Friends For Fullerton's Future
FFFF supports causes that promote intelligent, responsible and accountable government in Fullerton and Orange County
Some things just won’t go down.
Back in the 1950s there was a TV show called “Queen for a Day.” Typical American women got to compete for the stupid title and probably won some housewife-drudgery prize like a washing machine or a vacuum cleaner.
“Dr.” Ahmad Zahra got a similarly useless tile the other day, when a dozen Council irritants selected him as “The People’s Mayor.” Except that Zahra didn’t even get a useful home appliance. Instead he got a Fullerton Crazy diploma in a plastic frame.
If as is being claimed by “Erik” at Fullerton City News is unequivocally stating that Fullerton City staff has been unilaterally backfilling departmental funds without approval by the City Council. This would be unethical and illegal.
Elected officials have to approve these sorts of transfers from the General Fund as well as periodic budget adjustments. Period. Erik claims this has been going on for at least seven years and the amounts are substantial.
Erik uses this situation to suggest a City sales tax bailout is the wrong way to reward the bureaucrats who perpetrated this possibly criminal hairball.
Here is his post:
May 21, 2026
Budgets are estimates, it’s an unpredictable world, and not getting it perfect is understandable. Fullerton City Hall staff and the city council are supposed to work together to determine how much money should go to each fund / department but ultimately it is the city council who, being elected, gets the final say on how we prioritize and spend that money. When council does this properly the residents are happy and councilmembers get re-elected, run for higher office, etc. When they don’t get it right they lose elections, get recalled, and/or face public scorn. The city council is our control mechanism over how our money is spent.
When a council appropriation ends up being more than what was needed, the remaining money can return to the General Fund without issue. When a council appropriation is not enough, the correct action is to request an increase from the city council. Again, city council is our control mechanism over how our money is spent. Staff does not have the legal authority to increase spending, only council does.
This is spelled out in City Municipal Code 2.68.030:
Prior to June fifth of each year, the City Administrator shall submit a budget for the coming fiscal year to the City Council for adoption.
And the restrictions given in City Municipal Code 2.68.050 which states:
C. Transfers of appropriations between departments and funds, or use of salary and accounts, other than those exceptions authorized herein, may be made only by authority of the City Council.
D. Expenditures in excess of the budgeted amounts are prohibited. (Ord. 1485 § 5, 1967).
This should be clear and simple. Need more money? Go ask council for it. However, it appears City Hall chose not to follow this practice (or the law).
During a conference call with a municipal finance expert, I was directed to the ‘Budgetary Compliance’ Section of the City’s 2025 Annual Comprehensive Financial Report (ACFR). They summarized that when that section is present in the report it means that something has gone wrong and in this case it’s by a lot. The ‘Excess’ column of this section lists money that city staff spent in excess of the council-approved budget and for 2025 it totals $11,148,422.
Consider for a moment what this means. Our only way of having a say over how our taxpayer money is spent is through the city council. They are elected to represent us and our interests. The municipal code confirms this is their decision to make. Yet in FY25 unelected bureaucrats at City Hall simply ignored the city council and the voters they represent and went and spent whatever they wanted.
Put another way, the city council budgeted a total of $132.9M to the General Fund but staff spent $144.1M … $11,148,422 of which was without council approval. You might notice on the Revenue side that we brought in $8.9M more than anticipated and should have had a $5.4M surplus. But staff’s $11,148,422 unauthorized spending pushed us from a large surplus to a $5.7M deficit.
This is a complete disregard of good financial practice by City Hall. While some overspending covers legitimate needs, the lack of prior approval violates the process residents rely on, a process that does not include staff spending whatever they want and stashing it on page 105 of next year’s ACFR. Their actions were in direct violation of the city municipal code and are a slap in our faces.
But wait… it gets worse. Much worse. If this were a one-time thing I could almost understand. But, Dear Readers, City Hall staff has disregarded city council approved budgets every single year for the past decade. See for yourself:
Prior to 2021 accounting used a different format for the annual financial report known as the Comprehensive Annual Financial Report (CAFR) and the format is a little different, but the pattern of spending beyond authorization continues.
Starting in 2019 to present, staff has helped themselves to $24,816,001 of our taxpayer dollars beyond what our duly-elected council representatives legally allocated them. This money was taken without permission, outside of our established legal process, repeated every single year in recent history. This is an outrage.
