Disengenuine
Most of the public commentary was highly critical of the three councilmembers. During Kelly Seyarto’s address, it became quickly apparent to the audience that he still refuses to believe that this recall isn’t a conspiracy created by Warnie Enochs.
Tom Butler delivered a blistering speech to the council that raised eyebrows on both sides of the room. In other news, during one of his speeches, Kelly Seyarto gave out with an interesting malapropism that I think he should have copyrighted, “Disengenuine” I think I’ll use that one myself from time to time.
Tom Butler delivered a blistering speech to the council that raised eyebrows on both sides of the room. In other news, during one of his speeches, Kelly Seyarto gave out with an interesting malapropism that I think he should have copyrighted, “Disengenuine” I think I’ll use that one myself from time to time.
posted by J. L. Kunkle at
Tuesday, January 18, 2005
13 Comments:
Mr. Seyarto's comments got the point across. I would imagine that he mean disingenuous. Ingenuous for those who don't wish to look it up means straightforward. Therefore, disingenuous would mean to not be straightforward. Somewhat like a con artist.
The malapropism aside, us common folk out here aren't quite as gullible as some appear to be in the community. Some of us have actually been here awhile and have witnessed the exploits of Warnie Enochs. If you think he has no involvement in this recall effort, then you are being pretty naive.
It appears that Murrieta has turned into one big ostrich farm. Lots of heads buried in the sand.
By
Anonymous, at Wednesday, January 19, 2005 8:25:00 AM
It would be nice for us ostriches if Anonymous could perhaps provide some proof. We'd be happy to pull our heas out of the sand long enough to read it.
By
J. L. Kunkle, at Wednesday, January 19, 2005 11:52:00 PM
And by the way, what has happened to Murrieta's sense of humor? Mr. Seyarto is an intelligent man and I genuinely appreciated his wit. This town needs to lighten up.
By
J. L. Kunkle, at Thursday, January 20, 2005 10:26:00 AM
I guess I derive my opinion from the fact that after being told that Mr. Enochs had nothing to do with the recall election, it was pointed out that a previous newspaper article reported that he was in attendance at these meetings. Then the recall group changed their story to say that he did attend meetings but he just shook some hands and left. What that says to me is that they really didn't want the appearance that Enochs was involved. Why is that?
This all makes me question the validity of the information that we have been given by the recall group. Did they obtain this information from Warnie Enochs? With his obvious dislike of three councilmembers, do you think he might have the motivation to massage the truth to help oust the people he doesn't like on the city council? So far, it looks like all of his friends are signing up to run for those seats. Nancy Knight? Brenda Dennestadt? So we are being asked to trade a council that is split and has differing opinions for one that simply does what Warnie Enochs wants?
Come on ostriches, shake the sand out of those eyes.
Also, I saw the blistering speech you wrote about on T.V. That was probably the most vile thing I have seen in a while. That guy cleary stepped way across the lines of decency. If that is representative of the people involved in this recall movement, their credibility is completely lost with me. The comments directed at Doug MacAllister regarding his son had no place what-so-ever in the discussion on when to set an election date. It was simply a mean-spirited character attack by a person with no class at all. Is this the new Murrieta? People like that? What a disgraceful act. I hope that man is ashamed of himself because he certainly should be.
By
Anonymous, at Thursday, January 20, 2005 10:10:00 PM
Mr/s. Anonymous’s statement that Council member Enochs is somehow responsible for the recall is a pure fabrication by the ruling Council Trio, especially Seyarto. The newspaper story that reported that Enochs attended a meeting, shook some hands and then left came from myself. The charge that Rescue Murrieta (RM) changed its story is absolutely false.
The question asked me was whether Enochs was “behind” the recall movement. I answered that he had nothing to do with the formation, the organization and the daily operation of RM. The reporter then said to me that he had heard from another source that Enochs had been in attendance at one of our meetings. I immediately confirmed that fact. It was I who said that he had come to the meeting, shook some hands and then left. I also said that he never attended any other meetings and has never been consulted by RM regarding the recall. I did not change my story as “anonymous” so cynically suggests. There were two different questions to which I responded.
Mr/s. Anonymous also asks whether RM got its information from Enochs? This sounds like the drivel we are constantly fed by Seyarto. Rude and insulting! What, residents are incapable of getting information except from Enochs?
Come on Mr/s. Anonymous fetch up. You are really Seyarto, right?
