A Response to Councilwoman Cuevas’ letter:
Ms. Cuevas’ letter seems to come close to missing the whole point of my criticism.
Whether $1,000 or $2,000 is irrelevant. The issue is how money earmarked as travel money for city business is spent. No one should have a problem with council members receiving $2,000 for the work they do to maintain a functioning city government. However, to tell the citizens of Fillmore that you are traveling to Puerto Rico for a NALEO conference to gain information on the issue of obesity (Ms. Cuevas’ original expressed intent) was a sham. Most reasonable people looking at that trip will quickly understand its essentially political nature: networking with nationally recognized political players. That’s the primary reason for NALEO’s existence. Every such convention has dozens of workshops, any one of which could justify a trip. The point I wish to make is, that political trip was taken for personal political purposes. Why else should Ms. Cuevas need permission? Permission of her peers on the council is not required to take a vacation. If she did not use her stipend on the trip, why ask for permission? The fact is that Ms. Cuevas asked for permission to attend the first convention and was approved. She asked again this year and was denied. I assume it was too late to apply after the policy was changed.
It would be better to abandon entirely the policy of providing money for travel on city business, with or without the assent of other council members. This would eliminate the nonsense of sham excuses. Let’s just provide $2,000 to each member as just compensation for the work they do.
Ms. Cuevas’s political and ethnic bias has cost the city more than $35,000 during the past several years – most of it wasted, like her repeated insistence on forcing Spanish films on our Towne Theatre. After years of struggle, the Theatre finally crept into the black, only to be plunged into the red again by 18 months of this unwanted, unused, and expensive venture. For as many as five or six weeks at a time not a single person would attend these films – yet Ms. Cuevas had the original 6-months experiment extended, twice.
As to Ms. Cuevas’ political intentions, I merely stated my opinion. I’m (I guess) relieved that she will not succumb to the allure of high political office.
Ms. Cuevas’ work for the city is appreciated, although I find her penchant for supporting what a high majority of residents consider overly dense housing disturbing. I note that Councilman Lee questioned the fact that next to no discussion was entertained before final approval of the Shaw project at the railroad tracks was granted.
If such a “tremendous” amount of financial benefit can be created, as you say, by concentration on your successful business and educational endeavors, why not concentrate on them exclusively? That way, you can “walk away from the criticisms, judgments, and outright lies” that seem a plague to you. However, I challenge you to identify any “lies”.
The job of Mayor Pro Tem may have been a Hobson’s choice for the council. Recalling your tantrum at being passed-over for the Mayor position, which necessitated the Mayor to recess a council meeting until you gained your composure, indicates part of the problem.
Ms. Cuevas, my criticism would cease if you would act more like a council member for all the people and less of a lobbyist for “your people” and for related personal causes.