.
.
.
Will she be used and abused AGAIN? STAY AWAY FROM THE MEETING, MICHELE!
NOW NOW NOW! Read this story from the Voice of OC’s Nick Gerda:
Santa Ana Mayor Calls Special Meeting in Apparent Attempt to Oust City Manager
The gist is that Mayor Miguel Pulido has called a surprise/ambush special meeting of the City Council, deliberately scheduled while his three strongest opponents are out of town for the holidays, to have a snap PUBLIC EMPLOYEE EVALUATION OF PERFORMANCE AND/OR DISCIPLINARY ACTION of Santa Ana’s City Manager David Cavazos.
Messages can be send to Martinez at mmartinez@santa-ana.org. Presumably, she can also get calls through the City’s main number at (714) 647-6900. (Others are free to post her work number.)
I don’t have a strong opinion on whether Cavazos should stay, although the three Councilmembers whom I trust most (Sal Tinajero, Vince Sarmiento, and David Benevides) want to keep him and the three whom I trust least (Miguel Pulido, Jose Solorio, and Juan Villegas) want to get rid of him. The outcome is up to the tie-breaking Councilmember, Michele Martinez.
I do have a strong opinion about the process. This is HIDEOUS.
One of two things is true: Either Martinez wants to get rid of Cavazos, who made apparently meritless charges of sexual harassment against her, or she doesn’t.
If she does, then Cavazos can be removed from office, on a 4-3 vote, at a meeting where his three supporters are present.
If she doesn’t, then she would have to be an idiot or a dupe to show up at today’s meeting and give Pulido the quorum he needs to remove Cavazos.
It doesn’t matter if she goes to the ambush meeting, scheduled for today at noon, and votes against removing Cavazos. She’s not voting with her finger today; she’s voting with her feet. If she goes into that meeting and sits down, creating a quorum, then even if she leaves during the meeting she has given them the means to remove him. (None of the other three will “suggest the absence of a quorum” if she lets the meeting begin and then leaves.)
One can imagine Solorio, that serpent in Eden, sweet-talking her by saying that she doesn’t have to vote against Cavazos, in fact she can vote against firing him, all she has to do and show up and she can have it both ways. Martinez’s response should be “get thee behind me, Satan!” If she shows up, she is personally responsible for this meeting taking place and everyone will know it.
Solorio has already used and abused Martinez once, during the 2012 primary for AD-69, doing damage to her political career that she has only overcome with years of hard work. Now it will happen again — and they will dump her as soon as they have a more reliable fourth vote.
If she really thinks that Cavazos should go, do it the right way — the straightforward way — the way that does not ruin her political career. Do it at a normally scheduled meeting. Don’t be used, Michele!
I’m posting her office email and phone number. Some people have her private email and phone number, which I’m not posting (and you should not either.) But HER FRIENDS should see through Pulido’s ruse and tell her to stand firm. She cannot show up today. If she does, even to tell her colleagues to go to hell, then the meeting goes forward. If she doesn’t already understand this, she must be made to understand: if she shows up even to vote against firing Cavazos, she will look like an idiot — which is just fine for Pulido and Solorio. Her only honorable choice is not to show up at the ambush while three of her colleagues are on vacation.
Stay away, Michele! Your choice today will mark your political career forever!
It should go without saying, but: if you see Martinez at the Council member, you can try to convince her to leave before the meeting starts, but DON’T verbally abuse or threaten her and DO NOT TOUCH HER IN ANY WAY. The police, who are on Pulido’s side here, would be very happy to arrest you, and Pulido’s crony Tony Rackauckas would happily prosecute you. You’ll have to use words that you’d like to see printed on this page.
Note: I’ve just spoken to the offices of the City Manager and Clerk of the Council’s Office to let them know that I’ve sent a cease and desist letter under the Brown Act to them, the City Attorney, and the Mayor and City Council demanding that they not proceed with today’s meeting. (It took me long enough that I won’t be able to make it to the Council meeting personally, but I’d be grateful if anyone could read it to them during public comments.
– – – – –
Wednesday, December 28, 2016
TO: Santa Ana Mayor Miguel Pulido
Mayor Pro Tem Michele Martinez, Ward 2
Vicente Sarmiento, Ward 1
Jose Solorio, Ward 3
David Benavides, Ward 4
Juan Villegas, Ward 5
Sal Tinajero, Ward 6
all via citycouncil@santa-ana.org
City Manager David Cavazos, via dcavazos@santa-ana.org
City Attorney Sonia R. Carvalho, via Sonia.Carvalho@bbklaw.com
Clerk of the Council Maria D. Huizar, via clerk@ci.santa-ana.ca.us
To the Santa Ana City Council and Santa Ana City officials, via the above email addresses:
Cease and Desist Letter Pursuant to the Ralph M. Brown Act
I have noted with interest and dismay that you have scheduled a “special” meeting of the City Council for noon today at which time you may consider “PUBLIC EMPLOYEE EVALUATION OF PERFORMANCE AND/OR DISCIPLINARY ACTION of Santa Ana’s City Manager David Cavazos.”
