Dear Editor:

I resigned my volunteer position of 22 years at Stepping Stone on March 8, 2007. I am leaving with the following concerns:

1. There is no longer zero tolerance for alcohol or drugs for residents.

2. Sexual relations between residents are often condoned and allowed to continue on property.

3. The RAP group is now optional. Membership was scrambled without regard to the residents or the RAP group facilitators.

4. There is less and less accountability for the residents, staff and volunteers. The resident council has been suspended, as have consequences.

5. Emphasis on the Twelve Step programs have been diminished.

6. The agency has sanctioned residents working in the adult entertainment industry and as bartenders.

7. The guidelines are changing. Volunteers are not informed of the new policies.

8. Valuable, long term staff has been terminated “at will” without regard or appreciation of their loyal contributions.

I recommend each member of the Board become better informed on the day-to-day operations of the residential program, reexamine the policies and procedures that govern the agency and review their implementation.

In my opinion, the reason for the increased relapse rate over the past year is due directly to lack of accountability and the inability to allow each resident to experience the consequences for his or her actions. The lack of a quality, well trained and supervised staff to guide the residents is a great concern.

I have filled many positions during the past 22 years of service including Board Chairman. I, with the advice of many, established the comprehensive, 12-step emphasis program that has resulted in long term sobriety for so many. I well understand Stepping Stone is considered a business. If a business fails to produce a quality product (clean and sober contributing members of society) does the responsibility lie with the residents or with the people running the business?

The years have been rewarding. I find myself unable to serve the residents in early recovery under the present, confusing circumstances. I will miss them.

Ross W. Taylor

Dear Editor:

In regards to the 2008 District 3 San Diego City Council race, I wholeheartedly agree with your position that the LGBT community should let the candidates “duke it out a few rounds.” To suggest that we should unite behind one candidate anointed by a few power brokers behind-the-scenes is unfair to the entire field of potential candidates and shortchanges the democratic process. A vigorous exchange of ideas is healthy and ultimately benefits the voters by helping them make the right choice for themselves. There are many important issues facing the residents of District 3; so let’s encourage debate not dissuade it.

Let the voters decide who’s the best and most qualified candidate! That’s my position.

In fact this voter is supporting City Council candidate Stephen Whitburn.

I and many others are supporting Stephen Whitburn because, as President of the San Diego Democratic Club, he has demonstrated strong leadership on many crucial issues that are important to our LGBT community and the residents of District 3. He has worked tirelessly on LGBT issues—advocating marriage equality, fighting to repeal the military’s “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” policy, promoting hate crimes legislation and helping to ensure the passage of California’s Domestic Partnership Law.

He has also fought relentlessly for District 3 residents—working hard for a Living Wage Ordinance, promoting affordable housing and calling for a fair condo conversion policy, supporting basic infrastructure improvements for community residents, and within the last few weeks, acting as the SDDC’s spokesperson in support of the “Public’s Right to Know” in the budget process.

On the issues, Stephen Whitburn has a proven record and I’m proud to endorse him.

Besides that though, I can tell you that he is an intelligent, thoughtful, fair-minded, professional and committed community leader who is ready to continue the progress that Christine Kehoe and Toni Atkins have made for the residents of District 3. He will be a strong advocate for his constituents and an honest leader who I believe will stand up for good governance at City Hall.

So let the debate begin and let the voters decide!

Tim Orozco

Dear Editor:

Sometimes Nicole should re-read what he writes before submitting it. In pumping up Todd Gloria, he says that Gloria is not the gay candidate. Huh? Every reason he lists is based on the fact that Gloria is a gay who has “earned” the right through political back scratching that has lined up so-called movers and shakers. Nicole even warns that a “straight woman candidate,” God forbid, might run and fracture the gay/lesbian vote. I’m sure Todd Gloria is a very nice guy. But before he should get any endorsement, let alone vote, maybe Gloria – or booster Nicole – can tell us what the putative candidate thinks about governmental relationships between Mayor Sanders and the City Council, about the pension scandal and declining city services, about the living wage for workers, about increased urban densities with “city village” projects; in short, about a whole host of issues far more important to San Diego residents, gay or straight, than whether Gloria somehow deserves to carry on a legacy of gay/lesbian occupancy in the Third District.

John Komatsu

Dear Editor:

Hey, why are you disbanding the sports section for health and wellness? This is alienating several hundred, if not thousands of active gay and lesbian athletes who work hard at their sports and deserve the coverage. The sports sections are usually the most popular and followed. It also works against the stereo type that gay guys are nelly queens running around to the beauty salon.

Ross M. Capdeville

San Diego Bulldogs Wrestling Club

Dear Editor:

“I don’t’ know all the details about the recent discrimination suit against The Lodge” however, “The company deserves our support.”

My question is: Why would you suggest that the community support a company such as The Lodge at Torrey Pines, when you yourself stated in your column entitled, “Conversations with Nicole”, dated March 29, 2007, “I don’t know all the details about the recent discrimination suit”? If you do not know all the facts and details of the situation, it is irresponsible of you to use your position and media exposure to influence others. I suggest using your position to expose and fight injustice; gather the facts first and present them to the public to assess and encourage dialogue, rather than using your position to promote establishments and/or issues that may, in reality, treat others unequally.

Kalin Myers