≡ Menu

The Monterey County Board of Supervisors, on a 3-2 split, continued to press its case Tuesday for providing additional voting strength to the county and Salinas in the formation of a regional electrical power consortium.

The plan has been in the works for several years now, but with a formation deadline approaching next month, supervisors John Phillips, Luis Alejo and Simon Salinas are essentially saying that unless Monterey County gets an extra vote, they’ll pass on enabling Monterey County residents to reduce their reliance on carbon-heavy energy sources and replace them with power from renewable sources.

Here’s the Monterey Herald story on Tuesday’s action. Here’s our previous story.

Comments on this entry are closed.

  • gin February 15, 2017, 9:57 am

    Anyone else envision lots of upcoming votes being split 3-2. Three guys versus the two gals.

    • Ron Chesshire February 15, 2017, 10:38 am

      We elect individuals based on their political positions and our ability to put trust in them. I’m a male and to vote only for males because they are males would be insane. Your statement is no more than a “sucker punch” in a bar hoping that you will start a brawl. I hope that the contributors to the Partisan recognize it for such and continue to contribute meaningful dialogue. If this is what you or others perceive, then Heaven help us.

      • gin February 15, 2017, 11:30 am

        Mr. Chesshire – I do NOT vote for female candidates because they are female, nor male candidates because they are male. And I have no wish whatsoever to start a bar brawl (and could not do so because I do not patronize bars) nor can I define a “sucker punch” (no idea whatsoever). My point was the two ladies and the three gentlemen have very different “political positions” to use your quote. Based on these very different “political positions” I envision many 2-3 split votes (the gals versus the guys).

        • Ron Chesshire February 15, 2017, 12:16 pm

          I believe that the 5 Supervisors have differing opinions on different issues. I believe they will align as to their views, positions, and philosophy along with a good dose of information provided by staff and input from the Public. I know and have spoken to all the Supes. I would say that the two ladies share many of the same views. Conversely, the men are just as concerned and share many of those same views also. As to how that translates into votes is incalculable since other factors come into play. But, you aren’t getting off that easy. You played the “gender card” and making statements that can be perceived to divide people is a game we all know and are all too familiar with. Sucker Punch – hitting someone while they are not looking. Can cause a great amount of retribution and disturance. Beware!

        • Helga Fellay February 15, 2017, 12:33 pm

          gin, I reluctantly have to agree with Ron on this one, your “Three guys versus the two gals” phrase struck me also as unfortunate. Ron called it the gender card, because it is misleading. It so happens that the two women on the Board are both leaning towards a more progressive position, while the three men seem more conservative. In general, men and women are not necessarily different when it comes to which ideology they favor, so it would be better to phrase it not as “the guys versus the gals” but rather in more gender neutral terms, like two of our Supes tend to be more responsive to the county residents, while three of the Supes tend to favor the establishment/business interests, or something to that end.

          • gin February 16, 2017, 1:36 am

            Helga, you yourself just stated (and I quote) “the two women on the Board are both leaning towards a more progressive position, while the three men seem more conservative”

        • Dan Turner February 15, 2017, 3:09 pm

          Gin, you’ll be sorry most times when you get into a discussion w/Ron.
          It is obvious to everyone, except Ron, that your comment had nothing to do w/the gender of the Supes but, rather, that the two women are progressives who will vote for the best interests of regular folks, even if it means lower profits for some corp, while the 3 men are much more interested in trying to protect the profits of businesses – PG&E, in this case – and the rest of us can go straight to hell for all they care. It could just as easily have been two women on the regressive side and three men on the progressive side.
          You can try to get that idea through Ron’s skull from now till doomsday but you won’t succeed.

          • Eric Petersen February 15, 2017, 9:29 pm

            I like getting into conversations with Ron. He does a lot of good things for us, too!

          • Ron Chesshire February 16, 2017, 3:07 pm

            Over the last several years we have been fed a line numerous times that the 4 guys were beating up on the one woman. I’d have to say that observing a few long meetings Supervisor Parker did look like she was in need of a quick hair appointment but, she is resilient. Now, the beat goes on and it is getting old real quick. It does not need to be perpetuated, but the battle has begun again. Will we hear the Progressives are getting beat up by the Conservatives? No, it will be an issue of the boys vs the girls. Sensationalism, that sells news? I’m sure Royal would like to be on the collecting end of that one? Unfortunately, this is non-profit news?

            Now, I’m interested in what makes many of you think that Alejo, Salinas, and Phillips are sooooo Conservative? Phillips may be to the right of Alejo and Salinas, but both of them are very Progressive. They just aren’t your type of Progressive. So you label them and try to disenfranchise them. Shame on you.

