On Tuesday the City Council, on a 3-2 vote rejected a proposed half cent per dollar sales tax increase to be placed on the November ballot. The revenue was supposed to go to street repair (75%) and the rest to “infrastructure” which, of course, could mean almost anything.
For reasons only explained by Fullerton’s institutional lack of ability to get on to something and get it done – one way or another – the thing was agendized for the last possible meeting to get in on the ballot.
The public speakers were generally ignorant of any details and as full of useless commentary as usual. Some orange hair dyed geezer gabbled on about how sales tax used to be 4% and was now 7.75% in Fullerton – a damning indictment of incompetent leadership. This poor old dolt is obviously uninterested in why the sales tax has increased to pay the enormous salaries and pensions of public employees. He also decided to compare Fullerton’s streets with new cities in south Orange County.
Otiose Satkia Kennedy on the job…citizen journalist!
Sinkhole Kennedy of the Fullerton Observer Sisters team who pretends to be a journalist got up to speak. I have no idea what she said.
In defeat, malice…
A slumpy Kitty Jaramillo showed up and stood proud of her advocacy for marijuana dispensaries, an advocacy that earned her the great soubriquet “Cannabis Kitty.” She still hasn’t come clean about what she knew when team Jaramillo created the phoney and perjurious scampaign of Scott Markowitz.
No one really knew how to deal with the issue intelligently, but one thing was obvious: the nay voters – “Dr.” Ahmad Zahra, Nick Dunlap, and Jamie Valencia – all made reference to “building trust” before a forwarding a tax increase. This is funny. The reference, of course, was to the misallocation of millions of bucks, causing the reserve funds to diminish by the same amount. It was really just accounting errors by staff that shouldn’t have happened, but did, and for which the City got some bad local press. The council had no real responsibility for the goof, big as it was, and certainly had less responsibility for it than for the boondoggles like the Boutique Hotel and the Trail to Nowhere that it routinely approves.
Another missed bus…
Zahra’s sudden lack of trust in his own City apparatus to implement and audit the proceeds from the sales tax increase was completely disingenuous. After almost 8 years of approving many unbalanced budgets, had Zahra realized his Come to Jesus Moment? Of course not. None of his long oration rang true, except as it was true to his form: dissimulating petulance personified. He wanted a 1 cent tax back in 2020, but now the faith of the taxpayers has been shaken. All bullshit. The fact is he still wanted a 1 cent general sales tax but knew he couldn’t get the votes to put it on the ballot. His argument that this proposal might harm future sales tax proposals was sheer nonsense.
Fortunately, Zahra’s career in political theater will over in four months, and he can go back to whatever scam he did to earn his crust.
The yes voters on the question were Charles and Jung. The former was a big drumbeater for ballotizing the tax, described the practical need, and she was assured by the “safeguards” built in. A sideways mention about Zahra letting personalities get in the way of exigency was met with a Zahra denial that nobody can have taken seriously.
Mayor Fred Jung said little, except that now, at this point he was willing to support any kind of tax, a sort of depressing, defeatist statement.
Anyway, the thing failed, and that’s that. At least for now.
The scheme to rubber stamp a deal that would have cost the City and local agencies a million bucks a year in property tax revnue was voted down 3-2 last night.
On Sunday I shared the news of the agenda item returning to the council after being continued in June. Let me reiterate.
TEFRA stands for Tax Equity and Fiscal Responsibility Act, and authorization permits a little-known statewide housing agency to issue bonds that will provide $180,000,000 for an unknown non-profit entity to buy and remodel two huge apartment complexes over by Cal State Fullerton. The projects will subsequently be restricted to low and medium income renters.
Of course the kickers were that the projects were going to be eventually removed from the property tax rolls by the County Assessor and that the 395 now-restricted units would not even count toward the 13,000 new unit quota demanded by the State of California based on numbers cooked up in their social engineering lab by SCAG – the Southern California Associations of Governments.
Economic Development is my specialty…
The whole thing was obviously being presented by a completely biased staff led by the ever-egregious Sunaya Thomas. All you had to do was pick up on the tenor of the staff report.
