Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me.

At the December 13 City Council meeting, Councilwoman Clark tried to make much of the fact that, following the March 2005 municipal election, SOC declined her invitation to walk an initiative referendum petition to re-qualify a chance for Rosemead voters to get a say in whether or not a Wal-Mart Supercenter should be constructed in our city. She seems to think that it should have been up to us to qualify a referendum (again), rather than up to her to place the issue on the ballot.

The problem with her seemingly-reasonable proposal is that it ignores the historical context. SOC had *already* qualified an initiative referendum on Wal-Mart, in December 2004. But the city council then took away our initiative, saying that rescinding a "development agreement" did not mean that the development itself was stopped. Legally, that was true. But the city council knew full well what SOC's intent was. The city council should have honored that intent and placed the issue on the ballot last December. Instead, she literally laughed in our faces. No expression of reconcilliation there.

So you can imagine the skepticism of SOC members when Ms. Clark came up with her proposal after the March 2005 election. "Let me get this straight: You're going to have us go walking all over town, gathering up signatures on petitions, while you and your cronies sit back and plot legal technicalities to disqualify what ever we eventually qualify?" Heck, no! If you're going to make us walk door-to-door all over again, it's going to be for more than just a referendum. Hence, the recall drive against Taylor and Imperial.

The other factor Ms. Clark failed to bring up in her discussion is that, even if we *had* walked an initiative referendum petition along with our recall petitions, it, like the recall election, would now be "postponed" indefinitely.

So, please, Ms. Clark: Stop spitting on us, and then telling us that it's raining. Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me.