Modesto Bee - Click Here!
The Modesto Bee reports that Cleve Morris is on the Mayor target list. We’re glad to see that they read the agenda. We believe there is much more to the story. There is a strong possibility that the Mayor and Ms. Smith are unhappy with particular city staff. Morris, who has never been one to sell his team down the river, is now caught up in this mess. For years now, Cleve Morris has served our city well, he is deeply respected amongst his peers and Patterson would be worse off without him.
This is simply another example of the Mayor’s inability to lead. Why would you want Cleve gone now? I’m sure they will many reasons, probably similar to those that allowed them to snipe Funez and Molina. They’ll probably use the word “vision” without ever defining what in fact their vision is….they’ll probably bring up the check fiasco, even though its been years since they were discovered in a drawer. What the council fails to realize is….at the end of the day, most residents probably trust Cleve more than the council.
If the council chooses to can Morris, we thought it would be fun to draft a potential city manager list for the Mayor and Co.
1. Ron West – We already handed him a seat on the Planning Commission, he seems to want to run the city from that seat anyways. $$
2. Joel Hallowell – He already has the council’s ear, some go as far as to say that he can create an agenda item. $$$
3. John Ramos – He essentially owns the city, why not hand him the keys to city hall? $$$$
Editor’s Note: At the end of the Modesto Bee article, Garth Stapley takes a misleading shot at Cleve Morris by writing, “Under Morris’ leadership, Patterson has grown from 14,221 people to an estimated 21,168 in January — a far greater rate than any of the county’s eight other cities.”
My how short of memory Mr. Stapley possesses, was it not his article that praised Patterson for it’s smart growth policies and practices? In fact, they ranked Patterson #2 in the entire Central Valley.
We called the report nonsense when it came out, and we still think it was a rather useless report provided by the modesto bee and the great valley center. The Modesto Bee and Stapley claim that they relied on city administrators to provide information. If this was the case, why did Stapley lead readers to believe that this was a “a comprehensive planning audit“.
We bring this up for one reason. Only a year has passed since this smart growth report was released. However, for some rather odd reason, over this past year, the tone of articles directed at Patterson have been scathing, focusing primarily on urban growth. We have one question for Stapley, why the flip flop? We don’t mind the criticism, we actually welcome it. We’re just hoping someone isn’t pulling your strings to pin this on Morris.
OldTimer said,
October 22, 2009 @ 9:14 AM
While having fun with this list, how about this one for “Interim” manager:
George Logan
This way, he can blame the city staff for his inability to provide valuable advice.
Lon's Disciple said,
October 22, 2009 @ 9:27 AM
And the Patterson Bougeois sit on the sideline.
OldTimer said,
October 22, 2009 @ 9:37 AM
I was just on the phone with a friend and he said that he thought that a perfect candidate for the “interim” position would be Rod Simpson.
He said Rod already controls the city office, now they can make it official. Plus, my friend was of the belief that Rod already has a great relationship with “Lord Ramos and the Princesses of the Council”. (That quoted part is straight from my friend, and I thought it was perfect.)
OldTimer said,
October 22, 2009 @ 9:45 AM
Something has been nagging in the back of my head since I first read the names in the original article. Didn’t Joel Hallowell represent Keystone way back in it’s beginnings? And then, didn’t he leave to help Ramos with his development, even though there would be some conflict between Ramos’ developments and Keystone’s?
If so, wouldn’t there be some major conflict of interest in him getting a position within the city management? Wouldn’t the city even lean more towards anything presented FOR Ramos and lean heavily (even more so than with the current council) against anything that would benefit anyone BESIDES Ramos?
Or, am I just thinking of someone else? (remember, I am an old timer, OLD being the key word)
The Recorder said,
October 22, 2009 @ 10:22 AM
If you want to know more about the Mayor’s move to oust Morris, click on the link below, wow!
http://sendables.jibjab.com/view/nBfS2ZQYpRo6dBy2
OldTimer said,
October 22, 2009 @ 12:55 PM
Recorder – Thanks for the vid. It shows who is aligned with who.
It also was a good laugh.
OldTimer said,
October 22, 2009 @ 1:30 PM
I was downtown for lunch. I decided to ask some of my acquaintances their thoughts on the recent council move. One had no clue what was going on. (shame on him) Two were supportive of the mayor and seven were wondering what she, Smith and Ramos were up to.