Our current unrestricted cash reserves are $19.8M which, with a general fund of $144.1M gives us the current 14% reserve level. This is well below the council target of 17% and translates to 1-1/2 months. Had staff followed the budget all these years, our reserves could be as high as $44.6M which comes out to a 31% reserve level or 3-1/2 months. Or some of that could have gone to paving more streets.
But alas, it is already spent and gone and those who spent it are telling you to just give them more money via a sales tax increase. You should ask your councilmember how they feel about this, do they still trust City Hall, and what are they going to do about it?
We are being robbed.
Back to Harpoonville. This sounds pretty serious and I sure hope the crack accountants we have hired to check the books to explore a few facts:
We have already seen the City play fast and loose with Redevelopment Successor Agency funds as well as other non-discretionary funds to pad the invalid General Fund. That was bad. And in retrospect, maybe those transfers were just part of an overall pattern of misfeasance.
Last week “the People” held their own meeting in front of City Hall since the Fullerton City Council meeting had been cancelled for lack of a quorum.
Who were “the People?” Nobody was saying before the event, except that the organizers were springing for limited pizza.
The turnout, predictably, was a couple dozen of the usual agitators at City Council meetings – a combination of Fullerton Boohoo, Fullerton Self-righteous, Fullerton Angry and Fullerton Nuts.
The ostensible theme of the get together was to bitch about the usual stuff, including transparency, which was funny because Sanka Kennedy of the Fullerton Observer who advertised this event, didn’t even bother to say who was putting on what turned out to be an overtly political event, whose principal purpose was to attack Mayor Fred Jung and promote Connor Traut in advance of the upcoming Supervisorial primary election.
It turns out the shindig was the work of Fullerton Forward, a political action committee cooked by council annoyance Steven Sherry, one of those underemployed political cling-ons looking to make his way in a cold, cruel political world. He was the one who sprang for the dozen pizzas, apparently.
O, the sparkling rhetoric from Crazy Air-punching Tim Johnson. Little Angry Bird, Dancing Ms. Green Card, Professor Curtis Gamble, Tender Young Elijah, Oliver the No-account of Montecristo, and other luminaries! Stika Kennedy, erstwhile “journalist” addressed the gaggle, too, showing again her failure to distinguish journalism from partisan politics.
Then, at last, to the mawkish business of “appointing” the “People’s Mayor.” Angry Johnson had already prepared certificate of accomplishment for the Dodgy Doctor from Damascus, Ahmad Zahra! What a surprise!!
The entire affair was an unwitting foray into comic opera, so at least some entertainment value was produced.
Questions about whether such an overtly political event on public property is legal and whether Fullerton Forward had permits or insurance to put on this affair are being raised by concerned citizens (see what I did there, Observers?).
Over at the Fullerton Observer, the boohoos have gotten their panties in a knot over the cancellation of Tuesday’s Fullerton City Council meeting.
A post by the mysterious “Jack Hutt” is full of angst and anger that the meeting is not to be. Questions are being raised by unnamed sources, he says; unnamed observers are suggesting things, he says. It’s the usual Staknia Kennedy trope. Something is afoot Jack fears, and so a self-created opportunity to attack Councilmembers Jung, Valencia and Dunlap has presented itself to these self-styled journalists.
Anyhow, fear not. Some unnamed group is having its own council meeting at 5:30pm on the City Hall lawn. Remember? The one they wanted to get rid of a few months ago. Bring your friends and your lawn chairs, says a flier designed and propagated by persons unknown.
And guess what? Someone, again unstated, is claiming “we” will appoint “The People’s Mayor,” a chance no doubt for the immigrant fraud and serial liar, “Dr.” Ahmad Zahra to finally get to call himself a Mayor of Fullerton even if it’s only Mayor For a Day.
Fullerton’s so-called Ad Hoc Fiscal Sustainability Committee met again, and probably for the last time last Thursday. Like its predecessor, the meeting expended hours of lots of peoples’ time and accomplished nothing. Not very little. Nothing.
Hours and hours of already familiar Power Point readings.
Three things worth mentioning happened.
First, Daisy Perez, the Assistant City Manager reminded the committee that if the City were to get a dedicated “infrastructure” half-cent sales tax increase, that money could be diverted to pay for “maintenance” of police and fire department facilities. She said nothing about a commensurate reduction in the “public safety” budgets and naturally nobody on the committee asked her.