Well, naturally the two socialists on the council were big supporters, as predicted. It was all about subsidizing the so-called “missing middle” a comparatively new term concocted by sociologists to identify a new group of underserved (subsidized) people like teachers and nurses and Shana Charles’ pals, the impoverished Associate Professors at CSUF. Charles bemoaned the latter’s rough life in the slums and tent cities. Okay, I made that up but you get the picture.
The lack of logic from Charles – and her fellow traveler the Dodgy Doctor from Damascus, Ahmad Zahra – peddled crap so illogical I would be remiss if I didn’t share it.
Still 13,000 units to go!
Charles claimed that this plan would remove existing overcrowding in the existing apartments. She didn’t say how; presumably locked in lower rents would mean less crowding as fewer residents were needed to make the monthly nut. Huh? What would keep future tenants from from reducing whatever the cost is by jamming into apartment units? She didn’t think about the outcome of her assertion: if the crowding were lessened, where the hell would those people go? The street? Her position was that the already badly bungled could suck up the property tax loss.
The Man Who Was Never Mayor…
“Dr.” Zahra made an even stupider claim: that these subsidized public housing projects would boost the sales taxes, the local economy and hence the city budget! What the everlasting fuck? Did this idiot want us to believe that none of the current residents in the “market rate” apartments contribute to the Fullerton economy?
A very-much awake Chris Norby in a contemplative mood…
Fortunately, wiser heads chimed in. Earlier, former Councilman Chris Norby showed up to lay it out to the Council. The projects will provide no property tax but demand all of the usual services, plus more; and that the so-called “preservation” of units described by staff was nonsense. But of course the tender young Marxist Elijah Manassero was there to promote government subsidized housing, possibly hoping to move out of his dad’s house someday.
Nobody bothered to ask if these complexes were already effectively affordable, and were already being used by folks who work and go shopping in the area. Staff didn’t say, another indicator of the lack of professional objectivity from our under-compensated employees.
Commonsense prevailed…
Nick Dunlap, to his credit, demonstrated the appropriate annoyance at the nonsense, skewering the weepy idiocy presented by Zahra and Charles. He immediately moved a substitute motion to can the idea right after a motion to approve was made by Zahra and Charles. It was seconded by Jamie Valencia, and the in the vote, Mayor Fred Jung provided the deciding vote to pull the plug.
I would hope that this is the last time we’ll see this sort of thing, but the old adage “it’s never over ’till staff says it is” is always a Fullerton factor.
On Tuesday’s jam-packed agenda (more on that later) one item stands out: consideration of approving TEFRA bonds. It’s been continued from the June 16th meeting.
TEFRA stands for Tax Equity and Fiscal Responsibility Act, and authorization permits a little-known statewide housing agency to issue bonds that will provide $180,000,000 for an unknown non-profit entity to buy and remodel two huge apartment complexes over by Cal State Fullerton. The projects will subsequently be partially restricted to low and medium income renters.
The staff report goes to great pains to explain that the City is in no way responsible for the debt incurred; see, it’s more of a procedural formality that the municipality puts its stamp of approval on the debt issuance.
Anyhow, questions were asked by the Council in June about the impact to property tax revenue, and as usual that inquiry was met with blather:
Since the County Assessor is the guy who grants tax-exempt status on 501(c) “affordable housing” the City itself has no part in that, and so staff explains that this action, per se, won’t lower tax revenue. But that’s a distinction without a difference, for clearly one purpose for investors in these acquisitions is to harvesting the benefit of lowered property tax. It’s gotta be in their development pro forma. The staff report says a little about possible lowered revenue, later on:
In other words two huge apartment projects will inevitably generate less of the property tax than they generate now, but still require all of the city services, from infrastructure to police and “fire fighters.”
And that’s not all, Friends. The units thus restricted will not count towards Fullerton Regional Housing Needs Assessment (RHNA) quota – the idiotic number coughed up behind closed doors by the unaccountable bunglers at the Southern California Association of Governments. Here’s how the staff report explains it.
