(3/23/08) Editorial by Bill Coburn 

City Clerk Nancy Shollenberger responded to my e-mail asking if she would reimburse the City for expenses incurred due to her error on the Sample Ballot by saying that she would be making a public announcement at the Kiwanis candidate forum and the City Council meeting this Tuesday.  The implication is that Ms. Shollenberger will be announcing that she will reimburse the City for costs associated with the mistake she made on the sample ballot.  We'll have to wait and see.  But it is appropriate that Ms. Shollenberger reimburse the City for the cost of fixing her mistake.  Other City Clerks have lost their jobs over similar issues.  But the costs as they stand today are a small part of what the City will have to pay if the loser of this election chooses to challenge it, which would be a very reasonable course of action in a situation like this.  So Ms. Shollenberger’s error has again exposed the City to potentially major expense, just as her error from 1993 to 2001 did, when she failed to make sure City ordinances had been published.  Two such major errors, along with other smaller ones through the years, indicate that the exemplary record Ms. Shollenberger claims, isn’t quite what it’s made out to be.  Ms. Shollenberger has worked long and hard for this City, but as the Pasadena Star News said in their City Clerk endorsement of Karma Bell, it’s time for a change. 

(3/19/08) City Clerk No Stranger to Controversy – Ballot Error Just the Latest in String of Issues Involving City Clerk

An Editorial By Bill Coburn 

The error on the sample ballot under City Clerk Nancy Shollenberger’s stewardship is just the latest in a series of issues that have occurred

through the years, ranging from outdated handbooks being given to candidates, concerns over judgment regarding partiality, to an eight-year period in which no ordinances

were published, and thus did not officially become law.

Ordinances Not Published for Eight Years

In 2001, it was discovered that none of the ordinances passed by the City since 1993 had been published, one of the steps that is required to make them law.  More than 

80 laws had not officially become law, because they had not been published, leaving the City exposed to significant liability.  Had someone sued the City over its failure to 

enact a law, there could have been severe monetary penalties awarded.  The City Council had to re-pass the ordinances so that they could be published.  Government Code 

40806 states that it is the City Clerk’s responsibility to: Keep a book marked "ordinances" and record in it all city ordinances with his certificate annexed to 

each, stating: (a) It is a true and correct copy of a city ordinance; (b) The ordinance number;  (c) It has been published or posted pursuant to law.   Government Code

36933 concerning City Clerk responsibility states -  Publishes ordinances.

Residents Concerned About “Impartial” Election Officer Taking Positions on Candidates/Measures

City Clerk and Election Officer Shollenberger has worked from her home, without keeping any office hours at City Hall, for years.  Effective Feb. 1st, when the new resolution 

detailing the description of her duties went into effect, she began working from City Hall for 1 hour each week.  But much City business is still conducted at her home, and 

residents travel to her home to pick up documents.  Through the years, Shollenberger has chosen to put up lawn signs endorsing candidates and/or ballot measures, to the 

consternation of many residents who feel that as Election Officer, she should present an appearance of impartiality.  At a recent Candidate forum sponsored by the Rotary 

Club, Shollenberger was asked about whether it was appropriate to have lawn signs endorsing candidates in her yard, which is, effectively, the office of the City Clerk.  Ms. 

Shollenberger acknowledged that this is an issue that has been coming up for years, and that she has freedom of speech, and if City Council Members can put up lawn 

signs, why shouldn't she?  She added that she had consulted an attorney and he had informed her that it was perfectly legal to do it.  Many of her critics feel that whether 

she has a legal right to put up the signs or not, her role as Election Officer makes it inappropriate to do so.  Residents look to their Council Members to take a stand, to 

have opinions, to make endorsements, to, in some cases, lead us by helping us in our own decision making process.  But we look to our City Clerk, our Election Officer, 

to ensure a fair election, free of bias.  And if I'm a voter driving up to Ms. Shollenberger's house to pick up a document, and I see lawn signs endorsing candidates, I'm going 

to have to wonder about that.  If I’m a candidate, and I see that the Election Officer is endorsing my opponent, this too, would cause me to have to wonder.  This wouldn't 

be such a big issue for me if the City Clerk business was all done at City Hall, and it was merely her private residence that had signs up.  I still think it would be wrong to 

do that, but it wouldn't be as big an issue.  But she does much of her City Clerk work from her home.  People go to her home on official city business.  In essence, her 

home is the office of the City Clerk, an extension of City Hall.  And as such, I think it should be free of even the appearance of potential bias for or against candidates.  I 

wouldn’t want to see lawn signs out in front of City Hall.  I also take issue with the fact that she admits that members of her constituency have had a problem with this 

for years, but she ignores them and just does what she wants.

Council Refusal to Increase Compensation Leads to Shollenberger “Giving Up Duties”

The subject of additional compensation for taking minutes has also been controversial in town, on three separate occasions over the last twelve years.  Government Code 

40801 states that the City Clerk shall - Keep an accurate record of the proceeding of the legislative body in books bearing appropriate titles and devoted exclusively to such 

purposes, respectively.  The books shall have a comprehensive general index.  Government Code 36814 regarding a City Clerk’s duties states that the City Clerk – Keeps 

a correct record of the Council’s proceedings.  In November of 1996, City Attorney Charlie Martin recommended to the Council that they set the City Clerk’s pay to be a 

stipend of $250/mo, plus a fixed fee of $650/mo for secretarial services.  Council Member Maryann MacGillavray was opposed to the idea, and moved that the pay be set 

at $250, without the additional pay for secretarial services, but the motion died for lack of a second.  After much discussion, the Council voted 4 to 1 to continue the City 

Clerk’s payment as proposed by Attorney Martin.

In 2003, Shollenberger billed the City $650 for August, when there had been no City Council meetings, and therefore no minutes, and then City Manager Tammy Gates 

refused to pay Shollenberger.  Shollenberger asked to have the matter agendized.  At the October 13, 2003 City Council meeting, Gates described the current duties of the 

City Clerk: for the $250 stipend, the City Clerk was to sign resolutions and ordinances, sign agreements, act as Notary, administer Oath of Office, and handle Litigation

Requests.  For an additional $650/mo, she took minutes of the City Council meetings, ensured that Fair Political Practice Committee forms were complete and forwarded 

to the FPPC, published ordinances in the newspaper and sent copies to the publisher of the code, and did general filing of resolutions, ordinances and minutes.  An 

additional $5,500 was allocated for conducting the election.  Shollenberger was requesting additional compensation, increasing the $650 minutes fee by more than half 

to $1000, and raising the fee for conducting the election by more than one third, to $7500.  Shollenberger said that if the Council does not agree to the revised fee structure, 

she would be willing to give up the duties described for the election and the additional $650/mo. Shollenberger added that she now felt that the issue of her compensation 

needed to be addressed.  “This has been a growing problem for me, and I can no longer tender to the City competent services for a fee that is not financially worthy of 

my doing.”  Ten members of the community stepped to the microphone to show their support for Shollenberger.  Then Mayor Bart Doyle then closed the public portion of 

the proceedings.

