The City of Fullerton is spending your money to promote a new sales tax to you. They want you to vote yes on Measure S in order to raise the sales tax in Fullerton. Don’t be a sucker.
True, they’re promising roads and infrastructure and all of the goodies that government is supposedly designed to provide. The problem is that they spend exactly ZERO of your local taxes on these things right now.
Zero of your Property Taxes go to the roads and infrastructure. Zero of your Sales Taxes go to the roads and infrastructure.
It’s the same with all of the fees and permits, licenses and so forth.
Despite taxing people in Fullerton to the tune of over $97 Million dollars, not one dime goes to the most basic of road work. Seems like we could fill a lot of potholes with +/- $97 Million dollars a year.
So how does our little amount of road work happen?
After the City squanders all of the tax money you give them directly, mostly on salaries and benefits, they then rely on OTHER government agencies to tax you further in order to do the terrible job they do on keeping your city nice. Remember SB1? When Newman jacked up the taxes on every gallon of gas you buy? Yeah, that was because your city government doesn’t actually care about your city and they use the State (where your vote barely matters) as bad cop to their incompetent cop.
Here’s a snippet from Fullerton’s budget to outline my point:
Don’t worry, they promise they’ll spend more if you give them more
That “-” denotes exactly zip, zilch, nadda dollars.
The City Council of Fullerton cares so deeply about keeping your city nice that they can’t be bothered to allocate a single dollar out of the $97Million General Fund – a General Fund that comes directly from your property & sales taxes – to basic upkeep.
I cannot stress this point enough.
Oh they’ll promise that they pave “8 miles of road a year” or whatever hogwash they’re peddling during election season, but in reality they can’t be bothered to tell a single union “No” in order to keep the alignment of your car from freaking out.
So where DOES that money go? Here’s a chart that sums it up:
What a coincidence that those lines match up so nicely…
That is a chart from our own David Curlee showing Fullerton’s Property & Sales taxes that you pay laid next to the amount the City spends on Police & Fire. Notice how they line up? The Police Department eats every single dollar (and some) brought in to the City through Property Taxes and Fire eats all of your Sales Taxes. They don’t do that directly of course, they have accounting gimmicks and various funds to try and hide this from you but this is basic math minus bureaucratic bullshittery we’re showing you.
That’s right. That’s where ALL of your money goes and a large chunk of that is to pensions for guys who retire at 55 and will outlive all of us.
And along comes Measure S.
Much like Newman’s SB1 lie, Measure S is full of promises that require you to suspend disbelief and history in order to believe. The same city that prioritizes precisely ZERO of those $97 Million in taxes to keeping up our infrastructure NOW wants you to believe that they can be trusted to do the right thing with Millions more of your money if you give it to them.
Don’t do it. Don’t believe them. Don’t trust them. Don’t give them another dime of your money until they learn how to prioritize spending what they already take from all of us every year.
If you give them more money, they will absolutely spend every dollar on whatever strikes their fancy and when your roads still suck in years to come they’ll put their hat back in their hands and start the begging all over again. End this abusive relationship. They don’t steal from you because they love you, they do it because you won’t fight back.
It’s supposed to be illegal to use public resources in support of ballot initiatives, but of course the concept of illegality only applies to losers like you and me, and not to government agencies.
Here’s an example of the City of Fullerton blatantly using your money to propagandize you about the proposed sales tax increase, Measure S.
Tell me how this is not obvious political campaign propaganda from start to finish.
Anti Measure K activist Tony Bushala has lodged a formal request to OC District Attorney Todd Spitzer to investigate whether Fullerton Joint Union High School personnel illegally campaigned for the March 3rd bond effort.
Okay, do something…we dare ya.
According to State law, it is impermissible to expend public resources on behalf of an election. It’s a crime. Public agencies do it all the time, of course, and generally do it with impunity. Sometimes it’s subtle, sometimes it’s flagrant. Yet rarely does anybody challenge the behavior. But Mr. Bushala has. Below is a facsimile of an e-mail he sent to Spitzer today.
