FFFF supports causes that promote intelligent, responsible and accountable government in Fullerton and Orange County
Author: The Fullerton Harpoon
The Fullerton Harpoon is a retired commerical fisherman having served many years on the Japanese whaler Nisshin Maru where he unfortunately lost the right side of his brain and his sense of propriety in a Greenpeace attack.
The other day I wrote a post wondering why the Fullerton Observer was advertising an upcoming issue that had already been decided by the Fullerton City Council on May 5th, to wit: denying an appeal for a condo project on the northwest corner of Harbor and Hermosa, previously rejected by the Planning Commission. An alert Friend pointed out that the issue had been forecast for 6/16/26 on the 6/2/26 agenda.
Hmm. It was. But the Observer Sisters said nothing about what that item said.
Satkia Kennedy on the job…
Here’s all that the forecast said: RESOLUTIONS TO DENY APPEAL FOR 111 WEST HERMOSA DRIVE. In other words, Silksia Kennedy passed along information not advertised by the City, by iimplying that the appeal was ongoing. I figured at first she got her information from either “Dr.” Ahmad Zahra or Shana Charles, the two boobs who voted to approve the appeal. Now I’m pretty sure she did.
Anyway, the item is returning for approval of a Resolution that will substantiate the denial by the Council majority. Our crack City Attorney has determined that an official Resolution stating necessary findings is required by State housing law, which seems pretty unusual to me, but whatever.
But those of us who have watched City staff manipulate councils over the years know well that an issue is never dead so long as the bureaucrats in City Hall are attached to it. In this case, Lo and Behold, another option is being presented, too: a Resolution approving the appeal! You read that aright. Maybe Siaska Kennedy was right after all, and the item is ongoing.
It seems that the developer, City Ventures, that wants to cram 32 units on little more than an acre, contacted the City on 5/19/26 with a last ditch proposal to do a traffic study to demonstrate the safety of their project in exchange for approval. Of course, the appeal approval Resolution is filled with all sorts of scary “facts” and findings that are meant to undermine the Planning Commission’s denial, and even the Council’s previous decision which should have been decisive. That should have been that.
The approval resolutions seem like a laundry list of issues presented to the developer on a silver platter to be used against the City. Jones and Mayer hard at work.
This is government by bureaucracy and I can only hope the Mayor wasn’t paying attention when this agenda and staff report were created.
12,968 units to go!!
And now of course all the usual monkeys will tumble out of the branches, orchestrated by Charles and Zahra and tender Elijah who thinks somebody owes him a house. Getting a job would do more for him.
What’s ironic about Fullerton Boohoo’s attachment to this project is that it only dedicates 5 “affordable units, and a mere 32 units overall. A tiny fraction of the 13,000 new units Fullerton Boohoo has bought into.
I hope the neighbors will show up for the hearing to defend the denial Resolution, and I hope the commonsense City Council members, if they say anything at all, have the courage to defend their previous position, although given past reversals I’m not sure that’s going to happen.
A week ago the Fullerton Observer Kennedy Sisters passed along a confused post about the City Council reviewing an appeal of a Planning Commission denial of the 32 unit project at Hermosa and Harbor, such appeal occurring on June 16th.
It’s not unlike the Fullerton Observer “amateurs” to post stupid, befuddled, or erroneous stuff, but this is perplexing even to Observer observers.
It looks like an old post has been carelessly updated, but why? My first thought was did somebody like Ahmad Zahra or Shana Charles want this to come back – maybe because it wasn’t officially “tabled” as an issue? This has happened before. The agenda for the June 16th meeting hasn’t been published yet, so it seems possible that somebody alerted the Kennedy Sisters that this was returning for some reason. Our first sharp-eyed commenter below point out that the issue was forecast in the 6/2/26 agenda for the next meeting to pass a resolution defending the appeal. Why? I don’t know other than this is a due diligence exercise. Maybe this is where the Sisters got the idea of a rolling issue.
It looks like mostly just another Observer gagglefuck – a garbled post carelessly published by the Sisters. Sadly, Fullerton Boohoo/Fullerton Self-righteous will no doubt exercise another “we need housing” circus to embarrass the Council majority and to take a shot at the hated NIMBYies in north Fullerton.
