Odds are that the Fullerton City Council will vote tonight to fire the Library Board and replace it with themselves in a cynical attempt to steal property to offset some Police & Fire Pensions. Fitzgerald wants to do it, Chaffee wants to do it and it likely won’t take much effort to convince Silva to do it.
Why? Because the city needs to pad the budget to fill holes left by Public Safety Pensions and totally predictable but avoided CALPers issues.
Thus the City is planning, under Ken Domer’s guidance, to take property donated to the library to plug General Fund budget holes.
Donated. As in stealing charity. Love Fullerton, indeed.
This is the brainchild of Councilwoman Fitzgerald despite her original campaign rhetoric about libraries being a “core service”. I guess we can just add this to the long list of lies Jennifer Fitzgerald said to get elected. We’ll put this one right up there with her promise not to take a salary and to desire to implement zero based budgeting.
Remember Jay Cicinelli? The one-eyed officer who was so disabled from LAPD that he took a disability pension but was so-not-disabled that he was able to be a working Fullerton Corporal? Ring any bells?
He’s the guy who in July 2011 used his taser on Kelly Thomas to “beat him probably twenty times in the face” because Thomas had the audacity to not just sit still while former officer Manual Ramos played games and threatened him. Don’t remember that part?
Cicinelli was fired from the Fullerton Police Department in July 2012 (and the decision was later upheld by the Council). As we told you a while back, Cicinelli is trying to get his job back and in a “we told you so” moment it looks like he may get his wish.
How? Well, a Judge here in OC thinks the Council was mean to poor old Jay when they fired him and upheld his firing because something something bias.
On 14 September 2018, Judge David Chaffee (no relation to Council member and Supervisor Candidate Doug) made a Judgement that Bruce Whitaker and Greg Sebourn should recuse themselves from Cicinelli’s due process violation hearing. His reasoning? Whitaker and Sebourn had the audacity to think we rabble had a right to know what had happened to Kelly Thomas and a right to the evidence.
Judge Chaffee seems to think that because POBAR (the Police Officer’s Bill of Rights) and other as-terrible laws preclude the public from getting basic information about officer actions and alleged crimes that our elected officials shouldn’t be allowed to talk about the things our officers do on duty and under the color of authority.
Judge Chaffee made the point, several times, that Bruce Whitaker spoke out as a council member on items that had not been agendized. Because apparently Judge Chaffee doesn’t understand the Brown Act and that it would have been illegal for Whitaker to speak on those items in the public square had they been agendized.
What all of this leads up to is that this judge wants our current council to re-hear Cicinelli’s bias complaint and he goes so far as to say that not only should Whitaker and Sebourn recuse themselves, he actually recommends that the council wait until AFTER the next council is seated after the November election. He wants a 2019 Council to hear a case from 2011, because of alleged bias.
This is utter nonsense. The council now is Whitaker, Sebourn, Chaffee, Fitzgerald and Silva. Silva, mind you, who is the husband of Sharon Quick-Silva who was on council during the Kelly Thomas incident.
In November Silva is competing with Sebourn for District 3’s seat and Chaffee is running for Supervisor and will be off of council. Chaffee’s wife is the most well financed candidate in District 5. Thus the “very likely probability” is that Sebourn will beat Silva and Silva will stay on council until 2020 when his term expires. So one seat will change which could just end up swapping one Chaffee for another. This is hardly a reason to delay an action in front of our council – especially regarding something so important.
Here is the general premise of Cinicelli’s complaint and Judge Chaffee’s beef with the council and how it handled the case:
The argument against Sebourn and his alleged bias is just laughable. From the judgement:
Golly gee. Sebourn wanted a jury trial and for people to be able to know what happens and for people to not be forced to make decisions in a vacuum. The horrors. If this was the sole thing I knew about Greg Sebourn he’d get my vote every election. That the court thinks this is a problem would be hilarious if it wasn’t so tragic.
The worst thing you can impugn Whitaker for after reading this judgement is his being too willing to talk to the public and help us know what was happening, which is something to be celebrated. He worried about a cover-up and the argument against that is that it’s legal for officers to cover-up things per POBAR. Don’t believe me? Then why are officers allowed to view evidence up to and including videos of their own actions before writing their statements? You, as a citizen, are not allowed such a privilege as that would taint your memory and allow you to change your story to coincide with the evidence. The officers who beat Thomas did in fact write their reports while watching the video and all subsequent testimony is tainted by that fact despite complaints to the contrary.
