Spoiler: Mayor's Speech for Tonight's Meeting 3/28/12

Several Encinitas residents have offered for all of us the brusque, dismissive proclamation from Jerome Stocks in answer to criticism of the questionable legality of tonight's item #9 ordinance on the consent calendar.  Hubris, thy name is Jerome.
Sample #1

On Mar 28, 2012, at 11:48 AM, "Milton Saier" wrote:

Dear Mr Stocks,
Who should run Encinitas – the voters, or the cronies on the Council? Today (Wednesday, March 28), the Council is likely to vote for a change that would anoint Kristin Gaspar as mayor for the next two years, regardless of who the voters elect in November. Fearful of the growing anti-incumbent movement in our city, you and Gaspar contrived a proposal that would make Ms. Gaspar the mayor for the next two years, based on the 2010 election. Under the current system, the mayor is elected by a majority vote of the Council. Without the proposed new change, when the voters elect new Council members in November, that new majority could elect someone else, such as Teresa Barth, who has never had the opportunity to serve in spite of her popularity and her 6 year tenure on the council. Under the proposed new ordinance, Ms. Gaspar would be anointed Mayor and could choose her own Deputy Mayor. The proposed ordinance change is unfair, undemocratic and poorly written. If the council passes it, as expected, the purpose of democracy will be defeated. I therefore urge you to rescind your proposal.

Milton Saier
xxx Quail Gardens Ln., Encinitas, CA 92024,

From: Jerome Stocks

Date: March 28, 2012 2:59:28 PM PDT
To: Milton Saier
Subject: Re: Council meeting today

With all due respect, the new policy puts the voters' top choice as Mayor, and the City Council has no voice in the matter. I'm sorry Ms. Barth is bitter about letting the voter's decide because she wasn't the top vote getter, but that's life.

You're email is myopically focused on the imminent situation and doesn't take into consideration that as we move forward this new policy will afford greater stability and predictability for the leadership of our city.

Further, this decision was reached at a publicly noticed meeting in February and this is merely the codification of the decision previously made.

I hope this information is helpful to you,

Jerome Stocks
Mayor (the last council selected mayor)
City of Encinitas

On Mar 28, 2012, at 3:50 PM, "Milton Saier" wrote:

Dear Mr. Stocks,
First you should know that I have never met Ms Barth; nor have I ever communicated with her. I do not know her feelings at all, even second hand. You certainly are quick to jump to conclusions.

Second, I see this move for what it is: undemocratic, unfair and a misrepresentation of the voter's wishes. However I do understand YOUR intent, and this makes me question your qualifications for the position you now hold.

Sincerely,
Milton Saier

On Mar 28, 2012, at 4:09 PM, Jerome Stocks wrote:

Dear Mr. Saier,

We will need to agree to disagree because I can't wrap my arms around your contention that the voters choosing the Mayor is undemocratic, unfair, or a misrepresentation of the voters wishes.

As for me jumping to a conclusion, I didn't. Ms. Barth has not been shy about her perspective on this issue.

JS

From: Milton Saier
Date: March 28, 2012 5:13:00 PM PDT
To: Jerome Stocks
Subject: Re: Council meeting today

You can't be as stupid as you sound.

Sample #2

On Mar 28, 2012, at 3:49 PM, "xxx" wrote:
City Council Members,

I hope you will not vote to approve item #9 that is on tonight's agenda's consent calendar. I believe that changing the way our Mayor is appointed or elected needs to be fully discussed and vetted. I do believe a change needs to happen, but not like this.

When I voted for city council members during the last election, I was not aware that I would in turn be voting for who would fill the position of Mayor. If we are going to have an elected Mayor, then the voting citizens of Encinitas need to know this when they are voting.

I understand that the Mayor put this on the consent calendar because he wants to pass an ordinance and that two public hearings are required. However, I watched the council meeting when this was discussed. To me it looked like it was almost scripted. It was discussed quickly and the motion appeared to come out of left field, next thing you know the Deputy Mayor seconds it, it gets called for a vote and the Mayor, Deputy Mayor and Council Member Muir vote aye and Council Members Barth and Bond vote no. There was no discussion and the public was caught off guard, and I don't believe the council had any staff analysis on this option.

There were several other options presented but they did not EVEN have a chance to be discussed by the council or staff recommendations.

The ordinance is VERY unclear as written. When would it go into effect? If we are going to have an elected Mayor, then let's have a truly elected Mayor. Adopting this ordinance does not follow a logical and ethical course.

I urge you to not approve this item. It is just plain wrong and not ready for council vote.

Thank you for your time,
Lisa Leslie Encinitas, CA

On Mar 28, 2012, at 4:15 PM, Jerome Stocks wrote:

With all due respect, the new policy puts the voters' top choice as Mayor, and the City Council has no voice in the matter.

You're email doesn't take into consideration that as we move forward this new policy will afford greater stability and predictability for the leadership of our city.

Further, this decision was reached at a publicly noticed meeting in February and this is merely the codification of the decision previously made.

I hope this information is helpful to you,

Jerome Stocks

Mayor (the last council selected mayor)
City of Encinitas
Sent from my iPad

From: Lisa
Date: March 28, 2012 4:28:04 PM PDT To: Jerome Stocks Subject: Re: Council Meeting Consent Calendar item #9

I do understand that part of the ordinance you want approved. And it has merit. But it needs to be put in place before elections take place.

We do need to take out the way the Mayor is selected. It should be either a vote or a rotating basis that is not a vote by the council.

What I am asking is that people know when they vote that their vote is going to affect who is Mayor.

With that said, when is this ordinance supposed to go into effect? If it should pass?

Sent from my iPhone
Might have typos