FFFF has already noted the school district personnel intimately involved in the K scam, and the idea that no district resources were used in the campaign is laughable. The District has already been caught using graduation tickets to bribe kids into “volunteering” for the campaign. Likewise school fences were used for pro-K banners. It’s easily conceivable that the people listed in the campaign reports used District communication networks and even physical space to try to foist K on the taxpayers.
Well, good luck Tony in your endeavor. You’ve already helped save home owners hundreds of million on the K and J grabs.
Why write about news when you can try to make your own! (Photo by Julie Leopo/Voice of OC)
Yes, indeed. In an editorial masquerading as some sort of news, Fullerton Observer sister Sikita Kennedy explained the failure of government and the ways in which that failure is dressed up to look like victory. This article appears to be an AI generated creation since the estimable Satskia has never shown this sort of perspicuity in the past, but, whatever. After you weed out the jargon some fundamental management truths emerge.
The topic of course is something almost nobody gives a rat’s ass about: getting rid of bike lockers at the train station, the reason given that they are underused. The awkward title shouts out “Fullerton’s Bicycle Lockers Spark Controversy Among Cyclists” as if an inanimate object has such puissance. Naturally, it’s the removal of said lockers that is causing Siska herself grief; not a solitary cyclist is interviewed or quoted in her essay.
But I digress. The topic is inconsequential, but the analysis of failure is quite remarkable and completely uncharacteristic. Kennedy seems to have finally discovered the cultural behavior of government bureaucracies that we have known all along. Let’s enjoy some of the fruits of her editorial labors:
Organizations in crisis rarely announce themselves as such.More often, they produce charts, reports, and performance metrics that tell a reassuring story — one that, on closer inspection, was shaped by the same decisions it purports to evaluate. This is one of the quieter dangers of institutional mismanagement: it doesn’t just damage an organization, it can generate the evidence that justifies its own continuation.
How perfectly true, and so descriptive of almost every staff and study report ever produced in Fullerton. The classic dodge is to answer a question that nobody asked.
“…a dispute over bicycle lockers is offering a textbook example of how low performance, manufactured by neglect, gets cited as the reason to eliminate the very thing being neglected.
Yes, indeed. Sort of sounds like the death-march noise ordinance fiasco, doesn’t it, wherein City failure to enforce codes results in the push to abandon the process of code enforcement altogether.
When managers make poor decisions, they typically face two options: change course or defend the course they’re on. Defense, in institutional settings, almost always involves data. The problem is that those same managers often control what data gets collected, how it gets measured, and how it gets reported.
Good Lord, Satkia, has had her come to Jesus revelation! The truth may yet set her free! How often have we seen a circling of the wagons, the manipulation of information to reinforce the error? Mostly data collection, crooked or otherwise, isn’t even necessary. Convoluted rhetoric often does the trick. Option number one never takes place.
A leader who has misallocated resources will tend to measure success in ways that don’t reveal the misallocation. A department head who has pursued the wrong strategy will frame performance indicators around the metrics where progress is easiest to show. Over time, the organization’s entire information infrastructure bends toward confirming decisions already made.
This is something we’ve seen time and time again. Throw out the jargon and it means this: “look over there.” The misdirection is so common as to be commonplace. This is what will happen when the City’s disastrous “fire fighter” ambulance driver chickens come home to the proverbial roost.
This is the classic mismanagement data trap: measuring outputs rather than outcomes, and then using those outputs to validate the decisions that produced them.
Amen, Sister, testify!
The “data trap” of measuring outputs was nowhere better seen than on the horrendously useless Trail to Nowhere, where the efforts were all about building something expensive and then patting yourself on the back for…building something expensive. But that wasn’t about a few piddling bike lockers, no, but the waste of $2,500,000, an irony lost on the Fullerton Observer editorial staff of two. The Observer Sisters will never expend a moment’s time worrying about actual users (or complete lack of same) on the “trail.”
One of the most common tools in this playbook is selective periodization — choosing a start date for measurement that makes current numbers look favorable by comparison. Applied to civic infrastructure, this often means measuring usage after a program has already been allowed to deteriorate, rather than tracking the arc from functional to neglected.