Anyone But Connor. Connor Traut, that is, the nebbish, desperate political carpetbagger, hack and descendant/acolyte of the corrupt Anaheim Cabal gang.
His mentor was the unspeakable Jordan Brandman, another young political climber who never held a job in his life that wasn’t handed to him.
Here’s the thing: vote for Jung, Espinosa or Shaw, if you vote at all. North Orange County has the ability today to be rid of the Connor Traut Experience once and for all. If by some chance this “establishment” Democrat gets elected we won’t be rid of his incessant political adventures for another 40 years as he bobs back and forth between Sacramento and the County Hall of Administration – making sure there is no government accountability every slimy step of the way.
Traut, on the right.
Here’s a thought, Connor: get out of politics, get a real job that you earned, if you can, and support your family making a contribution to society. Don’t end up like your mentor, Jordan Brandman.
If as is being claimed by “Erik” at Fullerton City News is unequivocally stating that Fullerton City staff has been unilaterally backfilling departmental funds without approval by the City Council. This would be unethical and illegal.
Elected officials have to approve these sorts of transfers from the General Fund as well as periodic budget adjustments. Period. Erik claims this has been going on for at least seven years and the amounts are substantial.
Erik uses this situation to suggest a City sales tax bailout is the wrong way to reward the bureaucrats who perpetrated this possibly criminal hairball.
Here is his post:
I’ve Got 24,816,001 Reasons To Not Support A Sales Tax
City Hall Spent $24.8 Million Without Council Approval And Now Wants A Tax Increase
Budgets are estimates, it’s an unpredictable world, and not getting it perfect is understandable. Fullerton City Hall staff and the city council are supposed to work together to determine how much money should go to each fund / department but ultimately it is the city council who, being elected, gets the final say on how we prioritize and spend that money. When council does this properly the residents are happy and councilmembers get re-elected, run for higher office, etc. When they don’t get it right they lose elections, get recalled, and/or face public scorn. The city council is our control mechanism over how our money is spent.
When a council appropriation ends up being more than what was needed, the remaining money can return to the General Fund without issue. When a council appropriation is not enough, the correct action is to request an increase from the city council. Again, city council is our control mechanism over how our money is spent. Staff does not have the legal authority to increase spending, only council does.
C. Transfers of appropriations between departments and funds, or use of salary and accounts, other than those exceptions authorized herein, may be made only by authority of the City Council.
D. Expenditures in excess of the budgeted amounts are prohibited. (Ord. 1485 § 5, 1967).
This should be clear and simple. Need more money? Go ask council for it. However, it appears City Hall chose not to follow this practice (or the law).
During a conference call with a municipal finance expert, I was directed to the ‘Budgetary Compliance’ Section of the City’s 2025 Annual Comprehensive Financial Report (ACFR). They summarized that when that section is present in the report it means that something has gone wrong and in this case it’sby a lot. The ‘Excess’ column of this section lists money that city staff spent in excess of the council-approved budget and for2025 it totals $11,148,422.
Consider for a moment what this means. Our only way of having a say over how our taxpayer money is spent is through the city council. They are elected to represent us and our interests. The municipal code confirms this is their decision to make. Yet in FY25 unelected bureaucrats at City Hall simply ignored the city council and the voters they represent and went and spent whatever they wanted.
Police couldn’t manage on their budgeted $61.3M? They spent $63.9M.
Fire couldn’t operate on $34.6M? They spent $36.2M.
‘Capital Outlays’ went over by $6M. This one is especially troubling because there’s no clear explanation of what those funds were actually spent on.
Put another way, the city council budgeted a total of $132.9M to the General Fund but staff spent $144.1M … $11,148,422 of which was without council approval. You might notice on the Revenue side that we brought in $8.9M more than anticipated and should have had a $5.4M surplus. But staff’s $11,148,422 unauthorized spending pushed us from a large surplus to a $5.7M deficit.
