Jump to content






Photo
- - - - -

Chad Vander Veen For Folsom City Council 2014


  • Please log in to reply
158 replies to this topic

#61 cw68

cw68

    Hopeless Addict

  • Premium Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 10,370 posts
  • Gender:Not Telling

Posted 14 August 2014 - 09:34 PM

Steve, I appreciate your effort to be fair and equitable in this discussion. The reality is, and I think you'll agree, that with $50,000 at the ready and more on the way, the incumbents have a distinct advantage over any challenger. Experience and record of job creation take a distant back seat to money. That said, it means I have to get creative. So if anyone wants to help me, here's a way to do so. 
 
Any of you going to Tap Folsom tomorrow? Would you be willing to hand out some of my campaign business cards? Let me know and I'll bring you some. I won't be there - I'm staying at home with our boys so my wife gets a well-deserved ladies night out. But she'll be distributing some as well. 


I will be there and I would be happy to hand them out - and engage in a discussion on local representation with any Folsom resident. Hook me up.

#62 supermom

supermom

    Supermom

  • Premium Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 10,225 posts
  • Gender:Female

Posted 15 August 2014 - 10:42 PM

Taps looks like it was quite successful, tonight. Lots of people still out and about at 11pm. This should be really good for business in historic area. 



#63 TruthSeeker

TruthSeeker

    Superstar

  • Premium Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 967 posts

Posted 21 August 2014 - 07:29 AM

 

Experience and history aside, I think what truly matters to most voters is whether or not we think a candidate will represent us, vote the way want them to, say the things we want to hear, and keep the promises they make, to the best of their ability.

 

That my friend is exactly why we need new people like Chad on the city council.  Your friends on the current council may have represented us better 10 years ago, but these days it seems their only goal is to placate developers to ensure they get re-elected.

 

Their advanced "experience" with manipulating the future of our city by cutting deals with developers is not in our cities best interest and it's time for a change.  We want candidates who will represent us citizens over their developer dollar buddies.  


Svzr2FS.jpg


#64 Folsom Guy

Folsom Guy

    Living Legend

  • Premium Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,311 posts

Posted 21 August 2014 - 09:21 AM

Chad

 

If you have yard signs - I'd be happy to display in my front lawn.

 



#65 Chad Vander Veen

Chad Vander Veen

    Hopeless Addict

  • Premium Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 11,209 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Folsom

Posted 21 August 2014 - 12:23 PM

Chad

 

If you have yard signs - I'd be happy to display in my front lawn.

 

 

Thank you - I'll bring you one but I can't start handing them our until Sept. 5, per the city municipal code FMC 17.59.030 © (13)©

 

/which in the name recognition game is another advantage for the incumbents.



#66 Folsom Guy

Folsom Guy

    Living Legend

  • Premium Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,311 posts

Posted 21 August 2014 - 12:37 PM

Then let's plan picking it up on Sept 5th - pick a spot - maybe the Southwest corner of Blue Ravine and E Natoma (in the parking lot behind Taco Bell). Facebook and other social media maybe helpful as well.



#67 Wolf

Wolf

    Netizen

  • Registered Members
  • Pip
  • 19 posts
  • Gender:Male

Posted 20 October 2014 - 06:55 PM

Hi Chad,
 
I was wondering what your view was on Resolution NO. 6926: as costs continue to go up and other departmental services are reduced, they still get perks even after leaving the city. 
 
I't a resolution regarding health insurance coverage for retired, former and current city council members for Folsom.  
 
Passed and adopted on Aug. 27th 2002 signed by Steve Miklos with ayes: by Dow, Miklos, Howell and Starsky.
 
The resolution gave insurance to past members back to January 1st 1981.  Please look it up and reply.
 
Thank you


#68 Chad Vander Veen

Chad Vander Veen

    Hopeless Addict

  • Premium Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 11,209 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Folsom

Posted 21 October 2014 - 09:09 AM

 

Hi Chad,
 
I was wondering what your view was on Resolution NO. 6926: as costs continue to go up and other departmental services are reduced, they still get perks even after leaving the city. 
 
I't a resolution regarding health insurance coverage for retired, former and current city council members for Folsom.  
 
Passed and adopted on Aug. 27th 2002 signed by Steve Miklos with ayes: by Dow, Miklos, Howell and Starsky.
 
The resolution gave insurance to past members back to January 1st 1981.  Please look it up and reply.
 
Thank you

 

Wolf do you have a link? I tried Google, the city website and searching the municipal code and couldn't find it. I can tell you I would decline such perks if elected.



#69 maestro

maestro

    Superstar

  • Premium Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 744 posts

Posted 22 October 2014 - 08:11 AM

 

Hi Chad,
 
I was wondering what your view was on Resolution NO. 6926: as costs continue to go up and other departmental services are reduced, they still get perks even after leaving the city. 
 
I't a resolution regarding health insurance coverage for retired, former and current city council members for Folsom.  
 
Passed and adopted on Aug. 27th 2002 signed by Steve Miklos with ayes: by Dow, Miklos, Howell and Starsky.
 
The resolution gave insurance to past members back to January 1st 1981.  Please look it up and reply.
 
