Is current Vacaville Mayor Steve Hardy sexist or just plain ignorant?

Posted in the Vacaville Forum

First Prev
of 2
Next Last

Since: Dec 12

Location hidden

#1 Jan 14, 2013
So there's been a bunch of back and forth over the term of Vacaville's newest Vice Mayor. Mayor Hardy decided on his own that he wanted to change the two-year term to just one year at the same time Dilenna Harris, the only woman on council, was nominated to the position.

Call it sexism, political jockeying, or just plain ignorance, but the move has exposed an issue with certain members of council discussing items outside of public & even closed session meetings, and it has hit a nerve with the community.

I personally think there's a bit of all three in there, as his comments towards female dissenters have been incredibly condescending, and a shorter vice mayor term could put him in a better position come 2014 when he's up for re-election and Harris might be his strongest opposition if still holding the title of Vice Mayor.
Karen

Vacaville, CA

#3 Jan 15, 2013
Da May or is a pig! THis is all politix.

Since: Dec 12

Location hidden

#4 Jan 15, 2013
Karen wrote:
Da May or is a pig! THis is all politix.
Karen, will you be there to voice your opinion on Tuesday?
Adam Lambert

Benicia, CA

#5 Jan 15, 2013
Is the mayor sexy? I dont think so, and Ive seen enough of him to make an informed judgment.

Since: Aug 10

Kent, WA

#6 Jan 16, 2013
I say neither, and since the position of vice mayor is voted on by the council it is not his sole decision as to. Who it will be.

Since: Dec 12

Location hidden

#7 Jan 21, 2013
Birds Landing Bob wrote:
I say neither, and since the position of vice mayor is voted on by the council it is not his sole decision as to. Who it will be.
The vice-mayor is Dilenna Harris, and that's not changing. The nomination of the new vice mayor was on the agenda and isn't an issue at all.

What wasn't on the agenda is the change in the term that the vice mayor would serve, and that's what has caused major concern for many. Hardy decided to change it all on his own, which is illegal. It's an embarrassment to the city that after two years as mayor, Hardy still doesn't understand meeting procedures or the Brown Act. He needs his hand held by the city attorney and city manager in every single council meeting, and our city leaders waste time on what would otherwise be non-issues.
Observer

Vacaville, CA

#8 Jan 21, 2013
How is it illegal if the City Attorney even said at the last meeting that there's no law regarding terms of a Vice-Mayor?

Since: Dec 12

Location hidden

#9 Jan 21, 2013
Observer wrote:
How is it illegal if the City Attorney even said at the last meeting that there's no law regarding terms of a Vice-Mayor?
The city attorney completely ignored the issue. The term of Vice-Mayor itself is not covered by law, but how we vote on any item is indeed governed by state and city law. There is a law regarding voting on items that are not on the agenda. Holding a vote to change the term of Vice-Mayor was not on the agenda, and as such is a violation of the Brown Act. The city attorney even had to tell Hardy that he couldn't just change the term on his own but needed a vote, he just forgot that the vote had to be added to the agenda first or immediately follow a passing vote regarding whether or not that item was an emergency topic. The item was also not even opened to public discussion - another violation of the Brown Act.

CA Government Code 54953.3(a)-(Brown Act Section)

"Every agenda for regular meetings shall provide an opportunity for members of the public to directly address the legislative body on any item of interest to the public, before or during the legislative body's consideration of the item, that is within the subject matter jurisdiction of the legislative body, provided that no action shall be taken on any item not appearing on the agenda unless the action is otherwise authorized by subdivision (b) of Section 54954.2."

It also violates Vacaville's own code for council meetings:

"Section 2.04.030 Agenda.

...The final agenda shall be available to the public not later than five p.m. on the day of the meeting and in the council chambers during each meeting.(Ord. 880 2(part), 1976: Ord. 828 2(part), 1974: Ord. 605 2(part), 1966: prior code 2.2(1)).