This is a complete disregard of good financial practice by City Hall. While some overspending covers legitimate needs, the lack of prior approval violates the process residents rely on, a process that does not include staff spending whatever they want and stashing it on page 105 of next year’s ACFR. Their actions were in direct violation of the city municipal code and are a slap in our faces.
But wait… it gets worse. Much worse. If this were a one-time thing I could almost understand. But, Dear Readers, City Hall staff has disregarded city council approved budgets every single year for the past decade. See for yourself:
2024: $235,2482023: $455,176. And they were nice enough to put in a reminder that this was not legal spending.2022: $3,881,6252021: $5,057,613
Prior to 2021 accounting used a different format for the annual financial report known as the Comprehensive Annual Financial Report (CAFR) and the format is a little different, but the pattern of spending beyond authorization continues.
2020: $2,200,681.2019: $1,701,966
Starting in 2019 to present, staff has helped themselves to $24,816,001 of our taxpayer dollars beyond what our duly-elected council representatives legally allocated them. This money was taken without permission, outside of our established legal process, repeated every single year in recent history.This is an outrage.
Our current unrestricted cash reserves are $19.8M which, with a general fund of $144.1M gives us the current 14% reserve level. This is well below the council target of 17% and translates to 1-1/2 months. Had staff followed the budget all these years, our reserves could be as high as $44.6M which comes out to a 31% reserve level or 3-1/2 months. Or some of that could have gone to paving more streets.
But alas, it is already spent and gone and those who spent it are telling you to just give them more money via a sales tax increase. You should ask your councilmember how they feel about this, do they still trust City Hall, and what are they going to do about it?
We are being robbed.
Back to Harpoonville. This sounds pretty serious and I sure hope the crack accountants we have hired to check the books to explore a few facts:
How were these transactions booked and who authorized them?
Were the transactions simply glossed over in annual CAFRs and budgets without saying who approved them?
When, if ever did the Fullerton City Council approve these transfers? Were any of them ratified after the transfers were made?
We have already seen the City play fast and loose with Redevelopment Successor Agency funds as well as other non-discretionary funds to pad the invalid General Fund. That was bad. And in retrospect, maybe those transfers were just part of an overall pattern of misfeasance.
Fullerton’s so-called Ad Hoc Fiscal Sustainability Committee met again, and probably for the last time last Thursday. Like its predecessor, the meeting expended hours of lots of peoples’ time and accomplished nothing. Not very little. Nothing.
Hours and hours of already familiar Power Point readings.
Three things worth mentioning happened.
Miss Daisey was driven…
First, Daisy Perez, the Assistant City Manager reminded the committee that if the City were to get a dedicated “infrastructure” half-cent sales tax increase, that money could be diverted to pay for “maintenance” of police and fire department facilities. She said nothing about a commensurate reduction in the “public safety” budgets and naturally nobody on the committee asked her.
Later, when pressed, the City Manger had to explain that he needed some sort of City Attorney blessing before he could share polling questions asked by the City’s quality of life/pro tax consultant. Huh? The only people who get to know the questions are the ones who got phone solicitations? What bullshit is this? Fortunately, Joshua Ferguson was on hand to share the nature of the questions his wife got; of course they were directed to promoting a sales tax increase of some kind.
You will be taxed…sooner or later!
Later still, when everyone was fatigued, Perez tried to get the committee to vote on a laundry list of options, all of which would be passed on to the council. This is the precise swindle that occurred during the redistricting process courtesy of City Clerk Lucinda Williams – when Fullerton Booohoo was trying real hard to keep Jesus Quirk-Silva in a political job.
Chris Norby, our former City Councilman, County Supervisor and Assemblyman showed up to save the day. He shared the value of vacant properties the City owns, and threw in the airport. These collectively are worth half a billion he asserted. He didn’t remind committee members that these properties would be declared surplus, and that “affordable” housing developers would get first shot at them. He reminded the committee that sales taxes are inherently regressive, perhaps thinking anybody cared about that.
In the end a completely improper process of trying to vote on something, anything, occurred. Without following any order except prompting by staff, the committee voted 3-2 against a Tony Bushala suggestion of a 1/2 cent sales tax dedicate to infrastructure, and keeping in place an existing ordinance guaranteeing a certain percentage of funding for infrastructure.
