Surprise!
At the risk of sounding like a conspiracy theorist, I can’t help but wonder if sending Jack vanHaaster to Las Vegas without telling Gibbs might have been a little sour grapes by the chamber of commerce? I sincerely hope not, but it does seem irregular, especially the not informing Gibbs part.
The unity of leadership of the deposed and the deposer shown to the prospective businesses was a very positive spin on this occurrence, and it is to be hoped that the intended perception of a stable Murrieta government did indeed happen.
But I would like to suggest that the chamber of commerce and Mr. VanHaaster be much more careful about these little oopsies in the future, as it could be interpreted as a snub of our newly elected councilman.
The unity of leadership of the deposed and the deposer shown to the prospective businesses was a very positive spin on this occurrence, and it is to be hoped that the intended perception of a stable Murrieta government did indeed happen.
But I would like to suggest that the chamber of commerce and Mr. VanHaaster be much more careful about these little oopsies in the future, as it could be interpreted as a snub of our newly elected councilman.
posted by J. L. Kunkle at
Sunday, May 29, 2005
27 Comments:
Who says Gibbs didn't know about it?
By
Anonymous, at Monday, May 30, 2005 8:19:00 AM
Oh please, get over your damn selfs..
Did Jack go on city funds? No..
Does he have the right to go as a private citizen? Yes
My god, some of the people up here need to get off their high horse and realize that they are not the high and mighty they think they are..
By
Anonymous, at Monday, May 30, 2005 2:10:00 PM
Agreed. No one can dispute the ousted Mayor's right to disgrace himself. If he can't bring himself to make an honorable exit, then we should all just pat him on the back and say nice things.
By
Anonymous, at Monday, May 30, 2005 2:42:00 PM
The real issue here is that the Chamber of Commerce unilaterally asked van Haaster to attend the Conference. I will address this "unilateralism" problem in greater detail at the coming Council meeting.
But the Chamber - which is not accountable to the residents - should not have presumed to send a council member whom the residents just recalled. That's a decision which should have been made by the Council.
While everyone else has been trying to move on, the Chamber clearly delivered a "slap to the faces" of those who voted to recall the former mayor. Instead of helping the residents to move on, the Chamber actually took everybody a step backwards. That's why the rancorous comments are still appearing on this Blogsite.
Had the Chamber either kept silent, or at least asked the current council to make the decision, then the residents would be able to express themselves to their elected representatives.
Now, the Chamber has shoved its way on to the center stage and it undoubtedly is going to get criticized for its unilateral action.
The Chamber has forfeited any legitimate right to act on behalf of the City and the time has come for the City to cut the Chambers' apron strings and let it act as any other private institution. No more taxpayer monies should be given to such a presumptive organization.
Edward Faunce
By
Anonymous, at Monday, May 30, 2005 3:11:00 PM
For all you folks on your high horses who criticize Jack vanHaaster's continued presence on the public stage, just remember, "There, but for moral integrity, go you and I." Now, maybe you'll leave him alone and let him continue to represent the city.
By
Anonymous, at Monday, May 30, 2005 3:32:00 PM
As someone who leaned in favor of vanHaaster in the recall election, I don't think the Chamber of Commerce did him any favors. I told people at the time that it did not look good for the Chamber, police or firefighters to be endorsing candidates. The Chamber also hurt vanHaaster by giving the appearance, which I don't actually think was intentional, of pulling the rug out from under Enochs on his candidate forum. More than anything else, I put the blame for the mayor's loss on the Chamber. The only good thing I have to say about the Chamber is that if they promote business as well as they promote political candidates, they probably are helping keep traffic down in Murrieta. We need that. Just joking of course. But seriously, if Jack vanHaaster runs again in the future, as I hope he will, I'd like to ask the Chamber right now to please butt out of politics.
JLM
By
Anonymous, at Monday, May 30, 2005 4:09:00 PM
Mr Faunce: Is the Chamber required to consult the city council on such decisions? How were people chosen to represent the city at past conventions. If previous decisions were unilateral then there was nothing wrong with sending Jack to the convention since he is a community leader (as a non member of the Council).Had the Chamber consulted with the Council in previous years then there would be an issue with this year's decision. I think there has to be a precedent in order for unilateralism to be an issue.
By
Anonymous, at Monday, May 30, 2005 4:13:00 PM
I supported vanHaaster. (And Seyarto and McAllister.) And I am very uncomfortable with Enochs as mayor. The Chamber did us no favors by poking their noses into things. However, I know a good (and nonpolitical) Chamber is good for a city, and I hope the Murrieta Chamber of Commerce has not been damaged by the election, nor by the most recent negative publicity. I think the best course for the Chamber is for them to examine their own issues, and fix from within whatever is causing the negative results.
