Thank you for the response. I’d like to think you’re an honest man who inadvertantly got himself sucked into this seedy mess. But I need to respond to some of your statements.

“But remember, it was Andreen who was at the original Chamber for years when all the problems occurred.”

But correlation should not be confused with causation. I’ve been looking at the public info, but have yet to see any evidence that he was responsible for the problems. Lots of people went through the Chamber. There were many board members. If I’m not mistaken, the president of the Chamber back then is still the president now. Why are HIS feet not held to the fire, as opposed to an independent contractor?

“On the question of two Chambers: There would be no problem at all, if Andreen called his organization something less confusing.”

Perhaps, but again as you know, Andreen had been planning on a different name until he was threatened by the ECC not to use it, and your newspaper absconded with the name.

More importantly, how hard would it have been for the ECC to communicate to Andreen that they would cease to attack and smear him if only he would change the name to something else? In all the ECC pronouncements, I haven’t seen them claim that they made any effort to make such a request. It was just attack, attack, attack, from Day One.

Should he change the name? Probably, if for no other reason than to prove whether or not the name is the real agenda, or just an excuse.

“I saw a copy of the visitor center/chamber lease. It had Gary Tuckers signature on it.”

I have heard otherwise, but as I don’t have first hand knowledge, I’d suggest the courts can sort that out.

“As to the fact I make money publishing the Chamber newsletter, It’s not true. It is a financial loser. Are you interested in publishing it? Let’s talk.”

That’s an interesting rhetorical flourish for debate purposes, but I think we can safely conclude that TCN would not engage in such an activity for altruistic reasons. If you didn’t think you could make money from it, you wouldn’t be doing it. I imagine this is another issue where the courts could determine the truth.

“Also I didn’t steal any name. Copyright law gives the credit for the entity that uses the name first whether it is registered or not. I do not own the name Encinitas First. The Encinitas Chamber of Commerce does because it paid for, and used the name for years.”

Again, let the courts decide. Andreen used the name as his own as an independent contractor. The ECC specifically listed his company in their directory on their web site as Encinitas First. I have seen this with my own eyes and it cannot be denied. Claiming after the fact that they somehow owned the name seems extremely weak to me.

Fact: if the new CEO and those who hired him had approached all of this in a different way, there would be no problem today. This whole thing has been extremely political and extremely unprofessional among all involved.

Danielle Soule wrote:
“[The New Encinitas chamber] potentially depletes the strength in membership and resources of the one we have”

Point #1: Chambers are businesses. Businesses don’t have a right to exist. They must compete and produce a quality product. If both of these organizations produce value to their consumers, they will both survive. My business happens to be a member of both and will continue to be a member of both as long as they both offer value in return. I count at least a dozen competitors in my market. Why should business networking organizations have a free pass on competition?

If Andreen provides better value (and I’m not claiming that he does) why shouldn’t he survive? If the ECC does not, why should we prop it up? One thing is for sure, Andreen’s operation is 100% self-funded and has wasted zero tax dollars. As long as that is the case, I say, power to him. Can the same be said for the ECC?

Point #2: The concerns and interests of a surf shop on 101 are quite different from the concerns and interests of a major retailer on El Camino Real. For one thing, a visitor’s center is far more meaningful to downtown Encinitas than to New Encinitas, and watching the chamber fall into that logistical and political abyss that serves no benefit to our businesses has left a bad taste.

Part of the reason for all the vitriole against Andreen (as opposed to Tucker – different issue)is that the good old boy power brokers don’t want to see the ECR corridor flex its muscles. Better to keep the tail wagging the dog, I guess.

Point #3: If the Encinitas Chamber is struggling (which it is), it is struggling because its expenses far outweigh its revenues. It’s fair to say that is NOT the fault of the new CEO, so why are expenses so high? Because the chamber must pay horrendous rent for a facility it doesn’t need in order to house a visitor’s center it should not be operating in the first place. Ask yourself this: WHO is responsible for moving the chamber to its current expensive location and getting it entangled in the visitor center mess? Who signed off on the lease?

Will you be surprised to know that the responsible party is none other than the CURRENT PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD? Shocking, I know, given that we are being led to believe that there has been a thorough housecleaning, when in fact the guy in charge today is the same guy who was in charge before. If I am not mistaken, that fateful decision pre-dated Gary Tucker’s stint as CEO. I know a lot of people were vocally against it.

So while this paper along with certain community members pursues a vendetta agenda against a private business person like Andreen, it takes focus off of the wolf in the fold. I haven’t seen any evidence yet that Andreen was involved in wrongdoing. What seems fairly obvious is that if he is guilty of something, he’s guilty of stepping on toes and ticking people off, and those people want to exact revenge. Is THAT in the best interest of Encinitas or its businesses? I know that I certainly have no interest in other people’s personal vendettas.

