Town Square

Post a New Topic

Alamo MAC's laughable agendas

Original post made by Alamo Towne Fool, Alamo, on Oct 29, 2011

Dear Editor,

Alamo residents and alumni in the Alamo Towne Fool e-exchange were laughing this morning about the lack of detail in Web Link for each line item. With humorous imagination, this listing of unexplained line items was reinvented as comedy based on such line items as Alamo Area of Benefit to be discussed by seven strangers to Alamo's majority and CCC-PW whose personnel have never visited our neighborhoods. What benefit to our area could be delivered by such strangers when the only result of such discussions among the very few are decided by the board of supervisors?

Your readers in our county region should take time to review this agenda and realize how very little service is provided to communities via the gatekeeping exercises of county advisory agencies when agendas are prepared without detail and to the specific purposes of a county supervisor.

Try it, entertain yourself!

Comments (14)

Posted by [update]
a resident of Alamo
on Nov 3, 2011 at 5:03 pm

Dear Editor,

It took only the recognition of neighborhoods' own roll in the failure of CCC-MAC Alamo to cause such savvy professionals to consider how to pursue the causes of failure in the MAC policies established by Mary Piepho in 2006. Neighbors recognize the issues of such failure are rooted in restrictions on MAC members that may only listen to their neighbors "3 minutes" without interactive consideration. Such nonsense is part of every level of governments' meetings in Contra Costa County and has political purpose in restricting resident contribution to mitigation of issues and focusing of resolutions.

Expect a story to emerge as neighborhoods take on the challenge of making Alamo's MAC actually representative of Alamo's will and interests.

Posted by informed resident
a resident of another community
on Nov 4, 2011 at 7:28 pm

Nice try Hal. Just another swing and a miss... You should bottle that anger and frustration.

Posted by [clarify]
a resident of Alamo
on Nov 5, 2011 at 8:24 am

Dear Editor,

Informed Resident is a factional e-exchange with seventeen primary participants in Alamo/Danville corridor. For the most part, this faction is the remnants of the incorporation movement in Alamo, 2007 through 2009, and focuses its current support of the MAC on 3 MAC members that were part of the incorporation committee and foundation. In direct communication, informed resident participants have supported the MAC in opposition to neighborhood, business district and community groups, including the AIA, as the only real voice for Alamo citizens.

Total distribution by Informed Resident(s) is <40 regional residents with most commentary targeting 7 neighborhood reps that were their host during 2008 incorporation discussion groups. The messages seldom deal with detailed presentation as noted above and are childishly abusive in tone and purpose.

For your readers in the Alamo region, neighborhoods, as the majority in Alamo, are seeking remedy to restrictions that keep earnest MAC members from interactive discussion with residents and defining mitigation of issues in their advisory to Gayle Uilkema and the CCC-BOS. At present, MAC members are isolated strangers in our region and only operate as volunteer staff for the supervisor. A review of CCC-MAC policy available on will allow your readers to immediately understand the communications issues the deter a successful MAC in the Alamo region.

Posted by Informed resident
a resident of another community
on Nov 5, 2011 at 11:39 am


You are beyond strike three. You spend countless hours behind your keyboard trying to confuse anyone that might stumble across your nonsensical posts. The "fact" remains that none of your rhetoric is based in fact. It is all limited to your desire and your misconception of the realities of the world we all live in. You routinely submit assumption as a cornerstone of your opinion. Always devoid of fact, because in reality, fact is a difficult thing for you to grapple with. By reading your numerous posts it becomes very clear that you hope by repeating yourself over and over you may get a different result. You know that mirrors Albert Einstein’s definition of insanity right? Just the messenger here Hal…

Hal, I am not really attacking you personally, I am addressing your constant effort to supplant your personal assumptions for factual content. Please understand there is a difference. Heck you do it all the time and most likely are in denial. Your same old routine continues to this very day. You constantly marginalize those you don't agree with and mimics hypocritical behavior. You do it with innuendo, and misleading statements, inflated statistics, etc., instead of fact based commentary. Hal you sure can dish it out, but can you take some of the same critque? I think we all know the answer to that-besides it is a rhetorical question.