Later, when pressed, the City Manger had to explain that he needed some sort of City Attorney blessing before he could share polling questions asked by the City’s quality of life/pro tax consultant. Huh? The only people who get to know the questions are the ones who got phone solicitations? What bullshit is this? Fortunately, Joshua Ferguson was on hand to share the nature of the questions his wife got; of course they were directed to promoting a sales tax increase of some kind.
Later still, when everyone was fatigued, Perez tried to get the committee to vote on a laundry list of options, all of which would be passed on to the council. This is the precise swindle that occurred during the redistricting process courtesy of City Clerk Lucinda Williams – when Fullerton Booohoo was trying real hard to keep Jesus Quirk-Silva in a political job.
Chris Norby, our former City Councilman, County Supervisor and Assemblyman showed up to save the day. He shared the value of vacant properties the City owns, and threw in the airport. These collectively are worth half a billion he asserted. He didn’t remind committee members that these properties would be declared surplus, and that “affordable” housing developers would get first shot at them. He reminded the committee that sales taxes are inherently regressive, perhaps thinking anybody cared about that.
In the end a completely improper process of trying to vote on something, anything, occurred. Without following any order except prompting by staff, the committee voted 3-2 against a Tony Bushala suggestion of a 1/2 cent sales tax dedicate to infrastructure, and keeping in place an existing ordinance guaranteeing a certain percentage of funding for infrastructure.
Then the appointees of the liberals Shana Charles and Ahamad Zahra, Derek Smith and Jennifer Duong proposed their own idea: a one cent general sales tax. This failed 3-2, also with Bushala, Wehn and Wozab voting no.
Finally a legitimate motion was made by Eric Wehn and seconded by Bushala: investigate the possible sale of the water function to an independent water company. That proposal was finally passed 3-2 again with the liberal appointees voting no. This idea really has no place to go, except that an exploration of the Water Department’s vacant property should be definitely considered for offloading.
There seemed to be confusion about whether the committee could meet again to keep kicking the can around. No decision was made on that as far as I can tell, but I’ve seen so many Fullerton meetings dissolve into incoherence at their end that I really can’t say.
I really think that’s what a lot of last night’s council meeting regarding a proposed development at the northwest corner of Harbor Blvd. and Hermosa Drive was about.
The appeal of the Planning Commission’s denial was the issue and to their credit Dunlap, Jung and Valencia pushed back on the appeal. But the real show was put on by Ahmad Zahra and his stablemate Shana Charles.
First a little about the project. It would cram 32 dinky “townhomes” on a parcel that the City claims is 1.3 acres (it looks smaller); the zoning for the site is R-1-20 which is typical in the old horsey part of town – a minimum 20,000 square foot lot, or about half an acre. But the developer applied for permits during a period when Fullerton’s “Housing Element” was not in compliance with the State regulations; therefore he could rely on “Builder’s Remedy” a harebrained scheme by the State Legislature whereby somebody can cram a whole bunch of units on to a site and fuck you, neighbors. There just has to be mandated and restricted “low income housing” of which our friendly builder was to produce the bare minimum.
Such is our government that the project still needed to be approved by the Planning Commission, and City planning staff recommended approval lest there be spooky lawsuits. The PC bravely said nay, exercising their authority as a discretionary body. The Council did the same.
But it was a fight. Zahra and Charles did their best to defend what can only be described as an out of scale, mini-monstrosity. Five stuccoed buildings with crappy plastic windows; three stories each jammed onto the site with only way in and out. And because of, ya know, low income housing, the developer doesn’t even have to bring power to the site underground!
Zahra tried mightily to show that the PC had no objective basis for their decision given staff’s assurances; but this begs the question of how much due-diligence staff actually put into this to make a balanced presentation in the first place. Apparently there was no traffic study required and because of our wonderful Legislature, “in-fill” projects are categorically exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act. Staff said there was no basis for a claim of public safety endangerment, a finding, if made, that could be used to reject the project. Zahra tried to undermine the neighbors and the Planning Commission’s conclusions as mere opinion, not fact.
Charles was just as bad with her usual dumb grin, condescending routine. We have to abide by the State’s diktats and there was nothing else that could be done. And although public opinion is just great we have no choice, yadda, yadda. The ridiculousness of voting on something about which you have no choice seems to have escaped the otiose public health professor. How come you dropped the low income level from 20% to 13%, asked the smiling academic of the developer. Higher interest rates the fellow claimed; both were play-acting. The Legislature previously reduced that requirement over a year ago and of course they both know it.
