As residents of San Mateo, we are motivated by our shared love for this city. Leadership that brings our community together is needed more than ever with the many changes and challenges on the horizon for San Mateo. As former mayors of this city, we yearn for a return to positive, healthy governance. City leaders are elected to do the people’s work and should create a welcoming, collaborative atmosphere for all residents. It is for these reasons we support the recall of Councilmember Amourence Lee.
We do not take a recall lightly, but the status quo cannot stand. We want to get back to tackling the important issues and working cohesively as a community. The current environment does not support this. We are also in an unprecedented time: Actions by both Lee and a planning commissioner have been forwarded to the district attorney for investigation. In the midst of something as intense and passion-provoking as a recall, we see a future path to a more functional and productive council/citizen relationship.
We stand with other residents to take stock of where we are, where we’ve been, and where we strive to be. We are united in our resolve to galvanize, not polarize, and steer San Mateo toward a more accountable, civil and transparent way of governance. We believe that with the recall of Councilmember Amourence Lee, we will have taken a huge step toward becoming all we hope for as a community and city.
After reading the comments and recalling the recent shenanigans of the current mayor, I’d have to side with the recall Councilmember Lee side. Voters can make their voices heard, again.
Voters won't though. Turnout in special elections is much lower, and if you really wanted to let all voters make their voices heard, you would support waiting until the general election in 2024. The only reason this recall is happening is because they know they cannot beat Mayor Lee in a general election.
Mr. Day, whether there’s 1% turnout or 60% turnout (I don’t think we’ve ever had “all” voters via a 100% turnout) in an election, special or otherwise, it’s still an election. There’s no reason to wait if a recall vote is authorized. It just means both sides will need to get out the vote and be heard, again.
Special elections suppress lower income voters, and voters of color. The recallers know that a special election will suppress the voices of their opponents. If there is a 1% turnout, that just serves more to exemplify my point that this special election is unfair.
Mr. Day - even if you believe special elections suppress lower income voters and voters of color and special elections are unfair - it doesn’t matter. An election, special or otherwise, is an election. If there is 1%, or whatever %, turnout it means other voters didn’t care enough to vote and don’t care if Councilmember Lee stays or goes. Again, it’s up to both sides to get out the vote for their side.
Ya'll trippin' for real. Stop with this nonsense and trying to divide the community. Threatening recall isn't demonstrating leadership, it's a pitiful deflection tactic. You "leaders" should be focusing your time, expertise, and efforts on helping with myriad of challenges our communities, county, and region face instead of scapegoating Mayor Lee.
No actions by Mayor Lee were forwarded to the DA for investigation, something I urge the SMDJ to confirm and clarify. It's disappointing that these former leaders have chosen to spread misinformation.
One only has to look at the elected leaders and organizations that have spoken in favor of appointing Lee as Mayor and against the recall to see how far out of touch these former Mayors have become.
I'm curious what the DA referrals are that are mentioned in this letter. As far as I know, the only recent accusation against a Planning Commissioner was the incident in which Adam Nugent _moved_ campaign signs, from an illegal placement on public property, to a nearby legal spot. This was covered in the SMDJ: https://www.smdailyjournal.com/opinion/letters_to_editor/ugly-defamation-campaign/article_d6d58784-60b6-11ed-9b3f-5f7e63cb3d00.html
As far as I know, there was no referral to the DA on this, only an unhinged smear campaign.
And the recent referral in relation to Ms. Lee was a referral for the DA to investigate whether there was an attempt at illegal vote-trading by the same faction that now seeks to recall her. It takes some chutzpah to call this a referral _of Lee_.
In the interest of transparency, I asked around on this, and I'm told that the DA was asked to examine the situation with Mr. Nugent, but after a brief look concluded there was no conduct worth a serious investigation or charge. So I guess it's fair enough to call that a "referral", but still seems pretty disingenuous to cite it as some kind of evidence of a problem.
KPIX's coverage of this issue actually bothered to ask the DA's office if they were investigating Ms. Lee, and got an unambiguous "no" on that.
It is truly a shame to see that Jerry Hill is showing that he doesn't stand Mayor Lee. First endorsing the anti-choice Rod Linhares and now this. It is saddening to see that all of these Mayors are claiming that we should get back to serving the community, when Mayor Lee has provided time and time again that she is committed to working for historically underrepresented communities. The reason that this is a political issue is due to the actions of other Council members who tried to violate our city's charter and bypass the installation of the Mayor. The fact that these 5 Mayors would sign on to a far right attack filled with misinformation and hate is scary.
