CCMIN030592 - Laserfiche WebLink

Mr. Butler supported Ms. Scribner's motion but commented that he felt that the language being adopted was a disservice to the voters and was too short. However, he supported the motion because of the discussion and comments made that evening. Mr. Tarver supported the motion. He felt that the impartial analysis by the City Attorney would be more difficult, but he felt that this language was fair to those who were for and against the plan. Mayor Mercer explained that although he was not in favor of the Plan, he supported the language which Council had adopted. He expressed his appreciation for all the time that the citizens put into this matter and did not feel they should be insulted. The Mayor continued that today's meeting is just one of the first shots from the politicalguns opposing the citizens' plan for the ridge. The front page story was so obviously political, it needs some comment. The Citizens Committee met to come up with ballot language which was fair and unbiased. Unfortunately, the Committee technically violated the law by meeting to discuss it without public notice. Mr. Tarver stated in the paper that morning that the proposal came out of the blue and we need to start doing business in a way that involves the public. "Mayor Mercer stated he received the Executive Committee's language very early in the afternoon but he did not receive Mr. Tarver's version until the Council meeting that evening. Mayor Mercer assumed thatMr. Tarver received input from supporters on its content but the public did not involve itself in his statement either. This sounds like the kettle calling the pot black. Mayor Mercer said that Mr. Tarver stated that the City Attorney should write the ballot language. If this were true, then why didn't he support any of the City Attorney's draft ballot language? At Tuesday night's meeting, Mr. Tarver had every opportunity to raise the issues he's raised through the newspaper. Why didn't he raise them at the meeting? Mayor Mercer continued that we should put City Council political maneuvering aside and allow the public process to evolve. Trying to control and direct an election and debate is exactly what Mr. Tarver accused Mr. Butler, Ms. Mohr, and the Mayor of doing in the last election. Mr. Tarver apologized for that in a letter dated January 25, 1991, but he elected not to make that public until February 25, 1992. Pleasanton has so many wonderful things going on within it that it is very unfortunate that we are purposely being led away from the good government process, which has been so successful, to a very negative political climate. This is dividing the community. It is healthy to have different opinions and ideas but is sickening to watch the new political process rain on a good thing in town. Pleasanton is coming into the 1990's, and we're acting like some of the other cities, with name calling, innuendo and a negative approach. He hoped that 3/5/92 7