            We have 5 distinct personalities on the Board and many of them probably share many of the same views. At times they will differ, that is life and we don’t need to divide them and ourselves based on Gender. We do not need to perpetuate the mistakes of the past.

            As for my buddy Dan, I’m sure with your ego and knowledge of all there is to know in the universe, you will be getting a call from the Trump appointment’s office soon. Have a good day.

      • Royal Calkins February 15, 2017, 7:10 pm

        Ron. Read what she wrote, not what your head told you she wrote

        • Ron Chesshire February 15, 2017, 9:32 pm

          OK, I’ll remove my brain from the process and be like Dan Turner.

          • Dan Turner February 16, 2017, 10:00 pm

            I could be wrong but I think Ron is envious of my big brain.

  • Ron Chesshire February 15, 2017, 10:19 am

    The issue of Governance or what is FAIR Governance is always key to the formation of any entity. Fair representation and determining voting can make or break you. After current events I’m sure all of you are enamored with the Electoral College?

    This issue of representation needs to be played out. There are compelling reasons on both sides as to what the Supervisors believe. But, there is an overall specter of the politics being played by Ms. Johnson who is the lead agent and key person behind the movement.

    No one likes being forced into doing something. Ultimatums are not well received. Local Governments cannot be expected to jump when told to do so, they also have a process. In government things move slow and in this case 4 years is near the end but quite not there yet. Concerns need to be addressed. There are issues besides governance which need to be addressed. The process needs to play out. This is not an issue of 3 Supervisors ignoring something which will be of benefit to our communities. It’s an issue of getting things right. At this time our elected officials are working to get things right. What more can you ask?

  • Jim darling February 15, 2017, 11:52 am

    To the guys vs. gals theory, did anyone else notice that the only two Rep. Senators to vote against Devois were two ladies? Interesting that they’re the only ones who had any balls!

    • sam smith February 15, 2017, 12:32 pm

      “Balls” said the queen,
      “if I had ’em, I’d be king”

      • Ron Chesshire February 15, 2017, 1:16 pm

        OK, let’s get back to the subject at hand which was the issue of voting to pursue two votes for Monterey on the Power JPA. BTW – the motion includes two votes for Santa Cruz County and the City of Salinas. I’m afraid the other issue will continue to spring up all too often.

      • Royal Calkins February 15, 2017, 7:11 pm

        I think this site needs a “like” button so I could like Sam Smith’s comment

        • Eric Petersen February 15, 2017, 9:29 pm

          You are the one in charge!

  • Judy Karas February 15, 2017, 1:23 pm

    The three voting not to join the other jurisdictions ignored the wishes of the electorate, Are they so insecure that they always have to have the upper hand? This is a regional project benefitting all local entities who sign on to it. One must make decisions for the good of all, not just Mty. County. Thanks to Jane Parker and Mary Adams for their positions on this very important issue.

    • Ron Chesshire February 16, 2017, 1:57 pm

      Judy, what do you mean “ignored the wishes of the electorate?” What electorate? Did you watch Monterey’s City Council debate on the issue? Citizens (the electorate) were confused and irate over the process. Ms. Johnson, who is leading the charge has done a good job but is failing miserably in bringing the communities on board. She is manipulating and rushing the process. Too many of the electorate are not aware of what the heck is going on.

      I saw great support for the CCE JPA by ALL the Supervisors. But, they have a difference of opinion regarding representation. This will play out. Parker and Adams were eloquent. Alejo, Salinas, and Phillips were equally convincing. It will be interesting to watch how the issue of two seats is handled in Santa Cruz County and Salinas. This was proposed and part of the motion that passed.

      Therefore, politics prevails but not at the electorate level. There are no Measures on ballots throughout the 3 Counties for the People to decide in this instance. Let’s hope for the best? “There is no progress without struggle” If there were, I’d be highly suspicious of what was being done. Please remember, in our small Counties, eventually, the Truth comes out.

  • Roberta Myers February 15, 2017, 3:11 pm

    No one has brought up the fact that the new community organization is willing to buy back electricity generated by solar installations at a much more reasonable rate than PG&E, who don’t want to buy back any excess energy.

  • Dan Turner February 15, 2017, 3:22 pm

    When my wife opined, a couple of days ago, that the bad Supes were trying to torpedo the regional energy agreement, I told her that that wasn’t necessarily so. Perhaps, I told her, there was some legitimate reason that the voting on this board should be weighted to represent the population of the various districts. But now that I see that our 2 good, progressive Supes are arrayed against our 3 bad, regressive/reactionary Supes, I fear that my wife was prescient in her analysis. Its like Lily Tomlin said – You think you’re too cynical and, then, when you discover what’s really been going on, you realize that you can’t keep up (that you weren’t cynical enough).
    It is up to the Latinos in the Salinas Valley to organize behind progressive candidates and get rid of as many of these bad Supes as possible. Those of us over here on the west side of the county can and should help them however we can but progressive Latinos have to organize and take the lead in this endeavor. If they don’t, won’t or can’t, it will be difficult to make any progress in Monterey County.

