We received a nice bit of commentary on Claremont Mayor pro tem Ellen Taylor from a reader whose opinion we hold in the highest regard:
SUBJECT: ellen taylor
TO: claremontbuzz@yahoo.com
Thank you for pointing out what should be more obvious—that people just excuse bad behavior because “that’s just how she is”. What I don’t understand is why the council will go ahead and elect her mayor. I don’t care that she thinks it’s her turn. Do the citizens of Claremont want an officious, unpleasant, and rigid mayor? Why don’t people stand up at Tuesday’s council meeting during open comment and say she doesn’t deserve to be mayor? And that we in Claremont deserve better? Because too many of us are sheep, I guess.
Keep up the good work.
And thanks for mentioning that KSPC can be heard in the Pasadena Target parking lot. Brought back nice memories.
The reader brings up an important point (not the good work bit, though we surely do appreciate it).
The issue at hand is this business of "it's Ellen's turn to be Mayor." Why exactly is that? Doesn't Taylor's rabid eagerness to lord her "deputy Mayor" position over a group of Girl Scouts like some playground bully speak volumes about her abuse of even the most minor official title?
Yet, Claremonters are quite content to not only let Taylor's continued rude, callous behavior go unpunished, but to actually want to give her a higher title. To, in effect, reward her bad behavior because "it's what we do, it's what we've always done."
This is not just the Peter Principle in action; this is a pathological dysfunction of the worst sort. What an absolutely perfect civics lesson for you Girl Scouts out there looking to earn your "My Government" badge!
Posts