One person, who said he voted for Molina, said that if more people weren’t bamboozled by Becky during the elections, maybe we wouldn’t be questioning the abilities of our council as a whole. He said that we are getting our just rewards. He said that he earned the right to complain by voting for Molina, but those that voted for Campo are getting what they deserve.
redstate said,
October 22, 2009 @ 6:16 PM
Do you really think the Mayor would be raising this issue if she didn’t have concrete evidence of Cleve’s inability to run a city. We give the city manager to much control, the city should move to a strong mayor structure, at least then, we can blame the people we elect if things go wrong. We could pay the Mayor a modest income, say $70,000 and pocket the rest. Mayor Campo would be the perfect mayor for such a structure since she has a lifetime of business supervisol experience. Other cities are moving away from the city manager structure, we should at least look into it, then put it to a vote. You liberals are always pushing a conspiracy, but mark my words, they will have something good on Morris.
OldTimer said,
October 23, 2009 @ 10:40 AM
OUCH! “You liberals”. For the record, I am about as right wing conservative as they come.
The problem isn’t that the city manager has too much power. The problem, if there is one with Cleve, could be that the wrong person is in the position. (at this time I won’t say whether or not I believe this.)
I think it would be wrong to give the mayor in the city of Patterson that much power. Yes, it is true that they are an elected official and we could get rid of them in two years. What if, we have an out of control mayor who makes unsound decisions? Could the citizens of our town get them out of office soon enough to stop the possible damage? And any damage inflicted, how long would it take to repair? And, giving the mayor that much power, by the time they really settle in, to much time would have passed without their decisions. Then there is the possibility of them decided not to run again, what incentive would they have to manage to their potential? What about when they lose an election? What assurances would we have that they wouldn’t make bad decisions because they lost? You think people are worried about things now? Give the mayor more power and I can almost guarantee that we would be in a world of hurt.
We need a strong city manager that would ensure the checks and balances between the city staff and the city council are there. Yes, the council hires and fires the manager, but the manager is also there to help the city, not be a rubber stamp for the council. (In my opinion at least).
As far as Campo being a perfect city manager, that is a matter of opinion. I know that I would be very uncomfortable with her as manager. Even giving her more power would worry me. The current slate of council members worries me. They have stacked the planning commission to their desires and plans. Now they plan on expanding their power to the city staff itself.
Do you honestly trust our current council? Can you honestly say that they have the best interest of the city in mind?
If there is something valid regarding Morris, then let’s hear it. If it is valid, then let’s move on, but in the best interest of the city, not in the interest of a few with the power to decide to take care of themselves before the city.
There is a history of that in our city. It is time for the citizens to remind the council who they work for. (Hint, it isn’t a local developer.)
Ptownmessenger said,
October 23, 2009 @ 10:18 AM
A strong mayor? What a joke! The Mayor and her circus already have the council vote! How much more power do ramos and hallowell need? Look at the studies, the most successful cities in this country which have created great healthy communities are run with a City Manager leadership model! Especially in a town the size of Patterson, the City Managers role is very important from keeping Tyranical and Agenda Driven leaders in check! The situation is never bad enough to move to the extremes of a Strong Mayor! Anyway A strong mayor initiative would require a strong mayor! And we know Campo has shown little strength in her terms in office, especially folding to the power of developer money!
redstate said,
October 23, 2009 @ 12:48 PM
When a person becomes a liberal, do they automatically lose their mind? If the Mayor drove a Prius and took her reusable bag to Save Mart, you guys would probably get off her back. The Mayor is the perfect example for our Patterson Youth. She has overcome more adversity than most in our community. Running for city council as a minority woman with a disability cannot be easy. I thought liberals supported this type of thing. This site constantly preaches smart growth, maybe this an opportunity to bring in someone that has actually implemented smart growth projects. This site constantly preaches equality, but is their a more equal representation of a community than the current city council. This site constantly preaches against big boxes, but most of the people you advocate for will benefit from lower prices, not to mention the CO2 saved from the alternative trip to Turlock. You liberals can’t see straight.
OldTimer said,
October 23, 2009 @ 2:35 PM
We’ll find out just what the scoop is on Cleve on Monday.
