Sanka Kennedy Exposed By Fran J

An interesting post popped up on the Fullerton Observer blog yesterday. It isn’t interesting because of content. It’s interesting because it was actually advertised as an opinion piece for a change; and it has an named author: Skasia, one half of the intellectually challenged Kennedy Sisters who publish the Observer. Because of this latter fact, the post is chock full of misinformation, weak generalizations, and double talk. Of course it is completely unpersuasive.

The topic? The awfulness of charter cities in California, and a list of supposed reasons to fear and loathe them.

Somebody called “Fran J” responded with a comment methodically dismembering all of Snakia’s talking points. Here’s what Fran J had to say, and please note the final two paragraphs of Fran J’s comment:

Fran J

May 11, 2025 at 12:36 pm

The opposition to Fullerton becoming a charter city isn’t rooted in facts or public interest—it’s rooted in political bias and a reflexive rejection of anything introduced by Mayor Fred Jung. The arguments raised against charter status collapse under scrutiny, and publications like the Fullerton Observer, which should be advocating for local empowerment, have instead chosen to stoke fear and misinformation.

Sacramento is not slowing down. From housing mandates to labor laws, the state continues to erode the power of cities to govern themselves. Charter status is the most effective legal tool we have to protect our autonomy. It doesn’t mean we ignore state law—it means we have the power to decide when and how to apply it in local matters.

Fullerton deserves better than to be handcuffed by outdated state mandates. We are a city of educators, entrepreneurs, artists, and families who care deeply about where we live. We have the intelligence, the creativity, and the civic pride to shape our own future—and the charter is the legal framework that lets us do just that.

Claim: Charter cities reduce accountability and invite corruption.
Reality: Charter cities still operate under California’s transparency laws, including the Brown Act, the Public Records Act, and the Political Reform Act. Nothing about becoming a charter city removes oversight or ethics requirements. In fact, a city charter gives residents the power to implement even stricter ethics rules, term limits, or transparency standards than state law requires. Suggesting otherwise ignores both the law and reality.

Claim: Charter cities concentrate power in the hands of a few elected officials.
Reality: This is a talking point, not a truth. Charter cities are governed by documents written with public input and approved by the voters themselves. That’s democracy—not consolidation. It’s ironic that the people making this argument seem far more concerned with who proposed the idea (Mayor Jung) than with the content of the proposal itself. The fear of power concentration is a distraction from the real issue: whether Fullerton should control its own local affairs or remain bound to Sacramento’s one-size-fits-all mandates.

Claim: Charter cities face more lawsuits and cost taxpayers more money.
Reality: Any city—charter or general law—can face legal challenges. The legal risks are not higher simply because a city adopts a charter; they only rise if a city writes a sloppy or reckless charter, which Fullerton has every opportunity to avoid through proper public process and expert input. More importantly, charter cities have more flexibility to reduce costs in public contracting, land use, and local services, often saving taxpayers money long term.

Claim: It will silence public voices.
Reality: This argument couldn’t be more backwards. Charter adoption requires public engagement, input, hearings, and a vote. If residents don’t support a specific provision, they can vote it down or demand it be changed. The process invites deeper civic participation—far more than passively following distant state mandates.

Claim: Charter cities can raise taxes more easily.
Reality: False. Charter cities are still bound by Prop 13, Prop 218, and Prop 26—meaning no new local taxes can be imposed without voter approval. The only thing charter status allows is greater efficiency in how cities spend public money—not how they raise it.

Claim: It isolates Fullerton from state or county support.
Reality: There is no evidence whatsoever to support this. Charter cities still receive state funding, participate in county programs, and are eligible for grants. Nearly 125 cities in California are charter cities—including Anaheim, Santa Ana, Irvine, and Huntington Beach. None of them have been “cut off” from support. This is fear-based rhetoric, not grounded in fact.

Let’s be honest—the real reason groups like the Fullerton Observer are opposing charter status has nothing to do with policy and everything to do with politics. If this proposal had come from anyone other than Mayor Fred Jung, many of these same critics would likely be praising it as a progressive step toward local empowerment. Instead, they’ve allowed pettiness to dictate their stance, opposing a good idea simply because of who introduced it.

