Planning Commission requirement: Live inside the dashed line
Editor’s note: To be fair, as noted on twitter, the planning commissioner’s residence is too close to call at the moment. We will be pulling certain documents, not limited to city docs, to put this puzzle together.
According to the City of Patterson’s Municipal Code, planning commissioners be a resident of the city. See below.
2.40.030 Members.
A. Said commission shall consist of five members.
B. Qualifications. Each commission member shall be a resident of the city. Officers, elective or appointive of the city, shall not be eligible for membership on the planning commission.
On many occasions, we have questioned whether the mayor actually lives within Patterson city limits. However, this time it appears that a Patterson Planning Commissioner may have been in violation of section 2.40.030, upon appointment.
Doesn’t take a rocket scientist to pinpoint the subject of this inquiry, but we are currently compiling a list of city and county documents that will surely raise some questions.
P'd_off said,
January 4, 2010 @ 6:37 PM
http://209.63.210.75/Act/2009_Act.pdf
I think code 82019 number 3 : (3) Is designated in a Conflict of Interest Code
because the position entails the making or participation in the making of decisions which may foreseeably have a material effect on any financial interest.
That whole Political Reform Act of 1974 thing is there to keep everyone honest.
Also, it really doesn’t matter what we say Scott, no matter how much black and white evidence we present, I think you’ll find some sort of excuse to refute it. These laws are on the books for a reason, our Mayor has stacked HER deck with EMPLOYEES from HER business. There is something morally and ethically wrong with that.
Here’s a funny link to Patterson’s City Website :
http://www.ci.patterson.ca.us/Default.aspx?pi=26&ni=35&q=ethics
0 search results found for ethics.
Jeff Realini said,
January 5, 2010 @ 4:26 PM
Okay, normally I’m not the one backing up the slate, but it’s time the arguements are not backed up with facts.
First, who is the Planning Commisioneer in question? I don’t know from the intial entry. I finnally seem to believe we are talking about Ron West. He doesn’t work for Becky, he is a Real Estate Agent working under George Galloway’s brokers license. Becky and George have a partnership for the office space as I understand. If Becky is stacking the deck, shouldn’t George be the one on the planning commission.
Also, why does the map go to a nursery rhyme? If you want to have a discussion that solves issues, back the arguement up with facts. This is one thread that is childish and I’m taking my ball and going home.
What Next said,
January 5, 2010 @ 9:39 PM
Jeff,
Actually, Ron does work for Becky. George is only the broker on record for the real estate and lending side of things. But, everything goes in and out through Patterson Financial.
The agents and loan officers are all listed under George’s broker license, but they are all part of the parent company of Pattersion Financial.
That is why everything points back to Becky, and why she has a vested interest in ensuring that the planning commission, as well as the economic strategic commission (of which George is a member and, I believe, the chair) are stacked in her favor.
The fact that George is on the economic strategic commission would be the main reason why he wasn’t appointed to the planning commission. Not for a lack of wanting, but he was already in a commissioners position.
I could clarify it more for you if you wanted, but I can guarantee that the business is Becky’s, and that George is the broker on record.
Oh, and yes, we were talking about Ron. I think that if you were to take a good look at the “residence” and not “address”, you will find that maybe there has been some smoke and mirrors in assuring that he “lives” within the city limits.
If there is anything else we can clear up for you, let us know. The facts are the facts, and they are out there for the grabbing. I believe that we have been very up front with the facts. From the other side, we haven’t seen much in the way of facts or valid points to counter our points. Just name calling and general blasting of the posters. I know that I am open to the facts. Give us facts that tell us that we are wrong and we will, I will for sure, admit I was wrong. But, I haven’t seen anything to counter anything that I have said up to now. Regarding Ron’s address, if he indeed does live in town, I’ll say I was wrong in that aspect of the discussion. But, I still haven’t seen anything to counter anything else. And, in my book, there is the possibilty that his residence might still be an issue. Personally, I am leaning 70%-30% of the opinion that he is on the up-and-up with his residence and that it isn’t an issue. But, there is still the 30% that I need to resolve before I am satisfied that he is OK there.
