Race For Second... wrote on Aug 8, 2008 10:57 PM:Dean Nelson's city experience, knowledge, personal warmth & endless hard work will easily put him in first place on election day.

Second place will be very exciting though, as it will go down to the wire between Martin & Jones.

Just a dude wrote on Aug 8, 2008 10:59 PM:The incumbents deserve to be re-elected. They're doing a good job.

WIN DEAN WIN wrote on Aug 9, 2008 12:52 AM:Great news that Dean Nelson entered the race! We deserve someone with integrity on our council. What a sweet change that will make.

Dean has worked hard for San Marcos and has done an excellent job on our planning commission. Citizens have always known him to be available to talk to and truly having an open mind. Unlike Jones and Martin who couldn't even be reached by the press for this story. Even with their blackberries. Interesting.....

Rebecca's inexperience has shown and hurt our city. She lacks any qualifications. Appoint her to the planning commission so she can learn something. She loves appointments. Dean is smart and it shows.

The community has shown strong support for him in the last election and he was willing to run in a special election if the council had called one. Rebecca said it wasn't worth the trouble. Let's go with someone who believes that representatives should be elected, not appointed.

Thanks Dean for stepping up for us. We will make sure you get the seat you have earned this time!!!

Right to Vote wrote on Aug 9, 2008 8:03 AM:Now the people of San Marcos have the opportunity to vote for the person for that "open" seat which was filled (by appointment) by council friend Rebecca Jones - and not voted on by the people. If you have gone to a Planning Commission meeting in the 6 - 7 years, you have observed Dean Nelson. He's the man who asks the hard questions. He is my choice for City Council, and he should be yours. He will do a great job for the people of San Marcos !

Whats Deans Position wrote on Aug 9, 2008 8:21 AM:What is Dean's position on that silly no-growth iniative? Is he for it or against it?

Not a clear rd wrote on Aug 9, 2008 8:56 AM:Less than 19% of registered voters voted for Dean and almost 9% of voters voted for someone that never ran an ad or hung up a sign. Not a very clear choice in my opinion. Sour grapes if you ask me. Rebecca and Dean served on the Creek Committe together before Rebecca's appointment.

RE Not a clear rd wrote on Aug 9, 2008 9:34 AM:You say "less that 19% of 'registered' voters, voted for Dean Nelson." Well, this may come as a shock to you, but it was 19% more than R. Jones received...Why you ask? Well, because Mr Nelson had the guts to go out and put his name & reputation on the line. Mr Nelson has such widespread appeal & support, he'll handily win this three person race.

"Race for Second" has it right, that the only real contest will be between Mr Martin & Ms Jones.

Andrew wrote on Aug 9, 2008 9:51 AM:Does anyone know if Dean Nelson has a web site yet, or at least an email where we can reach him?

We'd like to sign up to help with Dean's campaign.

Thanks in advance.

SaveSanMarcos wrote on Aug 9, 2008 11:10 AM:Dean had our backs during the WalMart invasion. San Elijo residents owe him big time by giving him the support he needs to win. You rock Dean!

SO LONG SHALLOW HAL wrote on Aug 9, 2008 11:15 AM:I think that it comes down to who of the second place race contenders between Martin and Jones has been the biggest sellout. I'd have to say that Hal Martin deserves to get his pink slip more since he had had the longer tenure and proactively worked at subverting the General Plan and promoting the abomination that was the Palomar Station vote.
YES on Managed Growth Initiative!
YES on Save the Ridgeline Ordinance!
YES on Dean Nelson!
NO on Hal Martin!
So long Hal...

Phillip wrote on Aug 9, 2008 2:33 PM:How embarrassed do you think Hal Martin will look, when his own "yes girl" (that he forced on us SM citizens, by that horrid appointment process) knocks him out of office?

"Just Desserts" comes to mind.

Rebecca is NO Pia wrote on Aug 9, 2008 5:13 PM:I've always loved Pia, but I was shocked that she would support Rebecca Jones. For years I worked on Pia campaigns and usually she has good judgement. But what a BIG mistake with Rebecca Jones. She obviously didn't know her well. Rebecca is nothing like her. Blonde but not to the roots like our favorite Swede Pia. Those Pia days are gone, but Rebecca is not good for San Marcos. She should step out of the race and give her support to Dean Nelson.

Bullet Vote for Dean wrote on Aug 9, 2008 5:25 PM:I'm voting for only one candidate. And that is Dean Nelson. I urge all other's to bullet for for Dean as well. The other two don't deserve a vote. I wish we had a "none of the above" choice on the ballot. It would win.