Peace. No, piece. Another piece of your money. You have it. We want it.
Then the appointees of the liberals Shana Charles and Ahamad Zahra, Derek Smith and Jennifer Duong proposed their own idea: a one cent general sales tax. This failed 3-2, also with Bushala, Wehn and Wozab voting no.
Finally a legitimate motion was made by Eric Wehn and seconded by Bushala: investigate the possible sale of the water function to an independent water company. That proposal was finally passed 3-2 again with the liberal appointees voting no. This idea really has no place to go, except that an exploration of the Water Department’s vacant property should be definitely considered for offloading.
There seemed to be confusion about whether the committee could meet again to keep kicking the can around. No decision was made on that as far as I can tell, but I’ve seen so many Fullerton meetings dissolve into incoherence at their end that I really can’t say.
I really think that’s what a lot of last night’s council meeting regarding a proposed development at the northwest corner of Harbor Blvd. and Hermosa Drive was about.
The appeal of the Planning Commission’s denial was the issue and to their credit Dunlap, Jung and Valencia pushed back on the appeal. But the real show was put on by Ahmad Zahra and his stablemate Shana Charles.
First a little about the project. It would cram 32 dinky “townhomes” on a parcel that the City claims is 1.3 acres (it looks smaller); the zoning for the site is R-1-20 which is typical in the old horsey part of town – a minimum 20,000 square foot lot, or about half an acre. But the developer applied for permits during a period when Fullerton’s “Housing Element” was not in compliance with the State regulations; therefore he could rely on “Builder’s Remedy” a harebrained scheme by the State Legislature whereby somebody can cram a whole bunch of units on to a site and fuck you, neighbors. There just has to be mandated and restricted “low income housing” of which our friendly builder was to produce the bare minimum.
Such is our government that the project still needed to be approved by the Planning Commission, and City planning staff recommended approval lest there be spooky lawsuits. The PC bravely said nay, exercising their authority as a discretionary body. The Council did the same.
But it was a fight. Zahra and Charles did their best to defend what can only be described as an out of scale, mini-monstrosity. Five stuccoed buildings with crappy plastic windows; three stories each jammed onto the site with only way in and out. And because of, ya know, low income housing, the developer doesn’t even have to bring power to the site underground!
Zahra tried mightily to show that the PC had no objective basis for their decision given staff’s assurances; but this begs the question of how much due-diligence staff actually put into this to make a balanced presentation in the first place. Apparently there was no traffic study required and because of our wonderful Legislature, “in-fill” projects are categorically exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act. Staff said there was no basis for a claim of public safety endangerment, a finding, if made, that could be used to reject the project. Zahra tried to undermine the neighbors and the Planning Commission’s conclusions as mere opinion, not fact.
Two of our underserved population?
Charles was just as bad with her usual dumb grin, condescending routine. We have to abide by the State’s diktats and there was nothing else that could be done. And although public opinion is just great we have no choice, yadda, yadda. The ridiculousness of voting on something about which you have no choice seems to have escaped the otiose public health professor. How come you dropped the low income level from 20% to 13%, asked the smiling academic of the developer. Higher interest rates the fellow claimed; both were play-acting. The Legislature previously reduced that requirement over a year ago and of course they both know it.
A few of Fullerton Boohooers got up to present pre-coordinated statements: the need for housing uber alles. Fresh and fragile Elijah Manassero gloated that there was no way to reject this; and we need places for people like him to live, he tenderly beseeched! Of course these folks mentioned the horrible lawsuits coming Fullerton’s way – as if that had ever concerned readers of the Fullerton Observer. The “pastor” who can’t figure out how to button his shirt was there, on cue to preach to us that a city’s character” is more than just scale and density.
Satkia Kennedy on the job…
Sitkia Kennedy could be seen in the fifth row applauding these speakers, presumably before she returned to her role of objective journalist.