How funny. Siskia has had her epiphany, alright, but it sure is a selective enlightenment. Remember when staff tried to keep the ridiculous Waste on Wilshire going by citing low traffic on Wilshire after the street had been closed!
Organizations under poor leadership often commission external reviews that appear to provide independent accountability but are structured to confirm decisions already made. The questions given to reviewers shape the findings, and the questions come from the people who need favorable findings. The result carries the authority of objectivity while functioning as a mirror.
Let’s consider the very recent Grant Thornton report whose results were meant to cauterize a huge embarrassment without naming a single culprit or a single systemic failure. No outcries from the Observers, of course.
Cities do this too — with traffic studies, usage audits, and infrastructure assessments that are framed around the conclusion leadership has already reached. Whether that’s what’s happening with Fullerton’s active transportation data is a question advocates would do well to press publicly.
They sure do, Sitka. Who are you supposed to believe, your commonsense or the experts we have hired to back us up? Ahem, remember the “experts” hired to produce pro tax findings, pro development findings, pro this or pro that findings? In fact data supporting everything that the City Manager who hired them wants. The latest examples is that “traffic study” for the overbuilt Harbor/Hermosa project that will never in a million years stop the project as designed, from being built.
The antidote to data shaped by mismanagement is not more data — it’s differently sourced data, with different incentive structures attached to it. Independent audits are conducted by parties with no relationship to the decisions being evaluated. Performance metrics set before interventions begin, not after. Usage data is examined in the context of program accessibility, not in isolation.
Great Caesar’s Ghost! What a splendid statement of objective accountability and something that should be happening, at least occasionally, and not on some silly bike lockers, but on real issues where millions are spent, from hiring ambulance drivers to deciding if anybody is now going to use a new but previously failed park; on weather there is a chance in hell that anybody would patronize a “boutique” hotel at the Transportation Center.
There is a vast irony in the Observer’s new-found demand for objective standards to promote accountability – exactly the thing government employees dread. See, it’s the squalid world of professional management, and such accountability is not to be applied to government bureaucrats who are made of a finer material. They are working for us, see, and have a noble calling not to be subjected to accountability.
And it’s deliciously ironic that the new Observer spirit has been discovered due to some footling bike lockers, and not the decades long history of Fullerton disasters that nobody but FFFF has chronicled.
Might Sciatica Kennedy’s observations and suggestions be applied to future Fullerton mishaps? Bet not. But let’s enjoy them while we can.
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.
A Friend has forwarded a press release from the North Orange County Chamber of Commerce. This used to be the Fullerton Chamber of Commerce that merged with other groups in neighboring towns, I’ve been told.
The Chamber is throwing itself a birthday party brunch in celebration of 133 years of existence. The fare, donuts, is in keeping with the odd year number to celebrate.
Notice that presentations will be made by Republic Services, the massive corporate trash hauler whose contract with Fullerton is up this year; and SCAG, the completely opaque regional agency responsible for the nonsensical 13,000 new housing units shoved up our backside by the Sacramento Affordable Housing Cartel (SAHC). That seems sooooo fitting.
For the past 30 years Fullerton Chamber of Commerce has gone from tax-fighter to weak little sister of Fullerton City Hall. Under the dim bulb Theresa Harvey, the Chamber became an auxiliary of the City, which is appropriate because after she left the Chamber she became the Chair of the CSUF Auxiliary – another totally opaque agency that plays monopoly with money with virtually no oversight.
The Chamber became a lap dog, not a watch dog for the waste and dumbassery in City Hall. Ms. Harvey was a completely clueless puppet. Under her, the Chamber actually threw their lot in with the public employee unions in 2020 in support of the Measure S sales tax.
It likes meal worms.
Parenthetically, the CSUF Auxiliary has become a final stop for local small-time influence shoppers like Harvey and her predecessor James Alexander, and that brought us the disastrous Elk’s Club/Universaity Heights faculty housing debacle.
Apparently there’s a new guy in charge at the Chamber, but I can’t say I’m hopeful. The Chamber should be promoting small businesses at City Hall, and promoting economy and efficiency in local government, not “tax your way out of it” boohooism. Will it?