As far as redstate’s comments, I think we are learning just who the liberal is. If I had to put money on it, I would put the bank on redstate being a die hard liberal. (If you can’t tell, I am so far on the conservative side of the isle, it boils my blood for someone to even hint that I might have even an ounce of liberal leanings…….)
Anyhow, I haven’t seen any complaints about this in the above thread that are right or left. All I see is a discussion that is about the services being provided to our community by our elected officials. The main tilt of these discussions hasn’t been between liberal or conservative ideals, but the ideals of truth and honesty.
It had been about the fact that some of our council members have put themselves in a position where it looks like they are exercising poor judgment based on an affiliation, rather than doing what they have sworn to do. There is the appearance out there that some of our council members are more apt to support one local developer than to learn the facts. It’s a matter of appearance, which sadly, none of them, have tried to correct if they feel that they are wrongly viewed.
For instance, I would not have a problem with Ms. Smith voting against approval of the Health Center move, IF, she does so with an open mind, and after going through all the evidence presented. I wouldn’t agree with her vote, but if she could do it as we, the citizens elected her to do, then she would be doing her duty. But, since Ms. Smith already spoke out against the initiative WITHOUT even having seen it, I have a big issue with it. (She spoke out even before she saw it.) That is a big problem for me that isn’t left or right, liberal or conservative. Anyone would, or should, have an issue with this.
With regards to the current topic, the “big squeeze”, I’ll have to hold judgment. I am very concerned with the timing and, again, the appearance of a possible influence from outside sources. If Cleve is unable to manage our city, give us the reasons why. What I have an issue with is if he is being pushed out for personal or personnel reasons that do not actually reflect on his ability to manage the city. As I stated before, if the data is there to show that he cannot lead this city, then it may be time to move on. As I said in another post:
Patterson residents want to know.
But, be sure of this: if there is a hint that the evidence was obtained for ulterior motives, then I, as well as many, many, others, would have an issue with that. It would truly demonstrate that our current council has lost the ability to lead us effectively.
As far as the bigbox issue, I don’t want any in my town. My reasons are purely personal. I decided to stay in Patterson because I like the small town. I know it has grown, but to me, it still has that small town feel. If I want to shop at Wal-Mart, which I do often, I have decided that to do so, I will drive to Turlock or Modesto. That is what I choose to do and what I want to do. I do not want the bigbox in my town. I want it in somebody else’s town. I could care less if it cost me an extra gallon or two of gas to do my shopping. I choose to live in a small town and part of that is having to go out of town for some of my shopping.
Jack said,
October 25, 2009 @ 7:31 PM
If they let Cleve go it’ll be because of police cheief issue, Cleve wanted Mario to be the next police cheif as he deemed him experienced, committed, but “women” on the council wanted t osee a woman…and they got her.
big red said,
October 25, 2009 @ 8:01 PM
Jack,
I think your on to something here. The woman on the council have made it no secret that they distrust Cleve’s belief of a woman’s role in society. I know Cleve and I think that sort of talk is just plain old hog wash. Cleve has always treated woman with a tremendous amount of respect, I think the issue may be used to sell him down the river. They better have more than that, otherwise I think someone on this blog called it right, an old fashion witch hunt. The community really needs to stand up and support Cleve on this one.
Big Red
OldTimer said,
October 26, 2009 @ 9:45 AM
If the new chief makes a real effort to clean up our city, and that is to deal with the gangs, drug dealers and other criminal elements, then maybe they made the correct choice.
If it is going to be the same non-committal effort, then a look in to the decision process may be needed. If they, the council, did not want to see the gang and drug problem cleaned up, then they should all do the honorable thing and resign. If they chose to hire the chief without taking public safety in to consideration then they have failed our city in a big way, to the point of total incompetence.
Our current chief has done nothing to clean up our town. The drug dealers still sell their drugs, the gangs still walk around freely, harassing our citizens, and our homes are still getting broken in to with too much frequency.
How much time do we give the new chief to see if she was the right choice?
I want to give her the chance to do her job, and I want her to do a great job. It isn’t that we have hired a female chief that matters, it is the safety of our citizens that matters. Is she aware of that and did the city council hire her based on the end result?
