Town Square

Supervisors Carole Groom & Rose Jacobs Gibson = NO on B

Original post made by Michael G Stogner, another community, on Oct 24, 2012

It's time for some honesty in San Mateo County.

Both of these women have personally benefited from being Appointed to Supervisor. Now they are opposed to a level playing field as in District Elections. This is a good time for a morals check.

Carole Groom was appointed by Rose Jacobs Gibson and 2 others when there was tremendous opposition.

Here is video of citizen Dave Pine asking the Supervisors to honor Democracy. The man behind him who is fidgeting with his papers is Bill Nack from labor he wanted and got Groom appointed.

Web Link



Like this comment
Posted by Honesty
a resident of another community
on Oct 24, 2012 at 1:58 pm

In recent years, Dave Pine spent over a million dollars, out of his own pocket, to get himself elected. In the recent special election, the Chair of the Democratic Central Committe created a hit piece comparing Dave Pine to Meg Whitman, but unlike Meg, Dave Pine managed to outspend his opponents to victory. In the recent primary, Dave Pine paid big bucks to get his name and face on the official slate mailer of the County Democratic Party, although he never received the endorsement of that organization. Yes, this is a good time for a morals check.

Like this comment
Posted by Michael G. Stogner
a resident of another community
on Oct 24, 2012 at 2:44 pm


What am I missing here. Dave Pine invested his own money what is wrong with that?
He supports District elections, He supports parks over jail.

Empower the voters VOTE YES on Measure B.

Like this comment
Posted by Michael G. Stogner
a resident of another community
on Oct 24, 2012 at 3:42 pm


You confirm part of my point Carole Groom and Rose Jacobs Gibson saved a lot of money by being appointed. Dave Pine invested over $550,000 and Don Horsley invested over $450,000 with the promise not to accept any of the salary paid to Supervisor, you failed to mention Don Horsley for some reason.

Like this comment
Posted by Henry Riggs
a resident of Menlo Park: Suburban Park/Lorelei Manor/Flood Park Triangle
on Oct 24, 2012 at 6:39 pm

Henry Riggs is a registered user.

The issue, imho, is about access. (I've asked a lot of questions both last November and this June.)

For local races (city council, school board) a candidate speaks in front of local groups, meets people at the farmers market, walks the neighborhoods, attends forum style meetings and presents him/herself - full time for three months. For county supervisor, there are ten times the voters to meet and, outside of your town, none of them have ever heard of you - unless you're the incumbent. So campaigning is about (1) getting your face and name out there and (2) getting endorsements of current leaders, and/or the democratic party. These cost big money, or quid pro quo.

Unfortunately, too many voters pick a familiar name, not a known quantity - thats just campaign reality - so a county wide election is about mailers and endorsements (connections, quid pro quo). This is not "democracy", its just money and horse trading.
The solution is to go to district elections - a smaller venue where voters might actually MEET the candidate, or know someone who has met or has been to a forum (the latter are very revealing). The argument that candidates "must represent the whole county" is well meant but kind of silly given that county wide campaigns are really professional mail and robo-call efforts.

As for Groom and Gibson, they are married to the status quo. One look at the baffling county web site, the recurring dip into reserves or the threat to close parks, tells us that.