Claremont Insider: A Reader Asks

Monday, February 19, 2007

A Reader Asks

We received this inquiry yesterday:

Dear Mr./Ms. Buzz,

Saw your blog, "Claremont Insider." Who are you? Is this another anonymous blog? Also, you have some factual errors in one of your recent posts. The Ellen Taylor annual deferred comp. payout is a bit lower (not sure on the specifics).

I hope you reveal who you are, not that it really matters that much I guess. I'm just curious. But anyone stirring up the pot in Claremont (besides me) is good for Claremont.

We did some fact-checking, and our reader was correct. According to a 9/30/2006 Claremont Courier article by Will Bigham, the way the city council benefits work is that council members can elect to receive $914 per month to use towards a variety of things (medical, dental, vision insurance). Whatever is left over after the health benefits can be placed in a deferred compensation retirement account--something like a 401(k).

Only Ellen Taylor and Peter Yao among the five council members takes these benefits. According to the Courier, Ellen Taylor puts $61.03 per month (or $732.36 per year) towards vision and dental insurance, the remainder, $852.07 (or $10,224.84 per year)--the Courier's math may be very slightly off here--goes into Taylor's deferred comp account.

Peter Yao puts $863.96 per month towards health and dental benefits, and the remaining $50.04 per month goes into a deferred comp account.

Thanks to our reader for pointing out those errors. We've corrected them accordingly.

____________________________


As to the reader's other question, "Who are you?" We can only answer that we are indeed another anonymous blog along the lines of the Foothill Cities blog. In this town, the first thing the Claremont 400 focuses on is not what you are saying, but who you are, what clubs and organizations you belong to, who your friends are.

You see, dear reader, Claremont is a town that was for many years run by bullies who supported the ultimate bully, former city manager Glenn Southard. Like our current president, this group, informally known as the "Claremont 400", does not really care for people who disagree with their worldview or point out obvious inconsistencies in their positions. You are either for them or against them.

That is why Diann Ring, at the January 2007 campaign kickoff for Sam Pedroza, talked about the need "to get back our town." They really believe this is town just for them and their friends. So, when anyone comes along questioning their assumptions, rather than consider and the facts, they attack the questioner as negative, abrasive or "uncivil." These are merely code words for "You don't have to listen to this person." So important information gets lost and ignored.

We choose anonymity to force them to argue the issues. Let's have a real discussion on the merits of the case.

The irony (that word again!) is that the Claremont 400 is itself uncivil in its attacks on the Other (see: Twilight Zone in Claremont--Election 2005). Recall that in that election, the Preserve Claremont group revealed itself, using hysterical attacks against first Jackie McHenry, then candidate Corey Calaycay, claiming that they were going to destroy the city and chase staff away. Strangely, there were never any apologies from any of the Preserve Claremonters or "Claremonsters" as some took to calling them. They are now back, working the Pedroza and Elderkin campaigns, working "to get back our town."

To Diann Ring, we say, this is everybody's town--yours, ours, the homeless guy you wanted to throw in jail with your unconstitutional homeless ordinance, the public speakers your people wanted to have evaluated by psychologists to determine their their fitness to speak (see: 1/26/1999 city draft report--Item M: Threat Assessments, co-authored by current acting police chief Paul Cooper).

We think Claremont is for all of us. Like AYSO, everybody plays! So get over it.

We feel that the city has lost out in the past because the Claremont 400 has cut off real debate and access to real information. We aim to provide that and will back up our assertions with links to backup documents and news articles. Let the facts speak for themselves.