Thoughts about the Chico City Council election

In conjunction with the last Chico City Council election, I took the liberty of “grading” the candidates – you know, A, B, C, D, F like in school, and sharing my thoughts in a post. I also offered some comments which I believed supported my perspectives. I have been asked many times during this campaign cycle if I would similarly grade the candidates. I made a conscious decision not to, but I do have some 11^th hour thoughts I need to share about the election and the current candidates…..so here we go:

First, I have to say as I often do when I talk to anyone about politics, I am registered to vote as “Decline to State.” Why? In short, because I equally detest some of the extreme and all or nothing perspectives of both parties. In truth, I think I lean politically as much to the left as I do to the right. I share this with you because partisanship is relevant in relation to the comments I will now share.

Mayor Scott Gruendl has made it very clear that the current City Council election is about sides – his side (liberals, Democrats, the left – whichever you prefer…I WON’T call them “progressives, because I detest that term too in this context) versus the other side (conservatives, the Republicans, the right). And, true to his expressed perspective, his and the liberal left’s campaign has absolutely been conducted as side vs. side. There will be those who will challenge this observation, and I say bring it on. The so-called conservative candidates in this campaign have all run independent campaigns….that is, as individuals….each putting himself or herself out there, and encouraging the voters to make their choices based on the cases made by the individual candidates. However, the liberal left from day one has asserted themselves as a de facto, all or nothing slate. This is evidenced most with the en masse deceptive mailers the libs have all paid to have their names listed on together to create the false perception that they support or are supported by law enforcement, or they are the Republican recommendation for Chico. Since this thing about sides has been made so clear and has been so strongly reinforced throughout the campaign, I will take the liberty of addressing some of my own thoughts and perspectives about the campaign similarly.

Here’s some random, general things I think you need to know about the election and the candidates before you cast your vote this Tuesday (if you have not done so all ready):

RIGHT vs. LEFT IN CHICO – Some of the antics pulled by the liberal left during this campaign have really served to illustrate the true character of the Mayor’s side:

-                A ridiculous fake newspaper called the Chico Gazette which was a feeble attempt to be humorous, but the false information contained therein illustrates how low the left will go to protect their “side.”

-                The local Democrats have openly endorsed their support of the for profit marijuana cultivators with their endorsement of Proposition B. This organization (side) actually supports letting the dopers make their own rules for marijuana, which, by the way is still a crime!

-                Just today, a posse led by lib-master Bob Mulholland from the local lib HQ on Mangrove crashed a Republican event with their pro-Dem campaign signs (how juvenile is that?). Then, adding insult to injury, the woman in the picture below started accosting Republican staff and calling names. Apparently, she has a blog (http://karenlaslo.com/2014/11/02/local-republicans-host-kashkari-get-unexpected-guests/), and illustrating the warped perspective of the Mayor’s side, she seems to imply that the Republicans were out of line when the Dems crashed their party. I’d like to say this kind of logic surprises my, but it doesn’t.

-                Not really campaign related, but important perspective on the Mayor’s side….which has Council Member Randall Stone as a member. Coinciding with the final weeks of the campaign, Stone as one of the most visible members of the Mayor’s side has again publicly disrespected the Police Department. He has slammed the Chief personally and also the Chico Police Officer’s Association. In doing so, he reinforces what we already know: that the Mayor and his “side” do not support our police…..but also, consider this: In the context of his position as a Council member, Stone is not an ordinary citizen. In fact, he is essentially in the chain of command for the CPD. Do we as a community want the top levels of the Police chain of command publicly bashing them? Is that how we want leadership demonstrated in Chico? Chatter among the libs is pretty open about Randall Stone being Mayor in December if the Libs “maintain control” of the City Council. Now is not the time for this kind of ego driven, self aggrandizing feeble attempt at leadership. In fact, now is the time Chico will have a choice about taking the “power” away from this kind of perspective by delivering a strong message about what the community really wants with a vote for a change from the Mayor’s side.

