampering" with the ballots.

In addition to all the costs associated with correcting the error, there is also the potential that backers of one of the measures effected could challenge the election based on the error.  Such a challenge, if upheld by the court (how much for the City to defend itself?), could, require an expensive replacement special election.

She has failed repeatedly to respond to questions about how this happened.  I sent her a series of direct questions, many of which were questions that voters were asking when I spoke with them.  Among them:

1. Who submitted the Argument in Favor of Measure P?
2. Was it submitted exactly as it appears on the sample ballot?
3. If not, what is different, and how did those changes occur?
4. Is it the City Clerk’s responsibility to check (proofread) said arguments for factual errors such as appeared in this argument?
5. Did you proofread this argument?
6. Even if not required by law, should the City Clerk check for such errors in order to reduce the possibility of the City expending large amounts of money and time investigating and correcting this type of error?
7. If the City Clerk sees a factual error such as those found in the argument, is he/she required to request clarification from the submitters, or in any way notify the submitters that their argument contains errors?

Ms. Shollenberger at one point told me that she would respond to the questions "when decisions on next step have been made.” (sic).  The next step was taken, the release of the press release.  I asked her to respond again at that time, and she has not responded.  I asked a third time, this time asking if she intends to respond, and again have received no response.  Apparently Ms. Shollenberger feels no obligation to respond to a voter who has questions regarding an error by her office that is going to cost the City a lot of money.  (Editor's update: Sunday at 2:25pm, nearly 48 hours after my second request for her to respond to my questions, I received the following from Nancy: Bill,  "I will be answering questions at the Kiwanis luncheon on March 25th.  I have been advised not to answer questions..." )