Supervisor Shawn Nelson would NEVER promote his own accomplishments in office to the public, even if he thought the cause was just, and certainly would not do so using government resources — right? (Actually, we’d better double-check that and see if he himself lives up to the “Shawn Nelson standard.” And why is he blocking the view of veterans in the Great Park?)
From the Voice of OC, regarding yesterday’s Board of Supervisors meeting:
Assemblywoman Sharon Quirk Silva also drew protests from county supervisors for attempting to move a bill authorizing a veterans’ cemetery in Orange County.
…
Supervisors’ Chairman Shawn Nelson called out Quirk Silva’s efforts as political, given that he had already received political mail at his house regarding her veterans’ cemetery effort.
While these issues would seem like an easy vote for an all-Republican board of supervisors in one of America’s most Republican counties, board members balked on Tuesday.
…
Regarding Quirk Silva’s bill, supervisors voted 3-1 to support the bill, with Nelson refusing to register a vote. Supervisor John Moorlach voted no, saying he wanted to amend the bill to have the county’s ongoing $73-million tax dispute with the state resolved, which would provide stable funding for such a cemetery.
This is really bad politics. Shawn Nelson is being a shameful partisan hack in trying to stop what has intentionally been a painstakingly bipartisan effort. He’s also, if he keeps this up, hurting rather than helping the Assembly campaign of Young Kim against bill sponsor Sharon Quirk-Silva.
I’ll start with a disclosure: I’m a member of the Orange County Veterans Memorial Park Committee, which is composed of members such as Bill Cook and Richard Ramirez who have been the driving force to create a a veteran’s cemetery in OC for, in Cook’s case, about 15 years. I’ve worked many hours, with people of all political perspectives, to advance this project since being brought on board (by Brian Chuchua) in January, because it is so obviously beneficial to Orange County families who, understandably, have avoided making the long trek through nasty traffic to Riverside. (I’m not a veteran myself, but I am the father of one.)
Most of the OCVMP committee is, so far as I can tell, Republican, although it has a good helping of Democrats. We have taken considerable pains to avoid partisanship, to reach out to people countywide and specifically within Irvine (where the issue is apparently how much of its immense profit the developer brought in by the City to convert the plans for a “Great Park” into a “Great Tract and Sports Complex” might lose if such plans go through. Don Wagner, the Assemblyman for the area, has taken a strong leadership role in this effort; I’ve embraced that rather than worry about how much it may boost his political future, because that shouldn’t matter much compared to the politically uniting goal of bringing a cemetery to Orange County — ideally at the former El Toro Marine Corps Air Station.
I don’t get Sharon’s “political mail” here across the city limits, but I do get her emails — and they have been restrained enough, and focused simply on getting the project approved, that I have to wonder exactly what Nelson means by “political mail.” If it’s “mail designed to activate the public to support this project,” he’s surely right that that exists — as it should right now, because the prospects for the cemetery are in serious doubt and we need to rally people to the cause! If he thinks that there’s something wrong with Sharon’s working hard to promote her bill against — I know that Nelson may find this unbelievable, but if so that’s his own intentional ignorance — serious opposition, then I’d love to see him set forth the standard he’s using to judge her, because I look forward to judging him by that same standard.
What Nelson’s refusal to support a Orange County veteran’s cemetery does, at this point, is to put pressure on Young Kim to take a position on a cemetery in the Great Park, despite concerns that negative feng shui from living next to a cemetery may theoretically lower the prices that the mainland Chinese capitalist communists (it’s complicated) trying to shunt money out of China to the relative safety of Irvine real estate might be willing to pay. (Smooth move, Counselor.)