Ditto on Bullet Vote for Dean wrote on Aug 9, 2008 5:59 PM:The bullet vote can work. I didn't even understand it until Betty Evans explained the concept at a community coffee. By the way, she WON. The only problem is that it seems as if the tactic of the Bullet Vote is being mentioned awfully early. I agree with "Bullet Vote for Dean" He belongs in office and it is up to all of us th support him in any way we can. He has no hidden agenda and he really listened to the people at Planning Commission hearings and meetings. Sometimes, because he felt strongly, he was the ONLY no vote - wanting more information or a project to be corrected.

I agree with Bullet wrote on Aug 9, 2008 8:22 PM:I'm Bullet Voting for Dean too. It's never too early to get the word out that voters don't have to choose two. Don't give a vote to Martin or Jones. Neither deserves your support. Sure one will come in second, but with those two clones, it doesn't make any difference. Let them fight for second between themselves. Should be fun to watch the show.

Derek wrote on Aug 9, 2008 8:29 PM:When is the first debate(forum, or coffee type get together) between the 3 candidates? Also, how many debates are scheduled before election?

We're really looking forward to listening & seeing how Nelson, Jones & Martin's knowledge & vision for San Marcos, stack up against each other.

San Marcos Voter wrote on Aug 9, 2008 8:51 PM:Can someone please explain what you mean by a "Bullet Vote"? How does that work? I don't understand, please advise. Aren't there two seats open? I"m for Dean Nelson too, and I want to know how I can help him the most. I don't like the other two at all, but we only have three people in the race. Too bad, I would love to see both Hal and Rebecca replaced. But even one out is good.

Hal Supporter wrote on Aug 9, 2008 9:10 PM:Hello SM,
Do you think that Hal will get all of the devoloper $$$ again? Just like Desmond did last time?? Or is San Elijo and Curt Noland/Randy Goodson wallets run low on funds?

Bullet Voting wrote on Aug 9, 2008 10:13 PM:Bullet voting is a tactic where the voter only selects one candidate, despite having the option to indicate some preference for other candidates. They might do this either because it is easier than evaluating all the candidates, or (depending on the voting system in use) as a form of tactical voting.

If enough voters bullet vote then almost any voting system functions like plurality voting system. This is generally considered to be a poor result, as many voting systems are intended as reforms or improvements which avoid or minimize some of the alleged disadvantages of plurality (aka First Past the Post). However, if voters bullet vote as a conscious strategy to express their meta-preference that candidates with strong support are preferable to "compromise" candidates with broad support, then it may not be a problem.

This tactic is possible in any voting system which does not require ranking all the candidates. In practice, this is the majority of voting systems as actually implemented (as opposed to in theory), since to reject ballots which don't rank all candidates would risk an excessive number of spoiled ballots. However, it is mainly an issue in voting systems which can reward this tactic — primarily approval voting and to a lesser extent range voting — and in those which don't significantly penalize it — primarily instant-runoff voting and a non-standard form of Borda count.

Candidates may seek to encourage bullet voting in certain situations. One example is where there is a Bloc voting election for two seats of the same office, and there are several candidates (say A, B, and C). Voters in such a situation typically have two votes. Candidate A will encourage his voters to vote only for him and not use their second vote. If the second vote is cast for B or C, it will help A's opponents. The situation is most pronounced where A is of one party and B and C are of another party. If voters from B and C's party vote for them, while A's partisans cast one vote for A and split their second vote between B and C, A will be significantly disadvantaged.

old chicks rule wrote on Aug 9, 2008 10:42 PM:Well, I for one am not happy that this has to go to an actual election now, I thought with just Hal & Rebbecca running we would not have to go through
all this messy rigmarole of a campaign? Really stupid, why bother if only three candidates run for just two seats? Mr Dean Nelson should have let well enough alone.

