We Need Proof!
I would just like someone to provide proof that Mr. Enochs is or is not involved with Rescue Murrieta. If Enochs could manage this skillfully to keep it a secret in this small town, he should get a job working for the CIA.
Another thing that I would like to know is whether he is involved or not is at all relevant. The facts about both sides need to come out. The people in this town are not idiots and I think they have minds of their own to evaluate what both sides have to say and reach their own conclusions.
Right now with VanHaaster's seeming improprieties, the imminent domain threats that are looming, and the continued chaos on Murrieta's streets, I would say the ball seems to be in Rescue Murrieta's court.
Another thing that I would like to know is whether he is involved or not is at all relevant. The facts about both sides need to come out. The people in this town are not idiots and I think they have minds of their own to evaluate what both sides have to say and reach their own conclusions.
Right now with VanHaaster's seeming improprieties, the imminent domain threats that are looming, and the continued chaos on Murrieta's streets, I would say the ball seems to be in Rescue Murrieta's court.
posted by J. L. Kunkle at
Wednesday, January 19, 2005
8 Comments:
J.L. Kunkle asks whether someone can provide proof that Mr. Enochs is or is not involved with Rescue Murrieta and, if he is, whether such involvement is relevant.
As the Rescue Murrieta Spokesman, and one who has been involved since before Rescue Murrieta’s creation, I offer the following responses to Mr. Kunkle’s questions:
Whether Council member Enochs is or is not involved with Rescue Murrieta (RM) seems most important to Council member Seyarto. Seyarto continually treats Enochs with disdain, even hostility, at Council meetings.
During the last Council election, Seyarto and van Haaster supported the effort to defeat Enochs while also supporting the reelection of Youens and the election of McAllister. Those efforts were partially rejected when Enochs got the most votes – ever – by a resident running for our Council and Youens was replaced by McAllister. So, why wouldn’t Enochs support a recall of those who tried to eliminate him from office? But just because Enochs supports the recall does not mean that he was involved in the formation, organization and execution of this recall effort.
The recall effort is not energized by Enochs. However, Seyarto’s disdain and hostility, often directed at Enochs, has also been directed at City residents who challenge his positions. It’s his style. While collecting signatures for the recall petitions, it was not unusual for residents to approach the signature gatherers and say “I want to sign Seyarto’s petition. I watch him in Council meetings and he is rude and insulting.”
I was present at the Council meeting when the recall movement exploded into action. It happened in the parking lot outside of a Council meeting. Enochs was inside because the Council meeting was still in progress. He was not there when the residents began discussing what to do about a council majority that votes as a block and seems so arrogant and distant. That frustration gave birth to the only avenue left – RECALL. Standing in the parking lot, residents began introducing themselves to each other, trading email addresses and phone numbers, and promising to immediately find a meeting place in order to take the next step.
Initially, there was no formal organizational structure. Just residents saying that they could no longer stomach the “We know what’s best for you attitude, so just go home like good children and shut up” treatment from the ruling Trio (van Haaster, Seyarto, McAllister). For several days after the Council meeting, emails and phone calls were exchanged between residents. Trying to find a meeting place in Murrieta large enough to hold at least one hundred persons was difficult. Finally, I offered to let the concerned residents use my home and about seventy persons attended. We introduced ourselves to each other. Council member Enochs was not in attendance.
After a lively discussion, it was agreed that a recall was warranted because the Trio formed a barrier to residents’ concerns. The group decided that residents effectively had only a three-person council because the other two Council members, Enochs and Ostling, were simply ignored and isolated by the Trio.
Once it was agreed that recall was the appropriate procedure to break up the ruling Trio, it had to be decided which Council members should be targeted. There was absolute and immediate 100% agreement that van Haaster and Seyarto had to go. It was agreed that van Haaster had crossed over the line of ethical behavior and could no longer be trusted. Seyarto had arrogantly defended van Haaster’s actions and squelched the public debate regarding van Haaster’s ethical failings over his day-care center. Even worse, Seyarto and McAllister voted to allow the day-care center to proceed. Every one agreed that this was a case of cronyism taking precedence over the residents’ legitimate complaints. Besides, it was pointed out, Seyarto had offended so many in the community with his superiority attitude, he had few friends to support him. Finally, the crushing development of the Community without sufficient infrastructure occurred on their watch. They had to go.
