Derek Smith and the Wearin’ O’ the Green on the Fiscal Sustainability Committee

Last fall a silly committee was created by the City Council to pretend to explore ways to raise Fullerton’s public revenue. It’s gone by the hopeful name “Fiscal Sustainability Committee.”

No one really believed this “ad hoc” committee was meant to do anything but to propose some sort of sales tax increase, and that’s exactly what they did this week at what looked to be their final meeting. Of course there were only 4 members present and they split on whether to propose a general sales tax increase or special sales taxes aimed at “public safety” and infrastructure.

But this predictable and inconclusive conclusion is not what my post is about.

This post is about a guy named Derek Smith, one of the appointees to this committee, lifted out of obscurity by none other than Councilman “Dr.” Ahmad Zahra.

Guess what a very quick search reveals? Smith was not a random appointment based on apparent fiscal experience. Derek Smith is the political operative for the UFCW 324, the grocery store worker’s local union. Does that ring a bell? It should. Derek was clearly the mastermind of the national HQ’s $60,000 contribution to an “independent” political action committee dedicated to electing Vivian Kitty Jaramillo last fall. The origin of that money suggests a much darker source: the local SoCal MJ dispensary cartel.

That’s a lot of green from the produce section. How come? Because the OCFW 324 represents workers in the local marijuana dispensary business, part of a wider cartel that has been trying, with the help of Ahmad Zahra, to crack into Fullerton for several years. Jaramillo was going to be their Golden Ticket for a revived marijuana ordinance.

So Smith’s real fiscal experience consists of blowing $60K of somebody else’s cabbage on the S.S. Jaramillo.

Mr. Smith made the news in Anaheim a couple years ago getting a suite at the Honda Center courtesy of Mayor Aitken after pushing $140,000 in her direction.

Backscratching is fun – with other people’s money…

Back to Fullerton, Cannabis Jaramillo’s loss to Jamie Valencia was disastrous to Zahra in so many ways, not the least of which could his apparent utility to the MJ cartel.

Anyhow, at the end of the meeting Smith voted to recommend a general sales tax increase for Fullerton to deal with our fiscal crisis, although in the front of his mind must surely have been the idea revenue from the sale of cannabis products – good for the budget, good for his union.

Fullerton’s Committees and Commissions. What Are They Good For?

Well, the answer to that question depends on who you are and what you want.

Last Tuesday’s Fullerton City Council agenda featured an item to modify some of the current roster of committees and commissions. The idea was to schedule fewer meetings for some, get rid of “at-large” members in others and in one case, the Active Transportation Committee, roll it into the Transportation and Circulation Committee. The Planning Commission was to be expanded to seven members by adding two at-large members.

Naturally, the true nature of these committees and what they actually accomplish was not part of the discussion.

Almost no city committees are legally necessary according to State law – except, I believe, Library Boards and Planning Commissions. The rest are there, presumably, to give the public a chance to contribute to the charming swindle known as participatory government. This is almost always a fiction, as anybody who has spent any time watching these shows, knows. The committees are little better than rubber stamps.

Never in doubt…

City staff likes committees because it gives them a chance to build momentum behind one of their pet projects – to create an aura of inevitability about this or that. It’s an opportunity to go to the City Council and explain the unanimous support for their item. And if, perchance, a committee shows a little independence then their ideas and their votes are mere suggestions with no legal standing.

Some of the bureaucratic enthusiasm for committees must have waned a bit when Fullerton went to direct Council appointments a few years back. Previously choices were made by review panels made up of council and committee members who could be relied on to pick “sound” people, that is, folks who could be trusted not to rock the proverbial boat.

Application denied…

In the olden days staff liked larger committees. The reasoning seemed to be that the more members you had the more impotent the commission really was.

City Council members like to put friends and allies on committees, and, in the case of the Planning Commission, maybe even someone moving up in Fullerton’s political arena. This is how you build a political machine: you help people, they help you.

