HomeMy WebLinkAbout02-05-2013 B1 MazeGoodwin, Heather
From: Grimes, Maeve
Sent: Tuesday, January 29, 2013 5:29 PM
To: Goodwin, Heather
Subject: FW: Dan Carpenter's comments and tax dollars.
Heather, please forward as public comment for 02.05.13 61.
Thank you,
maeve kennedy Gizimes
City Clerk
City of san Luis owspo
990 Palm Street
San Luis Obispo, CA 93401
phone; (805) 781 -7102
email; mgrimes slacitv.vrg
From: Carter, Andrew
Sent: Tuesday, January 29, 2013 9:50 AM
To: Grimes, Maeve
Subject: FW: Dan Carpenter's comments and tax dollars.
Public Record
Andrew Carter
Council Member
City of San Luis Obispo
IV
JAN 3 0 2013
AGENDA
CORRESPONDENCE
Date °�L_ Item #--a/- -
From: Eric Maze [er1cmaze711@yahoo.com]
Sent: Tuesday, January 29, 2013 7:03 AM
To: Lichtig, Katie; Marx, Jan; Carter, Andrew; Carpenter, Dan; Smith, Kathy; Ashbaugh, John
Subject: Dan Carpenter's comments and tax dollars.
Mayor and Council,
I am troubled by remarks from Dan Carpenter yesterday (1/28/13) on Dave Conalton's show.
Dan Carpenter stated that the city historically has not had any kind of "precedent" when appointing an applicant
to a vacant seat. Many remember 2010 extremely well.
I am writing in favor of the city moving forward with the appointment process, and not an election.
Kathy Smith, Jan Marx, and John Ashbaugh, and Andrew Carter, I highly recommend that you take a close look
at your remarks from two years ago, when Dan Carpenter and Patti Andreen stated their case for their
appointment. 1 remember, as do many, because 1 was in the room.
All of you made it clear that you favored an appointment from a candidate who participated in the previous
election. And in the end, appointed Dan Carpenter.
I highly recommend reviewing your remarks from the December 1st 2010, and December 2 1St 2010 meetings.
Dan Carpenter, as a supporter of yours in the previous two elections, I want to remind you of your comments, as
well as your supporters continents, in both those meetings during public comment.
Dan, your supporters and you, stated clearly and you argued persuasively in those public comments, that:
1) the appointed candidate should have been someone who campaigned in the previous election
2) the council should honor the voice and votes of the people, and consider the 5000 votes you received in the
election.
I highly recommend reviewing your remarks from the December 1" 2010, and December 21" 2010 meetings, in
order to avoid conflict.
I support Dan, and hope to see him run in two years for mayor. I would hate to see the city spend $100,000 on
an election, and blame the council for practicing "what's good for the goose is good for the gander," politics,
and cost the tax payers.
Dan and other council members, I hope you review your remarks from these meetings in order to avoid conflict,
as I am sure the people who campaigned in 2012, will most likely apply for the position.
If none of the former candidates apply, then there is no issue, and I wish all of you luck in your search for a
quality applicant to join you.
Thank you for your public service.