Well, that’s a kick in the head. So we still need another 13,000 units, per the SCAG quota. I have no idea what the City’s “affordable housing goals”are and I don’t see a reference to a supporting document that substantiates any of this.
To me this is a lose-lose situation unless your mission in life is to support the Affordable Housing Industrial Complex by subsidizing a tax reduction. It isn’t just about providing “affordable” housing. It’s about taxpayers ultimately paying more for municipal services to satisfy some hazy “goal” somewhere.
Fullerton’s Observer boohoo brigade will no doubt rejoice at this endeavor because, ya know, a housing “crisis” requires public subsidy and taxes really will fix everything. And doing something, even if it makes no sense, is still doing good.
Congratulations, Fullerton. The infamous Trail to Nowhere, or as it is called in City Hall circles, the “UP Trail Phase II,” is now six months old.
None of its adherents inside of City Hall or in the hallowed and self-righteous pages of the Fullerton Observer will ever follow up to actually see if has been a successful expenditure of 2.5 million bucks. The bureaucrats who will be hard at work looking for their next boondoggle will never give it another thought; nor will the cowardly City Council that approved the waste, caving into a gaggle of local fools. It was all for la communidad and when top-down patronizing government is hard at work, money is no object.
But I will keep reminding FFFF.
Because I happen to drive down Highland Avenue and often Richman Avenue I get periodic glimpses into what all that money bought. And what I have seen is precisely what this blog predicted all along. It’s almost always empty. And that makes a lot of sense because it starts in the back of Independence Park and dies at Highland. It doesn’t even connect to Phase I – a deficiency so obvious that you would have thought someone on the City Council might have noticed. If they did they didn’t say a word in objection.
Obviously the community, the supposed beneficiary of this largesse doesn’t use it. Why would they?
In her grant application to the State of California, now retired Park employee Alice Loya bragged about connectivity. There isn’t any. She dreamed up 105,000 anticipated users annually. The users so far could probably be counted in the hundreds. The trail was going to be a miraculous incubator for redevelopment of the surrounding area. All lies. And a plankton colony could have seen it. But not the geniuses in City Hall. Or they didn’t care.
Even as we are being asked to make sacrifices because of their inability to run the City, we have yet another facility without the means to maintain it. Other parks were already suffering from neglect, and of course Hillcrest Park, what should be the crown jewel of Fullerton parks continues to be intentionally neglected through institutional apathy. Its bare hillsides are a testament to that neglect.
And the case of Hillcrest is ironic because many of the casual users are Latinos – just the sort of folks the Trail to Nowhere was meant to patronize. However, a sense of irony is not one of the qualities one associates with government agencies who talk a good talk, but in the end always opt for the park project that will give them something to do.
A week or so ago the Fullerton City Council reviewed the solicitation for a new garbage hauling contract. Again. FFFF shared the last instalment of the drawn out saga relating how “Dr.” Ahmad Zahra went bonkers because two of the companies offered big upfront payments recouped by a higher CPI multiplier.
The meeting droned on and on and finally the Council went along with yet another temporization – cutting the number of eligible responders to three – CR&R, Republic, and Valley Vista. Republic was told to eliminate its upfront payment plan and revise its fee schedule. The process will now drag on until September, a move that will surely benefit Republic, the current hauler.
Noticeably absent from the final three was EDCO – the original preferred vendor of city staff. Why they were not given the same chance as Republic to delete the big cash offer and rejigger their numbers is unknown. What is known is that Republic, the company that came in dead last in the first round of staff analysis, moves ahead with several nice comments from some of Fullerton’s Left Guard who seem to be terrified of change.
CR&R, you may remember offered what looked like a $4 million gift for the City to pave a few potholes. But companies like this don’t work for free and surely they can lower their fees by getting rid of the Trojan Horse gift. That’s nothing but a hidden tax, right? Just better hidden than EDCO’s or Republic’s.
