Search The Tattler

Sunday, November 6, 2011

Letter To The Tattler: Andre Carpiaux

The following letter is from long-time north Emeryville resident, Andre Carpiaux.  Mr Carpiaux is running for city council as a write-in candidate.
.                .               .               .

This election may not bring any change, however, it is an opening window to transmit communication with the dynamics of the election process.
I have unwittingly been drawn into the Emeryville politic by the forces of time and I have witnessed many unpleasant, revolting actions. To analyze all of them on this occasion all would re-open the wounds of the drama, some of them with tragic consequences.
This is from my point of view: the eye of the beholder.
If it's different from the main-stream it's because of different upbringing, different social culture and background in education and profession.

Change is what we (this town) in Emeryville needs.
We need to change our election process with term limits, because
elected officials become professional politicians earning a living wage by being in politics, it matters little the amount of compensation.
As such they hone their trade by accumulating credit in their favor
to lay as personal accomplishments, ordinary things that may have
been works and/or the credit of others. This could be in the form of
public transportation advocacy from say [former mayor] Greg Harper and/or the bicycle challenge from [former city councilman] John Fricke.  Mr Fricke, it should be noted choose not to seek more than one term for a variety of reasons, most of which resulted in frustration in dealing with the formation of a majority of the council members who take advantage of their majority to impose or inflict on others questionable punishment, questionable
reward, benefits, glories and privileges such as unconditional immunity.
One of those privileges is the selection of mayor-ship  which should be on a rotating basis, not with the favorite council member added on (conveniently) chosen, elected amongst the council members themselves.

Here emerges the "villain" by ignoring the words "rotating basis"
which they (the majority) transform into naming themselves into the role of mayor-ship.
It is done with condescending arrogance that its revolting against democratic ideology, because of its bulling mentality.
It is calculated to coincide with major event such as this re-election
in which the antiquated Nora Davis maneuvered her imposing will to her majority of acolytes to be on the spot light for her re-election.
The flaw in this gang style process is that there is NO merit attached in the process and it implies the under current that a favor will be returned next turn years well advance (you own me that much).
This is hardly a "rotating basis", it is more shenanigans in cahoots with the other gang members and it lacks basic honesty to the process of adherence of "rotating basis".
It also lacks consideration to the pledge of other City Council members aspiring to be Mayor (for all it’s worth) to serve their voters and to seek an accomplishment specific to their input and or missions during their nominated term.  It deprives them of such an opportunity and also mainly the people who elected them (voted) to have their choice person to represent them as Mayor.  They cannot say “my Mayor” !

As such, the nomination of the mayor should be by a representation of people voter block on the number of City Council meetings as 21 on calendar year by 5 council members would be on four year term.
With a total of about 84 meetings divided amongst the 5 members
which would equal 17 meetings by each members minus one
The top vote getter of the 3 slate runner would get one (1) additional meeting, the second runner up would have 17 meeting and the third runner up would have16 meetings.
On the two slate runner, the top would have 17 meetings,the second16 meetings.
Everybody would have their turn at a mayor-ship during their 4 years tenure as City Council members.
Each candidate for City Council seat would have to agree and sign a pledge to conform with this agreement as to not disturb the divide of the mayor-ship duty once elected.

If we cannot have an honest division of mayor-ship from our elected officials then it is fair to expect that those who have taken advantage of the loophole in the past may not be honest in their City Council duties and that their pledge of allegiance has been crooked right at the start with the intent to pursue such as long as it is tolerated in cold blooded, ruthless backroom deals that has been worked out by the majority of its members comprising Ken Bukowski, Nora Davis and the late Ruth Atkin.

Please do not re-elect those incumbents, they are sinners against
this pledge of allegiance to have an equitable honest government.

Sincerely Yours
Andre' Carpiaux
Write - In candidate.

P.S.
I am the only candidate willing to challenge the incumbents on the
subject of basic honesty and the abolition of qualified unconditional immunity from crime, which is in the same line of though as the conniving selection of the mayor-ship (to get away with it).

3 comments:

  1. If write-in candidates were in fact allowed in this election, then I think we can do far better than those who are a product of the current system. The rotating mayoral system is not the big problem here, but term-limits would be a game changer for the better. Perhaps candidates for public office should be subject to tighter rules and regulations as to make it harder for them to sell us out to special interests. Thank god for the increase of unrestricted Internet media and public assembly. -J

    ReplyDelete
  2. FYI- Write-in candidates for city council in fact are allowed.

    ReplyDelete
  3. I was in the Council chamber when this gentleman threw his microphone directly at Mayor Davis, narrowly missing her head. Although I don't always agree with her, every time she shows him professional graciousness, she wins a point from me.

    ReplyDelete