It is not uncommon that if there is an annoying member of the public, an irritant at Council meetings, he or she might just be shut up by being put on a committee, becoming part of the team, so to speak. It worked shockingly often. John Henry Habermeyer, Estelle Geddy Professor of Political Science and Economics at RPI for many years, describes the scenario eloquently:

The answer is to asphyxiate the irritant in a smothering embrace; to draw said miscreant into the circle of government itself by appointing this him to some footling committee or other, thereby causing him to voluntarily silence himself in deference to the grand fraternity to which he has been officially welcomed. He has a name plate; perhaps even a coveted parking space! Many an underdeveloped  and agitated ego has been assuaged by such a maneuver and its proprietor thereby silenced.

Committee members who are not impatient with bureaucratic doubletalk like to be on committees, especially if they can sit up on the dais in the City Council chamber. It makes them feel good about things, an ego boost.

Of course the public is completely unaware or even interested in committee meetings which are almost always held in empty rooms.

Since almost everybody seems to like the current set-up, why the proposed alterations? The staff report referred to economies, efficiencies, and such-like. The verbiage didn’t sound very heart-felt or persuasive and the reader gets the impression of a top down diktat from Mayor Fred Jung to clean things up.

In the end most of the proposed reductions to five directly appointed members of certain commissions was approved, which is basically a smart move. The inconsistent proposal to increase the Planning Commission membership to seven (actually the way it used to be) failed. The motion to keep it the way it is passed 3-2 with Fred Jung and Jamie Valencia voting no.

On a side note, Fullerton Boohoo was at the meeting to display their unhappiness. Why not? The altar of probity, the Fullerton Observer had tried to stir up opposition earlier with one of their editorial/news mishmashes. The funniest part of this effort was to explain that these committees help keep staff “accountable,” an obvious misdirection from the Kennedy Sisters who have never cared about staff accountability before.

Whether or not the changes would have saved anybody time or money is debatable. What is not debatable is that these footling committees are there to look like public participation is going on, when it hardly ever is.

ACLU Joins EFF and Reporter’s Committee In Support of FFFF

ACLU, EFF, RCFP, ACLU SoCal
The ACLU, ACLU of SoCal, EFF & RCFP Join FFFF

Yesterday the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), the ACLU of Southern California & the Electronic Freedom Foundation (EFF) filed a joint amicus brief in support of us here at Friend’s for Fullerton’s Future in our ongoing legal battle with the City of Fullerton. Here’s a sample:

“Rather than accept responsibility for its own failure to limit public access to information, the City instead is attempting to stretch computer crime laws to punish those journalists—first, for uncovering unflattering information and, later, for publishing it.”

Likewise, The Reporter’s Committee for Freedom of the Press filed a separate amicus brief supporting FFFF against the City of Fullerton. Here’s a sample:

“Amicus is not aware of any case where a federal or state anti-hacking law has been misused so brazenly to target routine newsgathering—namely, the collection of government information available to any internet user.”

On the City’s side of the ledger is an amicus filed by the League of California Cities – a group the City PAYS to belong to with your tax money and they managed to argue nothing relevant to the case. Here’s a sample:

“However, hosting this information electronically presents a variety of cybersecurity issues for local governments, many of whom have limited budgets for network and security systems, outdated technology, and limited IT staff to implement organizational safeguards to protect against cybersecurity breaches and/or human error.”

They’re arguing that the City has a limited budget and it’s gosh darn tough to “implement organizational safeguards to protect against… human error”. I can’t laugh hard enough at that premise knowing their payroll and the gross negligence the city itself is claiming.

They’re all fascinating reads in different aspects.

Ultimately you know the City messed up big and that Jones & Mayer gave terrible legal advice when the ACLU et al are siding with us on the merits. The Fullerton City Council might want to consider taking a hard look at these new briefs before just blithely listening to Kim Barlow and The Other Dick Jones™ again.

I’d like to personally thank the ACLU, ACLU of SoCal, the EFF & the RCFP for their support in this exhausting case. Without their support, and the support you friends, this would be a much harder fight on all of us here at FFFF. It’s nice to have real allies when the other “journalism” outfit here in Fullerton enlisted a hack to fight against us.

