A group of citizens in Mount Shasta is moving forward with a proposed recall of three council members, including Tim Stearns, Sandra Spelliscy and Mayor Michael Murray.
Stearns and Spelliscy were served with papers outlining the recall following Monday evening’s council meeting. Mayor Murray didn’t accept the papers at that time.
Spelliscy expressed her confusion over the recall during a phone interview Tuesday afternoon.
Certainly, she said, she doesn’t believe that her actions on the council over the past three years are deserving of a recall. She also said she’s “still somewhat frustrated” because of the “vague language” used in the recall paperwork.
“No one ever spoke to me about concerns they had,” she said. “I was taken a little off guard.”
(For more of Spelliscy's thoughts on the recall effort: www.mtshastanews.com/opinions/x1328932706/Puzzled-by-timing-of-recall).
Stearns expressed his opinion that the recall attempt is about “a small group of disgruntled citizens with a difference of opinion.”
Stearns said he believes the main issues behind the recall are the revocation of the city’s vehicle take home policy, as well as the council’s decision to reduce city employee “fringe benefits” while balancing last year’s budget.
“It’s just one of those things, you can’t please everyone all the time,” Stearns said. “I don’t think there’s any reason for a recall... all three of us work hard to provide quality community service on the council.”
In a telephone interview with Murray Tuesday morning, he expressed that he was still unaware of the exact grounds contained in the recall, since he hasn’t yet accepted the papers.
He said he was unable to accept them on Monday evening because he was going out of town the following day to be with family, which is his number one priority.
He said it is his understanding that the recipient of the recall papers has seven days to submit a written 200 word response, and that he’s planning to be out of town for 10 days.
“I wanted to have the same amount of time as everyone else, to sit down, really factor in all the issues, and have a measured response,” Murray said.
He added that he fully intends to accept the papers and deal with the situation when he returns to Mount Shasta next week.
“If there are issues, I’m willing to work through them,’ Murray said. “It’s all a part of being an elected official.”
Both Stearns and Spelliscy pointed out that they are up for reelection in Nov. 2010, and a special election at this time would be costly to the city.
Mount Shasta resident Kim Latos, who is one of the people involved with the recall, said she was advised by election officials that if everything goes as planned, the recall would happen at the same time as the November 2010 general election, and wouldn’t cost the city any extra money.
As to why the group is recalling Stearns and Spelliscy at a time when their term is already over, Latos said, “the community should be aware of what’s going on, in case either one of them goes for reelection.”
Grounds for the recall vary by council member.
According to recall petition documents, the grounds against Stearns are:
• “Violating the covenant with the citizens who elected him by perpetrating general fiscal mismanagement. Pursuing funding for non-necessary civic agendas while cutting funds for vital health and safety services in direct opposition to advice of city management and the will of the citizens.”
• “Participation in creating a hostile work environment for city employees by willfully ignoring the advice and recommendations of the city manager, financial manager, Mount Shasta Police Department, fire department and public works with disregard for the expressed wishes of the citizenry and best interests of the community.”
• “Demonstration of ignorance and lack of preparedness by making, intentionally or unintentionally, vague and misleading statements regarding agenda items without accurate knowledge and full representation of facts as provided by the city manager, financial manager, Mount Shasta Police Department, fire department and public works.”
The grounds stated against Spelliscy are:
• “Conduct unbecoming to an elected city official by disorderly meeting conduct, disregard for rules of order and frequent antagonizing and angry behavior in public session.”
• “Negligent disregard for citizen well being by repeated failure to abide by Open Meeting Law as governed by the Brown Act by interrupting and making derogatory comments to speakers holding the floor.”
• “Participation in creating a hostile work environment for city employees by willfully ignoring the and recommendations of the city manager, financial manager, Mount Shasta Police Department, fire department and public works with disregard for the expressed wishes of the citizenry and best interests of the community.”
• “Demonstration of ignorance of and lack of preparedness for issues on the agenda by making, intentionally or unintentionally, inaccurate claims and statements regarding city employee benefits during public meetings.”
• “Violating the covenant with the citizens who elected her by perpetrating general fiscal mismanagement. Pursuing funding for non-necessary civic agendas while cutting funds for vital health and safety services in direct opposition to advice of city management and the will of the citizens.”
Grounds against Mayor Murray include:
• “Conduct unbecoming to an elected city official by disorderly meeting conduct, disregard for rules of order and frequent antagonizing and angry behavior in public session.”
• “Negligent disregard for the citizen’s well being by repeated failure to abide by Open Meeting Law as governed by the Brown Act by interrupting and making derogatory comments to speakers holding the floor.”
• “Participation in creating a hostile work environment for city employees by willfully ignoring the and recommendations of the city manager, financial manager, Mount Shasta Police Department, fire department and public works with disregard for the expressed wishes of the citizenry and best interests of the community.”
• “Demonstration of ignorance of and lack of preparedness for issues on the agenda by making, intentionally or unintentionally, inaccurate claims and statements regarding city employee benefits during public meetings.”
• “Violating the covenant with the citizens who elected him by perpetrating general fiscal mismanagement. Pursuing funding for non-necessary civic agendas while cutting funds for vital health and safety services in direct opposition to advice of city management and the will of the citizens.”
