Dear Editor,
I have read your report on the recall occurring in Dixon California. It seems that there is some confusion about the reason behind this recall. The problem has demonstrated itself since this council has attempted to silence the public and refuses to allow a citizen to pull an item off the consent calendar for discussion, forcing a person to discuss multiple items during “public comment”.
The ban on roosters in the city is not a reason for recall. How it was achieved is one of the reasons they all need to be sent home. There was no discussion, no staff presentation of who complained or where the problem was, and no member of the public who spoke either for or against it. This is government by whim and has no place in America.
I exploded when I observed the council ignoring me. Some how you missed that with your short accurate quote. This is another reason for their recall. They don’t listen to the public and actually hate those of us who give our opinions of how our government should perform.
The primary reason for the recall was touched on by your writer. In California, we have a constitutional right to repeal a rate increase through the initiative process. This is contained in Art XIII C & D. The city sued the Dixon Chapter of the Solano County Taxpayers Association, using sewer money collected from the citizens rather than money from their general fund, to eliminate this right.
Judge Paul K. Beeman used case law from the 50’s to state that a constitutional amendment can’t stop a city from carrying out their functions. That is like saying the Dred Scott decision nullifies the 13th, 14th, and 15th Amendments to the United States Constitution. The Dixon Chapter was defended by Tim Bittle of the Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Foundation. They are the ones who wrote and championed passage of this constitutional amendment because governments were raising fees and rates to get around Proposition 13.
Rather than appeal this decision and taking the chance that another liberal appellate court would also attempt to write law from the bench, it was allowed to stand. However the judge himself in his decision told us that if we didn’t like what the council was doing, we “could throw the bums out.”
There is a long laundry list of other abrogations of their duties but the refusal to uphold their oath of office to defend and protect the constitutions of the US and California sets the stage.
By the way, the recall election can not be held at any date later than May 1st or thereabouts. You are precluded from doing a recall if the election will be held within 6 months of the regular election for these offices. The election will be called within 88 to 108 days after the signatures are verified. We have 90 days to collect the necessary signatures. This would put the longest day out at around the end of April.
Michael J. Ceremello, Jr.
Dixon, California
