Only one correction. Mayor “Dick” Jones was not replaced; his term as mayor ran out. He will be permanently replaced on June 5th.

If you’ve watched the now infamous video of six overfed Fullerton cops beating the life out of Kelly Thomas and then standing around joking as he gasped for his last breaths in the street, a few feet away, you will have probably felt some pretty raw feelings. Disgust, anger, fear, pity, and sorrow are what we have all experienced.

Upon calmer reflection we can use the video to start piecing together what really happened and what motivated our “officers.” The behavior of Joe Wolfe stands out as the most egregious and makes me wonder how in the world he escaped charges by the District Attorney. Many have already stated the obvious: that DA Tony Rackaukas’ supposition that Wolfe could not know what was happening right in front of him, a mere 15 feet away is patently ridiculous. But even if we accept the unlikely plausibility of this convenient surmise, one unalterable fact remains: Joe Wolfe assaulted Kelly Thomas. We have all watched Wolfe emerge into the video frame when Kelly raises his arms, palms outward in a submissive gesture. At this point it would have still been possible for the bloated, oafish cops to de-escalate this situation. But instead Joe Wolfe for some as yet disclosed reason attacked Kelly with his baton, and Manuel Ramos joined in the fun. The murder had begun. And Kelly Thomas, accused of nothing, cited for nothing, guilty of  nothing was entering his last ten minutes of his life.

I don’t know about you Friends, but the fact that Officer Joe Wolfe is not only walking free, but actually still getting a Fullerton paycheck makes me nauseous. The fact that my tax dollars are paying this thug’s salary makes me feel even sicker, and somewhat accountable, especially if I don’t do something about it. I’m sure I’m not alone.

Hell, if anyone were caught beating an animal in such manner as the way those goons treated a human being, they would be in prison.

So what do we do? Provide helpful suggestion in the comments thread.

An Open Letter to Doug Chaffee

April 23, 2012

Dear Mr. Chaffee:

I support the recall effort and will vote in favor of removing all three councilmen on June 5th.  I support the statements made on the Notice of Intent to Recall, and I believe any candidate running to replace a recalled councilman should believe the same.

I saw this on Euclid today.  The homeowner seems to be on both sides of the fence.  It begs the question: Are you?

Um, anyone miss the irony?

The rumor mill is spinning around town.  It claims that you’re proud to receive Pat McKinley’s endorsement of your candidacy should the recall succeed; and worse publicly stated as much during a fundraising event at the Pint House several weeks ago.  If this is true, this is not compatible with the Notice of Intent to Recall.  You have to pick a side and you have to do so definitively.

In fact, I demand you take one of four positions immediately.

1) If you have stated that you’re proud to receive McKinley’s backing, you must withdraw your candidacy from the special election on June 5th.  This statement does not meet with the spirit of the recall and is insulting to the electorate.  Candidates not supporting the spirit of the recall should not be on the ballot.  Just because you had some extra campaign signs sitting around from 2010 doesn’t mean you’re entitled to run.

2) If you find it morally acceptable to be proud of McKinley’s endorsement of your candidacy, state so in bold letters on all your campaign literature, website, Facebook account, and during any public appearances you make.  Failure to be transparent on this issue is dishonest.

3) If you’re not proud of McKinley’s endorsement, state loudly and often that you’ve signed the recall petition and outline why Pat McKinley needs to go.  Demand that those posting propaganda against the recall remove your name from their lawns.  Take a stance and make it clear that no supporter of Pat McKinley is a supporter of yours.

4) Do nothing.  If you ignore this open letter and succeed in your candidacy, count on being recalled.

Sincerely,

Ryan Cantor

P.S. Dear Friends, just to show what a small world it is, after all, the property above is the residence of one Beatriz Gregg, mater familias of the Gregg clan that includes our old pal Aaron, whose 2010 campaign was, um, something of a personal embarrassment.

Here’s the title of Sylvia Mudrick’s press release describing Tuesday night’s council action with regard to Fullerton’s illegal 10% water tax: ”Council approves eliminating franchise fee on water rates.” That’s not true. Yes, the council voted to stop transferring the illegal tax to the city’s General Fund, but they most certainly did not approve to eliminate the franchise fee on water rates – just the transfer, which means we will keep paying the illegal tax into some sort of escrow fund until a Prop 218 hearing can be held – the Prop 218 hearing that should have been held 15 years ago! Of course in the meantime there is no legal requirement to hold a Prop 218 hearing to quit collecting the 10%; and it looks like Quirky and Whitaker got sideswiped on the scam that will put another $400,000 in the escrow account as City manager Joe Felz tries to cook up a scheme to hang on to as much of that annual $2,500,000 he can.

