I like to start with, the term “good ol’ boy,” an often a misused term. The term is only being used here as it has been loosely used on various social media sites concerning the recall. The term is not limited to the generally accepted “male” only arena. When in fact, in this case, the term encompasses both male and female, may aptly describe the strategist behind the issues described herein, as well as the recall. The narrative seen on the FaceBook pages “Hanford City Council Actions,” and “Hanford Issues” clearly support the essence of this narrative. There appears to be a systematic plan to remove certain member(s) of the City Council, as well as the City Manager. The foundation for removal of certain city officiants may simply stem from being in opposition to the desires of the “good ol’ boy” clique.

I like to begin with the post made on the “Hanford Issues” FaceBook page dated May 28, 2017. https://www.facebook.com/permalink.php?story_fbid=1319877471400712&id=256049181116885 As you can see, the entire Libertarian Party of Kings County supports the recall of Mr. Ramirez. “The Libertarian Party of Kings County supports the recall of Francisco Ramirez from the Hanford City Council District D seat.“ There needs to be a pause to truly consider this statement. Are we to believe that every Libertarian in Kings County has been informed of a possible recall? Was there a consensus? Why was the post made at all? Why was the post not endorsed by the President, Vice President or Chair of the group? Why was this FaceBook post signed by a probable business owner in downtown? We’ll get to this last question in a bit. At face value, it appears a political party which has nothing to do with the city is attempting to wield a hammer!

Let’s talk about college degrees for a minute. The post above states Mr. Ramirez mislead his constituents. Mind you, there is no supporting documentation which validates this claim one way or the other. So that we are all on the same page, the following is offered.
There are varying levels of education, varying levels of degree programs and a variety of methods to obtain such certificates or degrees. In a nutshell, colleges fit into many categories, profit v. non-profit, traditional v. technical, accredited v. unaccredited, and so on. As mentioned in the post, Columbia Pacific University, is an unaccredited school in the State of California. However, what wasn’t mentioned is Columbia Pacific University did in fact obtain an accreditation in California and held that accreditation until mid-1997. This paragraph is merely to point out a fact, Columbia Pacific University was recognized as an educational institute capable of offering accredited degrees in California.

There is no inference made to the validity of Mr. Ramirez’s degrees. However, it was possible for a student of Columbia Pacific University to continue his or her education and not be privy to the inner working of the facility? Is it possible, students continued their educational goals while Columbia Pacific University faced legal issues?
Continuing, the Libertarian Party of Kings County writes, “We also feel that Ramirez has done a poor job representing his district. District D encompasses all Downtown Hanford. However, he has not supported Downtown Hanford in his votes on the City Council.” What exactly does this mean? If Mr. Ramirez fails to vote in a pre-determined manner, or opposes the “good ol’boy” clique, he is accused of not supporting downtown. Bear in mind, while Mr. Ramirez represents District D, his responsibility and accountability is city wide, as is with the other council members.

Libertarian Party of Kings County continues, “Downtown Hanford has been struggling. It has vacant buildings which are deteriorating and its historic buildings sit in the possession of the City of Hanford and remain neglected without needed maintenance and repairs. Yet, he supports increased restrictions on conducting business downtown. On Facebook he spoke in support of charging license fees for temporary business vendors at the Thursday Night Market Place, which is an enormous draw for Downtown.” So, let’s break this into chunks so you get an idea on where this statement intends to lead you.

It is the Libertarian Party of Kings County’s position that Mr. Ramirez is in part to blame for the struggling downtown area. Their logic can only be based on how he has voted. But did you know there is a non-profit operating in the downtown area called Main Street Hanford? Did you know Main Street Hanford receives $81,900.00 a year from tax payers? Did you know Main Street Hanford is under a yearly Service Agreement to provide the following:

1. Clean the district so that it is appealing to consumers and promotes retail trade.
2. Maintain the cleanliness (sidewalks, public areas) of the district.
3. Engage in promoting district businesses though advertising.
4. Undertake activities that contribute toward the filing of building vacancies.

The above list is a mere sampling of the Service Agreement made between Main Street Hanford and the city. Now please read the Libertarian Party of Kings County’s statement again. Is Mr. Ramirez responsible for is a struggling downtown? Is Mr. Ramirez responsible for vacant buildings or their deterioration? Does business growth outside of downtown hurt Hanford?

Let’s discuss for a moment Mr. Ramirez’s support of fees for temporary business vendors mentioned by the Libertarian Party of Kings County. It is understood, a license fee structure for vendors at the Thursday Night Market Place has always existed, yet never enforced. If this is true, and a license fee structure has always been in place, is it up to Mr. Ramirez to enforce this fee? In fact, if the fee structure does exist, why would there be a need to vote whether to collect these fees from vendors?

It might be of interest, according to California if a person(s), or business conducts business more the twice in a calendar year, those person(s) or businesses are required to collect sale tax? And if said person(s) or business are collecting sales tax, then by definition, must abide by the city ordnance and have a business license and/or Parades/Public Gatherings Peddler License Application ($50.00 per day). Lastly, did you know that Main Street Hanford sponsors the Thursday Night Market Place and pockets a portion of the total collected revenue of the vendors?

The following alternate view is provided for the following quote. The Libertarian Party of Kings County writes, “We also feel that Ramirez has engaged in blatant self-promotion to a degree which has reached obnoxious proportions. He created his own trading cards for himself and signs them when he gives them to people as if he is a celebrity. He drives a vehicle with “Real Ramirez” in bold letters on the rear of the car and on the driver and passenger-side doors. We were unaware that there were “fake” Ramirez’s running around Hanford, but apparently it is important for him to ensure everyone knows he is the real deal.”

Taking the above Libertarian Party of Kings County’s paragraph as serious is suspect and downright juvenile. No one can fault Mr. Ramirez for displaying his name, position or sense of pride on a vehicle or trading card. Is it that much different from business cards, or personalized license plates? Seems a bit trivial.
In summary, Mr. Ramirez holds a coveted position. He is the city council’s representative in the downtown Hanford area. Regardless of any legal violations (federal, state or local) Mr. Ramirez may or may not have violated, he has not been prosecuted or found guilty. Therefore, a recall is the only avenue left. We still live in a society where an individual is considered innocent until proven guilty. If the Hanford District Attorney feels there are substantial violations of the law, then prosecute.

Above, I have mentioned two different FaceBook pages which have attacked Mr. Ramirez ranging from lying to his constituents to theft. If there is any doubt about these attacks, please familiarize yourselves with the contents of these two pages. I implore you to take note of the common thread or threads on these pages, pay attention to the names of the spokespeople who post on these pages. Speculation can be drawn, from the various posts, Mr. Ramirez is under attack by a group of citizens which may have personal motives, but it doesn’t end there. Additionally, both council members Sorensen and Mendes have also come under fire.

As noted above, this narrative is purely an opinion, other than publicly verifiable facts. I am neither for or against Mr. Ramirez. If laws have been broken, then the District Attorney should prosecute. But short of a conviction, is a recall necessary? It begs the questions, where did the recall effort originate? Who gains from a recall? I ask you to keep an open mind and judge for yourself.