Anyway, I thought back to the days in 1993 and 1994 when the Chamber stood up for businesses large and small, fighting City Hall on the unnecessary utility tax imposed by McClanahan, Bankhead, and A.B. Catlin. Those were fun times.
Yesterday our young and lively friend, sweet Elijah Manaserro published an article on the Fullerton Observer blog. I call it an article because it isn’t a news story – almost devoid of journalistic content – it is really an opinion essay.
Out of the blue our tender sprout decided to elevate an issue completely off the radar – illicit cannabis dispensaries. And he shares the turmoil caused by these unlicensed, unregulated stores. “Whack-a-mole” he calls it, and dramatically claims the cost of enforcement is “staggering.” Of course the cost isn’t staggering at all, but when you are acting on behalf of a huge, monied interest, hyperbole is okay, I guess.
Green means green. One way or another…
Where the green shoot Elijah is going with this is clear. It’s same logic and language used by the Fullerton Observer and by “Dr.” Ahmad Zahra in the past to promote legal dispensaries. Since Fullerton can’t control the illegal activity, we might as well make it okay.
The good folks behind the legal dispensary push – the Dope Lobby – have been trying for years to get this use legalized in Fullerton, and it looks like they’re still hard at work – through the Observer and the green sprig Manaserro, the Zahra acolyte and possibly closed session confidante.
Always look for the union label…
This issue is not peanuts to the Dope Lobby, which consists of two elements: the lobbyists for actual dispensary companies, and the local grocery store workers union who represent dues paying cannabis store workers.
Smoke it down, Kitty…
A year ago the grocery workers local union UFCW 324, no doubt supported by the lobbyists behind the scenes, pumped a staggering $60,000 via the national HQ into a political action committee to get “Cannabis Kitty” Jaramillo elected to represent Fullerton’s 4th District. That effort failed, but the cash motivation endures.
The UFCW PAC paid $4000 to Andre Charles, husband of councilperson Shana Charles, to do some sort of work for the Team Jaramillo campaign; we can assume, I think, that Charles is certain to support a new cannabis ordinance, given her personal economic connection. This means that the Dope Lobby is still just one vote away from getting their majority in 2026 and a revitalized dope zone map.
Still don’t see connections? Guess who Zahra picked to be his representative on the so-called Sustainable Budget Committee?
Not a lobbyist, I tells ya…
Zahra chose Derek Smith, that’s who. He’s The government lobbyist for the cannabis workers a fact that has never excited young Elijah’s curiosity.
But now back to our fragile fleur of an “investigative reporter,” Manassero. He claims (dramatically, of course) that the illegal dispensaries have been “near schools” but conveniently doesn’t say which ones. The few addresses he cites to bolster his essay are no where near any schools. Of course in his dissertation he fails to mention that the previous dope ordinance, passed in the last hours of 2020, before a new council was sworn in, permitted dispensaries within 101 feet of our homes.
Finally, and inevitably, callow young Manaserro directs attention to the real issue: the budgetary benefits of cannabis sales taxes. This has always been a big motivator for MJ support in City Hall, given the fact that general sales tax increases, like 2020s Measure S, are difficult to pass. The proposed special sales taxes discussed last year need a two thirds majority to pass.
I don’t spark up doobs any more, but back in the day…hey that explains a lot about my life’s trajectory.
Here’s my prediction: as spring 2026 advances, we will see Fullerton Boohoo, Fullerton Angry, Fullerton Childish, and Fullerton Fun begin to advocate for legal cannabis stores, and harass the council majority to implement a new ordinance. As the August ballot deadline approaches we’ll hear even more racket from these people.
Right after the City Council votes to ban nitrous oxide in Fullerton, they will discuss the creation of an ad hoc (that’s Latin, darlin’) committee of two councilmembers to work with staff to develop sales tax ballot measure language. It’s item #20 on your scorecard.
