Disqus - Latest Comments for CGartman

Re: GilroyDispatch.com | Former councilman back in court Dec. 7

CGartman — Tue, 01 Nov 2011 01:24:07 -0000

David McRea, "Readandunderstand", is wrong. I am not Gilroy1. I do not write under any other name than myself.

Re: GilroyDispatch.com | Early mayor's race and an election change to consider

CGartman — Thu, 10 Feb 2011 03:17:12 -0000

Half is based on a projection of the cost from the Registor of Voters. Actual is not known until after the election. You should know this as a former elected official. How much does the school board candidates pay for their campaign statements?

Re: GilroyDispatch.com | Early mayor's race and an election change to consider

CGartman — Thu, 10 Feb 2011 03:11:35 -0000

I paid all, other didn't. The council does not wish to change the rules governing this issue or any other campaign rules. Read the filings, they are posted on the city web site, they are very interesting.

Re: GilroyDispatch.com | Early mayor's race and an election change to consider

CGartman — Thu, 10 Feb 2011 02:36:27 -0000

It appears you did not know that the candidates paid $950 each to help cover half of the cost of those statements.

Re: GilroyDispatch.com | Placards a bad sign

CGartman — Tue, 05 Oct 2010 17:11:15 -0000

Section 37.30 Regulations in All Districts Section 37.31 Prohibited Signs Except as otherwise provided in this Ordinance, the following signs shall be prohibited throughout the City of Gilroy: (m) Political signs or placards which are erected less than ninety (90) days before and removed less than ten (10) days after the election for which they are posted. Political signs shall not be placed on any portion of a street, sidewalk, or public right-of-way. (q) Placards, posters, announcements and similar signs attached to any fence, pole, tree or any other object along the right-of-way of a public thoroughfare, except those of an official nature authorized by a City Ordinance. (bb) Signs placed on any portion of a street, sidewalk, or public right-of-way, excluding signs on newspaper vending machines which may not exceed three (3) square feet in sign area. (dd) Signs within 660 feet of Santa Teresa Boulevard except on-site signs for business identification.

Re: GilroyDispatch.com | Councilwoman sends appeal to stop Caltrain from canceling Gilroy service

CGartman — Tue, 25 May 2010 02:15:43 -0000

I rode Caltrain to work for many years and took the VTA bus when I worked in the valley. I rode Caltrain April 1 to the Giants game with my wife. I am disappointed that they wish to cut service to Gilroy. Everyone should write to Caltrain and voice their displeasure with this desire of theirs.

Re: GilroyDispatch.com | Letters: Councilman Gartman merely trying to get some movement at City Hall

CGartman — Fri, 09 Apr 2010 20:43:27 -0000

Yes, she is my mother. And a Gilroyan who questions me about some of my votes too. She doesn't cut me much slack.

Re: GilroyDispatch.com | Councilman requests study session on privatizing city departments

CGartman — Mon, 05 Apr 2010 01:00:12 -0000

Dear Mr. Mayor and Fellow Council Members,

I had a very interesting conversation with a member of our community and they told me about something that happened in Indianapolis in the 1990’s and thought it might be a good idea for the council to explore given our tough financial times today.

The idea is to have city services “put out to bid”. All city services from planning, finance, engineering, community services, police, fire, water, maintenance and etc. It appeared to have been a success as many of the departments were able to find ways to cut cost and improve customer service, thus saving tax dollars and providing a better product to the people they work for. Those that could not find ways to out bid the competition, they lost out.

I would like to propose such an idea and have the winners of the bid start serving the community when each of the respective contracts expires. Since I am sure there could be a great deal of discussion on this item, I think a study session would be in order.

Since there is nothing planned for Monday April 12, I would like to request, Mr. Mayor, a study session for council to discuss this matter in greater detail.

This idea is captured in a book “Governing by Network: The New Shape of the Public Sector” by Stephen Goldsmith and William D. Eggers.

Regards,

Craig

Emailed on March 23, 2010 to all Gilroy City Council members, City Clerk, City Administrator and editor of The Gilroy Dispatch.

Re: GilroyDispatch.com | Council to pay prevailing wage for library project

CGartman — Thu, 18 Mar 2010 14:37:54 -0000

Mr. Kirkish,

I wish you had taken the time to ask me why I voted no last night because it is apparent you don’t understand my position on issues such as this. My position has not changed from the beginning. I believe in the free market system and capitalism. I don’t buy into the “Best Of The Best” ideal. You get the best workers only if they pay them more money. Sorry, I just can’t accept that line of thinking.

