Page One
Letters to the Editor
RUINOUS FIDDLING
Editors, Daily Planet:
This is to thank you for your reasoned, weighed, intelligent approach to Shakespeare in David Sundelson’s review of the California Shakespeare Theatre’s latest, “Measure for Measure” (Daily Planet, Aug. 15-18). A difficulty with any play is sustaining its integrity and assuring its accessibility over the years. When the years exceed 400, directors may fiddle with fundamentals. From Daniel Fish’s previous CDF production of “Cymbeline” and from his current SCT “Measure for Measure,” his modus operandi is ruinous fiddling.
Too bad for the audience.
Looking forward to more apt and pithy reviews by Sundelson.
Mikel Clifford
•
THE FIRST MYTH
Editors, Daily Planet:
The Berkeley Daily Planet for Aug. 15-18 had an article titled “Five Myths About the Recall.” There is another myth which actually comes first.
This prime myth is that a recall of the governor alone, somehow either also recalls the lieutenant governor or eliminates his constitutional right to succeed; and that this requires an interim “replacement elections” as part of the recall ballot.
Democrats and even the courts have bought into this myth. It is apparently based on the Elections Code which has wording that such an election shall be held “if appropriate.”
Vacancies in offices which have no elected replacement may be appropriately filled by an interim election. But the governorship is unique in having, standing by, an already elected lieutenant,” constitutionally empowered to become governor the instant the sitting governor is removed. The constitution thus prevents a vacancy in this highest office in California government.
Courts will rue the day they allowed, contrary to the constitutional plan, replacement candidates’ names on the recall ballot for governor. The Supreme Court should rectify this and remove such names. The lieutenant governor still has the sole right to succeed.
Henry P. Schroerluke
•
SCHOOL MOVE
Editors, Daily Planet:
Regarding the Adult School move to Franklin: Our neighborhood is now in the hands of the very same school district staff and consultants who made drew up the original third-rate proposal and who alienated so many residents with their game-playing and their bumbling.
The people who entrusted us to these functionaries—the superintendent and the school board—earnestly pledge that we will be listened to as the project moves along. We’ll see.
There’s really no reason for district officials, who are now victorious after a bruising fight, to be gallant and creative. We have been put in the place they always wanted us—silence. It’s up to Superintendent Michele Lawrence to change that mindset, a tall order.
As for the school board, that’s a more complicated story. Two board members—John Selawsky and Nancy Riddle—showed some signs of being able to think outside the district box. We’ll see if this means the board can go from being a rubber stamp for the superintendent and staff to performing an active checks-and-balances role for those who elected them.
Unfortunately, here, too, the odds are not particularly good. There were many issues and details that the board could have questioned the staff and outside experts about. For the most part, they gave the staff a pass.
Another sign that the board is not there yet was the bizarre Berkeley ritual of having someone—in this case, a slick consultant paid to help the superintendent finesse this issue—list for the record all the community meetings that officials had attended. The city council does this, too. It's embarrassing to watch. It’s like a church ritual that has lost meaning over time. It assumes, of course, that being there is the same as listening. So, instead of taking the vote and relieving our agony, the board members and superintendent sat there being told how much they care about community, and followed that with their own testimonials to themselves about how much they care.
We’ll see.
Jamie Day
•
SPRINT TRICKERY
The following letter was addressed to City Councilmember Dona Spring.
I was in a neighborhood meeting in June when Sprint plan to mount antennae on the roof of Starbucks at 1600 Shattuck Ave. was discussed. I have been following this issue as I receive e-mails from neighbors. In July I sent an e-mail to the councilors to express my opposition to the antennae.
I work close to Etcheverry Hall on UC Campus. There are two Sprint antennae on the roof of this building. Last week I was in the food court by Etcheverry Hall waiting for my food when I was approached by a guy. He asked me if I wanted to sign a petition in order to have better cell phone coverage in the area. I asked him what area. The guy said this general area. I did not sign. I also saw him going door to door in the food court asking for signatures.
I talked to the members of Radiation Free Gourmet Ghetto about Sprint petition. They told me Sprint has hired an agency to collect signatures all around the town by asking people if they want more coverage. They ask people by BART or downtown, etc., without telling them better coverage in what area. When the Sprint agent did not tell me what area I realized he was not familiar with the area. He asked me to sign while we were standing next to a building on the top of which there are two antennae. Do we need more coverage there? I believe this is entirely dishonest. Sprint is trying to cheat people and the City of Berkeley. We don’t want a corporation intrude into our community by trickery.
Please discount all signatures to be presented by Sprint. They are collected by trickery and deceit. Also, please don't let corporations take over the City; deny permit to Sprint.
Many thanks.
Helena Bautin
•
XXXXXXXXXX
Editors, Daily Planet:
Accessible Pedestrians Signals project for safety of blind citizens, whose installation was approved by Berkeley City Council sometime ago, has been stalled.
It would seem that some Public Works employees prefer the ‘domes’ at $15,000 per intersection over the 'bars' $500 per intersection installation investment which they think is safer for guiding and directing blind pedestrians through Berkeley downtown traffic.
Continued current installations at corners could be fatal, since the 'domes' $15,000 guidance pieces have been placed in such a way that blind pedestrians might easily be misled into walking diagonally out into moving traffic.
Now that the Traffic Engineering Department has willingly taken on and is ready to go ahead with the less expensive and more clearly designated pieces ($500 per intersection of 'bars' installations), let's hope there will be no further delay or wrangling among city employees as to which piece of sidewalk installation works better for safety of blind pedestrians, if not also for our City's budget.
Arlene Merryman