Do I want Sharon to have this as a campaign issue against Young Kim? NO — I WANT YOUNG KIM ON BOARD, even if it neutralizes this as a campaign issue, because I WANT THE CEMETERY BUILT SO THAT IT WILL BENEFIT ORANGE COUNTY VETERANS AND THEIR FAMILIES. And I hope that she’ll support the placement of a cemetery in the Great Park now, while her support can still make a difference, even if it may remove some political advantage from Sharon. That’s because — and Sharon has been crystal clear about this from the start, as the Republicans from OCVMP can attest — this should not be a partisan issue.
At yesterday’s OCVMP meeting, I had heard that Nelson had abstained on the motion — but I had accepted the explanation circulated that he just didn’t have all of the facts about how it would not cost the county money (or, for the most part, even the state, given the federal grants for such purposes.) Fine, I could respect that — even though I think that he was remiss in not checking with the people behind the plan prior to his vote, if that was his concern. But the Voice story puts an entirely new spin on it — he seems to oppose this because he thinks that it would be good for Sharon Quirk-Silva, and that makes it bad.
Back away from your quoted comments, Supervisor Nelson. They don’t serve you or your preferred candidate well. If you two are smart, you’ll both climb aboard the train of supporters in time for the April 22 meeting, where an important vote on a site-selection committee will take place. Stop being so political and join OCVMP in doing what’s right.
Who is this “serious opposition.” Names please.
Before I tell you, David, are you implying that there surely can’t be any?
Well, I find it hard to believe anybody would publicly oppose such a noble gesture, knowing politicians as I do.
Then how do you explain Nelson’s abstention and its explanation, David? He’s a politician, you know.
You may have skipped the piece I wrote on this at the time: http://www.orangejuiceblog.com/2014/03/irvine-council-approves-veterans-cemetery-resolution-that-may-arm-ab-1453/. Start there.
Then, check out this Weekend Open Thread, linking to a video of the meeting: http://www.orangejuiceblog.com/2014/03/weekend-open-thread-public-comment-and-debate-on-a-veterans-cemetery-in-the-great-park/, To find opponents, you’ll want to attend to both Choi’s and Shea’s speeches about the “killer amendment” that Shea introduced as well as to Shea’s speech before the final vote.
Here’s the direct link to the video if you want to miss out on discussions on the other post: http://www.irvinequickrecords.com/SIREICTV/mtgviewer.aspx?meetid=4611
As I say on that other post:
You, more than most, will really enjoy it. (OK, it involves watching speeches by Agran and Krom — but if you can get past that, you will enjoy it! “Hard to believe,” indeed!)
Well, maybe I’ll watch later. Right now I’m punching out a frog.
Some clever guy (or gal) predicted this sort of thing in that post you link to.
Of course SQS was playing politics, so is Nelson and a host of other candidates over the next six months. With the new spending loophole for radio ad’s exposed, I would suggest KPCC or satellite radio this summer and fall. The BS is going to be KNEE DEEP.
Okay so it passed. A kerfuffle in Irvine came and went. I’m not seeing much of a fight anywhere. Maybe instead of “fighting” Quirk should have used the word “working.”
I got that mailer too. For all intents and purposes it was a campaign piece.
Nelson’s abstention is easy. He’s not running against anybody.
And in the context of the meeting, he was making a point of abstaining from weighing in on issues that he considered outside the purview of the Supes, but in the interest of political candidates – mainly Janet. So maybe he figured he had to do the same thing with SQS to be fair.
“So maybe he figured he had to do the same thing with SQS to be fair.”
I doubt it.
*A few years ago brother Shaun was busy supporting OC Sheriff enforcement folks walking around the county checking on Dog Licenses with the ability to take your dog if it was not Licensed. We just want to ask the big question: Has brother Shaun ever served in the Armed Forces of the United States or any other country? If not, he needs to recuse himself from any position on the OC Vet Cemetary. Maybe brother Shaun didn’t ever have a dog as a pet…..either! Also, maybe brother Shaun should return any campaign donations by any veterans….that he has rec’d over the years.