But back to Mudrick: of course she has been happily peddling pro-city baloney for years, and as a retiree she is still doing it, now as a double-dipper.

The worst part of the press release is the bogus recitation of the history of the water tax, conveniently omitting the fact that periodic complaints have been coming from citizens since at least the early 1990s. Syl would have you believe that it was the City that brought this scam to light and that they have been proactive. Wrong. The City has been hiding this massive scam for decades; the tax has been patently illegal since 1997,  and everybody in authority in City Hall knew it, a fact curiously omitted by our highly pensioned and still remunerated Public Misinformation Officer.

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
PRESS RELEASE #09312               4/18/2012

Subject :Council approves eliminating franchise fee on water rates
Contact :Sylvia Palmer Mudrick, Public Information Coordinator, Fullerton City Manager’s Office
(714) 738-6317

The Fullerton City Council voted at its Tuesday (April 17) meeting to eliminate the transfer of a franchise fee charged on water rates in the city, effective May 1.

The water franchise fee was first adopted in 1968 when the council assessed a fee of 2 percent of the Water Fund as a means of reimbursing the costs to the city’s general fund for operating a water utility.  The fee was raised to 10 percent in 1970.

In fiscal 2010-11, the city’s general fund received approximately $2.5 million from the water franchise fee.

The franchise fee came under review in 2009-10 at the conclusion of a five-year water rate study.  At that time, the council formed an Ad Hoc Water Rate Advisory Committee composed of citizens who were tasked with studying all facets of operation of the city water system.

In conjunction with its action Tuesday, the council directed the Ad Hoc Water Rate Advisory Committee to study and make recommendations on a method for the city to charge for the direct cost of operating the water system.

In addition, the council asked the committee to make recommendations on a method for reimbursing citizens for the actual cost of the franchise fee paid for the past three years.

Further information about the council action may be obtained by calling the Fullerton City Clerk’s Office at (714) 738-6350.  Further information about the franchise fee and the water rate study may be obtained by calling the Fullerton Water Engineering Office at (714) 738-6845.

The following communication landed in the FFFF hopper yesterday complaining about the recall, etc. It is just so deliciously disjointed, illogical, misinformed, and well, crackpotty that it deserves to be shared with the friends.

I resent having literature sent to my home on the recall.  I think this is nothing but a witch hunt.  The Support the Fullerton Recall/Water Tax paper sent to my home doesn’t mention the other board members.  This tax was voted in 15 years ago and how many council members and city managers knew about this? Why are you only mentioning the three?  What about the others?  I think if you have enough money to be sending slanted info the citizens of Fullerton, you could certainly use it to a better advantage.  I feel terrible about the Kelly case, but I don’t think only 3 board members need to be blamed.  From the beginning you have pointed fingers to the three.  What did they not vote on that you find they need to be recalled for?  Don’t we all have our own opinions and have the right to express them.  We might not all agree, but that doesn’t constitute a recall.  I think you should call off the hounds and get on with the business at hand.  What has the council voted against that has Tony Bushala upset about?  Does it have something to do with redevelopment money?  Let’s hear about that.

It’s very interesting that this unfortunate soul has been told by somebody that the illegal water tax was actually “voted in” 15 years ago.

Click to read

Then, in September of 1997, the Water Fund issue rises again as the priorities for Hill Crest Park were being considered.  The Water Fund and Redevelopment Fund were being eyed as the primary funding source.

The City’s consultant tried to explain why these funds could be used.  His logic?  If a new waterline and reservoir were to be installed, many of the other park improvements could be logically tied to the water work.

Marie Whaling and Barbara Marr asked questions about the use of Redevelopment Funds and Water Funds for the park.

Mayor Norby explained that Redevelopment Funds were to be used for alleviating blight.  He went on to say that the concerns expressed regarding funding sources are legitimate and that Water Fund monies are for water purposes and expenditures must be related to water and its delivery.

Click to read

Click to read

For a period of time I knew the man six Fullerton officers killed last July. His name was  Kelly Thomas and I liked him. As I was walking to my car in the Fullerton Ralphs shopping center, a man, when seeing my “Justice for Kelly” button, said to me that if I cared this much about Kelly when he was alive, he would still be alive. I was pretty baffled at that statement, but then I saw the “NO RECALL! FULLERTON IS NOT FOR SALE” sticker on the back of this big boy’s Jazzy Jeff scooter and it all made imperfect sense. “Hey brother,” I yelled, “just because you …..” That’s as far as I got before I knew it was not worth it. Besides, you don’t look very dignified yelling at someone who is relegated to a scooter.

