In a meeting that seemed more like a protracted family therapy session than an official government gathering, the Carpinteria City Council voted to strip fellow Councilmember Joe Armendariz of his committee assignments, to officially ask him to resign, and to censure him for driving so drunk he steered his car off the freeway December 2 and crashed into a tree. Armendariz’s blood alcohol level — 0.18 — was more than twice the legal limit at the time, and it was his second major drunk driving incident in the past five years.
Although Armendariz opted not to show up for the council deliberations, he has steadfastly refused to resign, insisting he’s seeking help for his drinking issues and that his lapse in judgment behind the wheel has not affected his ability to represent Carpinteria residents. Under state law and municipal ordinance, the council lacks the legal authority to force Armendariz to step down. So instead, three of his fellow councilmembers voted to make the strongest expression of official disapproval available to them. For Councilmember Brad Stein, that wasn’t quite enough. “If I could, I would not ask, I’d force his resignation,” he said. Councilmember Kathleen Reddington — who cast the lone vote against censure — termed the proceedings “a witch hunt” and argued that Armendariz should be afforded a leave of absence to enroll in a detox program.
It was third time in three months that sanctions against Armendariz were under discussion, and members of the public weighed in vigorously on both sides. Armendariz is one of the county’s most prominent — and pugnacious — conservative voices, and his public profile transcends well beyond the jurisdictional confines of Carpinteria. Some speakers, such as William (a.k.a. Hot Dog Man) Connell and Susan Allen, a longtime community activist, argued that nothing but a forceful statement could distance the council from the ethical blight brought upon it by Armendariz’s action. “We can enable, make excuses, or we can stand up and say we won’t take it,” said Allen, after describing her painful personal experience dealing with — and divorcing — an alcoholic ex-husband.
Others, like prominent community activist and volunteer Mary McWhirter, argued that Armendariz’s problems with the bottle were never manifest on the council dais. “I never once witnessed or heard him under the influence at any council meetings,” she stated. McWhirter cautioned many on the council that they, too, lived in glass houses and should refrain from throwing stones. “Gregg Carty is the only of you I haven’t heard stories about,” she said. “He’s apple pie.”
Councilmember Stein challenged supporters of Armedariz, asking them how they might feel if he’d killed someone while driving drunk, all but guaranteeing that would happen one day. Councilmember Reddington reminded everyone in attendance how her husband had been seriously brain damaged as a result of a hit-and-run accident nearly five years ago. She argued it was dangerously premature for the council to take any action against Armendariz until legal proceedings against him concluded. Armendariz, she said, should have resigned on his own, but added that the council should encourage him to get treatment. “Are we about healing or hurting?” she demanded. “Are we about kvetching and complaining, or are we about kindness?”
Mayor Al Clark laid out a case that Armendariz had clearly breached the council’s own ethics policy, adopted in 2006, which calls for councilmembers to conduct their personal and political lives in an “above reproach manner.” Clearly, he said, rolling two cars while under the influence constituted a clear-cut violation. But first, Clark took exception to written allegations that were included in a city council agenda report that he beat his wife. “I need to say that’s not true,” Clark said. “If you need further elaboration on that, you can call my wife.” With that, he gave out her number.
Related Links
- Carpinteria Councilmember Joe Armendariz Arrested for DUI [ December 6, 2011 ]



Print friendly
E-mail story
Tip Us Off
Comments
Share Article
Myspace





Previous Month



Comments
Usually Armendariz is smart enough to keep his political options open, but his clear stunt here is not going to set up the easy path he envisions for a so-called conservative successor in the city council election later in 2012. Oil development will become linked to drunk driving.
John_Adams (anonymous profile)
February 15, 2012 at 7 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Ummmm...is he flip'n the bird?
boomgirl72 (anonymous profile)
February 15, 2012 at 7:47 a.m. (Suggest removal)
If the Armendariz facebook page had audio, it would be the sound of crickets. So sad. So pathetic.
