 |
| Just don't call her Harriet |
And let's face it, most people in this town would probably agree with them about that. A community newspaper in a village like ours shouldn't come off like a vindictive third rate National Enquirer. After all, don't people come here to get away from that kind of stuff? We hardly need a weekly that pits neighbor against neighbor, no matter how much Susan seemed to enjoy that sort of thing in her troubled past. A topic we will happily get to in a minute.
So the deal that was struck, or so I have heard, is that they would be willing to throw a few bones Susan's way when needed, but the junkyard dog had to be permanently locked up in the backyard shed. And for the past couple of years that seems to have worked. The wild woman of Sunnyside appeared to have at last been paper trained.
However, it now looks like the junkyard dog has somehow slipped its chain and is back running around the streets looking for a leg or two to gnaw on. Preferably the legs of those who are not happy about City Hall's constant call for more and more tax and rate increases.
So can it really be that the bad old days are once again back in Sierra Madre? Was this perhaps brought about by a phone call from England? Or an offer of money from concerned developers eager to build the kinds of things new taxpayer funded infrastructure would make possible for them, and on the cheap? Yes, quite possible.
This from the current issue of what we have often enjoyed calling the Looney Views News:
This is not the first time that the city has implemented the Prop 218 process. In 2010, when the city last raised water rates, the Prop 218 process was implemented and met with a lot of criticism from some residents. At that time there were allegations of 'illegal and/or inappropriate' behavior by some residents who actually canvassed the city soliciting ballots against the rate hike in person.
Correct me if I am wrong, but in the United States of America that I am familiar with people are allowed to go out and discuss important government issues with their neighbors. That would be something guaranteed by the First Amendment. What is Susan saying here, that the Constitution should be suspended when it is financially inconvenient for the people at City Hall that place legal notices in her scrofulous rag?
What are people supposed to do, stay locked up in their homes with gags over their mouths? Isn't freely talking to your neighbors about the government something known as Democracy? After all, we aren't living in North Korea. Freedom of speech is not "illegal and/or inappropriate behavior" here, though apparently Susan fervently wishes that it were.
And wouldn't raising water rates be an issue that some folks here just might consider important enough to talk about? Or even try to stop? Especially people on fixed incomes as so many retired seniors are in this community?
Plus what choice did people have in 2010? Back when Joe Mosca was the Mayor the city deliberately refused to send out Proposition 218 protest ballots. This despite the fact that almost every other city in California readily recognizes that the right of the residents to vote is important, and must be respected. Especially when asking their taxpayers for more of their money.
It was a deliberate and cynical act of vote suppression by Mosca and his cronies, one that left those residents concerned about an onerous water rate hike with no other recourse but to grab their clipboards and do it themselves. And City Hall offered no help whatsoever. They wouldn't even supply a correct list of ratepayers, many of whom would have gladly filed their protests against having to give this city even more of their money. Their rights had also been disrespected.
So can it really be that the bad old days are once again back in Sierra Madre? Was this perhaps brought about by a phone call from England? Or an offer of money from concerned developers eager to build the kinds of things new taxpayer funded infrastructure would make possible for them, and on the cheap? Yes, quite possible.
This from the current issue of what we have often enjoyed calling the Looney Views News:
This is not the first time that the city has implemented the Prop 218 process. In 2010, when the city last raised water rates, the Prop 218 process was implemented and met with a lot of criticism from some residents. At that time there were allegations of 'illegal and/or inappropriate' behavior by some residents who actually canvassed the city soliciting ballots against the rate hike in person.
Correct me if I am wrong, but in the United States of America that I am familiar with people are allowed to go out and discuss important government issues with their neighbors. That would be something guaranteed by the First Amendment. What is Susan saying here, that the Constitution should be suspended when it is financially inconvenient for the people at City Hall that place legal notices in her scrofulous rag?
What are people supposed to do, stay locked up in their homes with gags over their mouths? Isn't freely talking to your neighbors about the government something known as Democracy? After all, we aren't living in North Korea. Freedom of speech is not "illegal and/or inappropriate behavior" here, though apparently Susan fervently wishes that it were.
And wouldn't raising water rates be an issue that some folks here just might consider important enough to talk about? Or even try to stop? Especially people on fixed incomes as so many retired seniors are in this community?
Plus what choice did people have in 2010? Back when Joe Mosca was the Mayor the city deliberately refused to send out Proposition 218 protest ballots. This despite the fact that almost every other city in California readily recognizes that the right of the residents to vote is important, and must be respected. Especially when asking their taxpayers for more of their money.
It was a deliberate and cynical act of vote suppression by Mosca and his cronies, one that left those residents concerned about an onerous water rate hike with no other recourse but to grab their clipboards and do it themselves. And City Hall offered no help whatsoever. They wouldn't even supply a correct list of ratepayers, many of whom would have gladly filed their protests against having to give this city even more of their money. Their rights had also been disrespected.