Council Members Doug Hayes and Tonya Torres noted that as far as they were concerned, Nancy had refused to do the work she was elected to do unless she got a 

raise, with Hayes adding that if Shollenberger was willing to continue at the same rate, he would like her to continue. Torres noted that the City was in the middle of a 

serious budget problem and they were trying to make this work for everybody, but the Council had been presented with an ultimatum.  Council Member Rob Stockly 

stated that before the next election, the duties and compensation of the City Clerk needed to be clarified.  Council Member George Maurer showed strong support for 

the City Clerk.  “Nancy put her foot down and she was right to do it.”  Mayor Doyle stated that the problem needed to be resolved, and that if money is more important 

than public service, maybe it is time to step down.  

Doyle moved that the pay remain as it was, but the motion died.  Council Member Hayes moved that the election amount be increased to $7500 for the next election.  

That motion died, too.  Ultimately, the meeting ended with the status quo, with a call for a resolution at the next meeting or the first meeting of November.  At the October 

27th meeting, it was decided to re-define the City Clerk’s allocation of duties, following the April 2004 election.  The City Clerk would have specific responsibilities associated

with the stipend pay, and oversight of the remaining duties, with clerical functions delegated to a staff member.  That staff member was paid $500/mo.  

When staff member Debbie Humphrey recently left to take a new job, there was a void at the minutes taking position.  City Clerk Shollenberger was contacted to obtain 

information regarding duties and compensation she would be requesting for said duties.  Shollenberger said that she would continue to do the $250/mo. duties for that 

stipend, and would be willing to keep the election rate, now at $6500, the same.  However, in a letter dated Dec. 14, 2007, she requested an increase in pay for the 

clerical duties to $1000/mo.  On Jan. 2, 2008, correspondence was received from the City Clerk stating that she would leave the matter of her compensation to the Council’s discretion.  

Ultimately, the decision was made to continue with the pay scale of $250/mo stipend, $650 for clerical duties such as minutes and FPPC forms, and $6500 for elections. 

Effective Feb. 1, Shollenberger again became responsible for these duties, at the same rate she had rejected four years earlier.  As a condition of the new resolution, she 

is required to keep regular “office hours” at City Hall, particularly during election season.

Candidate Statement Tells Only Part of the Story

Although Shollenberger decided to stop taking minutes when the Council decided not to increase her compensation, her campaign statement reflects an abbreviated

version of events.  The statement says that “A select few City Council Members decided to change the Minute Taking process.”  It does not reflect the fact that the

decision to change the process was made after her decision to give up the minute taking responsibilities because the Council would not agree to her request for increased compensation.

Candidates Given Outdated Candidate Handbook

Candidates in this year’s election were given a 1995 Candidate handbook by the City Clerk.  The problem with that is that at least one ordinance has changed since 1995,

 in 2003.  This means that candidates in the last 3 elections have received handbooks which inaccurately reflect the current Sierra Madre election ordinances.

Lack of Attention to Detail Nearly Misinforms Voters About Vote By Mail System

I recently decided to do an article on absentee ballots, because this year's election falls during spring break for Sierra Madre schools.  I informed our City Clerk of this,

and asked her about the process so that I could provide the information in my newspaper article.  She sent me two sentences.  And one of those had an error in it.  Her

response was "Sample Ballots will be out between March 10-13 and the request for vote-by-mail ballots is on the back.  You can request from March 13-April 1st." 

No mention of Permanent Vote By Mail ballots or how to initiate that process.  No mention of emergency absentee ballots, which can be gotten between April 1st and

election day.  And her statement that you can request from March 13 was off by 3 days, as you can actually request beginning March 10th, per the Election calendar

posted on the website of Martin and Chapman.  Martin and Chapman is the large Orange County consulting firm Shollenberger uses and the City pays to conduct the

election, above and beyond the $6500 Shollenberger receives for conducting the election.

I then asked for more information, about a couple dozen questions.  She responded to many of them, but not all.  There were about half a dozen questions that didn't

get answered.  But her failure to answer questions is not as big a deal as the whopper of an error that was included in her e-mail to me.  I quote: "As long as a Vote By

Mail ballot is postmarked by April 1 we will count it or the resident can take it to the polling place."  This seemed a little strange to me, and since I was going to be

attempting to inform readers throughout the San Gabriel Valley, I wanted to double check the info, so I called her at home.  She was very gracious, accepting my call

a little before 9 in the evening, which she really didn't have to do.  I asked her, "...if a voter sends you their ballot and it's postmarked April 2nd, and you receive it April

5th, 3 days before the election, you're still going to discard it because it's postmarked after April 1st?"  She said that was the case, that they had to be postmarked by

April 1st or brought to the polling place.  As the conversation continued, though, she realized her error, and acknowledged that she had made an error, that she must

have been thinking about the application for an absentee ballot, which have to be postmarked by the first, that she could in fact accept absentee ballots right up until

election day.  Had I not questioned the date, I would have misled readers throughout the San Gabriel Valley, based on Ms. Shollenberger's misinformation.

Thank goodness this year we have an alternative candidate to vote for.  As a friend of mine, a true old time Sierra Madrean that has lived here for decades, said to me

recently, “Karma Bell looks very good.”

(3/15/08, modified 3/16/08) Why Sierra Madre Needs Karma Bell

Editorial by Bill Coburn

Karma Bell wants to establish regular office hours for the City Clerk.  And Karma Bell wants to spend those City Clerk hours actually in the place where much City Government business takes place - City Hall.  There's a novel concept.  A City Clerk, who is accessible to her constituents for multiple hours each week, in City Hall.  Karma Bell has shown herself to be an effective administrator, as president of Sierra Madre Little League, Sierra Madre PTA, and Sierra Madre Chamber of Commerce.  Karma Bell has organized and managed the Wistaria Festival, an event that requires management skills far beyond those that a City Election, probably the most formidable task in the City Clerk's job description, requires.  Karma Bell believes that the office of the City Clerk should give the appearance of impartiality.  She'll still have her opinions, but she won't be broadcasting them, recognizing that her position as manager of the City's election requires her to maintain the appearance of impartiality.  She recognizes that sometimes freedom of speech is best exercised by remaining silent.

