APB Archives

THE 2003 CHAPC ELECTION (Jan 8, 04)

A CRITICISM (Dec 15, 03)

-
Some unfortunate remarks were offered at the December, 2003 meeting of the City Heights Area Planning Committee concerning the election conducted by election subcommittee Chairman Charlie Powell and members Jessie and Bob Sergent, and Patty Vaccariello. I'd like to set the record straight.
-
Challenges to an election are appropriate immediately after the election. They are out of order nine months later. Criticism of an election is properly offered when all the sub-committee members are present. It is cowardly to make a criticism when the sub-committee chairman is not present to hear it.
-
Electoral impropriety may properly be claimed by anyone who can give evidence. In this case, no evidence whatever was offered. It is the duty of the critic to convincingly make the case for impropriety. That was not done. It is the election committee's duty ONLY to put the facts into the record for all to see. The 2003 subcommittee did that. The December critic, Mr. Neptun, has not bothered to consult the record.
-
Two people complained about the election. Both complained before the vote was taken. The city investigated both complaints and found them groundless. Both complainants' names appeared on the March 2003 ballot. Neither was elected. Neither as made any further criticism of the election. Both have subsequently treated the CHAPC and the members of the election subcommittee cordially and respectfully, acting well after their complaints were exposed as unfounded. Their good attitude and neighborly behavior are appreciated.
-
The city staff investigation showed a clean election, an honest sub-committee and unsupported charges by the complainants. If the critic at the December CHAPC meeting, Mr. Neptun, has evidence to the contrary, he should put it into the public record for all to see. Until he does there is no evidence and his criticism is hot air, without a factual basis.
-
As for the complaint that there was not enough publicity, Neptun himself can accept part of the blame. He publishes a monthly paper and knew in advance about the election and the election procedure. I myself gave him a copy of the CHAPC bylaws early in 2002. He was present at two CHAPC meetings – one shortly before the 2003 election. He once brought a TV camera and taped a meeting. He knew the procedure. At very least, Neptun could and should have printed a notice in his newspaper to publicize the election. He didn't.
-
Finally, the election WAS effectively publicized. It generated more voters and more candidates for office than ever before in the history of the CHAPC. We know the election was conducted properly, for Neptun himself got elected.
-

MY REMARKS TO THE CITY COUNCIL (Mar 4, 03)

-
After the unfounded complaints were made about the election, I went down to City Hall on March 4, 2003 and offered the following remarks to the Council. I said what I meant and meant what I said. I stand by these remarks.
-
"I'm still Jim Varnadore. I still live in City Heights which is still America's Finest Community. I chair the City Heights Area Planning Committee. Two weeks ago, two people stood in this dock and gave you a fake story about our election. Neither complainer had conformed to the committee by-law requirements, and both intended NOT to conform. They did not conform that next day after they were here or the rest of that week, despite wheedling by your staff member and urging from my sub-committee."
-
"A few hours before the deadline, Mr. Lopez conformed to the by-laws, was placed on the slate, and ran for election. In an act of extraordinary fairness, seeing that Mr. Du had been misled, my sub-committee stayed publishing the slate for a short time after the deadline, allowing Mr. Du to conform. He was placed on the slate and ran for election."
-
"That's right. The man who stood in this dock and slandered Jessie Sergent and Patty Vaccariello and Bob Sergent and Chairman Charlie Powell was given the benefit of the doubt and time beyond the deadline to conform. The fact that both complainers finally conformed to the bylaws vindicates my sub-committee completely.
-
"Your action two weeks ago was unfortunate. You stood WITH people who brought axes here to grind and against my sub-committee, who were asked to run an election and did it perfectly. That diminished and demoralized my sub- committee, which deserves praise and admiration, not censure. You cast official doubt on my sub-committee whose only crime was to uphhold our by-laws. Someone owes Jessie Sergent and Patty Vaccariello and Bob Sergent and Chairman Charlie Powell and apology for the shameful way they were treated."
-
"I want to say now, on television, for all to see and hear, that my sub- committee did everything exactly right. They refused to compromise our by-laws in the face of fake testimony, refused to compromise in the face of officious meddling, refused to compromise in the face of an expression of no-confidence that they did not deserve. I am intensely proud of Jessie, Patty, Bob, and Chairman Charlie Powell - intensely proud: and you should be too."
-

YOU BE THE JUDGE (Jan 8, 04)

-
Now that you know the facts of the 2003 CHAPC election, you be the judge. You decide whether Charlie, Jessie, Patty, and Bob conducted a fair, legal, properly noticed election.
-
The critic who shot his mouth off at the December CHAPC meeting criticizing Charlie and Jessie and Patty and Bob crawled into the January meeting and apologized to the election sub-committee and the CHAPC. How delicious that was to watch!
-