As to the blistering speech against McAllister, it was he who raised the subject in at least two different forums.
On January 4, 2004, I addressed the Council Meeting on behalf of RM. I asked that they set the recall election for the earliest possible date. During that presentation I spoke to McAllister and said:
“Council member McAllister, you are quoted saying that you want time to go to the residents with your side of the issues. But there is nothing you can say to rebut your private conflict with your public duties. After you were elected and got your foot in the Council door, like a Trojan Horse, you revealed that you changed from a local business owner to a consultant for developers. Do you honestly believe that you would have been elected to the council had you declared that you were a developers' consultant at the time of the last election? We don't think so. Rescue Murrieta believes that we need continued development of our City. But we do not want developers and their consultants making City policy.”
RM did not mention his son’s death. So how did it come up at that meeting?
When van Haaster opened up the meeting for the Councilmen to respond, McAllister chose not to respond to the conflict of interest charge made by RM. He knows that he cannot beat that rap. Instead he made a calculated switch and said that he wanted time to set the record straight. He said that lies had been told about him and his son’s death.
So, Mr/s. Anonymous whose head is in the sand? McAllister defended himself by playing this emotional card rather than responding to the merits of RM’s conflict of interest charge.
A few days after this Council Meeting, McAllister was again quoted in the Press Enterprise as saying that he was going to defend the recall movement by charging RM and the recall supporters as unfairly attacking him over his relationship with his deceased son.
By making these public statements, McAllister has placed his relationship with his deceased son before the residents and waived any right to privacy he may have had. RM did not start this discussion, McAllister started it.
There has never been a public statement from RM about McAllister’s deceased son. A member of McAllister’s first wife’s family did send a letter to the Bugle during the time that RM was collecting signatures. But that was between McAllister and his former relatives.
Finally, Mr/s. Anonymous, whoever you are, why are you so condescending to Murrietans? Do you have some special access to truth? Calling those who hold differing opinions – ostriches is “mean-spirited” and “vile” because you are insulting the democratic processes. Shame on you while we await your apology.
Ed Faunce
Rescue Murrieta Spokesman
By
Anonymous, at Saturday, January 22, 2005 8:34:00 AM
Excuse me Mr. Faunce, but it is Mrs. Anonymous and no, I am not a Seyarto. I have heard some of the accusations that he has made against the Rescue Murrieta group, but I don't really have the time to check all of them out. What I do know is what I have read in various newspapers and some of that drival, as you call it, seems to have some merit to it.
I don't know Mr. MacAllister well enough to comment on his job or the other things you bring up. All I know is that some man supporting the recall got up at the council meeting and made some pretty hideous remarks. He was way, way out of line. Everyone is entitled to argue the merits of their case but the subject matter had nothing to do with setting an election date. It is possible to conduct public discourse without the extreme hostility that I see emminating from people in your group. I am assuming from your comments that this person that made the rude comments isn't part of your RM group.
Mr. Faunce, you sound like a very boisterous and rude man. You also seem to think you know a lot too. The reason I remain anonymous is because I do happen to be someone who works in the field of public government, and I live here in Murrieta. No, I am not a city employee. But I am familiar with the processes related to planning and zoning. I wish to remain anonymous because I don't want people like you knowing who I am.
So, Mr. Faunce, you go ahead and keep trying to buffalo the other citizens into believing your cause. I will continue to form my own opinions without the assistance of your group.
By
Anonymous, at Saturday, January 22, 2005 10:11:00 PM
The score in the race for proof stands at Mr. Faunce -1, Anonymous - 0. If you don't have time to do any research, how can you know what's going on?
By
J. L. Kunkle, at Sunday, January 23, 2005 1:55:00 PM
Regarding Councilman Enuchs and providing proof: Pull the file on Enuchs' new home next to Murrieta Cemetery at city hall and/or reveiw back issues of the local tabloid (Californian) and you will find that Enuchs failed to report his "development" accurately as a means to circumvent the fees charged and collected by the city. When questioned publicly, Enuchs said he forgot. Really? Listen to his double speek like: "We need to set the recall date as soon as possible so the residents can heal. Members of the Morman Church are fighting amongst eachother, we cn't have that, I don't like that. Yet, Enuchs and Ed Faunce created the infighting that excists within the Ranchos development resulting from Nighthawk being closed (with a gate paid for from our money 100K+). What about the fighting among those neighbors? At least apply the same standard to all.