John_Adams (anonymous profile)
February 15, 2012 at 8:36 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Friends don't let friends drink and post on FB
TheTruthLiesInTheContradiction (anonymous profile)
February 15, 2012 at 11:06 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Legal question: If an elected city official, while in performance of his/her duties causes injury to another person or that person's property because of an illegal activity, can the city itself be held liable? Example: If a councilperson is driving DUI to or from a city function and gets in an injury accident, can the city be sued?
Moonrunner (anonymous profile)
February 15, 2012 at 11:11 a.m. (Suggest removal)
He's only staying on board for the crucial oil vote. His oil drilling masters are probably extorting if not blackmailing him.
If he:
(a) had any self respect
(b) really cared about the community and its wishes;
he would go.
But in the end its all about Joe and what serves Joe best and makes him happy at the moment. If it weren't, he wouldn't be a serial drunk driver.
Ken_Volok (anonymous profile)
February 15, 2012 at 12:08 p.m. (Suggest removal)
And in spirit with the new INDY headlines, shouldn't the title of this piece read:
"Drunk to Remain on Carp Council"?
Ken_Volok (anonymous profile)
February 15, 2012 at 12:08 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Sadly, Joe is wrong yet again by stating that he is still able to represent his constituents. The mere fact that he is purposely skipping hearing deliberations means he's not doing the job he was elected to do. Which is to show up and participate. Even more egregious is the fact that he's now "communicating" on his Facebook page, rather than during public deliberartions. So rather than having to act with respect and decorum in a public forum in front of his Council colleagues and constituents, he choses to sound off from the privacy of his home. Shame on him for many reasons.
NFW (anonymous profile)
February 15, 2012 at 12:22 p.m. (Suggest removal)
I would be the last person to defend Joe Armendariz (and even then I wouldn't). But his decision to hang on is not about him, it's about politics. He and his handlers do not want to give the current majority on the Carpinteria City Council the opportunity to appoint Joe's successor. Therefore, he has to hang on until the election. I know from personal experience that Joe's skin is pretty thick and that he has an inflated regard for himself and his own perception of his abilities, but, at this point, I imagine that all this attention focused on his deamons and weaknesses is wearing his hide a little thin in spots. If he did not need the good will and support of his political cronies, I would bet that he would be very happy to slink out of the public eye and either privately wrestle with the deamons that haunt him or just as privately attempt to drown them in a sea of alcohol.
Eckermann (anonymous profile)
February 15, 2012 at 12:47 p.m. (Suggest removal)
This guy is such an embarrassment for the City of Carp.
Screw politics, the oil boys and everybody else whose back pocket he sleeps, and get him out pronto.
Talk about a black eye for this usually very cool beachside community, whew.
Barron (anonymous profile)
February 15, 2012 at 12:54 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Photo Caption: "If you pay me this much.."
Ken_Volok (anonymous profile)
February 15, 2012 at 1 p.m. (Suggest removal)
blah blah blah... when is his term up? These peeps have gotten more done busting this bird flipper offer guy's chops than they have on anything else! Judge not, lest ye be judged.
bimboteskie (anonymous profile)
February 15, 2012 at 1:05 p.m. (Suggest removal)
For the past couple months my co-workers ask me about the drunk stunt man City Councilman in Carp. This is embrarrasing. During the last election Armendariz and Steve McWhirter came by my house to ask for McWhirter's vote. I asked him his opinion of the Venoco oil controversy that was raging at the time- Joe did all the talking and spewed forth a bunch of mumbo jumbo without coming even close to actually answering the question. The Venoco deal was very soundly defeated yet I fear that Joe is being propped up by these very same forces. Choose carefully this time Carp.
moonshot (anonymous profile)
February 15, 2012 at 1:31 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Aw, come on you bunch of putzes, the guy's clearly got a venti cup of Starbucks coffee right in front of him, best rehab fluid available for lushes!
Oops, I forgot, Starbucks is "causa non-grata" in occupest circles, my bad, carry on you rebels.