Bullet Vote SIMPLIFIED wrote on Aug 10, 2008 7:12 AM:Contrary to what "Bullet Voting" says above, bullet votes are intentionally used to gain an advantage for the candidate a voter prefers. If you really want a particular candidate to win you can cast a "bullet vote" to help ensure your favorite candidate gets in to office. Here's how it works. By casting only one vote though you're allowed to cast 2 or 3, you are effectively increasing the percentage of the total votes cast that your favorite candidate receives. Let's compare the results of a NON-Bullet Vote versus a Bullet Vote. Let's say a total of 30,000 people turn out to vote in the November election and each person is allowed to (but doesn't have to) pick two city council candidates out of the three who are running because there are two seats available to fill. That means that (potentially) 60,000 total votes will be cast and divided among the three council candidates. If you "bullet vote" meaning cast only ONE vote (instead of two) you are reducing the total number of votes cast which increases the percentage of votes that your favorite candidate gets. Here's a real life example of how the numbers work. Let's say one third of the 30,000 total voters cast their first vote for each of the candidates equally so each candidate gets 10,000 initial votes. Now let's say that no one bullet votes so each voter has another vote to cast (a total of 30,000 more votes to be divided). Let's suppose that the 10,000 voters who voted for Hal with their first vote are equally divided between Rebecca and Dean for their second vote.Now Hal has 10,000 votes;Rebecca has 15,000 votes and Dean has 15,000 votes. Now let's suppose that the same thing happens with Rebecca's voters and half the voters who cast their first vote for Rebecca cast their second vote for Hal and the other half cast their second vote for Dean. Now Hal has 15,000 votes, Rebecca has 15,000 and Dean has 20,000. Then let's repeat the same scenario with the voters who cast their first vote for Dean, and suppose they're equally divided between Hal and Rebecca for their second vote; now Hal has 20,000 votes,Rebecca has 20,000 votes and Dean has 20,000 votes. OK. Now let's see what happens if Dean's 10,000 voters BULLET VOTE. Each candidate starts off with 10,000 votes. Hal and Dean each get another 5,000 votes from the half of the people who cast their first vote for Rebecca (Hal 15,000; Rebecca 10,000;Dean 15,000). Then half the people who cast their first vote for Hal give their second vote to Dean and the other half to Rebecca (Hal 15,000;Rebecca 15,000; Dean 20,000. NOW the 10,000 people who cast their first AND ONLY VOTE for Dean (BULLET VOTE) don't pick a second candidate. The total number of votes cast, instead of 60,000 is only 50,000 and Dean winds up with 40% of the vote and wins the election because Hal and Rebecca get only 30% Dean to win said "Well, I'm supposed to pick two people so I will whether I'm thrilled about them or not", Dean wouldn't get as high a percentage of the vote as he does if his supporters bullet vote. Of course the numbers I used in this example won't be the actual numbers but you can see from this example how a bullet vote can change the outcome of an election.

City is running smooth wrote on Aug 10, 2008 9:40 AM:The city is running smoothly, we are not in the red financially, we are getting a downtown and all is well. The only comments on this site are from Nelson people, no surprise there. No reason to change, all is smooth. Hal and Rebecca are a doing a good job and we are happy. You just don't make changes when all is good, it is a bad business plan. The only fly in the ointment is the initiative and those people couldn't find anyone to run for their cause, no surprise there either.

REPLY to Old Chick wrote on Aug 10, 2008 10:05 AM:Sorry Old Chick that your Hal & Rebbecca "Coronation party" was crashed by the democratic process?

It's just that one free pass for Ms Jones was tough for the public to stomach, two would have been an outrage.

The good news though, is that this campaign will give Rebbecca Jones the platform to show her talents and abilities, that Councilman Martin recognized, when he appointed her over all the other San Marcos applicants.

tommy wrote on Aug 10, 2008 2:40 PM:to say the city is 'running smoothly' is true and false at the same time. if everything was so smooth, why do so many citizens always have to fight city hall, over issue after issue? why is traffic so horrific, especially having two councilmen(martin & preston) that have been on the council, seemingly forever? they should have recognized by now that the infrastructure wasn't ever meant for the overbuilding that's been put upon it. but the mishmash of projects just keep getting rubber-stamped?

I'm not that in-favor of the growth initiative, but i can understand the motivation of the folks who got it on the ballot. when the crowning project of the now sitting council majority is palomar station, it doesn't bode well for as a whole lot of imagination or leadership out of our council-members. i'm all for mixed use, but a housing project that's wedged between a freeway to the south, train tracks to the north and industrial all around, isn't much of a feather in ones cap? i heard a rumor(or joke?) that prospective buyers must sign a wavier so as not to sue the developer or city, if the condo buyers get sick(or worse) from chemicals and pollution from the nearby industrial business'? if that's really true, then the council needs to ask themselves, what are they doing in their stewardship of san marcos? is the motivation behind ok'ing such a project, worth risking the health of some momma & her bambino? Plus, where are all the bambinos suppose to play?

we all know it's the city manager that's truly driving the city, but we still need five "true leaders" on the council, whom can hold their own against, or with, the city staff, regarding the endless projects and issues that come across their desks.

i hope all voters do their homework and elect the smartest, hardest working & most qualified 'leader' they find fit.

No Rumor wrote on Aug 10, 2008 9:25 PM:Tommy, you have your facts right about Palomar Station. This council actually wedged housing in the midst of all that public health and safety hazard. And incredibly, are forcing potential condo buyers to sign waivers so they can't sue the developer or city when they get deadly ill. The potential is VERY REAL, why else would they require waivers? Evil, very evil. This is not a city that cares about its citizens, or future citizens. This council needs to be cleaned up. Dean Nelson understands. He voted against Palomar Station as a planning commissioner. He cares. He listens. I'm bullet voting for Dean Nelson too. Great idea about the bullet voting. We need him, lets assure he is elected with our bullet votes and let the other two battle for second place.

