Is there EVER a time when you don't complain about something, Hickey?

So now you pick on something that benefits fifth graders. Wow.

Jack - what did the school say when you asked your question about the school paying as you claimed?

The following article from the June 2013 "News and Views" a publication of the San Mateo County Office of Education (SMCOE)Web Link prompted me to communicate with Anne Campbell, County Superintendent of Schools.

"Students Cry "Water First!" at Healthy Schools Event"

With cheers of "Water first, water first!" students assembled at Henry Ford Elementary School in Redwood City on May 24, and eagerly participated in a field day, focusing on physical activity and healthy living. San Mateo County Superintendent of Schools Anne Campbell greeted the students, and quizzed them with riddles about fruits and vegetables. The PE + program sponsored a "lettuce run" and a "carrot relay," among other activities.

This event was part of the Healthy Schools Initiative, a program of the Sequoia Healthcare District, in cooperation with the San Mateo County Office of Education, and the San Mateo County Health System. The initiative provides funding and other resources to school districts in southern San Mateo County to implement high quality, coordinated wellness programs

COMMUNICATION with Anne Campbell:

From: JackHick@comcast.net
To: acampbell@smcoe.k12.ca.us
Cc: G Shefren Don Horsley
Sent: Wed, 26 Jun 2013 09:21:52 -0800
Subject: SMCOE assumption and countywide expansion of SHCD Healthy Schools program

Anne, it appears that the Healthy Schools program which Pamela Kurtzman, Director, Healthy Youth Initiatives at the Sequoia Healthcare District has created is well received in the education community.

I have suggested that if this program warrants continuation, it should be countywide, administered by SMCOE. Dissolution of the two Healthcare Districts would allow their taxes and assets to be distributed directly to the county, cities, school districts, etc. I would be supportive of efforts to allocate a portion of countywide 1% ad valorem property taxes for this purpose.

Your thoughts on the subject would be most welcome.


Her response:
Dear Mr. Hickey,
"Thanks for your recent e-mail regarding the Healthy Schools Program. Pamela has done an incredible job of connecting with the schools within the Sequoia Health Care District and of collaborating with them to create a variety of Healthy Schools programs. We very much appreciate the work of the Health Care District and look forward to a continuing partnership."

To which I responded:
"Anne, you did not address the countywide issue. This program is one which rightfully belongs under the jurisdiction of SMCOE. Help me make it happen." I then received an out-of-office response.

I am revisiting this issue with Anne.

Here are relevant excerpts, from a post on March 03, 2015 at 4:01 PM, from another topic Web Link

A statement by PE+ coach Josh Feierstein, of Redwood City Parks and Rec., on Linkedin states:

"This is a first year program put in place by the Redwood City Parks and Recreation Department that is supplementing physical education to 4 different elementary schools that lost their PE programs due to budget cuts. I am very excited to be a part of this new project!"

At our last meeting, Jerry Shefren raised concerns about District funds being used for things which are clearly the responsibility of other government agencies. (Like school districts)

Hear Josh talk about bringing back PE to the schools in an interview by Dani Gasparini on Peninsula TV.
Web Link

So the school's response was a polite: "Jack Hickey, you are crazy, floating a red herring that dissolution would move taxes directly to the schools, when we both know that would never happen, it's just a libertarian smokescreen"

School clearly gets it.

Thank you SHCD for providing such valuable services and lifelong lessons to our community.

GREAT WORK!

The geographic boundaries of the Sequoia Healthcare District make no sense. It was centered around Sequoia Hospital which it no longer owns. Voters should be give the choice of:
1. having a countywide Healthcare District funded by a percentage of the 1% general property tax at a rate equal to that currently accruing to the Peninsula and Sequoia Healthcare Districts with no change in taxes of property owners who are absorbed into the Countywide District, or;

2. Dissolution of both existing Healthcare Districts, with their share of property taxes going to agencies sharing their Tax Rate Area(TRA) See:Web Link

whaaa?!?!?

Wow - pivot to some strange irrelevant factoid! You just keep throwing (pasta) against the wall to see what sticks, eh? First, attack education for 5th graders, then the administrators, now the boundaries - sheesh!

Mr. Hickey - you've been around for a decade or two, promising over-and-over-again to voters your various solutions up to and including dissolution. Your record on your promises is about as bad as Marco Rubio's - almost zero accomplishments.

Zero. Zip. Zilch. Nada.

Bubkis.

Isn't it time to vacate your seemingly lifelong seat (and it's status that you seem to crave) and hand it over to someone who can accomplish SOMETHING?!?!?

Anything at all?

Carlos -- "Isn't it time to vacate your seemingly lifelong seat (and it's status that you seem to crave) and hand it over to someone who can accomplish SOMETHING?!?!?"

It would be nice if Hickey were to do that, Carlos. But seriously -- would you want Hickey to have even more time on his hands?

Perhaps manning the TRUMP/CHRISTIE 2106 table in front of Safeway?

(which will be rather entertaining in it's own right, on a number of levels)

Tempted to make some comparisons between Trump and Hickey (but will let others do that)...

I think Jack is pointing out our tax money is going to the healthcare district, yet it doesn't provide any unique service that the school district, cities, or the county doesn't already do. It would be more efficient for the healthcare district to be dissolved and have other existing government entities take over. Taxes would stay the same. Community funding would stay the same, but bureaucracy would decrease.

I don't think this is a libertarian, conservative, nor liberal idea. It's just more efficient government. The liberal John Oliver just had a segment on HBO about how special districts can be abused and how difficult they are to kill even after they've lost their original purpose.
Web Link

At one point in time, the healthcare district had a unique purpose. It ran the hospital. Now, it no longer has a unique purpose.

I don't disagree. The question is whether a long term politician with no record of success should keep running on the same dissolution claim he haz been mal8ng for 12 years.

Someone doth protest too much.

Then again, Sung -- at least he's not actually *doing* anything, right?

If he were in a position where his actions actually had consequences, on the other hand...

A long term politician with no record of success running on the same platform? I think you just described most members of Congress and state legislatures. :-)

The problem isn't the politician. The problem is the voters. They are the ones that keep voting for the same person again and again.

In fairness to Jack, his position is in the minority on the board. It's not surprising he hasn't made progress on his platform.

The real problem is the voters don't really know what the healthcare board does. They just re-elect incumbents blindly. They end up with a board whose members have diametrically opposed views, which shouldn't happen when all positions are at large. The local media could cover the healthcare district activities better. I can't remember the last time they covered a healthcare district meeting. The electorate could benefit from more media coverage.

"I think Jack is pointing out our tax money is going to the healthcare district, yet it doesn't provide any unique service that the school district, cities, or the county doesn't already do. "

But it does allow insiders and cronies to reward other insiders and cronies. It also provides a temporary place for politicians to park a la a Don Horsley who needed a place between Sheriff and Supervisor.

The health care district is just another corrupt piece of our corrupt county. It should be dissolved.

It all began with a Dave Price editorial in the Palo Alto Daily News May 24, 2002:
Web Link

That was followed by another Dave Price editorial(below) and the rest is history.

Pile of cash tempts county
Published Friday, July 19, 2002

"The pile of tax dollars the Sequoia Healthcare District is accumulating has drawn the attention of the San Mateo County Board of Supervisors. The supervisors have formed a subcommittee to explore how the county government could use the money.

The district was formed in the 1940s to operate Sequoia Hospital in Redwood City. But in 1996, the district sold the hospital to Catholic Healthcare West. But after the sale, the district has continued to collect taxes as if it still owned the hospital.

Taxpayers didn't know that they were being taxed by the district because the county government doesn't itemize tax bills to show where the money goes. (It's amazing that a supermarket can give a customer an itemized list of items purchased at a checkout stand, but the county can't itemize its tax bills.)

Anyway, the supervisors are looking at the $41 million the hospital district has accumulated, and they might use some of it for health-related projects of their own. Those might be worthy projects, but the money doesn't belong to the county government. It belongs to the taxpayers, who deserve a refund if it's not being used to operate a hospital.

But the only way taxpayers will get a refund is if voters change the board of the healthcare district because the current board isn't going to refund the money.

Healthcare board members are elected by voters in the southern part of the county (from Belmont to the countyline), and the deadline for candidates to file petitions to run for the board is Aug. 9. If one of the three incumbents decides not to run for re-election, the deadline will be extended until Aug. 14.

We'd like to see some candidates who will refund this pot of money run for the board. This would be a perfect opportunity for county Libertarian Party leader Jack Hickey to get some of his people elected to office.

Anyone who runs on a platform of refunding the money will probably defeat the incumbents."

Apple, thanks for the John Oliver Special District link!
Here's a link to California's look at Special Districts by the Little Hoover Commission in the year 2000: Web Link Time for a new look and some action.

I repeat: Isn't it time to vacate your seemingly lifelong seat (and it's status that you seem to crave) and hand it over to someone who can accomplish SOMETHING?!?!?

Someone needs to lead the charge - Mr. Hickey has tried for a couple decades and accomplished nothing. Note in all his posts that he can never claim an accomplishment - they are a series of run-on, irrelevant ramblings such as his one above bout 5th grade classes.

If the dissolution crowd wants to make progress they need a leader. Not someone who has a reputation locally as a "run for everything, lose everything, gosh, look what I finally found - a safe seat on this unknown board" politician.

Hardly inspires confidence. He has run for governor, run for congress, run for senate, etc.. It's easier to list the positions that Mr. Hickey HAS NOT run for!

Time to get out of the way and allow a leader take over the position - someone who has a positive reputation, can take charge and lead. Until then, few will take the dissolution crowd seriously.

See you at the Safeway, Jack. Can't wait for the explanation about your support for the new leader of the Republican Party: Donald Trump.

Hey now! There's a position you haven't run for, yet!

Or have you?

@Carlos

Apparently, the voters think Jack should continue on because they keep voting him back.

If you're unhappy about Jack's candidacy, run against him or promote an alternate slate of candidates. You seem more obsessed with attacking Jack than taking action to ensure your viewpoint is better represented on the healthcare district.

And if you want to convince people that your viewpoint is superior's to Jack's, stop the Trump style personal attacks. As someone who purports to hate Trump, you seem to prefer his tactics. :-)

@Apple: you can't name a Hickey accomplishment in the last couple decades either, so you attack my style.

Okay. Was I wrong about his lack of accomplishments? Was I wrong in representing his history of running for offices?

" :-) "

The dissolution slate last time had some good candidates: young, personable, photogenic and ACCOMPLISHED. In my opinion, they failed because they hitched themselves to Mr. Hickey.

Hickey gets reelected because he has "incumbent" next to his name.

While an odd paradox, his election stops any real progress, but he keeps his seat.

And isn't that what matters?

Since the election, what has happened?

Katie Kane and Kim Griffin are the two "incumbents" up for re-election in November. Couple their incumbency with their gender and you have a formidable duo.

I think John McDowell, with sufficient support, could take one of those seats. I 2014, John received 17,862 votes while third place finisher Art Faro received 19,692. It would take a lot more than I have been able to muster to persuade McDowell to run again.

I have approached other "electable" candidates, but as yet have not secured a commitment. I am prepared to provide support up to $5,000 each, including funding for candidate statements, for suitable challengers.

Candidate filing begins in July.

I am listed in the phone book under Jack Hickey. Call me if you'd like to help.

@Carlos: Notice how Jack Hickey is trying yet again to sabotage those who agree with the dissolution position by offering to assist them.

Hickey isn't really interested in accomplishing anything; he just wants to have a personal soapbox on which to put out his (increasingly bizarre) statements.

@Carlos

If you are asking me what Jack has accomplished, it's oversight. He's reviewing the board's activities, auditing their activities and finances, challenging their actions when he believes a board activity is not in the community's interest, and most of all, he's reporting to the public his findings.

Lack of oversight is what allows waste, corruption, and malfeasance to creep into government. Normally, the press shines a light on government activities to keep their actions above board. But when it doesn't, having someone inside the government body to do it is the next best thing.

In this case, oversight is particularly important. There been five grand jury reports in the last 15 years questioning the healthcare board's activities.

What Jack does is hard. Oversight never wins friends from those who are interested in enriching themselves and their friends and requires lots of digging, but it is critically important for the community to ensure their government has proper checks and balances. That's the whole purpose of electing five independent directors, instead of just one.

In the last election, the two incumbents got the most votes. If voters didn't like Hickey, he would have not been re-elected. The third sport went to a doctor, which people would think would have relevant experience for a healthcare district.

IMO, if Jack wants his slate elected, he needs to wait until an incumbent steps down, then he needs to recruit someone who works or worked in the healthcare industry. It is very hard to displace an incumbent.

"IMO, if Jack wants his slate elected, he needs to wait until an incumbent steps down, then he needs to recruit someone who works or worked in the healthcare industry. It is very hard to displace an incumbent."..

Ah, and there's the rub. When an incumbent has stepped down in the past they do it with such a timing that the board has to appoint a replacement. That replacement then runs again as an "incumbent" and gets reelected. Of course, the appointed person is another insider or crony of the board and so goes the corruption of San Mateo County.

@apple: Sorry, Mr. Hickey ran on dissolution, not oversight. There have been no accomplishments in that arena as he promised for all those years. To his stated gaol, he has been ineffectual. He retains the seat nonetheless. Worse, he harms the chances of getting new, strong candidates to come forward.

In my opinion, he hinders the election of "good candidates: young, personable, photogenic and ACCOMPLISHED."

Even Mr. Hickey admits that McDowell won't run again.

Why would new QUALIFIED reform candidates hitch their wagon to a history like that? They need a fresh start, a new slate.

The issue is accomplishment of the goal as promised over decades. And any ability to achieve the promised goal going forward. Go ahead though, and feel free to move the goalposts and invent new goals ("oversight").

Carlos:

new candidates don't stand a chance. See the reason why above your comment.

Uh, Menlo (Non)-Voter -- what reason would that be? And stop with the corruption talk -- unless you have actual proof.

stop the trolls:

ok, I'll reiterate. When an incumbent plans on departing they leave at such a time that the board has to appoint a replacement. Just who do you think they will appoint? Can you say "insider?" Can you say crony? Then when the appointed insider comes up for reelection they can run as an "incumbent." The sheeple of SMC just check the incumbents on their ballots. So, what chance does an outsider have? NONE.

Corruption? Look at who gets appointed to the board. Look who gets grants from the board. One organization is run by the wife of a board member. Sounds like corruption to me.

@Menlo (Non)-Voter -- You know came to mind for me when I read your response to my query?

"I can see why this character supports Jack Hickey -- neither one of them makes sense."

THAT'S what I thought.

No one addresses the main issue.... Jack posts a bunch of stuff. Thats it.

Any candidate that affiliates with him gets stuck with all his baggage.

stop the trolls:

sorry you have problems with reading comprehension.

@Carlos

Well, that's a bit petty if you ignore the oversight accomplishment. It's implied by the dissolution goal. You can't make the case for dissolution without an in depth organizational review.

If you watched John Oliver's segment, you can see how hard it is to disband a special district. It's a monumental task.

It's not like Jack is taking it easy. He continues to work toward the goal. He's even willing to put up his own money to get that done. And he's not even doing this for personal gain. He's looking out for the taxpayers and to ensure his government body performs above board and efficiently.

Frankly, oversight is one of the most important tasks a board of directors has. From what I can tell, Jack's the best one on the board at it. The other board members seem to not want to make waves and just collect their benefits.

You seem to have a lot of animosity toward Jack. If you don't like the dissolution idea, I can understand why. But if you want dissolution, no one else on the board is working toward that besides him.

@Apple: Attack me again if you like (animosity? really? that's what we call recitation of facts these days?) Clearly you do not dispute these facts:

- Mr. Hickey ran on and has been reelected multiple times on a campaign of dissolution, a goal that he has failed to achieve or even make a single significant step towards the goal over the years and years he has sat in his position

- Worse, he brings considerable history ("baggage" per @Stoollie) that weakens the ability of effective, quality candidates to win elections

What "history" and "baggage", you ask? Mr. Hickey has run for nearly every political office under the sun. What has he won? What Hickey endorsement has ever helped a quality candidate win an election?


So let's explore your statements:

- "He continues to work toward the goal." No. Years and years later, sitting on an important seat, election after election, he has not made a single significant achievement to that goal of dissolution. In fact, he hinders it by sabotaging effective candidates with his own endorsement. He drives away voters, he drives away effective candidates (see Mr. McDowell, and Mr. Hickey's own admission that he cannot recruit effective candidates.)

- your "just collect their benefits" appears to the average voter to be what Mr. Hickey is doing, rather than making his best effort at dissolution

Mr. Hickey's best move? Stand aside so a slate of effective, quality candidates may win elections. He has made zero headway; time to stand aside and let leaders do the job. The longer he sits in his position, the longer this goes.

You don't see it this way. You want a nominally effective politician tilting at the windmill of perceived oversight, even if he fails at his stated goal.

@Carlos

The reason I characterized your stance as animosity is that your comments are very animated to the negative. You don't seem to care that Jack provides a very key oversight function. You won't even tell me if you are for or against dissolution of the board.

If you sat on the board, what would you do to make dissolution happen? I'm interested in hearing what you would do differently than Jack that would be more effective.

You want Jack to stand aside for another slate of dissolution candidates. That's fine. Let me know who is running to be that candidate in the upcoming election this fall. I'm willing to understand their plans.

Carlos, if you are really interested in enabling a "slate of effective, quality candidates" to complete the "job" I started 14 years ago, who are committed to bringing about the dissolution or countywide expansion of the healthcare districts, with no increase in taxes, give me a call.

Jack Hickey -- "Carlos, if you are really interested in enabling a "slate of effective, quality candidates" to complete the "job" I started 14 years ago, who are committed to bringing about the dissolution or countywide expansion of the healthcare districts, with no increase in taxes, give me a call."

DON'T DO IT, CARLOS! Stay away from Hickey at all costs!