By
Anonymous, at Saturday, January 29, 2005 9:05:00 PM
Don’t you just love the posts from anonymous. S/he not only has their facts wrong s/he can’t spell either. Actually, I would guess that this post is really from Seyarto – he is just trying to camouflage his identity by purposely writing in such poor English and spelling. The post does not have a “ring” of genuiness.
What is this nonsense that Enochs (not Enuchs) and Faunce created infighting within the Ranchos development? What infighting? If you knew what you were writing about, then you would know that it was McAllister, not Enochs, who was the council member that took the lead on the Hayes closure. It was McAllister who – for once in his brief career – broke with van Haaster and Seyarto to cast the swing vote to close Hayes.
And what was the basis of McAllister’s decision, Mr./s anonymous? Do you know? Were you present at the numerous presentations made by residents in the two tracts? Do you know that the City conducted a traffic count and found that the number of automobile trips exceeded the limit for neighborhoods? Do you know that over 700 students were walking, skate boarding and riding their bikes on the same streets? Do you know that Seyarto opposed closing Hayes because it personally inconvienced him? Did you take into account that van Haaster did not want to close Hayes because he was, at the time of the vote, secretly planning on opening a 400 student day care center and knew that it would create additional traffic? No you didn’t know any of these facts, because if you did, your post would be deliberately false.
Instead of facts, all you do is bleat that a gate is being paid for with City money. Well what about the gate at Kalmia and Calle Estancia? What about the gate on Magnolia and Adams (which just happens to be a couple of blocks from Seyarto’s residence)? Who paid for those gates.
No you are so uninformed that you think that Faunce was the prime mover on closing Hayes. In fact, I had very little to do about that. The residents on Hayes did the overwhelming amount of research and suggested changes to alleviate a disastrous traffic burden.
Finally, the reason why McAllister voted to close off Hayes was because of a very serious safety issue. Anyone who saw the mix of students, automobiles, bicycles, skateboards and buses only had to use common sense to know that it was only a matter of time before some student got seriously hurt of killed. Then, Mr./s anonymous, what do you think the cost to the City of Murrieta would have been?
Frankly I should not have taken my time to respond to your post because it is so poorly written and so factually erroneous. I challenge you to identify yourself and to give facts to support your allegation that I have caused any infighting within the Ranchos. Your failure to do so is cowardly.
Edward Faunce
Murrieta Resident
By
Anonymous, at Sunday, January 30, 2005 11:00:00 PM
Oh, Eddy now don't get emotional. I mean you critisize Seyarto for the same. Don't be a hippocrate. The fact is that infighting does exist within your neighborhood. The fact is the bloc of Enochs & Ostling along with Mc Allister voted for the closure which has lead to infighting, thus, Enochs' statement of displeasure about Ms. Butler's comments about the fighting going on at her church are somewhat humerous.
As for the gates, the gate at Adams was paid by the developer and the other gate at Kalmia & Calle Estancia was part of a development approved prior to incorporation, long before you and/or your neighborhood were even here. No sir, your facts are clouded and inaccurate. Your nievity and ignorance of these issues and of the people you support astounds me, as on the surface you appear, at times, to be an intelligent man. It's difficult to understand how you are lead blindly by folks such as Enochs and how you, inturn blindly lead others. If you are a man of priciples how do you condone Mr. Butler's personal attacks on Mc Alister? Enochs, reportedly has an interesting past as well. Even more recent. Perhaps his agenda serves you though? That's the fundamental problem with you and RM, your inconsistent. You practice a double standard. Actions are louder and more profound than words.
By
Anonymous, at Monday, January 31, 2005 9:25:00 PM
What's an Enuchs?
By
Anonymous, at Tuesday, February 01, 2005 6:55:00 AM
Mr./s anonymous coward. Your ad hominem response deserves no answer.
Edward Faunce
Murrieta resident
By
Anonymous, at Tuesday, February 01, 2005 9:49:00 AM
Wow, it's easy to understand the apathy that local politics generates amongst residents given the hostility demonstrated in this blog chain. It's a miracle anyone gets involved.
For what it's worth, those who run for City Council, or any elected office for that matter, certainly aren't doing it for the money. It is my considered opinion that those who run have a sincere interest in their community. Just because their interest is not everyone's interest should not temper this fact of reality. For those who think they can do a better job, run yourselves!
Murrieta resident since 1993
By
Anonymous, at Friday, February 11, 2005 4:49:00 PM
Post a Comment
<< Home