Art Banner Auction - A Tribute in Spite of the Mayor and Deputy Mayor

The Arts Alive Banners will be auctioned Sunday!

The colorful banners, designed by artists throughout the region and the world, will go to auction starting at 2 p.m. Sunday in the Courtyard at Cardiff Town Center, at the corner of San Elijo Road and Birmingham Drive. The minimum bid for a banner is $150, with proceeds shared between the artists and arts organizations 101 Artists Colony, Cardiff 101 and Leucadia 101. What a battle it has been to allow Maggie Houlihan, a friend to the artists of Encinitas prior to her death last fall, to be honored and remembered through this civic project.

At this last May 16 city council meeting, Gaspar the rigid post, was unbending in her self-supporting stance regarding the her accusatory words and behavior towards the Artist 101 Colony director, Danny Salzhander on April 11 this year. After Danny and most all of the previously packed council chamber were long gone and most watching at home had, like this editor, clicked off the meeting, when the Deputy Mayor offered her explanation of her conduct just minutes before the close of the meeting.

"Definition of Apology" by J. E. Brown
Fake Apologies and How to Recognize Them

• While a true apology shows concern for the receiver, many fake apologies begin with "I'm sorry" but end with a point that is completely incompatible with remorse: {You're reading
• Standing by what you did is not remorse, therefore not an apology.
• Demanding to be forgiven is self-serving. A good general formula to help you recognize non-apologies is "If it's self-serving, it's not an apology."
• Changing the subject is not an apology: "Well, what about what you did?" Changing the subject indicates an unwillingness to apologize.
• Verbal abusers often show resistance to apologizing. Continuing to insist that what you've done was not verbal abuse somehow, or that verbal abuse is somehow not wrong, or that Wrong is somehow relative -- that's not an apology. The point of apologizing is not to say that the crime still feels reasonable to you.
• "I'm sorry but ____" is not an apology, because it does not communicate an understanding that you did wrong.
• Any blaming of the receiver's perceptions: "I'm sorry you perceived that I ____." Calling someone delusional is a tactic, not an apology.
• "You misunderstood." Pretending that your words didn't mean what they mean, i.e. pretending that your words don't have literal meaning, is not an apology.
• "I'm sorry you misunderstood" is a more blatant, in-your-face form. Most often, when someone says "I'm sorry you misunderstood," neither is true.
• Calling the receiver "ungrateful" for not instantly forgiving. In general, calling the receiver ethically defective, perceptually defective, etc., are not apologies, but are forms of gaslighting.
• "But I didn't do it on purpose!" The universal excuse of good intentions isn't an apology; it's an excuse for doing more of the same, for continuing to offend. It's a childish belief that one can continue acting in a hurtful way as long as there is some nebulous "good intention" involved. Hitler apologists like to make use of this one, often in the form "He was only doing what he thought was best for his country, and that's not so evil, is it?" Yes, in fact, it is. Don't be taken in by excuses that look at the problem through the wrong end of the binoculars. Any offense can be described from such a high level that the problematic details conveniently disappear. But the motive behind the search for such a viewpoint isn't really remorse, is it? Saying "I don't see the connection between my actions and your reaction" is not an apology. It's a denial of responsibility. It's a suggestion that the hearer overreacted.
• "I'm sorry [but] you ____" is not an apology. It's a blame-shift.
• "I'm sorry you got all offended" is not an apology. It's a slap. It's a technique for adding insult to injury.
• "I'm sorry you feel that way" is not an apology.
• "I want to apologize" is no more an apology than "I want to lose weight" is a diet.
• "I'm sorry about what happened" is not an apology, any more than saying "I hate when that happens." ;^) When someone says "I'm sorry about what happened," consider answering, "And...what was that, exactly? I'd just like to be sure we're on the same page." People have been known to completely miss the point and apologize for the wrong thing.
• Variant: "I regret that it happened." Referring to one's actions as "what happened" is not an apology because the speaker is not taking responsibility. There are two kinds of phenomena: those which "just happen" (earthquakes, tornadoes, old trees falling down in the wind) and things which are caused by deliberate, chosen actions (like the house damaged by a tree which falls when a drunk driver collides with it). Of course, the drunk driver will usually claim "It was an accident," as if to say "I wasn't the cause." This is merely propaganda, designed to trick the gullible.
• "I'm sorry for what I did" is an improvement. Still, it leaves things unsaid; it doesn't specify what the speaker did, perhaps even conceals it on purpose, perhaps because the speaker doesn't understand or agree that what he/she did was wrong. What a pronoun is to a noun, this statement is to an apology. A complete apology is not vague; it doesn't say "I'm sorry about...that thing I did." If the parties don't agree as to the nature of the error, they don't agree as to the meaning of the apology. The promise inherent in the apology has been left blurry.
• One sometimes sees this method used between nations. The thought process seems to be, "How small an apology can I offer while still causing the receiver to think I feel remorse?"
• There are other ways of distancing oneself from responsibility. "That's in the past" is an assertion that the passage of time is a substitute for an apology. It's a suggestion that one is entitled to hurt others as long as no one notices for a very long time.
• "We've both said unfortunate things" is not an apology. It's an accusation. It's inflammatory. It's an attempt to shift the spotlight.
• "I'm sorry about that. And now, isn't there something you'd like to say to me?" An apology is not a quid pro quo -- reciprocation is not required, unless wrongdoing occurred in both directions. But if not, only an uncivilized person would apologize to you as a way of forcing an apology out of you.
• Deathbed apologies are not necessarily real. Real apologies are not triggered by intense emotions or deadlines or expediency. True apologies are motivated by "I'm sorry for what I did," not "I'm sorry we weren't close, I wish I could figure out why we weren't."
• "Of course I'm sorry" contains just a hint of annoyance. It's a bit like saying "Am I sorry? What a silly question. What are you, stupid?"