Don't even get me started on the AIA. Try as you might to paint me (or others) as the minority for supporting our elected officials, but that is all done by majority. The groups you speak of as the 'voice' of Alamo are clearly by their very numbers the minority. I believe the AIA represents 11 percent of Alamo and is a membership club. (Psssst; Hal, that is a very small minority). No amount of your opinion can marginalize or change that fact.

So what have YOU done lately for your community? Maybe it is time to step up and change your game plan.

Care to go into extra innings?

Posted by [Disclosure]
a resident of Alamo
on Nov 5, 2011 at 6:46 pm

Jessica, well said and sponsored for the <200 participants in factions that imagine a MAC under CCC-MAC policy has any role in Alamo. Identifying Hal, Ralph or any other pseudonym on your site for focus of such excuse of fact only defines the issues in this exchange. How DOES an Alamo very-savvy professional community communicate with the gatekeeper activities of a MAC as front for county departments and CCC-BOS?

Journalism rather than nonsense is required.

Posted by Informed resident
a resident of another community
on Nov 5, 2011 at 9:02 pm

Hal, once again you make no sense. Then again most people here have already drawn that conclusion. Please enlighten me, When did you and your multiple pseudonyms become a majority "voice" again?

I only speak for myself in support of the elected and appointed individuals that step up and do the heavy lifting. Whether you choose to believe it or not, I’m not affiliated with any one that you mentioned or drummed up. Consider me a wolf pack of one.

The individuals which you constantly chastise, have elevated themselves through a democratic process and established practices which apparently you cannot come to grips with. That is your cross to bear. I might add they don't pay their way into the membership clubs that you like to proclaim are the voice of the community. Since they are not recognized as such, I believe your position on this is mute.

I find it ironic that you continue a diatribe (two posts above) that you note presentations are "childish and abusive in tone and purpose" and then YOU turn around and call fellow residents and Alamo homeowners "isolated strangers". Think about it Hal, you have to sense your own bitter hypocrisy.

What I get from the last paragraph of your post (top post above) is that somehow you believe the AIA is a majority <wrong> and that you (or they) are seeking remedy to change the established public process of public comment which you feel limits interactive discussion. Hal once again you could not be more incorrect. Mary Piepho, nor the Board of Supervisors invented this proceedure. It is what open meeting laws allow for, so that everyone that attends meetings gets an EQUAL opportunity to speak. Not only is it a standard in Alamo, but it is a common standard in public agencies throughout the county, state and our nation. It is how public/government meetings are run; keeping the meeting moving along yet allowing every individual the right to speak. You might want to spend less time blogging and more time educating yourself if you insist on continuing your rants.

Lastly Hal, you fail at marginalizing my facts with your "< 200 participants" remark. This tactic often used by you is referred to as 'deflecting'. Sorry Hal but it didn't work. I find your comment "focus of such excuse of fact only defines the issues in this exchange" literally hilarious! You are kidding right? "excuse of fact"??? That was downright bizarre, even for someone of your reputation and character.

I imagine soon you will be crying foul, taking your ball and going home.

Posted by [refocusing]
a resident of Alamo
on Nov 6, 2011 at 7:49 am

Dear Editor,

We have now seen efforts to drift this exchange from its purpose, "Does the MAC agenda offer any issue important to the majority of Alamo region residents with enough detail to understand the considerations Gayle Uilkema wishes discussed by seven MAC members?"

All commentary in this exchange conceded that interactive discussion, consideration and mitigation with Alamo's neighborhood, business district and community groups is not part of MAC meetings and "fill out a card, wait to be called, do your three minutes and then shut up and go away" is a reality. Alamo region residents and all Contra Costans need to ask if such county meeting policies serve our common need to mitigate issues at all levels of government.