But there was some debate about McAllister. It was argued that he had just been elected to the Council. Those supporting his recall pointed out that he had not been that friendly to residents during his tenure on the Planning Commission. It was also argued that van Haaster, Seyarto and former Council member Youens had used the Planning Commission to groom McAllister to replace Enochs. It was apparent that McAllister owed his elevation to the Council to van Haaster and Seyarto and his allegiance was to them and not to the residents of the City. (This was before McAllister announced his vocational change, now he is a consultant to developers.)
Eventually a vote was taken to decide whether McAllister should be recalled as well. The vote was not unanimous, but was overwhelmingly in favor of recalling McAllister as well as van Haaster and Seyarto.
The group also debated what to call this recall effort. After many suggestions, it was decided to call the effort “Rescue Murrieta.” After all, it was pointed out, California residents had just participated in a recall of its governor and that effort was called Rescue California. By calling our recall effort Rescue Murrieta, it was felt that busy Murrietans would be able to transfer their understanding about the recall process to this recall effort in our City. The group also decided that an appropriate organizational structure needed to be put in place. I volunteered to research this question.
Not once was Enochs, or any other Council member, consulted about our choice of structure. Eventually, it was decided that a Political Action Committee (PAC) was the appropriate political organization. The three people who signed the documents filed with the State of California had to be introduced to each other because they were residents located in different parts of the City and had not previously known each other.
At one of the early meetings, even before the Notice of Intent to circulate recall petitions were properly signed, Enochs visited the meeting, was introduced and shook some hands. He obviously supported what we were doing. He did not address the group nor did he offer any assistance, financial or otherwise. He has never attended any other Rescue Murrieta meeting nor has RM asked for his assistance in any way.
After the Rescue Murrieta PAC was created, volunteers began joining and once the recall petitions were approved – a process which took some time because we had to publish our notices in the paper three times in order to get every “t” crossed and every “i” dotted – these volunteers fanned out over the City collecting signatures. Enochs was not involved nor consulted in this effort.
Different city residents stepped forward to assist. Soon a core group of volunteers began meeting weekly to talk about their experiences in gathering signatures, fund rasing and planning to meet the goal of obtaining 6,347 signatures against each targeted Trio member. Enochs was never present at any of these meetings.
These are the facts. So how is it that Seyarto continues to bleat that Enochs is responsible for the recall? Seyarto’s “big lie” – that it is Enochs who is behind the recall – has been disputed by RM many times. But Seyarto seems so blinded by his animosity toward Enochs that he cannot hear the truth. But then – what’s new – Seyarto often doesn’t hear what the City residents are saying.
Additionally, Seyarto and McAllister, both claim that RM volunteers got the required number of signatures by lies and misrepresentations. They do not appreciate the time that would have been required to get the 24,000 signatures we gathered if we had to falsely debate the residents.
Fortunately, little explanation was needed to obtain most signatures. Seyarto and McAllister did not see the determined look and stride of residents who came to RM tables and, without any conversation, said “Where are those petitions? I want to sign. Get rid of all three of them.”
They were not there to hear the number of people who said “I can’t sign because I’ve moved because I couldn’t stand what the Council has done to this City.”
They were not there to see the mothers, with two or three small children, signing with one hand while holding a child in the other, or to hear those who said “I want to thank y’all for the tremendous service you’re doing for our City.”
One memorable exchange I had with a resident began when a man said “You are too late, they lost this City ten years ago. I know because I’m in the construction and development business.” I said, “so you think it’s too late and there’s no reason to sign, how about revenge?” He said, “You’re right” and signed the recall petitions.