This line of thinking did not work for the new Police Station or the Downtown project where we had to pay large legal bills to correct the poor workmanship on these union prevailing wage projects.

I want to see all qualified general contractors bidding on this project, not just the eight who agree to a prevailing wage plan. I have not changed my position or principles over the years and will continue to vote this way in the future. I want to see the city spend the tax payer’s money wisely. I did not understand the logic behind the financials presented last night nor did I get satisfactory answers to my questions from staff. If I don’t understand the logic behind it, I’m not going to support it.

You are entitled to your opinion and I look forward to your run for city council and then maybe we can all see your political motivation and which way your moral compass points.

Also, can you please explain to me as to why it is WRONG to take a position that is different than yours?

Regards,
Craig Gartman

Re: GilroyDispatch.com | 'Council Without Hope' shouldn't throw in the towel

CGartman — Tue, 23 Feb 2010 19:03:34 -0000

The city government are those people working in city hall. The people of Gilroy elect their representatives to oversee the actions of the government. Sometimes that is lost on these very same people. And it appears that this is also lost on some of the people of Gilroy who think it is wrong to have disagreement among council members and that we should all agree with staff and each other.

Re: GilroyDispatch.com | Councilmen boycott closed session on medical marijuana dispensary

CGartman — Fri, 20 Nov 2009 15:25:21 -0000

Karin,
So your suggestion is to go ahead and go along with the rest of the council even though we know what they were doing was against the state law and local ordinance? Interesting thought process you have to go along with the rest of the crowd for harmony sake.

I was not elected to follow the leader.

Re: GilroyDispatch.com | Councilmen boycott closed session on medical marijuana dispensary

CGartman — Thu, 19 Nov 2009 02:35:12 -0000

That is not what I am saying. I said that they discussed and passed a resolution without the proper release of this information before the meeting which is required by our ordinance and state law. It also did not allow public comment on the resolution.

I agree that if I was in the meeting I could have and would have protested. But, the reason to go into closed session was in violation of our ordinance and state law.

The DA is not the party to investigate violations of the Brown Act. The FPPC is the group to call if that is what you want to do. I have written to the Mayor and asked for this set of issues to be corrected at our next public meeting and that the resolution be set aside until than. That is allowable per the Brown Act. But I am sure you already knew that but were just trying to test my knowledge of the Brown Act.

Re: GilroyDispatch.com | Councilmen boycott closed session on medical marijuana dispensary

CGartman — Wed, 18 Nov 2009 23:07:45 -0000

I am speaking for only myself and not for any other council member.

I chose not to participate in an action by the council Monday night because I thought it was WRONG.

The reason given by the Mayor and the City Attorney made the subject matter of the meeting a violation of Gilroy’s Open Government Ordinance and against the state’s Brown Act. I was told that the council went into closed session to discuss if this business was in violation of the Gilroy City Code and the Gilroy Zoning Ordinance.

What was not disclosed in the City Council Agenda or when the City Attorney and Mayor reviewed what was to be discussed during the meeting was the Resolution that was acted on during the closed session. A clear violation of the Brown Act.

They used the cover of “Initiating Litigation” to shield their true plan which was to approve a Resolution.

I did not discover this until after the closed session. By law, the Resolution was to have been made public for everyone to review and comment on during the public meeting.

A pile of papers stamped "Confidential" were delivered to me late last week with the Resolution attached. But since it was "Confidential" I could not discuss or show the Resolution to the public. The Resolution was not listed on the agenda, the City Attorney and the Mayor did not disclose that the Resolution would be discussed let alone voted on during the closed session. I figured the Resolution was to be discussed at a future meeting.

It is my belief that all of these issues should have been discussed in public and the Resolution should have been discussed and voted on in public.

I can only say that I was shocked and very disappointed at what happened Monday night.

Re: GilroyDispatch.com | Councilmen boycott closed session on medical marijuana dispensary

CGartman — Wed, 18 Nov 2009 23:04:53 -0000

I am speaking for only myself and not for any other council member.

I chose not to participate in an action by the council Monday night because I thought it was WRONG.

They used the cover of “Initiating Litigation” to shield their true plan which was to approve a Resolution.

I did not discover this until after the closed session. By law, the Resolution was to have been made public for everyone to review and comment on during the public meeting.

It is my belief that all of these issues should have been discussed in public and the Resolution should have been discussed and voted on in public.

I can only say that I was shocked and very disappointed at what happened Monday night.