    • Brian Higgins February 15, 2017, 4:33 pm

      Perhaps the Latinos in the Salinas Valley are tired of the progressives on the peninsula telling them what is good and bad for them…

      • Dan Turner February 15, 2017, 9:06 pm

        No, they’re not tired at all. I just don’t know what it will take to get enough of them motivated and organized to throw these bums out and replace them with Supes who will support policies that will better fulfill the needs of regular working folks than the Supes they have now. The Salinas Valley Latino communities are the only ones who can figure that out. So, there’s nothing condescending going on here. We west county progressives are just letting them know that we’re here for them and all they have to do is tell us what we can do to help.

        • Ron Chesshire February 15, 2017, 9:42 pm

          OK, I will let them know and I’m sure they will ask that you stay out of their business. Your underlying message in your comments is they don’t know what is good for them and they need your help to get your agenda accomplished. Dan – Too many years of working around novocaine can have disastrous affects?

          • Dan Turner February 16, 2017, 10:03 pm

            Ron, you can say anything you want about me but just watch out what you say about Novocaine!! This is your final warning!!

        • Brian Higgins February 16, 2017, 7:53 am

          If the Peninsula was truly there for them, perhaps they could support policies that would: (1) create additional affordable housing for them, maybe even on the Peninsula (GASP! not in my neighborhood!), (2) improve the education that their children receive at our public schools in Monterey County, (3) or make it easier to find jobs in Monterey County, instead of constantly battling two of our county’s largest industries: Agriculture and Hospitality.

          People living paycheck to paycheck really don’t give a damn about their family’s carbon footprint, they don’t care about warning labels on sugary drinks, and they certainly aren’t concerned with fish in the Carmel River.

          • Dan Turner February 16, 2017, 10:10 pm

            Goodness! Now look who knows all about what Latinos in the Salinas Valley want and need. The fact is, however, that you have listed a number of issues that, if invested in by our Supes, would indeed improve the lives of working folks in the Salinas Valley (and everywhere, actually). Unfortunately, there is no chance that these 3 east side Supes are going to vote for projects working toward those ends. As a matter of fact, you seem like a right-wing reactionary and, if you are, would you even support policies like you listed?

          • Brian Higgins February 17, 2017, 8:11 am

            I am a proud right ring reactionary. When you can’t make an argument, labeling people always works!

  • Jeanne Turner February 15, 2017, 4:00 pm

    As always, timing is everything. The concept of having two seats on the board is not unreasonable It is the insistence on a weighted governing board THIS LATE in the game that is the problem. I attended the BOS meeting yesterday. All entities in Santa Cruz County and San Benito County that have voted to become part of Monterey Bay Community Power have already voted for a governing board on which each county and city has one seat. To amend that, everyone who has already signed on would have to approve the weighted governing board. Amending the structure of the governing board with only four weeks to go could easily sabotage Monterey County PG&E customers’ opportunity for access to a green energy alternative. Since there has been ample opportunity to initiate the concept of a weighted board long before now, I of course view this as purposeful sabotage on the part of the three supervisors who are now holding out for it.

  • Ron Chesshire February 15, 2017, 10:18 pm

    You’re right, timing can be everything but in this instance there is no regulatory deadline to meet. The deadline has been self imposed and many jurisdictions are balking. Monterey, Monterey County, and Watsonville are up in the air. Only time will tell what takes place in other jurisdictions. Many are airing dissatisfaction with the process. There will be a meeting in Seaside tomorrow and they have had all of one presentation in months on what is taking place. Take a look at their agenda for tomorrow night. Even it is confusing with two entries regarding the CCE.

    The effort to create this program has been commendable but the final political push leaves much to be desired. Even I, a barbarian by Mr. Turner’s standards, knows that bringing a political decision to fruition requires more care than the forced feeding some of the jurisdictions are feeling.

    There are those that may declare a power grab and those that claim it’s democracy in action. If you got to follow the formation of FORA, you would cry out, “why couldn’t it have been this simple?”

    They say, watching legislation being created is like watching the making of sausage. It’s all a matter of your perspective and where you stand on the issue. It can be a messy business but in the end we hope it tastes good? We are still in the grinding stage and looking forward to the final product. Don’t rush to declare the meat is being tainted by ones who may adding spice to the recipe.

    • Dan Turner February 16, 2017, 10:12 pm

      That’s DOCTOR Turner to you, you barbarian.