2.04.040 Matters not on agenda.

No matters other than those on the agenda shall be finally acted upon by the council; provided, however, that matters deemed to be emergencies or of an urgent nature by any councilman, the city manager, or the city attorney, with an explanation of the emergency or urgency stated in open council meeting may, with the consent of the majority of the council, be considered and acted upon by the council.(Ord. 880 2(part), 1976: Ord. 828 2(part), 1974: Ord. 605 2(part), 1966: prior code 2.2(2))."

This decision was definitely not a matter of urgency, just one man's political agenda.
The Truth

Vacaville, CA

#10 Jan 21, 2013
I don't know of da mayor is sexist, bit I do know he is fat. That's the truth.
Observer

Vacaville, CA

#11 Jan 21, 2013
Didn't the Mayor open it up to the public by allowing Dilenna's father to speak on the issue?
So I don't see a violation there.

How is term length of vice mayor, which isn't set in stone by any law, not covered by the topic of "nomination and selection of vice-mayor," when the Mayor stated the last time we selected a vice mayor that he wanted it to be a rotating term?

The issue was put on the agenda to be voted on as a business item, so it's easy for everyone to see that the issues of vice mayor were going to be voted on that night. So again, no violations there.

If Councilmember Mashburn was nominated for vice mayor and only able to serve for one year, no one would be complaining, but because it's Councilmember Harris, she takes it personally and is being selfish about the whole matter.

Since: Dec 12

Location hidden

#12 Jan 21, 2013
The Mayor never formally opened it up to the public. Dilenna's father had to ask if he could voice his opinion, and Hardy did not open the floor afterward or ask if anyone else had any comments. That could have been solved if he declared the item open for public discussion and then said "hearing none and seeing none", but the floor was never opened for discussion.

The term of Vice Mayor is not the same as a nomination, and the agenda has to clearly state the items that will be discussed so there will be no confusion. For example, the agenda for tomorrow's meeting clearly mentions the discussion item as "Term of office of the Vice Mayor".

The issue was not put on the Dec 11 agenda as a business item, and if not on the agenda it should not have been voted on. Read the law for yourself. It was taken out of order since they were still in the middle of nominations, but it should have been put off until more discussion could be had and the public had the chance to voice their opinions with the item on the agenda. They will finally get that chance tomorrow.

There's no doubt that the timing of Hardy's desire to enact his will was poorly judged, and I'm sure many female Vacaville residents will speak out tomorrow night. And yes, it does seem the decision was based out of political gain and sexism. His responses to those who don't agree with him have been blatantly condescending.

Even if there was no malicious intent, the fact remains that certain procedures that we have in place for good reason were not followed. It's the city attorney's job to defend the city, so he will never admit to a city employee or official breaking the law and open the city up to a lawsuit. It's up to the people of the city or a third party to file a complaint or voice their opinion about the facts in a public meeting.

And how is Harris being selfish about it? She said she didn't agree with the Mayor's decision before the nomination, and that was that. Is that wrong? Editorials by both the Reporter and the Daily Republic show that public opinion is with Harris on this one, and Curtis Hunt asked for the issue to be placed on an actual agenda for discussion. That's why it's coming up tomorrow night.
Vacaville Voter

Vacaville, CA

#13 Jan 22, 2013
Totally agree. The mayor needs to admit he was wrong and move on. I've overheard higher up city employees saying that they never been more embarrassed to work for the city than when the mayor decided to he could change things on his own. Not cool.
A Thought

Vacaville, CA

#14 Jan 22, 2013
I saw some of the meeting on tv. Gotta be honest... Not impressed with our current council at all...

I should care more about this issue, but really don't...

When's the next elections????

:-)
Pony

San Francisco, CA

#15 Jan 23, 2013
Can the people who disagree on the legality of Hardy's actions go over the head of our city attorney? Is there an office in Sacramento where such things can be reported?