Re: GilroyDispatch.com | Councilman proposes fewer firefighters per engine

CGartman — Tue, 17 Nov 2009 13:24:12 -0000

The council voted last night to follow this line of thinkings, 7-0

Re: GilroyDispatch.com | 'Cease and desist' order served to marijuana dispensary; city legal worries ensue

CGartman — Thu, 12 Nov 2009 12:03:04 -0000

This story and situation is going to cost Gilroy a lot of money in the courts.

Re: GilroyDispatch.com | Updated: Fewer firefighters per engine?

CGartman — Wed, 11 Nov 2009 13:43:04 -0000

Mark,

I don’t think there is a clear understanding of what I want to talk about Monday night at the council meeting. What I wish to talk about is the following.

Currently there are four firefighters at Chestnut, Las Animas and three at Sunrise, eleven total.

Currently, when a firefighter is not at Chestnut or Las Animas, a firefighter from Sunrise is taken to make sure there are four at each station and Sunrise goes down to a rescue crew of two and remains open, ten total.

Currently, when two firefighters are not available, two firefighters from Sunrise are moved and Sunrise is closed. Chestnut or Las Animas has four and the other company has five for a total of nine.

The proposal is when a firefighter is not available, Sunrise stays at three, and one station goes from four to three and the other station remains at four, ten total.

When two firefighters are not available, Sunrise stays at three and the other two stations have three each, nine total.

When the firefighters return, they go back to the original staffing.

This plan still allows for all three stations to remain open and operational to respond to needed situations. These are difficult financial times and we all need to make changes or concessions in the way we do business to make sure we provide the best possible services for our community.

Instead of bickering, we need to be creative and find solutions, not blame. Anyone can point a finger! This situation was thrust upon us, let’s work together and do what is best for the safety of Gilroy.

I look forward to discussing this issue on Monday evening.

Regards,
Craig Gartman

Re: GilroyDispatch.com | Councilman proposes fewer firefighters per engine

CGartman — Mon, 09 Nov 2009 18:20:43 -0000

Dear Recall!!!!,

If I "wait" until the next meeting to bring it up, we cannot take action until the following meeting in December. Do you want to wait that long? Maybe there is a reason you don't want this to be talked about in the public forum.

My email was sent to the City Clerk to have it put on the agenda. It was also sent to the City Administrator and my fellow councilmembers along with the Dispatch, since we want to make sure the paper does not think something is going on behind closed doors. Open Government or are you against that also?

I look forward to seeing your name in the bidding for a city council seat next year, who ever you are.

Regards,
Craig Gartman

Re: GilroyDispatch.com | Councilman proposes fewer firefighters per engine

CGartman — Mon, 09 Nov 2009 18:07:19 -0000

Dear SenorSanitary,

After reading your comment about "It's the Law", I pulled up the OSHA requirements and it is very interesting reading.

http://www.iaff.org/hs/PDF/...

Please look at question and answer for #11. It says that you have to have more than four at a fire to have two inside and they must be equiped and ready for radip entry if required. Very interesting reading. I sounds like you need at least two fire companies on site before anyone can enter the building.

This is from the IAFF.Org web site listed above.
#15
OSHA regulations recognize deviations to regulations in an emergency operation where
immediate action is necessary to save a life. For fire department employers, initial attack
operations must be organized to ensure that adequate personnel are at the emergency scene
prior to any interior attack at a structural fire. If initial attack personnel find a known lifehazard
situation where immediate action could prevent the loss of life, deviation from the
two-in/two-out standard may be permitted, as an exception to the fire department’s
organizational plan.
However, such deviations from the regulations must be exceptions and not defacto standard
practices. In fact, OSHA may still issue “de minimis” citations for such deviations from the
standard, meaning that the citation will not require monetary penalties or corrective action.
The exception is for a known life rescue only, not for standard search and rescue activities.
When the exception becomes the practice, OSHA citations are authorized. [29 CFR
1910.134(g)(4)(Note 2)]

Thank you for bringing this forward.

Regards,
Craig Gartman

Re: GilroyDispatch.com | Councilman proposes fewer firefighters per engine

CGartman — Mon, 09 Nov 2009 17:45:31 -0000

Mr. or Ms. Recall,

I offered the money to the new group (Chairman of Fundraising, Mayor Pinheiro) on two occasions and it was refused twice, this was disclosed and reported in the Dispatch, that is also a fact.

It appears that there are many others in Gilroy that know the details and they wish to share it with those who do not have the details.

And who said anything about the group being a non-profit or not?

Why to think that a suggestion made for members of the council to talk about a subject can bring forth such personal attacks is beyond me. I would hope that the community would be interested in hearing what the council and fire union has to say about different options to keep the Sunrise station open. Maybe that is not the goal of some after all. I'm looking forward to the discussion.

