Providing The Latest News With Opinions

Times Should Focus Less on Montgomery, More on Council Candidates!

I cannot blame Dan Borenstein and the Contra Costa Times in their expected endorsement of Oakley City Council Candidate Ron Borland who share similar views in the “Montgomery Mortgage Deal”. However, while it may be his personal opinion, Mr. Borenstein is leveraging his position to try and convince candidates into policy and personnel decisions for Oakley which is where I will blame him.

On October 7, the Contra Costa Times endorsed Ron Borland, Diane Burgis, and David Hansen.

As expected, the Times endorsed Mr. Borland for a childish reason of being vocal against the Montgomery bailout. They judged him on one piece of the pie instead of looking at the entire pie. If they did, the Times would realize his platform offers very little.

Oakley residents get it, Ron Borland wants Mr. Montgomery fired and has been vocal about it. But because he wants Montgomery fired doesn’t make him any more qualified. It simply means he is the most outspoken–that is all!

The endorsement editorial did a disservice to the residents of Oakley because its major focus (8 of 12 paragraphs) was on Bryan Montgomery, not the actual candidates. Based on ones feelings of the city manager is no way to select a candidate. We learned nothing about the candidates other than Mr. Borland’s restated outrage.

Mr. Borenstein did not go on a fact finding mission on the candidates, he tried to convince them to take his position and fire Montgomery. When an editorial writer is spending more time on a city manager than the actual candidates, that is a problem!

What exactly did we learn from this endorsement piece that we haven’t already heard out of Ron Borlands mouth in his many editorials to the Times since November? It’s a rehash of the same rhetoric. Aside from the city manager, we learned nothing about Mr. Borlands plans for Oakley. we learned nothing about the other candidates.

So one final time, let’s just state what it is. The city Manager deal was a lapse in judgment that should have never occurred—even if legally no laws were broken.  Other cities performed similar deals back when the economy was good. The City apologized, asked for forgiveness and moved forward. The deal was rescinded before any monies exchanged hands and policy was created to prevent it from occurring again.

A year later, it’s the Times signature issue of how to judge potential candidates on. This is kind of like Doug Hardcastle claiming this wouldn’t have happened on his watch.  Well, we have seen what has occurred on his watch at Ironhouse.

In retrospect, you have an editorial board who plagiarized off the Los Angeles Times and were caught red handed which is the worst offense for a newspaper. The Times quickly apologized and asked for forgiveness.

The truth is that a city can rescind any deal it makes. But a newspaper cannot rescind plagiarism. So why is the Times expected to be forgiven but in the Times view Oakley will not be granted the same courtesy?

Ultimately, Borenstein forever lost me when he spoke of integrity of Randy Pope who has spent the last year accomplishing nothing while undermining the rest of the council for his gain.  Look no further than his Beehive policy as he had folks from around the country to chime in to try and set policy for Oakley using social media. Mr. Pope then could have a beehive so he can sell the honey for his own financial gain.  It’s pretty self serving.

It should also be noted that “Mr. Integrity” has zero committees he serves on and the council had to go get a liaison in Susan Morgan to provide updates on the fiasco at Ironhouse Sanitary District.  You are not being an asset to ones community if you are on a council and not on a single committee building relationships.

What Borenstein is forgetting is Randy Pope also voted on the city manager deal and is quoted in the Brentwood Press agreeing to it, however, at a different percentage. The percentages really don’t matter, he voted in favor of it so him getting a pass is pretty hypocritical.

Being hypothetical, let’s say somehow the council has three votes to fire Montgomery. Then what? Borland is running on nothing else of substance. The papers aren’t discussing his entire platform which if you ask me is a bit scary. Even the Democratic Party has run away from him aside from an off group in Antioch with no Oakley members.

In retrospect, the Times claims that they happily endorse Borland (a big shocker I know) while they had to dig deeper to find two other candidates they could support and settled on Diane Burgis and David Hansen.

First off, Diane Burgis is the most solid candidate of the bunch. I’d put her record against anyone running—including Romick.  She has proven to be a positive influence on the community while she understands budgets and has the appropriate connections to make things happen for Oakley.

Dave Hansen is also solid. He has done more for his community announcing high school football games than what Borland has done.  Borland has turned Oakley into a punch line of jokes with his continued rhetoric and negative attitude towards the city.

Ultimately, based on the level of candidates running for Council, Kevin Romick does deserve another term and should get the third spot. The truth is, work meeting or not, Romick looks like a genius for not wasting his time at the interview because he was never going to get Borensteins support anyway.

Three sources informed me the meeting focused for over an hour on Montgomery with Borenstein trying to sway the council candidates into taking his opinion on the deal.  One candidate even received a call from Borenstein for about 45-minutes to further try and sway the candidate’s opinion so Borenstein could endorse him. This is pretty unethical.

As much of a disservice  this editorial was to Oakley, I will give kudos to Borenstein for not endorsing Doug Hardcastle who should never serve public office again based on his actions at Ironhouse.