*By the way….to be clear…..The OC Sheriff Animal Control folks…..were simply walking around neighborhoods and knocking on doors without verification, paperwork or probable cause….solely based on if – they heard any dog bark.
And here is Moorlach, explaining his position in his latest, always loquacious Update. Green eyeshades mixed with unwarranted cynicism:
It’s campaign season, also known as silly season. Consequently, candidates will do anything to conjure up free (unearned) media to build name recognition with their constituents and voters at this critical moment in time. Sometimes the activities are legitimate and are misconstrued, which I believe happened to me twenty years ago this month. Here is an example from my April 10, 2009 LOOK BACKS:
[…skip skip skip some self-indulgent stuff…]
I was accused by my opponents of being “political,” something that made me bristle then and still does today. But, you can clearly see, with the benefit of hindsight, that my claims were eerily accurate. I do not do something for the sake of grandstanding. If I’m vocal about an issue, it is because I believe strongly in my position. So, when “you’re being political” is thrown in my face, I simply request the accuser to get a new script. But, I get why they are frustrated. They, like myself, are not amused with political grandstanding. My dander rises when I see true grandstanding. This occurred at yesterday’s Board of Supervisors meeting.
The Board was asked to approve a “Support” position on Assembly Bill (AB) 1453, which was promoting a Veteran’s Cemetery in Orange County, specifically at the Great Park. You can’t find a bill more apple pie, God and country. But, when someone wraps themselves in the Flag, and provides a glimmer of hope to an extremely important segment of our community, the veterans, then don’t do it for self-aggrandizement. Do it for the right reasons.
The Bill would require the state Department of Veterans Affairs, through its Veterans Cemetery division, to apply for a grant from the United States Department of Veterans Affairs State Cemetery Grant Program. Admirable. But, let’s peel off the layers and see what we find.
1. California is in the worst financial shape that it has been in in its entire history. Below is a concise recap of the most recent Comprehensive Annual Financial Report (CAFR) for the state of California, as of June 30, 2012 (as the June 30, 2013 CAFR has not been completed by the State’s outside independent auditors). California has more in booked debt than it does in assets. I say booked, as the unfunded liabilities for its defined benefit pension plans and retiree medical benefits are not on the books, which I’ve added in the second slide below. I don’t want to worry you too much, although you should be worried, but the net per capita deficit is twice that of Jefferson County, Alabama ($1,607), which filed for Chapter 9 bankruptcy a couple of years ago. The state has no money to assist Orange County with a Veteran’s cemetery.
2. California only has two Veterans Cemeteries, only one is funded. It is in the unincorporated area of Igo, which has some 625 residents, and is 9 miles west of the city of Redding. The Northern California Veterans Cemetery was dedicated in December of 2005. A third cemetery, the Central California Coast Veterans Cemetery, to be located in Monterey County, is in the planning stage. It will complement the two closed National Cemeteries in San Francisco. This is a fledgling organization that is soliciting donations. I would not expect the state to be a strong funder of this agency or for the proposed Southern California Veterans Cemetery Master Development Fund.
3. Orange County is not excited about inviting state agencies into its borders. Recently, the state offered a $100 million grant to the Orange County Sheriff’s Department for a jail expansion through AB 900. When it became clear that it would be a state run penitentiary, we politely declined the funds. Once the state gave the County control over the funding to improve our existing facilities, manned by Deputy Sheriffs, then we gladly accepted the funding.
4. The main purpose of the California Veterans Cemetery program is to serve where National Cemeteries are inadequate. But, we have four National Cemeteries within driving distance, two in San Diego County, one in Riverside County, and one in Los Angeles County (which is now full). If you want a great day trip, I would recommend that you visit the Fort Rosecrans National Cemetery on the Point Loma Peninsula. It is California Historical Landmark No. 55, which reads: “FORT ROSECRANS NATIONAL CEMETERY – A burial ground before 1847, this graveyard became an Army post cemetery in the 1860s. It is the final resting place for most who fell at San Pasqual in 1846, and for the USS Bennington victims of 1905. It became Fort Rosecrans National Cemetery in 1934 and was placed under the Veterans Administration National Cemetery System in 1973. Over 50,000 who served the U.S. honorably in war and peace lie here.”