Not quite forgotten…
Our old friend Elizabeth Hansberg showed up via Zoom to advocate for the project. We recall her “advocacy group” that advertises her willingness to advocate for a project; developer donations to her non-profit always welcome. She betrayed her affiliation with the comment: “we are providing the opportunity for people to move up…” Of course she gleefully entertained the council with the threat of lawsuits from her legal pals.
In typical Fullerton fashion, the end the issue was punted to May 19th, I guess.
The net result of this proposal, if approved, is only 32 out of the 13,000 new housing units demanded by the SCAG and Sacramento crowd. Only 5 would be deed restricted to low income. The units are meant to be sold at this point so the positive impact for poor renters like Zahra and Charles is virtually nil.
I’m trying to figure out why the Fullerton liberal claque was so het up on this project. I couldn’t think of a good reason except that they thought this was something that would annoy northern Fullertonions – those folks that Zahra is always complaining get all the municipal goodies while his underserved constituents get the short end of the stick.
Is this really about a perceived class distinction of north versus south? I really don’t think there’s anything more involved than that. One of the speakers said it: “The entire city needs to do their (sic) part…”
At the last Fullerton City Council meeting Ahmad Zahra, the ersatz damascene doctor, brought up the subject of the annual State of the City event. It’s a big lunch affair with lots and lots of people attending. His intent was to try to embarrass Mayor Fred Jung since the Mayor is the one gives the address, and Jung does it often whereas Zahra has never done it and never will.
Zahra called the event a publicity stunt that, given the bad state of Fullerton’s roads and finances should be scrapped. It’s all about transparency and public involvement, and other such nonsense. He still wanted an accounting and naturally so did his associate Shana Charles.
But then, lo and behold. When the two sanctimonious boobs were done, Mayor Jung, asked the City Manager how much last year’s event cost the City. The latter announced that last year’s event didn’t cost the City anything. In fact it made money!
Oops.
I didn’t say that…
Anyway, ther unnecessary review of this event is on tonight’s council meeting agenda where Zahra can whine about the council as a whole having no input; and the usual Fullerton Boohoo and Fullerton Angry nuts can stomp and shout.
You might think that a conscientious public servant like Zahra would forgo wasting staff time putting together and delivering a report on this event; and wasting his colleagues’ and the public’s time in listening to it. If you did you would be wrong. This is going nowhere. Here’s the lead in on the actual agenda:
An update on the City of Fullerton annual State of the City event, including a financial summary of the 2025 State of the City and considerations for the 2026 event. Staff anticipates utilizing a sponsorship and ticket-supported approach similar to the successful 2025 event for the 2026 State of the City and seeks City Council direction.
When staff describes the Mayor’s speechifying event as “successful” you’re not going to be able to use it to embarrass the Mayor.
Maybe Shana Charles will show up and then galumph out in a high dudgeon protest – like she did in 2023. But then she’d have to pass on a free lunch.
Backscratching is fun – with other people’s money…
This blog has introduced Mr. Derek Smith to our friends. He is the appointee of “Doctor” Ahmad Zahra to the so-called Budget Sustainability Committee. His qualifications? Well, none are apparent. But we do know that Smith is (or was) the political lobbyist for the union that organizes cannabis store employees.
Cannabis Kitty Jaramillo
We already knew that Smith’s union was bankrolling a PAC for the benefit of Cannabis Kitty Jaramillo’s scampaign in 2024 to the tune of $60,000, $4000 of which went to The Councilwoman Shana Charles Self-improvement Fund.
And now thanks to detailed reporting by Mr. Duane J. Roberts, a true citizen journalist, we know that the union in question, UFCW Local 324, was up to it’s neck in schemes to bring legal cannabis to Anaheim. Roberts’ post is a must-read, for it details the close alliance between Anaheim’s crooked cabal and the union. For several years Smith and his union worked closely with disgraced Anaheim Chamber of Commerce head Todd Ament, Anaheim fixer Jeff Flint, and the Mayor, Harry Sidhu.
Ament, Flint, and Sidhu
(graphic by Duane J. Roberts)
For the cabal the dope incentive was money, and lots of it. Money that would go to the cabal leaders, the Chamber of Commerce, and campaign funds of the later-convicted Mayor. For Derek Smith’s union, the promise of a Labor Peace Agreement (LPA) that would eventually cover even part-time workers was the goal.