PROP 47 – This is a Proposition that will further water down the provisions of AB109. Essentially, it will decriminalize, and/or lessen the criminalization of a bunch of crimes. Between this and AB109, very few people will ever go to jail at all for lower level or less serious crimes, and jail and prison will be reserved for those who commit violent assaults or murders only. This will absolutely result in people who would have otherwise been arrested for such things as stealing your car or breaking into it at your home from ever going to jail. The California Police Chief’s Association calls this a dangerous and radical package of ill-conceived policies. As a career law enforcement professional I simply cannot support or encourage support of this proposition.

            -           Vote NO on Prop 47!

MARIJUANA/Prop A & Prop B – People, people, people….please don’t be fooled. The folks that campaign in support of Prop B and against Prop A could care less about patient rights and access to medicine for sick people. The sick people are able to get their medicine. They were able to do it before Prop 215, and they have certainly had no difficulty since. The truth is that the marijuana proponents are more concerned about money than anything else. And since they have so much of it at their disposal, the source of which doesn’t need to be accounted for, they have spent liberally in this campaign. Why? Because the difference between A and B really comes down to one simple thing; control over who gets to make the rules regarding marijuana growth in Butte County. A yes vote on Prop A allows our elected representatives, the Board of Supervisors, to continue to legislate as we elected them to do in relation to marijuana. A yes vote for Prop B takes the rule making regarding marijuana out of the hands of our elected legislators and puts it in the hands of the weed growers themselves. Please, please, please….do not be fooled by the heavily financed pro marijuana campaign. Remember, Prop A is AWESOME for Butte County, and Prop B is BAD for Butte County….yes on A, no on B.

-                Vote YES on Prop A

-                Vote NO on Prop B

THE PAST vs. THE FUTURE – A reminder that the mayor has made this election about sides. Also a reminder that his “side” has been the majority on the City Council for the last 12 years. This is the side, the mayor’s side, that led (by act or omission) the City to the brink of bankruptcy. Before you cast you votes this time, remember which side led us to this place….you have a choice to give the Captain of the Titanic and his crew another chance to drive the ship…..or its time for a new captain and a new crew. I hope you will choose the latter.

GRUENDL – Speaking of the captain of the ship, some important things you need to know:

-                He has been on the Council for the last 12 years, the same period of time the City was nearly completely destroyed financially….and his “side” has been in charge all 12 of those years.

-                He has been in a formal leadership most of those 12 years….either as Mayor, Vice Mayor or the Chair of the Finance Committee…..yes, you read it correctly: the Chair of the Finance Committee. In fact he has been the chair for most of the last 12 years.

-                He wants everyone to believe that he is a big supporter of public safety, and law enforcement in particular. But alas, this seems to be a delusion. The truth is that his actions do not and have not reflected that support he believes he espouses. In fact, his deeds indicate quite clearly the opposite – that he does not like or support Chico PD, his own police department, in particular.

-                He desires that he be seen as he characterized himself in a self-narrated description of his work-related efforts in another county during a once in a lifetime horrific tragedy, and in public presentations he toots the horn about the successes of his social welfare programs….in another county. In other words, his greatest successes are….over there…..not here. He would be hard pressed to identify any legitimate successes of his tenure, especially as they relate to the crisis still faced by the City.

-                As a member and a leader of the leading faction of the City Council for the last 12 years, the wages and benefits he is silently allowing the employees of the City to be berated, belittled and ridiculed about, he is responsible for giving them. Have you noticed how he has not said anything publicly about this? Instead, he lays low, and allows his employees to suffer the wrath of the public from the decisions HE made.

