After three months in Iowa working on Presidential hopeful John Edwards campaign, Eureka City Councilman Chris Kerrigan will head home after tonight’s New Hampshire primary.
Kerrigan’s long leave of absence may be the last for the Council. Mayor Virginia Bass said the experience may prompt review of the city’s charter.
Edwards took second in the January 3 Iowa caucus which was full of surprises. Movie director has a great synopsis of the turn-out and observes Edwards thusly:
John Edwards was supposed to have come in third. He had been written off. He was outspent by the other front-runners six to one. But somewhere along the road he threw off the old politico hack jacket and turned into a real person, a fighter for the poor, for the uninsured, for peace. And for that, he came in a surprise second, ending up with just one less delegate than the man who was against the war from the beginning. But, as Joshua Holland of AlterNet pointed out earlier today, Edwards is still the only front-runner who will pull out all the troops and do it as quickly as possible. His speech tonight was brilliant and moving.
Edwards is taking some heat in the national blogosphere, however, for his prickish comments regarding Hillary Clinton’s emotional comments yesterday about campaigning and the state of the country.
Kerrigan told the Times-Standard that issues in Eureka are reflected across the country. “[s]mall town America is on the ropes,” he said. “I drove through countless town after town where the only thing in town essentially was a Wal-Mart. Where downtowns had been shut down.”
RSS - Posts
January 8, 2008 at 8:44 am
The city charter certainly does need revision. We need to change the way that council members are elected for one. The idea that you have five wards but that ANYONE can vote for all five wards is patently unconstitutional. ONE PERSON, ONE VOTE.
January 8, 2008 at 9:49 am
Walmart is a way of life in the midwest. All hail low prices, regardless of the impact.
January 8, 2008 at 9:57 am
Well said, Bill.
It will take a) a petition drive or b) a majority of the city council to place a charter amendment on the ballot. Are there three council members who would vote to put this on the November ballot?
January 8, 2008 at 10:23 am
It would be good if the council votes to put this on the ballot. If they don’t I think a petition drive is in order. Petition drives ramp up the voter turnout and as far as I am concerned the bigger turnout the better.
January 8, 2008 at 11:10 am
To bad that Kerrigan is coming home. He should stay with Edwards. As a Eureka City Council member Kerrigan has done nothing. The Charter does need to be changed.
January 8, 2008 at 11:38 am
Kerrigan doesn’t get late night calls from Arkly either, which some people think is a good thing.
January 8, 2008 at 12:10 pm
“The city charter certainly does need revision.”.
Maybe so, in some areas. As far as Kerrigan’s absence, where’s the problem? And, no, this isn’t meant as a Kerrigan put- down.
I’ve had the occasion to watch some city council meetings on TV over the last few weeks. Seemed like everything went along smooth enough without, not only Kerrigan, but Mike Jones participating.
January 8, 2008 at 12:13 pm
Ditto what Fred said.
January 8, 2008 at 12:29 pm
Ditto what Mike said about what Fred said.
January 8, 2008 at 1:22 pm
Fred that was very thoughtful and a nice post!
January 8, 2008 at 2:14 pm
The city does need to clean up the charter to avoid the possibility of the legal near-crisis the city almost ran into as to whether the mayor can vote on her/his own appointments.
January 8, 2008 at 2:49 pm
The problem with asking the city council to place election changes on the ballot is that the councilmembers have been elected under the present system and have historically declined to mess with (their personal) success.
January 8, 2008 at 4:14 pm
Prickish? She was crying because she’s losing to Obama. Are we supposed to feel bad?
January 8, 2008 at 4:29 pm
“Walmart is a way of life in the midwest. All hail low prices, regardless of the impact”
well, sometimes the impact is higher prices, no choices.
January 8, 2008 at 4:31 pm
Peace be with you.
If what Mangels Said was “Eureka city council members are a spineless bunch of quisling line-toers” – Then I agree.
love eternal
tad
January 8, 2008 at 5:46 pm
Tad; You’ve just lost a lot of credibility with me. And, believe it or not, you actually had some.
January 8, 2008 at 6:53 pm
Peace be with you Fred.
I’m sorry if I don’t please you. I’m not here to please you. I calling ‘em like I see ‘em. The way the Eureka City Council hand-sat through 6 cop killings in their town is appalling.
If you didn’t say that then I will.
love eternal
tad
January 8, 2008 at 7:49 pm
The towns that had the Walmarts downtown were probably victimized by having their city councilors not minding the store (pun intended) by being out of town for an extended period of time on some worthless campaign. And did he say he was driving a car. OMG! I sure hope it was a Prius.