By
Anonymous, at Monday, May 30, 2005 4:56:00 PM
To Rholmgren:
Yes, I would say they needed to consult the City. After all the "booth" was for representing the City of Murrieta.
The Chamber (Rex Oliver) should home known that sending van Haaster would cause problems, their actions can only be interpreted as a deliberate refusal to abide by the principle of majority rule.
What the Chamber did may not have been illegal, but it shows extremely poor judgment.
Edward Faunce
By
Anonymous, at Monday, May 30, 2005 5:23:00 PM
Mr Faunce it may have been poor judgement but is it abnormal for a(the) Chamber to send a representative from outside the council leadership? Obviously Mr Vanhaster's presence rubbed some people the wrong way. I was just wondering if it is business as usual to send only council members to such functions.
By
Anonymous, at Monday, May 30, 2005 9:29:00 PM
According to Rex Oliver, the
strategy, was to show a united
city,etc,etc, and according to him
it worked. Well, if this was such
a great strategy, then why was
Rick Gibbs not told about it. beforehand?
I wonder how many more times
Mr. van Haaster will be asked to
show up to events, representing
Murrieta?
fr. Irisheyes
By
Anonymous, at Monday, May 30, 2005 9:56:00 PM
Mr. Seyarto:
Excuse me, but I didn't make up this problem, as you suggest. The propriety of sending van Haaster to the Vegas conference was raised by the Californian, and, on this blog, by others. I simply commented on the "poor judgment" shown by the Chamber in sending a recalled Council member so soon after the bitter fight had ended.
Furthermore, there is a substantial number of residents who see that the campaign to bring van Haaster back has already started. The Chamber is now seen as an integral cog in that effort.
One of the complaints about the manner in which Murrieta has been governed is that it seems that there is a "shadow" government which consists of essentially the same puppeter persons pulling the strings. So we find out that the Chamber hands out kudos to certain City Council members, the Chamber is rewarded with key appointments to the City Planning Commission. The developers, i.e., Dan Stephenson and his bogus Southwest Taxpayers group financing the political takeover by the clique. And of course, the ever present 3-2 voting block that was just broken.
You say that the Chamber represents the business interests in Murrieta. Really? What did the Chamber do for the Old Town businesses during the past year when many nearly went under? If you check out the Chamber's Board you will find that many of the businesses represented are not "Murrieta" businesses and their owners are not residents. What's good for them may not be seen by the residents as the best for the City taken as a whole.
You can deny that this is true all you want, but the perception persists with a significant number of voters.
The Chamber's decision to send van Haaster simply fed the perception that the real shadow Murrieta government fully intends to ignore the recall vote.
All your verbage about moving the City forward and coming together as a team are hollow words when the voters see how the Murrieta shadow government manipulates to get its way. They used the City police and firefighters as their spearpoint, they pushed the Chamber into an advance guard attack team and they tried, unsuccessfully, to hide the money sources and the real shakers and movers behind the van Haaster administration.
Like it or not, this is the legacy of Jack's administration. That coupled with his ethical pecadillios, which you never believed were important, led to his downfall.
The real healing will not occur until the City's leadership is returned to its rightful owners - the voters.
You failed to address the single most important point about the Chamber's involvement, towit, that the Chamber is an unelected group that are not responsible to the residents. But the City Council does answer to the voters so when it comes to selecting who shall represent Murrieta at conferences, it should be the Council, and not some shadow unelected body that makes the decision.
Once again, you have presumed to know what's best for everybody without giving those who hold a different perspective credit. We all await the day when you will say, "Hmmm, you know what, y'all have a good point. Maybe it would have been better if the Council and not the Chamber decided who should have attended the conference."
Edward Faunce
By
Anonymous, at Tuesday, May 31, 2005 7:18:00 AM
To Rholmgren, You asked: "I was just wondering if it is business as usual to send only council members to such functions."
It's probably not necessary to send only Council members, but maybe the Council should be responsible for deciding who should represent the City? That's the fundamental issue which Mr. Seyarto and I are discussing. My position is that responsibility to the voters should not be separated from responsibility to decide who represents the City.
In any event, I think we can all agree that immediately following the recall, Murrieta, at least, was not in a "business as usual" mode.
If I were in Jack's shoes, and the Chamber had said, we're sending you to Vegas, I think I might have said something like - "You know, I don't mind going and I do still care about this community. But, because I care, I think we should be careful not to do this without asking the Council, in advance given the change in political climate."
My guess is that what disturbs those, who are disturbed, is precisely the "business as usual" attitude projected by the Chamber's decision. Some deference to the voters would have been preferable to them.