Then again, that could be an Irish coffee he's got going in that cup there. Hmmmm, Irish Coffee... Hmmmm! :) henry
hank (anonymous profile)
February 15, 2012 at 2:57 p.m. (Suggest removal)
This is no surprise, considering how our society worships alcohol.
By the way, isn't it a bit ironic that the two people in the picture look as though they are hungover after a night of partying?
billclausen (anonymous profile)
February 15, 2012 at 3:16 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Example: If a councilperson is driving DUI to or from a city function and gets in an injury accident, can the city be sued?
Moonrunner (anonymous profile)
February 15, 2012 at 11:11 a.m.
Moonrunner: While this link I provide may not address your question specifically, it DOES seem to set a legal precedent. It's the Social Host Ordinance.
http://www.santabarbaraca.gov/teens/s...
billclausen (anonymous profile)
February 15, 2012 at 3:20 p.m. (Suggest removal)
What a moron.
e1986gonzalez (anonymous profile)
February 15, 2012 at 3:23 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Guilty until proven innocent if you do not tow the Liberal line.
Stalin and Mao are smiling Carpinteria.
jukin (anonymous profile)
February 15, 2012 at 3:33 p.m. (Suggest removal)
"Guilty until proven innocent if you do not tow the Liberal line."
- Jukin
Armendariz has not only admitted guilt, he was caught with the smoking car (wrapped around a tree).
Ken_Volok (anonymous profile)
February 15, 2012 at 4:35 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Jukin: "Guilty until proven innocent if you do not tow the Liberal line."
Funny how that works my friend. In the IV fireboy thread you got an individual or 2 calling what Judge Anderson did (release fireboy w/ no bail to a country club setting) as a "compassionate" thing to do.
On the same thread you got those "compassionate" fellas calling for Joe's head on a platter.
Difference between Joe & fireboy is that Joe is, yuck, a "conservative" while fireboy is an occupooper.
What Joe did was bad, no doubt there, got in a car drunk, drove & crashed. He should get the punishment coming & deserving.
Was there intent to harm anyone? Doubt it, just porbably wanted to get to the next happy hour for another well drink or home to the liquor cabinet & nothing or nobody was gonna stand in his way. VROOOM!
Well, we know how the drunk mind works & while this is NO excuse for drunk driving, it is always a murky thing. All that matters is where the next drink is coming from & if it's cheap or free.
In the case of fireboy, there WAS intent on destruction of property, there WAS intent in causing bodily harm, maybe even death as well as intent on introducing an atmosphere of terror & it WAS intently done w/ the use of an intentional weapon (a molotov cocktail).
But alas, fireboy is of the leftie persuasion & is therefore exempt from doing bad things.
He's a good, but misguided youth searching his soul for an answer to the world's problems, even if it means putting law enforcement officers in danger as well as any innocent civilian that happened to be @ the IVFP station.
Joe on the other hand is a "conservative" & just his very existence is pure embodiment of evil on this Earth.
In all Jukin, you are absolutely correct: "Stalin and Mao are smiling."
But you forgot to add Castro, Chavez, Guevarra, Lenin, Drezinsky, Hoenekker, Amin, Pot, Khadaffi, Ortegaq, Zelaya & a host of others.
They too smile when they see this kind of attitude. Viva la revolucion, VAMONOS! :) henry
hank (anonymous profile)
February 15, 2012 at 4:49 p.m. (Suggest removal)
@Hank
You're conveniently ignoring two important facts that differentiate these cases and people's reactions to them:
(1) Armendariz has confessed. He was caught at the scene of the crime
(2) The person you refer to as "Fireboy" has not only pled innocent and has not been convicted. As for the evidence we will all have to wait for a trial if criminal proceedings continue.
And you'll recall this has been the main issue all along.
Ken_Volok (anonymous profile)
February 15, 2012 at 5:03 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Ken, you're conveniently ignoring 5 important facts that differentiate these cases & people's reactions to them:
1) Fireboy turned himself in, an admission of guilt as he more than likely knew they were on to him.