Peas be with you.
January 8, 2008 at 9:39 pm
Eric wrote, “The city does need to clean up the charter to avoid the possibility of the legal near-crisis the city almost ran into as to whether the mayor can vote on her/his own appointments.”.
Again: Where’s the problem?
There will always need to be, at some time or another, some need to appoint people to various positions. Mayor Bass pulled a coup in selecting someone that just about everyone could agree on. How much better could it work out than that?
Sorry, but I can’t help think that Eric sees a problem with this simply because some fringe left winger didn’t get chosen for the position.
I don’t see how that situation could have been dealt with in such a multi- partisan manner that pleased everyone.
I’d be interested in hearing how Eric feels that particular situation should have been handled. Tell us, Eric: Where’s the problem?
There was no “near legal crisis…”. Bass won and could have appointed anyone she wanted to the open council position, which is what most expected. She pulled together a widely divergent team and used them to find a suitable appointment that everyone could agree upon. What’s wrong with that?
I get the feeling that, if the situation were reversed, and it was LeVallee were the one making the decision, it would have been fine if he chose Jake Pickering for the substitute. You just aren’t happy with a choice that most seem to agree on.
Again…where’s the problem?
January 8, 2008 at 10:09 pm
Wow. Well put together Fred. I agree.
January 9, 2008 at 7:00 am
Me too.
January 9, 2008 at 10:08 am
Fred got it right for a change. Good going.
January 9, 2008 at 10:10 am
Well said Fred.
January 9, 2008 at 10:18 am
Thanx, all.
Actually, on second thought, I suppose we can’t always expect that someone would put the appointment together as well as Bass did in her situation. But how would you amend the charter to deal with vacancies like that?
How about something along the line of what Bass did?
Appoint a committee to find a replacement and maybe have the committee appointments be made by the mayor and the rest of the city council: Each councilcritter could chose one or two committee members to make up the appointment committee.
That would hopefully create a diverse committee, assuming you have a diverse council. If the council wasn’t all that diverse, I suppose no harm would be done in them choosing an committee, anyway, since they likely wouldn’t have any objection to the other councilcritter’s choices.
January 9, 2008 at 1:01 pm
Fred said, “Mayor Bass pulled a coup in selecting someone everyone could agree on.” Wait a second, Fred. She ran on a platform of “a new spirit of compromise” (her words). So how is it a “coup” for her when she just does exactly what she said she would? I’m sure you remember that there was another legal opinion submitted to the city (hanging over her head) from a prominent S.F. firm specializing in municipal law that took issue with her assumed “right” to vote on her own appointment. From that perspective, she was held to following her own campaign rhetoric, rather than having the freedom to do what might have been expected of her normally, that is, appointing a conservative, good-ol-boy clone of herself. Given this reality, I would call her choice of moderate Ms. Endert a coup for Eureka progressives and moderates.
And, by the way, I’ve gotta chuckle when I remember her saying over and over when she ran against Peter LaValle, “but what has he done as mayor?”
Uh, Virginia, other than cut a bunch of ribbons with big scissors, what have you done as Mayor?
January 9, 2008 at 1:38 pm
“So how is it a “coup” for her when she just does exactly what she said she would?”.
Call whatever way you want to, but most people felt this was a real divisive issue and expected the ordeal to get a bit ugly, as I saw it. She ended up making just about everybody happy, except for maybe some like you that wanted LeVallee to win and make his own appointment. Whether he would have been as generous as Bass, there’s no way of knowing.
January 9, 2008 at 5:35 pm
Coup? Are enough people interested to have a coup?
January 9, 2008 at 5:40 pm
I like Chris Kerrigan. He is such a nice young man!
January 9, 2008 at 5:53 pm
Polly’s alright with me, Fred.
BTW, please don’t speak for me. I thought you were a Libertarian.
January 9, 2008 at 7:48 pm
When was I trying to speak for you?
January 9, 2008 at 9:03 pm
Mayme,
Were you out “parking” with him too?
January 10, 2008 at 3:22 pm
When you assumed that Virginia’s choice of Polly made “everybody happy except for people like you.”
You assume too much, Fred.
January 10, 2008 at 3:57 pm
Well, it made the other four council members happy enough which is what counted. Quit whining.
January 10, 2008 at 4:06 pm
As I said, Polly’s alright with me.
Quit whining yourself.
