March 19, 2012March 19, 2012Behind Closed Doors

Water Wars Continue

Teri Sforza of the OC Register has done another piece on Fullerton’s fraudulent 10% water tax and the equally fraudulent study commissioned by the City Council to justify keeping as much of the tax as they can. Naturally the consultant ginned up some phony rent value for City owned property that water reservoirs sit on! In fact the bogus rent topped $1.3 million, a figure so absurd that even Mayor Sharon Quirk took offense. It’s a good thing Ms. Quirk is running for the State Assembly or she might not be so concerned about the wear ratepayers getting ripped off in an illegal scam. Whatever. At least she finally seems to have somebody who knows what’s going on advising her.

March 16, 2012Behind Closed Doors

New Water Tax: 6.7%? Not a Freakin’ Chance!

by Mr. Peabody78 Comments

Apparently the much-anticipated Joe Felz Water Study is in, and it says that the illegal 10% water tax is…drum roll, please…illegal. But get this: rather than an honest study, the consultants were clearly told to gin up as much plausible reason to keep as much of the 10% as they could. The result? It’s only 6.7%. Yay!

The only problem is that to reach 6.7%, the consultant cooked up the idea that the Water Fund owed the City rent on land where water reservoirs are located! According to Ad Hoc Water Committee member Greg Sebourn, the total annual rent was figured at $1,374,000 – well-over half of the existing tax.

Of course this scam raises all sorts of new issues, as scams generally do. Such as: the reservoir in Hillcrest Park supports a play field on its deck. Does the City rent this back from the Water Fund? Bet not! The reservoir up at the top of Euclid is situated in a cactus patch patrolled by goats. What’s the rental or development value of a nature park? I dunno, but it’s not much. Has the Water Fund been paying for maintenance on these properties that should have been the responsibility of the General Fund? Bet so.

Then of course there’s the issue of whether the waterworks itself paid for fee title to any of these properties in the first place, a way back when. I wonder if the consultant even bothered to check. Bet not.

And there’s the embarrassing fact that there is no arm’s length relationship between the people that impose the rent and the people that pay it. The City Council can demand any amount of rent they want – then agree to pay it. Why not? The proceeds go to pay their own pensions! Now, that’s not very good, is it?

In any case, the public may find it a bit confusing and unseemly that at the eleventh hour the bureaucrats and their hand-picked consultant are burning the near-midnight oil to drum up ways to charge as much for water as they can that they can keep siphoning money into the General Fund.

jones-gone-wild1 — Will you please shut up.

Will the city Council buy into this load? Well, of course they will. The vote will be 4-1, and it will be up to the citizens and voters to rectify the scam at the ballot box.

Our job is to continue to expose the fraud for what it is.

March 2, 2012March 2, 2012Behind Closed Doors

So Who (Besides Bruce Whitaker) Hasn’t Seen The Video?

by Joe Sipowicz262 Comments

Here’s an article by the pathetic Lou Ponsi in the OC Register about a guy named John Huelsman, an ex-cop, who unluckily happens to be the step-father of Jay Cicinelli, the Fullerton policeman charged with the beating death of schizophrenic homeless man Kelly Thomas, last July.

This man popped up at the last council meeting nattering the same nonsense about what an angel his step-boy is, so this isn’t really news. What is news is this guy’s claim that he has been able to review the City-owned video that captured the Thomas killing.

Let’s assume for the sake of argument that Huelsman is actually telling the truth. This begs the question – who hasn’t seen the video? We know that our elected representative, Bruce Whitaker is being illegally denied the opportunity to see it. But, really: the freakin’ step-father of the accused gets to watch it? Really? And a Fullerton council member may not?

So who let this guy watch the video? Was it the FPD? Was it the District Attorney? Such questions seem not to have occurred to the incurious idiot Lou Ponsi whom we can all count upon to miss the real story while peddling pro-cop bullshit.

Somebody better explain soon why some clown from who knows where can watch the video, when the people’s elected representative can’t.