Reporters Committee on Press Freedom Files Amicus Supporting FFFF

On Sunday, 03 November 2019, the Reporters Committee on Press Freedom released an article [HERE] outlining their read on the case against us. They see the overreach and concern to journalists being posed by Fullerton’s read on the law.

“The prior restraint sought here is, of course, concerning. But this is the first case we’re aware of where the computer crime laws have been misused so brazenly against members of the news media. First, the conduct alleged — accessing publicly available documents over the public internet — is clearly not hacking. A court finding that accessing publicly available documents over the public internet constitutes hacking would pose serious concerns for data journalists.”

Two days later, 05 Nov, the same day the City Council voted 4-1 to continue the lawsuit against this blog and two of your humble friends, the RCPF filed an amicus brief supporting us in our appeals court effort to overturn the Temporary Restraining Order issued against us.

You can read the entire RCFP Amicus Brief [HERE]. Some highlights are as follows.

The allegations:

“The essence of the City’s allegations in this case is that bloggers reporting on newsworthy matters of clear public interest (namely, potential government misconduct) violated federal and state hacking laws by accessing information that was made available online by the City to all the world. The City claims it is entitled not only to an extraordinary prior restraint on publication but also damages, in part for claims against the City for breach of confidentiality caused by the City’s own cybersecurity lapses.”

This was not hacking:

“If Amicus’s reading of the declaration of the City’s information technology expert is correct, one did not even need a username or password to access files in the Dropbox account maintained by the City, in which it commingled allegedly sensitive and privileged information with material that it affirmatively invited public records requesters to download.”

The theft from a “house” analogy doesn’t work:

“A public website, including the Dropbox account here, is not like a “house.” When an entity chooses to make information available to the public on the internet, without a technical access restriction like a password, that information can legally be accessed by anyone.”

VPNs/TOR are industry practice:

“It is true that the use of a VPN and Tor serves to protect user anonymity, and that “even some journalists routinely use” them. Id. Indeed, the use of such services is not only commonplace among journalists—it is a recommended industry practice.”

“Everyone should be using encrypted services and applications to protect their communications. In fact, in 2017, the American Bar Association’s Committee on Ethics and Legal Responsibility recommended that lawyers use “high level encryption” or other “strong protective measures” to protect sensitive client information.”

Read the whole thing, it’s worth it. We’ll bring more updates as they happen.

Commissions and Committees

The new city council is still soliciting applications for appointments to the committees and commissions that advise the council on various subjects. There are/will be openings in the following groups:

  • Planning Commission
  • Community Development Citizen’s Committee
  • Library Board of Trustees
  • Parks and Recreation Commission
  • Transportation and Circulation Commission
  • etc…

If you’re interested, fill out an application and drop it off with the city clerk. (Download the general committee application or download the Planning Commission application).

Applications are due tomorrow, July 31 at the end of the day.

Tonight: Citizen Committee Seeks Civilian Oversight of Fullerton Police Department

Citizen Committee Seeks Civilian Oversight of Fullerton Police Department in the Wake of Beating Death of Kelly Thomas, Reports of Abuse by Officers, Recent and Impending Lawsuits against FPD.

by Alex Stoffer

The Police Oversight Proposal Committee (POPC) will host a public presentation on methods of police oversight (tonight) Wednesday, July 11, 2012 from 6:30 to 8:00 pm at the Fullerton Public Library Conference Center. The public are invited to attend. There is no admission charge.

Citizen Oversight committees are composed of community members who review complaints, look into claims of misconduct and harassment, and investigate instances of excessive force.

Read the rest of this article…

Ad Hoc Citizens Committee to Council: Quit Ripping Us Off!!

Lou Ponsi of The OC Register authored this article on how the Fullerton Ad Hoc Water Rate Committee has unanimously decided to tell our esteemed City Council that the illegal 10% tax on our water bills should be stopped. Brave? Well, yes – for Fullerton.