-                In relation to the City’s financial debacle, he is being credited for stepping up to the plate with Vice Mayor Mark Sorensen to bring the issue in the public eye. The truth is that Sorensen tooted this horn for a long, long time before Gruendl, the Chair of the Finance Committee stepped up. And then, lo and behold, it was discovered that Sorensen was correct. Gruendl would have been a fool at that point to not jump onboard. Don’t let yourself believe that Gruendl had any kind of leadership in this righting of the ship. He had a comfortable place on the Council for 8 years before Sorensen showed up and started rocking the boat.

-                He is a true politician…..as I understand it, a year ago he was not gonna run again, but now he is. Months ago, he was pretty openly accepting responsibility for the financial debacle and even publicly apologizing, but now….travel forward a year or so…in the last speech I heard him give he made it pretty clear that he does not see what happened as his fault at all, and he placed blame squarely on the shoulders of the for Finance Director and the Former City Manager. You tell me, is that a true leader or a shifty politician? Methinks it’s the latter.

-                The bottom line with Scott is this: He is a smart man, he is well educated, he seems to think he does a great job….at his day job…..but he has failed at his night job as a Chico City Council member. That anyone, regardless of political perspective, would allow a key member of the side that almost sunk the ship to have another turn at driving the ship is unbelievable to me. He’s shown us what he can do, it didn’t work, now its time to move on.

-                I do not recommend a vote for Scott Gruendl

SORENSEN – Clearly it is because of Sorensen’s tireless efforts that the City’s fiscal problems were brought out into the open. It seems that he spent the first two years of his term trying to convince everyone there was a problem, and the last two years work as part of the team to try to fix it. He has demonstrated true leadership, and appears to have worked well with “the other side” once he got them onboard. Although I have wondered about his limited presence during the current campaign, I still think this is the kind of leader Chico needs right now to keep us digging out of the hole.

-                I recommend a vote for Mark Sorensen

COOLIDGE – I will be the first to tell you I wrote Andrew off the first time he ran for Council two years ago….but I will also be the first to tell you he has now changed my mind. Two years ago, he was lacking understanding about how things work, and he took some positions that were in conflict with my pro-law-enforcement biases. Not only has he now done his homework, and developed a greater understanding of City operations, but he has instilled in me a great sense that he is his own man. In other words, while he will undoubtedly appreciate those who supported his campaign, I think he is capable of making the tough decisions even if they are in conflict with any partisan perspectives that may exist. I think Andrew is a man of integrity, he has demonstrated that he is willing to work hard to be able to make a difference by serving, and I think he now deserves a chance. In fact, more than that, I feel very strongly that we need his level head and his perspective on the City Council.

            -           I recommend a vote for Andrew Coolidge

WILLIS – I have never actually met Rodney, but I have heard him speak several times and I like him. To me, he is “Joe the plumber.” I mean that in the most complimentary way. He says what he feels, he is a man of faith and integrity and he’s not much into sugar-coating his opinions……which, by the way, seem to sway from the far right to the far left. This is why I think I like him. He absolutely has a heart for Chico…..but….I have come to realize that the City Council is not a place for people to go to learn what they need to know to do the job effectively. I feel like Rodney has a great citizen perspective, but does not have a strong sense of how government actually works. My sincere hope is that he will stay in the limelight and seek opportunities to contribute and to develop and even contribute his perspective. I’d love to see him back in 2-4 years as a Council candidate, but I can’t see him doing the job right now.

            -           I do not recommend a vote for Rodney Willis

MOLINA – When I first heard Forough Molina speak, I could not help but have an image in my head of the best soccer mom ever (who also happens to be a teacher – also probably one of the best). She speaks of all the volunteer efforts she has been involved with but she offers little in the way of substantive detail. I think I can say with certainty I would love to have had my kids in one of her classes, if for no other reason than her enthusiasm, but enthusiasm alone is not enough to be a good Council member. Additionally, a perpetual volunteer at all of her children’s activities, while commendable, does not prepare one to be a Council member. Unfortunately, Ms. Molina’s status as a newcomer is evident in this campaign, and the manner in which it is evident does not suggest that she could be an independent thinker on the Council. Rather, it suggests that she will simply follow what her “side” tells her to do. As a “soccer mom” newcomer to politics, I would not expect Ms. Molina to be aware of the implications of deceitful slate mailers….but unfortunately for her, the rest of the people on hers and the Mayor’s side have allowed her to now be cast as willing to engage in deceit to get the vote. In short, she’s simply not ready to do the job, and I cannot support her.

