San Mateo County Democratic Central Committee (SMCDCC) responded to Nihart after it had endorsed Deirdre Martin for Pacifica City Council:
Post a comment
Comments are moderated, and will not appear until the author has approved them.
Your Information
(Name and email address are required. Email address will not be displayed with the comment.)
Pacifica's new City Council should get to work from Day 1 by officially notifying Caltrans and the San Mateo County Transportation Authority that Pacifica withdraws widening Highway 1 from funding consideration.
Staff may try to block such a move, as they favor the boondoggle despite there being no vote directing them to promote it. (Staff is so used to getting its way, despite what the public wants.)
Elections are supposed to have consequences. Let's get this done before our hard-won, non-real-estate-industry-backed, pro-green City Council majority might be gone.
Posted by: Bill Collins | November 10, 2016 at 07:22 AM
Gee, I guess the "Nihart Proxy Website" disproves what Ms. Nihart has said at length, in writing: "... Effective immediately, I am withdrawing from consideration as a
candidate for the Pacifica City Council. ..."
Posted by: Jay Bird | November 08, 2016 at 03:10 PM
Well, I guess the "Nihart Proxy Website" proves what Ms. Nihart has said repeatedly: "Anyone can put up a Website."
Posted by: freetosay | November 08, 2016 at 07:41 AM
City Council candidate Bridget Duffy also spent her own money campaigning. She doesn't owe anyone her vote. Hard to say that about a candidate who took $30,000 in donations or banner ads from the National Association of Realtors
Bridget doesn't owe anyone or any industry, and many of her ideas work -- like protecting teachers from eviction during the school year or making the city manager report all state and federal grant applications once a month.
Posted by: www.Pacifica.city | November 07, 2016 at 03:41 PM
The only other candidate in this year's City Council race who "gets it" is Bridget Duffy: "I Am Not a Realtor!" (Wednesday, October 19, 2016 -- scroll to see Bridget)
http://pacifica.city/
Posted by: Laurie Soca | November 07, 2016 at 08:36 AM
Nihart knew she had a problem in 2012, and wrote letters detailing her problem 44 days before she quit the City Council race. She repeatedly denied having a problem and called newspaper reports "gossip and rumors" while her surrogates claimed any and all facts were "NIMBY lies" in an escalating month-and-a-half orgy of denial.
Her big-city spin doctor concocted a pity party of a resignation letter that failed to address Nihart's own awareness of her problem in 2012, the state California Democratic Party's endorsement of Deirdre Martin, and similar Green Party status of council candidate Bridget Duffy, while Nihart's online Facebook & YouTube social media accounts continue to violate the Hatch Act to this very day.
Here's Mary Ann Nihart denying she had a problem less than a month ago:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mN-LHgscHcg&t=56m35s
Posted by: www.Pacifica.city | November 05, 2016 at 08:12 PM
The Office of Special Counsel wrote an advisory opinion in 2009 answering the question about when a nonpartisan election becomes partisan:
https://osc.gov/Resources/HAFederalAdvOpinion11-18-09.pdf
Posted by: Larry Rosenstein | November 04, 2016 at 04:27 PM
It's about bloody time the Sanders/Warren wing of the Democrats took back control from the Reagan/Rodham wing of the party. Look what an absolute disaster the revolving doors of Clinton/Bush/Obama have been to the so-called middle classes. This is like the Tea Baggers only on the left. Politicians need to realize the times of siding with big monied real estate interests, banks, and large corporations is coming to end. Nihart should've seen the writing on the wall and stopped being a patsy for San Mateo Realtors, then MAYBE I would have some sympathy. Martin sees that. She gets it. Now I hope the door does kick Nihart on the way out. Good riddance to her. Shill.
Posted by: Britinsf | November 04, 2016 at 10:33 AM
The article you posted "Does the Hatch Act Apply" was written in 2006. Many of the statements and scenarios specifically regarding federal employment were modified or eliminated when the Hatch Act was rewritten in 2012. Can someone please update the information to something more current.
Posted by: Linty Marr | November 03, 2016 at 06:43 AM
Nihart asked the Democratic Party to change its endorsement of another candidate. Speier wants to change the law because of "a fluke in the law"?
As a Democrat, I'd like to point out that it IS the law, not part of a whale's tail, and the law is working as intended.
Posted by: Jay Bird | November 03, 2016 at 04:29 AM
"People with high incomes are often the ones occupying apartments below market rate, often staying longer than they otherwise would in a market-rate dwelling, which further exacerbates the problem."
Oh what crap. Exacerbate what problem? That people want to live here at a reasonable rent? Rent stabilization would allow SOME, and only some, people to be left alone, as landlords receive a reasonable rent increase yearly.
Posted by: freetosay | November 02, 2016 at 09:50 PM
One of the reasons that economists on both ends of the spectrum tend to agree on the issue of rent control (that it's generally ineffective) is that the unintended consequences are well understood. Even the poster boy for liberal economic policy, Paul Krugman, comes down hard on it:
http://www.nytimes.com/2000/06/07/opinion/reckonings-a-rent-affair.html
There's no way to ensure that rent control will benefit low-income renters. The Bay Area has a lot of high-paying jobs. People with high incomes are often the ones occupying apartments below market rate, often staying longer than they otherwise would in a market-rate dwelling, which further exacerbates the problem.
Posted by: Hazlitt | November 02, 2016 at 03:51 PM
Awwww -- such a shame to have to say good riddance to Nihart, who was vehemently against even looking at the possibility of some sort of rent control in Pacifica.