- And Why Sierra Madre Voters Need to Retire Nancy Shollenberger

There is just so much to say here, I don't know where to begin.  But I'll try, recognizing that this is going to get longer as I find answers to some of the things I'm researching.  Get out your reading glasses, grab a cup of coffee or a bottle of water (or wine, whatever your preference), because this is going to be a long one.

I think I'll start with some of the most recent, and work my way backwards.  Our City Clerk screwed up big time on the April 8th election, and has shown an incredible lack of judgment, transparency and accountability ever since.  Basically, the Argument for Measure P was allowed to be printed in the sample ballot with two glaring errors in it.  Errors that could compromise the integrity of the election.  In the argument, which starts out accurately enough, the Utility Users Tax (Measure U) is twice misidentified as Measure P, and the Police Officer's Association (POA) initiative, Measure P, is misidentified as Measure UA.  The argument, which is signed by all five City Council members, informs voters that the POA has abandoned the initiative, which they had placed on the ballot after collecting the required signatures.  The statement says that the officers had come to the conclusion that their initiative would have "resulted in cutting services the City provides that the Community has come to enjoy and expect."  It states that the POA agreed to accept a more modest salary increase than their measure would have provided, and that the City would provide that increase only if it receives the necessary revenue to do so.    Up to this point things are accurate.  However, in its next two sentences, the argument misidentifies the two ballot measures, stating "Accordingly, the Police Officers Association respectfully asks that the Community vote YES to increase the Utility Users Tax (Measure P) and vote no on the POA initiative (Measure UA)."  The Utility  Users Tax is actually Measure U, and the POA initiative is actually Measure P.   The next sentence incorrectly reads "A YES vote to allow an increase to the Utility Users Tax (Measure P) will provide our public safety employees (police, fire, and paramedics the compensation necessary to keep our experienced and loyal public servants working in Sierra Madre."   It should, of course, identify the Utility Users Tax initiative as Measure U, not P.  Following the argument are the "signatures" of all five City Council members.  If things weren't confusing enough before, they just became significantly more so.

It is the Clerk's responsibility to proof read and submit to the voters an accurate product.  That was obviously not done in this case.  Failure to do so has caused staff to spend time researching the error, and trying to determine how to deal with it.  Now there will be the time spent on preparation of the corrected ballot, the expense of printing it, and the expense of mailing it citywide.  Further, the City Clerk decided to issue a press release as her way of dealing with the situation.  It appears she did not have the City Manager or the City Attorney provide any input on the method of correction, or on the press release she issued.  The office of the City Clerk is a separate entity, responsible only to the voters.  City Council and City Manager have no authority over her, and she is not required to work with the City administration to fix the problem.  However, one would think that with the potential liability to the City caused by her error, a committed team player, who is cooperating with others who are most definitely adversely effected by her error, might consult with them, or at least make them privy to her response to the situation.  Yet she did not even provide a copy of the press release to the City Manager or the City Attorney before releasing it to the press.  And it might have been in her best interest to have had it reviewed by the City Attorney, as her method of dealing with the error includes offering people who have already sent in their ballots the opportunity to receive a replacement ballot.  I've been told by one former Southern California City Clerk that she doesn't know how Ms. Shollenberger intends to replace already received ballots with a replacement ballot without, for lack of a better word, "tampering" with the ballots.

In addition to all the costs associated with correcting the error, there is also the potential that backers of one of the measures effected could challenge the election based on the error.  Such a challenge, if upheld by the court (how much for the City to defend itself?), could, require an expensive replacement special election.

She has failed repeatedly to respond to questions about how this happened.  I sent her a series of direct questions, many of which were questions that voters were asking when I spoke with them.  Among them:

1. Who submitted the Argument in Favor of Measure P?
2. Was it submitted exactly as it appears on the sample ballot?
3. If not, what is different, and how did those changes occur?
4. Is it the City Clerk’s responsibility to check (proofread) said arguments for factual errors such as appeared in this argument?
5. Did you proofread this argument?
6. Even if not required by law, should the City Clerk check for such errors in order to reduce the possibility of the City expending large amounts of money and time investigating and correcting this type of error?
7. If the City Clerk sees a factual error such as those found in the argument, is he/she required to request clarification from the submitters, or in any way notify the submitters that their argument contains errors?

Ms. Shollenberger at one point told me that she would respond to the questions "when decisions on next step have been made.” (sic).  The next step was taken, the release of the press release.  I asked her to respond again at that time, and she has not responded.  I asked a third time, this time asking if she intends to respond, and again have received no response.  Apparently Ms. Shollenberger feels no obligation to respond to a voter who has questions regarding an error by her office that is going to cost the City a lot of money.  (Editor's update: Sunday at 2:25pm, nearly 48 hours after my second request for her to respond to my questions, I received the following from Nancy: Bill,  "I will be answering questions at the Kiwanis luncheon on March 25th.  I have been advised not to answer questions..." )

In fairness, the argument was most likely presented as it was printed in the ballot, with errors intact.  Ms. Shollenberger obviously knows, but won't tell me, for whatever reason.  I've also asked the President of the POA, but have not yet heard back from him, either.  But even if the error was initiated by others, it is Ms. Shollenberger's responsibility to protect the City by making sure that errors like that don't get printed.

Okay, so let's get past this whole sample ballot error stuff.  Item number 2 - A frightening lack of attention to detail that could have had an adverse effect on the voting process.  I recently decided to do an article on absentee ballots, because this year's election falls during spring break for Sierra Madre schools.  I informed our City Clerk of this, and asked her about the process so that I could provide the information in my newspaper article.  She sent me two sentences.  And one of those had an error in it.  Her response was "Sample Ballots will be out between March 10-13 and the request for vote-by-mail ballots is on the back.  You can request from March 13-April 1st."  No mention of Permanent Vote By Mail ballots or how to initiate that process.  No mention of emergency absentee ballots, which can be gotten between April 1st and election day.  And her statement that you can request from March 13 was off by 3 days, as you can actually request beginning March 10th, per the Election calendar posted on the website of Martin and Chapman.  Martin and Chapman is the large Orange County consulting firm Shollenberger uses and the City pays to conduct the election..

