I’m one of the few people who listens and dissects what occurs at Ceres City Council, which is a challenging task given how convoluted they make just about everything.
The meetings are frustratingly long because many times they aren’t paying attention or they just feel they need to complicate things with questions already answered or information already provided. Then members like Rosalinda Vierra speak a jumbled series of thoughts and/or questions in a single monologue which makes things hard to follow. If I was city staff I’d be pulling my hair out.
The council is also not user friendly for the public. Mayor Javier Lopez was asked a question last week by Shirley Rogers that could have been very easily answered and avoided a headline and raise questions about lack of transparency. Rogers saw a photographer at the meeting shooting pictures and asked the mayor/council who was paying for his services. She specifically wanted to know if the financially strapped city was paying the man. But Lopez refused to answer, as if he’s above providing information to a concerned citizen.
A frustrated Rogers threw her hands up after his dead silence and said, “Oh my God, you’ve all went nuts.” It was the type of cantankerous comment we’ve all heard Shirley utter in the past (at 90 years old you can get away with much.)
Why didn’t the mayor give a simple answer? Stubbornness or unwillingness to give a critic the satisfaction of information? Was it because he really had no clue?
Councilwoman Cerina Otero chimed in and suggested the mayor could answer Rogers, but still nothing. In fact, the mayor replied: “I would just like to remind everybody of decorum. Next person, please.”
The way he immediately called for a recess could give the impression that he had to go coach the photographer on what to say after the meeting reconvened. Because right after the council meeting started again, the photographer approached the podium to say he was volunteering. He also chided Rogers. Curiously he also referred to the mayor as Javi (apparently they are buddies).
Keep in mind that when you approach the podium you aren’t allowed to direct comments to any staff member or audience member directly. That is a breach of protocol but the mayor did not insist on “decorum.”
It’s just another example of this mayor being inconsistent.
A skilled charming and folksy politician would have approach Mrs. Rogers like this: “It’s good to see you, Shirley. Thanks for the question and congratulations on being recently named Outstanding Senior Citizen of Stanislaus County District 5. I’m happy to tell you that the photographer is a volunteer and not paid by the city. Hope that answers your question.”
I can tell you that that approach would have gone miles in his favor. Instead, people are talking about the mayor’s lack of transparency.
* * * * *
Speaking of a lack of transparency, the mayor also rebuffed Otero’s request to have more information released to the public about votes taken in closed session.
* * * * *
Did council candidate Galen Guzman actually say he doesn’t read the newspaper because notifications are “overstimulating” to him? He did.
At least week’s Ceres City Council meeting Guzman spoke about the lack of public participation at workshops like that of Housing Element meeting. (Like that’s a barn burning issue).
He also commented during the agenda discussion to approve the annual Stanislaus Home Consortium and Stanislaus Urban County Consolidated Annual Performance and Evaluation Report (CAPER). Perhaps one of the most uninspiring bureaucratic agency reports that would make the average person snooze in their seat had they been at the council meeting.
Julian Aguirre noted that the notice was placed in the newspaper (a legal requirement) but Guzman said “just putting it in the newspaper is not enough honestly because I don’t read the newspaper. Before I did when it was like physically delivered to my home, I would.I don’t really read the online newspaper anymore, and then I don’t really like subscribing to stuff because I get overstimulated by the amount of notifications that I get day to day. So I honestly don’t read the digital newspaper. So I don’t think that’s like an option that most people like go and like look at the public hearing notices. So perhaps like putting it on a different platform, maybe it’ll reach a greater audience and maybe just maybe we get more people informed and then more of a uh, community feedback and input, because I think that’s where the city of Ceres is lacking a lot.”
I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again … you could skywrite the news and if people aren’t interested in their busy lives they aren’t going to attend. Few people care. That’s the world we live in but it’s concerning to me that somebody who aspires to serve on the City Council doesn’t read newspapers.
But based on his lack of effort as a candidate to get out any effort, I don’t think the voters are ready. The Bee reached out to him for information and this is what they reported: “Galen Guzman Guzman could not be reached for comment, nor does he have social media related to his campaign.”
* * * * *
I think I’ve heard it all.
I’m probably one of the most conservative voices in California newspapers yet one individual feels otherwise. He had posted a comment in response to an article written about the impact of vehicles idling in fast-food drive-thru lanes on the Valley’s already pathetic air quality. The piece was written by a reporter of the Central Valley Journalism Collaborative and shared with Valley newspapers and I decided to run it. The article was filled with some good facts and food for thought. (Some cities are banning new drive-thru lanes and as far as I am concerned a lot of people would at least get a little more exercise and save gas by shutting off the engine, walking inside the restaurant and burn a few more calories standing in line.)
An individual named Metl Mitchell (not his real first name, obviously) who routinely uses profanity in his public posts, wrote: “Who f---- care?, quite being a nitpicky b---- Ceres Courier, f----- liberal pieces of s---.”
Apparently the poster is not acquainted with the editorial stance of this newspaper so it’s interesting he would make an erroneous blanket statement like that.
