I just saw the SFGate online article about Oakland City Admininstrator Deborah Edgerly and it has the headline, "Paid to do nothing".
That's an insult and a smear, especially since the same article explains that Edgerly ran a meeting because Oakland Mayor Ron Dellums was late to attend it. The Chronicle's Chris Heredia wrote:
On Friday, Dellums asked all city department heads to report directly to him until further notice. Edgerly, however, ran the first half of a weekly meeting of city department heads on Monday when Dellums was running late.
So that means she's not paid to do nothing -- she's doing something. But most SFGate readers will just see that stupid headline and then make dumb comments in the comments section. Then they will communicate that to others and the public will have the wrong view of Miss E.
Look, I don't think the SF Chronicle should do that. It's not right and it's certainly a smear of the first order.
Comments
You're grasping at straws here, cherrypicking to defend your friend. I find it confusing, and a little bit troubling. I have to ask: what were your dealings with her in the past? Did she do something to benefit you when you were both in the city government? Was she helpful in showing you the ropes? Was she instrumental in getting you your job? I don't want to imply that she did anything illegal in helping you because I don't have any basis to believe that, but I do get the impression that your defense of her is rooted more in a personal relationship than in her record. I'd be interested in hearing more about that.
I look forward to your detailed analysis of how she's been discriminated against by the city, in spite of being the highest-ranking member of our city's bureaucracy. You suggested this was forthcoming and that you could back it up.
You also suggested you were going to write a post about how anyone would do what she has done. I look forward to that, as well. From my perspective, the more I learn the less defensible she becomes, so I'm interested in someone doing so.
Meanwhile, I'm left with a picture of someone who is the very model of corruption. I would refer you to the other column about Ms. Edgerly on sfgate:
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2008/06/24/BAV811DSGR.DTL
In which Chip Johnson outlines a truly disturbing history of nepotism and corruption, all centered on Ms Edgerly's office.
The SF Chronicle was being insulting and it was a smear. You followed true to form by believing what was written and trying to form a rationale behind it that's at best flimsy. Miss E was working.
As to what she's done for me, the only thing that she's done is to listen to me when few others would do so. Plus, she acted on my Coliseum - related requests and respected my position as aide to the Mayor. That's enough, and that was way back in the late 90s. But I remember.
As to recently, we were both at the Coliseum Box three years ago and she barely talked to me. I thought that was really weird but I didn't not hold it as a grudge.
Imagine if I did.
For now, Edgerly works as a paid city employee with no decision-making authority
That she is conducting meetings and doing work without any authority is beside the point. By any measure, I currently have as much authority to run those meetings as she does.
But yeah - hey - sure. She's "doing things." And it pisses me off. Why she hasn't been formally suspended I cannot for the life of me imagine, but that's par for this sad course I guess.
Regardless: you're picking an extremely minor and debatable point where there are much, much bigger issues at hand.
It seems like you're struggling to find ways to defend her, and I'd like to see something more substantive.
You're reacting with prejudice, so it would take an 18-wheeler hooked up to a giant drill to insert common logic into you.
It's called M-A-N-A-G-E-M-E-N-T
That's what she's being paid for and to do. It's called oversight -- she's still doing that.
If you seriously believe that I am viewing this with prejudice, you ought to look at yourself.
You refer to her as "Ms E", brag about your friendship with her since 1993, and say you've never known her to do anything but play by the book. In ignoring sigificant evidence to the contrary, you put your prejudice right up front.
You personally emailed me to tell me that she wasn't corrupt in forcing the city to engage in nepotism, and implied that I would do the same. You told me that she has been the victim of discrimination in the city government. That is a declaration of your prejudice, and you have as of yet to offer anything to back it up (still waiting on those posts).
Prejudice? Please. My opinions are based on the facts that I know, but I openly acknowledge that they may be incomplete. Your opinions seem to be based solely on warm feelings you have for this woman and exist in spite of facts. One is the definition of prejudice, one is not. If you honestly believe that things are just fine in her office you're delusional.
But there's not much point in arguing with you, and I think my point's pretty clear. Until such time as you actually post anything to back up your high opinion of her, I'll stick my own.