“Just recently, the San Francisco Election Commission … decided … that for now Mr. Arntz would not be re-appointed to the position. Instead, the Election Commission will engage a search firm that could consider Arntz if he wished to apply among other candidates for the job he has long held.
“This would be the first time in twenty years—back to the time Arntz was first appointed—that the Election Commission has chosen to engage a search firm for the position of Director of the Department of Elections.
“It was just two years ago that Arntz and his department received a letter of commendation from the Election Commission citing his “incredible leadership”. So, what was the reason given by the Commission for not renewing John Arntz to another five-year term as Director of the Department of Elections?
Has he shown incompetence? No.
Does he not get along with co-workers? No.
Has he reached mandatory retirement age? No.
Was he caught overcounting or undercounting votes to aid his fave candidate? No.
Has he been involved in some salacious dalliance that is soon to hit the news? No.
Was he found to be a <GASP> closet Republican? Yeah, right.
…
There is little debate that the San Francisco Election Commission has the right to terminate the Director of the Department of Elections for cause (or no cause at all) and employ a search firm for a new candidate. However, to publicly state the rationale for finding a director is ostensibly based on a need to achieve racial diversity surely places the Election Commission and the city of San Francisco on shaky legal ground….”
December 2, 2022
By Stephen Frank, publisher and editor of California Political News and Views. He speaks all over California, appears as a guest on several radio shows each week and as a guest host, and is a fulltime political consultant.
Focus is on skin color rather than crime, which is colorless and is up 5.4% for 2022. https://www.sanfranciscopolice.org/stay-safe/crime-data/crime-dashboard
Guess what? The murderers in my short stories look alike, murderous.
“This would be the first time in twenty years—back to the time Arntz was first appointed—that the Election Commission has chosen to engage a search firm for the position of Director of the Department of Elections.
“It was just two years ago that Arntz and his department received a letter of commendation from the Election Commission citing his “incredible leadership”. So, what was the reason given by the Commission for not renewing John Arntz to another five-year term as Director of the Department of Elections?
Has he shown incompetence? No.
Does he not get along with co-workers? No.
Has he reached mandatory retirement age? No.
Was he caught overcounting or undercounting votes to aid his fave candidate? No.
Has he been involved in some salacious dalliance that is soon to hit the news? No.
Was he found to be a <GASP> closet Republican? Yeah, right.
…
There is little debate that the San Francisco Election Commission has the right to terminate the Director of the Department of Elections for cause (or no cause at all) and employ a search firm for a new candidate. However, to publicly state the rationale for finding a director is ostensibly based on a need to achieve racial diversity surely places the Election Commission and the city of San Francisco on shaky legal ground….”
December 2, 2022
By Stephen Frank, publisher and editor of California Political News and Views. He speaks all over California, appears as a guest on several radio shows each week and as a guest host, and is a fulltime political consultant.
Focus is on skin color rather than crime, which is colorless and is up 5.4% for 2022. https://www.sanfranciscopolice.org/stay-safe/crime-data/crime-dashboard
Guess what? The murderers in my short stories look alike, murderous.
RSS Feed