Clay wrote on Aug 11, 2008 3:34 AM:The discussion of bullet voting above seems to do have very little academic merit, since it is generally a poor strategy, only advisable if your true favorite is one of the front-runners. If you were a Nader fan back in 2000, bullet voting would hurt you. You'd have wanted to vote for your favorite front-runner plus everyone you liked better (including Nader of course).

That's discussed [at RangeVoting].

Winds of Change wrote on Aug 11, 2008 7:01 AM:Time to change the make-up of the council. It is time for the citizens of San Marcos to be represented, instead of the developers, consultants, and realtors. When the people filled City Hall during prior councils, in opposition to projects, the council heeded the wishes of its citizens. Not any more. Too bad that the City waited until after the Palomar Station was approved by the council (4-1 vote), before televising the City Council meetings. We need REPRESENTATIVE government, We need the City Council to listen to the concerns of the citizens. We do NOT need back-room deals and four more years of a Developers Council. I plan to Bullet Vote for Dean Nelson. If enough of us do that, it will send a message - loud and clear - we want the city council to represent US !

Hey Clay wrote on Aug 11, 2008 11:10 AM:FYI, if I'm not mistaken, the(US) Presidential elections are naturally a bullet vote?

On my ballots, I've only been able to vote for one candidate for President...Your ballots may have been different?

Bullet Voting for Dean wrote on Aug 11, 2008 4:50 PM:This is the best opportunity ever in San Marcos for a bullet voting campaign. Dean is the best candidate and is independent from the other two, Hal & Rebecca. Bullet voting works best when you have one truly independent candidate. Incumbent Hal and APPOINTED Rebecca will run together. Bullet Vote for Dean and let the cronie team struggle for second.

Question wrote on Aug 11, 2008 6:40 PM:Can someone post a synopsis of what the circumstances were, regarding Rebbecca Jones' appointment? A link to an archived article, would also be very informative.

My spouse and I weren't living in San Marcos at that time and would like to know why so many citizens, are so upset about it. Thanks.

RE Question wrote on Aug 11, 2008 11:14 PM:FYI...Here's a link to a NCTimes article regarding Jones appointment. If it doesn't link, just copy and paste it in your browser.

January-2007
http://www.nctimes.com/articles/2007/01/10/news/inland/san_marcos/2_11_321_9_07.txt