"anti-choice" about what? The true "shame" is that the media has limited choice to one subject. There was no reason for Lee to make abortion an issue. Seems to me she is more anti-Catholic than pro-choice.
There is a reason. If Rod Linhares is going to serve a community of 100,000 people, then he should respect the rights of all of them. Not just the ones he sees as fit to make their own healthcare decisions.
Thank you for this clear and concise message on why Amourence Lee needs to be recalled. You are all examples of the leadership San Mateo needs going forward. I honor each and every one of you.
Owen, I am so proud of Councilmember Diaz Nash and her work to ensure all San Mateo residents are represented in any key vote. She, along with the authors of the letter, is the leadership we need in San Mateo.
That wasn't my concern. My concern is that if Councilmember Diaz Nash surrounds herself with so many pro-recall people, it makes me begin to wonder how she views the whole situation. She still has not taken a position on the recall, and the more that her supporters support it, the more I get troubled.
This support and leadership by these former officials is great news! All residents should be very concerned about the impact Mayor Lee could have on our future.
To sign the petition or learn more, go to www.RecallAmoLee.com.
Make sure to take everything on the recall website with a grain of salt. It paints a very misinformed picture. To all that read this, I encourage you to actually watch the city council meetings and come to your own conclusions.
Yes, especially the meeting where she dramatically pulled Cliff Robbins’s name out of an envelope and claimed, without any evidence (even to date) of vote tampering. It was an assault on a highly accomplished and regarded member of the community to ensure her preferred candidate got appointed. The sad thing is, Councilmember Hedges was widely supported by his community and would have been the likely winner anyway so the whole antic was completely unnecessary and is dangerous for the City.
Keep the discussion civilized. Absolutely NO
personal attacks or insults directed toward writers, nor others who
make comments. Keep it clean. Please avoid obscene, vulgar, lewd,
racist or sexually-oriented language. Don't threaten. Threats of harming another
person will not be tolerated. Be truthful. Don't knowingly lie about anyone
or anything. Be proactive. Use the 'Report' link on
each comment to let us know of abusive posts. PLEASE TURN OFF YOUR CAPS LOCK. Anyone violating these rules will be issued a
warning. After the warning, comment privileges can be
revoked.
Please purchase a Premium Subscription to continue reading.
To continue, please log in, or sign up for a new account.
We offer one free story view per month. If you register for an account, you will get two additional story views. After those three total views, we ask that you support us with a subscription.
A subscription to our digital content is so much more than just access to our valuable content. It means you’re helping to support a local community institution that has, from its very start, supported the betterment of our society. Thank you very much!
(23) comments
Lee is similar to if Fatty Arbuckle was Mayor of San Mateo.
Somewhere Al Ferrer and Johnny Chiape are rolling their eyes over Lee's shenanigans.
Who's next in line?
After reading the comments and recalling the recent shenanigans of the current mayor, I’d have to side with the recall Councilmember Lee side. Voters can make their voices heard, again.
Voters won't though. Turnout in special elections is much lower, and if you really wanted to let all voters make their voices heard, you would support waiting until the general election in 2024. The only reason this recall is happening is because they know they cannot beat Mayor Lee in a general election.
Mr. Day, whether there’s 1% turnout or 60% turnout (I don’t think we’ve ever had “all” voters via a 100% turnout) in an election, special or otherwise, it’s still an election. There’s no reason to wait if a recall vote is authorized. It just means both sides will need to get out the vote and be heard, again.
Special elections suppress lower income voters, and voters of color. The recallers know that a special election will suppress the voices of their opponents. If there is a 1% turnout, that just serves more to exemplify my point that this special election is unfair.
Mr. Day - even if you believe special elections suppress lower income voters and voters of color and special elections are unfair - it doesn’t matter. An election, special or otherwise, is an election. If there is 1%, or whatever %, turnout it means other voters didn’t care enough to vote and don’t care if Councilmember Lee stays or goes. Again, it’s up to both sides to get out the vote for their side.
Ya'll trippin' for real. Stop with this nonsense and trying to divide the community. Threatening recall isn't demonstrating leadership, it's a pitiful deflection tactic. You "leaders" should be focusing your time, expertise, and efforts on helping with myriad of challenges our communities, county, and region face instead of scapegoating Mayor Lee.
What an embarrassing display from this group. An attempt to polarize the community and cause as much division as they can.