I will just say that, unlike lible and slander, stepping on toes is not a crime, and if the latter is all Andreen has done, it’s time for grown ups to get over it and move on. I’m tired of seeing our tax dollars and political energy wasted on personal vendettas. Let the courts sort that out, and let the free marktet decide if Encinitas can support 5 business organizations, or only 4.

Fact #1: you make money by publishing the Encinitas Chamber newsletter and selling its advertising. You have a conflict of interest and need to recuse yourself. Period.

Fact #2: You know fully well that Andreen originally planned to call his organization Encinitas First (his own copyrighted name), a fact which he publicly announced. In his original announcement, he made it clear it was to be a chamber focused on New Encinitas. There is no ambiguity there, and many of us here feel that the need for such an organization is acute.

It was only after your newspaper stole the Encinitas First name and published (in your own paper) a fictitious business name using that name, that to avoid confusion Andreen instead opted for the title New Encinitas rather than Encinitas First.

The fact that you don’t personally use the term “New Encinitas” to refer to this community is really not relevant to anything. Unless you have a business here, your opinion on the subject is not meaningful. Further, the city itself recognizes the area as a distinct community, and has ALWAYS done so.

Fact #3, You then published, on your front page, an article with a headline that specifically stated that there was a report finding misuse of funds, when in fact the report only included vague accusation and was devoid of evidence. It was not an audit and the person who did the report is now on the Encinitas Chamber board of directors.

Fact #4, those of us who have been observing this ridiculous series of events have seen clearly how the collusion of your newspaper with the Encinitas Chamber and members of city hall can and will inflict damage on the businesses of any business owners who dare to speak out publicly. Therefore, it is disingenuous for you to suggest that an anonymous posting like this does not deserve to be published in your paper.

I am not Andreen and I don’t represent him. I am a business owner and an observer of what has been going on.

Those who think there is some law against multiple chambers in one city are delusional. There is nothing illegal, immoral, or unethical about it. If the businesses of the El Camino corridor feel that the Encinitas Chamber is doing a less than ideal job of representing their interests, they have every right to support a different organization that suits them better.

I don’t think there would have been any problem or dispute if after Mike left,
If he had not lobbed the first assertions.

had he started
Mikes North Encinitas Businees Support Group
Andreen business advantage
or what ever the heck.

He is not a non profit but a for profit,
he is not a registered Chamber by the USA Chamber of Commerce.

So call it what you will, just be what you are and not what you are not, and that is a Chamber.

It has been my experience that The Coast News really does allow community commentary from both sides in any discussion. The Coast News DOES try to balance letters to the editor on any given issue.

If Gary and Mike feel smeared their should write their points of view as community commentary and submit them to the paper. It’s really that simple.

In no particular order, I will address some points that have been brought up and thoughts that I have, on The Coast News and Leucadia blog sites regarding my recent Encinitas Chamber editorial.

1- I put my real name – you know where to find me – on my words. That can’t be said for the blog people.
2- Many of the comments on my web site are from the same IP address. That means Mike Andreen is using multiple identities to make it seem like a lot of people agree with his agenda when in reality it’s just him.
3- Gary Tucker (had to use his own name) said The Coast News failed to give him or Andreen a chance to respond to our “misuse of funds” article. That’s crap, and we have all the calls and emails documented to prove it.
4- It is not true that I am biased in defending the established Chamber because of financial gain from publishing Encinitas First. It is a financial loser. The truth is Gary Tucker told me that pub was losing on average about $2000 per issue before I took it over. I was able to reduce that loss to close to break even, but the situation is worse now because of the economy and Andreen’s negative influence.
5- I, and many others do not use the term “new Encinitas.” When I see New Encinitas Chamber of Commerce, I see “new” Encinitas Chamber of commerce, which is doubly confusing.
6- The city should help the legitimate Chamber and it’s problems with the Visitors Center because it blessed the marriage in the first place and needs to accept some responsibility for the mess it’s in.
7- The Chamber may be an entity by itself, but, it is defined by the people who run it, at any given moment, and the current woes are a result of actions taken by Andreen and Tucker. I have an email from Andreen to the Chamber Board that says in part, “for all practicable purposes, I am the Chamber.”
8- Jerome Stocks immediately pulled his ad from Encinitas First and The Coast News when Andreen left the Chamber when the board wouldn’t make him CEO. No big deal financially, but telling.
9- I am new at this blog thing, but I agree with some of the comments on the Leucadia blog that Kevin is biased toward Andreen and Tucker.
10- As my editor said in the comments section following my editorial, we will publish any opposing views. But, we insist that the identity of the person submitting be verified, just as I am openly standing behind my words, so should they.