Thank you

 

 

 

Wolf,   we got Ord. 6926 yesterday.     Yes, it is retroactive and probably very generous.      There are several questions about it however.

 

1.   Resolutions are TEMPORARY pieces of law.    This should be an Ordinance, not a Resolution.    Even the enabling CA legislation makes it clear it requires an Ordinance adoption.    What gives with this?

 

2.  The city is PUBLIC, and we are entitled to see the RECORDS of all payments made by PAST council who are NOT sitting any longer.    Yes, it pays for the likes of those sitting -- like those who have no substantial employer to cover their insurance payments.    But we need to see the financial records showing all past members PAID their premiums.      If they did not pay, this could be a benefit costing us as much as $13 million  up to now.      

 

3.   How much are current long-seated council costing us for their health insurance --  when our Public Safety employees are being cut to LESS than bare-bone coverage.    Sac County records show the city is unwilling to maintain proper ambulance coverage for the mutual-aid pact -- so you know there are problems with city council's reasoning.

 

4.   Little fact:   I believe J. Starsky is the only person with minor children, so there are no large "family premiums" on our back.    Ernie would probably never take the benefit at all.   Ernie seems to be the only one who cares about children at all.

 

 

.



#70 Dave Burrell

Dave Burrell

    Folsom Citizen

  • Moderator
  • 17,588 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Folsom
  • Interests:Beer, Photography, Travel, Art

Posted 22 October 2014 - 09:04 AM

Isn't being a city council member a part time job? Do they work at city hall more then 30 hours a week?

 

Why do any of them need this additional perk of secondary health coverage (assuming they are already covered with their full time jobs)?

 

This would technically bump their "paid salaries" up another $500+ a month x4 (for coverage costs). Total cost is over $24,000+ a year to cover all four council members, plus more for past members.   Is this where limited additional city tax monies should be spent?


Travel, food and drink blog by Davehttp://davestravels.tv

 


#71 Chad Vander Veen

Chad Vander Veen

    Hopeless Addict

  • Premium Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 11,209 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Folsom

Posted 22 October 2014 - 09:35 AM

Isn't being a city council member a part time job? Do they work at city hall more then 30 hours a week?

 

Why do any of them need this additional perk of secondary health coverage (assuming they are already covered with their full time jobs)?

 

This would technically bump their "paid salaries" up another $500+ a month x4 (for coverage costs). Total cost is over $24,000+ a year to cover all four council members, plus more for past members.   Is this where limited additional city tax monies should be spent?

 

To me this is a ridiculous perk that really should be done away with. Put that together with no term limits and its no wonder these incumbents fight tooth and nail to stay in office.



#72 Deb aka Resume Lady

Deb aka Resume Lady

    Hopeless Addict

  • No Politics!
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 8,361 posts
  • Gender:Female
  • Location:Folsom
  • Interests:Sole proprietor: Tailored Resume Services
    Volunteer: Court Appointed Special Advocate for a child in the foster care system

Posted 22 October 2014 - 10:58 AM

 

To me this is a ridiculous perk that really should be done away with. Put that together with no term limits and its no wonder these incumbents fight tooth and nail to stay in office.

 

Yep.


Job Search Consultant
Tailored Resume Services
(916) 984-0855

Volunteer, Court Appointed Special Advocate for Sacramento CASA * I Am for the Child
Making a Difference in the Life of Abused and Neglected Children in Foster Care
http://www.sacramentocasa.org/

I am only one, but I am one. I cannot do everything, but I can do something. And I will not let what I cannot do interfere with what I can do. ~ Edward Everett Hale

"How wonderful it is that nobody need wait a single moment before starting to improve the world." ~ Anne Frank

#73 supermom

supermom

    Supermom

  • Premium Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 10,225 posts
  • Gender:Female

Posted 22 October 2014 - 10:58 AM

That's it. I wanna be a council member!!

 

 

Gimme the freebies!!!!



#74 cw68

cw68

    Hopeless Addict

  • Premium Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 10,370 posts
  • Gender:Not Telling

Posted 22 October 2014 - 11:18 AM

 
To me this is a ridiculous perk that really should be done away with. Put that together with no term limits and its no wonder these incumbents fight tooth and nail to stay in office.


Ding, ding! Winner.

#75 maestro

maestro

    Superstar

  • Premium Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 744 posts

Posted 22 October 2014 - 04:03 PM

Isn't being a city council member a part time job? Do they work at city hall more then 30 hours a week?

 

Why do any of them need this additional perk of secondary health coverage (assuming they are already covered with their full time jobs)?

 

This would technically bump their "paid salaries" up another $500+ a month x4 (for coverage costs). Total cost is over $24,000+ a year to cover all four council members, plus more for past members.   Is this where limited additional city tax monies should be spent?

 

 

Dave,  the better question to ask is a Public Records Act Request for evidence all of the 1981 to the present ex-council have paid those insurance premiums as a Folsom-Group Insured.

 

This was a gift for the under-employed city types.     Now is the time to see whether the ex-types have actually got receipts for paying for their insurance.

 

Naturally I think giving mopes a mop would be far more appropriate than group-insurance health benefits.   I think our Safety employees deserve something, not lords of the imperial city.    I saw a Howell site where she describes herself as "entrepreneur."






0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users