To Question wrote on Aug 12, 2008 3:11 PM:I'd like to answer your question about why so many people are upset over the connived APPOINTMENT of Rebecca Jones. Just prior to the 2006 city council election, Rebecca Jones was being groomed for a council seat by 20 year council veteran Pia Harris-Ebert (also President of the local Teachers Union)who was retiring and had handpicked Jones as her "heir apparent". Pia took her all over town talking her up and introducing her to various influential people and groups. Jones was also a "protege" of then third-term councilman Hal Martin and had been a Jim Desmond supporter as well. Jones was almost a complete unknown politically except for a brief stint as a "community activist" when she vehemently opposed and fought against the proposed "Casa de Amparo" project, a residential children's home for kids in distressed circumstances slated to be built near Jones' own neighborhood (ironically Jones later claimed one of her political qualifications was that she was an "advocate" for children). After becoming known as a candidate for council, Jones suddenly decided not to run ostensibly because a member of her family became ill. While an ill family member is a plausible reason to withdraw from a time consuming campaign for office, there was some speculation at the time that the unknown/inexperienced Jones didn't stand a chance of winning an election in which seven other candidates were competing for only two seats, especially because the other candidates included a veteran incumbent(Mike Preston) a 5 year veteran Planning Commissioner with three years as Planning Commission Chairman and a long history of community involvement (Dean Nelson) and a Public Relations pro who was Vice Chair of the Planning Commission with experience working in the Democratic Party at the national level (Chris Orlando). The buzz was that since her political handlers knew Jones (who was grossly inexperienced and no bright light) couldn't possibly win in that election, it would be better if she were sidelined pending the outcome of the mayoral race in which newbie council member Jim Desmond had decided halfway thru his first city council term to run for mayor. If he lost he'd still retain his council seat and if he won, his now vacant council seat would be filled either by election or appointment so the scheme was devised to APPOINT Jones to the Council if Jim Desmond won the 2006 mayoral election. Desmond, backed by developer money, won the mayor's chair and Mike Preston and Chris Orlando won the two council seats. DEAN NELSON came in third in the council race with a respectable 20% of the vote. When the time came to decide how to fill Jim Desmond's now vacant council seat, Desmond and Martin fought a voter election and insisted on having the council appoint, thus retaining control of who would fill the seat. To Desmond's chagrin, new councilman Orlando voted with Mike Preston for an election and the matter deadlocked 2-2. Desmond claimed it was too expensive to hold an election and he and Martin pressured Orlando to change his position. The council suppressed information they had been given that a write-in election could be held that would reduce the election cost by half and never presented or considered that information publicly. Orlando buckled and a new vote was taken at the next meeting. The vote was for APPOINTMENT. Meanwhile the press had been interviewing candidates asking if they would run for office if an election were held. DEAN NELSON indicated he would (despite having recently run an arduous and time-consuming campaign), but REBECCA JONES told the press she was unsure if she would be willing to campaign for the seat in a special election if she wasn't appointed, she said;"I'd have to weigh that. It would be also that you'd have to turn around and run again in a year and a half," she said. "That's a lot to ask anyone to do -- a lot of money and time." Apparently NELSON was willing to go the distance if required but Jones thought it might be too much trouble for her. There was a large public outcry for the council to appoint DEAN NELSON since he had actually run for the office, was well qualified, had received a large percentage of votes, obviously had the voters confidence and was willing to run another campaign if need be despite having just finished an exhaustive campaign which included him walking neighborhoods all over San Marcos, knocking on doors, attending meetings and forums and so on. Eleven candidates applied for the position including NELSON and JONES. The mayor, Desmond, had the right to make the selection followed by a council vote on each proposed name. After all candidates made a presentation about themselves, Desmond shocked the council chambers by stating "I don't want another middle-aged white guy on the council.", thus obliterating any chance DEAN NELSON had of being appointed based on his skin color, gender, and age. DESMOND nominated REBECCA JONES who received the three predictable votes from DESMOND/MARTIN/ORLANDO and she was sworn in that night. During the Q&A of the candidates, Jones was asked if she had worked on Desmond's campaign. Though it was known in some circles that she had hosted fundraisers for him, she further strained her credibility by telling the crowd that she had "washed his signs" during the election. Her performance on the council has been an embarrassment. She votes in lockstep with her crony appointers and make vapid remarks that continually demonstrate her inexperience, lack of understanding and inferior knowledge. The manipulation of that appointment process by the seated council was blatant. Current Planning Commission Chairman, Steve Kildoo told the NCT that he had been asked by a council member to apply for the spot as a filler candidate and in another article, several of the candidates admitted that they too were directed to apply. Apparently Jim Desmond and Company didn't think it would look convincing if there wasn't a wide field before they appointed their designated "will vote as she's told" appointee. In this 2008 election, DEAN NELSON is the only candidate running against the incumbents, MARTIN and JONES. There's a certain poetic justice in that because he was basically robbed of a seat in 2006 and the voters were robbed of a chance to elect their own representation by the conniving Desmond/Martin political machine. NELSON couldn't get an appointment from the Chicago style political boss Desmond because Desmond knew he couldn't dictate to NELSON how to vote. This unbalanced, lopsided radical council, has consistently side-stepped the rules, violated the city's General Plan, and put developer interests way above the interests of the city's citizens, tax-payers, and homeowners while claiming they are the "new San Marcos". If Rebecca Jones is a symbol of the "new San Marcos", heaven help us all.

Haute Flashes wrote on Aug 12, 2008 4:42 PM:I can tell you all from experience that "Bullet Voting" is very effective.
Most of the SEH's neighborhoods banded together, to try and get "our guy Orlando" elected in 06 and(obviously) it worked great!

The only downside, is that you don't have much, or any control over whom wins the other seat(s). Hence, we also got Preston in the deal too? But that's the price one pays, because it definitely ensures that 'your candidate' gets a leg up.

Question wrote on Aug 12, 2008 5:07 PM:Wow, thanks for the appointment "synopsis."

reply to to question wrote on Aug 12, 2008 5:26 PM:a correction 'to question's' quote below...

as an hearty orlando supporter, i must add that councilman orlando 'did not' vote for ms jones...chris smartly recused himself before the vote was cast. jones then was appointed with a two vote majority.

quote from above
"DESMOND nominated REBECCA JONES who received the three predictable votes from DESMOND/MARTIN/ORLANDO and she was sworn in that night."

Hey REPLY wrote on Aug 12, 2008 9:13 PM:Did Rebecca Jones stop the WalMart in SEH? She often claims credit for that in conversations. Just curious..

I Stand Corrected- To Question wrote on Aug 12, 2008 9:17 PM:Thank you. You are correct about Chris Orlando recusing himself. I stand corrected. He did so because Rebecca Jones had donated (per Mr. Orlando's campaign finance statement) $150 to Mr. Orlando's campaign and the campaign finance regulations dictate that having received a contribution greater than the anonymous $99, he was required to bow out of the vote. He did NOT however bow out of the earlier vote to APPOINT rather than ELECT, despite the fact that this vote was what made it possible for Jones to be appointed and thus benefit from his vote. After Mr. Orlando recused himself from voting on Jones' nomination, the City Attorney stated that she had discussed the matter with Orlando and the $150 was not cash, but a ticket to a charity event and she ruled that under a new regulation, he did not have to recuse himself from voting on matters pertaining to Ms. Jones. Too late, the die was cast and Mr. Orlando side-stepped a sticky situation.