I then asked for more information, about a couple dozen questions.  She responded to many of them, but her response to one of them concerns me.  When asked about what happens to ballots after an election, she responded "The ballots are kept by the City Clerk's Office for six months."  The City Clerk's office?  Does that mean her house?  Garage?  I've been told by more than one source that she stores them at her house.  Seems to me they should be stored within the security of City Hall, but maybe that's just me.  Oh wait, it's not, the same ex-City Clerk who told me that replacement ballots were problematic tells me that it's not okay to store ballots at one's home.  There were also about half a dozen questions that didn't get answered.  But her failure to answer questions is not as big a deal as the whopper of an error that was included in her e-mail to me.  I quote: "As long as a Vote By Mail ballot is postmarked by April 1 we will count it or the resident can take it to the polling place."  This seemed a little strange to me, and since I was going to be attempting to inform readers throughout the San Gabriel Valley, I wanted to double check the info, so I called her at home.  She was very gracious, accepting my call a little before 9 in the evening, which she really didn't have to do.  I asked her, "...if a voter sends you their ballot and it's postmarked April 2nd, and you receive it April 5th, 3 days before the election, you're still going to discard it because it's postmarked after April 1st?"  She said that was the case, that they had to be postmarked by April 1st or brought to the polling place.  As the conversation continued, though, she realized her error, and acknowledged that she had made an error, that she must have been thinking about the application for an absentee ballot, which have to be postmarked by the first, that she could in fact accept absentee ballots right up until election day.  Had I not questioned the date, I would have misled readers throughout the San Gabriel Valley, based on Ms. Shollenberger's misinformation.

Item 3 - Lack of sound judgment regarding managing an election.  At the recent candidates' forum, Ms. Shollenberger was asked about whether it was appropriate to have lawn signs out endorsing candidates.  Ms. Shollenberger acknowledged that this is an issue that has been coming up for years, and that she has freedom of speech, and if City Council members can put up lawn signs, why shouldn't she?  She added that she had consulted an attorney and he had informed her that it was perfectly legal to do it.  This is an unresponsive answer.  The question wasn't "is it legal", the question was, "is it appropriate?"  While I don't question Ms. Shollenberger's free speech rights, I would like to point out that the answer to Ms. Shollenberger's question about if City Council members can do it why can't she is this:  we look to our Council members to take a stand, to have opinions, to make endorsements, to, in some cases, lead us by helping us in our own decision making process.  But we look to our City Clerk to ensure a fair election, free of bias.  And if I'm a voter driving up to Ms. Shollenberger's house to pick up an absentee ballot or some other document, and I see lawn signs endorsing candidates, I'm going to have to wonder about that.  This wouldn't be such a big issue for me if the City Clerk business was all done at City Hall, and it was merely her private residence that had signs up.  I still think it would be wrong to do that, but it wouldn't be as big an issue.  But she does most of her work from her home.  People go to her home on official city business.  In essence, her home is the office of the City Clerk.  And as such, I think it should be free of even the appearance of potential bias for or against candidates.  I also take issue with the fact that she admits that members of her constituency have had a problem with this for years, but she ignores them and just does what she wants.

All right, it's after 1 in the morning, and I've just written more than 2,000 words, (and you've just read that much), so I'm going to stop and give us both a break.  But I'll be writing more soon.  Here are a few things I'll be touching on, some of which may take a little longer to get written because there's research involved. 

• Revisionist history in her sample ballot statement regarding taking of the minutes. 

• Absolutely incoherent minutes submitted since she returned (I'll probably be publishing some samples from the media packet that I am provided). 

• Failure to publish ordinances for 7 years straight, exposing the City to extreme liability, and costing it tens of thousands of $$. 

• Providing candidate's with outdated handbooks.

• And there's so much more to add. 

If it weren't sad, it would almost be funny.  But it's not funny.  It's very serious stuff.  This is our town we are talking about here.

(6/16/07)  All-America City - It Really IS a Big Deal!!

Editorial by Bill Coburn

I admit it.  I didn’t get it.  Just like some of you that I’ve talked with over the last few days, I didn’t see what the big deal was.  What’s the big deal about being an All-America City?  I wanted somebody to tell me that it meant that we’d see an increase in revenue for the City, maybe get the boys in blue the pay raise they’ve deserved for too long.  Or maybe that there would be an attendant rise in property values, because after all, “WE’RE AN ALL-AMERICA CITY.” 

When we were named an All-America finalist last year, I thought, okay great.  We didn’t even get named something that I don’t really get the big deal about anyway, we came in second.  I was not the least bit excited. 

But I tend to keep my mind open till I close it, and I knew that many of the people associated with last year’s campaign were people I respect, and people who had/have what I consider to be the best interests of this City at heart, so when this year’s campaign was getting underway, I decided to be a part of it.  For the first several months, I didn’t do much, just published reports about upcoming rallies, etc.  Didn’t get into the nuts and bolts, didn’t work with any of the committees, just showed up at the rallies, wrote my delegate check, now and then put a few words in the paper.

As the competition approached, I got a little more involved.  Decided I’d be a part of the crew that went on stage, help with the presentation to the judges.  Showed up for rehearsals, tried not to get in the way.  Memorized my lines, then had them given to others, so I stopped memorizing them, figuring I’d wait till we were closer to the final rehearsal, and memorize them then.  Helped with a re-write of one section of the script, only to be warned “if you do good at this, next time you’ll be one of the first ones we come to for help with the script.”  Oh great.

I guess because I’ve taken a picture or two of town activities over the years, I was asked if I could help with a video/slideshow that was to be shown at a booth at the competition.  I said sure, and threw together something that I hoped wouldn’t be an embarrassment to the City.  But I still didn’t get it.  As much fun as it was to spend that time re-experiencing these town events through the photos and videos, and being reminded of all the things that make this town so special, I still didn’t get it.  In fact, the last night before the conference began, when I saw the final script, and saw that I now had just one sentence to say, I couldn’t believe I had disrupted my life so drastically, three days worth, for just one line.  And one of those days was a deadline day, which meant trying to get things done from Anaheim on a laptop, instead of at home where everything I need can be accessed with a click of the mouse. 

