More Murrieta Council and Initiative C D E posts

Saturday, October 16, 2010

More on Dane Schuck...Dane is worried that paying Murrieta management from the city manager thru police and fire chief less that the 200K they earn now will hurt public safety. Well let's contrast what Murrieta currently pays to higher ranking positions in California. LET'S START WITH THE CITY MANAGER WITH A SALARY OF $210K or the $241K figure. The Governor of California makes $173,987, the head of the California Assembly makes $109,589, and the county supervisors make $160,366 per year.So we are being told by Dane Schuck that if we lower our management salaries to within the range of higher ranking state and county positions our city will suffer. What hogwash. We are paying too much and so are many other cities like San Marcos and Vernon. Does anyone really think the police on the street will work less hard because their boss makes less? Would you work less hard if your boss made less? The assertion that we will be less safe is a pure scare tactic. What Dane Schuck and his group of biased council attendies and the sitting council are doing is attempting to stop a movement that will take some of their goodies away from them and some high salaries away from those they employ. They are affected therefore they are biased. Their main tactic is to attack the messengers and try to scare Murrietans into believing that paying sane salaries will hurt the city. Do not be fooled by the propaganda. Use common sense and VOTE YES C D E.

Thursday, October 14, 2010

What these former and current council members as well as their groupies want you to believe is: People voting yes on these initiatives are jealous. These initiatives will lower police protection. These initiatives will damage Murrieta's ability to compete. There is something wrong with these messages especially when you consider the source. Biased council members and their close allies. First the "jealousy" issue: this is a stretch. Voters are not jealous! They are tired of being ripped off by excessive public employee compensations. Everyone has read the stories from Bell, San Diego, San Marcos, and La Verne, well Murrieta is no different. Second is the public safety issue. So we are suppose to believe that the police on the street will perform their jobs less effectively because their bosses got a pay cut while the street police didn't. This makes no sense at all. Lastly the council acts like they will not find qualified people to work for mid 100k salaries. In the real world there are plenty of qualified people at this salary range. Should we listen to biased sources aka current and former council members with their pro status quo bias or should we follow common sense and reduce over paid management salaries and restrain council perks. VOTE YES CDE Do not listen to the council propaganda.
Here is another article from MaCallister. These council members are scared that their power and perks will be reduced. To describe Limited Government in such twisted terms sends a somewhat different message concerning the mentality and desperation of the author of this forum piece. Earlier this year in Washington DC, the ‘elite’ in big government forced through a healthcare bill without regard for its damaging effect on our economy and country. It was a pure example of “damn the torpedoes and full steam ahead.” It helped spawn a grass roots movement, the Tea Party, as Conservatives railed at the healthcare plan and the methods used to force it through as being the brain child of a socialist big government ideology. Imagine my surprise when some of those same self-proclaimed leaders of conservatives in our region began marketing ideas to Murrietans that could only be found in socialistic ideology without regard to the consequences to our economy and future. Socialism from conservatives? Consider: Conservatives believe that all men and women, created equal, should have the opportunity to run for office, but their initiatives favor the elite by shrinking the pool of candidates to only those who could ‘afford’ it. Conservatives believe that all men and women, created equal, should be able to vote for anyone they want, but their initiatives would prohibit you from voting on your favorite candidates even though those candidates have proven themselves on the job. Conservatives believe in the free market, but their initiatives seek to place artificial caps on pay, both for electeds and staff. We need leaders whose walk matches their talk. Apparently, the proponents of these initiatives are not those leaders. To the contrary, it appears that they are merely Socialists in Conservative clothing. But by hook and crook they got their ideas on the ballot, initiatives that sound more like socialism than conservatism: Measures C, D, and E. There can only be two reasons the proponents put these up for a vote: 1. They aren’t intelligent enough to read budgets, don’t know enough about government and are very confused, or 2. They aren’t who and what they proclaim to be, have a personal agenda and are purposely trying to mislead you. I know the proponents. They aren’t stupid. That leaves only the 2nd option. This is serious… Measures C, D and E are bad for Murrieta in every way imaginable. They are bad policy. They will restrict who can run for office, restrict who you can vote for in any given election and will make it impossible to hire anyone in any capacity in our city that is qualified to do the job. The proponents of the initiatives claim to be trying to ‘Save Murrieta.’ Really? From what? Murrieta is the 2nd safest city in the nation according to the FBI. We’re one of the most fiscally responsible, financially solvent and conservative cities in the nation. Forbes Magazine recently pegged Murrieta to be the NUMBER ONE city in the nation positioned to hit the ground running economically after the recession. All of this and more was done without these initiatives. Without exaggeration, every bit of this will go away if the initiatives pass. If you like Murrieta’s preeminent status among the cities of the nation, I implore you to vote NO on Measures C, D and E…as they will fundamentally undermine not just Murrieta’s ability to continue to support our outstanding quality of life as we accomplish great things, but also our fundamental ability to remain a city. However, if you’re comfortable with risking our city’s future to the point of having to revoke our incorporation and once again be at the mercy of the County, then support the initiatives. Scare tactics? Only if the facts scare you. And make no mistake, they scare me. Right now, the main thing Murrieta needs saving from are these disingenuous and dangerous initiatives. On November 2nd, when voting on Measures C, D and E…just say NO
  1. All I see for the most part in this discussion is a biased former councilmember along with the current council's close biased allies. They are afraid their status quo will change. They defend outrageous compensations. Here is an example of the current council's arrogance. Councilman Rick Gibbs thinks those that are for C D E are "jealous." This is from this week's candidate forum. City Council Member Lashes Out At Private Citizen Bob Kowell knows he’s not the most popular person at Murrieta City Hall. His Murrieta Initiatives C, D, and E has drawn sharp criticism from the members of the city council. Rick Gibbs is an entrenched city council member, and former mayor, of Murrieta. Mr. Gibbs was one of the eight candidates present at the Murrieta City Council Candidate’s Forum at The Colony at California Oaks on Tuesday night. The audience was stunned when Rick launched into a personal attack against Bob Kowell during the forum, pointing Mr. Kowell out in the second row, proclaiming that Kowell’s initiatives were the result of jealousy over incomes, and anger that candidates of the past who supported Mr. Kowell’s initiatives did not win their elections. As the drama unfolded, some people in the audience sat stunned, while others actually applauded Rick Gibbs’ unethical attack. Mr. Kowell simply sat there, refusing to take the bait, and allowed Mr. Gibbs to continue his personal attack against him without retaliating. Rick Gibbs did not seem to realize what he had done wrong, and at the end of the forum brushed by Douglas V. Gibbs, a candidate that supports Kowell’s initiatives, without even a word, or a handshake, as Douglas extended his hand. Outraged by Rick Gibbs’ behavior, Douglas V. Gibbs called Rick’s actions unethical, and uncalled for. “City Council members,” said Douglas, “are supposed to be serving the citizens of the city, not verbally attacking them. Frankly, I was surprised about what I witnessed. Rick Gibbs claims to be a stalwart member of the community, yet verbally attacked Mr. Kowell without provocation.” When the forum ended, Rick Gibbs vanished quickly. “If city council members are supposed to serve the people of the city,” Douglas Gibbs added later, “Rick Gibbs failed to serve as an example of service by attacking Bob Kowell. It is one thing to be against the initiatives, but it is another to personally attack someone verbally in front of all those people. Surely, the code of ethics he swore to uphold would not condone such actions.” Douglas Gibbs also said he thinks Rick’s anger is rooted in not only his opposition to Murrieta Initiatives C, D, and E, but also in past disputes he has had with Mr. Kowell. Bob Kowell indicated that he did not feel threatened by Rick Gibbs’ actions, but that Rick’s outburst was not consistent with the kind of behavior a city council member is supposed to portray.

  • Colony Forum and Rick Gibbs

    City Council Member Lashes Out At Private Citizen

    Bob Kowell knows he’s not the most popular person at Murrieta City Hall. His Murrieta Initiatives C, D, and E has drawn sharp criticism from the members of the city council.