5. When you go to the National Cemetery Administration, you learn that only 39 states have a National Cemetery. Consequently, I’m not so sure that one could make the claim that our area is underserved.
6. A look at the Condensed Financial Statements for the United States Department of Veterans Affairs does not provide much comfort. The net financial position is a deficit of $1,721,321,000! Ironically, it is due to one line item in the Liabilities section of the balance sheet: “Federal Employee and Veterans Benefits Liabilities” of $1,763,614,000! Accordingly, there really isn’t much in the way of grant funding to be hopeful for. In fact, the income statement reflects an operating loss of some $223 million for the year ending September 30, 2012.
I would suggest to you that if the Great Park allotted the space for a Veterans Cemetery, that the funding and installation will not happen for a decade or two. There is no funding. And there is no compelling need.
I have visited a number of National Cemeteries in this country, including Civil War sites, and outside of this country, including the famous Normandy American Cemetery and Memorial, as displayed in the recent movie “Saving Private Ryan.” I am a beneficiary of the sacrifice made by United States veterans with their liberation of Nazi-occupied Netherlands. My father-in-law was a veteran and was awarded the Purple Heart for injuries incurred during his service in western Europe. I just attended the funeral service of nearly life-long friend Walter Ehlers at the Riverside National Cemetery. I am pro-Veteran (see MOORLACH UPDATE — OC Fair Christmas Present — December 20, 2013. MOORLACH UPDATE — Memorial Lanes — August 23, 2013, MOORLACH UPDATE — Memorial Gardens Building — July 10, 2013 and MOORLACH UPDATE — Preserving — July 8, 2013). However, I do not appreciate exploiting them for political purposes.
I made a very simple request to amend AB 1453, change it to “Support, if Amended.” Instead of giving our Orange County Veterans a pipe dream, let’s actually build, fund, and operate a Veterans Cemetery. Here was my proposal:
1. The State of California, through its Department of Finance, wants the County of Orange to pay it $150 million for what it stipulates are Vehicle License Fees (VLF). These funds are actually property tax revenues that were re-characterized as VLF. This is a money grab by Sacramento. The Bill should be modified to state that Orange County shall retain the $150 million if it contributes 5 percent ($7.5 million) to endow the cemetery on land contributed by the Great Park.
2. The State of California also wants the County of Orange to transfer $73 million per year out of the its General Fund to Sacramento. The Bill should be modified to allow Orange County to retain its rightful funds if it contributes 5 percent ($3.65 million) each year to underwrite the costs of the Veterans Cemetery. The Orange County Cemetery District has annual expenditures between $3 million and $3.2 million, so this funding should be adequate.
3. The Bill should be modified to have the Orange County Cemetery District as the lead agency to oversee the new Veterans Cemetery. This will eliminate duplicate administration and provided for a staff that is already experienced in running cemeteries in Orange County and can do it in conjunction with the requirements and internment policies established by the National Cemeteries.
4. The author of AB 1453 drafted the legislation that provided for the terms of Orange County’s surrender of the VLF funds to the State of California with AB 701. I would suggest that she do everyone a favor by righting a grievous wrong with the State’s money grab and obtain an immediate funding source to create a viable sanctuary for those who honorably served or will serve our nation in the future.
As I could not get a second for my motion, I voted against the recommendation to “Support” AB 1453. I see this bill as an exercise that rings hollow and smacks of grandstanding during silly season. Therefore, adopting a policy on a sphere of influence on what legislation the Board of Supervisors should take a position on in the future would be a helpful exercise.
Moorlach is not given to cynicism, even in private. It sounds like he’s given the matter quite a bit of thought, more than other politician has, I bet.