Well, there she goes
The tax idea was floated by an earlier ad hoc committee, the so-called Sustainable Budget Committee, or something suchlike. That committee ultimately decided to recommend to limit the parameters of the tax to two different special half-cent sales taxes, one for infrastructure and one for our old friend “public safety.” It was probably reasoned that they would get more support than a general sales tax, but they need a two-thirds vote of approval for a special tax – a tough nut to crack.
Of course, a General Tax increase only needs a 50%+1 threshold to pass. But you need a council super- majority – 4 votes – for that to get on a ballot, and that seems highly unlikely.
You will be taxed…sooner or later!
It’s been painful to watch this drawn out Kabuki and it seems as it if will go on at least until the deadline for getting on next year’s ballot. Fortunately there is little chance that Mayor Fred Jung will let the obnoxious and incompetent spendthrift “doctors” Ahmad Zahra and Shana Charles anywhere near this language-developing process.
We have all seen the way that these government-written ballot measures twist language and logic to try to fool the public to approve them. The examples are so plentiful they hardly need enumerating. Remember the ill-fated Measure S in Fullerton? Hoo Boy was that some seriously misleading bullshit. Hopefully, Jung can require a simple and honest text without the usual treacle.
My cynical side wonders how much of the infrastructure tax language will actually include funding for the cops and financial bailout for the idiotic firefighter-union-members-as-ambulance-drivers decision, or FEMA FFD expansion grant nonsense. Anyway you cut it you want those well-funded unions on board for the inevitable campaign PR campaign.
Cry harder…
Fullerton Boohoo and the Kennedy Sisters will be crying out loudly that the fix is in by their new bogeyman – the evil Bushala Bloc – and that any ballot measure language will be crafted to fail without the steady guidance of our in-house council “intellectuals.” Tender young sprout Elijah will demand TRANSPARENCY. They may even still squawk about the need for a General Sales Tax increase, after all. But I think that Good Ship Lollipop has sailed.
And last year we were number 29, among Orange County’s 34 cities based on per capita unrestricted net positions (UNP).
FFFF’s Bureau of Data & Statistics (FFFFBDS) was presented the following chart produced by the California Policy Center, a conservative think tank who tracks such things.
Keep going to toward the bottom…
Ouch. Fullerton is way down there at the bottom – each citizen being in the red for $1050 – based on 2023 numbers from the Annual Comprehensive Financial Report. We are better off than Orange, Costa Mesa, Anaheim and Santa Ana.
Pretty soon Fullerton is going to have to pay the piper and we will be presented, once again, with a Measure S-type sales tax increase in the 13% range. The question is whether such a tax can pass at an election. A General Tax only needs 50%+1 but may be a tough sell; a special tax – for infrastructure, say – requires 67% a harder nut, but one where people can see what they’re getting.
Accountability? It was never on the agenda.
An infrastructures tax does noting to alleviate Fullerton’s chronic financial mismanagement under Fitzgerald, Flory, Zahra, Quirk-Silva and Charles. It’s very clear that the liberals on the Council want the tax that eluded them in 2020.
Ideas, anyone? Anyone else?
But what about Jung and Dunlap? They are no longer able to distance themselves from Fullerton’s fiscal cliff having now been around for over four years. What have they done to ameliorate the chronic shortfall? The answer is nothing. For years the sleepy Bruce Whitaker voted no on annual budgets and he never bothered to put much thought into solving the problem.
Then there’s newcomer Jamie Valencia who’s not responsible for any part of the problem – yet. Will she go for a tax on the ballot? Her public safety union supporters will push her. Does she even understand the magnitude of Fullerton’s mismanagement? I wonder.
In defeat, malice…
Of course we may be grateful that Valencia’s opponent didn’t win. Then a sales tax would have been inevitable.
Well, she’s at it again. The old warhorse appears yet again to darken our collective doorstep with her presence. Janesse “Jan” M. Flory was on the Fullerton City Council from 1995 to 2003, then reappeared in 2012 like the Ghost of Christmas Past. And yet, she still wasn’t done, getting herself appointed to the Fullerton City Council in 2019, and continuing her history of incompetence, negligence and indifference to her constituents.