Belal Dalati wanted in. And then out.
First this association of strange bedfellows tried to get the City Council to go along. Then they began the process to put the issue on the ballot, with proposals written by the cabal, and then by the lobbyist for the Long Beach dope cartel; they were submitted by a UFCW Local 324 employee, and then a local realtor and insurance salesman, Belal Dalati, respectively. Both were eventually retracted, but not without threats, according to Roberts.
Rafiei not looking so hot…
Left unreported by Roberts was the role of Melahat Rafiei, the acknowledged queen bee of OC dope lobbying, and a player deeply involved with Anaheim’s cabal. She later went to jail after she was busted by the FBI for wire fraud; Harry Sidhu did a prison stint, too for destroying evidence; Todd Ament pleaded guilty to fraud and his buddy Jeff Flint left town – for a while. Nice people, right?
While none of the Anaheim MJ activities were illegal, at least as far as can be discerned, the whole episode gives off a real bad smell; and in the middle of it was Derek Smith’s union.
Anybody who thinks Ahmad Zahra was ignorant of what was going on in Anaheim and with Rafiei (whom he recommended to at least one Fullerton businessman as a necessary contact) is pretty credulous. And his appointment of Derek Smith to the budget committee comes into sharper focus.
All that transparency can give a lad a headache…
The fact that the self-righteous clamorers who have decried the appointment of Tony Bushala to this committee have diligently ignored the appointment of Smith is telling. Bushala’s political involvement is a disqualification; Smith’s political history is assiduously ignored – just like the Fullerton Observer Sisters relentlessly ignored the Scott Markowitz conspiracy and the massive contribution by Derek Smith’s union to a pro-Jaramillo political action committee.
Both Zahra and Charles are beholden to the dope lobby, but they still need another vote to revive the 2020 marijuana ordinance approved by Jan Flory, Jesus Quirk-Silva, and Ahmad Zahra. They won’t get it this year.
Well, there she goes. Don’t worry. There’s more where that came from…
When a misleading City of Fullerton agenda proclaims: “Introduction of Special Fiscal Audit – Grant Thornton Risk Advisory Services.”
I assumed, wrongly, that somebody had already been hired to look into the misdirection of funds into the General Fund Reserves that should have gone some place else, a fact that has caused considerable embarrassment to our severely and habitually underinformed City Council. I also figured this firm was going to talk about what they found.
But no.
A Manfro all seasons…
In fact, the firm of Grant Thornton Risk Advisory Services were brought before the council by the City Manager, Eddie Manfro, simply to make a sales pitch for their services. And what services.
Step one is to be some sort of forensic accounting exercise, a fishing expedition to explore the world of Fullerton’s accounting regime to see what, if anything, is amiss. Nobody said anything, but there must have surely been some internal squirming when the company rep kept using the word “fraud.” And that included our Finance Director and recently anointed City Treasure, Steven Avalos who was sitting in the pit.
The second phase of GTRAS’s endeavor was to explore how the City might improve efficiencies, save money, and help address Fullerton’s grim fiscal situation. Why this all-purpose company was suggested for this task seems odd, the two tasks having nothing to do with one another.
I’ll address the first project first. Why is it necessary at all to delve into Fullerton’s accounting with an audit? We have been told that there were seemingly honest bookkeeping errors – embarrassing, sure and it did alter the already dire projection of General Fund reserve draw downs, but fear not, all was well. The councilmembers kept talking about transparency and public trust, but what does that really mean? Is this serious or just a political pantomime?
Consider the following facts. GTRAS was picked by the City Manager under his own authority and just brought to the council to give them a chance to ratify the decision. That’s a sole source contract, and the public has no idea how much they will be paid, and won’t without a PRA request. Will added scope to the $100,000 contract be reviewed by anybody except the City Manager and Steven Avalos? If some sort malfeasance were actually discovered – purely by accident, of course – would offender(s) names be published? Is any of this going to discussed in Closed Session because it touches on employee issues? Who knows? The Council approved the deal, without knowing whatever it is or might be.
