Here is another roundup of some of the most thought-provoking reader comments of the week. Comments are selected by our editors and subject to editing for grammar, spelling, clarity and length.
Click on each topic’s headline to see the article in question.
This is a really fascinating web blog, and I have loved reading several of the articles and posts contained upon the site. Sustain the great work and hope to read a lot more exciting articles in the time to come. Thank you so much.
Voice of OC, Happy New Year. Excellent coverage of important topics in 2012 and looking forward to 2013. Please keep the hard-hitting follow-up going on what happened to that lawsuit, Alisa Drakodaidis, Carlos Bustamante, the Board of Supervisors, executive aide placements and on and on.
Your coverage of county government and the palace intrigue within it has been outstanding. Keep it up.
As for the culture within county government that has allowed and seems to have actually encouraged misdeeds, favoritism and sheer politics, perhaps in the forthcoming year you can focus on the five elected supervisors on whose watch this dysfunctional environment has been created and allowed to fester.
— News Hound
I for one want to thank the Voice of OC for covering these local government stories. I don’t always agree with what you write, and sometimes I think you’re slanted in some of your coverage, but overall I would give you a B+. That means I think you do a fine job.
I only ask that in 2013 you be a little more honest in presenting both sides of an issue. I do not say that as a slam. I say that as someone who truly believes that our media is our final line of defense against a tyrannical government, and we really need you on our side. So many in the media have deserted us.
Some of your stories have really blown the lid off some of the corruption in the county. Keep digging and purge the dirty laundry.
The problem with calling this a “performance review” and a quest to find out the vision of the city manager on current issues is that the “performance review” dialogue takes place in private, closed session while the other vision conversations should be something that the public is entitled to.
[Councilman Sal] Tinajero said that [City Manager Paul] Walters’ job is not at risk and that “a big portion” of the meeting is to have Walters and [City Attorney Sonia] Carvalho outline to newly elected council members Roman Reyna and Angelica Amezcua some of the city’s major issues, like a dispute over $56 million with the state and a downtown property tax fight. “When you’re able to go into a room and talk freely about these processes, it clarifies things for people,” Tinajero said.
When the city leaders — both council and staff — are discussing items like the impending $56-million redevelopment shortfall facing the city, direction for the artist district, the Station District, economic development, transit, processes, etc., those discussions are not protected by the veil of a closed session. They are topics that should appear on the agenda for the public to comment on and hear what the council and staff have to say.
When you position those topics in the guise of a “performance review” of a particular staff member, you take those conversations private and effectively hide them from the public. This is a complete end run around the transparency goal of the sunshine ordinance and the great work that the community has done to try to bring many of these issues to the light of day.
— SA Resident