2) Joey Good Times, like fireboy, has NOT been convicted.
3) Joey Good Times commited his crime as a function of partying till the cows come home.
4) Fireboy's "not guilty" plea is standard operating procedure, as instructed per his attorney.
5) Fireboy commited his crime based on a political agenda based on an overthrow of the governmental institution. This amounts to 1 of 3 things:
1) terrorism.
2) Treason.
3) Sedition.
An attack on a law enforcement outpost is equivalent to an attack on state or federal militia & all these organizations are sworn to "protect the United States Constitution from enemies, either foreign or domestic."
Joey Good Time's reason for his to do is because he's got that can, bottle or glass sewn to his lip & access to a set of car keys that fit a certain (but wrecked) car.
He can only be charged drunk driving & endangerment of motorists, a far lesser magnitude than any of the above charges fireboy could be slapped w/.
But you are correct: "As for the evidence we will all have to wait for a trial if criminal proceedings continue.
And you'll recall this has been the main issue all along." :) henry
hank (anonymous profile)
February 15, 2012 at 6 p.m. (Suggest removal)
I will argue that politicians driving drunk is terrorism. :)
Ken_Volok (anonymous profile)
February 15, 2012 at 6:58 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Hank, old buddy, sifting through your hyperbole to find the kernel of truth I have to admit that you may have a point. At this point the whole Joe thing is about politics. It is not really a liberal vs. conservative thing, because the politics in Carpinteria does not break down along those lines. But it is politics in the end. There are a bunch of folks that want Joe off the City Council regardless of his drunk driving exploits; and they find this the perfect opportunity to oust him. On the other side, there are a bunch of folks that do not want that seat on the City Council to go the "other side." Those folks are the ones defending Joe. Poor Joe goes home alone at night to dance the Walpurgis Night dance with his deamons, while we kibitz on the sidelines. I'm a little abashed, but not enough to restrain myself.
Eckermann (anonymous profile)
February 15, 2012 at 8:02 p.m. (Suggest removal)
This is the same Armendariz that thought people in wheelchairs would bring down the neighborhood. That's a patience breaker in itself.
Ken_Volok (anonymous profile)
February 15, 2012 at 8:38 p.m. (Suggest removal)
"Joe goes home alone at night to dance the Walpurgis Night dance with his deamons"
Walpurgisnacht, I had forgotten about that one!
To all of you I have a confession to make: Back in late 1971, againt the backdrop of a snow covered ground, in the freezing cold of a Chicago night, my sister and I threw a Molotov cocktail against the outside brick wall of our house.
I feel so much better now that I've gotten this off my chest.
billclausen (anonymous profile)
February 15, 2012 at 10:18 p.m. (Suggest removal)
You can comment on his page without "liking" him on FB.
Ken_Volok (anonymous profile)
February 16, 2012 at 12:08 p.m. (Suggest removal)
"But you forgot to add Castro, Chavez, Guevarra, Lenin, Drezinsky, Hoenekker, Amin, Pot, Khadaffi, Ortegaq, Zelaya.... "
-- hank
You're getting soft, hank. You left The Big O off your list.
SezMe (anonymous profile)
February 17, 2012 at 1:38 a.m. (Suggest removal)
SezMe: Nobody accused Obama of being a Communist, only of being a Socialist.
billclausen (anonymous profile)
February 17, 2012 at 1:44 a.m. (Suggest removal)
politics, rotted to the core by idiots like Joe. Won't be long before he's gone, one way or the other. Keep on drinking Joe.
spacey (anonymous profile)
February 17, 2012 at 12:17 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Spacey, based on my FB interaction with him last night, I'd hazard a guess he still is. Usually by this time in recovery a patient has lost the grandiosity, the immediate need to spin and change the subject to something else.
Armendariz is holding on until at least the oil drilling vote. He sees everyone and everything else as merely an inconvenience; or out to get him all along.
Ken_Volok (anonymous profile)
February 17, 2012 at 1:39 p.m. (Suggest removal)