Fullerton City Council Archives - Page 69 of 78 - Friends For Fullerton's Future

December 2, 2009December 2, 2009Dick Jones

Council Majority Pulls Plug on Pamette’s Posse; Proposes: Go Pound Pumice

Well it happened last night. Joe and I made a quick trip out to Pechanga to blow our lottery winnings and so we missed it.

Wait 'til next year. If there is a next year.

Pam Keller was denied her turn in the Mayoral tether ball court, forgetting that to be Mayor you need three votes. Her posse must be sorely disappointed with the shut out. The Yellowing Fullerton Observer will no doubt be putting out a special edition decrying the end of civilization, and the barbarians at the gate, and whatever other nonsense they can cook up; maybe they can get some delish quotes from the gal with no “political whatevers.”

Anyway, Friends, get ready for a tsunami of self-righteous boohoo outrage.

Those little marshmallows really make the cocoa better...

Don Bankhead, who has been on the City Council since right before The Flood, will be mayor again next year. He voted for himself, as did Dick Jones and Shawn Nelson. We have been told that Ol’ Doc Jones coughed up a supremely sublime HeeHaw Moment that we will be sharing later. Apparently Nelson kept his mouth shut, which shows unusual perspicacity for a politician; we have to wonder if he isn’t still plenty pissed off at Keller for her attacks on him after he stood up for the citizens of Fullerton on the pension spike finagle last year.

As a consolation prize Keller got to stay mayor pro tem, a pretty useless ballot designation, but at least the word mayor is in it.

November 30, 2009January 4, 2010Fullerton City Council

On the Agenda: December 1st, 2009

by Christian8 Comments

The Closed Session has something very interesting. Item 2 is noted as “Portion of Tentative Tract Nos. 15671, 15672, and 15673 – West Coyote Hills, Fullerton, CA”. Yep, more Coyote Hills for those that just can’t get enough.

Among other items on the consent calendar, Item 5 is going to change the appointment process for at-large commissioners.

Item 6 is so that the Parks and Recreation folks can apply for a grant that would be used for the Union Pacific Trail Phase II. The total cost is estimated at $1,345,000 which in one way or another comes from public coffers.

Hill Crest Park is 7th on the consent calendar. There is a 113 page back-up document which includes an agreement for landscape architect services. Also in the motion is a request to transfer $60,000 from Redevelopment to Parks and Recreation. (Ed.: One concern that has been voiced by many is the poor maintenance of the parks. Whether from vandalism or neglect, the parks and playgrounds are in need of some TLC.)

8th on the list is the landscape ordinance. In the name of water conservation, let city staff decide what plants are “aesthetically appeasing and environmentally beneficial”. The cost is shown as “None”. Shouldn’t it be a cost saver for the city? Otherwise, why implement it?

Want to know who will be our next mayor? The answer is in the council’s decision on Item 9.

The January 5th meeting is to be canceled per Item 10 because there just isn’t anything for them to do. At least that’s what the staff report says.

Not on the forefront of our minds is who will serve on the Vector Control Board? Jones’ term is up. Can you imagine how he has been representing Fullerton at Board meetings? I would imagine he rambles on about…who knows what.

City staff has recommended several changes related to restrictive parking on public streets. Read Item 12 for details.

Lastly, look out for the December 15th meeting. There are a lot of topics which will likely bring a large turn out. Tentatively they are:

Annual Financial Report (A – City/RDA) & B – Airport Update
October Financials
Contract Renewals for Group Insurance Programs
Public Hearing – 5 Year Implementation Plan
Adopt Landscape Ordinance
Update Deferred Compensation Plan
Sewer Reconstruction Project 09/10 Carol/Magnolia Area
Public Hearing – Appeal – Encroachment Permit Denial
Presentation – Certificate of Appreciation – Dick Waltz
Closed Session – Property Negotiations – OC Flyers
Public Hearing – Parking Permit Fees
Adopt Ordinance – Permit Parking
Direct Appointments – Library
Public Hearing – Olson Housing Project
Contract Award – Raymond Grade Separation
RDA Annual Determination Re: Low & Moderate Housing
RDA FY 08/09 Annual Report
Signal Modification – Orangethorpe/Highland & Signing/Striping – Orangethorpe
Presentation – MWD Update

November 29, 2009December 28, 2009Behind Closed Doors

Is Pam Keller Qualified to Be Mayor?

by The Fullerton Shadow9 Comments

Yes. At least based on the abilities of those who have preceded her. People like Dick Jones, Don Bankhead, Mike Clesceri, Leland Wilson, etc., etc. Well, you get the point. To use a Harpoon line: a ling cod could do the job.