Posted by: Dorks | November 02, 2016 at 02:29 PM
So "leaks to social media" and "anonymous sources" seem to be the culprits here? Excuse me, but I've got a server in my basement I need to reboot. Oh dear, I've been HACKED! Huma, another glass of tea, please!
Posted by: Linty Marr | October 31, 2016 at 07:13 PM
Can the Realtors get their money back that they spent to re-elect her?
How sad that they're about to lose their pro-development majority on City Council.
Posted by: Bill Collins | October 31, 2016 at 05:12 PM
A Pacifica palindrome lover explains to her son that noses can "run" but that a nurse cannot:
"Noses run on; no nurse, son. "
Posted by: alan wald | October 31, 2016 at 05:06 PM
"Were out-of-town real estate organizations listed as endorsers?"
No, they are a PAC with unlimited spending ability, and are not directly affiliated with the candidate. That's a legacy of the "Citizens United" decision of the Supreme Court.
The real estate lobby in this town hardly needs any more help; it has a tight grip on things.
Posted by: freetosay | October 29, 2016 at 09:49 PM
Were out-of-town real estate organizations listed as endorsers?
Posted by: Jay Bird | October 29, 2016 at 05:57 PM
While we continue to let City Council candidate Mary Ann Nihart's own words speak for her, last night we were alerted that her campaign website was now blank and her Facebook endorsements were gone.
http://www.maryannforpacifica.org/
https://www.facebook.com/MaryAnn4Pacifica/endorsements/?ref=page_internal
We've been telling users for about a month that council member Nihart had written to county, state, and national Democrats, stating:
"..I have three choices as I see it: Drop out of the race all together, ...Stay in and potentially suffer the disciplinary judgement of the Merit System Protection Board for public employees going through a disciplinary hearing...Look for new employment... "
Posted by: www.Pacifica.city | October 29, 2016 at 12:57 PM
Nihart carefully avoided mentioning that she was a federal employee in her self-promoting background info.
Posted by: Steve | October 02, 2016 at 07:42 AM
Aside from not participating in a "partisan campaign," there are other aspects of the Hatch Act that need to be adhered to by federal employees.
The Hatch Act (5 U.S.C. §§ 7321-7326) — Employees, however, are prohibited from: using their official authority or influence for the purpose of affecting the result of an election; knowingly soliciting, accepting or receiving political contributions from any person...."
Hmmm -- just wondering out loud and not sure if it applies, but if someone solicited donations on, say, their website, would that be a Hatch Act violation?
http://www.maryannforpacifica.org/contact
Posted by: Linty Marr | September 28, 2016 at 02:33 PM
Monday's City Council meeting where Mary Ann Nihart speaks about possible federal Hatch Act violation, retaining an attorney:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vG3AShQ7uzo&t=51m19s
"I just wanted to make a clarification to the public because I feel like you deserve this because there's been so much.
I can't say much, but I can tell you the Hatch Act was designed to protect public employees. It was to protect them from undue influence by superiors, by Congress, by other people and one piece of that is the issue of employees of the federal government not running in partisan races.
As many of you know there have been people who have run and have been federal employees.
I can't talk about this particular situation because I have only one -- I haven't done anything in any way shape or form that is wrong, and in fact I have a confirmation email to that extent from the people that can make this decision.
It's not in the State of California, it has nothing to do with the election, and there is a set of things that I needed to take care of to manage this.
I've engaged an attorney to represent me and that attorney at the appropriate time will speak for me." (Mary Ann Nihart)
Posted by: www.Pacifica.city | September 28, 2016 at 05:10 AM
Upon further review:
The Hatch Act was amended in 2012 (see 5 USC 1502).
Previously, the Hatch Act restricted the political activity of individuals employed by state or local executive agencies and who worked in connection with programs financed IN WHOLE OR IN PART by federal loans or grants. Now that has been changed to say that employees whose salary is COMPLETELY paid for by federal funds may not be candidates for public office in a partisan election. An election is considered partisan if any candidate is to be nominated or elected as representing a political party, for example, the Democratic or Republican Party.
One other section may be of interest:
1502(c)
Subsection (a)(3) of this section does not apply to—
(1) the Governor or Lieutenant Governor of a State or an individual authorized by law to act as Governor;
(2) the mayor of a city;
(3) a duly elected head of an executive department of a State, municipality, or the District of Columbia who is not classified under a State, municipal, or the District of Columbia merit or civil-service system; or
(4) an individual holding elective office.
Posted by: Linty Marr | September 27, 2016 at 10:21 AM
From the U.S. Office of Special Counsel website:
"Further restricted federal employees are prohibited from taking an active part in partisan political management or partisan political campaigns. Specifically, these employees may not campaign for or against candidates or otherwise engage in political activity in concert with a political party, a candidate for partisan political office, or a partisan political group. Such employees:
May not be a candidate for nomination or election to public office in a partisan election.
May not take an active part in partisan political campaigns. For example:
May not campaign for or against a candidate or slate of candidates.
May not make campaign speeches or engage in other campaign activities to elect partisan candidates.
May not distribute campaign material in partisan elections.
May not circulate nominating petitions."
https://osc.gov/pages/hatchact-affectsme.aspx#prohibitedactivities
I'm not a lawyer, but it seems that the definition of "partisan election" is the core of the matter.
Posted by: Lionel Emde | September 27, 2016 at 08:41 AM
I agree with Lionel. Is it certain that the Hatch Act would prevent Nihart from running? Could it be that Nihart just wants to generate some buzz but privately is confident she can vie for office?
Posted by: alan wald | September 26, 2016 at 01:48 PM