-                I do not recommend a vote for Forough Molina.

FILLMER – Reanette Fillmer is a breath of fresh air in this election! She has private sector HR experience, public sector HR experience, and is now a small business owner working as an HR consultant for various private and public sector organizations. She clearly conveys a level of energy and enthusiasm, and most importantly, a passion to serve. In fact, she emphasizes that she is not a politician….rather, she is a Chico local who has watched the degrading of our city and is now in a position to bring her relevant skills and experience to attempt to make a difference. She has run a clean campaign, she has done her homework, she understands local government and she is sophisticated enough to have a sense of the full context of the operation of a local government agency. I think Fillmer brings the right set of skills and experience to the table, the right level of enthusiasm and is ready to do the job.

-                I recommend a vote for Reantte Fillmer for City Council

ARIM-LAW – Lupe is also from the Mayor’s “side.  From the first time I heard her speak I had concerns. While the entire community, at all levels and both ends of the political spectrum, seems to recognize that we have some major public safety problems, she has consistently dismissed them. At one event, as other candidates talked about the well recognized problem, for a moment I actually had a sense that she was going close her eyes, shake her head NO, put her fingers in her ears and say, “Na, na, na, na,” so she couldn’t hear everyone talk about crime. I can’t tell if she’s just a very positive person, or her rose colored glasses have wrap-around lenses and she is unable to see around the edge of the glass to get a look at what is really going on in Chico. Either way, this perspective cannot work for a City Council member. Additional concerns about her are based on her name being placed on all the deceptive slate mailers, and her public comment in response is that this is a non-partisan election and she can put her name where she wants. This is also a bad perspective for a City Council member to have. Finally, I have noted that there is only one Chico City Council candidate to accept campaign contributions that are closely tied to the pro-marijuana people of Butte County. Yup, it was Lupe. For this reason alone, I would not recommend her….but the addition of my other reasons makes it clear in my mind that she is not City Council material.

            -           I do not recommend a vote for Lupe Arim-Law

Desperation leads to deception...

It is well established that public safety is the top priority in Chico for this City Council election, and acknowledged by all that Chico does not have enough police officers. Chico voters should be aware that every candidate will want the voters to believe they support and/or have knowledge or understanding about public safety issues, and policing specifically. Some of the candidates will be able to easily establish that they know what is going on...because they really do! They have taken the time to do their homework, to talk to people at all levels of the Police Department, they have done ride-alongs with officers, and they have studied the issues. Others, who by the way have already demonstrated publicly that they don't have a clue or really even care about CPD or their ability to do a good job, are going to have a harder time convincing the voters they are supporters of public safety. Some of these have records of up to 12 years that clearly indicate an absence of support, and others have only recently spoken publicly in such a way as to convey they don’t know what is going on. The latter will resort to deception, like is described in the following blog post from 2010, to convince voters they are connected and in tune with law enforcement:

*********************************************************************************

Beware of paid slate mailers

By Josh Richman

 Friday, May 28th, 2010 at 2:01 pm in 2010 election.

A copy of the “COPS Voter Guide,” a slate mailer urging votes for certain candidates and ballot measures, recently landed on my desk, reminding me how wary voters should be of such things.

Use of the word “COPS” in big print, and the badge logo that accompanies it, seem to imply that law enforcement is endorsing these candidates and measures. That’s not true.

