Jeff Pelline's Sierra Foothills Report

My parents died three years ago this past week, making Memorial Day weekend a extra somber time. My Dad was a Veteran. The obituaries I wrote about my parents are here.

This weekend, we are praying for a friend who also will die soon under hospice care — making visits, providing homemade lasagna for visiting family members and watching the family’s dogs.

It’s been an upbeat weekend too: We very much enjoyed the Sierra Festival of the Arts in Grass Valley, visiting with a wide range of people — from our local politicans to artists — who were there.

Memorial Day is for BBQ, but also for remembering the fallen. Here a video of Flanders Fields, the most relevant Memorial Day poem I can think of:

Filed under: Uncategorized | 5 Comments »

As I’ve written before, I’ve heard a growing chorus of complaints that The Union’s entertainment coverage has become largely a compilation of press releases.

Do you notice all the times that “special to The Union” appears rather than a byline?

This weekend’s Sunday Express — the cover story, no less — has a story promoting a tribute to Ella Fitzgerald at The Center of the Arts. It is labeled “Special to the Sunday Express,” which raised my curiosity.

The story is here.

Sure enough, it is — word-for-word — the promotional material that appears on the Center for The Arts website. It is here.

Perhaps you could at least just change some of the words — or better yet provide your own freelance or staff written story. This is sophomoric and insulting to readers. It is hardly unique, local content, either.

Some background on press release journalism is here.

Filed under: Uncategorized | 1 Comment »

I’ve written before about “hijacking” the letter to the editor section of The Union for negative campaigning. The background is here and here. It’s part of the campaign manager’s playbook.

A letter that is running this weekend — “Diaz should make public apology” — raised my eyebrows. It is written by Joe Vielbig, who is chastising Diaz for his fundraising letter about challenger Barry Pruett in the county clerk-recorder race.

Joe writes: “I’ve never met Mr. Diaz or Mr. Pruett, and after the Candidates’ Forum, I was undecided on my vote. However, in light of Mr. Diaz’s lack of professionalism and judgment, I will not be voting for him for clerk-recorder.”

As it turns out, a guy named Joe Vielbig has an article in the very same issue of CABPRO news — June 2009 — as Barry Pruett.

Pruett is writing about “Explaining the Tea Party Movement” on page 4, while Joe is writing “What and who caused the Financial Crisis” on page 8.

I’ll accept Joe’s statements in his letter at face value, but it does make me wonder if he was more in Pruett’s camp to begin with. Most CABPRO members are supporting Pruett, not Diaz.

When you dig deeper you often find the letters are predictable, not enlightening.

Filed under: Uncategorized | 1 Comment »

I’ve been writing about the eerie similarities in the political races that pit challengers Barry Pruett and Casey Tanner against incumbents for supposedly nonpartisan posts in Nevada and Placer counties.

Here’s the latest: The Placer County Republican Party picked up the $3,548 tab for Casey Tanner for auditor-controller’s slate mailer, according to the county’s latest campaign finance report. This is listed as a “non-monetary contribution” that was received by Tanner on his “460″ form.

Tanner, 27, is seeking his first elective office, running against incumbent Kathy Martinis, with more than 20 years experience in public finance. All five Placer County supervisors are endorsing Martinis.

Tanner’s campaign contributions total $11,253. He also has been endorsed by the Placer County Republican Party — experiencing some of the same friction between the “far right” and moderate GOPs as the one in Nevada County.

Sierra College Trustee Aaron Klein has endorsed both Tanner and Pruett in their races. The background is here and here.

Tanner received his certified public accountant license less than a year ago. His license’s “G” designation means he can’t sign audit reports yet, as the Sacramento Bee reported.

Tanner calls county spending wasteful, citing a much-discussed incident of Supervisor F.C. “Rocky” Rockholm’s county-funded plane flight (since reimbursed); and a $1,600 Washington business dinner.

Filed under: Uncategorized | 13 Comments »

I’m getting in a Dan Fogelberg mood, preparing for Saturday night’s tribute to the singer at the Center for The Arts. And as for reader John Regan’s vote earlier in the week, I’ve also included a song from Gordon Lightfoot, “The wreck of the Edmund Fitzgerald.” You can play them in tandem. Weren’t the ’70s and early ’80s a blast?

Filed under: Uncategorized | Leave a Comment »

A hearty kudos to reporters Dave Moller and Michelle Rindels and city editor Trina Kleist of The Union for “digging deeper” with the local campaign finance filings from May and March. They also posted the reports online.

In “Analysis: Donations hint at political bent,” they focus on an issue that has been discussed here for months (and prompted our first and only campaign contribution): The local nonpartisan races here have become too highly partisan, or by now “no s*** Sherlock.”

Though the story lacked a “nut” (or what is the point) paragraph, it is this: When you treat nonpartisan races like political footballs, you risk losing the most qualified, experienced candidates.

Many professionals just don’t want to get involved in the campaigning. One example that comes to mind: Jim Blashford, with years of experience in assessor’s offices, who bowed out of our race for county assessor.

One salient point that also was not highlighted in the analysis: Not only is the money coming from people who are like-minded politically, it is coming from people who can’t even vote in the races.

The outside money, however, still can influence the outcome of the race for the people in that district.

This was the subject of an article by Laura Brown that I edited in Oct. 2008 that focused on two NID races. “Two NID campaigns funded with outside help” is here. The story raised a ruckus but spelled out the same important issue.