Yes, Friends it’s that time of year, when the largely brain-dead city council selects one of their own to preside over their meetings as they habitually rubber stamp what’s put in front of them by their staff. And so we pose the question in our title.

But let’s refine the question to address the idiot woman who showed up with Pam’s Pamette posse last week, and who insisted on framing the issue in gender terms: is Pam Keller qualified to be mayor because simple because she is a woman and it’s her turn? Here the whole thing breaks down into a pathetic little skirmish to see who can produce the stupidest reason for doing something.

If a food fish could do it, so could Pam, we think...

The Ed Royce/Dick Ackerman team that recently crashed the Ackerwoman dirigible in a Raymond Hills fireball, will no doubt have been working hard behind the scenes to keep Keller out, using the same, brainless argument they always have: Fullerton is Republican so the mayor shoud be too; forget the fact that every RINO Royce and Ackerman have foisted on us in the past 20 years have virtually identical voting records with the handful of Democrats on the council. They probably will work the very two RINOS they have backed in the past – Bankhead and Jones to keep Keller out.

It wasn't pretty when she went down. Oh! The humanity!

Counter that with the petulant fulminations of The Yellowing Fullerton Observers and the dopey gal at last meeting’s mike whose only recourse is: it’s her turn (hands clasped in fervent prayer, eyes transfixed on acoustical ceiling)! These alleged innocents proclaim their freedom from nasty political interests but never mention the fact that using the title “mayor” in her campaign propaganda will help Keller get re-elected.

We don't know our cloaca from a hole in the ground.

Yech.

Apart from the fact that these cretins generally deserve each other, we will repeat the same thing said elsewhere on these pages: the person who can get two other votes is the one who “deserves” to be mayor.

November 23, 2009May 23, 201172nd Election

ACKERWOMAN WATCH: WATERBOARD BLAKE?

by admin3 Comments

Linda “19%” Ackerwoman has until February 28, 2010 to fess up to her phony Fullerton residency or lose her coveted seat on the Metropolitan Water District Board.

She still represents the Metropolitan Water District of Orange County on the MWD Board, but her phony “granny flat” at the Dolans is outside that district, which does include her real home (2 Mineral King) in Irvine.

According to MWDOC bylaws, she will lose her seat if she lives outside its service area for more than 6 months.

Of course, she could keep up the ruse and try to seize Fullerton’s own seat on the MWD Board, long held (20+ years) by old Buck Catlin crony Jim Blake.

Could the Ackermans’ launch a challenge to Blake? Where would Linda’s council backers Bankhead and Jones stand? Would Keller and Quirk fall for the “woman thing” or an ABB (Anyone But Blake) sentiment? The longer she remains registered in Fullerton, the more credible an anti-Blake coup becomes!

Far-fetched? Maybe. After all, Blake’s an old Ackerman klingon, too.

Reregister, now, Linda. Take your 19% and Roski money with you and stay on the MWD Board representing your real home in Irvine.

November 21, 2009December 28, 2009Fullerton City Council

Pam Keller’s Election as Mayor Clearly Equates to Discrimination

by Chris Thompson13 Comments

Like any good American, I am a staunch advocate for “TURNS”. And as Fullerton’s #1 Freedom Fighter, Sharon Kennedy points out; Pam Keller may not get hers as Mayor. Being moved nearly to tears by this development, I went straight to work statistically verifying this horrible state of affairs. Specifically, that women are not as likely to be given their TURN as Mayor as the men! What salacious form of woman-hating is this? So in support of Sharon and Pam, I ran the numbers…

Pam Keller Awarding Chris Norby for bringing the notion of TURNS to Fullerton Mayoral politics.

Dating back to Mayor Charles Chapman in 1902, 44% of Fullerton’s Male City Council Members have had their turn as Mayor. And, only 75% of our Female Council Members have had their turn. So, clearly, discrimination is rampa….what? Let me double check these figures:

35 male mayors/80 male council members = 44%.

6 female mayors/ 8 female council members = 75%

Ummm….well, let me check the numbers just since the first female council member Frances Wood (pause to bow head) was elected in 1970:

13 male mayors/17male council members = 77%

6 female mayors/ 8 female council members = 75%

I KNEW IT!!! Discrimination IS rampant in Fullerton!

But wait… dialing the Observer…

“Sharon, CT here. We have a problem. If the Fullerton School District’s Collaborative Director gets elected Mayor that will mean that 88% of Fullerton’s female council members will have been elected as Mayor and only 77% of men…

…what’s that?….NO, that’s only since 1970 when there HAVE been women on the council.