To his credit, Ponsi omits the usual obligatory counter-argument floated by the Fullerton Establishment to defend the indefensible – whatever it may be. This could be because he even can’t find anyone to defend the unsupportable tax on a utility that goes to pay for the very pensions and perks of the City Councilmembers and staff themselves.

But of course Lou does not delve into the blatant stalling tactics of City Manager Joe Felz who has temporized, stalled, and delayed doing the right thing in order to wring yet another year’s $2,500,000 ill-gotten gain out of the Water Fund and the water rate payers.

 

Water Rate Study Ad Hoc Committee Calls On Council to Rescind Water Tax

Last night the Water Rate Study Ad Hoc Committee voted unanimously to recommend to the Fullerton City Council that the “in-lieu” franchise fee, or “water tax” as it has become known as, should be suspended indefinitely.

Another motion was made to recommend an audit of the Water Fund. The motion failed 5-5.

Some members stated they had enough reports and felt spending more money would not provide any answers. One member even said that no matter what is discovered in the audit, it would not be enough for some.

Others, like myself, feel it is a disservice to the public to not account for the misappropriated funds. As we look to answer the question of how much was overcharged to ratepayers, we realize we cannot arrive at a fact-based answer. Instead, the city’s staff will have the Ad Hoc Committee look at what could or perhaps should be charged to the Water Fund. That may be an appropriate step going forward but without an audit we will never know where our money went.

(more…)

The OCGOP Endorsements Committee Unanimously Recommends Sebourn & Whitaker

In a unanimous vote, Orange County’s GOP endorsements Committee endorsed Bruce Whitaker  to replace Shawn Nelson in the two year seat, and Greg Sebourn for the four year seat. Pat McKinley squeaked by with a 3-2 vote, but insiders believe the $215,000 pension double dipper  won’t pass muster when it comes to a vote of the full body.

Bruce entered political activism in 1992 when he became incensed at the largest federal tax increase in U.S. history and the largest state tax increase in California’s history under Governor Pete Wilson. He became active in the city of Fullerton the following year when he led a successful effort to recall a majority of the City Council and repeal unnecessary utility taxes. That repeal has saved more than $150 million for Fullerton taxpayers to date.

After the Orange County bankruptcy, Bruce Whitaker debated against tax proponents and authored numerous guest editorials which helped defeat a bankruptcy sales tax in 1995, resulting in more than $2.2 billion in California taxpayer savings.

Greg Sebourn is an FFFF blogger, a professional land surveyor and an educator at Santiago Canyon College. He’s relatively new to politics, but is very aware of the evils of redevelopment and the deficiencies in our current infrastructure.

Greg has some great ideas for saving money and improving public services in our city.

California GOP Initiatives Endorsement Committee Hashes Out Prop 22

Proposition 22 here, is an initiative supported by the California League of Cities and Redevelopment agencies and their lobbyists.

Voting yes on 22 would prohibit the State from restricting the use of tax revenues dedicated by law to fund local government services, community redevelopment projects, or transportation projects and services. It would prohibit the State from delaying the distribution of tax revenues for these purposes even when the Governor deems it necessary due to a severe state fiscal hardship.

The question boils down to whether the State should have the authority to redistribute redevelopment property tax increment funds and use it for schools, and fire departments.

The clip below was taken at the GOP  state convention held this past weekend in San Diego and features the Yes on 22 proponents debating State Assemblyman Chris Norby at the Endorsement Committee meeting. Each party was given 3 minutes to make their pitch, the Yes on 22 proponents spoke for 3-1/2 minutes, however when Assemblyman Norby was only 2-1/2 minutes into his speech (6:58) one of the 22 proponents rudely interrupted Norby and yelled “TIME” even though Norby still had 30 seconds left of his 3 minutes.

My next post will feature video footage of questions and answers by both Norby (No on 22) and the Yes on 22 proponents. There’s also a little treat at the very end of the clip, enjoy!