I’d prefer that individual invest time in expressing opinions with intelligence, logic and fact rather than fire a barrage of profane insults. But this is why so many people are turned off by social media – people can be just downright mean, vile and nasty behind the keyboard.
* * * * *
The election is fast approaching and ballots will soon be arriving. While I urge you to do your own homework, here is how I will be voting on the propositions:
No on Proposition 1 (Veterans and Affordable Housing Bond). It proposes an $11.2 billion general obligation state housing construction bond.
No on Proposition 2 (Save for California’s Future Act) because it guts state spending limit. Worse, it virtually eliminates the requirement that taxpayers receive tax rebates if revenues exceed the spending limit.
No on Proposition 3 (California Children’s Education and Health Care Protection Act). It extends special tax rates for high income individuals and dedicates some of the money to schools and community colleges. Makes permanent California’s highest-in-the-nation income tax rates at a time when California is losing employers, jobs and taxpayers to other states and seeing lower tax revenues as a result. Worse, Prop 3 does nothing to reform wasteful spending in the programs it purports to fund, so taxpayers will not see better services
NO on Proposition 4 (California Fair Elections Act). It repeals the existing prohibition in the Political Reform Act of 1974 against public funding of campaigns and authorizes state and local entities to allocate public funds to candidates in some situations. Voters wisely decided years ago that their tax dollars should never be used to fund the campaigns of politicians, but with Prop 4 the politicians are refusing to take no for an answer.
Proposition 5 (Recall of State Officers). It weakens citizens’ right to recall politicians from office. Under Prop 5, if the voters recall the Governor, you don’t get to choose the replacement — the office is automatically handed to the political machine’s second-in-command.
No on Proposition 37 (California Middle-Class Homeownership and Family Home Construction Act). It borrows for costly housing projects. Worse, Prop 37 makes the State one of the biggest mortgage lenders in America overnight – and taxpayers are left holding the bag for any losses. Many of the boondoggle projects supported by this bond will cost more than $1 million per unit!
Yes on Proposition 38 (California Immunology Research and Cures Initiative). It authorizes a $8.4 billion state general obligation bond for immunology and immunotherapy research. This is the only bond on the ballot that puts the strings on the government instead of the taxpayer. Every drug and treatment developed with this funding must be sold in California at 20% below the national average price. Half of the research money is required by law to target cancer, heart disease and Alzheimer’s.
YES on Proposition 39 (California Voter ID Initiative). It restores faith in election outcomes as it requires voters to present government-issued identification at the polls or the last four digits of a government-issued identification number when voting by mail. The politicians falsely claim Prop 39 prohibits citizens from voting when it will only prevent non-citizens and ineligible individuals from voting. Prop 39 protects the right of every citizen to vote and restores public trust and confidence in our elections.
A BIG NO on Proposition 40 (Billionaire Tax Act). It imposes a new 5% tax on California residents with over $1 billion in personal wealth. Worse, Prop 40 contains a provision allowing state politicians to expand the Wealth Tax to everyone without another vote of the public. Prop 40 allows government to tax the value of your savings, checking account, 401k, stock portfolio, and current equity in your home. If you don’t have the cash to pay the Wealth Tax, then you’d be forced to sell some of what you own.
Yes on Proposition 41 (Improving Transparency, Effectiveness, and Efficiency in California Government Act). It prohibits any new state taxes that exclude their revenue from existing voter-approved state spending limits.
Yes on Proposition 42 (Retirement and Personal Savings Protection Act). It prohibits any new state tax on the ownership of personal property. Prop 42 would prohibit politicians from taxing the value of your savings, checking account, 401k, stock portfolio, and current equity in your home. We already pay the highest taxes on income, sales, property, gas and our cars— we don’t need a Savings Tax on top of all that! If Prop 42 gets more votes than Prop 40, the Wealth Tax dies even if it passes. Every YES on 42 is a second NO on 40.
Yes on Proposition 43 (Local Special Taxes). It prohibits local governments from enacting special taxes unless approved by two-thirds voter. An example here is how Ceres is trying to pass Measure P to raise sales tax by one cent by getting a simple 50 percent plus one plurality.
NO on Proposition 44 (Clinic Funding Accountability and Transparency Act). It requires nonprofit community health clinics to spend at least 90% of their revenue on programs related to their charitable purpose. Increases mandates and costs on community health clinics, threatening their ability to provide patient care. Clinics that miss the arbitrary 90% mandate pay penalties into a government account and hotwired to a narrow special interest group who is one of the politicians’ biggest campaign contributors. Trusted healthcare experts warn that Prop 44 would trigger $1.7 billion in penalties in the first year alone and force clinics across California to close their doors.
YES on Proposition 45 (Building an Affordable California Act). It proposes a new chapter of the California Environmental Quality Act to expedite permitting for a wide range of “essential projects.” It will reduce housing costs by cutting red tape for home builders. Prop 45 is the first time voters have ever been handed the chance to reform CEQA at the ballot box.
This column is the opinion of Jeff Benziger, and does not necessarily represent the opinion of The Ceres Courier or 209 Multimedia Corporation. How do you feel about this? Let Jeff know at jeffb@cerescourier.com