A few of Fullerton Boohooers got up to present pre-coordinated statements: the need for housing uber alles. Fresh and fragile Elijah Manassero gloated that there was no way to reject this; and we need places for people like him to live, he tenderly beseeched! Of course these folks mentioned the horrible lawsuits coming Fullerton’s way – as if that had ever concerned readers of the Fullerton Observer. The “pastor” who can’t figure out how to button his shirt was there, on cue to preach to us that a city’s character” is more than just scale and density.
Sitkia Kennedy could be seen in the fifth row applauding these speakers, presumably before she returned to her role of objective journalist.
Our old friend Elizabeth Hansberg showed up via Zoom to advocate for the project. We recall her “advocacy group” that advertises her willingness to advocate for a project; developer donations to her non-profit always welcome. She betrayed her affiliation with the comment: “we are providing the opportunity for people to move up…” Of course she gleefully entertained the council with the threat of lawsuits from her legal pals.
In typical Fullerton fashion, the end the issue was punted to May 19th, I guess.
The net result of this proposal, if approved, is only 32 out of the 13,000 new housing units demanded by the SCAG and Sacramento crowd. Only 5 would be deed restricted to low income. The units are meant to be sold at this point so the positive impact for poor renters like Zahra and Charles is virtually nil.
I’m trying to figure out why the Fullerton liberal claque was so het up on this project. I couldn’t think of a good reason except that they thought this was something that would annoy northern Fullertonions – those folks that Zahra is always complaining get all the municipal goodies while his underserved constituents get the short end of the stick.
Is this really about a perceived class distinction of north versus south? I really don’t think there’s anything more involved than that. One of the speakers said it: “The entire city needs to do their (sic) part…”
At the last Fullerton City Council meeting Ahmad Zahra, the ersatz damascene doctor, brought up the subject of the annual State of the City event. It’s a big lunch affair with lots and lots of people attending. His intent was to try to embarrass Mayor Fred Jung since the Mayor is the one gives the address, and Jung does it often whereas Zahra has never done it and never will.
Zahra called the event a publicity stunt that, given the bad state of Fullerton’s roads and finances should be scrapped. It’s all about transparency and public involvement, and other such nonsense. He still wanted an accounting and naturally so did his associate Shana Charles.
But then, lo and behold. When the two sanctimonious boobs were done, Mayor Jung, asked the City Manager how much last year’s event cost the City. The latter announced that last year’s event didn’t cost the City anything. In fact it made money!
Oops.
Anyway, ther unnecessary review of this event is on tonight’s council meeting agenda where Zahra can whine about the council as a whole having no input; and the usual Fullerton Boohoo and Fullerton Angry nuts can stomp and shout.
You might think that a conscientious public servant like Zahra would forgo wasting staff time putting together and delivering a report on this event; and wasting his colleagues’ and the public’s time in listening to it. If you did you would be wrong. This is going nowhere. Here’s the lead in on the actual agenda:
An update on the City of Fullerton annual State of the City event, including a financial
summary of the 2025 State of the City and considerations for the 2026 event. Staff
anticipates utilizing a sponsorship and ticket-supported approach similar to the successful
2025 event for the 2026 State of the City and seeks City Council direction.
When staff describes the Mayor’s speechifying event as “successful” you’re not going to be able to use it to embarrass the Mayor.
Maybe Shana Charles will show up and then galumph out in a high dudgeon protest – like she did in 2023. But then she’d have to pass on a free lunch.
This blog has introduced Mr. Derek Smith to our friends. He is the appointee of “Doctor” Ahmad Zahra to the so-called Budget Sustainability Committee. His qualifications? Well, none are apparent. But we do know that Smith is (or was) the political lobbyist for the union that organizes cannabis store employees.
We already knew that Smith’s union was bankrolling a PAC for the benefit of Cannabis Kitty Jaramillo’s scampaign in 2024 to the tune of $60,000, $4000 of which went to The Councilwoman Shana Charles Self-improvement Fund.
And now thanks to detailed reporting by Mr. Duane J. Roberts, a true citizen journalist, we know that the union in question, UFCW Local 324, was up to it’s neck in schemes to bring legal cannabis to Anaheim. Roberts’ post is a must-read, for it details the close alliance between Anaheim’s crooked cabal and the union. For several years Smith and his union worked closely with disgraced Anaheim Chamber of Commerce head Todd Ament, Anaheim fixer Jeff Flint, and the Mayor, Harry Sidhu.