The point is that residents signed the petitions for a variety of reasons, but each person had to decide to put pen to paper – three times. That kind of commitment is not obtained by lies and misrepresentations. Recall opponents must squarely face the enormous dissatisfaction within the City. Calling the recall proponents names, blaming Enochs and thumping the chest, while promising to continue to do more of the same, is nothing more than self-deluding denial.
At the end of the day, RM stands independent from Council member Enochs. If Enochs did not exist, the City problems created by the ruling Trio would still drive this recall forward. The fact that Enochs supports the recall movement is irrelevant to its existence and credibility.
Edward Faunce
Official Spokesman for Rescue Murrieta
By
Anonymous, at Sunday, January 23, 2005 5:52:00 PM
I'll bet that if Mr. Enochs stepped out of line as badly as the current power structure, he'd be on the recall ballot too. Just one question Mr. Faunce, do you remember some specific examples of the block's activities that led to RM's formation?
By
J. L. Kunkle, at Monday, January 24, 2005 7:52:00 PM
Enochs has "stepped" out of line both personally and politically. Ask the POA why they went out to his house to check the accuracy of the square footage. Because he misrepresented the square footage on construction (aka development)building permit in an blatant attempt to cheat on the fee's paid by developers. The POA did this out of concern because they supported him. What does that say about them? Good ol' boy? Alledgedly! And Enochs talks about illegal sewer hook ups. If that isn't the pot calling the kettle...
By
Anonymous, at Monday, January 31, 2005 9:09:00 PM
Your right, kick 'em both out.
By
J. L. Kunkle, at Tuesday, February 01, 2005 2:24:00 PM
Councilman Seyarto evidently has a great deal of regard for councilman Enochs, or else why would he ascribe to him such a high degree of conspiratorial manipulation? Enochs and VanHaaster's mutual dislike of one another is a matter of public record. But to think that there is a great redneck power grab with a dash of revenge thrown in? Seyarto could write a great suspense thriller if he can take small-town politics and make them sound like the grassy knoll.
By
J. L. Kunkle, at Saturday, February 05, 2005 6:00:00 PM
Of course Mr. Seyarto is going to minimize the improprieties and self-serving interests of his Council "friend" Jack van Haaster, and glorify that of his arch-enemy, Enochs. This is where objectivity and professionalism are sorely lacking in Councilman Seyarto's ability to serve. One meeting in which this was blatantly obvious was during the public comments portion of the Van Haaster preschool project. Mr. Seyarto was more interested in "protecting" the Mayor's daughter and her feelings than in actually recognizing the magnitude of the Mayor's "poor judgment" and listening to the people. He even did his own personal observations of the traffic and concluded that a preschool would not have ANY negative impact on the traffic in the area. Gee… what a surprise! Who is Mr. Seyarto to weigh and gauge the severity of one impropriety verses another? His tendency to supposedly know more and better what is in the best interests of the Murrieta citizens represents a fundamental and serious flaw in his judgment.
By
Anonymous, at Monday, February 07, 2005 8:23:00 PM
The Douglas paving is yet another example of the inconsistent nature of our City and Council. For 14 years we questioned the small, unpaved section of Douglas, as we watched school children walking in the dirt and mud, sometimes being put in serious safety jeopardy. The response from the City and Council was always the same: "It's a private road and we don't want to set precedence." Interesting how the rules suddenly change when the Mayor buys the corner property! Mr. Seyarto is simply watching out for his group of special interest - the Van Haaster family.
By
Anonymous, at Tuesday, February 08, 2005 10:49:00 PM
Kelly Seyarto, What does "I might have known about the preschool on a very superficial level" mean? Either you knew or you didn't. We find it interesting that you say you never considered the preschool or its impact on the area when voting on the road improvements. As the all knowing councilman, we aren't buying it. You knew all about this project but chose to ignore the impact that 396 children and their traffic would bring to the already congested area. How could you approve this project with a clear conscious? Especially in ER2 zoning. This project was a ramrod job from the beginning. It's unheard of how fast this project got through the appeal process. No one but the vanHaaster family could pull this one off.
By
Anonymous, at Tuesday, February 08, 2005 11:26:00 PM
Post a Comment
<< Home