When the City Council (rightfully) rejected Nancy Shollenberger’s offer to reimburse the City for expenses incurred because of her error in preparation of the sample ballot, It would seem the next obvious thing for her to do would be to announce that she would not accept the City’s payment of $6500 for managing (mismanaging?) the election.\u00a0 The amounts were close enough ($6000 vs. $6500) that it seemed an obvious way to reconcile the City’s loss without setting the precedent the Council was concerned about when they rejected her offer of\u00a0 payment.\u00a0 Instead, Shollenberger chose to continue the political theater that is the City Clerk race, by instead writing checks to the SMVFA and the SMPOA, neither of whom lost a cent over the City Clerk’s error.\u00a0 They may have lost votes, but no money.\u00a0 And the City Clerk can’t reimburse lost votes (don’t go there).\u00a0<\/p>\n
However, here’s the thing.\u00a0 The City lost money, not these associations.\u00a0 And with her new solution, the City is the loser.\u00a0 Had she chosen to refuse to cash her check for the election services, the City would have gained $6000.\u00a0 Instead, Nancy gains a $6000 write-off, (and with all the investment property she owns in town, that may come in handy).\u00a0 I was at the SM4U committee meeting Thursday night when Nancy had her representative read her letter to the Committee.\u00a0 No, she didn’t write a check and have the representative quietly hand it over to the Association’s representative, she had him read her letter for the whole committee (most of whom aren’t members of\u00a0 the association).\u00a0 Then, yesterday, I received a fax from Nancy Sue that was also sent to the editors of the Mt. Views Observer and the Core Media papers, stating that we might want to publish these two letters, which she described as Letters to the Editor.\u00a0 So she isn’t doing this because she thinks it’s right, she’s doing this to try and win back votes of people who might be having second thoughts.\u00a0 In fairness, at the meeting, I had told the representative that I felt this was political grandstanding, and that while I thought her gift should be publicized, I thought maybe the publicity should wait till after the election.\u00a0 After some discussion, I agreed to contact Nancy and let her know that since I thought it inappropriate to report on a private letter she had written to the SMVFA, if she wanted to send it to me as a letter to the editor, I’d run it.\u00a0 But I never had to contact Nancy, and tell her I’d run it as a Letter to the Editor.\u00a0 She sent it to me, and the other two editors, before I ever had a chance to contact her.\u00a0\u00a0<\/p>\n
And let’s talk about that letter for a minute.\u00a0 First, by the Keeper of the City Records, there’s a punctuation error in the opening line.\u00a0 Minor, I’ll give you.\u00a0 But the opening line?\u00a0 Then she states that she made an error mislabeling the argument.\u00a0 No, she made an error labeling the argument.\u00a0 She did quite well at mis-labeling the argument. I know, this is semantics.\u00a0 But hey, I’m not the one saying that I can take exemplary minutes. With apologies to Lloyd Bentsen, I’ve seen Nancy’s minutes, and they aren’t exemplary.\u00a0 Then she says it’s her only error in 24 years.\u00a0 While I could go on and on about this, I already have, so I’ll just refer you to my 3\/19\/08 editorial.\u00a0 Then she asks “What better way…”\u00a0 Well a better way would be one that gets the $6000 back in the city’s coffers.\u00a0 A better way would be a way that doesn’t make her look like a\u00a0 hero, when all she’s actually doing is trying to make up for her colossal screw-up.\u00a0<\/p>\n
By choosing to bypass a quiet contribution to these organizations, and having the letter read out loud at the committee meeting, and then sending it to all three papers, Nancy has exposed the act for what it is.\u00a0 Self-serving, grandstanding, political theater.\u00a0 Don’t be fooled.\u00a0 Vote for Karma.\u00a0 Or if you can’t do that, vote for no one.\u00a0 But it’s time this City stopped validating her screw-ups by voting for her even when she’s messed up.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
When the City Council (rightfully) rejected Nancy Shollenberger’s offer to reimburse the City for expenses incurred because of her error in preparation of the sample ballot, It would seem the next obvious thing for her…<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":2,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":[],"categories":[1],"tags":[61,56,53,62,57,225,63],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"http:\/\/www.sierramadrenews.net\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/612"}],"collection":[{"href":"http:\/\/www.sierramadrenews.net\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"http:\/\/www.sierramadrenews.net\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/www.sierramadrenews.net\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/users\/2"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/www.sierramadrenews.net\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcomments&post=612"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"http:\/\/www.sierramadrenews.net\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/612\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"http:\/\/www.sierramadrenews.net\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fmedia&parent=612"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/www.sierramadrenews.net\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcategories&post=612"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/www.sierramadrenews.net\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Ftags&post=612"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}