Going forward, I would hope Mr. Borenstein could follow Rowena Coetsee’s style and provide actual substance in covering the Council race so readers can find out more about what each candidate wants to accomplish in Oakley and where it sees it headed.

The blame game by the Times Editorial Board needs to stop as those in glass houses shouldn’t throw stones.

Here is a link to the Times Editorial

http://www.contracostatimes.com/news/ci_21709472/contra-costa-times-editorial-borland-burgis-and-hansen

Advertisements

Tagged as: , , , , , , ,

18 Responses »

  1. Well done Burk, this was a disservice the way you were able to dissect it and highlight why the Times got it wrong on Borland. Did you really expect anything different than the way Borenstein wrote this piece as anther anti-Oakley piece?

  2. Who did Borenstein call? Talk about a major unethical move! Based on your writing on Ironhouse, I would agree with you on hardcastle not getting endorsed, that guy should be payng back ratepayers.

    I still don’t even know what a majority of the candidates are about.

  3. Classic Burke, another uncalled for slam on Randy Pope, If it wasn’t for Pope, few would even know about the mortgage deal. Who is to say this candidate isn’t lying about the phone call? Ever thinnk of that?

  4. City Manager deal or not, Mike is 100% correct that the focus should not be on the city manager but on what the council candidates want to do for Oakley. I had no idea until Mike brought up that 8 of 12 paragraphs were on Montgomery. The Times missed the boat on informing us on our candidates. At least Rowena did an article on the candidates which offered some information. Was nice to see Mike give her credit for a change.

  5. Another attack on Dan Borenstein, Randy Pope, Ron Borland, and Doug Hardcastle. You want to talk about integrity, you have very little with pieces like this. You are entiteld to your opinion, but you will find few in Oakley share your view. Doug Hardcastle would make a wonderful councilman and so would Ron Borland. Montgomery does need to go and its a good thing the Times is keeping its eye on the ball in stead of moving on like you and your council buddies want to have happen.

  6. It’s very telling that you will look at the big picture where the Times is only focused on selling papers. Anyone paying attention knows Romick, Burgis and Hansen are the three best candidates.

  7. BURKEHOLDER IF YOUR OUT THERE DO US ALL A FAVOR AND SHUT UP!!! WHAT EXCACTLY DO YOU DO, WHATS YOUR JOB, WHATS YOUR POINT; YOU KNOW NOTHING ABOUT ANYTHING YOU SPEAK OF, YOU TALK ABOUT ABUSES HERE AND THERE AND IGNORE OTHERS. IF YOU EVEN HAD A CLUE ABOUT THE PEOPLE YOU ATTACK AND THE STUFF THEY DO IN THE COMMUNITY YOU WOULD SHUT YOUR MOUTH. NOBODY LISTENS TO YOUR CRAP, AS PROOF AT THE TIME I’M WRITING THIS, EXCEPT ALL 24 OF YOUR FOLLOWERS. DO US ALL A FAVOR AND STOP WITH YOUR INCESENT PERSONAL ATTACKS ON THINGS AND PEOPLE YOU KNOW NOTHING ABOUT. I WOULD IMAGINE YOUR THE GUY NOBODY LISTENED TO ALL YOUR LIFE SO YOU GOT WAY TO MUCH TIME ON YOUR HANDS AND GET BRAVE ON A COMPUTER. HAVE YOU EVER RUN A BUSINESS, A COMMITEE, A BOARD, ANYTHING? BASED ON THE AMOUNT OF TIME YOU HAVE ON YOUR HANDS PROBABLY NOT. IF I CAUGHT YOU IN PERSON, WHICH ID LOVE TO DO ID TELL YOU THE SAME THING WHICH BY WHAT IVE BEEN TOLD YOU YOUR NOT VERY BRAVE AND BOLD WITH OUT YOUR BLOG. HEED THE WORDS OF OTHERS IVE SEEN ON HERE STOP YOUR NONSENSE AND BASHING OR YOU WILL DO A LOT OF DAMAGE TO YOURSELF AND OTHERES YOU ENDORSE OR ENDORSE YOU!!

  8. @ “ENOUGH OF BURKE”

    1. I think it is “Burk” not Burke.
    2. There is treatment & medication available for your anger issues. *not sure though how to treat your ignorance & stupidity.

    …and 3. Your cap lock is on!

    P.S. @ Burk,

    This is one of the best posts you have written. You really nailed it! The CCTimes and Dan Borenstein should take note. No one is buying what they are selling and they are circling the drain.

  9. This is why there is a boycott the Contra Costa Times initiative in place, even a facebook group one can join, for when the editorial board and writers put out such garbage like their endorsements on what they believe, not what is best for the actual community. Look no further than Measure S and Measure Q.

    I give kudos to Burk for calling it for what it is, even if it will cost him a few votes.