Valley Vista will surely never get more than three votes since they contributed to the Fullerton Taxpayers for Reform PAC that went after Fullerton Boohoo darling Cannabis Kitty Jaramillo in 2024. Zahra and Charles won’t vote for them because of this political involvement although they certainly wouldn’t mind had Valley Vista given money to the dope lobby’s Working Families for Jaramillo PAC. The Fullerton Observer Sisters like to remind their readers about the bad, bad folks at VV.
But Valley Vista doesn’t need four or five votes, only three.
The Council also decided to let its members talk to vendors directly, something that they had prohibited themselves from doing, apparently. Will the they share who they talked with, and what about? I wonder.
Anyway, let the death march continue. Sure it’s a big deal, but there’s no reason this shouldn’t have been locked up a long time ago.
Right now it looks like Ms. Charles, the sanctimonious and self-important gasbag representing District 3 on the Fullerton City Council has no competition for re-election this November.
I suppose this is a testament to the apathy of the electorate because there should be at least one person willing to challenge the otiose uber-leftist whose constant stream of self-righteous and ignorant bullshit almost demands an opponent.
A visit to the City Clerk’s webpage listing candidate committees shows no one except Charles in the Third District.
This doesn’t mean that a non-committee candidate isn’t running, or that a potential opponent isn’t waiting to file the forms necessary to raise funds like a serious contender. But time is almost up. Candidates will be able to “pull papers” to run in just a few weeks. If they haven’t announced yet, at this late date, it seems unlikely.
Why?
Charles has taken lots positions that would undoubtedly be unpopular among responsible, taxpaying citizens outside the Fullerton Boohoo echo chamber. Let’s put aside her flip-flops on issues like the downtown noise regulations and the issue of private publications on city property. Instead, let’s focus on issues that would be pretty damaging to Charles once voters learn about them. They involve wasting money, or trying to. A lot of it.
First is her steadfast support of handing over $200,000 of public funds to support illegal aliens harassed by ICE. You can feel sympathy for people snagged by the ICE goons without wanting to use public funds to pay for their groceries.
That can’t be good…
Then there is the embarrassing matter of the so-called boutique hotel, where the Council approved massive entitlements on a property and then “sold” it for peanuts to build a massive and harebrained project on Santa Fe Avenue. The worst part was deeding over the property to a couple of inveterate con men who, after many years, haven’t turned a shovel of dirt on the site and never will. Providentially, that approval was Shana Charles’ very first vote.
Green means green. One way or another…
How about the issue of her income from the marijuana lobby – gained via her husband’s effort to get Cannabis Kitty Jaramillo elected in the 2024 D4 election. Her tribe is always blathering about the evils of money in campaigns; Jaramillo got $60,000 of Washington DC lobbyist cash working for her and $4000 went right into the Charles family wallet. Would the residents of D3 like a dispensary on State College?
I don’t want to forget the disastrous Trail to Nowhere that cost $2.5 million and has virtually no use. FFFF predicted that over and over again, although it wasn’t hard for anybody to foresee. The last half dozen times I have driven down Richman at various hours, I have yet to see a single user. Charles was stupid enough to fall for all the bullshit peddled by staff; either that or she knew it was nonsense and didn’t care. Does it make a difference?
Spinning, spinning…
If there is a tax on the November ballot Charles will have to take a stand. Spinning won’t help. She won’t get her 13% general sales tax increase, but there could be two 6.5% special sales taxes to vote for, infrastructure and “public safety.” Opposing these would send a signal that she doesn’t care about fixing the budget deficit she helped create: just a couple years ago she bragged about hiring more people.
She has to run on the state of the City and that state isn’t good. She’s been there for four years with nothing to show for it except foolish positions and non-stop, rambling lectures.
Update: a well-informed reader pointed has out that 7/7/26 was removed from the calendar in December 2025 because staff determined it was too close to Independence Day.
I have no idea why it wasn’t so designated on the CC’s schedule found on the City website – until this afternoon.