I just don’t see how all the “smart” people can say it’s being politicized, when the support for it is so bipartisan. There’s no reason Young Kim can’t also support it.
I think the notion is that the concept is being tricked out for political reasons. Moorlach backed this up with some thought.
Yes, David that is the “notion” all right, if one can call the equivalent of a spinal reflex a “notion.” Ask the Vets and ask the GOP co-sponsors about the great pains being taken here NOT to politicize it — to share credit across party. But maybe that’s too much trouble — and also carries the danger of failing to make a political opponent look bad.
It’s a sad day when a politician’s trying to be non-partisan is met with charges of partisanship by people apparently acting out of partisan loyalty for that politician’s political opponent. That’s beyond just normal political cynicism. In a way, I’m impressed — not a good way, of course.
You accusing someone of being partisan is a joke.
Moorlach points out that the VA is a billion in the red.
Some things, such as keeping our pledges to our veterans, are worth the money. Allowing people in a county the population of Iowa, not to mention most the adjacent county the population of Michigan, a chance to visit their honored dead without going to Riverside or San Diego is not just some silly extravagance. In fact, it would probably save people annually far more in the expense of travel than it would cost in additional debt service.
Do say more on the subject, though. It’s in the spirit of the topic at hand that you bury yourself.
He didn’t even do the rudimentary research needed to discover that the money would not be coming from either the county OR the state, but from the federal government, which wants to encourage states to create cemeteries for underserved areas — of which Orange County is one. It’s nice that you’re impressed by that; I’m not.
I am somewhat impressed with the potential of “drive a couple of hours south in heavy traffic to see your honored loved ones who served in the military” to serve as an updated version of “let them eat cake,” but it needs to be catchier.
He also is irresponsible and insulting to term this as “grandstanding” when it’s getting something done THIS YEAR that had previously been a dream that the veterans supporting it might come to fruition in a decade or more. It’s a shame that he didn’t reach out to anyone for actual information on this drive.
Would it be too much to ask the author to base his article on facts rather than the limited contextual interpretation gleemed from an article in a different blog? Supervisor Nguyen made a comment that this issue was not being raised for political purposes. I responded by pointing out that it was already in fact being used for just that even prior to being votes on by the assembly. It is a fact that Sharon has sent mailers touting her efforts on this bill. Sharon is a friend and the mailer was very well done. I expressed no opinion how I felt about the issue, if I liked (or didnt like) the mailer or if I felt it was right or wrong. I merely called out the truth that was being denied.
As for the bill itself, the state funding a vetrans cemetery in OC would be a welcome proposal and one I support. The bill as authored does not offer this.
Did Sharon’s mailers come from her campaign account or as an official governmental communication? (I honestly don’t know; I’m not involved with her campaign.) If the latter, Supervisor Nelson you’re in no position to complain. If the former, and if she’s letting the public know that she as the Chair of the Veterans Affairs Committee — from which no one expected this sort of strong action this year until she took the initiative with it — is doing something both difficult to achieve and good for the public, then what exactly is your problem with that?
If we start criticizing politicians for doing good things (whatever their primary motivation) because it makes them look good in the eyes of voters and is therefore in some way suspect, then we have disappeared down the rabbit hole. You’re turning acting honorably into a basis for assigning dishonor. That’s bizarre.
(By the way, I think that there’s a very good case that Janet Nguyen presented it to the Board of Supervisors — blindsiding the OCVMP Committee and for all I know Sharon herself — for reasons of self-promotion, if that’s the case you were trying to make. If she did, then I don’t blame her. She’s a shrewd politician. But she hasn’t done nearly the amount of hard work on this issue as Sharon has — or Don Wagner, for that matter.)
Here’s a fact: you withheld your support for the motion. You had the opportunity since the time that the agenda was posted to get any information that you wanted from Sharon’s office or from (as she’d likely have referred you to us) OCVMP. Explain that fact — because it does not comport well with the statement you make above. If you’d like to revise and clarify your view on the cemetery, please do.