I submit as evidence a quote from the Gennaco special investigation report regarding this fact:So Whitaker asked questions the people of Fullerton, arguably the world, wanted answered and he’s being painted as a biased figure against this poor officer who wasn’t physically qualified for the job he had, while double dipping a pension, and who showed no remorse for his actions.
I guess Judge Chaffee missed the video evidence from that night. So HERE IT IS.
If that’s too much maybe this will suffice:
This ins’t inhumane, Judge Chaffee?
Is that inhumane and brutal?
What about in the context of having done nothing wrong beyond being an annoyance to a Slidebar Rock ‘N Roll Cafe employee (with a direct line to Police Dispatch)?
How about Judge Chaffee walk a mile in Kelly Thomas’ shoes instead of demanding that our City Council walks a mile in Cicinelli’s? After all, asking our council to walk a mile in Cicinelli’s shoes is asking them to walk a mile in the shoes of a sociopath (also from the Gennaco report):This is why we need police reform. This is why we need oversight. If you didn’t think the deck was stacked against you just keep in mind that a judge just ruled that Jay “Savage Person” Cicinelli was unfairly fired because a councilperson dared to ask questions and demand answers of our corrupt police force.
Unfair? Don’t forget that one of our officers WAS JUST INDICTED for a cover-up with the Joe Felz incident. This is the legacy of former Untouchable Police Chief Danny Hughes.
My hope is that the council tells Judge Chaffee to kick rocks. They should address this bias nonsense straight out and immediately, list all of the policy violations and problems with Cicnelli’s conduct on the fateful night Kelly Thomas was killed and then vote to uphold Cicinelli’s firing.
Taking a brief break from the non-stop coverage of (mostly) bad news from the Fullerton Police Department, we have received our first candidate response to the FFFF Candidate questionnaire, and it is realtor Johnny Ybarra, who is running in District Five.
To reiterate: all City Council candidates for the 2018 election are strongly encouraged to respond to the questionnaire and their responses will be reprinted in full at our earliest opportunity. All candidates have received the questionnaires already and we hope to hear what the other candidates have to say soon.
Our original questions, and Mr. Ybarra’s responses, are as follows:
Last we heard, Doug “expected to be briefed” about why Fullerton’s $400,000 a year Chief of Police had been placed on leave.
That was days ago. Still no word on what was so significant that we lost our top cop without a public hearing, without a public notice, without a freaking phone call early Saturday morning.
And now the City had cancelled the scheduled September 4th meeting. Hmph. I guess we have nothing important to discuss!
Maybe something has happened to our good Mayor Doug. He was last seen helping his wife move into her new $250,000 condo in the southeast corner of town.
We know that Doug is real busy working on his political campaign for his next job as our County Supervisor, but if someone could find him and let him know Fullerton doesn’t have a Police Chief and no one knows why, we’d really appreciate it.
As you may have heard, once again Fullerton has a police chief in hot water. First we had Mike Sellers run away from his post after bungling the Kelly Thomas case, then Danny Hughes decided to give Joe Felz a pass on drunk driving & alleged hit and run and now Chief Hendricks is in trouble for unspecified reasons.
There is no official word on what’s going on from the City because City Manager Ken Domer doesn’t think we have a right to know who’s running our police department and what is happening in our city. However, thanks to a diligent city employee who shall remain nameless reaching out to several of us we know that Hendricks is on a paid vacation (with the benefit of not needing to use his vacation time) for his bad behavior and Captain Bob Dunn is now acting Police Chief.
But who is Bob Dunn?
We wrote about Dunn back in January when he came to our fair city from Anaheim. He was a Lieutenant there and somehow promoted to the position of Captain in Fullerton without much fanfare.
Now he’s been moved to acting Chief. That’s one heck of a jump in 7 months time. Is he really the best man for the job? Is he up to the task? What will he be doing and for how long? Who’s investigating Hendricks? Is Dunn overseeing an IA whitewash or has another agency been called in?
Nobody knows because Ken Domer doesn’t think you have the right to know and the city council can’t be bothered to make him talk.
Sometimes problems are complicated. Sometimes they’re not.
Fullerton’s biggest problems aren’t really that complicated. The real reason our problems get worse and worse every year is because our elected officials insist on spending their time and energy on inane and self-serving gobbledygook that serve no real public purpose and/or accomplish nothing beyond weak symbolism.
