Newcomer leads San Anselmo council rivals in spending, fundraising

Reeks of some kind of corruption. Why would anybody spend that much money for a job like that? Power? Glory? or insanity?

Out Of Control State wrote:

Reeks of some kind of corruption. Why would anybody spend that much money for a job like that? Power? Glory? or insanity?

All of the above
But being an attorney you can draw some confidence that he earned his money to the extent self funded
Notice how incestuous all the contributions are flowing back and forth between various government officials?
At least it appears Freiman money hasnt infected San Anselmo yet

I find it ironic that Peter Breen, who is running in his fourth election, is unable to follow state law regarding campaign disclosures, and then whines about someone else who does. I'm also wondering why 5 members of the Garbarino family (of Marin Sanitary) have contributed to him in increments of $99 (to avoid disclosure). I'm sure Marin Sanitary is not trying to buy influence or anything.

This level of spending is not unusual at all for the San Anselmo races, the amounts last time were along the same lines at Mc Inerney this time.

Almost all of the donations were small and local and so it ends up getting spent faster than many might think. It the amount were 12 million,then there would be some concern but the man has spent less than the tow leaders in the last Town Council Campaign did.

It might surprise some to know the costs of running a campaign and it gets eaten up pretty quickly as filed reports document.

Signs and ad space on sites such as the Pacific Sun are costly. More costly than some people might realize.

Here are some important facts;

Reports were made in a timely fashion as required without excuse.

The candidate is not running a deficit, or loaning themselves money in hopes that it will all work out later.

The candidate is not relying on other candidates for donations (or ideas) but rather running on personal conviction and independent donations.

Think about how that reflects on the candidate and how they would perform if elected.

No mention that Kroot and Coleman started posting their cheep plastic signs a day early and have clearly posted them all over public property.

McInerney has brought a fresh approach to this campaign and jumped in with both feet with new ideas and grassroots campaigning. His supporters have hosted coffee get togethers, lemonade stands, and other events to enable him to meet his constituents. He has refused donations at a number of these events.

Kroot meanwhile, doesn't even put his correct occupation on the voter pamphlet, hiding the fact that he is a macmansion architect and stating he is a former mayor.

Now is the time to get Tom McInerney's energy focused on improving San Anselmo. We have let this town stagnate and need his focus on our flood issues, boarded up businesses, antiquated management of town services and ending the status quo.

Out Of Control State wrote:

Reeks of some kind of corruption. Why would anybody spend that much money for a job like that? Power? Glory? or insanity?

What generation are you from? People spend money even on their resumes to find a job -- can't just walk off the street and get handed a job! You have to do a talent show. The bigger the job the bigger the show. YOU are either self-employed for a lot of years or unemployed or don't work for a living.

I would like to correct the statement about Jeff Kroot and Kay Coleman putting their signs up a day early, that is not accurate. There was some legitimate confusion about the day the signs were permitted it's true that the other candidates were given the impression that Sunday was the first day, however that was not correct.

Jeff and Kay were in compliance with the regulations.

I guess I should ass that I was on the Sign Committee that wrote and submitted the new Town Sign Ordinance.

Doug

I think it tells you something when an incumbent doesn't have enough support in the community to mount even a credible campaign to retain his seat, and has to resort to loaning himself money or relying on special interests (Marin Sanitary, Redhill Shopping Center) to bankroll his campaign.

McInerney as the knickers to jump the Council ship early to get on board as Supervisor (D2) or as Assemblyman. It is a waste to his rolly-poly political doilies to do anything less with his campaign coinage.
If he chooses to stay as a SA Councilman, he can help paddle the Ross Valley through the next (1% chance of occurring) seasonal creek overflow.

On McInerney's postcard promo the first line says that he will continue as the chair of the Park & Recreation Commission. Is that legal under a General City that the same man that creates the Resolutions and decisions is the man that puts them into legal policy?

Maybe it was just sloppy union workmanship or wishful thinking on his part.

Breen should be held accountable for the errors and omissions in regard to election law.

Doug Kelly can be held accountable for the foolish and awkward San Anselmo Signage Ordinance, especially in regard to loss of free speech priviledges.

llm

Louise ,
You misread the Tom McInerney Flyer I believe.
While it's not in front of me at this time I believe it said that he would continue the work he began on the committee, not remain ON the committee.
He can not serve both positions and upon his swearing in (should he win) he is no longer on the Parks and Recreation Commission.
You said
"Doug Kelly can be held accountable for the foolish and awkward San Anselmo Signage Ordinance, especially in regard to loss of free speech privileges."
I can assure you that there is no loss of free speech privileges in the sign ordinance. I you have facts to dispute this then I would appreciate your pointing to any specifi provision(s) in that ordinance that states otherwise.
Further that Sign Committee was open to a large number of local citizens, I am happy to take responsibility for it, we worked ahrd and I'm proud of the work we did. My point is that you sat right there in the council chambers when volunteers were called for you could have added your own input when were we writing the ordinance in the first place. Approximately 20 citizens in the room joined at the time, you elected not to.
The ordinance was published and discussed at public meetings prior to it's becoming law. I do not recall you addressing the stifling of free speech at the time and I do recall you being in the council chambers at the time.
Doug Kelly

Typical Louise Matthews response. She refuses to get involved, but then complains and criticizes after the fact.