Reports of being misled by signature gatherers were frequent. Their 'goal' was to gain signatures from more than half of the rate payers to protest the rate hike. That effort fell short of getting the required signatures but led to a lot of confusion and discontent among many. This time, the city wants to be proactive and protect the integrity of the process by confirming that ballots are sent to the correct individuals.
Actually close to 2,000 signatures were gathered, out of which I was personally responsible for about 300. And trust me, while there may have been a few who had buyer's remorse later on, a vast majority of the people that I spoke with couldn't sign the papers fast enough.
As anyone who was in City Hall the night our hard won Prop 218 victory was stolen from us by the then Mayor and City Attorney can tell you, the sight of anxious people streaming into Council Chambers waving protest ballots in the air was truly inspiring. Our little movement had caught fire, and turned into a popular uprising against a deceitful and self-interested city government.
I would argue that the reason City Hall is actually doing what they are supposed to do in a Prop 218 situation this time is that they are deeply fearful of what might happen should residents run with it again. People have learned a lot, and came very close to shutting them down last time. And after the stunning and overwhelming defeat the City suffered at the polls in April of 2012 on the UUT extension, the City knows they could easily lose this latest water rate increase as well. They have no choice but to try and control it.
And then H. Susan blindly wandered out onto this dangerous precipice:
When the previous protest against the rate hike failed, the city council, in an effort to appease opponents of the increase, did not raise water/sewer rates to the recommended levels. Instead a reduced increase was put into effect and as a result, three years later, our revenues are not, as predicted, sufficient to maintain the water/sewer systems and maintain the reserves required by our bond obligations.
It is nice to see Henderson admit that things are as supposedly bad as they are today due to some truly awful decision making by Councilmembers Nancy Walsh and Josh Moran back in 2010. It is the only accurate observation in her entire article.
Actually close to 2,000 signatures were gathered, out of which I was personally responsible for about 300. And trust me, while there may have been a few who had buyer's remorse later on, a vast majority of the people that I spoke with couldn't sign the papers fast enough.
As anyone who was in City Hall the night our hard won Prop 218 victory was stolen from us by the then Mayor and City Attorney can tell you, the sight of anxious people streaming into Council Chambers waving protest ballots in the air was truly inspiring. Our little movement had caught fire, and turned into a popular uprising against a deceitful and self-interested city government.
I would argue that the reason City Hall is actually doing what they are supposed to do in a Prop 218 situation this time is that they are deeply fearful of what might happen should residents run with it again. People have learned a lot, and came very close to shutting them down last time. And after the stunning and overwhelming defeat the City suffered at the polls in April of 2012 on the UUT extension, the City knows they could easily lose this latest water rate increase as well. They have no choice but to try and control it.
And then H. Susan blindly wandered out onto this dangerous precipice:
When the previous protest against the rate hike failed, the city council, in an effort to appease opponents of the increase, did not raise water/sewer rates to the recommended levels. Instead a reduced increase was put into effect and as a result, three years later, our revenues are not, as predicted, sufficient to maintain the water/sewer systems and maintain the reserves required by our bond obligations.
It is nice to see Henderson admit that things are as supposedly bad as they are today due to some truly awful decision making by Councilmembers Nancy Walsh and Josh Moran back in 2010. It is the only accurate observation in her entire article.
Let's bring yet another elephant out into the open, shall we? This third water rate increase in around as many years is still about the exact same issue as the other two. That being bonds and bond debt. Through some truly extraordinarily bad mismanagement, City Hall turned their 2003 $6 million dollar bond deal into $15 million in public debt. Debt that extends all the way out into the 2030s. Something that has heavily contributed to trashing our bond ratings and making further kamikaze financial schemes impossible.
The Realtors and developers who are dying to crack Sierra Madre wide open for development are very often privileged in this town by the likes of Moran and Walsh. Both of whom now appear more than willing to do yet another round of financially disastrous water bond deals to help their special friends out with their needs.
Which is also where the current and quite hefty water rate increase comes in. This is all about bond money and infrastructure for development. All that malarkey you've been hearing lately about financial reserves and "drains on General Fund funds" is PR designed to sucker you into giving them the money needed to help out their cronies and family members in land use related businesses. To the tune of millions and millions of dollars that you will be expected to pay off.
And you know they can always count on their Junkyard Dog to help them out.
So who exactly is H. Susan Henderson?
Longtime readers of this blog have heard this story before, but for those of you who are new, we have something interesting to share with you. Believe it or not, our village weekly newspaper queen was at one time the #2 ranking Democratic Party official in all of California. That is, until a truly tawdry scandal brought her down so low she ended up plying her disreputable trade here, in a town of only 10,000 people.
Trust me, she fell far.