Scott M. said,
January 5, 2010 @ 7:29 PM
take your pick day 6…
What Next said,
January 5, 2010 @ 9:41 PM
OK Scott, inquiring minds want to know. What in the heck are you counting? Are you just showing us that you know how to count?
Guess what tomorrow will be? 7. Ain’t that great?
therecorder said,
January 6, 2010 @ 12:39 AM
Jeff, take a look at “what next” is talking about by looking at Gallo’s brokers license.
Gallo is doing business as Patterson Financial.
Becky is the owner of Patterson Financial.
Ron West was/is a salesperson for Gallo.
Rookard’s husband is/was also a salesperson for Gallo.
If you want to achieve clear and transparent government, Becky and the Appointees should have addressed these conflicts, they didn’t.
Take your pick….8 days.
What Next said,
January 8, 2010 @ 9:34 PM
Hey Scott – what are we up to, 8 or 9? Or is six as high as you can go?
We are still waiting to here what you were counting.
Scott M. said,
January 10, 2010 @ 11:34 PM
11 days…
What Next said,
January 11, 2010 @ 6:48 PM
12 days…
OK, you have showed us that you can count. Besides days, what are you counting?
You come up with anything yet to answer the facts, while you are at it?
What Next said,
January 14, 2010 @ 5:52 PM
Has anyone been reading the “Paid Advertisements” in the IrriGator? Whoa, is that some story John is telling? It is a good example of what would be called “Historical Fiction”. A fictional story based on some sort of historical event. Yes, he does have some accurate statements, but whoa, some of them are just reaching.
My guess is that the reason it has to be a paid advertisement is that the IrriGator wouldn’t publish fiction any other way.
So Scott doesn’t have to take off his shoes to count – 15 days
Wondering if Scott has forgotten what he was counting in the first place.
Scott M. said,
January 18, 2010 @ 7:30 PM
im counting the days that you all bitch without action. i guess you would all have to start on the day you were born. you have no clue how government works. get a life. spend your time getting a degree rather than stretching codes and rules which you have no clue what they mean. none of your claims would constitute any legal action.
OldTimer said,
January 21, 2010 @ 4:17 PM
Hmmm, have you forgotten that the city got their wrist slapped for knowingly breaking the law (Brown act)? It doesn’t bother you that your elected officials, OUR elected officials, do not listen to the people they represent? It doesn’t bother you that quite a few of the things that the mayor and company have done are indeed questionable?
We are still waiting to hear any actual rebuttal from you regarding the discussions we have had. You have yet to provide any facts to back up your own bitching.
Read the discussions and present facts that support your side of the issues, and we can then discuss those.
But coming in here, just blasting away at us does nothing except to show that you are indeed an idiot. You can have that moniker removed by providing facts to back up your bitching. You can start by explaining why you have no problem being represented by a group of council members that think that they are above the law. But, give us the facts.
I think it is you that has no clue how a government SHOULD work. You and at least three council members have no clue how a government in our country SHOULD work. You all know how it works (which isn’t the correct way here in Patterson), but it would help if you all knew how it is SUPPOSED to work.
PatMan said,
January 22, 2010 @ 7:07 PM
I agree. Scott, you have yet to post any facts in your comments or to demonstrate that you have read the complete threads before posting.
Scott, if you are sincere in your posts, posts the facts AND post factual statements against the facts posted by the other contributors. Just flaming the posters without facts does nothing for your benefit.
The contributors here have included in their threads the facst related to their comments, as they see them. Up to now, you have failed to do this.
I, as I am sure are many of the others, are open to a discussion based on facts.
Just look at some of Ramos’ paid advert’s in the IrriGator. He is putting forward the facts as he sees them. Although not all of them are the true facts, they are facts in one way or another. The way he puts them out there, they can now be discussed. If they turn out to be true, great for him and we are swayed to his thinking. If not, then we are still against him. BUT, he is putting his idea of fact out there, which you have yet to do.
If you don’t have facts, then I would suggest that you find another website to visit and harass other people.
I think that the posters here have gone to great lengths to present facts. Facts that, as with John’s, can then be discussed and either believed or not.