January 12, 2008 at 8:30 am
Speaking of the City Council, I am disturbed that the Council voted to flush $75,000 of our taxpayer money down the toilet to defend the accused Dave Douglas. Defending Dave Douglas is not my job.
I am also enraged at the decision to give the Eureka Police Department a huge raise (that will cost the city MILLIONS). This is in the face of 1. Declining support from the state and federal governments and 2) An inevitable drop for the next few years in property tax and sales tax revenues until we come out of recession.
These decisions are being made in secret without adequate public input. The next council meeting will be this tuesday at 630 PM. If you like me want to demand FISCAL RESPONSIBILITY IN GOVERNMENT please come and express yourself.
January 13, 2008 at 12:36 pm
Frankly
Frank Lee should check out Section 2802 CLC
January 13, 2008 at 12:49 pm
Inevitably, collusionary decisions by elected officals is the responsibility of the taxpayers through the voters……My suggestion, start rallying the people for true leadership who will not hide behind “Government Code Sections” that give them immunity……Sound Familiar.
I will say it again, the source of all too many of our “social problems” are the voters. When you do not understand the value of your vote and throw your vote at a candidate, as if it were a penny going into the bubble gum machine, you think much not about what you get because you know you have another penny. The “compunctioning problem” is, we do not get multiple pennies to drop a coin in order to select another choice for our vote, especially after we understand; we, as voters, done wrong.
Jeffrey Lytle
McKinleyville – 5th District
January 13, 2008 at 1:23 pm
I think I understand what you wrote Jeffrey.
by the way….it’s a Labor Code Section that indemnifies employees in the course and scope of their duties.
But, if your theory is correct, we wouldn’t need term limits. Sadly, we do. Perhaps you should test the theory in a run for public office yourself……or, did you already think of that?
January 13, 2008 at 2:46 pm
Well J.t.F.,
understanding you, I will add that indemnification is not always 100%. There are exceptions. Further, it seems more and more that people are considering multiple options…..It is just a case by case scenario…..
Sadly, you are right, term limits may be meaningless, but nevertheless, the opportunity for change and freedom of choice is paramount……..
Jeffrey Lytle
Mckinleyville – 5th District
January 13, 2008 at 3:02 pm
I forgot to clarify that my “Government Code Section” applied to the leaders (elected officials), not hired employees, I can quote you a real nice one from Mitchell, Brisso, Delaney, Vrieze if you would like?????
I must remind you, the palpability of these laws are not fully secure….There are laws, albeit undiscovered by most outside the legal field, to help counter defend or prosecute a government agency’s ability to #1- deny itself political responsibilities when that agency is accused of wrongdoing, and #2 – inevitably using the various applicable laws for immunity protections which deem null and void the legal reprimand by the very same body of laws and enforcers of laws that the rest of us follow.
Jeffrey Lytle
McKinleyville – 5th District
January 13, 2008 at 7:56 pm
jtf should read this:
GRAND JURY OF HUMBOLDT COUNTY
Final Report of 2005 – 2006
Fortuna City Council’s Attorney noted that according to Government Code §995.8 a public entity
may provide a defense of certain legal proceedings brought against an employee, but it was not
obligated to do so. (Original emphasis)
http://extras.times-standard.com/temp/grand_jury.pdf
January 13, 2008 at 7:59 pm
I would also add that several officials of the City of Eureka (elected and employed) have made public statements that are inflammatory and prejudicial in favor of the accused police officers, and perhaps they are intentionally trying to taint the jury pool.
January 13, 2008 at 9:03 pm
Oh, for God’s sake, when you hire a guy, and expect him to risk his life to serve and protect you and yours, put himself in the line of fire for you, you owe it to that person to defend them.
He is innocent unLESS proven guilty. You do not get to make that judgement in advance and withhold that support.
Go down that road and you will not have anyone willing to risk anything for you, because you are not to be trusted.
January 15, 2008 at 10:00 am
Come to the city council meeting TONIGHT at 600 PM to express your OUTRAGE at the secret decision to provide a LEGAL DEFENSE ENTITLEMENT to a FORMER CITY EMPLOYEE.
City could face hefty bill for Douglas’ defense
Thadeus Greenson The Times-Standard
Article Launched: 12/18/2007 01:32:18 AM PST
http://www.times-standard.com//ci_7749311?IADID=Search-www.times-standard.com-www.times-standard.com
EUREKA — If the City Council decides to pick up the bill for former
Police Chief David Douglas’ legal costs, one former prosecutor
estimates it could reach the $1 million mark for the city’s
already-pinched general fund budget.