March 1, 2012March 1, 2012About Us

The Insidious Theft of Our Sovereignty

by Joe Sipowicz30 Comments

UPDATE: As noted in the comment from Chris Thompson below, he did not learn about the Beechwood situation (whatever it is) from FFFF. This was my error. I misread the following comment made by Thompson in yesterday’s post:

For clarity’s sake, I have NOT been briefed on any aspect of this story beyond the information which has been made publicly available in the meeting posted here.

I read this to mean that he had not been briefed at all. I do not know if he had an independent briefing from Hovey, but he was actually at the meeting in question. My mistake. I have edited the text below.

In the past few days in Fullerton we have witnessed the usurpation of public sovereignty by government employees and contractors who seem to believe it is their right, not our representative’s, to determine what sorts of information the duly elected representatives are, or are not permitted to see.

First, was the protracted saga of Fullerton City councilman Bruce Whitaker, who for seven moths has been trying to get access to the video of FPD cops beating Kelly Thomas to death. This is a pretty reasonable request, you would think, given the fact that the cops have watched and re-watched the video (Acting Chief Dan Hughes says he’s seen it 400 times); it’s been viewed by the DA; it’s been watched by Cicinelli and Ramos’s lawyers; apparently it’s even been watched by Ron Thomas, father of the dead man. But for some reason the City Manager and City Attorney believe they have the authority to deny access of this public document to Bruce Whitaker, and have used the majority vote of the Three Dim Bulbs to continue to deny Whitaker access.

This is just an outrageous usurpation of the authority that accrues to elected officials by virtue of their popular election. Despite what the bureaucrats and their die-hard elected supporters believe, the sovereignty invested in the elected is indivisible and should never be confused with the practical exigency of majority rule that determines policy and decides the quotidian issues of managing a city.

And then, we have the very recent sad spectacle of a Fullerton School District trustee, Chris Thompson, not being adequately briefed on a matter involving a teacher at Beechwood Elementary School – a matter so serious that the Fullerton police were called in to investigate it, and an emergency parent meeting held. Whatever is going on, the Superintendant, Mitch Hovey decided that the trustees didn’t need to know about it.

~~The question of whether other trustees besides Thompson were briefed remains to be ascertained, and if so that would make matters even worse.~~

But here’s the really bad part. According to Thompson: Dr. Hovey informed me that he had been advised by the district’s law firm as to what information he could and could not give to the board members. He did confirm that he knows more than we do.

Say what? That law firm doesn’t work for Hovey; it works for the Board of Trustees who hired them. It has no business collaborating with the Superintendent to decide what information can and can’t be parceled out to the Board. And anybody who doesn’t grasp this basic tenet shouldn’t be on the Board or work for it, either.

As Assemblyman Norby pointed out in his newsletter, it is both the right and the responsibility of elected officials to have reasonable access to public property and documents in order to do their jobs. The Legislative Counsel for the State of California said so. This precept is all about accountability and responsibility in our representative democracy.

So why is this basic concept being flagrantly flouted by Fullerton’s bureaucrats? Who is in charge here, indeed?

March 1, 2012March 1, 2012Bruce Whitaker

Bruce’s Law

by The Fullerton Harpoon34 Comments

Here is an interesting bit from Assemblyman Chris Norby’s latest newsletter documenting his effort to promote legislation to guarantee elected officials – like Fullerton’s Bruce Whitaker – access to public documents and records.

Well, Lo and Behold: it’s not necessary according to Legislative Counsel who determined that such a right already exists. Looks like somebody forgot to tell our esteemed City Attorney Dick Jones, who has publicly defended denying Whitaker access to city-owned records.

And it looks like we have another Recall issue.

So who the Hell is really in charge in Fullerton? The cops? The bureaucrats? The unelected City Attorney? The Three Triassic Fossils who have no authority to deny a duly elected official access to official records? Who?

In the words of the Bard, Bob Dylan in “Oxford Town”: somebody better investigate soon.