The COPS Voter Guide is a business: It sells endorsements. Its online “endorsement form” simply asks a candidate check a box to “agree that public safety is a top priority for public service. As an elected official, I will uphold the laws and work with California Law Enforcement on issues of mutual concern. This pledge does not commit me to any issue positions, nor does it mean that the COPS VOTER GUIDE agrees with me by endorsing all of my issue positions.”

It’s run by Moran & Associates, a Folsom-based political consulting firm; I left messages for company President Kelley Moran, but haven’t heard back from him.

This one – designed for Democratic voters – looks to me as if Democratic gubernatorial candidate Jerry Brown is the only candidate who didn’t pay to be on it, as he’s the only one without an asterisk next to his name; the mailer’s fine print says “Appearance is paid for and authorized by each candidate and ballot measure which is designated by an *”

So the mailer urges the recipient to vote for Gavin Newsom for Lieutenant Governor. Yet when I look at Newsom’s endorsement page under the heading “public safety,” I see three firefighters’ organizations but not a single police group. His rival, however – Los Angeles City Councilwoman Janice Hahn – has been endorsed by the Peace Officers Research Association of California (PORAC), Los Angeles County Sheriff Lee Baca and several LA-area police groups.

Similarly, Democratic candidate for Attorney General Pedro Nava, an Assemblyman from Santa Barbara, is on the mailer. The only law enforcement endorsements he lists on his website are Ventura County Deputy Sheriff’s Association and the Ventura County Peace Officers Association, plus a few local sheriffs and police chiefs. Yet Ted Lieu, the Assemblyman from Torrance and one of Nava’s six rivals for the Democratic nomination, actually has the endorsements of the California Peace Officers Association, the California Police Chiefs Association and nine other law enforcement groups.

It’s not illegal for a candidate to pay a slate mailer for an endorsement, or for a mailer to solicit such payments. But voters should read the fine print and discern the endorsements that a candidate has bought from the endorsements that a candidate has earned.

*********************************************************************************

Here’s the bottom line folks: It is a regular part of the political process that candidates will use slate mailers like described above to create perceptions about themselves. Usually, they are deceptive. In our local race for the City Council, an experienced politician/incumbent (our Mayor) has paid this very same outfit referenced in the blog above to have his name listed with their logo in a mailer to Chico voters to create the perception he is supported by law enforcement and that he supports law enforcement. Since he has established this race is about “sides,” he has apparently persuaded the novices on his “side” to join him. In the case of the mayor, his well established record of the last 12 years demonstrates that he does not and has not supported the Chico PD or the job they do. Sadly, the two newbies on his side have stumbled and bumbled as they have feebly attempted to convey that they know about and/or support law enforcement. As a result of this cumulative situation, with awareness of what the top issue facing candidates in this election is, these candidates have had to initiate an act of desperation to convince the voters they really support public safety. Public records in the Chico City Clerks Office indicate they all paid money to this outfit, and now that the mailers have been received we know it was to get their names out their as supporters of law enforcement.

So what about the “COPS Voter’s Guide?” This is in fact a front for a guy in Folsom, Ca who has spent the last 30+ years as a public affairs and political consultant. He does not now, nor has he ever worked in public safety (although it appears he may have formerly had a public safety client who "discontinued their relationship" with him). He is also the owner of the “California Energy Voter Guide.” With either one, it doesn’t matter what your party or what your position on an issue is, if you pay him he will put your name on a flyer and mail it to voters in attempt to create a perception in your favor as a candidate. Research on this guy’s COPS guide in particular indicates that for at least the last dozen years it is widely used to perpetuate deception in elections.

If you receive one of these mailers locally, recognize it as a clue that the candidate(s) listed thereon either know nothing about public safety, they have demonstrated that they do not support the CPD and that if they are willing to resort to deception to convince you they are all about public safety, where else will they deceive you if they are elected???

Chico: We have a problem....with our Mayor....