As I say, I didn’t get it.  Now I do, and couldn’t be happier that I did disrupt my life for those three, very important days.  And I would do it again, without a single line.  Because it’s not about lines, or being the one to express the right words to the judges that makes them decide to vote for your town.  It’s about community, and working together for the benefit of the town we all live in.

I’ve heard it’s been said recently that some of the people who volunteer in this town do it because they like to see their name in the paper.  I can’t help but wonder if maybe the people who say things like that are judging others by their own standards and sentiments.  The people who were a part of this delegation worked so hard, did so much, and not once was there any intimation that any of the people involved were working for their own glory, or to get recognition, in the paper or otherwise.  Not even just to be recognized by their peers.  No one I spoke with who was thanked by anyone in my presence for their efforts wanted to hear a word of it.  They basically deflected everything to the other members of the team.  “Oh, I didn’t do anything, did you see (fill in the name), and how well he/she did what he/she did?”

This event wasn’t about personal glory or recognition.  This event was about everybody pulling together to do something positive for our hometown.  I can’t emphasize enough that word, positive.  Positive.  Everything about this event was positive.   Yes, we were competing.  But we wanted everyone to win, as long as we did, too.  The National Civic League created a forum to build community, and it worked. As Mayor Joffe said in her acceptance speech, “I feel like we all have sixty new friends in this delegation, and hundreds of you out there who are now our friends, too.”   There were people in this delegation that I knew, but now I know them better.  There were people I didn’t know, but now I know them.  We have a shared experience, working together, as a team, to bring recognition to our City, and will always have that memory and that collective affection and appreciation for the work that we did together.  A sense of community.

But we also became a larger community, getting to know the delegates and delegations from other cities.  Learning that all of our small town communities (and larger ones, too) face problems, and that in each of these towns, there are people who, just like in Sierra Madre, pull together for the good of the town.  As delegate Cathy Ryne said “Isn’t it nice that the people of the cities we “hung out” with also won? Yea- Clinton, Dubuque…Polk County with the great black hats, Hickory and Hollywood Florida with the medical van. They were so nice and fun to be with. It’s fun to be winners with them!!” 

Participating in this competition placed Sierra Madre on a national stage, and by winning, we showed that Sierra Madre, small as it is, deserves to be recognized as a community of worth, the equal of any other community in this country.  Some towns flew fifty delegates coast to coast to participate.  I’m told some towns spent $100,000 dollars on their participation.  As I understand it, Sierra Madre spent about $13,000, reportedly all but about $1,000 of which was from donations.

Former City Manager John Gillison sent a congratulatory message to members of the delegation, saying “You all deserve to be very proud of what you worked so hard for.  In true Sierra Madre fashion you pulled together and proved again that what you have in common is stronger than what divides you, and the whole truly is so much more than the sum of the parts.  You should rightfully be very proud and do not let anyone who was not there or does not appreciate the magnitude of what you accomplished take this away from you.  It truly is the first of many great stories that will mark the next 100 years.  Happy Birthday to all my friends in the wonderful City of Sierra of Madre.

Now, Sierra Madre has been through some divisive times lately.  Some of us haven’t been getting along.  Gillison’s heartfelt congratulation message alludes to the possibility that there may be some who don’t want to acknowledge what the group that brought this national recognition to Sierra Madre has actually done for our small town.   The fact of the matter is, Gillison actually addresses one of the reasons why people might feel that way, to my mind.  Never having been there, I didn’t get it.  And I don’t think that anyone who hasn’t been there really can properly appreciate its magnitude. They probably CAN’T get it.  But this is a big deal.  It’s a very big deal.  I know.  I was there.  I saw.  And if you weren’t there, and you didn’t see, I don’t expect you to get it.  But please recognize that there is a possibility that even if you don’t get it, now, you might, if you get involved next time, and you go, and you see.  That’s what happened to me.  It could happen to you.  So get it or not, try to help to mend the fences, try to help re-build the community.  Congratulate your neighbors, congratulate the delegates, feel good about yourself and your town.  This award was given to the entire community, because it was the entire community that created the YAC, the Senior Housing, and addressed the open space issue.  Even if you voted against these ideas, you were still a vital part of the process of determining what the community wanted.  And the community, working together, even with some disagreement, completed these projects that won us this award.  Let’s use winning this award as a rallying point for healing our community.  Because community is what this award is all about.

We are coming up on one of Sierra Madre’s favorite traditions, 4^th of July.  Let’s enjoy the festivities without the animosity.  We are celebrating our Centennial.  That’s one hundred years of community.  Let’s enjoy the Centennial festivities without the animosity.  Let’s work together to find a solution to the fiscal problems we face, and address the issues that confront us, such as finding more money for the police.  Let’s work together, as a community to address these issues, and enjoy the process, without animosity.  We used to be able to disagree with one another, and still respect each other enough to work together to find common ground.  That’s how we’ve survived 100 years.  And that’s how we became an All-America City.  Let’s work to find that ability again.  Let’s prove again that, as Gillison stated, what we have in common is stronger than what divides us, and that the whole truly is so much more than the sum of the parts.  Let’s celebrate who we are and what we do, even if one of the things we do is to sometimes disagree.  Because, as Dereck Okuba of the National Civic League said about communities, “it’s like families, there’s no such thing as perfect families, every family has its issues….a lot of it is that level of belief that is there, that mindset of what is possible, that mindset of spending the energy, not on who’s to blame, and who can I point that finger on, but what can we do together to address that issue.” 

SO CONGRATULATIONS TO SIERRA MADRE.

WE ARE AN ALL-AMERICA CITY!!

AND IT’S A VERY BIG DEAL!

(4/11/07) Why I’m Going to Vote No on Measure V, Part 2

An Editorial by Bill Coburn

2-30-13

Let’s break it down.  Two.  As in two stories.  I talked a little about this in last week’s editorial.  Two is too restrictive, and sets limits on the rights of the downtown property owners that, I can guarantee you, you wouldn’t want placed on you if you owned the property.  Properties on a slope?  Underground parking is still considered one story.  Look how much of a slope there is at the Howie’s parking lot.  You could easily put one story of below grade parking at the south, and two stories above, without blocking anyone’s view, particularly if the stories were stepped.  We shouldn’t need an election to allow that kind of project.  The community can give its input during the planning commission and city council meetings, as they’ve done for a hundred years.