• “Fostering divisiveness through his failure to provide effective leadership and clear direction in his capacity as a mayor during public session.”
|
|
|
A group of citizens in Mount Shasta is moving forward with a proposed recall of three council members, including Tim Stearns, Sandra Spelliscy and Mayor Michael Murray.
Stearns and Spelliscy were served with papers outlining the recall following Monday evening’s council meeting. Mayor Murray didn’t accept the papers at that time.
Spelliscy expressed her confusion over the recall during a phone interview Tuesday afternoon.
Certainly, she said, she doesn’t believe that her actions on the council over the past three years are deserving of a recall. She also said she’s “still somewhat frustrated” because of the “vague language” used in the recall paperwork.
“No one ever spoke to me about concerns they had,” she said. “I was taken a little off guard.”
(For more of Spelliscy's thoughts on the recall effort: www.mtshastanews.com/opinions/x1328932706/Puzzled-by-timing-of-recall).
Stearns expressed his opinion that the recall attempt is about “a small group of disgruntled citizens with a difference of opinion.”
Stearns said he believes the main issues behind the recall are the revocation of the city’s vehicle take home policy, as well as the council’s decision to reduce city employee “fringe benefits” while balancing last year’s budget.
“It’s just one of those things, you can’t please everyone all the time,” Stearns said. “I don’t think there’s any reason for a recall... all three of us work hard to provide quality community service on the council.”
In a telephone interview with Murray Tuesday morning, he expressed that he was still unaware of the exact grounds contained in the recall, since he hasn’t yet accepted the papers.
He said he was unable to accept them on Monday evening because he was going out of town the following day to be with family, which is his number one priority.
He said it is his understanding that the recipient of the recall papers has seven days to submit a written 200 word response, and that he’s planning to be out of town for 10 days.
“I wanted to have the same amount of time as everyone else, to sit down, really factor in all the issues, and have a measured response,” Murray said.
He added that he fully intends to accept the papers and deal with the situation when he returns to Mount Shasta next week.
“If there are issues, I’m willing to work through them,’ Murray said. “It’s all a part of being an elected official.”
Both Stearns and Spelliscy pointed out that they are up for reelection in Nov. 2010, and a special election at this time would be costly to the city.
Mount Shasta resident Kim Latos, who is one of the people involved with the recall, said she was advised by election officials that if everything goes as planned, the recall would happen at the same time as the November 2010 general election, and wouldn’t cost the city any extra money.
As to why the group is recalling Stearns and Spelliscy at a time when their term is already over, Latos said, “the community should be aware of what’s going on, in case either one of them goes for reelection.”
Grounds for the recall vary by council member.
According to recall petition documents, the grounds against Stearns are:
• “Violating the covenant with the citizens who elected him by perpetrating general fiscal mismanagement. Pursuing funding for non-necessary civic agendas while cutting funds for vital health and safety services in direct opposition to advice of city management and the will of the citizens.”
• “Participation in creating a hostile work environment for city employees by willfully ignoring the advice and recommendations of the city manager, financial manager, Mount Shasta Police Department, fire department and public works with disregard for the expressed wishes of the citizenry and best interests of the community.”
• “Demonstration of ignorance and lack of preparedness by making, intentionally or unintentionally, vague and misleading statements regarding agenda items without accurate knowledge and full representation of facts as provided by the city manager, financial manager, Mount Shasta Police Department, fire department and public works.”
The grounds stated against Spelliscy are:
• “Conduct unbecoming to an elected city official by disorderly meeting conduct, disregard for rules of order and frequent antagonizing and angry behavior in public session.”
• “Negligent disregard for citizen well being by repeated failure to abide by Open Meeting Law as governed by the Brown Act by interrupting and making derogatory comments to speakers holding the floor.”
• “Participation in creating a hostile work environment for city employees by willfully ignoring the and recommendations of the city manager, financial manager, Mount Shasta Police Department, fire department and public works with disregard for the expressed wishes of the citizenry and best interests of the community.”
• “Demonstration of ignorance of and lack of preparedness for issues on the agenda by making, intentionally or unintentionally, inaccurate claims and statements regarding city employee benefits during public meetings.”
• “Violating the covenant with the citizens who elected her by perpetrating general fiscal mismanagement. Pursuing funding for non-necessary civic agendas while cutting funds for vital health and safety services in direct opposition to advice of city management and the will of the citizens.”
Grounds against Mayor Murray include:
• “Conduct unbecoming to an elected city official by disorderly meeting conduct, disregard for rules of order and frequent antagonizing and angry behavior in public session.”
• “Negligent disregard for the citizen’s well being by repeated failure to abide by Open Meeting Law as governed by the Brown Act by interrupting and making derogatory comments to speakers holding the floor.”
• “Participation in creating a hostile work environment for city employees by willfully ignoring the and recommendations of the city manager, financial manager, Mount Shasta Police Department, fire department and public works with disregard for the expressed wishes of the citizenry and best interests of the community.”
• “Demonstration of ignorance of and lack of preparedness for issues on the agenda by making, intentionally or unintentionally, inaccurate claims and statements regarding city employee benefits during public meetings.”
• “Violating the covenant with the citizens who elected him by perpetrating general fiscal mismanagement. Pursuing funding for non-necessary civic agendas while cutting funds for vital health and safety services in direct opposition to advice of city management and the will of the citizens.”
• “Fostering divisiveness through his failure to provide effective leadership and clear direction in his capacity as a mayor during public session.”
