Although negative, I thank you for your response. One thing I have learned in my short time in politics is that you cannot please everybody. There are two sides to every story, and you are entitled to your opinion. Here is my opinion.

What you fail to mention is that because I knocked on your door and the doors of every person in your community, you and others were alerted to the fact that a cell tower was about to go up without any notification, after it had already been in process for one year. In fact, the manager of the water company, Bob Hayward, stated at the Land Use Committee meeting on October 6th, 2009, that he had no idea that a cell tower was going to be built on the property. You were a witness to this statement. You have been able to band together as a small community to voice your opinion to stop the cell tower from being built at the original location at Loma Alta and Fair Oaks because you were informed. You fail to mention this.

Also, this is about due process. I was voted in by the community. Due process in any type of election means that I must be removed by the people, not by a few people on the Town Council who are the accuser, the judge, and the jury. This is not due process. The 2 to 1 vote that you mentioned means absolutely nothing to the Town Council. I was always wary of your intentions, but I hoped that when you showed up at the school that you were coming with good intentions, but apparently you were not. You came looking for something to be wrong, something that you could point your finger at, instead of the good that was being done for the teachers and the students. You fail to look at the long-term benefits of the program, including the fact that more students looking towards education means fewer students looking to get in trouble. You have had my e-mail for months now, and you have yet to voice your opinion to me even once, until this public display. I wonder why. I know that you are good friends with my accuser, but you fail to mention that in your statement, giving others a false impression of the truth. Because of this, don’t you think your opinion could be a bit biased? As far as the CAC, I do not feel that I need to change anything that I said at the meeting because it was for the good of the community. Everybody there was at least 55 years and older, and the attitude of what I heard in there was absolutely insulting to the community, and no positive solutions were offered other than jailing people. I do understand that the Sheriff’s job is to enforce the law, but the CAC’s job, as explained to me, is to be a liason between the sheriffs and the community. How can you have full community participation when you only have one age group represented? This is age discrimination. Furthermore, it was stated that membership to the CAC only occurs once a year in January upon an invitation, per Captain Blow. How did you get invited before January as you stated in your e-mail dated July 23rd? This once again shows the bias of this group. It is not trying to reach out to the community, it reaches out only to the people who agree with them. Your failure to see these injustices is the same failure to see the due process that has not been allowed to the community and to myself as your Council Member. Don’t you think you are letting your personal opinion of me overrule due process and the rights of the community? You are in fact doing the exact same thing as the Altadena Town Council.

I first met Herbert, when he walked our tract and introduced himself as running for Town Council. He was very enthusiastic and voiced great plans for us all. He wanted to improve communication, and seemed more than willing to listen to us all. He was determined to implement positive changes for our tract and the community at large.

Herbert won by almost 2 to 1, which is very impressive. He continues to have a base of support from what I can gather from the Town Council meetings and his web site.

I first questioned his ability to lead when I attended the Altadena Sheriffs Community Advisory Committee (CAC) meeting after the election. Herbert was also at this meeting. I realized that he was out of sync with what was going on at the meeting when the following occurred: Various members of the CAC gave reports and so did Captain Blow. After the Captain gave his report Herbert spoke in a way that seemed to have an undercurrent of irritation and disagreement with what Captain Blow had just said. As best as I can recall it Captain Blow stated that he would not hesitate to make arrests of those who were committing crimes in Altadena. Herbert seemed annoyed that arrests were being made instead of jobs being created. Granted jobs for everyone would be wonderful but 1) it is not Captain Blow’s job to create employment for offenders, and 2) I could not understand why Herbert did not offer to help those in the room who were involved with helping educate and train young people in Altadena rather than taking offense at what Captain Blow had to say?

This has become a chronic approach on Herbert’s part. Rather than offering to help or communicate in a co-operative way he is constantly on the defensive. It sounds to me as though he feels ‘everyone is against him.’ That he is right and those who do not agree with him are wrong. I find his behavior embarrassing and unprofessional.

He claims that he was never given the Code of Ethics and the Robert’s Rules of Order and that he had no knowledge that his request for donations to his Teacher/Student of the Month program was inappropriate. How can we know the truth of this when the Town Council states differently? But in any case, if I was in his position the first thing I would have asked for would have been the rules for the group I was now a part of. It is publicly available to us all. Why wait?

I wanted to be fair and informed about his controversial Teacher & Student of the Month Award Program so I went to the assembly at Daniel Webster Elementary in early October. There were many awards and commendations given by the school itself. Parents of the awardees were present. It was a very upbeat experience. The assembly ended with Herbert’s awards. The Principal was delighted to have someone from outside of the school there to acknowledge the children and teachers’ hard work. He gave out t-shirts, certificates and bags filled with gifts from the community. Some (not all) of these gifts were from some of his free advertisers on his web site. This may have the potential of a conflict of interest situation.

