Letter - Susan Kussman

This is in regard to a News-Press article, (“Gomez recall petition

approved,” July 20).

If by some chance you are wondering who is responsible for the months

of technical delays on our petition to recall Mayor Gus Gomez, look no

further than the city of Glendale and our benevolent City Atty. Scott

Howard. As you know, Mr. Howard works at the pleasure of the City

Council, which is headed by Mr. Gomez.

City Clerk Doris Twedt’s signature may appear on the various letters

we have received regarding the petition to recall, but make no mistake.

The power behind the throne is Mr. Howard, the same person who violated

my 1st Amendment rights at the City Council meeting on June 5, and who

has delayed every response by the city to the full extent of the law.

The first notice of intention to recall was served on Mr. Gomez on

April 25. He had seven days to respond, and he took the entire seven days

and responded on May 2.

Mr. Joe Mandoky published the notice of intention in the newspaper and

served the actual petition to recall on May 14.

The city had 10 days to respond, and they waited the entire 10 days

before informing Mr. Mandoky that not only was his petition to recall

deficient, but his original notice of intent was worded incorrectly. That

means that the city had the original notice of intent in their possession

for four weeks before they told Mr. Mandoky it was incorrect. The

corrections amounted to three words.

So Mr. Mandoky and I drew up a corrected notice of intent, and we went

out and obtained another 150 signatures. I served the new notice of

intent on Mr. Gomez on the infamous date of June 5. Mr. Gomez took the

entire seven days allowed by law to respond, and it was the exact same

response.

Meanwhile, the city approved our new notice of intent, which Mr.

Mandoky published in the newspaper. He filed our revised petition to

recall with the city on June 18. They held the petition for the full 10

days allowed by law, and on June 28 sent Mr. Mandoky a letter with seven

corrections.

Four of those corrections were totally contrary to the rules for a

recall published by the state of California. You would think that the

city attorney would know what the law is regarding recall petitions, but

obviously he did not. The only other explanation is that he was again

trying to stall for time, which came as no surprise.

On June 29, just one day later, Mr. Mandoky made the necessary

corrections, and he also pointed out the areas where the city clerk was

incorrect. She subsequently dropped those demands by never mentioning

them again. She again took the full 10 days to return the petition on

July 9, with one correction, which was to underline three sentences.

It took five minutes for us to make that correction and return the

petition to her on July 10. I enclosed a note to her indicating that

since it only took five minutes to underline the three sentences, perhaps

she could approve the corrections before the 10-day deadline.

Apparently she could not, because she didn’t return the final,

approved petition until July 19, which was the full 10-day period allowed

by law.

The simple goal of complying with election code requirements was made

elusive only by the deliberate delaying tactics of Mr. Gomez and Ms.

Twedt, under the direction of Scott Howard.

By taking the full statutory time allowed for each response and using

a technicality to delay rejection of the original notice of intent, they

delayed approval of the petition by a total of 65 days.

Don’t you think that anyone ... who wasn’t deliberately trying to

sabotage us, could have done it in less time?

SUSAN KUSSMAN

Glendale