Thursday, June 25, 2009

CM PRESS # 733

LATINO ACTIVIST CHARGED WITH VOTE FRAUD
Where there's smoke there's often fire.

# # #
IS THE PARKS AND RECREATION COMMISSION BEING RUN RIGHT? IS IT TIME TO ABOLISH THE COMMISSION AND SAVE MONEY?

By law, Costa Mesa must have a Planning Commission. However, there is no such law requiring a city to have a Parks and Recreation Commission (PRC), and many cities consider such commissions wasteful and don't have them.

The Costa Mesa PRC just costs taxpayers' money (we have to pay these commissioners and the staff--often on overtime--involved with the commission) and they really don't do very much.

In Costa Mesa, the PRC was started by the City Council years ago to handle a few matters that would ordinarily go before the Planning Commission or the City Council.

These days, there are very few items that go before the PRC, but the money we pay to have this commission is still being spent.

Frankly, we think it may be time to do away with the PRC to save money and have matters handled more professionally by the Planning Commission and the City Council.

OUR LATEST BAD EXPERIENCE

Yesterday, the CM PRESS took time from our busy schedule to attend what was billed as a "Study Session" of the PRC. It started at 5:15 PM. We were the only member of the public in attendance and we sat patiently while the commissioners and staff ate food paid for by citizens while discussing various matters of interest to the public.

Finally, at about 5:55 PM, Chairman Kurt Galitski announced that the PRC would now end the Study Session and go into the main chambers for the regularly scheduled PRC meeting.

At this point, we spoke up and said we had some public comments we'd like to make.

Galitski then disrespectfully tried to dismiss us out of hand and we were told there would be no public comments because this was a dinner session.

We pointed out that the public (us) had been notified in writing that this was a Study Session and that at both the City Council and Planning Commission Study Sessions public comments were always welcome. We also asked if Galitski and the others thought we had just come to sit there for almost an hour and watch them eat and mumble.

We even held up the written notice to the public, clearly showing, in bold black ink, that it was a Study Session, but we were still arrogantly denied our right to speak. We persisted some more and we were finally able to address the PRC, but not until some in attendance had left the room and some others had snickered.

WHAT WE SAID

We pointed out the hateful, ignorant and false smears written by a poster who used the name "galitski" in the Daily Pilot. As we were speaking, Chairman Galitski loudly interrupted us and said those were his comments. We think we heard him laugh at this point. We told him that we had the podium and that he shouldn't interrupt, but he still tried to talk over us.

Actually,we were seeking confirmation that he really did write what we saw in the paper and he confirmed it.

We then asked Galitski to publicly state what he was basing his smears on and to tell everyone where he got the false ideas that he presented in his post. He refused and just said that they were his opinions.

We pointed out that they didn't sound like opinions but were presented as though they were facts. We also pointed out that a fact is something that can be proven true or not. We further pointed out that Galitski's alleged "facts" were not true.

SO WHAT'S GOING ON?

It seems to us that this Galitski character is a smug liberal. It also seems to us that many liberals have closed minds and can't or won't distinguish between various shadings of meanings in things said or written by conservatives or others they don't agree with, and take a ham handed approach as they mangle and blur words and concepts to fit their preconceived notions as they attempt to silence and smear those who don't buy their lefty agendas. We don't silence easily.

For example, when we say that Costa Mesa is too illegal alien friendly, or that Costa Mesa's gangs are Latino (a fact supplied by the CMPD) and that we need to rid the city of the gangs, or if we say the Westside needs to be improved to attract upwardly mobile professionals, a none too bright liberal or someone with malice and/or a lefty agenda might try to twist that into us saying that we're trying to chase brown people out of Costa Mesa.

That seems to be the type of twisting that Galitski went through when he wrote his attempted smear of us. We've seen similar things written by a couple of kooks in this city, and Galitski's comments seem to mirror the comments of the kooks almost exactly. Birds of a feather?

Oh, and in his stupid post to the Daily Pilot, Galitski also wrote this: "In fact, you wanted the city to spend more money investigating each and every person of the league to make sure they were not convicts." This is also a total falsehood and the tape of the meeting in question shows that it's false.

We also pointed out that in our observations of Galitski on the commission, that it seems he wants to push things through without thinking them through.

We also noted that Galitski's comments in the Pilot indicate, to us at least, that he lacks the proper temperament, intelligence and maturity to chair the commission. Of course, we also base this view on seeing Galitski's act during some discussions some time ago about some other park matters.

AT THE REGULAR MEETING

After the Study Session, we said similar things at the regular meeting so that we could get Galitski's confirmation on tape that his comments in the Pilot truly were his. He accommodated us.

In addition to the above, it seemed to us that the regular meeting was poorly run by Galitski.

For example, another member of the public had to go to the podium on a point of order because Galitski hadn't properly announced the result of a vote so that people in the audience could tell what had just been voted on. Galitski also tried to silence this member of the public but this citizen also persisted and got a few words in.

Galitski may also have allowed a vote on a matter without taking public comments (we're unclear about this point, because of the poor way the meeting was run).

HOW ABOUT IT CITY COUNCIL?

Is it time to abolish the PRC and save the money?

Do we need this commission? In our tough economic times, wouldn't the money we waste on this commission be better spent elsewhere?

Wouldn't the more professional Planning Commission be able to handle the matters now going to the PRC in a more efficient manner and with some economy of scale?

# # #
Those are our opinions. Thanks for reading them. You can also send us your opinons. Please consider using some identity other than "anonymous," to avoid confusion.

No comments:

Post a Comment

CM PRESS # 836

BLACK ON WHITE ATTACKS ON RISE--SWEPT UNDER RUG #                                                                    #                    ...