During the last election cycle I elected to exercise my right to share my opinion about the Chico City Council candidates by way of a narrative wherein I issued grades to each candidate…you know, an A through F kind of thing. I will likely do the same this cycle, but I have realized that there is a more pressing issue that cannot wait until I have fully considered my perspective on all of the candidates for purposes of expressing my opinion of their grades. Specifically, there are some pressing issues with our Mayor, Scott Gruendl that our public needs to be aware of.

In my 34+ years of public service, 18 as a manager/administrator I have had occasion to be exposed to a variety of individuals who held formal leadership positions….like mayor, chief of police, city manager, city council member, etc. I have observed a commonality between many of those to whom I have been exposed, and am experiencing the same commonality during this election cycle. The commonality is this: when their feet are being held to the fire….or when they are feeling threatened for whatever reason, they will openly expose their fear by lashing out at critics and they will misrepresent, mis-state or even lie about how things really are.

In relation to Chico’s current Mayor, Scott Gruendl, who is running for re-election this cycle, I have these concerns specifically:

1.              It is frequently emphasized that Chico is a “non-partisan City Council. Yet, at a League of Women Voters Forum the other night, when asked why he would run for Council at this time, Mr Gruendl’s first and very emphasized response was to the effect of: “ I don’t want to give up my seat to a conservative.” Really? Not, “Because I want to serve our citizens,” or “Because I want to make a difference,” or “Because I want to make things better.” It’s all about my political affiliation. Holy crap!!!

2.              In a number of recent published news stories, it is noted that Mr. Gruendl has been on the Council for a dozen years or so. Coincidentally, this is the same period of time during which the City of Chico’s finances absolutely fell into the gutter. Also during this time, Gruendl was the Mayor, a member of the Council Finance Committee and even the Chair of the Finance Committee. News reports indicate that Gruendl has indicated he wants another term on Council because (essentially) he was a part of the City’s demise, and now he wants a chance to help fix it. While his limited acceptance of responsibility is noble, it seems like allowing him to have another 4 years (as has been pointed out by at least 1 other citizen) is tantamount to re-hiring the captain of the Titanic!!! Do we really want to do that???

3.              This one just kills me….Gruendl brags about how he is the department head of so many departments in another county, including the Public Health Department and the Behavioral Health Department (mental health)….yet, the other night at the previously mentioned Chico City Council Candidate’s Forum he declined to express an opinion about medical marijuana because he had not yet talked to the different factions advocating marijuana-related positions in our county. Really?! He is the head of Public Health and Behavioral Health, but he does not yet have a position on medical marijuana he can speak to publicly. I call BULLSHIT!!! This guy is a slick and slimy politico. He knows exactly how he feels about the marijuana issues….his professional position mandates it. The fact that he would be less that fully transparent on this on this front and center issue is at a minimum suspect. And I for one suspect that he is waiting to see which way the Dem/lib machine tells him to go on this issue. In the current election cycle, Butte County will decide if we want our identity to be based on marijuana and letting the stoners for profit decide our community culture, or if we are going to let the voice of reason prevail. I don’t believe we want our identity as county to be based on marijuana (like Mendocino County). If Gruendl doesn’t have the ‘nads to be clear about his position on this very public issue, that alone is sufficient to cause me concern about his suitability as a community leader.

4.              In response to a question about the hiring of private security in Downtown Chico, Gruendl indicated very firmly and very assertively that effective 9-23-14 there would be “additional officers downtown, including bike officers.” Hmmm….how can I put this without being harsh….uh….well….Gruendl is wrong. In fact, based on the context, he’s a liar!!! In fact, public records will reveal that it was not until 9-26 that the City Manager communicated to Council a plan for diverting cops to downtown, and this was based on a memo that was submitted to him by the chief (also on 9-26).  This issue has additional concerns that I consider very serious….

