• kburgoyne

    Where do these supposedly democratic representative legislating body come up with the lame concepts of allowing a single person to obstruct anything. It’s in stark conflict with the very concept of a democratic representative legislating body.

  • LFOldTimer

    Why didn’t Bartlett give a reason for pulling the item pursuant to Rule 22? Or doesn’t she make herself accessible to the media on her controversial actions? Or couldn’t she come up with a creative excuse like Do? Well at least Bartlett has her rubber stamp well broken in by the time she takes over the Chair from Spitzer. The red dye shouldn’t smear too much when she slams it down. But she needs to buy a wind meter to measure which direction the wind blows before she assumes her leadership role. It should be hilarious to watch her in action. I expect a Hillary-like performance: “At this point what difference does it make?” Grab your popcorn.

  • Jacki Livingston

    Outstanding writing, Norberto. Truly, this is a very good article. I find it incredibly offensive that Nelson was such a jerk to the unions over our pensions, touting himself as the anti-pension crusader. Now he wants to not just feed at the trough, he wants a speshul snowflake golden one. Typical, both him and Moorlach. Frauds without any integrity, the both of them.

  • David Zenger

    I was there for three years and never even heard of “Rule 22.”

    Of course it’s all baloney. This is not a law, it’s a policy position, and the Supervisors violate their own written policies all the time.

    Come to think of it, I’d like to know where this Rule 22 is even written down, when, and who approved it. Smells like a rat to me.

    • Kathleen Tahilramani

      I was there for 31 years never heard of “Rule 22”. This is actual unadulterated BS. Nelson, Moorlach and now Bates. What a group of two faced opportunists. They rant about the evil pension plans and then attempt to hide their grab at a piece of the pie they denied all new employees from getting a bite.What frauds.

    • Robert W Jordan

      http://ocgov.com/civicax/filebank/blobdload.aspx?BlobID=4464

      David, it appears these rules were updated (e.g. voted on by the Board in a public meeting) in 2009, 2011 and 2012. Weren’t those the three years you were there?

      • David Zenger

        That’s a good find. That must have gone through on the Consent Calendar and come up with the rations. I would still like to know when it was promulgated, by whom, now that question is pertinient since Rule 22 has finally been publicly invoked.

        No, I never heard of of it because nobody ever used it – that I was aware of. Of course stuff disappreared off the calendar once in a while usually because the item was unusually stupid.

        Of course my original point is valid: the Supervisors ignore their own policies all the time. They are not County Code (they violate that, too upon occaission – research thr Eckhoff Rat Opera). I gave up counting the CPM violations and the sole source vioations. The CEO could get three Supervisors to suspend it.

        Come to think of it, I wonder if Rulle 22 is even legal.

  • Kathy Forbath Esfahani

    Smart and insightful commentary. I especially love the last line. Yes indeed, we can always hope . . .

  • Paul Lucas

    Its amazing how some things can become such a circus side show.

  • occynic

    Norberto, I think there is a bigger problem then Woolery holding up payment because of Nelson’s political stance. When was this payment authorized and who authorized it? One can only imagine what would happen if Woolery approved a payment of this size without proper authorization for something the supervisors didn’t like. The County CEO does not have authorization to approve this payment. The Supervisors have to put this on an agenda and cast the vote. After that, I think Woolery would be just fine.