My observations are that Herbert is well meaning but misdirected. I am afraid that if he is allowed to continue that there will only be more of the same. I see no hope of any truce or meeting of the minds. The dissonance that has plagued this new term for the Town Council has proven to be unproductive. We as members of the community have been presented with ‘he said she said’ from both sides. I feel the Town Council could have done better also. But that is another matter.

I do not know what happens if Herbert is removed. This has all become much too complicated. I feel that we need to move on and deal with issues that concern the community not the personalities on the Town Council.

I feel that Herbert’s removal is the only way this can occur.

Sincerely,
Holly Rundberg

Secondly, Mr. Simmons made public announcements and through his website of his error and his site does state that the Teacher /Student awards are solely of his design, and the participating businesses are aware that this is not council business. For a contact to be binding, it must be written and with a 2/3 vote per the by-laws, so this was never an issue of litigation for the city. Sadly, the altadenablog, which was so excellent during the fires, has made criticism of Mr. Simmons as having his name on the t-shirts. However, Mr. Simmons has had to make patently clear that the council is NOT involved, although much of the public would like the council to be in support of this project and there was a large public support group at the August. council meeting. To improve the quality of life and the community is a basic charge of council duty. What business does not want to see value given to the education of their future employees? What good student does not want to be singled out with, among other local business gifts, with an awarded t-shirt? What parent doesn’t want to see a child excited about hard work and accomplishment?
Another question which is bothersome is that WHY the council took so long coming to this conclusion of what they think is wrongdoing? if this occured in July, then why has it taken so long to come to a council decission? Surely a member who did something wrong and has gone out of his way to advertise that fact should not be treated as if he was Bernie Madoff, or a sub-prime lender. The punishment does not seem to fit. To drag this on forever with the public’s main knowledge coming from the blog does not tell the whole story. Closed meetings per the Brown Act apply to paid personnel and not to elected officials. The public has a right to know.
The thing which bothers many people is that they would like to know WHAT is going on. If they elected someone, and if he is unfit, then the public should be told as to why. The council by-laws state that there is no time limit as to how long that a person may serve, and as the council is made of volunteers, this can be a good thing. However, it also has the potential to make this a kind of social club, where those who have a different view for the need for open discussion can be condemned in secret, and removed and where these same deciders” can put someone of their choosing in the seat. To eject an elected official so easliy is rather disquieting. Why would the council by- laws supercede the need for the public to KNOW per the Brown Act? Perhaps a revisit to the intent of Occam’s Razor would be in order. ( a simple solution is superior to a mole hill made into a mountain.)
Sadly, some do see this as a personal battle for Mr. Simmons , but I appreciate his desire to have TRANSPARENCY for council actions. I’m sure that for several years many of us have been in a Rip Van Winkle existence with government, but we are all awake now, and it is very clear that we all have a stake in this country and that the work starts at the micro level with our local government. I also appreciate the fact that he has continued to move on ahead with the Student /Teacher awards, as this is one area in which the community should be able to “get along.” If freedom of information was not important, then the Brown Act would not have come into existence, nor would this nation have a ” Freedom of Information Act.” How will this end? I do not know, but with or without the city council, I beleive that Mr. Simmons has already made Altadena a better place for business, schools, and the community. I would like council transparency to be in effect and my elected official to continue to challenge and work for my census tract of 4602.

Where is he discipline of members who have raised money for their own not for profit from the dias without permission? Where is the discipline for members who have stated they would only support developers who donated to a Not for Profit whose board of directors they sat upon? There is none, in spite of written complaints having been made, yet they accuse and vote against Councilman Simmons. WHAT A CESSPOOL! These rules only apply to those who are not squaling little piglets at the developer Not for Profit trough. The ALTADENA TOWN COUNCIL IS A TOTAL JOKE .

If the Town Council is as the County says, “just like any other homeowners group” why does it get free office rent from the County? If the ATC is just another homeowner group why does it get free meeting rooms from the County? If the ATC is just another homeowners group, why has the county paid $1,000 a month every month for 14 years to put it’s meetings on television? If the town council is like any other homeowners group why does the county consult it in writing legislation? Why does the County then in the mansionization ordinance mandate that public hearings on appeals be heard at the ATC BEFORE those appeals go to the Regional Planning Commission? Why dont they go to the nearest homeowners association, most in Altadena being MUCH older than the ATC?

Because the County wants to have it both ways, having a group they can control, consult and not have to insure or staff. the ATC is NOT like ANY other homeowner group. The ATC is or should be subject to the ralph M Brown Act and as such all of these secret meetings held against Councilman Simmons and all these emails going back and forth between members, inculding the original complaint are illegal.

The people who need to be up on ethics violations are Sund, Wesson, Campbell, Shackleford, Neilan, Bissner, and the others involved in this dispicable conspiracy to grab power. They are the ones who have brought the Altadena Town Council into complete and near total disrepute in the Altadena Community. They have turned what could have been a community serving institution into a complete total joke. They have become the Altadena Clown Council!