Lon said,
October 29, 2009 @ 6:35 PM
http://www.modbee.com/2384/story/912008.html
“Smith described public support for Morris outside the closed-door meeting as “quite a crowd. … The rumor mill was spinning. It was interesting because he has a lot of support from his church members, citizens and staff who were concerned about him being dismissed, but that wasn’t the case. It’s nice to see how well he is thought of in the community.”
MrBill said,
October 29, 2009 @ 10:05 PM
I am very much of the belief that they, the council, or at least three of them, had every intention to fire Cleve Monday night. Then, when they saw the amount of support that showed up, I am sure they had an “oh sh*t” moment and the reason they were in closed session so long was it took the three of them that long to figure out how to NOT fire him. They probably only took ammo to fire him and hadn’t even considered that they would keep him.
I wish I could have been in there. I can imagine Annette “Nobody uses the crosswalk” Smith and Becky “Mama” Campo finally at a loss for words as they try to figure a way out of the jam they put themselves in.
As I read the original Bee article, it seemed that Becky had all she needed to fire Cleve. She just didn’t count on public support.
Now, if we can just keep the pressure on the council to do what is right, maybe they will finally do what they were elected by the people to do, and not what one or two people want them to do. (And maybe I am asking for too much.)
I had another thought as I pondered OldTimer’s post.
What if the $27,000 payment to Ramos was a bone, worked out with him, so that they could approve the initiative without him putting up a fight. Now that they have seen that they have, for the most part, lost the public’s trust, maybe they realize that they had better do something for the community. By paying off Ramos, at least reimbursing him the $27K, he may tell them that enough is enough and to just approve the initiative. Yeah, he won’t get the blackmail money, but he does get something back in his pocket and the council will look like they are taking the citizens seriously.
This will now become, as I am sure OldTimer would say, a win-win-win-lose scenario.
WIN – Citizens of Patterson in getting the health center upgrade
WIN – The city council gets some public bonus points for appearing to listen to the public
WIN – John Ramos in that he got $27K
LOSE – Citizens of Patterson in that they are still out $27K due to the fact that the planning commission does not have an attorney.
This could play out just like a movie about corrupt politicians in Chicago, Wash DC, or Vegas. (Hey wait, didn’t members of our council make a trip to Vegas?)
OldTimer said,
October 30, 2009 @ 9:36 AM
You forgot another win:
WIN – Logan – he gets to keep everything that he was paid, and apparently doesn’t have to go through the evaluation that the city manager has to go through. Which is good for him so he doesn’t have to worry about his job, no matter how poorly he does it, if he does it at all (attending the planning commission meetings as only an observer, and not a counselor, yet getting paid to provide counsel)
I like your thought pattern there on the reason why the council paid Ramos back. It makes sense to me that they needed to figure a way to sweeten Ramos up so that he wouldn’t give them a big fight if they were to accept the initiative. Except for the taxpayers, it is a win for everyone.
redstate said,
October 30, 2009 @ 10:24 AM
Why do you liberals insist on conspiracy theories. Did it ever occur to you that City Manager Morris may have been mismanaging his staff. Lord knows that, that motley crew could use a little discipline. This site claims that residents showed up to support morris, but I agree with annette smith, the group was mostly people from his church. Now you nuts are attacking the schools for teaching abstinence only before high school, I for one don’t want my child to learn about sexual activity any sooner, it just increases the chance of them making stupid decisions at a younger age. The prioritites on this site are ass backwards, if I didn’t know better I would think the contributers were a bunch of liberal commuters.
Lon said,
October 30, 2009 @ 11:05 AM
If you think your kids won’t be introduced to sex before high school, good luck with that. My daughter brings home words and phrases from elementary school that I have to explain.
anything but a walmart said,
October 30, 2009 @ 11:36 AM
I had sex ed in 6th grade and didn’t have any problems with it. Trying to keep kids uneducated and hoping Jesus will protect them isn’t very smart. Friends of mine in the Philippines have told me how they wish they could get birth control but in the remote areas the catholic church’s runs the hospitals and clinics and when teens, or unmarried people ask for contraceptives they are told that they are “to young to have sex” or “aren’t married”. With thinking like that its no wonder countries with conservative governments have huge problems with teen births. I’d prefer education over conservative hopes and hypocrisy.