Concerning wrote on Aug 12, 2008 9:25 PM:"To Question" is generally correct (with some exaggerations). The idea that one is "qualified" though, needs more examination. If involvement in various commissions, task forces, community organizations, etc. qualifies someone, then Dean Nelson was arguably the most qualified of all the 2006 candidates. He certainly was more well known than Chris Orlando. That he worked as hard as To Question claims, and could only muster 20% raises serious questions. Just because your everywhere in the city (and there are several citizens who meet this description), it doesn't mean people will like you, support you, vote for you, or that you're going to be any good as an office holder. This is going to be a very interesting election.

Question wrote on Aug 12, 2008 10:08 PM:Between the synopsis and the link to the NCTimes article, we got a fairly good idea of the events of the council meeting. Thanks again for taking the time.

But the one glaring question we have, is how does two votes, constitute a majority? Even with one council seat empty, that only gets to 50% at best?

I'm sure the city has some sort of guideline, in the event something like this happens? Even so, I think it's high time San Marcos changes this, so it automatically goes to the "next highest vote" recipient. That is the only possible way that is truly fair.

Katrina wrote on Aug 13, 2008 6:05 PM:Any intelligent Woman, with any semblance of self-respect, should have reported the City of San Marcos for blatant sex discrimination regarding the Jones appointment.

When a woman is discriminated against, we all scream "bloody murder" but when it goes against our brothers, we tend to say "oh well?"

Well, if we ever want to be taken seriously, we need to stand up against "inequality" for both genders.

This only promulgates the stereotypes that women need the "big strong man" to hand us what we are unable to attain ourselves.

Katrinas right wrote on Aug 13, 2008 6:59 PM:I am outraged that this city council had that gall to not appoint another middle aged white guy to our city council. Only reverse sexism could have allowed such a travesty.

To Question and To Concerning wrote on Aug 14, 2008 3:13 AM:Once again "Question", you've asked an excellent question! Let me take a stab at this one too. The reason 2 votes constituted a majority in this case was because at the time, there were only four seats on the council filled. As you may recall, Desmond moved from Councilman to Mayor leaving his council seat vacant thus requiring an election or appointment to fill it. Chris Orlando had to recuse himself because Rebecca Jones had given him a $150 campaign contribution and since he had benefited from her largess, campaign finance regulations forbade him from participating in a vote which would benefit her (thus eliminating the possibility of a quid pro quo). That left only three council members to vote on her appointment. Jim Desmond for whom she performed the service of "washing his signs" (whatever that means) during his campaign nominated her and Hal Martin (her mentor/handler) voted for her and Mike Preston voted against her. Preston had voted for holding a special election and he, like many of the other applicants for the appointment were in favor of appointing DEAN NELSON. Many applicants stated in their personal presentation to the council that they felt the truly fair thing to do was to appoint Nelson, but their appeals fell on deaf ears since, I believe, Jones could be counted on to vote with Desmond and Martin, but Nelson was known NOT to be in complete lockstep with them and was capable of some independent (and thus inconvenient) thought. His fate therefore at the hands of this council was sealed. Now, TO CONCERNING: 20% of the vote is a VERY healthy percentage when you consider there were SEVEN candidates dividing 100% of the vote. Chris Orlando won first spot with 28% and Mike Preston was only about 3/4ths of a percentage point behind him so, in that context, Dean Nelson wasn't that far behind the winners, especially when you realize that the next four candidates were a good ten point or more behind Nelson. No, I have to disagree with your disparagement of his showing. But obviously, placing third when there are only two seats isn't a winning position UNLESS you consider, as so many people did, that since there were ultimately THREE SEATS available he was certainly FAR MORE qualified and deserving of a council seat than Rebecca Jones. Another perspective that should be examined by the voters in that and every electionis how much money each candidate spent AND where that money came from. Chris Orlando for example spent about a whopping $36,000 approx. while Nelson spent only about $20,000. When you see candidates who are largely funded by builders and developers and their wives, children, partners, employees etc. and when you see LOTS of out of town and out of State contributions, it's time to start asking yourself why those people are so interested in getting candidate X elected. I for one would like to see every San Marcos resident contribute to the candidate of their choice even if it's just $5 because otherwise all those glossy expensive brochures stuffed in your mailbox pre-election that help sway the outcome of the election are the voice of special interests not the voice of the people. There's been so much flim-flam maneuvering to side-step campaign finance regulations in the last few elections you practically need a degree in forensic accounting to figure out what's going on.

Excuses Already wrote on Aug 14, 2008 6:45 AM:Is the "To Question and To Concerning" post an early excuse for Nelson's loss. First, to blanket the winners as being funded by developers is totally misleading, and simply an attempt to smear the campaigns of Desmond and Orlando, who both worked very hard for their respective victories. The vast majority of both of their contributors were regular San Marcans, not "developers." By the way, isn't it a bit sexist to say "developers and their wives." What, developers can't be women?