Offensive

Our mayor and company, are currently enamored with the word offensive. Both my hypocrisy and my irony meters crashed.

The show of unity in concocting their narrative wasn't a surprise to anyone familiar with the methods used by Stocks, Gaspar, Muir and Bond.  Blaming others is the MO and during this art banner betrayal of basic consideration for Maggie Houlihan's memory; this meant the city manager, assistant city manager, the 101 Artist Colony's Danny Salzhander, Teresa Barth naming truth and the public in general (a given).

It smells bad, no it stinks.

Deputy Mayor Gaspar had a lot of filler, fluff words edited out for length and clarity of her scripted message - strip away all but the rules and process. Both she and Stocks dredged up the Surfing Madonna, which simply took them deeper into revisionist history territory.  As if the Art Banners re-write wasn't enough?

Contrast the clip above with Councilwoman Barth, our Mayor in Exile. She consistently acknowledges and shows respect for her colleagues and staff even in disagreeing with their perspective. But, she is to be commended above all for bringing the real issue into this meeting, compassion for a living person's contributions.

Update: Failed to mention, the vote was 4:1 (Gaspar was a no) to allow 101 Artist Colony's Danny Salzhander to go through the silly exercise of filling out another application (process!) which the city manager promised to approve the same day so the covers can be removed from the banners. And nobody will get any signs or banners into the city process now until somebody re-writes the code to be more clear, whatever that means.

Quote of the Day

"We didn't have a quorum ---- everybody was out of town," Stocks said.

That was a lie.  We contacted Teresa Barth and found that she was in town even though NCT stenographer Barbara Henry did not contact Councilwoman Barth to verify if Stocks statement was true. Yet she dutifully quoted Stocks and wrote this article regarding the 1st Amendment violation denial of Maggie Houlihan's image on the back of the Art Banners brought forward to the council March 28 by Ian Thompson, the late Houlihan's husband.  He said at that meeting he'd file a law suit if the vinyl stickers covering Maggie's image weren't removed or if he hadn't heard from the council by Friday, April 6th.  Somnolent Henry wrote,

On Friday, Thompson said he was willing to wait until Wednesday for the council's decision, but said he wasn't optimistic that a majority of the council would vote to lift the restriction. He said that it was evident the council wasn't taking the issue seriously because members hadn't agreed to discuss the issue before his April 6 deadline. However, the mayor said Friday that he wanted to hold the discussion in a special council session a week earlier but couldn't do so because of the Easter holiday.

