Is anyone surprised, in good old San Diego, that after the Mayor is reelected he continues to prove himself totally incapable of running this city? Let's call him "Mayor Bush" for their similarities.

Posted by 2 cent Jack | reply to this comment
July 23, 2008 10:28 am

Sanders reappointed at least one person to the San Diego Library Board of Commissioners who never came to meetings, and some others whose usefulness on the Board was questionable at best (especially since they had (and may still have) intertwined interests with the San Diego Library Foundation, which would seem to mean the foxes are monitoring the foxes). Maybe the pool of volunteers for these activities is small, or Sanders just doesn't care.

Posted by Leanne1 | reply to this comment
July 23, 2008 11:41 am

It sounds kind of lame that all these SEDC appointments were overlooked, but consider that this is one of probably hundreds of boards and commissions that needed new members, the pool of willing and qualified people is pretty small, and each person has to be vetted (background, financial interests, etc.). It's probably touh and time-consuming to find good people. I think the fact that there seem to be so many people on boards and commissions that are incapable of analyzing data and thinking for themselves proves it! Most boards/commissions have a ringleader that 90 percent of the members follow because they can't/won't do the work required to make good decisions on their own. I've seen this play out over and over -- including on our city council! So don't put it all in Sanders' lap. This one has a lot of causes.

Posted by Devil's advocate | reply to this comment
July 23, 2008 4:42 pm

If one thinks of the city and its boards and commissions as a kind of small club with strategic rotating directorships, it is not surprising the Mayor has left many positions unfilled. Why initiate change that could upset the delicately balanced status quo, where, for example, a prominent African American pastor's daughter is the clandestine self-enriching big shot at a redevelopment agency in the southeastern part of town? Southeast San Diego has been left to its politicians of color who do their developer-financed district election-thing (only 4000 people voted in District 4 in June) without interference from City Hall or the downtown Anglo power structure. Everybody knows the score and gets his back scratched. Now that Mayor Sanders has been outed on the matter of expired directors approving everything that comes before the board of the SEDC, the Mayor doubtless will hop to. He's going to miss Fred Sainz.

Posted by Fed Up | reply to this comment
July 23, 2008 5:08 pm

Maybe we should question if all these boards and commissions are needed. Shouldn't someone at least ask the question? The board members are working for free but I can guarantee you that in some cases there are City staff members working in support of them--at the library, staff members took the minutes, wrote them up and distributed them. They were fed from the department budget, and it was staff that often did the research when the Board wanted to a report. These employees could have been spending their time elsewhere (I write in the past because I don't know what the library is doing now...they have a new director and that may mean some useful changes). Just because it's always been this way doesn't mean it is the best or the most efficient way to proceed.

Posted by Leanne1 | reply to this comment
July 23, 2008 5:19 pm

Guess that is what we get - when the elected representative seems to feel he does not need 40% of the people living in his district.... I wonder – does the SEDC board’s or Pac’s membership reflectively-represe the demographic of SEDC’s 'sphere of influence'? I believe at 202 C Street sometime last October (SEDC Budget hearings) I heard Smith say that some 63 percent of her 'Sphere of Influence' was Latino. One thing is for sure – that group had no part of this mess.

Posted by Gregory | reply to this comment
July 23, 2008 7:52 pm

Scott: Some months ago after an inventory of vacancies on various city commissions, committees, and boards Mayor Sanders was roundly criticized by City Attorney Mike Aguirre for not naming timely replacements. The Mayor's response at that time to the City Attorney was that the main reason he was having difficultly filling the appointed positions was the City Attorney. Few volunteers wanted to step into the line of friendly fire.

Posted by JT | reply to this comment
July 24, 2008 3:16 pm

Looks to me like "City Attorney Mike Aguirre" was right all alone - the whole place needs to be cleaned-up and I do not see many elected public servants/representat stepping-up and helping by turning in 'wrongdoers.' Hey people, the majority of the people living in San Diego are working class; and in some districts - the supermajority makes less than $40,000 a year. How about representing those people for a while? How much does a few dollars in water rate changes affect your constituents? What is a truly affordable house for people who make less than $30,000 a year (after taxes) and have a family to care for?

Posted by Gregory | reply to this comment
July 24, 2008 4:51 pm

I do not get it; if “it would be inappropriate for the current board to have anything to do with the appointment of a new president” (so the mayor said) would it not also be INAPPROPRIATE for that same board to draw-up the severance package agreement? San Diego – fact is stranger than fiction. Am I really the only one thinking this?

Posted by Gregory | reply to this comment
July 25, 2008 2:16 pm

@Gregory: Looks to me like City Attorney Mike Aguirre was right all alone..." That is FUNNY.

Posted by Cranky | reply to this comment
July 29, 2008 7:46 pm

CCDC board members are appointed pronto. SEDC-not one of the mayor's "prioities." I understand he difference. John Moores and Malin Burnham aren't redeveloping southeast.

Posted by mel | reply to this comment
July 30, 2008 6:46 am

@ Cranky – “He alone was correct.” is that more along the lines of your self-authorized usage of Standard American English Grammar, which you seem to be project in an attempt to minimize and de-legitimate, what I wrote?

Posted by Gregory | reply to this comment
August 1, 2008 8:22 am

Exactly where did Owens come from? Who placed him onto the SEDC board in the first place? I know it was not me, but nothing more. I thought all the board members had to live in San Diego, did he live in San Diego before he was appointed onto the board? And, exactly how did the head of CCDC get into San Diego? Who invited her to our City to run CCDC? Exactly who appointed her and how did he know her - did they have business relationships or other dealing before she come to direct CCDC? It seems to me that there may be a common thread linking all these people together? I wish I know about stuff like that. Too many questions, like what is the Rico Act and what is the definition of racketeering is. I am so stupid.

Posted by Iknowtodd | reply to this comment
August 29, 2008 4:26 pm

• Users may post more than one comment, but should not pose as multiple users. Multiple posts from the same IP address but with a different user name on each will be reviewed to determine whether abuse has occurred.
• Posts with overly personal attacks or unsubstantiated allegations may be edited or deleted.
• Please be patient with the posts -- there may be a delay before they appear on the site -- and make sure to enter the code in the "image verification" box.