No Excuses wrote on Aug 14, 2008 11:36 AM:If one person can lose
eight elections, then become one of the Best, if not the Best Presidents in US history, then one loss should not end a person's political career. Actually, nothing teaches a candidate more about the pulse and feel of the citizens, than by getting out there and campaigning.

Chris Orlando is the perfect example of persevering and learning from his past experience. He "lost" in 04 by coming in fourth in a two seat race, then in 06, he finished first with a very strong and impressive effort.

Letting the voters decide is the only way to decide who IS ready to serve and who IS NOT...May the best person(s) win.

TO Excuses Already wrote on Aug 14, 2008 2:52 PM:You're right EA, Desmond and Orlando did work very hard for their respective victories...But unfortunately, we'll never know 'for sure' just how much any other candidate is now beholden to certain developers, contractors & special interests, etc.

We the citezens must now DEMAND that the farcical "$99 loophole" be eliminated immediately!

Otherwise, the candidates will continue to rake in bushel after bushel full
of $99 checks...from whomever, with ZERO public accountability?

Transparency is essential. Especially from our San Marcos politicians, whom many have well deserved reputations, as "Morally Handicapped."

Rebecca Jones-Me First Nimby wrote on Aug 14, 2008 3:42 PM:According to her speech the night she was appounted, the people of Twin Oaks have Rebecca Jones to thank for offloading the Casa de Amparo project (the residential school for kids with problems) out of her neighborhood and into Twin Oaks near our Elementary School. After she opposed the project for months claiming it was unsafe to have it near HER neighborhood's kids, because of the abusive/violent and drug using family members that would visit or stalk their children at the project, the night of the Council meeting, when Jones was appointed, she bragged publicly and proudly, "I found a better location for it (Casa de Amparo)". This was said to demonstrate her council qualifying quality of resourcefulness. The question is, if it was too dangerous to be near HER and HER neighbors' children how did she justify pushing it off into another part of the community where there are even more children (neighborhood kids and 1,000 kids at an Elementary school and a large park) who would be exposed to the same risks? Having ended her problem so successfully, she bowed out of helping Twin Oaks fight Amparo saying she was too busy.

Realect Jones wrote on Aug 14, 2008 8:07 PM:It was NOT Rebbeccas responsibility to find a place for casa de amparo! It was just her responsibility to STOP it in her neighborhood! If those people in Twin Oaks really didnt want casa they would have STOPPED it like Rebbecca! Now tell me whos the REAL LEADER!

To Hey REPLY wrote on Aug 14, 2008 9:19 PM:Jones did not stop WalMart.She jumped on the anti WalMart campaign at the tail end for some political traction. Other factors stopped a 2nd WalMart, not Jones.

Sauce for the Goose.. wrote on Aug 15, 2008 6:26 AM:Isn't Jones LARGEST customer in her business Wal-Mart ? Are her actions what you call being a leader ? I wonder what the exec's at Wal-Mart would say if they knew that she worked against them ? My guess is that they wouldn't be too happy. As far as it being her RESPONSIBILITY to keep Casa De Amparo out of her neighborhood, couldn't the exact same thing be said of others who wish to keep their neighborhoods safe ? Methinks that sauce for the goose is certainly sauce for another.

to Realect Jones wrote on Aug 15, 2008 6:32 AM:You should learn how to spell "re-elect," which is impossible to do in the case of Jones because she has yet to be elected! She was "appointed," remember??????

NIMBY Jones wrote on Aug 15, 2008 8:27 AM:It was NOT Rebbeccas responsibility to find a place for casa de amparo! It was just her responsibility to STOP it in her neighborhood! This defines NIMBY....

RE Question wrote on Aug 15, 2008 9:08 AM:"Question" here's another copy and paste article from the NCTimes. It's quite interesting.

http://www.nctimes.com/articles/2007/01/24/news/inland/san_marcos/23_18_131_23_07.txt

ELECT Jones wrote on Aug 15, 2008 9:16 AM:Rebbecca was ELECTED by the MAYOR and COUNCILMAN MARTIN that is GOOD enough!!!

to ELECT JONES wrote on Aug 15, 2008 9:29 AM:Boy, you really have a tough time with English. She was "appointed," not "elected." Her name is spelled "Rebecca," not "Rebbecca." Are you sure you're capable of responsible voting? Are you from Florida?

NOT ELECTED wrote on Aug 15, 2008 11:05 AM:She was NOT elected. She was APPOINTED. She was appointed by two council members. Big deal ! Too bad, too. If this qualifies as an election, then we are in trouble !.. If this is an election, why don't we just stop voting and let desmond and martin appoint everybody. Why not ? This is STILL a democracy, last time I looked.