I know that Kelly was loved by his family, and I know that Kelly was welcome to stay at any number of relatives’ homes, and for periods of time, he did. I know what six of our police officers did to him, and I know how Dick Jones, Don Bankhead and Pat McKinley, the three councilmen now facing a recall, reacted publicly to his death. Their lack of urgency, their lack of outrage, and the insensitive treatment to Kelly’s family, after what in my mind may be the most shameful 10 minutes in this city’s history, rises well beyond what even I expected from these three men. I’ve witnessed their disdain for the victim and his supporters firsthand at many council meetings. I witnessed it again watching TV interviews, where their ignorance was broadcast across the county. These old  mens’ desperate need for order trumped any need for truth. They lied and tried to spin the story at every opportunity, at times to ridiculous proportions. Dick Jones even tried to diminish Kelly’s injuries by saying he had seen worse in Vietnam. When the DMZ becomes the go-to reference point for downtown Fullerton, we have a serious problem. In light of this, the “NO RECALL! FULLERTON IS NOT FOR SALE” signs mean nothing to me.

Read the rest of “Fullerton Was Sold 20 Years Ago And The Recall Is How We Pay For Her Emancipation” on theFullertonian.com

Oh, no! Not again!

Last fall anti-recallers wanted folks to believe that everything in Fullerton’s great and it was just a wholesome family town. Of course the facts are that City Councilmembers Bankhead, Jones and McKinley have turned downtown Fullerton into an all night free for all of drugged-up, boozing, fighting, defecating thugs from who knows where. And of course an out-of-control gang of badged thugs was deployed to try to keep the other thugs in line.

All of this is just a long preamble to advertise the fact that another shooting took place in Downtown Fullerton early this morning, in the parking structure in the 100 block of east Wilshire Avenue.

Who benefits from this mayhem besides the liquor peddlers? Ask Bankhead or Jones or McKinley next time you see them.

When you’re getting top-notch service you might not be inclined to quibble much about the price. But if you’re being provided law enforcement services from an organization that has employed perverts, perjurers, thugs, con men, pickpockets, and killers; and that has, and will ring up millions more in costly civil lawsuit judgments and settlements, you may not be inclined to feel so charitable.

Here are some interesting facts on the per capita cost of law enforcement services from some surrounding towns. The formula is pretty simple: take the total 2011-12 budgeted cost for the cops (lock stock and gun barrel), and divide by the number of people in the city based on the 2010 US Census data. The results are interesting.

The 60,000 citizens of the City of La Habra pay $15,000,000 for their police force, and that equates to $250 per capita. In Placentia the 50,500 inhabitants budgeted just over $11,000,000 for their cops for a figure of $219, per capita. The City of Yorba Linda pays the Brea PD $11.3 million to police its mean streets at about $176, per capita. The Orange County Sheriff’s Department has just submitted a proposal to do the basic job for $9.6 million, or just under $150 per person.

In Fullerton the budgeted cost of the Police Department for 2011-12 is $37,259,455. For the $135,161 people of Fullerton that equates to $276, each.

Why does the Fullerton Police Department cost so much more than surrounding jurisdictions with smaller departments, and hence with less opportunity for economies to scale? Well, there’s a jail to operate, I guess. Other that I haven’t got a clue. You’ll have to ask Jones, or Bankhead, or McKinley or maybe one of their supporters. They must know. After all they are boasting about their support from the law enforcement union.

I know I said that. But that was way back yesterday!

Tuesday was a big day for Fullerton Mayor Sharon Quirk Silva. Only the day before Quirk-Silva had issued a bold press release to her pals in the liberal blogosphere stating that she was going to request that her colleagues on the city council suspend the illegal 10% water tax. She even helpfully explained why the new 6.7% number was a load of manure.

Here’s what she said, quoted verbatim from a press release sent to an admiring Liberal OC:  “I will also call upon members of the city council to join me in a motion to stop any further diversions of water revenues to the general fund until these questions are answered,” Mayor Quirk-Silva asserted.

Naturally, when the chips were down, SQS chickened out. Don’t believe me? Here she is, right after Councilman Bruce Whitaker made the motion she herself had said she was going to make, that is, agendize the suspension of the illegal 10% tax on our water. 

Click here to view the embedded video.

Oops.

Well, there you have it. Quirk decided to side with the blowhard who attended (and fell asleep at) the Water Rate Ad Hoc Committee meeting, and put off the decision to do the right thing for some other day.

The courage of Monday morning evaporated by the next afternoon.

What a leader!