Had you checked, you’d know that it’s the federal government, not the state, who would be funding this. You would also know that while the bill as written is not sufficient to create a veteran’s cemetery — a grant of appropriate land by Irvine or another city would be required — it is definitely necessary, and it helps put pressure on the swing votes on the Irvine City Council to take that necessary action.
And yet, in a time of need as we approach a decisive moment, you failed to vote yes. That’s a fact.
“…hard work”
Yeah, sure. Whatever you say. A real back breaker.
Ask the OCVMP vets, David — if you dare.
It’s harder work than your little pony Young Kim could accomplish — although she’s certainly the one to call on when it’s time to bully transgender kids. Everyone has their particular strengths, I suppose.
Oh, brother. Sharon gets another legislative freebie to help in her re-election and I have to call it hard work?
Calling Young Kim a “little pony” is misogynist. Or it would be if she were a Democrat and I had said it.
And I have made it perfectly clear (at your insistence) that I would never support this woman.
Your last sentence is ambiguous. I presume that you’d never support Sharon, and you’re doing a good job of not doing so, but that sentence seems to refer to never supporting Young Kim. I don’t recall your making that statement. If you did, good for you.
This was not a “legislative freebie.” Getting appointed Chair of the Veterans Affairs committee may have been what the Speaker considered an easy “resume builder,” but what Sharon has unexpectedly DONE with that position is her own accomplishment.
It’s not as if this was going to happen this year anyway; the Vets themselves didn’t expect that and had to be convinced that it was possible. The Speaker’s office had no idea that this was even a possibility, nor did the Governor. And her office organized a credible effort in less than three months — not simply the sizzle, but the steak. This sort of effort usually just doesn’t happen — and I’d expect you to recognize and appreciate that.
I don’t expect you to trust my opinion on this, David, but talk to the Vets. Talk to the Republicans involved. Ask them where things stood in mid-December — or even in early February — and how they went out and found the right people, put them together, crafted the plans, executed them perfectly.
This would NOT be happening without her efforts; . This is the sort of thing that you, as an insider wonk, would really appreciate if you’d allow yourself to consider that even your political opponents can at times do something good. I have enough respect for Shawn Nelson to think that he would feel the same way, which is why I find his refusal to support an effort to drum up public support for a project — something that he can surely comprehend — both startling and galling.
As for the use of the term “little pony” to refer to Young Kim, as I was contrasting her with a real workhorse (Sharon, in this metaphor), it should probably have been “little show pony:” You don’t count on a show pony to pull heavy weights — as has happened this year in your political backyard.
Greg, David has certainly never given the impression that he is part of the kleptocratic Ed Royce wing of the GOP that spawned the little pony. It’s understandable that you’re passionate about this Cemetery, but you’re jumping to too many conclusions about the people who are simply asking questions about it. Apart from Choi and Shea, who look to be in developers’ pockets.
Do I really have to search all of Zenger’s comments on the AD-65 candidates over the past few months to establish the basis for my impression, Vern?
Greg, as usual youre missing the point and firing before aiming. Its a bad habit. One you would be well served to break.
The mailer was from the campaign. She and I agree this is a political issue. That is the ONLY point I was making. Nothing more. Nothing less.
I withheld support because Sharon doesnt need my vote as a county supervisor NOR DID SHE ASK FOR MY VOTE. The good news is she doesnt need my vote. Which again goes to the actual point. Sharon is my assembly member. I trust her to do her job and she trusts me to do the same. I dont call her to pass resolutions supporting my efforts at the county and she doesnt call me asking for the same in reverse. Its a respect thing.