Edward Faunce
By
Anonymous, at Tuesday, May 31, 2005 8:13:00 AM
Mr Faunce: In the last year and a half there have been two elections. The voters are well represented on the council. I just do not understand why it is necessary to deride a business that has ownership that presides outside the city. Most businesses in most cities are owned by outside interests. It really seems non productive to berate Chamber and Developers at every turn. The majority of the economy of this area are represented by both. Mr Seyarto clarified that Rex Oyliver is usually in attendence at the Vegas conference. My questions were still not answered. Is it normal for the council to be consulted on such issues? Do council members only normally attend?
By
Anonymous, at Tuesday, May 31, 2005 8:18:00 AM
Mr Faunce I think our last two messages crossed paths. I want to thank you and Mr Seyarto for all the infomation. I am not sure if the conflict with the Chamber is with the Chamber's policies or leadership. I recall reading that in the Menifee area there are competing Chambers. Maybe it would be a good idea to start another Chamber to represent Murrieta businesses only.
By
Anonymous, at Tuesday, May 31, 2005 8:53:00 AM
Were I a member of the Murrieta Chamber, I'd be working pretty hard to get new leadership.
By needlessly piting the Chamber against the recall, all Oliver accomplished was p****** off 50% of the Murrieta residents with local businesses.
Rex, let your visa expire and return to Canada.
By
Anonymous, at Tuesday, May 31, 2005 7:58:00 PM
Were you a member of the Chamber ... you would certainly be better informed than you apparently are right now. It takes Faunce at least half a page to sound as ignorant as you managed in 3 brief paragraphs. Your math and English skills are exemplary. Reality makes no unnecessary demands on you, my friend.
noWonder
By
Anonymous, at Tuesday, May 31, 2005 9:04:00 PM
Just keep in mind that this so-called independent chamber of commerce is heavily subsidized by the city.
By
J. L. Kunkle, at Tuesday, May 31, 2005 11:19:00 PM
No wonder you resort to insults, noWonder. Your fit of pique May 31 9:04, against Anon of May 31 7:58 contained not one wit of information or substance. It merely put your anger on display.
And as for you, Anon of May 31 7:58: Is it really necessary to insult or even imply insult concerning someone's completely legal resident visa status? I don't think so.
It is OK in my opinion for everyone to vent their feelings, but please realize that credibility goes down as emotion goes up.
Knecht
By
Anonymous, at Wednesday, June 01, 2005 7:22:00 AM
Knecht: Did you mean "whit" as in "smallest imaginable piece"; or as you wrote, "wit", which would seem to imply a bit of sarcasm on your part?
By
Anonymous, at Wednesday, June 01, 2005 7:32:00 AM
I am not a sarcastic person, nor am I above making a mistake. If mistakes are an eliminating factor in this forum, then I will be signing off for good, for I do make my share. My apologies.
Knecht
By
Anonymous, at Wednesday, June 01, 2005 7:36:00 AM
To Franchise: Regarding your comment that "Faunce seems to have a bloated . . . opinion of himself. Does he fancy himself in another capacity?"
Since June 2004, I have been the official spokesperson for Rescue Murrieta, if that is what you were inquiring about as "another capacity."
I did not sign my last several posts as RM spokesperson because I assumed that fact was well known.
What I had to say about the Chamber's (Rex Oliver's) poor judgment is a reflection of the the RM volunteer committee.
In any case, the issue is not I, but rather the events which have transpired.
Edward Faunce
By
Anonymous, at Wednesday, June 01, 2005 11:10:00 AM
Franchise,
Your comment about "Faunce" does not seem logical. You've been around for a while, so you know who he is. I assume you made a mistake.
If your comment was intended for me, however... That I can understand. I do, unfortunately, come across in the manner you described. Can't help it. It's a personality flaw.
This is your chance to redeem yourself. Admit your mistake, and all will be forgiven.
Knecht
By
Anonymous, at Wednesday, June 01, 2005 11:44:00 AM
I'm sorry but since when does the Chamber take it's direction from the City Council?
How is it poor judgement by the Chamber to take a community leader, elected and sitting on the CC or not, to help develop Murrieta..?
Amazing..I guess the only people that count in Murrieta now are the RM group and Enochs and Osling. The rest are in the way..
By
Anonymous, at Wednesday, June 01, 2005 6:32:00 PM
The CC should indeed be allowed to give former mayor vanhaaster something to do. After all, it was the CC's interference in the election that caused so much public outrage that vanhaaster got fired. CC owes him a job.
By
Anonymous, at Thursday, June 02, 2005 9:07:00 AM
Someone earlier in this blog suggested a "competing" Chamber of Commerce. Is that possible? Maybe that is the answer?
By
Anonymous, at Friday, June 03, 2005 10:54:00 AM
So if there is going to be a 'competing' Chamber. How much will dues be for a Home Based business?
Temecula Chamber charges new members $260.00.
Murrieta Chamber charges new members $170.00.
By
Anonymous, at Wednesday, June 08, 2005 9:15:00 PM
Post a Comment
<< Home