The Police Department is authorized 84 sworn personnel (down from 102 at the peak level 4-5 years ago). Of the 84 authorized, they are down another 16 due to vacancies, personnel in field training, personnel in the academy and personnel off on injuries. That means that effectively there are a total of 72 officers to police this City 24/7. Believe me, you don’t want to know the truth about what this translates to in cuts to services (30% staffing decrease from the previously understaffed police department). My point is not what the numbers mean, but what is really happening. There are simply not enough officers to assign people downtown right now!!!!

There is in fact an effort underway to assign officers downtown. It DID NOT happen 9-23 as the Mayor said (he’s a liar, and he is desperately trying to cover his tail). In order to make this happen, officers who have already covered their 40+ hours per week are going to have to be ORDERED to come in for extra time to cover downtown, and because they are already so burned out trying to keep up with minimum shift coverage there is a proposal to pay them, not time and a half overtime, but double time!!! Hello!!??!! What is wrong when you have to entice burned out employees to come in on double time? By the way, the double time proposal is based in part on the fact that minimum shift coverage is not occurring…..folks: That means they can’t get the cops to cover enough shifts to provide the basic services….THAT is why you don’t often get a cop when you call one in Chico!!!

The bottom line is this: There are not enough cops to staff basic shifts in Chico. The heat is on, and the Council is feeling  pressure to get cops downtown on a dedicated basis….so much pressure, in fact that the Mayor is willing to lie about what is actually happening. I’m not saying the sky is actually falling (but it is close) but if it was, do we want one of our leaders to be a guy who stands out in front and misrepresents or lies about whether or not it is? I think not!

5.              Now, here’s a biggie: At the League forum the other night, it was apparent to the whole room that Gruendl walked into the room with a chip on his shoulder. He was angry, and initially it was not clear why. But soon, it became apparent that a bit of his ire, if not all of it, was directed toward another candidate. Based on my experience, his attitude and demeanor were based on the fact that he perceived a significant threat in the room….he was afraid! At every given chance, without mentioning her name, he snidely alluded to things candidate Reanette Fillmer has posited or said during this campaign. My read? He sees her as a threat, and he should, and he is afraid she will beat him. She is a solid, no nonsense contender with real public and private sector experience. And she has voter appeal. His conduct, his demeanor, his attitude?…hardly what I believe we want to see in this city in the way of leadership!

6.              Oh gawd….here’s another on this guy! It clearly illustrates one of the concerns that I have had for years. While the rest of us experience the real world on a daily basis, he lives in some fairytale utopia where people don’t have to acknowledge or deal with the very real stuff that is going on. In a published news story tonight regarding the opening of the Democratic Headquarters in Chico, Gruendl is quoted as saying,” We are re-hiring employees that were once laid off, and we are getting back to work.” Really? Who are we re-hiring? Do you really have a clue? I think not!!! If you actually check, you will find that his assertions are not true. He may like them to be….I mean, after all, the City did come in with record sales tax revenue this year….but hiring back laid off employees? Uh no. Nor is the City hiring back the dozens of critically necessary employees whose positions were eliminated due to mismanagement. It’s true that things are looking better for the City, but this guy’s perception is clearly skewed. Perhaps if he were to remove his rose colored glasses….but until then, my clear sense is that he is wrong, off base, and no longer what this City needs.

Here’s the bottom line with Scott Gruendl. He tried for years and years to get elected to a position where he could make a difference. Eventually, he was elected. He actually did a fairly good job as a leader in his first term as Mayor. But, alas, reality set in. Things got dicey for the City, and the City’s circumstances exceeded the capacity of his capabilities. Now, as the City digs out from the mess his acts and omissions helped us get into, he dares to ask for one more chance…to fix what he helped screw up!? I think not. His public positions and reactions to other candidates during this campaign clearly illustrate that he feels threatened….and rightfully so. His shit is weak, and he knows it. He’s grasping at straws, hoping that he can get another term. But here’s the dealio: Do we want to reward one of the “leaders” who led us into the mess we will be digging out from for the next several years? I think not! 

Time for Scott to go……