“Bruce’s Law” Restates Obvious

Can elected officials be denied information obtained at public expense on public property? Can unelected attorneys and administrators keep such information hidden from those who appointed them?

That’s what’s happening to Fullerton City Councilman Bruce Whitaker. His request to view the city’s video of the fatal beating of Kelly Thomas has been denied by the City Manager and City Attorney. That video was made by a city-owned camera at the city-owned Fullerton Transportation Center. Three of Bruce’s colleagues have chosen not to watch the tape, but have never voted to deny it to him.

Bruce doesn’t seek to release the tape to the public, or even have his own copy. He just wants to see it, to be in better position to understand what happened on that fateful July night. So I drafted a bill clarifying an elected official’s right to the same information as those they hire. “Bruce’s Law” would assure those we elect have access to information they need.

My bill was rejected by Legislative Counsel, however, as unnecessary. I was told that elected officials already have this right. I was told that unelected government employees cannot deny public officials information they need to represent their constituents. I was told that video camera footage taken by a public agency can be viewed by an official elected to govern that agency.

A new bill cannot be introduced which simply duplicates existing laws. But Bruce is still being denied the tape.

February 27, 2012Bruce Whitaker

Travis Kiger Gets Key Endorsements

by Grover Cleveland73 Comments

Just days after pulling papers to run in the Recall replacement election, Travis Kiger has received the full support of our County Supervisor Shawn Nelson, our State Assemblyman Chris Norby and Fullerton City Councilman Bruce Whitaker.

Said Chris Norby “Fullerton is very fortunate to have Travis as a candidate. As a resident and taxpayer in Fullerton I know we will be in good hands when Kiger is elected.”

Shawn Nelson echoed Norby’s comments. “Fullerton is in need of strong, conservative leadership. I live in Fullerton and I trust Travis to deliver on the promises of transparency and accountability.”

Travis Kiger represents the new type of Republican for Fullerton: one who believes in civil liberties, freedom, limited government, pension reform, a balanced budget, reasonable taxes and fees; one who opposes the sort of crony capitalism and corporate welfare that has been the hallmark of Fullerton “conservatives” for decades.

Most importantly, Travis stands for accountability to the citizens of Fullerton, without cover-up, condescension, excuses, or incomprehensible double-talk.

February 23, 2012A Step in the Right Direction

Real Leaders Lead

by Joe Sipowicz43 Comments

Enjoy the rare sight and sound of an elected Fullerton leader actually leading.

Please note the not so subtle threat: the tyranny of the Three Dead Batteries, Bankhead, Jones, and McKinley is exercised to deny an elected official – Whitaker – access to public records and public property; and their own stupid intransigence is forcing their dereliction directly into the political arena.

Not surprisingly, the Three Stagnant Ponds are backed up by Attorney Richard Jones who, incredibly, wants the people of Fullerton to believe the authority of the Council derives from – the Council itself!!

That’s the kind of Divine Right bullshit that inspired the American Revolution. The Three Hollow Logs no doubt find comfort in that sort of tyranny. And that’s exactly why we are having a recall.

February 14, 2012Behind Closed Doors

Nine Months Later And You’re Still Paying the Illegal Water Tax

by The Desert Rat15 Comments

It has been said that the only two certainties are death and taxes.

That sure seems to be the case when you consider Fullerton’s illegal 10% tax on water that you are forced to pay with each bill. The cowards haven’t even got the guts to add it as a line item on the bill. Wouldn’t want nosy citizens asking embarrassing questions, now would we?

Nine months ago the City was challenged on the legality of the notorious “in-lieu fee” that adds over $2,500,000 to the City General Fund coffers every year. What did they do? They decided to study. And study. And study some more.