Look no further than tonight’s agenda. Fullerton is going to spend a few hours (after Jesus Silva approves cutting yet another tax payer check to one of his campaign donors– Townsand Public Affairs– so the city can pay to lobby his wife) accomplishing exactly nothing. We’re going to vote to support spending time and money to weigh in on a legal discussion between the United States Federal Government and the entire State of California concerning immigration enforcement.
Because Fullerton and it’s 140,000 residents need to say something special that can’t or won’t be said by the Federal Government, who represent nearly 400,000,000 people.
Here are some topics not on tonight’s agenda:
1) Fullerton’s $5,000,000-$8,000,000 structural deficit for the current fiscal year.
2) Fullerton’s $50,000,000 budget gap over the next five years.
3) Why recent property sales of $4,000,000 went to filing this year’s deficit instead of fixing roads like we were promised.
4) How Fullerton plans to address $100,000,000 in deferred road maintenance
5) When the zoning code will be amended to prevent another mosoleum from being errected on Harbor
6) What to do about downtown puke piles
7) What to do about downtown brawls
8) What to do about rampant drunk driving?
9) What to do about tax evasion on illegally collected revenue at downtown bars?
10) Finally, why after over a year, has the city council not ordered Councilwoman Fitzgerald to release unredacted phone records from the night of City Manager Joe Felz’s Druken Ride as well as police body cameras for the entire event?
Poor Sappy
When you drive home tonight, count the potholes you hit and the homeless you pass, then ask yourself why Fullerton needs to spend ANY of its time and money getting into a pissing contest between Donald Trump and Jerry Brown.
The City is in the process of approving a new labor contract with the Fullerton Firefighter’s Association. Buried deep in the agreement on page 52 is this nugget — the City will be going from six (6) engines to five (5) engines. We’ve had six fire engines in Fullerton for many, many years.
At no time has the City come forward with any candor to admit to this change, except when I brought it up during the previous City Council meeting. Even then, none of our council members seem to care very much.
This change may well result in every property owner in the City paying higher property (fire) insurance rates. One of the factors that insurance companies use to determine rates is the Insurance Services Office (ISO) Public Protection Classification (PPC) score calculated for every fire district around the country.
The ISO score takes into consideration many factors, including the strength of the fire department and the City’s water supply. More specifically, the fire department score includes calculations for the number of engine and truck companies, their locations around the City, and the number of firefighters on duty. The fire union agreement, set for final approval on Tuesday, reduces the level of staffing by 1 position per rotating shift, which will further reduce our score.
Fullerton scored 76.71 points out of a possible 100 the last time ISO evaluated the City of Fullerton in 2012. This equates to an ISO PPC “class” of 3 on a scale of 1 to 10 (with 1 being best).
You can read the full report here. As much as the City wants to rubber stamp the agreement and forget all about it, this is very much a matter of public policy that warrants further discussion. We will likely pay more for homeowner’s insurance due to the City having one less fire engine in service.
Do we, as a City, want to:
Pay more in homeowner’s insurance premiums in return for less fire department staffing and resources?
-or-
Pay more in taxes to maintain the current level of fire department staffing, and, hopefully, preserve lower insurance premiums?
-or-
Pay the same amount in taxes, for the same, or even improved levels of fire department staffing, by forcing the firefighters to contribute more toward their pensions?
This is a choice that needs to be made now before going any further. I suggest attending Tuesday’s meeting prepared to speak, and/or send your thoughts to council@cityoffullerton.com.
(Update: According to the agenda forcast, the vote on this ordinance will be held on March 6, 2018)
Writing for FFFF is a volunteer effort, aside from the stipend we receive from NASA and the Round Earth Cabal (which really hasn’t kept up with inflation, if we’re being completely honest here). Our lack of compensation gives us the advantage of calling things like we see them, without having to worry about how our opinion will play with our employer/advertisers, but it also means that issues often come up and none of us here at FFFF have the time to dig into the issue and provide any meaningful commentary on the subject.
This was the case for the recent vote on the Planning Commission, which will soon be appearing before the City Council, to rezone all commercial property to allow for homeless shelters provided they operate with a CUP. The decision was made as part of a settlement with Curtis Gamble filed through the Pacific Legal Aid Foundation. Local resident Scott Hess, who is opposed to the rezoning, has investigated the change to the ordinance, and much of the information below is from my email exchanges with him on the subject.
On January 24, 2018, the Fullerton Planning Commission adopted a code amendment to allow 24 hour Emergency Homeless Shelters in any of the commercial districts in Fullerton.