    Whoever “Enough of Burke” is needs to lay off whatever they are on. They are a drone of Borlands or maybe even works at the Times. Notice how they never stated what the person they are defending has done in the community? The fact they come on his site with accusations that nobody cares proves how ignorant they are when they care enough to leave a comment hehe.

    Well done Burk, keep on blogging! This was spot on, even if peope want to threaten you over truths. Thank you for posting the updated Q&A the other day.

  10. @B-WOOD
    NOT IGNORANT OR STUPID, OR ANGRY JUST WANT SEE SOMEBODY COVER ALL SIDESTHIS HAD NOTHING TO DO WITH THOSE THINGS. JUST CALLING WHAT I SEE. THIS SITE GIVES PASSES ON THINGS AND GOES AFTER OTHERS. I DONT SEE ANYTHING ON THE CITY MANAGER DEBACLE ANYWHERE ON HERE AND IT SEEMS THE SITE AND AUTHOR ENDORSE THE SAME PERSON WHO ORCHASTRTED IT. WHEN IT HAPPENED WANTED THE HEADS OF THOSE RESPONSIBLE (frazier). TO QOUTE MR. BURKHOLDER ” WE AS OAKLEY RESIDENTS SHOULD MARCH TO CITY HALL AND PROTEST”. SO DONT TAKE SHOTS AT ME PERSONALLY WHOEVER YOU ARE ITS NOT DIRECTED AT YOU, AND IM WELL AWARE CAPS IS ON.

    • The reason there is no City Manager deal on this website is because it was launched in July of 2012. The City Manager deal occurred last fall. Yes, Oakley residents should have protested had the deal not been rescinded.

      • Nice response Burk for taking the high road in your response instead of tearing him up like you should be doing.

        What people need to realize is an apology is not what Mr. Pope, Mr. Borland, Mr. Seger, Ms. Diamond, and Mr. Borenstein is looking for. They are out for blood and they do not realize the damage they are causing to Oakley in the process.

        Burkis right, if they didn’t rescind it immediatly, then protests should have probably occured. Burk is covering both sides, he is simply trying to be fair without going after blood. Not electing someone over a difference of opinion is different than firing someone for something that has already been handled by the council.

    • My-0-my, that was the worst editorial by the Contra Costa Times I have ever read! I didn’t think that Boringsteen could get any worse. I was wrong. He writing goes to demonstrate just how uneducated when it comes to politics. No wonder they cannot give that paper away!!!!

      Boringsteen needs to go.

  11. Thanks for this article Mike!!!!! I was offended when the Times claimed they can only settle on Diane. Diane has been amazing for the community and an advocate for the Delta. She is 100% the opposite as Mr. Borland. Diane finds the positive while Borland tears down. From what I have seen since finding this site is Mike only tears down those who deserve it. I think Mr. Borenstein, Mr. Borland and Mr. Pope deserved every bit of strong rhetoric that Burk stated. ENOUGH OF BURKE should look in the mirror.

  12. KEVIN ROMICK for Council!

  13. @ “Enough of Burke”,

    Hey dummy-yeah you…. How perfectly stupid of you to come on to Burk’s site and attack his FACTS with your lame OPINION posted all in CAPS.

    Your denial over your own anger issue is just another symptom of your mentality. You fell off the cliff when you commented that you just want to see somebody “cover all of the sides” and then go on to bash Burk by doing exactly that. Ironically, your post was nothing more than criticism and attack which is what you are accusing Burk of! This qualifies you as a first class hypocrite. Look it up.

    Now back to the CAPS….Are you so oblivious that you didn’t recognize a rhetorical comment? (In case you missed it again, it was number #3). When you are done figuring that out, might I suggest “Spell check for Dummies”?

    Sorry Bud, but I am taking a shot at you, directly at you, since you have the gall to show up on a forum which many of us enjoy and attack the individual that makes it possible. If you don’t like it, leave…there is the door. Don’t let it hit you on the “arse” on your way out. I am sure the CCTimes (and Dan Borenstein) needs subscriptions and you sound just like the type that gobbles up the BS they sell over there.

    Geeeeeesh, stupid should hurt.

  14. The best line out of the entire article was how the Times asked for forgiveness on their plagiarism but they will not forgive Oakley for their mistake. Pretty hypocritical if you ask me. At this point in time, the City Manager is not even an issue in Oakley, we have more important things as a City to worry about. Kevin Romick, Diane Burgis and Dave Hansen have my support.

  15. Hey, quit picking on Daniel! He makes people like me look smarterer. If it wasn’t for him, all of the conspiracy theorists wouldn’t have a voice in the print! I am so grateful we have Dan to lower the bar so a few of us can climb on. He is smart to not let facts get in the way of his opinions, heck, that is how I roll.

    It’s not his fault he is sour. I’m sure he has good reason, just look at his career path.

    Besides, I admire his jealousy of those that are successful and productive members of society.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: