So after all of the near-sensationalist reporting on the unfortunate phrasing by a City Councilmember at an anti illegal immigration rally, and a lot of public comment at the last City Council meeting, have any of the five Council members put illegal immigration on this Tuesday's City Council agenda for consideration?

It is my understanding that any one of the five could put it on the agenda for discussion. Then they could question the City Manager and staff about what the City could do about illegal immigration. Maybe all they can do is pass a resolution calling on State and Federal authorities to enforce the law, or change the law in some way. But our City Council could show some leadership instead of ducking what seems like an important issue to a lot of people.

Is it time for a change at City Hall? If nobody is willing to step up to the plate, maybe it is! Three of these people are up for re-election... maybe it's time to throw them out and get some other people in there.

What do you think?

John Q has questions...

JohnQ: Here's a story about the city council and illegal immigrants that ran Sunday:
http://www.the-signal.com/news/articl...

Here's one on campaign financing that ran Feb. 4:
http://www.the-signal.com/news/articl...

There have been others, and will be much more as we get closer to the election. There will also be debates and coverage of same.

Good points! The Signal is too busy supporting an agenda to stay focused on all the legal residents of SCV. Come on you guys start doing your jobs!

It would be nice if the other city council member grew a backbone and addressed the problem of illegal aliens in Santa Clarita. If you don't want the town to look like the San Fernando Valley in a couple of years, you better do something. E-Verity would be a good start. Enough with the "our hands are tied" and figure out how other towns are doing it. Start asking questions of the city council and what they plan to do.

Truthseeker, The Signal has no agenda other than to report the news accurately. It's always a challenge, regardless of the topic, because there are always multiple sides to any story. Do you have some inside knowledge about an agenda here at The Signal that those of us who work here are not aware of? If you do, why don't you share it with the world right here? Fact is, your "agenda" assumption is wrong, period. We are covering this story as it develops, just like any other story. We do not make stuff up, nor do we attempt to hide anything. Be advised the city council is moving to hold a forum on illegals in Santa Clarita, as reported today: http://www.the-signal.com/news/articl....
We at The Signal along with most of the the rest of the reasonable people in our community hope the discussion is both civil and productive, but whatever happens, we'll cover it. As to what eventually happens with illegals in the SCV, and local enforcement of federal immigration laws, the decision is up to the county and city authorities. Whatever they decide, we'll report that, too. And we'll report on the reaction. If you have a problem with illegal immigrants, fine; so do all law-abiding, tax-paying citizens who want lawbreakers of all kinds, shapes, colors, ethnic backgrounds, races, etc. brought to justice. But you might have better luck taking it up with the authorities who have the power to either do something about it or not than by assuming The Signal has anything to do with furthering any agenda other than its mission to report the news. Live up to your nickname and get the facts before you spew accusations based on assumptions.

see you all at the up coming meeting at city hall...date to be announced. they will do something about the criminal immigrants in this city and state...this is going to be major campaign issue this nov. and 2012.

God Bless our Troops!
note: 50% of criminal immigrants are on public assistance...not working

The campaign finance story was wrong on its reporting of contribution totals. The article mis-informed the public by saying that TimBen Boydston came in third in Total Contributions Received. The figures at the City Clerk's office say otherwise, with TimBen Boydston having a higher Total Contributions received than any other candidate, including all incumbents. In addition, a much higher percentage of the contributions for the three incumbents come from non-Santa Clarita sources, while the very large majority of Boydston's contributions are local.
Here are the actual totals (sorry for the format problem):

Candidate Amount Total % SC % Not SC Under $100 Donations and In-Kinds
TimBen Boydston $12,544 73% 7% 20%
*Laurene Weste * $12,244 46% 34% 20%
*Frank Ferry * $12,224 46% 37% 17%
*Marsha McLean * $11,758 47% 36% 17%

(*) Incumbent running for re-election.
The other candidates were well behind TimBen and the incumbents. More information about Campaign Finance Disclosure can be found at www.santa-clarita.com

The questions are:
Will the Signal correct its story in a front page article, or bury the correction in a one column inch something buried way back in the paper?
Can The Signal dig a little deeper into who supports who in this election?
Wouldn't that be a great public service, and better inform the voter about the real issues in this election?
If the Signal was really interested in reporting the facts, wouldn't the headline have been 'Challenger Candidate TimBen Raises More Than Incumbents'? That is a fact.