Thirty.  Thirty feet is too restrictive.  Hotel Shirley is 39 feet.  Any church that wants to replace an aging structure with a more modern one, as both Bethany and St. Rita’s have done (yes it was some time ago, but that doesn’t mean it couldn’t happen again), would be limited to 30 feet, or would be required to go through the election process.  Of course, going through the election process, they would not have to do an EIR, so we wouldn’t really know what their project’s effects would be.  Enough said.

Thirteen.  This is the one that really gets me.  There are a lot of people in this town who still don’t know that Renaissance Plaza and Hotel Shirley have residences in them.  I lived here for two or three years before I found out.  Yet Hotel Shirley has a DU ratio of 20/acre, and Renaissance Plaza has a rating of 60/acre.  You read that right.  60 DU per acre, and many people don’t even know that it has a single residence there.  So I guess I don’t see how a DU ratio that is more than 13 is going to devastate the downtown area.  I think we could realistically exceed 13 by quite a bit before finding ourselves beset by serious negative impact.

And another thing.  If, say, 72 units are built in a residential area, the people at those 72 residences will have to drive through the downtown to get home or to do business in other cities, and they will most likely drive back downtown to visit restaurants or do some shopping, go to the post office, pick up their prescription, etc..  If those 72 units are built downtown, the residents will be able to walk to the restaurants, shops, post office and drug store.  Which way creates more traffic downtown?  I said last week, I think mixed use can be a good thing, and is consistent with the ideas of the turn of the 20^th century (you know, when this town was started) because back then, shop owners frequently lived over their commercial establishments.

As I also said last week, senior housing downtown makes more sense in an area where folks who can no longer drive can walk to the post office, the drugstore, the restaurants, and the bus lines that will take them out of the City.

But I get too wordy, so here’s a bulleted list of some of the reasons why I’m voting No on Measure V, and why I encourage you to do the same.

• It makes dramatic changes to the 100-year old system that got us to where we are, while claiming to want to keep things the way they are.  If the system was good enough to get us what we claim to want, why replace it?
• It’s a flawed initiative with multiple ambiguities, many of which will likely need to be litigated to be defined, and we can’t afford that.
• It infringes on the property rights of the property owners downtown.
• It has no clause for emergency rebuilding of historic properties that exceed its restrictions.
• It will require, at the very least, a re-examination of the city’s compliance with the housing element, and possibly a restructuring of the housing element.
• If, due to Measure V, we fall out of compliance with state housing laws, judges can require us to accept any project that offers high density housing, whether we want it or not.
• If a project goes to initiative, the developer is no longer required to complete an Environmental Impact Report.  This has the potential to be very dangerous to our way of life.
• Joe Q. Public is not qualified to make decisions regarding very complicated land use issues.  I consider myself to be a fairly bright guy (did I say that out loud?), but I do not at this point feel qualified to make major land use decisions.  I think I would have to have a much better understanding of the City, State and Federal Zoning, Housing and Building ordinances and laws than I currently have to be qualified to make those decisions, especially since I’d be making them without the benefit of an EIR to help me understand the implications of the project.  And let’s not forget, this town has its share of buffoons.  I don’t want them making these decisions, either.
• Second units, which currently have a height limitation of 15 feet, would be up-zoned to a 30 foot height limit.
• We have been told that Measure V draws its restrictions from the 1996 General Plan.  That’s only partly true.  It places far more severe restrictions on property owner’s options than the General Plan does, and I don’t appreciate people misrepresenting the facts when they are trying to help me decide how to vote.
• We have been told at the beginning of this campaign by Council Member Zimmerman that if the DSP passes, there will be dump trucks disrupting our lives as they travel up and down Sierra Madre Blvd.  But Zimmerman forgot to mention that those dump trucks will be there even if Measure V passes.  This is fear mongering, and I don’t appreciate people trying to manipulate me with fear tactics.
• We have been told that if Measure V doesn’t pass, our property values will sink, sink, sink.  Presumably, lower property values make lower commissions for the realtors.  If that’s true, why aren’t the realtors and their associations backing Measure V, so that property values, and commissions, don’t sink?  Again, people are playing on people’s fears.
• The League of Women Voters broke with its tradition of non-partisanship and took a stance against Measure V.  The Pasadena Star News says No on V.  The Sierra Madre Chamber says No on V.  The Sierra Madre Volunteer Fire Department says No on V.
• I have read the initiative, listened to the rhetoric, visited the websites, read the mailers, read the editorials and letters to the editor, talked with the people, attended the forums, and everything I’ve learned from all this leads me to believe that Measure V is not good for our town.  And I trust my reasoning in making that decision, and I trust my instincts.  But were it the case that I didn’t…
• Some of the people in this town for whom I have a great deal of respect and admiration, people that have served time on Planning Commissions, City Council, and as Mayor, and who therefore are far more qualified than me to judge this initiative, tell me either personally or by adding their names to the list of opponents, that No on V is the right way to go.  People like Clem Bartolai, George Maurer, Glenn Lambdin, Doug Hayes, Rob Stockly, Ron Brandley, John Hutt, John Buchanan, Joe Mosca, Enid Joffe, even (dare I say the names?) Tonja Torres (who sat on a council that placed 180+ conditions on a building project at the top of Baldwin, a process that would not be possible on downtown projects that exceed 2-30-13 if Measure V is approved) and Bart Doyle (yes, Black Bart, the infamous allegedly “evil building association guy”).  And frankly, I trust them. 
• Many other people in this town, whose opinion I also respect, among them Eph Konigsberg, Mike Bamberger, Bill and Sue Messersmith, Bob and Rosemary Burnett, Judy Webb-Martin, Benn Martin, Hank Landsberg, and Lew and Joyce Watanabe, just to name a very few of the dozens, have declared No on V.  And I also trust them.

If you want to find information about Measure V, you can do so at www.cityofsierramadre.com (official documents), www.sierramadrenews.net (documents and opinion), www.smrrd.org (Yes on V website), www.stopmeasurev.org (No on V website) www.smrsvp.org (No on V website), www.yes-measurev.org  (Yes on V website).  Please bear in mind as you visit these sites that some of them are going to tell you only one side due to their bias towards their side, but I think it is the right thing to list them, so you can see what each side has to say, and let you make your own decision. 

I urge you to get the facts, and having learned them, I’m sure you’ll agree, it’s in Sierra Madre’s best interests to vote No on V.

Why I’m Going to Vote No on Measure V

An Editorial by Bill Coburn  (4/5/07)

I’ve decided to vote no on Measure V.  And here are some of my thoughts as to why I came to that decision.

