In the election of 2016, Councilwoman Morton and I ran unopposed. I truly appreciate the fact that the voters of Marina felt comfortable with giving the both of us a new four year term.

In November 2018, the voters of Marina will be voting for three (3) board members for the Marina Coast Water District Board, two (2) Marina City Council members, and the mayoral position. This will be the very first mayoral campaign that will elect a mayor for a four (4) year term. Councilwoman Amadeo has decided to not seek re-election. I thank her for her many years of dedicated service to this city. I know she will continue to be an active city private citizen, and I will continue to look forward to her input. Mayor Delgado seeking re-election. There are other candidates seeking city council seats: Lisa Berkley and Adam Urrutia. Kevin Saunders is running for mayor.

MCWD Board member Jan Shriner is seeking re-election. There has been no formal statement as to other candidates for the MCWD Board.

What do you know about these candidates? What do you know about the votes made by the present mayor and Councilman Brown? Please become informed so that you can vote with a full understanding of the candidates' views and opinions. Ignorance cannot be an excuse.



A cautious Marina City Council voted, (4-1), to direct the city attorney to research the potential liability to the city if marijuana dispensaries were permitted to open in the city. I expressed my concern because of the present Administration in Washington. The approach being taken by the Department of Justice could jeopardize the city's chances at federal grants, and the city's relationship with the Federal Aviation Administration. The FAA has a lot of control over Marina's Airport improvements.

The United States Supreme Court ruled in the Gonzales vs Raich, (2007), 542 U.S. 936, that the Commerce Clause gives the Federal Government the right to enforce the present Federal marijuana laws in states.

At the City Council meeting on 11/7/2017, the city attorney presented a proposed ordinance that placed a temporary ban on marijuana dispensaries, cultivation, and delivery within the city. The purpose of the proposed ordinance was to protect Marina’s rights to determine how to proceed on the issues of dispensaries, cultivation, delivery, etc., of marijuana within the city. It was understood by all of the City Council members that the ban ordinance was temporary, and would be reviewed at a later date. This proposed ordinance was slightly modified to allow delivery of medical marijuana to patients who are legally entitled to receive medical marijuana. The vote on this was not unanimous.

This approach was not appreciated by at least one council member. The council member stated that in the council member’s opinion Marina did not have a realistic grasp on the issue of marijuana. The council member went on to say that the longer we delay the inevitable we are just saying no to revenue that other cities are getting. This was followed by the council member stating that Marina had its head in the sand when it comes to this issue for probably some very old, outdated biases against cannabis.

It appears that this council member has decided how to vote prior to the matter being fully vetted, and brought to the council for additional consideration. The council member’s comments that we are delaying the inevitable, and we have our heads in the sand, concern me, not because of this council member’s potential vote, but because this council member appears to have a mindset that is not open to reconsideration or compromise. Is the council member promoting cultivation, dispensaries, and deliveries, or just dispensaries? Are these dispensaries only for medical use, or are recreational adult marijuana dispensaries included? Only the council member knows.

I understand the frustration of the council member on this issue. I have been frustrated on many issues that have come before the City Council, and which resulted in a vote that I believed not to be in the best interest of Marina. My frustration was not due to Marina having its head in the sand. My frustration was due to what appeared to be a lack of a full grasp of the pros and cons on the matters, and that this lack resulted in a loss of revenue, an overworked staff, and a waste of City Council time.

I can only hope that this council member, and the other three council members, realize that there are many pros and cons on the issue of marijuana dispensaries, cultivation, delivery, etc., and that the City Council needs to consider them before casting a vote.



Columbus Day is no longer a holiday in Marina, Ca. The Marina City Council voted 3-2 (No vote-Morton & O’Connell) to change the name to Indigenous Peoples’ Day. This is in spite of the fact that the State of California celebrates Native American Day on the fourth Friday of September. Native American Day has been a state holiday since 1998.

Councilwoman Morton made a motion to celebrate Indigenous Peoples’ Day on the same day as Native American Day, but the city council majority, (Amadeo, Brown and Delgado), voted against that motion.



1. Columbus never landed in what is now the United States

2. Columbus died on May 20, 1506

3. The first English Settlement in what is now the United States was in 1607

4. In 1968, Governor Reagan signed a resolution for the holiday of American Indian Day. This later became Native American Day.

5. Native American Day in California honors the indigenous people (i.e. Native Americans).


It was represented to the City Council, and public, that the change in the name was per a suggestion from the Mayor of Sand City to Mayor Delgado. Marina’s mayor did not see anything wrong with bringing it to the Marina City Council for consideration. Nor did I because I thought the ultimate decision would be based on a reasonable discussion followed by a justifiable vote to support or deny the change.

It certainly is true that the Native Americans were mistreated by the United States government. Land was taken, they were forced onto reservations, and Indians were killed for resisting the more powerful United States government.

During the City Council discussion it was brought to the members’ attention that Native American Day celebrates and honors the Native Americans. It seemed as though more than one city council member was unaware of Native American Day. Ignorance of the California holiday is not a justification to now have two days honoring and celebrating the Native Americans while removing a day that acknowledges a great explorer who opened the “new world” to future explorers and settlers.

Councilwoman Gail Morton’s motion to celebrate Indigenous Peoples’ Day on the same day as Native American Day was the perfect solution. If it had passed it would have satisfied the intent of the agenda item while maintaining Columbus Day for those who desire to celebrate the achievements of a great explorer.