Sue Taylor Challenges claims of Gene Auslander as Misinformation
Hi Gene, Someone sent me this article you wrote. I would respond to you on the Democrat, but I no longer subscribe. The Democrat has pretty much blocked out the public unless you pay greatly so many have moved over to other media sources.
It is sad that you have chosen to speculate on so much of your information without bothering to communicate with me. I've added facts (in red) and giving you an opportunity to correct your misinformation or to try and do better in the future. I'll be sending this to others so that they will also know the facts.
I am not a fan of initiatives — aka legislating by ballot We elect representatives. and we should let them do their job. And while I may disagree with my representative's vote from time to time (in the case of McClintock all the time). I have my chance to change things come election time_ This works well when your representative actually represents you in the matter that they promised, but when your representative works in a matter that is inconsistent with promises that were made or the will of most of it's citizens, thank goodness the people have the right to petition their government to right a wrong. This process of initiatives was brought forward over 100 years ago in California by reformers who saw government as corrupted by special interests. The initiative process was designed to make politicians more responsive to voter needs, and to help voters to get around politicians when they are not responsive. Personally I think that "paid" petitioners taint the initiative process. We did not pay anyone.
At the BOS meeting on July 31, July 29. 2014, - lots of good information from the meeting - click onto item 29: http-fieldorado.granicus.com/Me-diaPlayerphp9 view id=2&clip id=464&meta id=217112 vote to place on the ballot a petition that had met all the legal requirements (the Taylor/Parlin Save Our County / Residents Involved in Positive Planning initiative signed by Sue Taylor & Laurel Stroud) "Initiative to Reinstate Measure Y's original intent — no more paper roads") was put off until an analysis could be completed. OK no biggie. just a 30-day delay_
However. this decision pushed the approval beyond the state deadline of Aug. 8. Thus the earliest it could go to the voters was 2016. Whoa, a two-year delay for a petition that had garnered over 9.700 signatures (an effort involving dozens of volunteers and many hours of educating, begging and pleading) and had been certified by the Elections Department.
It should also be noted that Mss. Taylor and Parlin proposed three petitions (incorrect): the one in question. (by SOC & RIPP) another one already accepted for the ballot (by Sue Taylor and Lori Parlin along with Rod Pimental & Bruce Risley) and a third still in the signature gathering phase (by SOC & RIPP).
As you can imagine Sue Taylor and Lori Parlin went ballistic peppering the airwaves with plaintive notes about how unfair this action was and even engaged an attorney (really where did you get this information? ballistic? watch the county video, we were pretty calm for what they did do us.) They claimed that they had tried to find a compromise with Bill Center and Jim Moore the founders of Rural Communities United (the original Measure Y people - (where on the original Measure Y petition is either of their names? Also RCU & Measure Y people are different groups) and craft a single petition_ They also say that they had asked the supes to order analysis reports in sufficient time for ballot approval. We asked and they promised during 3 meetings that they would not order a special report on our initiative... they had ordered summaries on all of them instead.
Norma even reassured us not worry and continue gathering signatures.
May 13, 2014 - Members of Local Voter Control in El Dorado County (LVC-EDC) appeared before the Board of Supervisors (T0 to request that 30-day reports be ordered to help save time in the process to put initiatives on the ballot.
The request was made because the paid signatures gatherers hired by Region Builders had derailed the local volunteer signature gathering efforts. The BOS agreed that the Region Builders paid signature gatherers had negatively impacted the local signature gathering process. and ordered a report to summarize the effects of all the initiatives so that none of the initiatives would be delayed in getting to the ballot. The Board assured the public that we should continue collecting signatures and that they would not do anything to impede us from getting our initiatives to the ballot. June 10, 2014 - The BOS received certification of the signatures gathered by Rural Communities United and Region Builders and voted to put both of the initiatives on the ballot without ordering an additional 30-day report. Members of LVC-EDC asked for clarification to ensure that the summary report on all of the initiatives was still in progress so that the LVC-EDC initiatives would not be delayed when their signatures were presented to the BOS for certification.
The BOS assured the public that the summary report on all of the initiatives was still in progress and the timeline toward getting signatures certified was still on track.
July 22, 2014 - County Counsel asked the BOS for more time to complete the summary report on all of the initiatives. Members of LVC-EDC again asked for clarification that the summary report was still in progress and that the extension to complete it by August 26th would not impede getting the LVC-EDC petitions on the November ballot.
Additionally, they claimed that they had a private verbal agreement with Supervisor Ron Briggs that he would "not put an impediment to our initiative by ordering a report once our petition was certified." Not a private verbal agreement, he walked by the group and made his statement.
And they further claimed that Bill Center (a former supervisor himself) promised, "that he would not stand against us in our efforts." While I am of two minds on the decision of the BOS, ultimately I believe that the supes were wrong to deny a public debate and vote. As Paul Harvey used to say. "And now for the rest of the story."
As usual the story is a bit complicated but it comes down to the argument made by Bill Center. If the TaylorlParlin petition were passed. he said, it would "affect every future discretionary and ministerial (nothing in the measure affects ministerial) action on residential and commercial development." The argument was based on a single sentence in the petition that said. in effect, if a Level Of Service F (traffic gridlock) existed anywhere in the county, the BOS could not take any discretionary actions.
Actually there is a list of roads that can go to LOS F so that misses with the "existed anywhere in the county" statement, which I doubt he said, because he knows better - the petition has to do with discretionary "projects" meaning, new land use changes cannot occur until the traffic problem is first fixed. It is what the 1998 measure promised to do until Center and Moore got together with Parker, Tskapoulos, Sweeney. & Briggs and rewrote it in 2008.