3 Dead Batteries — The Three Dead Batteries.

Well, the study isn’t done yet. But guess what? You still pay that tax. An honest government would have gotten a definitive legal opinion from a competent attorney (ahem) and immediately reported to the public. Not in Fullerton, where the idea seems to be to keep soaking the public until some judge, or a recall election makes them fix the problem. In the meantime they’ve collected two million bucks to pay for things like councilmen Don Bankhead and Pat McKinley’s six-figure pensions.

But everything’s just fine. Go back to sleep again.

February 7, 2012February 7, 2012Arts & Architecture

Amerige Court—How to Give Away Public Land for $500

by The Fullerton Savage18 Comments

Last December The Fullerton Redevelopment Agency approved yet another extension to Pelican, the hapless developer of the gigantic Amerige Court project downtown. Readers will recall that this project was approved in 2008 over the objections of hundreds of people who saw it for what it was, yet another cheap looking, insipid copy of the retail/loft model that is supposed to revive downtowns.

This time the now unemployed redevelopment staff allowed the developer to plan to rent the housing units at first, even though when it was first approved years ago it was supposed to be all about classing up the area by inviting the landowning gentry to move in and stare down the lawless drunks of Fullerton’s bar culture.

So two months ago, despite several people speaking out against the fourth (!) amendment to the original agreement, and no one speaking in favor of it, the extension was granted. Bruce Whitaker and Sharon Quirk-Silva dissented, having had enough of developer excuses for why they haven’t been able to build anything, but Bankhead, McKinley, and Jones predictably went along with this giveaway of taxpayer owned land in the heart of the city.

Well, that was back before Redevelopment disappeared last week, so now they have to do it all over as the City Council tonight.

Show up to watch developer owned politicians try to give away your land once again, if you let them.

Last week we showed you why the Three Dinosaurs were so willing to perpetuate this disaster of a project.

When you take their money, you have to do their bidding. Besides, if you can give away public land to build a monstrous and unneeded architecturally appalling project that will add more traffic to the area and tear down some really old buildings to do it, why wouldn’t you? Especially when the half of the development partnership that’s still in business gives you $500 to keep you from being recalled?

February 5, 2012February 5, 2012Behind Closed Doors

She Bear About to Turn Violent?

by Joe Sipowicz84 Comments

MCKinley3 — Frustrated that the slow working of his mind could not process the new data, McKinley was about to flail about violently.

Here‘s an article in the Register about Fullerton Councilman Bruce Whitaker asking his fellow councilmembers to vote on whether to see the video of the Kelly Thomas killing at the hands of the FPD. He seems to be suffering from the delusion that Fullerton elected leaders should be intelligently informed.

It’s an interesting article for two reasons. First is the reaction of councilman Pat McKinley, former FPD Chief, and architect of the Culture of Corruption in the force. You would expect him to be opposed to letting anybody see the actions of goons he hired personally and let loose on the streets of Fullerton. But what’s that you say, Pat?:

Councilman Pat McKinley, Fullerton’s former police chief, said he is “violently opposed” to the release of the video.

“I think it’s completely off-base,” McKinley said. “It’s absolutely unprecedented, and it would be wrong to view that before the trial.”

Violently opposed? Now that doesn’t sound like a balanced man, does it? His reaction to a perfectly reasonable request says much about McPension the man. Is he about to go off the deep end?

Mcpension may not want the video released, but I assure you it has nothing to do with any trial, and everything to do with a recall election.

The other thing that struck me as odd is the City Attorney’s alleged request to the DA for permission to view the video and the imbecilic comments ascribed to DA spokesholetress Susan Kang Schroeder, who seems to be just making shit up. The council could watch this video as a closed session personnel issue and nobody else would have to see it. Also, the FPD is bound to have made copies so why ask the DA for permission at all – except to get that “no” answer you want? Acting Chief Hughes, who is neither investigating nor trying anybody, claims to have viewed the video 400 times! I’m starting to suspect everybody has seen this video – except some of the council and of course, the public.

And as a final thought, is there anybody in Fullerton who believed the serial prevaricator Pat McKinley when, after an awkward pause on CNN, he denied seeing the video himself?