John Q has questions

WTG John....thanks for the facts

Here are the facts: The story used only the monetary contributions raised by Santa Clarita City Council Candidates through December 31, 2009. In that time, TimBen Boydston raised $11,830. Monetary contributions do not take into account in-kind contributions candidate have received, which explains the different numbers. The campaign contribution forms were obtained from the City Clerk’s office and are the most current. Check them yourself if you don't believe the paper.

So what you are saying is The Signal does not use the Total Contributions Received totals from the Campaign Financial Disclosure forms, right?

Thanks for the clarification, but local in-kind contributions and sweat equity can be important.

The challengers to the incumbents do not have paid advisors, campaign managers, researchers, precinct walkers or door hangers, yet if the past is any indication (and it is) the incumbents will. Part of the paid advisor/manager's job is to ensure that sufficient funds are raised to pay themselves, usually first. However, the challengers will use local volunteers in all of these positions, yet no allowance will be made.

This does not even account for out-of-area money that some say will be directed against the challengers, other shenanigans such as whisper campaigns of lies and innuendo, sudden PACs that spring up to fund hit piece mailers, or illegal election financing such as happened in the last City Council campaign like Frank Ferry's contribution of $12,000 to Laurie Ender's campaign.

John Q's question of the day:
Is the City Council election for sale?

Signal readers might like the answer to this question with a thorough review of past abuses of the process in Santa Clarita City Council elections.

That's right, Q, The Signal reports the hard-dollar contributions. The in-kind stuff is not hard money and can be subjective. You seem to know exactly who's going to do what to whom before it happens. Such prescience should put you into a position much more significant than commenting on a community newspaper's blog. Why is that not the case? BTW, your questions are hardly unique, and they will be addressed between now and the election. If the election comes and goes and they haven't been addressed, come back then and complain.

the peoples money should never be used for campaigns without the peoples permission. use personal funds and volunteers for campaigns. jmho

If people wait to raise questions or complain later, they will just let the out-of-town money and the small group of people who pull the levers have their way. We need to pull back the curtains on the back room deals and the shady operators. We need an open and responsive government.

The real question is:
What kind of town will this be in 20 years and will we still want to live here?

John Q has questions...

There is a forum that asks:

What Questions do you have for our City Council Candidates?

Take a look at:

http://scvtalk.com/2010/02/23/what-qu...

John Q has questions...

The following was seen at SCV Talk, posted by 'Toadly':

BREAKING NEWS...

The Santa Clarita chapter of the California Republican Assembly did not endorse any of the City Council incumbents for the up-coming election on April 13th. Mayor Laurene Weste and Councilmembers Frank Ferry and Marsha McLean each did not even get a simple majority of the votes cast, much less the 2/3 super majority vote required for endorsement.

City Council challenger David Gauny, who brought a large contingent of supporters, received the only endorsement of the CRA, while candidate TimBen Boydston who enjoys bi-partisan support in Santa Clarita, came in second in the voting and just missed the 2/3 vote requirement for endorsement. Both challenger candidates outdistanced any of the incumbents in votes received from this all-Republican membership group.

The local CRA, unlike other local Republican organizations, allows the entire membership to vote to endorse candidates for political office after hearing short speeches from each candidate and then subjecting the candidates to open questioning.

After the first of two rounds of voting, incumbent Councilmember Marsha McLean could not have been happy at being quickly eliminated, while Councilmember Frank Ferry, who received only one more vote than Marsha, barely missed the same fate. In the second round of voting Ferry did not pick up any additional votes, which showed anemic lack of support among the Republican membership. Mayor Laurene Weste received more than double the votes of either Ferry or McLean, but she also did not receive even a simple majority vote of the membership.

The vote totals:
David Gauny 34 votes (endorsed in round one of voting)
TimBen Boydston 23 votes
Laurene Weste 20 votes
Frank Ferry 10 votes
Marsha McLean 9 votes
Daniel Enriquez 4 votes

In addition to the incumbents, other unhappy attendees included local political heavyweights Bob Hauter (area rep for Congressman Buck McKeon, who has endorsed the three incumbents), Scott Wilk (campaign manager for Laurene Weste and possibly the manager of the incumbent slate campaign), and Hunt Braly (local attorney and lobbyist).

It is amazing what happens when real democracy breaks out and the people hear from the candidates directly and then all have a chance to vote!

[More comments at http://scvtalk.com/2010/02/26/februar... ]

Is the cabal of local power brokers and special interests breaking up?

Will the voters of Santa Clarita get to decide their future openly as befits a representative democracy, or will shadowy hit-piece mailers funded by out-of-area developers rule the day?

John Q has questions...