For the cabal the dope incentive was money, and lots of it. Money that would go to the cabal leaders, the Chamber of Commerce, and campaign funds of the later-convicted Mayor. For Derek Smith’s union, the promise of a Labor Peace Agreement (LPA) that would eventually cover even part-time workers was the goal.
First this association of strange bedfellows tried to get the City Council to go along. Then they began the process to put the issue on the ballot, with proposals written by the cabal, and then by the lobbyist for the Long Beach dope cartel; they were submitted by a UFCW Local 324 employee, and then a local realtor and insurance salesman, Belal Dalati, respectively. Both were eventually retracted, but not without threats, according to Roberts.
Left unreported by Roberts was the role of Melahat Rafiei, the acknowledged queen bee of OC dope lobbying, and a player deeply involved with Anaheim’s cabal. She later went to jail after she was busted by the FBI for wire fraud; Harry Sidhu did a prison stint, too for destroying evidence; Todd Ament pleaded guilty to fraud and his buddy Jeff Flint left town – for a while. Nice people, right?
While none of the Anaheim MJ activities were illegal, at least as far as can be discerned, the whole episode gives off a real bad smell; and in the middle of it was Derek Smith’s union.
Anybody who thinks Ahmad Zahra was ignorant of what was going on in Anaheim and with Rafiei (whom he recommended to at least one Fullerton businessman as a necessary contact) is pretty credulous. And his appointment of Derek Smith to the budget committee comes into sharper focus.
The fact that the self-righteous clamorers who have decried the appointment of Tony Bushala to this committee have diligently ignored the appointment of Smith is telling. Bushala’s political involvement is a disqualification; Smith’s political history is assiduously ignored – just like the Fullerton Observer Sisters relentlessly ignored the Scott Markowitz conspiracy and the massive contribution by Derek Smith’s union to a pro-Jaramillo political action committee.
Both Zahra and Charles are beholden to the dope lobby, but they still need another vote to revive the 2020 marijuana ordinance approved by Jan Flory, Jesus Quirk-Silva, and Ahmad Zahra. They won’t get it this year.
The Fullerton Boohoo claque has made a big deal about how Tony Bushala is unfit to be on the ad hoc Budget Sustainability Committee. His disqualification? He is involved in politics. He is a “rent seeker” in the words of Tender Young Elijah Manisserro, who remarkably is not ashamed at being a dedicated Marxist in the 21st Century. Bushala has a conflict of interest, these people keep bleating.
Tony’s real offense is that he has money and is willing to spend it to keep aggressive imbeciles like Cannabis Kitty Jaramillo from getting into office; and for that he has gained the animus of the Damascus Dodger, Ahmad Zahra and his small collection of sycophants.
But Mr. Bushala is not the point of this post. Rather it is another member of the Committee, one Derek Smith.
Mr. Smith is Ahmad Zahra’s personal appointee to the group, and has a lot of interest in Fullerton’s budget. Why? Because he is the political lobbyist for the local union that represents marijuana dispensary employees. He is part of a coalition that has been trying to get these places legalized in Fullerton for years. Their point man is Ahmad Zahra who doesn’t seem to see a contradiction between dope use and his alleged Muslim convictions.
In the the 2024 District 4 election Smith’s union funded a political action committee dedicated to electing Cannabis Kitty. He funded it to the tune of $60,000 which included a $4,000 payment to Andre Charles, husband of councilmember Shana Charles. How come? To elect the pro-cannabis candidate who would re-instate the old dope law repealed in 2021.
That’s a lot of political activity, activity that has received zero scrutiny by the Fullerton Observer Sisters, Sharon and Sickia. Come to think of it, the delicate rose petal Elijah Manissero has never mentioned it either. How’s that for hypocritical “transparency?”
Moreover, Brother Smith is not an accountant, or a business owner, or a entrepreneur. Instead, he is a dedicated union functionary, virtually the last person I would want on a municipal budget sustainability committee. The apex of Smith’s business experience has been blowing through $60,000 of his members’ dues on Jaramillo. Did he know about the fraudulent Scott Markowitz campaign? I wonder.
Applying the rhetoric and logic of Fullerton’s boohoos would immediately disqualify Derek Smith from the Budget Sustainability Committee. Will anybody apply it? I wonder.
In the meantime Ahmad Zahra the eager messiah of marijuana in Fullerton has once again raised the topic. The issue isn’t dead as far as the dope lobby is concerned.