A city government must be responsible to some higher place... right? If Hardy is operating as Mayor so badly and is shoving illegal actions at us, we should recall him.
Mike

Castro Valley, CA

#16 Jan 23, 2013
A Thought wrote:
I saw some of the meeting on tv. Gotta be honest... Not impressed with our current council at all...
I should care more about this issue, but really don't...
When's the next elections????
:-)
Yeah, let's bring back Len Augustine and Pauline "Beehive" Clancy!
Mel

San Jose, CA

#17 Jan 23, 2013
Mike wrote:
<quoted text>Yeah, let's bring back Len Augustine and Pauline "Beehive" Clancy!
LOL
A Thought

Vacaville, CA

#18 Jan 23, 2013
Mike wrote:
<quoted text>Yeah, let's bring back Len Augustine and Pauline "Beehive" Clancy!
NOOOOOOOOOoooooooooooooooooo !
Ken

Sacramento, CA

#19 Jan 23, 2013
The only time politicians object on the grounds of "process" is when the process doesn't serve the politician.

There have been past issues where the "process" was questionable, and yet, no objection by councilmembers. So, now we should believe they are concerned about transparancy and fairness? The whole "process" argument would be more credible if a precendent of advocacy existed for ensuring fair process on all issues - and yet, there is none.

No laws were broken and no member of the public was harmed by a vote to shorten the term of a completely arbitrary position. At the very least, a few egos were bruised.

This is nothing more than manufactured indignation.

Interestingly enough, far more pressing issues were discussed in last night's council meeting, and yet no comment on those.

Since: Dec 12

Location hidden

#20 Jan 23, 2013
The attorney general can be brought in should he choose to take the case. I think the oversights were so obvious that it's an easy case for him.

The city attorney represents the city and its officials, so of course he advised Hardy to say that no laws were broken and that there are no laws covering terms of vice mayor. However, they never mentioned the Brown Act because they didn't want to bring attention to it, and they couldn't deny it publicly since there were blatant violations.

A group of Vacaville residents are contacting the AG. It's unfortunate that those elected to represent the people's interest choose in the end to enact their own will and wishes rather than the clearly expressed views of residents last night.

When the people spoke on the Recology issue, the council listened, but when it comes to matters that could effect the results of future elections, the majority chose to protect themselves. Personally, I think Ron Rowlett wants to run for mayor in 2 years.
Vinny

San Jose, CA

#21 Jan 23, 2013
VacaBulldog04 wrote:
The attorney general can be brought in should he choose to take the case. I think the oversights were so obvious that it's an easy case for him.
The city attorney represents the city and its officials, so of course he advised Hardy to say that no laws were broken and that there are no laws covering terms of vice mayor. However, they never mentioned the Brown Act because they didn't want to bring attention to it, and they couldn't deny it publicly since there were blatant violations.
A group of Vacaville residents are contacting the AG. It's unfortunate that those elected to represent the people's interest choose in the end to enact their own will and wishes rather than the clearly expressed views of residents last night.
When the people spoke on the Recology issue, the council listened, but when it comes to matters that could effect the results of future elections, the majority chose to protect themselves. Personally, I think Ron Rowlett wants to run for mayor in 2 years.
Amen

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker
First Prev
of 2
Next Last

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Vacaville Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
Solano County Supervisors VIOLATES FEDERAL laws... 3 hr Hodge 11
Jade Helm 15 6 hr Un agenda 21 and ... 2
News Suit, by prisoner who sued over taken TV, dismi... 8 hr Latricia 12
News Breakfast program to highlight services for hom... 14 hr Latricia 1
News Danette Mitchell: Boys, young men need to hear ... Sat Anonymous 1
News Vacaville to pay $1.3 million over fatal police... Fri Latricia 4
News Police: Search leads to drugs, money, 4 arrests... May 1 Birds Landing Bob 1
More from around the web

Vacaville People Search

Addresses and phone numbers for FREE

Personal Finance

Mortgages [ See current mortgage rates ]