What? Bury it??? Yeah…yeah….that’s what we should do. People will just forget that we ever brought it up. God you’re brilliant Sharon!”

November 16, 2009November 16, 2009Behind Closed Doors

On the Agenda: November 17th, 2009

by Christian13 Comments

The Fullerton City Council has just released their agenda for November 17, 2009.

Let’s start off with agenda item #8. At a glance it looks like a little book keeping business. Upon closer inspection it appears that the Feds gave the County a grant for the City to purchase 35 tasers. The proposed cost is shown as “None.” I guess training is free?? According to the Chief, each and every patrol officer should have one. I have never seen 35 patrol officers in Fullerton at one time. I think the most patrol officers I have ever seen at one time in Fullerton numbered 7. How about one in each car/bike/motorcycle and a few in the station. Do they need to take the tasers home? And back on the training… According to taser.com, training runs about $395 per person. That doesn’t sound too bad until we remember that we will be paying the patrol officer to sit in a classroom for 6 hours or more rather than patrol the City. Unless there is grant funding to cover the overtime for training, I think the Chief might be mistaken about the proposed costs being “None.” And what about the liability of injury or death which may be less than striking someone with a baton or shooting them with beanbags?

Item #9 is over 100 pages long! From my brief reading it appears to allow the City to take over residential properties to avert abandonment and blight. That sounds a lot like federally subsidized redevelopment without having to declare blight. It’s like a preemptive condemnation. Are we really feeding the machine? This is on the consent calendar as “routine” and is to be lumped together with the tasers and some traffic-related items. The most interesting part is that this agreement will lock us in with Costa Mesa , La Habra , and MHC NSP LLC. Who is MHC NSP LLC? The program cost is shown as $1,369,854. Chump change?

Council is supposed to discuss the appointment process for commissioner. See item #10.

Item #11 is a pay cut for certain personnel. It also pushes the current 2% @ 55 to 2% @ 60. Sounds like a good idea.

Item #12 is the shocker! The City Council is proposing a program whereby they “…may contribute back to the City a portion of their salary.” There is a little more to it than a pay cut. It seems to be voluntary. The Attorney General wrote an opinion on this and noted that State law requires that pay increases begin when an official takes office. The same appears to be true with decreases in pay. So, in an effort to give back a portion of their pay, ±7.5%, they need to pass this resolution. Ok, it gets my vote.

I hope you will take a minute to read the supporting documents which are linked from the posted agenda. If I missed anything, please let us know so we can discuss.

Keep your eyes open for the December 1st meeting. Tentatively scheduled are a few hot-button issues. They include everyone’s favorite, West Coyote Hills, the North Orange County Transportation Partnership MOU, and a public hearing on the landscape ordinance.

November 5, 2009December 28, 2009Behind Closed Doors

More Phony Hand Wringing From the Skipper of the Yellowing Submarine

by The Fullerton Harpoon9 Comments

Ahoy there, reality - unable to surface...

A new month, the same old weeping by the Fullerton Observer about how the good ol’ boys are keeping poor Pam Keller from her entitlement to be mayor when the next term starts. It’s not fair! Not fair!

(Ed. – Never a word about Keller’s dismal votes on massive projects or her unique working relationship with FSD/Fullerton Collaborative, but that’s another story.)

We’ve said it before and we’ll say it again: the person who is entitled to be mayor is the council person who can get two other people on the council to vote for him. Pretty simple. Nothing else really matters.

The author of this indignant drivel lays out a conspiracy tale of events behind the scenes to keep a Democrat out of the presiding chair; and as usual the plot centers around Shawn Nelson, without whom the Observer would have a lot less to natter on about. Ironically the tangled web includes Observer favorite Don Bankhead and by necessity another Observer endorsement recipient – Dick Jones! Observer chickens coming home to roost? God, let’s hope so!

Politics might be going on. The horror! Of course despite the Observer trying to emphasize the ceremonial (i.e. non-political) aspects of the mayorship, the fact is it is a very coveted title when re-election time rolls around – as it does for Pam Keller, next year. Aha! Politics!

So is a scheme being worked out to elect somebody else mayor for 2010? Possibly. Quite likely, although since none of the supposed principles would be likely to talk to Sharon Kennedy about it, it seems much more likely to be a pure guess on her part. Our congressman Ed Royce loves to meddle in these affairs; to him it seems easier than simply turning on the light and opening the closet door to discover that there really is no monster in there. Just some mops and brooms.