She’s running for the 2nd District council seat currently occupied by popular Mayor, Nick Dunlap. Her rationale? That’s not hard to figure out. She is running to protect Fullerton’s highly compensated and highly unresponsible public employees.
Flory must 80 years old if she’s a day, and Fullerton has changed a lot since 1994 – thirty long years ago, but Flory doesn’t seem to have changed at all. The sneer. The disdain for anyone not toeing the bureaucratic line, not accepting any bullshit emanating from City Hall.
Here’s a robotext recently received by a voter in Fullerton’s 2nd District.
Experience? We all know experiences can range from good to horrendous.
It’s nice to see Janesse let us know her campaign promises, because they remind students of Fullerton history that she was front and center of the disasters that she helped create. We can skip over the illiteracy of the writing and focus on the issues.
Fix our roads and streets? Who the Hell was running the City for 14 years while the pavement went to shit? That’s right, you, Janesse. “Saving” the ridiculous money pit called Walk on Wilshire? Really?
You want to hire more cops and firefighters? Who gave those guys the budget busting pay and pension increases? That’s right, you Janesse.
You want civility? Who treated her constituents like trash when they had the effrontery to stand up for themselves? That’s right, you Janesse.
And now for some fun history, yanked from FFFF headlines, a Flory of bill of indictment.
Too much scotch, not enough water…
In 1994 Jan Flory, supported the unnecessary utility tax and actually proclaimed she wished it were doubled.
In 1995 Flory directed the City Attorney to disclose confidential legal advice in order to build a low-income housing project.
Looking down at someone is best…
In 1998, and in years after Jan Flory cheerfully supported the illegal Water Fund diversion, a tax, to support her pals in City Hall.
In 2000 she supported the disastrous retroactive “public safety” pension giveaway, a breathtaking gift of public funds.
Don’t go there…
In 2000 she approved the $3,000,000 Poison Park, a Redevelopment acquisition of contaminated, gang-infested property on Truslow Avenue, an action she never acknowledged or demanded accountability for. The goddamn thing is still sitting there with a fence around it, 25 years later.
In 2012 she banded together with the cops to get herself elected, and then protected the Fullerton Police Department from reform. The Culture of Corruption continued unabated.
Well, it might have happened like this…
In 2016 she favored Police Chief Danny “C’mere, Big Boy” Hughes with a big, wet, goodbye kiss, three days after he tried to organize the cover-up of the drunken Wild Ride of City Manager, Joe Felz.
The hours are great. So is the pay!
To get appointed to the City Council in 2019, she bribed the unemployed Ahmad Zahra with a lucrative seat on the Orange County Water District.
On her way out the door (again) in 2016, she supported the dishonest “bar owners map” for Fullerton’s first redistricting effort, allegedly created by the miscreant scofflaw, Jeremy Popoff that gerrymandered Jesus Quirk-Silva into a free run for City Council.
The closer you look, the worse it gets.
During the years of the Flory, Fitzgerald, Quirk-Silva, Zahra budget deficits, Flory lied to the public, insisting that the budget was balanced, when in fact, the City was raiding reserve funds to pay for increased employee contracts. Or maybe she simply doesn’t understand what deficit spending means.
Don’t Reward the City’s Stupidity
In 2019 Flory embarked with Zahra, Quirk-Silva, and Fitzgerald on an idiotic, spiteful legal vendetta against this blog, Joshua Ferguson and David Curlee, that cost Fullerton upwards of a million dollars in settlement and legal fees.
In 2020, on her way out the door for the third time, she voted in favor of Measure S, the ill-fated sales tax increase for which she was put on the Council to support.
If there were time and temperament, I could examine even more closely Flory’s “experience,” but, really why bother? Why recall all the Redevelopment boondoggles she supported in the 1990s, or the Downtown booze culture that she helped create in the early 2000s?
Mu’u mu’us and wood beads: I have always hated you, and I always will…
Flory’s bile and animus, directed at anybody who challenges City Hall – citizens and taxpayers, has been going on since 1994 and is well documented.
She once proclaimed that the City department heads were “the heart of the City,” And that tells you all you need to know about Janesse “Jan” M. Flory.