    Rick Gibbs is an entrenched city council member, and former mayor, of Murrieta. Mr. Gibbs was one of the eight candidates present at the Murrieta City Council Candidate’s Forum at The Colony at California Oaks on Tuesday night.

    The audience was stunned when Rick launched into a personal attack against Bob Kowell during the forum, pointing Mr. Kowell out in the second row, proclaiming that Kowell’s initiatives were the result of jealousy over incomes, and anger that candidates of the past who supported Mr. Kowell’s initiatives did not win their elections.

    As the drama unfolded, some people in the audience sat stunned, while others actually applauded Rick Gibbs’ unethical attack. Mr. Kowell simply sat there, refusing to take the bait, and allowed Mr. Gibbs to continue his personal attack against him without retaliating.

    Rick Gibbs did not seem to realize what he had done wrong, and at the end of the forum brushed by Douglas V. Gibbs, a candidate that supports Kowell’s initiatives, without even a word, or a handshake, as Douglas extended his hand.

    Outraged by Rick Gibbs’ behavior, Douglas V. Gibbs called Rick’s actions unethical, and uncalled for. “City Council members,” said Douglas, “are supposed to be serving the citizens of the city, not verbally attacking them. Frankly, I was surprised about what I witnessed. Rick Gibbs claims to be a stalwart member of the community, yet verbally attacked Mr. Kowell without provocation.”

    When the forum ended, Rick Gibbs vanished quickly.

    “If city council members are supposed to serve the people of the city,” Douglas Gibbs added later, “Rick Gibbs failed to serve as an example of service by attacking Bob Kowell. It is one thing to be against the initiatives, but it is another to personally attack someone verbally in front of all those people. Surely, the code of ethics he swore to uphold would not condone such actions.”

    Douglas Gibbs also said he thinks Rick’s anger is rooted in not only his opposition to Murrieta Initiatives C, D, and E, but also in past disputes he has had with Mr. Kowell.

    Bob Kowell indicated that he did not feel threatened by Rick Gibbs’ actions, but that Rick’s outburst was not consistent with the kind of behavior a city council member is supposed to portray.

    Wednesday, October 13, 2010

    More on Californian

    T WT NBT..all your facts do is demonstrate that you and your cohorts support the ripoff of Murrietans with out of line salaries. Murrietan's are smart and will see through the council's bias and the coordinated bias of their close supporters. All the reasons to vote against C D E don't hold water... here are a few lame positions from the opposition: a non vote has more power than a vote... really?  so we shouldn't vote?  Limited government is conservatism in socialist clothing.  uh so big expensive government is socialism in conservative clothing....I get it!  Oh this one is even better! Public safety is at stake! We ill become a less safe city if MANAGEMENT gets paid less.  REALLY?  So all the rest of MPD will stop doing their jobs or quit because their bosses get their pay cut?  PATHETIC! Vote YES ON C D E and do not fall for the propoganda of the biased council and their power hungry close supporters.

    Saturday, October 9, 2010

    http://www.nctimes.com/news/local/murrieta/article_a8fd18a0-c4f7-50d3-abb8-eff126fbde56.html?mode=comments

    This makes complete sense and is why you should vote YES ON C D E. Of course the police union will endorse those that back up their high salaries and benefits. Of course they would prefer Alan Long a fire captain of union firefighters over Gary Thomasian. If we support leaders who support inflated public employee salaries and benefits then we deserve what we have now...the highest taxes. We cannot allow public employee salaries and benefits to continue to grow unchecked. We cannot allow extreme council benefits. We cannot allow arrogance on our council by entrenched incumbents.  There is a coordinated effort on this blog by the council and it's close social clique to defend the council's power and high public salaries paid to the city manager and those managers whose salaries are tied to it.  Should we listen to the biased opinion of these people or should we use common sense knowing these people are over-compensated and over-benefited and vote accordingly to set limits. Limit council perks. Limit the high city manager salary. Limit incumbents to 2 terms.  VOTE YES C D E