This does beg the question as to why the meeting wasn’t rescheduled as an official hearing to make determinations regarding the budget and find out the status of the search for a new money-raising consultant. There seems to be almost no sense of urgency about the fact that the City still doesn’t have a budget for this fiscal year.
On Tuesday the Fullerton City Council is going to address the topic of selecting the next solid waste hauler. This is a big deal, with a lot of money involved.
And so they did. I won’t bore the Friends with the various details of proposals because in the end each is offering different rates, services, and feel good community involvement, the last item a useless PR gesture that somebody in City Hall thought merited points in their selection calculations.
But two RFP respondents offered something else. Big loans to the City’s General Fund that would be recovered over many years via augmented rates.
EDCO has sweetened the pot by offering a $15,000,000 one time payment to the City to be recovered by a differential in the annual Consumer Price Index that is applied to fees.
Republic, the current hauler, is offering a $10,000,000 one time payment they are charmingly calling a “Community Enhancing Payment” which sounds better than “City of Fullerton Bailout.”
Obviously these two cash offer proposals would present the City Council immediate, if only very temporary, relief from the impending budget reserve liquidation, and will attract attention for that. The other positive political result could be the elimination of a November 2026 ballot tax question – a problem in getting on the ballot, and passage by the voters. However, the underlying structural budget deficit would remain and would need to be addressed, anyway, and immediately.
The formulas increasing the CPI scales would really be amount to a hidden tax on waste producing customers in Fullerton, and the City would be in the effective position of incurring debt leveraged on hauling fee increases. I presume the offerors and the City have investigated the legality of this.
Of the two proposers, EDCO was previously ranked first by a narrow margin, while Republic was in last place. The City’s relationship with Republic really soured during negotiations for SB 1383 when Republic did the old bait-and-switcheroo so there’s that to consider.
Meantime CR&R is promising $4,000,000 upfront to pay for road improvements – no strings attached – however there are always strings attached and in this case recovery of the 4 mil will certainly be reflected in rates higher than other proposers.
Is the upfront payment concept viable? I think so. It would buy some time for the City. But somebody would have to pay the piper, and somebody is still going to have to make the budget cuts required to balance a budget and no one has shown any appetite for this bitter menu. Appointing a useless committee to study things has been a waste of time. Almost.
One of the committee members did suggest the very thing that EDCO, Republic and CR&R are offering demonstrating that at least somebody was thinking of alternatives.
My guess is that “Dr.” Ahmad Zahra and Shana Charles will not support this big payment option, seeing great liberal virtue in imposing a 13% sales tax increase like the ill-fated measure M of 2020. On the other hand, that passage is a risky business and they need 4 votes to make it even get on the ballot. Nick Dunlap probably would not vote for putting a tax on the ballot, or going with the upfront payment plan. But his vote might not be needed. The waste contract only needs 3 votes. Where are Jung and Valencia? I guess we’ll find out Tuesday.
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.
Why did this go away? I don’t know, but I suspect that three councilmembers who voted for it lost interest or maybe decided it wasn’t worth the trouble, political or otherwise.
“Dr.” Ahmad Zahra and Shana Charles stirred up his usual claque to clamor against it, citing Fred Jung’s vaulting ambition, but failing to explain how, exactly, a charter would deliver an evil outcome.
I think it’s time to resurrect this idea, even though no one seems to want to chat about it. A lot of good could come from it. Despite the cries of horror from the Kennedy Sisters and their ilk, a new municipal organization could be created, with a strong, city-wide elected Mayor holding executive power and the accountability for it.
The “if it ain’t broke don’t fix it” argument now seems absurd. The City is a breaking mess. The infrastructure is a disgrace and the finances seem to have been handed over to cluster of chimps. Things are not working. One only has to look at the budget disaster and the basic accounting errors to know it. Who knows what the proverbial “deep dive” into Fullerton’s personnel, purchasing, asset management and risk management might reveal?
When things don’t work, and haven’t worked for a long, time it sure looks a lot like an invitation to change.
But change is hard for everyone, especially when lots of people are involved in the making of it.