It is no wonder that Louise does not like Tom McInerney. I would not expect Tom to be intimidated by Louise's attack dog style.

I will vote for whichever candidate can assure me in this forum that he or she will STOP a certain town councilman from POLLUTING our fair city with his wood smoke on SPARE THE AIR DAYS. Please! It is so classist! Rich loyya pollutes poor sec 8 tenants next door. Since he's such a bigshot...we suffer unheard. There are way more of us than him...but he's on the Town council.
I s air pollution a campaign issue?
I'm waiting

The postcard states,...continue as chair..."
If elected, will Tom McInerney continue sending the wrong message to his constituents or will he engage in the well-practiced and strategic deceptions that litter the legal profession.

Re: Free Speech signage- elections signs fall into that category. The defensive posture of TM's bulldog DK is uncalled for but then, I don't know what they have been up to.

LLM believes in the right and protection of the voter's opportunity to participate in legitamate elections under California State law.

TM believes in Hal Brown.

llm

Louise-

You have made a very important charge against me personally. You said that I worked on a Sign Ordinance that stifles Free Speech.

I asker you to point out where I personally worked on a Sign Ordinance that stifled Free Speech. Your response is;

"Re: Free Speech signage- elections signs fall into that category"

I have no idea what that is supposed to mean there are election signs all over town.

I realize that you have no concern about attacking the personal reputation of others but I do care about my personal reputation.

Your charge that I worked on a Sign Ordinance that Stifles free speech is a personal attack. I am not thin-skinned and frankly your personal opinion doesn't really carry any weight with me, nonetheless you still owe me an explanation as to this serious charge against me. You made that charge, now back it up, or withdraw it, please.

Kindly tell me exactly how my work on the Sign Ordinance or the Sign Ordinance itself stifles free speech.

Doug Kelly

"...election signs all over town.." For a person who adorns himself with cloak of participation, you are aware as others that election signage this year does not conform with placement requirements under the SA Sign Ordinance.
Coverage and location are two of the violation categories.

It is unwise to take the position that I have insulted you personally when you were only one of so many persons, including me, San Diego attorney Randall Morrison and Ford Greene who worked to develop a sign ordinance that was inclusive, comprehensive, legal, and avoided the duality of permissiveness that the Council was focused upon.

Dueling is not legal. If you feel that I have levied a serious charge against you, have a cup of cocoa and sit on somebody's lap till the ballots are counted and your campaign efforts are vindicated.

You have not been insulted. You are only engaging in distraction because of the McInerney postcard is careless and provocatively curious as an indicator of Leadership with a paternal agenda.

llm

First off you were not on the Sign Committee and did no work on it. None.

Second Ford Greene attended one half of one meeting and did no work on it. None.

You have leveled a charge against me personally, and you have a responsibility to back it up or withdraw it.

I believe that the charge that I worked on ANYTHING where ANYBODY lost the right of Free Speech is a serious charge.

For a person who constantly complains about the actions of others you certainly seem to take no responsibility for you own actions.

You personally said;
"Doug Kelly can be held accountable for the foolish and awkward San Anselmo Signage Ordinance, especially in regard to loss of free speech privileges."

I am waiting for you to respond to my request that you tell me where in the Sign Ordinance the Citizens lost Free Speech privileges. Exactly and specifically where does it do that?

And how can you say that charging a citizen of this country with working to deny Free Speech to Americans is not an insult?

This may be a distraction to you but not to me, and at any rate to the extent that it's a distraction I would remind you that YOU raised the issue, not me. You used my name and said this.

As to you last statement that the Current Sign Ordinance is not being complied I am unclear on you position. Is that a good thing or bad thing?

Doug

Louise, just a thought. Read your posts before posting. You sound juvenile and your grammar is abhorant. If you think as you express yourself....I would suggest that you drop out. The job requires the ability to read and write at at least a collegiate level.

I AGree. with school teacher SA. Writing quickly on a 10 minute break from work does limit the capacity for proofreading.

Thanks for the critique.

In regard to Ford Greene. BEFORE the Sign Commmittee was formed by the Town Council, Town Attorney Hadden Roth, Ford Greene, and I spent hours over many meetings with two members of Council editing and rewriting and rebuilding the entire Town Code for all Town signage.

llm

Louise-
Let me clarify the facts;
You did nothing on the sign ordinance. Not a single thing, nor did Ford as I'm sure he would agree. At least Ford does not attempt to take credit where none is due.
Not only do you make a pathetic attempt to take credit for work you never did, as usual you take no responsibilty for the actions you do take.

You said;
"Doug Kelly can be held accountable for the foolish and awkward San Anselmo Signage Ordinance, especially in regard to loss of free speech privileges."

Your statement is a lie we did nothing to cause the citizens of San Anselmo to suffer a "loss of Free Speech Priviledges"

You have a responsiblity to retract that lie.

Doug Kelly