1. I think there are too many flaws in the initiative, too many angles that have not been thought through.  Ambiguities.  Things that could be interpreted in more than one way.  So we end up in litigation to find the answer.   We end up using the City’s minimal reserves fighting lawsuits, and the attorneys get richer.  Then, what if new sources of revenue are found, say the state decides not to use the money it’s been pulling from the City for one reason or another, and the City gets some money in.  Do we get to use that money to increase what we pay our cops?  To bring the library up to seismic standards?  To re-open the pool year round?  No, it’s going to have to go back into the reserves, because we’re too busy depleting them fighting about ambiguities in legislation that should never have passed.  Sierra Madre can’t afford Measure V.

2. I don’t want higher density projects such as senior or low income housing to be built in our residential neighborhoods.  If Measure V passes, higher density projects such as low income or senior housing will be prohibited in the downtown area.  So they would be built in our residential neighborhoods.  Do you want a new condo complex next door to your house?  To me, building senior housing in these areas doesn’t make a lot of sense.  The downtown area is where seniors would want to live, so that if they get to a point where they no longer feel comfortable driving, they can just walk to the Post Office, walk to the coffee shops, walk to the restaurants, the dentist, their doctor, the library.  
3. Another reason is property rights.  I think that the people that own property downtown should, within reason, be able to build on their property a structure or structures that can appreciate in value over time, and earn them some money as it does.  That’s kind of the intent of commercial property.  But if the restrictions on building that are put in place are too severe, they aren’t going to be able to do that.  Let’s take the property that’s in front of the Mariposa parking lot for instance.  This area is on a slope.  Now, why shouldn’t these property owners be able to put up two stories at the street level to conduct business, and utilize the slope to put another story underground to provide additional parking?  Measure V prohibits that, unless the City and the building owner bring the project before the people in an election, because Measure V defines that type of structure as a 3-story structure, and it does not allow anything more than two. 
4. I don’t believe that property values are going to fall because Measure V doesn’t pass.  Some of the people who back the initiative will tell you that the only way to maintain our property values is to pass Measure V.  In the same breath, they will tell you that the money-hungry realtors are trying to stop Measure V.  Guess what?  If property values go down, realtors make less money.   If Measure V is going to help us maintain property values, wouldn’t the realtors be backing it? 
5. I’m not as scared of mixed use as some people in this town seem to be.  Many of the proponents of Measure V say they want to retain the 19^th century charm of our downtown area.  Well, the way I understand it, in the old days, it was not uncommon for a store owner to live in the space above their store.  Mixed use properties have been around for a long time.  Seems to me that while it may not be the actual store owner living above the store, we’d still be practicing the same principal of dwellings over commercial.
6. I don’t think Joe Q. Public is equipped to be in charge of land use issues for the entire downtown area.  I don’t think most people had any idea what 13 units per acre was until a few months ago.  I don’t think most of them still have any idea what floor area ratios are.  I don’t think most of them understand about grading, or surveying, or even common things like setbacks.  What do you know about traffic flow?  What are the different ratings of firewalls needed in kitchens, and are they dependent on the equipment being used?   How about a kitchen that has excess water flowing because there are multiple dishwashers in use?  What size drain pipe is required?  Are we voters qualified to review projects and determine that they meet the necessary land use standards?  And yet, if Measure V passes, any project in the downtown area that exceeds the 2-30-13 restrictions is going to be reviewed and approved or denied by the residents of this town.  I have to say, I’ve seen more than a few people in this town upon whose intellect I would not want my project to be dependent.
7. The elections remove any negotiation with the builder.  Recently, at the top of Baldwin, the City Council approved a project, but placed more than 180 conditions on the builder, in order for the project to be approved.  Suppose there was a project proposed that was beneficial to the City, and we liked everything about the project, but there was a large, unsightly air conditioning unit located along side the building.  In an election, we either say yea or nay.  We don’t get to say yea, so long as you put up plants to cover the unsightly a/c unit alongside the structure, or move the a/c on the roof, or behind the building.  So we either say yea, and get an unsightly a/c unit, or we say nay, and turn down a project whose only drawback was that it needed some plants.  Maybe kind of an extreme hypothetical, and for all I know, there may be land use ordinances in place that prevent that from happening.  I don’t know.  But that’s kind of my point number 6.  I don’t know the land use laws, so I shouldn’t be making decisions that affect other people’s lives and livelihoods by approving or denying their projects with my uneducated vote.
8. I don’t think all development is bad.  There, I’ve said it.  I don’t think all development is bad.  I do think overdevelopment is bad.  I think wrong development is bad.  But I think there is such a thing as responsible development.  And I trust our planning commission, the city council, and the people of Sierra Madre to work within our current system to ensure that responsible development is the only kind of development that takes place downtown.  I include the people of Sierra Madre in that equation, because Sierra Madreans have shown time and again that they will turn out in force to stop ideas they don’t agree with.  A drive-through at the corner of Auburn and Sierra Madre.  A high school at the top of Baldwin.  But they did it at planning commission meetings and city council meetings, not at an election.  Using our existing system.
9. We have a system in place that’s celebrating its 100^th year.  We elect representatives to handle things like land use issues.  If you decide you don’t trust the people you put in place, you vote them out at the next election.  You don’t just scuttle the system that’s worked for a century.  I trust our council members to do what they think is best for our City.  I may not agree with what they think is right, but I trust that they believe they are doing the right thing.  And so, I think you do your best to convince 3 of the 5 to handle things until that next election takes place.  What you don’t do is pass laws that change the entire way the City operates, setting the City up for major financial problems and lawsuits.

These are just some of the reasons.  Tune in next week, when I’ll tell you a few more.

Recalling Joe Mosca Not in City’s Best Interest

An Editorial by Bill Coburn  (3/2/07)

City Council member Joe Mosca has been served with recall papers.  In my opinion, anybody that would choose to recall Joe Mosca has an agenda that is something other than who can best represent this City as a Council member.  For me, it’s that simple.  I can not recall anyone who has worked harder and been more involved as a City Council member than Joe Mosca.  Why would somebody want to get rid of someone who works so hard for the benefit of the City, even if there are several issues you disagree on, much less the one that seems to have set these people off?  This community is being torn apart over 10 feet (height).  One story.  Seems kind of silly.