And speaking of politics, maybe The Observer should quit endorsing Ed Royce puppets like the chowderhead Jones and focus on somebody who could actually be counted on to support Keller for mayor. Oh no! More politics.

November 3, 2009November 3, 2009Behind Closed Doors

On the Agenda: November 3rd, 2009

by admin30 Comments

This might become a regular feature: an FFFF reader just sent in a quick summary of interesting items up for discussion/vote at tonight’s Fullerton City Council meeting.

If there is anything else that needs to be brought up before tonight’s meeting, this is place to discuss it.

——————–

Nothing too exciting for the open session.

FFFF and Tony make the #2 Closed Session Agenda for tomorrow night’s meeting. Oh, to be a fly on that wall!

Heads up on Item #15 of the Open Session Agenda. Is management taking a pay cut? Great idea, take one for the team!

Item #16 looks like a ban on cell phone use. This matter concerns the use of cell phones and other electronic communication devices by Council Members and staff during Council meetings. One can only wonder what would be so important that it needed immediate attention by staff and council. Maybe it’s to deter all out secret bidding/bribing? Who knows! Sounds like a good idea to me.

Aside from the MILLIONS of dollars being allocated and reallocated into various projects, it looks like a quiet night…

Respectfully Submitted,

Christian

October 30, 2009October 30, 2009Dick Jones

Fullerton City Council Term Limits – Who’s For and Who’s Against

by admin38 Comments

UPDATE: Here’s a post from last winter, published again to remind the Friends that Fullerton’s decision-makers promised to put the term limits issue on the next available ballot. Of course that opportunity came and went with the 72nd Assembly Special Election primary. It could still be done in January 2010 if the Special Election itself is required. In any case there is a General Election primary election next June. So let’s all remember!

In dramatic fashion our friends on the Fullerton City Council decided on January 6^th that the voters of Fullerton should decide whether a twelve-year term limit for council members is right for Fullerton.

Pam Keller joined campaign promise keepers Shawn Nelson and Sharon Quirk in placing the issue on the first available ballot, which should be in June, 2010. Predictably, antediluvian councilmen Don Bankhead and Dick Jones opposed the motion believing that you can never be around too long, be too hidebound, too boring, and too inert to serve the public.

As usual, the good government types (i.e. we know what’s good for you so sit down and shut up) like Jan Flory were on hand to oppose the idea, knowing as they do that the longer you are in office the more likely you are to identify with public employees instead of constituents. These folks pretend to defend the public’s right to choose who their elected representatives are even though they don’t seem to trust the public to do much of anything else without government intervention.

We strongly support term limits. We believe that public choice will be enhanced by term limits because the well-financed incumbents will be forced to give way to new representation that might actually give people of real talent a chance to participate in governance, people who now largely acquiesce to the inevitability of incumbency. Fortunately, a majority of the council seem to agree.

The outstanding legal issue is whether the limits can be applied to previous years in office. The final wording of the plebiscite will have to address this. Let’s hope it works out so we can end the Age of Dinosaurs in Fullerton.

October 23, 2009December 29, 2009Arts & Architecture

God-awful “Fox Village” Gets Even Worse!

by The Fullerton Harpoon13 Comments

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tUWTXt0TRkQ

Remember those horror movies when the outraged villagers grabbed their pitchforks to have at the monster? What the “Fox Village” monster could use are a few more angry villagers.

At the City Council “workshop” on Tuesday the new plans for the existing city-created empty space behind the Fox Theater were rolled out. And while the reception by the public wasn’t pretty it wasn’t enough to kill off the monster, either.

What was rolled out were several elevations that raised the curtain on a hideously confused jumble of themes and materials that were supposed to be modernish, but that had that certain flavor of architectural renderings done by crazy people.

A hodgepodge of shapes and veneers with no apparent cohesion and not a whiff of aesthetic originality. Stone veneer on the first floor obligatory.

Have Fox Villagers gone insane? What a mish mash!

Why are they still trying to move McDonald’s? Didn’t the Council put that idea to rest? And yet here it is again! Can anyone say “insubordination”? Guess not – in Fullerton! And look a parking lot on the corner. Just what downtown needs – another permanent hole in the building fabric of downtown Fullerton.

Ah, the inevitable “pedestrian paseo.” Just lookit all the happy, bedazzled consumers. And that fountain! Precious. Makes you want to make a wish and toss three coins in.

Folks if you aren’t ready to go grab your pitchforks by now, we suggest that we stick a fork in you – because we think you’re done.