This from the San Francisco Examiner, dated May 25, 1995 (link):
Demo leader resigns under fire - H. Susan Henderson, onetime Republican turned executive director of the California Democratic Party, has resigned her $78,000-per-year post amid controversy over alleged resume-pumping and questionable expenditures on a party credit card.
State party chair Bill Press announced Henderson's departure Wednesday, the same day The Examiner reported that she had registered to vote as a Republican barely two years before taking the $78,000-per-year Democratic Party post.
The Examiner also reported that the University of California had no record of awarding Henderson a law degree and an MBA, as she had claimed on her resume, and that a Sunnyvale business executive said Henderson had failed to repay a $2,000 loan.
A confidential news source said that California Democrats, who face the crucial 1996 election with a deficit of $1 million, would pay Henderson $25,000 in exchange for her resignation.
In a press release, Press said he had ordered an audit of the state party's books, after receiving an anonymous letter contending that Henderson had improperly run up some $3,000 in spending on a party credit card for items including lingerie and a trip to Disneyland.
Press said the audit found no wrongdoing, but said the matter had become so emotionally draining for Henderson that she decided to resign. He said she would work as a consultant for the party for an unspecified period.
Henderson did not return phone calls. Press declined to respond to questions about whether he had known about Henderson's life as a Republican when he hired her or what steps he had taken to verify her resume. He also refused to comment on the reported $25,000 payment.
If Press was mum, state Republicans were chatty about what they saw as financial disarray at the top of the Democratic organization.
"My take would be that Bill Clinton and Bill Press attended the same school of financial management," quipped Victoria Herrington, spokeswoman for the state GOP. Referring to Henderson, she said, "This is one case where we Republicans don't mind a defection."
San Francisco Supervisor Angela Alioto, a vice chair of the Democratic Party, said she was shocked to learn that Henderson had so recently been a member of the GOP.
"She never mentioned that - she has posed as a dyed-in-the-wool Democrat," Alioto said. "To me, it's much more shocking to find out that she was a Republican than to find out (about the disputed resume.)"
Henderson, a former Oakland business executive, was hired by Press in 1993 as a deputy executive director for Southern California, then was promoted to the top job last year.
She presented an impressive resume: regional coordinator for the American Israel Public Affairs Committee, East Bay field director for Democratic U.S. Sen. Barbara Boxer's successful 1992 campaign, former president of the East Bay Area Club of Negro Business and Professional Women.
But other parts of the resume don't appear to check out.
Henderson states that she holds a bachelor's degree in business administration from Ohio State University, but a spokeswoman said Ohio State had never granted a degree to Harriet Susan Henderson or Harriet Poole, Henderson's maiden name.
Henderson's resume also says that she holds an "M.B.A. / J.D." from the University of California, without specifying a campus.
Spokesmen at UC-Berkeley, UCLA and UC-Davis, the three UC campuses that have both law and business schools, said no such degrees had been issued to H. Susan Henderson or Harriet Poole.
Alameda County voter records show that in 1989, Henderson registered as a Republican at an Oakland residence, then registered again as a Republican in 1991 when she moved to another Oakland address.
In March 1992, when the Boxer campaign was getting under way, Henderson changed her registration to Democrat, the records show.
As party executive director, Henderson sat in on top-level strategy meetings and sensitive discussions about the Democrats' plans for winning California for President Clinton in 1996.
In his written statement, Press complained that the anonymous letter about Henderson was "disgusting character assassination," but gave no details about why he had concluded that she had spent party funds properly.
Party credit-card records show that in a three-month period in 1995 she ran up $12,000 in charges, including $74 at a Victoria's Secret lingerie shop in Washington, D.C., $220 at a golf course in Palm Springs, $137 at a Los Angeles beauty-supply outlet and $26 at a laundry.
Henderson was basically canned by the Democrats from a very prestigious and high ranking political job for lying about her academic credentials on a resume,' along with misusing the party credit card to buy lingerie at a Victoria's Secret in Washington DC (a date with Bill Clinton perhaps?), plus golf trips, a junket to Disneyland, among other things.
I honestly don't know where Susan Henderson gets off smearing the motives and honesty of decent people for collecting signatures to protest a water rate increase in Sierra Madre.
When what she really ought to be doing is taking a long hard look in the mirror.
http://sierramadretattler.blogspot.com
The Realtors and developers who are dying to crack Sierra Madre wide open for development are very often privileged in this town by the likes of Moran and Walsh. Both of whom now appear more than willing to do yet another round of financially disastrous water bond deals to help their special friends out with their needs.
Which is also where the current and quite hefty water rate increase comes in. This is all about bond money and infrastructure for development. All that malarkey you've been hearing lately about financial reserves and "drains on General Fund funds" is PR designed to sucker you into giving them the money needed to help out their cronies and family members in land use related businesses. To the tune of millions and millions of dollars that you will be expected to pay off.