Regards,
Craig Gartman

Re: GilroyDispatch.com | Councilman proposes fewer firefighters per engine

CGartman — Mon, 09 Nov 2009 17:02:44 -0000

I always sign my own postings, thank you.

I look forward to seeing many of these same people running for council next year and putting a face and name on their positions and comments. I welcome the comments even if the claims against me are false.

I will confirm that what Gilroyan22 says is correct. I am glad the group that put on the event this year did a fine job and I hope they continue to do so in the future.

If you would like to hear my side of the story Katelyn Wilson and Anthony95020, call me. I would be interested to hear your side of the story as well.

Regards,
Craig Gartman

Re: GilroyDispatch.com | Mr. Gartman and the parade

CGartman — Fri, 07 Aug 2009 20:48:39 -0000

Mr. Taylor,

I just received a forwarded email and you can read what the DA's office is saying. I have not received a call, email or visit from anyone in the DA's office concerning this matter. I also hear that another political enemy of some elected officials is under investigation by the FPPC from anonymous people. I was also told today by Ken McLaughlin of the San Jose Mercury News that an employee at Heritage Bank in Gilroy is looking into personal banking documents and sharing them with members of the community. I believe this is a federal offense in violation of the Federal Privacy Act. If this is true, I am sure the FBI would be interested in looking into this.

You say that the purchasing of meals for the volunteers is wrong but that was the practice for the seven years I was on the committee even when Russ Valiquette was chairman and when Dion Bracco was chairman of this committee. It was also the practice when Ann Green and the Gilroy Chamber of Commerce ran the event before the group took it over in 2002.

Sounds to me like someone is out to smear people who oppose their political view and are breaking the law in their quest for information. Everyone in Gilroy might want to watch which side they are on or they might find their own name on a list as well by this group.

It is a very sad day in Gilroy to see this political game playing in our town. And unlike Don Gage, I have NO desire to run for mayor in the future.

Regards
Craig Gartman

-----Original Message-----
From: Amy Cornell [mailto:ACornell@da.sccgov.org]
Sent: Friday, August 07, 2009 2:10 PM
To: McLaughlin, Ken
Subject: Comment re: Gartman matter

Hi Ken,

Here is the comment from our office:

"We cannot make any comment on whether there is an investigation into this matter. However, we do take all allegations of misconduct very seriously, and we are committed to seeking appropriate justice as the facts apply to the law in each case."

Please let me know if you need any additional information.

Thanks,
Amy

Amy Cornell
Public Information Officer
Santa Clara County District Attorney's Office
(408) 792-2997
acornell@da.sccgov.org

Re: GilroyDispatch.com | Letters: Mayor: Poison pen columnist just out to get me regardless of facts

CGartman — Sat, 18 Jul 2009 12:24:47 -0000

I read with great interest your comments above. The truth is that Mr. Anderson NOTHING to do with my campaign. He was not even a helper with my campaigning.

The Youth Center Project died when the county decided the land we wanted to use was not available. Since that time, the economy has dumped and the funding options have dryed up.

Safe Way to School is a desire I put into my decisions on land planning issues. I have asked for safer ways for students to cross 10th street going to GHS but those suggestions were rejected by the GUSD. I have asked for sidewalk gap closures around a number of schools around town. The changes to the roadway on Kern leading to Rod Kelly is just an example of how the council can work with developers to improve the roads and sidewalks.

You have such a passion; I look forward to seeing you run for council next year.

Craig Gartman
Gilroy City Council

Re: GilroyDispatch.com | Council to debate keeping health benefits

CGartman — Mon, 29 Jun 2009 11:47:27 -0000

Thank you for the complement that you know I would come up with a plan to save the city some money. I want to thank Mr. Woodward for working with me on some of these ideas.

Yes, on the surface, it looks like raises but upon examination, my pay would go from $729 - $66 for health insurance = $663, to $413. That is a REDUCTION of $250 a month. A 37% reduction.

Overall – the compensation would be reduced by $15,760 a year, 12.2% effective July 1, 2009. My plan also calls for a salary freeze for the next two years, 6.2% savings. Grand total of 18.4%. Not to mention that we did not take an increase in 2004, 2005 or 2008 (7.5% for those three years).

Re: GilroyDispatch.com | City made serious � and dissapointing � errors in temporary library site

CGartman — Mon, 22 Jun 2009 15:02:40 -0000

The Old City Hall building is rented to Gary Walton to be opened as a Spanish Restaurant. They are currently doing improvements to the building.