No actions by Mayor Lee were forwarded to the DA for investigation, something I urge the SMDJ to confirm and clarify. It's disappointing that these former leaders have chosen to spread misinformation.
One only has to look at the elected leaders and organizations that have spoken in favor of appointing Lee as Mayor and against the recall to see how far out of touch these former Mayors have become.
https://www.amourencelee.com/standwithamo
I'm curious what the DA referrals are that are mentioned in this letter. As far as I know, the only recent accusation against a Planning Commissioner was the incident in which Adam Nugent _moved_ campaign signs, from an illegal placement on public property, to a nearby legal spot. This was covered in the SMDJ: https://www.smdailyjournal.com/opinion/letters_to_editor/ugly-defamation-campaign/article_d6d58784-60b6-11ed-9b3f-5f7e63cb3d00.html
As far as I know, there was no referral to the DA on this, only an unhinged smear campaign.
And the recent referral in relation to Ms. Lee was a referral for the DA to investigate whether there was an attempt at illegal vote-trading by the same faction that now seeks to recall her. It takes some chutzpah to call this a referral _of Lee_.
In the interest of transparency, I asked around on this, and I'm told that the DA was asked to examine the situation with Mr. Nugent, but after a brief look concluded there was no conduct worth a serious investigation or charge. So I guess it's fair enough to call that a "referral", but still seems pretty disingenuous to cite it as some kind of evidence of a problem.
KPIX's coverage of this issue actually bothered to ask the DA's office if they were investigating Ms. Lee, and got an unambiguous "no" on that.
Embarrassing statement. Glad we have moved past the old status quo
It is truly a shame to see that Jerry Hill is showing that he doesn't stand Mayor Lee. First endorsing the anti-choice Rod Linhares and now this. It is saddening to see that all of these Mayors are claiming that we should get back to serving the community, when Mayor Lee has provided time and time again that she is committed to working for historically underrepresented communities. The reason that this is a political issue is due to the actions of other Council members who tried to violate our city's charter and bypass the installation of the Mayor. The fact that these 5 Mayors would sign on to a far right attack filled with misinformation and hate is scary.
"anti-choice" about what? The true "shame" is that the media has limited choice to one subject. There was no reason for Lee to make abortion an issue. Seems to me she is more anti-Catholic than pro-choice.
There is a reason. If Rod Linhares is going to serve a community of 100,000 people, then he should respect the rights of all of them. Not just the ones he sees as fit to make their own healthcare decisions.
Did he ever say he was against any right? i got the feeling he believed that because you have a right doesn't make it right.
Thank you for this clear and concise message on why Amourence Lee needs to be recalled. You are all examples of the leadership San Mateo needs going forward. I honor each and every one of you.
The fact that you, someone who worked so closely with Councilmember Nash, would take such a staunch position on this is concerning.
Owen, I am so proud of Councilmember Diaz Nash and her work to ensure all San Mateo residents are represented in any key vote. She, along with the authors of the letter, is the leadership we need in San Mateo.
That wasn't my concern. My concern is that if Councilmember Diaz Nash surrounds herself with so many pro-recall people, it makes me begin to wonder how she views the whole situation. She still has not taken a position on the recall, and the more that her supporters support it, the more I get troubled.
This support and leadership by these former officials is great news! All residents should be very concerned about the impact Mayor Lee could have on our future.
To sign the petition or learn more, go to www.RecallAmoLee.com.
Make sure to take everything on the recall website with a grain of salt. It paints a very misinformed picture. To all that read this, I encourage you to actually watch the city council meetings and come to your own conclusions.
Yes, especially the meeting where she dramatically pulled Cliff Robbins’s name out of an envelope and claimed, without any evidence (even to date) of vote tampering. It was an assault on a highly accomplished and regarded member of the community to ensure her preferred candidate got appointed. The sad thing is, Councilmember Hedges was widely supported by his community and would have been the likely winner anyway so the whole antic was completely unnecessary and is dangerous for the City.
Welcome to the discussion.
Log In
Keep the discussion civilized. Absolutely NO personal attacks or insults directed toward writers, nor others who make comments.
Keep it clean. Please avoid obscene, vulgar, lewd, racist or sexually-oriented language.
Don't threaten. Threats of harming another person will not be tolerated.
Be truthful. Don't knowingly lie about anyone or anything.
Be proactive. Use the 'Report' link on each comment to let us know of abusive posts.
PLEASE TURN OFF YOUR CAPS LOCK.
Anyone violating these rules will be issued a warning. After the warning, comment privileges can be revoked.