Residents spoke up - even in the post's comments - about three of the majority seen at an egg hunt on Saturday.  Yes, that makes it a lie. Mayor Stocks is no stranger to lies and Barbara is no stranger to skipping any and all fact checking or hard questions.

The Union Tribune also quoted Stocks,

For Mayor Jerome Stocks, Wednesday’s meeting will also afford him an opportunity that he said he hasn’t had yet.

Ha! The stifled one, Stocks, entirely running the show yet somehow without opportunity.

“We will need to wait and see what is said and done,” he said of the possible outcome of Wednesday’s closed session. “One of the things I hope to achieve is a correct narrative of what’s occurred to date, and by whom.”

This should be rich. Check it out for yourself, go to the Special (Closed) meeting at city hall today at 4:30.  Support Maggie Houlihan's husband, Ian Thompson or simply witness what the council majority might concoct (either during or following the meeting) regarding their "story" of this ruling to disallow the late councilwoman's image on the banners.  The narrative Stocks and Gaspar have already attempted is to foist all responsibility on the new city manager, Gus Vina.  Classy.

Update, 11:20 am: The Art Banner meeting is to be televised, according to the City Manager. Our Mayor wants a show or is being very open government.  You decide.

Update, 2:00 pm: Egg hunt was on Saturday, not Sunday. It's been corrected.

"Lack of Grace" Raspberry

North County Times

"A rotten raspberry to the city of Encinitas for its ham-fisted ---- and possibly illegal ---- move to ban art banners honoring the late Maggie Houlihan. Ian Thompson, Houlihan's widower, is rightly outraged that the councilwoman's image is prohibited from being displayed as a "political likeness." What political message? Is Mayor Jerome Stocks seriously concerned that Houlihan is going to run against him in the next election? The explanations are as confusing as the ban. The city should do the right thing and overturn this ill-advised rule.

Teen Film Maker - Arts Alive Banner Coverage

New Encinitas resident, Patrick Canler, made the following video at the Arts Alive Banner unveiling this last Saturday and has submitted it for online publication at Coast News. Good job!

 

Go visit this at Coast News to give some traffic figures to this talented young man, our next generation community activist. 

Blog note:  Editor will be happy to front page any video clips this young man produces during this critically important election year.  He has a real talent and vitally important perspective we don't want to miss. 

2011 IN REVIEW: Red Cape & Bull Award

Union Tribune Nov. 11, 2011
Columnist Logan Jenkins:

"A brick - the Red Cape and Bull award — to the Encinitas “pro-business” (for lack of a better label) majority — Mayor Jim Bond, Jerome Stocks and Kristin Gaspar — for appointing Mark Muir, the city’s fire chief, to fill the late Maggie Houlihan’s council seat."

"This decision wanted some tact, some humility, some spirit of compromise. None was displayed."

"No one should have been surprised that a weird whirlwind was reaped Wednesday night as more than a hundred Encinitans gathered outside City Hall to protest the Muir appointment. [ . . . ] But he also has a history as an unusually active political player on behalf of Stocks and Bond. The appearance of conflict looms."

As if to prove Jenkins' point regarding tact and spirit of compromise or some modicum of graciousness, Jerome Stocks stoops to bickering with the columnist in the comments section. Classy.

2011 IN REVIEW: Black Eye for Bond

At the end of September a special meeting was called to discuss the vacant seat, left by Maggie Houlihan's death September 17, 2011, due to cancer. Appallingly, this meeting was not televised. UT Columnist Logan Jenkins threw a brick at Mayor Bond.

"A brick — the Blackout Black Eye award — to Encinitas Mayor Jim Bond for calling a special meeting Monday night and then decreeing the proceeding so trivial that it should not be televised."

"Is the mayor so out of touch with political reality that he didn’t know that this opening act in the drama of filling the seat of the late Councilwoman Maggie Houlihan would be of public interest, particularly since it was widely known that Houlihan would be making a posthumous appearance?"

"[ . . . ] No matter which way it goes, the council will have to factor in Houlihan’s videotaped plea to appoint Lisa Shaffer, the dramatic appeal that Bond evidently thought too unimportant for the city’s citizens to witness in real time with the council."

"Bond may believe the blackout was good government. But in a divided city, it’s bad politics."