Elect Jones wrote on Aug 15, 2008 11:54 AM:Yeah well when MAYOR DESMOND ans his righthand man COUNCILMAN HAL MARTIN ""voted"" for HER then VOTING is the same as ELECTING!!!!! Right???? YES!!!!

Its Martins Council wrote on Aug 15, 2008 1:14 PM:FYI people, Hal is no-one's, I repeat, no-one's "right-hand man."

In fact, Jim is forever "indebted" to Hal, for Hal getting Desmond elected, and Jim knows it and he best not forget it...

Martins Council wrote on Aug 15, 2008 1:56 PM:Does Martin own the council ? Since Jim Desmond is "indebted" to him, and Jones is too, since she was appointed by those two ONLY, then he surely owns the majority of the council's decisions, for certain. I wonder if Martin owes someone else ? Interesting.

Hal wrote on Aug 15, 2008 2:24 PM:Supporters for Hal finally raise their heads! I was beginning to think the only two in this race were Nelson and Jones, by all the blogs?

Yes, Hal is the "velvet hammer" whom runs and owns the San Marcos council. Desmond, Orlando & Jones all rode on Hal's wide coattails right into their council seats.

Orlando has been the only "Turncoat" so far. He threw Hal & Desmond under the bus, by totally bailing on them in council chambers, during the appointment meeting... We've been told that Orlando didn't even give Hal, Or Jim, a heads up that he was going to pull that trick? He left them two just swinging in the wind. Nice, thanks for the great team play, Orlando?

to ELECT JONES wrote on Aug 15, 2008 4:06 PM:Yes, yes, you must be from Florida. Or did you ditch your government class in high school? Appointment processes are not elections. Elections are when The People get to fill out ballots and every person in that district has the opportunity to vote, not two "middle-aged white guys" usurping the will of the people. She could have been "elected" had there been an "ELECTION," but instead it was an "APPOINTMENT." I really don't understand why that is so difficult to comprehend for you. Buy a dictionary.

Elect Jones wrote on Aug 15, 2008 7:57 PM:Dont know why your thinking I'm from florida? I've lived in San Marcos since
way before most of you!!!!!!!!!

Orlando For Mayor wrote on Aug 15, 2008 8:55 PM:Regarding the "Hal" post... Chris is hardly a "Turncoat" as you claim. Reality is, Chris has a moral compass that doesn't waver and(thank goodness) wouldn't allow himself to get drawn into such a cabal.

to ELECT JONES wrote on Aug 15, 2008 9:23 PM:Well, I am growing tired of explaining things to you, so if you don't understand the Florida reference, you'll have to ask someone else. Perhaps you should research the presidential elections of 2000. It scares me that people like you vote.

icky wrote on Aug 15, 2008 10:18 PM:I'm a voyeur by nature, so I usually just sit back and watch. But on this issue, I feel like my young daughter when she exclaims "mommy that's real icky!"

If just half the stated facts posted here are true, then I'm absolutely SHOCKED that more citezens aren't pounding their fists in disgust?

The voters(me included) need to be more proactive. We will support Nelson this election and Orlando in 2010, if he chooses to run again.

Maybe this will sink in wrote on Aug 16, 2008 12:05 AM:Desmond and Martin voted to appoint Jones. They didn't elect her; they selected her. I can decide whether my family gets chicken or ham for dinner by letting the kids vote on the choice. That doesn't mean we hold an election, nor does it mean the ham was elected.

To Maybe... wrote on Aug 16, 2008 7:53 AM:Good job. Now folks have the picture, maybe. Since word was that Jones had already been "selected" to be the "appointed", and nobody else was even considered, it really is up to us to make a statement on the occurrences - we can make the difference. If so, Bullet Vote for Dean Nelson, since commenters are stating that Martin already owns the council. Make a difference ! It is up to us. Experience should count.

do the right thing wrote on Aug 16, 2008 9:52 AM:with the name of jones being spread about town pre-appointment, could anyone have an old email(direct to you, or forwarded) in their inbox, or archives, that has jim desmond, or hal martin stating that they were going to appoint rebecca jones? or any email where jones states that she was going to be appointed?

if you so, do the right thing for the city & citizenry, & send it on to the nctimes, district attorney, & or the grand jury.

these people are so dangerously arrogant with their power, that they were very sloppy in the execution of their plan. with such carelessness, they would have left a trail somewhere...

Reply to icky wrote on Aug 16, 2008 8:57 PM:You are right "icky" ALL of us citizens of San Marcos need to step up and get the word out about this unjust travesty.

Dean Nelson is obviously the "ONLY" choice in this coming election.

So, get involved, make sure you & your family & friends are registered to vote, put Dean's signs in your yards and on your vehicles, attend all the debates and forums, ask the tough questions and DEMAND straight answers, then most importantly, get the vote out on election day.