In this year’s campaigning, for example, Joanne Rebane of Nevada City, whose husband is the “far right” blogger and The Union columnist George Rebane, contributed $300 to highly conservative John Spencer over in Grass Valley.

The Rebanes can’t vote in the District 3 race, however. They live over in Nevada City. But their out-of-the-district contribution, along with others, can influence the race.

Supervisor Nate Beason, who also lives in Nevada City, contributed $300 to Spencer’s campaign.

The Union showed some bias in the article. The very first example it called out was a $300 contribution from the county Democratic Central Committee to Terry Lamphier.

The Union’s editor/publisher has never supported Terry for anything. Plus, though supervisor races are supposedly nonpartisan, they have been political footballs for years.

I’m more concerned with money flowing from one district into another for any of the races, and with the decidedly nonpartisan posts — clerk-recorder and assessor, for example — becoming political footballs.

The article also should have noted that Mill St. Clothing, owned by Grass Valley Mayor Lisa Swarthout, donated $100 to Spencer’s campaign. I wonder if jackerman@theunion.com asked his friend Lisa “What did you get for your $100,” as he did to me.

All told, however, thanks again to The Union and Dave and Michelle for shedding more light on this issue. Writing and talking about it could help cause some introspection by campaigners and campaign donors.

Filed under: Uncategorized | 10 Comments »

My sources told me on Friday that Dave Moller — the most experienced of The Union’s reporters — is planning to relocate to Oregon, thus departing the staff.

Dave has more institutional knowledge — about the community and The Union — than anyone left on the staff. He also is a hard worker.

In my opinion, what’s missing at The Union is a top manager who can provide the leadership to support its staff members, including rolling up their sleeves on deadline to pitch in. The Union is no “country club.”

Many community members thought that a new leader at The Union’s parent, Nevada-based Swift Communications — from Procter and Gamble, no less — would bring needed change. So much for that. (I should note, however, that Swift also has a paper in Roseberg, Ore.)

Thanks Dave for your efforts. Who’s next in line for the “revolving door”?

Filed under: Uncategorized | 5 Comments »

The Del Oro mural in Grass Valley is complete, as I wrote on Thursday. I noticed the scaffolding was coming down on Friday, after picking up my son from school, and I was saved a trip of returning with my iPhone to “capture the moment.” Somebody else did. Glad to see the mural will be unveiled in time for this weekend’s Sierra Festival of the Arts. Waiting for the local media to report this story is like “Waiting for Godot.”

Photo credit: Howard Levine

Filed under: Uncategorized | 6 Comments »

The county executive memo for Friday reports that AB 811 has hit a “speed bump,” and it reiterates its policy on campaign signs. The background on AB811 is here.

“We will watch this closely over the next year,” according to the county. Let’s hope it’s an honest assessment and not catering to objections from the county’s “far right” — some of whom have threatened to turn this energy-efficiency program into another land right’s issue such as NH2020 (which it is not). Some of our moderate conservative supervisors have been under fire from the “far right,” as I’ve reported previously.

“Campaign Signs:
• Road right of way is often difficult to delineate: This can lead to the perception of
inconsistency/favoritism when removing campaign signs. Example: One road may have easily identifiable right of way limits where we remove all of the encroaching signs (which may be predominantly candidate “A” signs). A nearby road may be constructed on prescriptive right of way where our rights end at the edge of the roadway, so we have no right to remove the signs of opposing candidate “B”. The right of way issues are not understood by the public or candidates and the removal of candidate “A” signs leaves a politically motivated perception.

Doug Farrell points out that it’s been Public Works’ long standing common sense
policy that we don’t interfere with campaign signs placed along County roads unless they pose a hazard (obstruct line of sight, too close to roadway, etc). Hazardous signs are taken to the Corp yard for retrieval by the candidate.

Our reasoning is:

• Public complaints of campaign signs can be motivated by candidate opposition: A
candidate’s supporters complain about the opposition’s signs. Public Works investigates, determines sign is in right of way, we remove the sign. Unless we investigate and remove opposing candidate’s signs which may also be in County right of way elsewhere in the County, acting on complaints (unless safety is a concern) can be construed as unfair treatment.
• Workload Issues: Investigation and removal (and defending our action) of political signs would be very time consuming. With all of the public road miles, undefined right of way, and hundreds of signs to be investigated/removed, many person hours would be consumed.

It has been our experience that the majority of political signs are removed by the candidate after the election. Any left behind are picked up and discarded by our road crews.

AB 811
We are hearing that Placer and Sonoma have hit a speed bump regarding this home
improvement program for energy efficiencies. Some lenders are taking exception to the priority of taxes over first mortgages. We will watch this closely over the next year. We also may look to the CSAC finance group known as California Communities to administer this program as opposed to another county.”

Filed under: Uncategorized | 2 Comments »

It seems the City of Grass Valley is itching to get a medical marijuana dispensary in place to prepare for the November ballot initiative to legalize pot.

I remain skeptical the initiative will pass, but — just in case — we are growing a Grass Head (AKA we call him by the more respectful name “grass” instead of “pot.”) And he’s harmless and legal.

My son and I made him at a church carnival. It’s a cool recyclable craft. You make it with grass seed (not cannabis seeds — at least for this child friendly version); a nylon stocking foot; potting soil; water — and the two googly eyes. You spoon the grass seed into the stocking foot, add potting soil and tie a knot. Don’t forget to water!

The details are here.

As you can see, our little fellow is almost ready for a haircut!

Filed under: Uncategorized | 2 Comments »