This meeting, as constituted, is illegal under the Ralph M. Brown Act (“Brown Act”). The Mayor’s attempt to hold a meeting
1. while three Council members, who have already refused to take part in the termination or other discipline of the City Manager, are on vacation between Christmas and New Year’s Day,
2. to punish the City manager, through means not available given the presence of these members,
3. with the effect of serving the interests of entities that have contributed to, through direct contributions or independent expenditures, the political campaigns of three of the four members expected to be in attendance today
is an ambush that traduces the spirit of the Brown Act and raises the specter of “payoffs” to supporters.
You must not convene a meeting on this matter prior to your next scheduled meeting.
A failure to cease and desist may lead to litigation under the Brown Act, which would likely include demands to cease and desist other of your expressed practices, as will be expressed in a subsequent letter, such as not allowing persons to comment without the authorization of the meeting Chair unless they have filed their intention to do so by the time that public comments begin. (Litigation on the latter issues has not been feasible as a standalone action, only as part of a larger action such as contemplated here.) A cure and correct letter regarding today’s contemplated action may also be forthcoming.
You should seek advice from your City Attorney, or your personal attorneys, regarding personal responsibility for knowing violations of the Brown Act under Government Code Section 54959.
As you are aware, the circumstances underlying today’s “special meeting” are extraordinary. They are detailed in the following article: http://voiceofoc.org/2016/12/santa-ana-mayor-calls-special-meeting-in-apparent-attempt-to-oust-city-manager/.
They are also summarized in a communication to the Council, which you received received today, from a Yvonne Flores of Santa Ana:
“A decision or vote on the evaluation of the City Manager’s performance and/ or disciplinary action should only occur with the attendance of [] ALL of the Council Members and not a special group of select few, especially in light of having 2 newly appointed Council Members, Solorio and Villegas, attending today’s meeting and who have not been in the position long [] enough to properly evaluate the past performance of the City Manager….
“This special meeting, which has been called for in under 24 hours notice, during a holiday week when people are traveling, and with 2 new Council Members attending, should be postponed until next week when all Council Members can be present and properly represent the best interests of the constituents of their wards. I request that Councilmen Solorio and Villegas abstain from the vote as they can not evaluate an employee for performance, if they were not present as Council Members for the time and performance that is being evaluated.”
Ms. Flores’s accusation that the public has not received proper 24-hour notice of this meeting is particularly disturbing. It should by itself prevent the meeting from going forward, lest it provide the basis for an action to cure and correct any action taken by the Council today.
Pursuant to Govt. C. § 54960.1(a), I demand that the Council cease and desist from engaging in actions that would violate Govt. C. §§ 54953(a), 54953(b) (based on the failure to post agendas at potential teleconferencing locations), and 54656.5 (regarding emergency meetings.)
Most sincerely,
/s/ Greg Diamond
Greg Diamond
Law Office of Gregory A. Diamond
Great minds think alike – I didn’t know you did this piece, but I was at Los Amigos this morning telling everyone the same thing.
Called Michele myself on her cell, left a message, told her me and Donna would take her out to lunch so sh’ed have an alibi … but I don’t know if anyone got a hold of her.
I wish that I could make it to the meeting today, but I wouldn’t be there by the time the public comment starch, and there’s no way that delete I would let me speak anyway.
If you know anybody who is at the meeting, they can find it on my Facebook page, or hear, obviously, and read it from there. I did do what was necessary to ensure that the city clerk and city manager received word of it by phone, as well as emailing everybody else mentioned in the letter.
Shes at the meeting so looks like its a done deal.
A VOC commenter reported a 4-0 vote to put Cavazos on leave.
It’s the appointment of an Interim City Manager, if they did so — and it was not agendized — that’s of major interest.
As expected, the Council members in attendance voted unanimously to place the city manager on leave. For those council mbers that didn’t bother showing up, it should serve as a reminder of why the were elected in the first place.
Some of those absent, were accussed of “playing both sides against the middle”, which looking at history, is an interesting point.
This kind of politics is the way this city is run. It has been and continues to. It is the same struggle for power and authority that exists elsewhere, just different players.
The biggest losers here are the employees at Ross Street Annex who believed the bullshit be shovelled at them by management. If a new day is at hand, there are three or four “executive level” employees in real danger of losing their jobs and/or pensions. I would drop a dime on DC in a minute if it meant losing my pension, they will too.
Crafty move. Almost bullet proof except………