Fullerton deserves better than performative outrage and knee-jerk contrarianism. This isn’t a small town that needs to be told what to do by Sacramento. This is a proud, capable community that can write its own rules, shape its own future, and trust its own residents. Becoming a charter city is a powerful step in that direction—and it’s time to stop letting political grudges get in the way of progress.

ED Response: Wow Fran J – you seem to know a lot about this subject though not everyone agrees. We do have a lot of problems to pay attention to and spend our limited funding on. This seems – to many – to be something that will not be helpful. I agree with you that a study session presenting all sides would be useful. In the past Fred Jung and the council majority have terminated the contract of an excellent City Manager for no reason at great expense and hired an unemployed friend who was not up to the job, tried to privatize the public library, end the UP Trail, and did end Walk on Wilshire – and more – so are not trusted by many who live here and want those things.

Unfortunately “ED” felt constrained to exercise a nasty, unprofessional habit that still plagues Siskyu. “Wow” she says, sarcastically trying to denigrate the commenter. Of course she may just be that surprised that someone actually bothered to read her tripe. She slips up and says she’s for a “study session” but that’s a lie, of course. Then Sakia trails off into a litany of Fullerton Boohoo grievances against Fred Jung and the council majority for:

1. firing an “excellent” City Manager (ED Note: Ken Domer was an incompetent boob)
2. trying to privatize the library (ED Note: and when did this happen?)
3. end the UP Trail (ED Note: the UP trail has always been an absurd boondoggle, but the majority did approve it.
4. end the Walk on Wilshire (ED Note: yes – an idea so damn stupid, and so bad for Wilshire Avenue businesses only a dunce couldn’t see it)
5. “and more” (ED Note: what’s the matter Sanka, too busy soliciting mortuary ads to spin more mythology?)
6. not trusted by many who want those things (ED Note: many people want many things, and many people can be manipulated into believing falsehoods about things they say they want. That’s just demagoguery, and that’s we have representative democracy.

My own favorite part of the editorial was this hilarious hypocritical line from Saksia:

– Charter cities can impose local taxes with significantly fewer restrictions, placing the financial burden squarely on the community.

Since when have the Kennedy Sisters or any of their tribe given a rat’s ass about the ease of raising taxes, except to make it easier. I wonder if Sanka even pays any taxes at all.

A close second for unintentional hilarity was Skiana’s assertion that a charter city would be more expensive in legal costs, another topic that Fullerton Observers have never shown interest in the past as Dick Jones racked up billing based on his own legal misjudgment. More self-unawareness: Sharon Kennedy actually tried to help the City in its absurd and losing legal harassment of Joshua Ferguson, David Curlee, and FFFF. That lawsuit cost the taxpayers plenty.

And even more, later yesterday. Enjoy.

Fran J

May 11, 2025 at 3:38 pm

Yes, I am very familiar with this subject. As a former municipal attorney, I have experience with local governance and legal frameworks. You’re welcome to disagree, but there is a difference between opinion and fact—I’ve provided the latter for readers to consider.

That said, you’re actually reinforcing my point. Your response appears heavily influenced by personal grievances with the Mayor—many of which are either inaccurate or irrelevant to the issue at hand. It’s important for your readers to understand that, as the editor of this publication, you’re approaching this topic with a strong and evident bias.

Readers deserve transparency, not personal vendettas disguised as civic concern.

ED Response: I have no personal grievance with anyone on our council. I was merely listing some of the reasons many in our town do not trust the current majority to make good decisions on our city’s behalf. For instance at the most recent council meeting the majority allowed a memorial plaque for a historic building in honor of a KKK member and at the same meeting banned our university newspaper Daily Titan and the 46-year-old all local volunteer community newspaper Fullerton Observer from continuing to have a rack in the lobby of city hall. You may have read about that in the OC Register, LA Times, Voice of OC, the LAist, or heard about it on NPR or other news agencies or from various Free Speech agencies. These, and other decisions have made residents suspicious of our council majority.

Saska has no personal grievance with anyone on our council. Now that’s hilarious.