As for the second part of GTRAS offer, the City Manager announced that would be returned to the Council for approval of a $130,000 deal. At least someone might get the chance to ask some pertinent questions, such as why is this “economic development” effort needed, given that Fullerton has highly paid staff who enjoy employment as economic developers. What have these people been doing and why do they need outside help. These people have been on the payroll for years. What have they accomplished?
Economic Development is my specialty…
Sunaya Thomas, in charge of economic development, was in attendance. Her presence at the meeting was an almost begging of the question about her own success in this endeavor, the effort of bureaucrats that never even pays for itself.
I wonder if GTRAS will actually suggest something that might help, outside of taxes. Personally, I doubt if their suggestions would even pay for their own service. That we will probably never know because no one will talk about it. This will be an agreement with no metrics for success or failure, just more electronic billboards and hotel occupancy taxes. Staff reductions? Getting rid of all our brand new “firefighters” and ambulance drivers? Don’t be ridiculous.
Anyhow our brave Council voted unanimously to proceed down this dark corridor, protesting their sincere desire to pursue those most elusive prey: transparency and public trust. No one said much about accountability. They never do.
At tomorrow’s Fullerton City Council meeting, agenda item #1 features a report by the firm of Grant Thornton Risk Advisory Services. They will present what the City is calling a “special fiscal audit.”
What does that mean, and what are the results? Unknown because there is no staff report – not even a little introductory prose. This is in keeping with former City communications regarding the recently revealed erroneous assignments of millions into General Fund reserves – money that was supposed to go elsewhere. The last post FFFF did on this subject in March pointed out the condescending gobbledygook press release that emanated from City Hall. I believe this “audit” was commissioned to address the big errors and allay fears that some sort of malfeasance took place.
I hope that Messrs. Shawn Stewart and Charles Mayes (CPA) of Grant Thornton will present something real simple. Like maybe a diagram, or a flow chart to explain how these bogus transactions took place. Where did the money come from, where did it go, and when was it fixed? One hopes there will be no verbal or logical gymnastics to dodge assignment of responsibility. Does one hope in vain? And of course please let us know:
What are the true balances in General Fund and Capital Improvement Reserves.
Item #12 on the agenda is a report on staff vacancies and retention recruitment efforts required, as usual, by a nosey and intrusive State legislature. I’m not sure what the purpose of the law is, but the information contained in the report is worth considering. According to staff there are currently 65 vacancies, two thirds of which are non sworn, general public employees. 65 vacancies is about 10% of the total labor force.
In past years the vacancy rate has done as high as 25% in Fiscal Year 21/22.
Here’s the issue. How many of these vacant positions are included in the current 25/26 budget deliberations? All of them? Some cities use a “vacancy factor” in their budgeting – an estimate of how many vacancies will be unfilled in the fiscal year. Does Fullerton do this? They should if they don’t.
I also note that the labor force in Fullerton is up 7% since 22/23 even as dire predictions of the structural deficit were publicized. Why did this happen? The architect of past city budgets, City Manager Eric Levitt quit and took a higher paying job in San Bernardino last year so no answer will be forthcoming from him.
As an example of a recruitment the staff report includes this graphic from last fall:
An Associate Planner goes for $84K to $108K per annum – not counting benefits and pension costs, of course. If those are generally calculated at a modest 25% we can assume this Associate Planner will cost the taxpayers around $120,000 a year, which I think is fairly reasonable.
If we assume the average total cost of those 65 vacant positions is, say, a conservative $100,000, then we are looking at an annual cost of $6,500,000. That closes a lot of budget deficit, right there.
Pro sales tax advocates will claim there is a vital quality-of-life issue at stake, as if the number of public employees in City Halls guarantees such a concept; these vacant jobs are key to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness in Fullerton. The same alliance of cops, “firefighters” and local City Hall camp followers who pushed Measure S in 2020 will claim it to be so. These are the same folks who get guaranteed defined benefit pensions, step pay increases, etc. They make no sacrifices and are rarely asked to do so. That task falls upon the citizenry.