Of course, the greater purpose of this exchange is to invite journalism and featured analysis of how well such restrictive policies work and what role the policy offers our country's citizens as more and more are alienated by the lack of an interactive role in government and economy.

It is a great subject and deserves more than two commentators.

Posted by Informed resident
a resident of another community
on Nov 6, 2011 at 6:36 pm

Hal, you never fail to disappoint. You are extremely predictable. Government structure is pretty basic across the board. Agenda items and public comment are pretty standard and Alamo's MAC (agenda) is no different. You as a member of the public do not get to change that. You are certainly welcome to attend meetings and participate in the meeting, but you don't get the liberty of making rules. Hal, do you attend meetings or are you too busy blogging your assumptions and conclusions? Either you don't get it or you choose not to. You can pick.

Hal, try attending a meeting for a change. There is an agenda item listed simply as "public comment" where someone like yourself can talk about anything not on the agenda. This would be a good opportunity for you to bring up what you think is important to unincorporated Alamo. If the board agrees with you, and views it as important, then they can add it to their next agenda.

p.s. I am surprised that you take issue that there is dialogue going on between you and a REAL person. (Haven't you grown tired of only having dialogue between you and your pocketful of pseudonyms?)

Posted by [termination]
a resident of Alamo
on Nov 6, 2011 at 9:20 pm

Dear Editor,

You have the scope of the issues of meaningless agendas and lack of discussion. We shall celebrate your journalism in presentation of such failures.

Posted by [removed]
a resident of Alamo
on Nov 7, 2011 at 8:37 am

Dear Editor,

The issues represented in commentary in this exchange have been referred to the district 2 supervisor's office for further review and actions this morning. We can hope that community engagement and communication become a primary agenda item for CCC-MAC Alamo as an effort to remove MAC members isolation from the Alamo region community.

If such action in agenda is taken, you will have a newsworthy story to report.

Posted by CDSI Research
a resident of another community
on Nov 7, 2011 at 6:48 pm

Dear Editor,

Let us thank commentators in this exchange for illustrating the traditional Alamo community attitude that is the basis of political communication in Alamo prior to June 2000. Not a majority since 1998, such traditional community attitudes provide the heritage of Alamo's remi-rural community attitudes. That heritage needs to be respected as Alamo's majority moves toward leadership in our regional community.

We are a new community and a new attitude that demands new voice in governments' community engagement and communications. Certainly Alamo's majority invites all perspectives in executing Alamo's voice.

An informational courtesy of CDSI Research Fellowship

Posted by Informed resident
a resident of another community
on Nov 7, 2011 at 9:53 pm


Another 2 paragraphs and you present nothing new. Obviously you are never one to run out of words and are happy just whining.

Your novelty wore off a few years ago and this blog (forum) only serves to enable you. The whole routine is pretty sick actually. Maybe you should consider a hobby or some form of community service? Just a thought.

Posted by CDSI Research
a resident of another community
on Nov 8, 2011 at 8:56 am

Dear Editor,

Your readers can find more information on governments' community outreach and communications in a new CDSI post:

Web Link

We hope you will find the subject newsworthy for home page coverage of how communities, neighborhoods and groups directly engage their elected officials.

Thank you for the opportunity for such discussion.

Member, CDSI Research Fellowship

Posted by Dickita P
a resident of Diablo
on Nov 12, 2011 at 8:14 pm

Can't we just complain about Democrats and teenagers again like we're supposed to?

Don't miss out on the discussion!
Sign up to be notified of new comments on this topic.


Post a comment

Sorry, but further commenting on this topic has been closed.

Stay informed.

Get the day's top headlines from sent to your inbox in the Express newsletter.

Common Ground
By Sherry Listgarten | 4 comments | 3,177 views

Tri-Valley Nonprofit Alliance grew from chance meeting
By Tim Hunt | 0 comments | 798 views