Is RM a PAC without a cause?
With the recall behind us, Ed Faunce has indicated that he will continue to go after McAllister and Seyarto. I would like to suggest that the Murrieta City Council is a closed issue at this time, and that RM's clout might be better utilized to watchdog the council and the county government and to try to help keep developers in southwest county under some form of popular control. The recall was only the first step in what promises to be a long process of infrastructural catch-up.
posted by J. L. Kunkle at
Tuesday, May 17, 2005
10 Comments:
Ed Faunce did not say that RM was continuing to go after councilmen Seyarto and McAllister. That statement was reported by Nancy Fay, a cub reporter for the Temecula valley News.
Fay has made many errors in her brief career. chief among her failings is the tendency to report her personal opinions as fact.
RM has already received numerous contacts from residents of Murrieta as well as citizen groups from other cities. RM volunteers spent over 11 months in the recall fight. a brief rest is both needed and deserved. Ed Faunce
By
Anonymous, at Tuesday, May 17, 2005 11:29:00 PM
Hi. It is I, the unknown. Just another member of the Anonymous family reminding everyone that if a writer does not have the guts to identify him or herself, then his or her input is a bunch of spineless gunk. I know of where I speak, for I am one of those pitiful souls.
By
Anonymous, at Wednesday, May 18, 2005 8:29:00 AM
You don't need to use your real name, you just need to individualize your posts somehow.
By
J. L. Kunkle, at Wednesday, May 18, 2005 8:45:00 AM
I read in the Californian that Faunce said the battle would continue and Seyarto and McCallister are next. (Paraphrased) I think that Faunce is really good at blaming others for the his deceptive lies.
By
Anonymous, at Wednesday, May 18, 2005 10:24:00 PM
J.L. Kunkle said...
You don't need to use your real name, you just need to individualize your posts somehow.
I agree and I appreciate that you allow that on this forum, at this point and time I'm uncomfortable with putting my name on the internet call it paranoia but that's the way I feel. I will try and keep my comments civil.
MK
By
Anonymous, at Thursday, May 19, 2005 7:32:00 AM
To Rholmgren:
What I said to the press, on election night, was that Seyarto and McAllister would not have access to unlimited developer money the next time they face the voters. I said that they would have to compete on a much more level playing field.
The reason is that a recall is a ballot measure and there is no limit to the amount of money that can be raised and spent. In contrast, Murrieta has an ordinance which restricts council member campaigns to spending no more than 50 cents per registered voter and limits contributions from a single source to $270.
Make no mistake about this last election. Murrieta residents and Rescue Murrieta took on the entire power structure of Riverside County and then some. The developers hired a Sacramento-based political consultant which ran a campaign of lies and fear. Yet look how close the election was on Seyarto.
If Seyarto closes ranks and works with the other four council members, then he will have learned from this recall experience. If not, the next time he faces the voters he may have to do so without the overwhelming $$'s and political spinmeister assistance.
You should have noticed that RM has been very quiet since the election because we believe that the election is over and we all should work together to move Murrieta towards building out a quality City.
We fully support the cessation of personal hostilities between and among council members. We have pledged our support to the Council and the City. If we continue to disagree with the positions taken by either Seyarto or McAllister, then we would oppose them in the next election. No one should have a problem with that.
Ed Faunce
By
Anonymous, at Thursday, May 19, 2005 7:50:00 AM
If the Recall is over then why doesn't RM disband? I fear that RM is already planning for the 2006 election. As for what you said after the election: If the Californian was wrong then I am wrong too. I definitely do not believe everything that I read and I know it is easy to get quoted out of context. Let's just hope that the Council gets its act together for the sake of the community. Anyone who puts their ego ahead of the best interests of Murrieta will be gone in 2006.
By
Anonymous, at Thursday, May 19, 2005 7:38:00 PM
Rholmgren said: "Anyone who puts their ego ahead of the best interests of Murrieta will be gone in 2006." And that's the way it should be!
RM, as a recall PAC, is no longer needed. But, Murrieta needs to keep residents really involved with the continued development of the City - infrastructure, schools, business, amenities, etc.
RM can serve a desirable function by helping different groups or neighborhoods focus their concerns. RM is a nascent grassroots organization whose direction will be determined by the issues that concern Murrietans.
While you may "fear" that RM is already planning for the 2006 election, many residents also "fear" that the developers are also planning their strategy. Having just won such an important victory in breaking the visegrip control of our council, we do not intend to allow the "back door" to our representatives to be reopened.
But, all five council members must be evaluated and judged by the standard you mentioned - putting the best interests of Murrieta first.
What is in Murrieta's best interest may be debatable, but our common desire to achieve the best has already been agreed upon.
Ed Faunce
By
Anonymous, at Thursday, May 19, 2005 10:48:00 PM
Thanks for your response. I oppose many of RM's motivations but not all of their objectives. It would be really informational to see a post recall stance on your web site. People who want to support all or part of your agenda need to know where RM stands. There are alot of important issues that need to be addressed by the council soon.It is going to be really
interesting to see how the council voting dynamic takes shape. Mr Enochs' coalition building skills, or lack there of, will be tested. Also it may be smarter of you to not describe Mr Seyarto as "anti intellectual." It just sounds very elitist when the term is used by an attorney. It is obvious from Mr Seyarto's postings that he is both intellectually thoughtful with an edge of street smarts.
By
Anonymous, at Sunday, May 22, 2005 7:53:00 PM
To Rholmgren, thanks for the heads up on sounding "elitist." I will not argue "in personam" but will stick to the issues and facts. Looks like we've both come a distance from our prior stances!
Edward Faunce
By
Anonymous, at Monday, May 23, 2005 1:43:00 PM
Post a Comment
<< Home