I didnt need to check where the money comes from as I already knew. My comment meant what it said. Just because you missed the point doesnt mean it isnt made. OC has asked the feds for money to do a veterans cemetery. Thus far no interest. The agency at the federal govt is in the red. One (not only but one) way to break the stalemate would be to write a bill offering exactly what I wrote. Not saying I expect it. Just saying it would actually be a new way to look at the issue and actually offer to fix the problem.
The only votes that will matter on Sharon’s bill are those of her colleagues. I didnt call her to tell her of course because unlike some in this blog realm, she already knows that.
P.S. Ready, fire, aim is not a good temperament for a DA. Take reasoned and patient for a test drive. It will serve you better.
Yes, she didn’t ask for your vote. I don’t know whether she even knew about Nguyen agendizing it. Regardless, the county needed your vote, Shawn.
Really, Shawn? You’re a Supervisor — did the Board of Supes really ask the Feds for money for a veterans cemetery? Of course there was no interest, if so, because the request for a state veterans cemetery has to come from the state. And it will be considered only if the state has title to the land on which it will be built — which is at issue in the weeks to come.
If you’ll commit to lobby your Republican friends and associates on the Irvine City Council to provide a parcel of 100+ acres in the Great Park — as they can — you may redeem yourself on this issue. Shea is hopeless, Choi is doubtful, so the question is whether Lalloway will keep his spine stiff and provide the critical support for this proposal. Do you have any sway with him, Shawn? Perhaps you’d be willing to write him a letter supporting the proposal.
I hope that you will appreciate how I aimed before firing there.
P.S. Given that you’ve endorsed my opponent, I’m fascinated by what you think is good temperament for a DA. For example, getting people close to you well-paying jobs in high positions in other Departments — although Public Administrator is the same department now — how did that fit into your estimate of temperament when you endorsed?
*So, does this all mean that we have a unanimous vote by the OC Board of Supervisors in favor of a Veteran Cemetary in Irvine? That SQS is being supported in a bi-partisan effort to actually take care of the constituent base of OC Veterans? Just asking?
Only three Supervisors supported the AB 1453 bill, which calls for a state Veteran’s Cemetery in Orange County. As noted, Moorlach voted no; Nelson abstained.
To use a metaphor you’ll like, think of the AB 1453 as a gun. It’s necessary — but it won’t do much without a bullet. Irvine giving over this Great Park land to the state, which can then apply for funds to the federal government, is that bullet. Within a month or so, we’ll find whether the Irvine Council arms that weapon or whether their support of the bill is an inert firearm that they can just wave around for show. Write the City Council.
Read the articles you comment on, Winnies!
Looks like we have a conflation of “political” with “partisan,” and also an assumption that anything “political” is reprehensible.
Why would any “political” advantage Sharon might gain from working hard as a leader to do the right thing on this issue merit such comment from Nelson, unless he’s trying to minimize and devalue the accomplishment for HIS OWN political reasons?
Criticizing Janet Nguyen for jumping on the bandwagon like this, I can understand, although that’s a pretty mild sin at worst. But dismissing Sharon’s work here is like dismissing someone’s long involvement in charitable work on the grounds that after all they will be comped to the annual banquet? SO? Bill Cook may be buried in this cemetery one day — does anyone REALLY want to argue that a significant part of his work since 1999 is mere self-interest?
Politicians SHOULD get props when they make good things happen! I will bet that in circumstances where they aren’t running against his candidate, Shawn DOES understand this — but embarrassing him with examples will have to wait.
*Chairman Vern, when you get obfuscated responses by people who supposedly have changed their views or had their views misinterpreted…..we are just trying to find out …..what is the real story here! Is this one of those: “I voted for it…after I voted against it..” or “I might vote for it now…..after I really voted against it…now that I see that it is totally unnecessary!” The grand MugWumpisms of modern days…..we suppose! “I love Veterans…..but will never pay to have them buried!”
seems to apply…here!
Does the Orange County Veterans Memorial Park Committee have a website? I’d like to learn more about it and how I might help.
Its current status is that which we hope the cemetery will soon be: under construction!