Monday morning roundup
* East Pas Councilman Steve Haderlein wrote back too late Friday for me to change his title from "Strip Club Killer" to "Strip Club Assassin" for the Pleasures story.
As of January 25, residents can sleep soundly knowing the very last of Pasadena's problems have ceased to exist because no women will be taking their shirts off in a bar somewhere.
* Production problems result in Saturday's story slugged "DUMPFOLO" NOT ACTUALLY JUMPING anywhere! Yay!
* Some e-mails related to the Measure D story are posted below. I've been meaning to check Wayne Lusvardi's blog, where he's on occasion referred to me as an "ace reporter." For some reason I've never taken it as a compliment. :D
Mary Dee didn't send this e-mail to me, but it got around like a sailor on Friday:
From: Mary Dee Romney To: R. Henry Sherrod ; Stephen Lipira ; dale trader ; Kathleen Thorne-Thomsen ; Michael O'Brien ; Robert Kneisel Sent: Friday, November 16, 2007 10:06 AM Subject: Vote Moot - Re: communications tax, round 2Dear PNC Members,
PNC By-laws require a 2/3 majority vote for the Coalition to take action, stated as follows in the PNC By-laws:
"J. Voting, (2) A 2/3 majority is required in order for the Coalition to take action. A quorum of seven neighborhood associations shall be necessary for a vote to be taken. All Coalition members will receive two weeks prior notice of any Coalition meeting and items that may be subject to a vote."
The vote taken last night regarding the matter of Measure D (Yes-4, No-3, Abstain-1, Unaccounted-1) did not meet the majority threshold nor did it meet requirements for notice prior to a vote.
The vote taken last evening on Measure D is therefore moot.
Mary Dee"R. Henry Sherrod" wrote:
The city has completed the language of its ballot measure, which must be signed Monday. If interested you can read it on the city website. From the home page go to the “departments” section, scroll down to “city clerk”, click on “election information”, and you will be there. Bob Kneisel is asking that this be added as an emergency measure under the “cell tower and other above ground communication” portion of the meeting, to decide whether the PNC should endorse the measure. Since we’ve talked about it before, this is appropriate.
I see the issue as trifurcated for PNC purposes. First, is it a quality of life issue? If not, we don’t endorse. If it is, we secondly must decide whether the general idea is one that we can support. If not, we don’t endorse. If it is, we thirdly must decide whether the specific ordinance is one we can accept. If not, we don’t endorse. If it is, we do endorse. Bob has suggested that if the coalition rejects the ballot measure for either the second or the third reason, he will endorse it as “former chair of PNC”; I don’t have a problem with that.
As chair, I don’t get a vote except in case of a tie, so I will advise you that the BRNA board is unanimous that this is a quality of life issue, by majority agrees that a communications tax is an appropriate way to deal with the problem, but unanimously thinks that the wording of the proposed ordinance is stinko and will draw lawsuits.
I think that I have sent copies of this email as blind copies to all the people who attended the meeting before last, they being the ones who are likely to attend tomorrow’s meeting. If I was unsuccessful, I apologize in advance and we will find out at the next meeting.
Ps My printer has been down for 10 days, so I have been unable to generate any of the three letters that I promised at the last meeting.
R. Henry Sherrod