And you know they can always count on their Junkyard Dog to help them out.
So who exactly is H. Susan Henderson?
Longtime readers of this blog have heard this story before, but for those of you who are new, we have something interesting to share with you. Believe it or not, our village weekly newspaper queen was at one time the #2 ranking Democratic Party official in all of California. That is, until a truly tawdry scandal brought her down so low she ended up plying her disreputable trade here, in a town of only 10,000 people.
Trust me, she fell far.
This from the San Francisco Examiner, dated May 25, 1995 (link):
Demo leader resigns under fire - H. Susan Henderson, onetime Republican turned executive director of the California Democratic Party, has resigned her $78,000-per-year post amid controversy over alleged resume-pumping and questionable expenditures on a party credit card.
State party chair Bill Press announced Henderson's departure Wednesday, the same day The Examiner reported that she had registered to vote as a Republican barely two years before taking the $78,000-per-year Democratic Party post.
The Examiner also reported that the University of California had no record of awarding Henderson a law degree and an MBA, as she had claimed on her resume, and that a Sunnyvale business executive said Henderson had failed to repay a $2,000 loan.
A confidential news source said that California Democrats, who face the crucial 1996 election with a deficit of $1 million, would pay Henderson $25,000 in exchange for her resignation.
In a press release, Press said he had ordered an audit of the state party's books, after receiving an anonymous letter contending that Henderson had improperly run up some $3,000 in spending on a party credit card for items including lingerie and a trip to Disneyland.
Press said the audit found no wrongdoing, but said the matter had become so emotionally draining for Henderson that she decided to resign. He said she would work as a consultant for the party for an unspecified period.
Henderson did not return phone calls. Press declined to respond to questions about whether he had known about Henderson's life as a Republican when he hired her or what steps he had taken to verify her resume. He also refused to comment on the reported $25,000 payment.
If Press was mum, state Republicans were chatty about what they saw as financial disarray at the top of the Democratic organization.
"My take would be that Bill Clinton and Bill Press attended the same school of financial management," quipped Victoria Herrington, spokeswoman for the state GOP. Referring to Henderson, she said, "This is one case where we Republicans don't mind a defection."
San Francisco Supervisor Angela Alioto, a vice chair of the Democratic Party, said she was shocked to learn that Henderson had so recently been a member of the GOP.
"She never mentioned that - she has posed as a dyed-in-the-wool Democrat," Alioto said. "To me, it's much more shocking to find out that she was a Republican than to find out (about the disputed resume.)"
Henderson, a former Oakland business executive, was hired by Press in 1993 as a deputy executive director for Southern California, then was promoted to the top job last year.
She presented an impressive resume: regional coordinator for the American Israel Public Affairs Committee, East Bay field director for Democratic U.S. Sen. Barbara Boxer's successful 1992 campaign, former president of the East Bay Area Club of Negro Business and Professional Women.
But other parts of the resume don't appear to check out.
Henderson states that she holds a bachelor's degree in business administration from Ohio State University, but a spokeswoman said Ohio State had never granted a degree to Harriet Susan Henderson or Harriet Poole, Henderson's maiden name.
Henderson's resume also says that she holds an "M.B.A. / J.D." from the University of California, without specifying a campus.
Spokesmen at UC-Berkeley, UCLA and UC-Davis, the three UC campuses that have both law and business schools, said no such degrees had been issued to H. Susan Henderson or Harriet Poole.
Alameda County voter records show that in 1989, Henderson registered as a Republican at an Oakland residence, then registered again as a Republican in 1991 when she moved to another Oakland address.
In March 1992, when the Boxer campaign was getting under way, Henderson changed her registration to Democrat, the records show.
As party executive director, Henderson sat in on top-level strategy meetings and sensitive discussions about the Democrats' plans for winning California for President Clinton in 1996.
In his written statement, Press complained that the anonymous letter about Henderson was "disgusting character assassination," but gave no details about why he had concluded that she had spent party funds properly.
Party credit-card records show that in a three-month period in 1995 she ran up $12,000 in charges, including $74 at a Victoria's Secret lingerie shop in Washington, D.C., $220 at a golf course in Palm Springs, $137 at a Los Angeles beauty-supply outlet and $26 at a laundry.
Henderson was basically canned by the Democrats from a very prestigious and high ranking political job for lying about her academic credentials on a resume,' along with misusing the party credit card to buy lingerie at a Victoria's Secret in Washington DC (a date with Bill Clinton perhaps?), plus golf trips, a junket to Disneyland, among other things.
I honestly don't know where Susan Henderson gets off smearing the motives and honesty of decent people for collecting signatures to protest a water rate increase in Sierra Madre.
When what she really ought to be doing is taking a long hard look in the mirror.
http://sierramadretattler.blogspot.com