When you look at the reasons given by the proponents of the recall for recalling him, it becomes obvious that there wasn’t a lot of thought put into the whole idea.  It’s more like the “It’s my ball, and you play my way or I go home and take the ball with me” mentality that’s at work in this thing.  “Thumbed his nose at his constituents?” “ Recklessly shattered the calm of this delightful and friendly village?”  I think they’ve got the wrong Councilman.  I think there are a few (very vocal) sore losers that thought they were electing a puppet that were disappointed when he didn’t vote the way they wanted him to – on one issue – and all the other work that Joe does (and has done) should apparently be ignored.  Forget that as liaison to the MTA, he represented the City’s public transportation users and worked to minimize the effects of the MTA’s desire to alter the bus routes through town.  Forget that he served as the deciding vote on an update of our hillside zoning law which better protects our hillside from over-development.  Forget that he voted to bring paramedics to town, increasing the safety of every member of this community.  Forget that in one of his first actions on Council, he voted to bring an emergency water supply to town (again, increasing the safety of every member of this community), finishing up work that had begun more than a decade earlier, and which his fellow newbie council members either questioned as a (non-existent) pro-development conspiracy or didn’t know enough about to make a vote on. 

That last sentence actually brings up a very good reason to keep Joe.  Joe knows enough about issues to make a vote on them, or he finds out.  He stays on top of issues that are before the Council.  He doesn’t come to a meeting unprepared, he doesn’t forget his Council information packet, or bring the packet without having reviewed it, he doesn’t come to the most important meeting of the City Council’s annual work, the budget meeting, and tell us he doesn’t understand the budget or didn’t have time to review it.  Actually, this paragraph should be re-written, because these are things we’ve seen other Council Members do.  So let’s get back to talking about Joe: He comes to meetings prepared, with his Council information packet, which he’s reviewed, and he came to the budget meeting prepared to discuss, suggest, modify and act on the budget with his fellow Council Members.  

Joe serves the City not only within our City government as a Council member, but outside the community, as well.  He represents Sierra Madre on the Metropolitan Transit Authority (MTA), San Gabriel Valley Service Sector Governance Council.  He represents Sierra Madre as Vice Chair of the Pasadena Unified School District, (PUSD) Management Audit Advisory Committee (MAAC).  He represents Sierra Madre as an Alternate Member of the Governing Board for the San Gabriel Valley Council of Governments (COG).  And he represents Sierra Madre as a Member of the Community, Economy, Housing and Development Committee (CEHD) of the Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG).  By providing Sierra Madre with representation when these organizations are planning the regional future, we have a say in what those plans will be, and how they will affect Sierra Madre.  I am constantly amazed at all the events and meetings he attends, and I’m sure I don’t know the half of his efforts.

The crux of the matter seems to be that some people aren’t happy that Mosca didn’t team up with Watts and Zimmerman in their attempt to put an unfinished document before the people for a vote.  The recall petition says that Joe voted against submitting the DSP to a public vote.  What it doesn’t say is that at that time, the DSP was incomplete and unready to be voted on.  When asked to bring the DRAFT DSP, yes, I said DRAFT, as in unfinished, still needs work, rough copy, outline, as in INCOMPLETE and therefore not ready for voting on, DSP before the voters, Joe decided it might be better to complete the document, before putting it to a vote.  Yes, putting it to a public vote.  You know, of the people.  Then Joe took it upon himself to prepare a time line for COMPLETING the Draft, i.e., finishing, i.e., no longer rough, as in made ready to be voted on document, and that timeline included as one of its action items a VOTE OF THE PEOPLE.

As Joe states, “As to the claim that I do not support a public vote on the downtown plan, it is not true.  I supported and still support a public vote.  I authored and the Council unanimously passed a resolution that called for more public input and a public vote on the completed document.”

So what is the agenda I spoke about in the first paragraph?  It’s my opinion that the people who are calling for the recall, many of whom are backers of Measure V, have decided to try and distract the folks who support Joe, many of whom are against Measure V, from their effort to defeat Measure V.  Think about it.  There have been calls for Joe’s recall since June of last year.  But nothing got done about it until just a few weeks before the election on Measure V.  Now Joe hasn’t taken a stance that I’m aware of on Measure V.  But many of his supporters have.  And what better way to help Measure V than to distract the people fighting it with something they feel is just as worthwhile, keeping Joe on the council?  It’s an age old strategy that has been used for both good and bad, called “divide and conquer.”  I don’t know with certainty that that’s what’s intended here, but I suspect it is, and the idea that it might be being used by our friends and neighbors against our friends and neighbors disturbs me.

The terms of the recall require that the proponents get a whole bunch of signatures (1800+) on a petition to recall Joe, and they have to do it fairly quickly.  When they ask you to sign, I hope you won’t sign it.  I sure as heck won’t be signing it.  And I’ll tell you one of the biggest reasons I have for withholding my signature.  Trust.  I trust Joe. I trust Joe to be prepared.  I trust Joe to have an understanding of the issues brought before him.  I trust that he will seek informed counsel if for some reason he doesn’t understand an aspect of what he’s voting on.  I trust him to represent my interests as a citizen of this City, both at the local level and as my representative on regional organizations.  I trust him to tell me the truth, whether I want to hear it or not.  I trust that even if I disagree with the decisions he makes, he is making the decision that he considers to be best for Sierra Madre, from a position of knowledge, having considered all the options he can see before him.  I trust him to treat me and my opinion with respect.  I trust him to show his respect for the members of this community by putting the time and the effort into being prepared to do his best on every issue that comes before the Council, and to also show his respect by attending events that are important to the people of this town, such as Chamber mixers, Little League openings, All-America City rallies, Wistaria Day, Dickens Village, Mt. Wilson Trail Race and so many more.  Each one of these events is an opportunity for him (and the other Council members, those who show their respect for their constituents by making the time) to talk with the people of the City and find out what’s important to them, ask their advice about the issues.  I trust that with Joe, if I want to discuss our differences (or similarities) of opinion, I’m going to be treated with respect, and our conversation will be informed, intelligent, civil and non-confrontational. I can’t say that about everyone on the Council.  Please don’t sign the petition.

(9/15/06) Editorial - What’s Being Said, What’s Not Being Said About 2-30-13

By Bill Coburn

Well, I guess I’m in for it now.  I’ve decided to bring my opinion into my writing.  You’ll notice that when I did so, I put the word “Editorial” in front of it.  I wish more papers would do that.  Anyway, I expect I’m in for it now, since I’m sure many of you will disagree with what I have to say.