I decided to watch the afternoon Fullerton City Council session about hiring a new trash hauler, yesterday. When it came time for questions directed to staff I learned a few things.
First, I realized the extent to which Ahmad Zahra blames one individual – Tony Bushala – for every thing he, Zahra, doesn’t like. And it’s got to the point where anything attributable to Bushala is something he, Zahra, doesn’t like. Even when the attribution is based on his own baseless paranoia and suspicion and egomania. It’s embarrassing.
That’s a mighty fine thing you did, Anthony…
This accounts for his outbursts yesterday to staff and special council about the origins of the upfront payment to the City by a couple of RFP respondents, EDCO and Republic. As noted here, the idea was mentioned by Mr. Bushala several months ago at a Budget Sustainability Committee meeting and that was it. There is no demonstrable tie between that brief occurrence and any of the trash haulers, except in the febrile brain of the dodgy “doctor” from Damascus. Nada. It was never mention in the first round of RFP submissions.
When Zahra couldn’t get staff or the lawyers to agree with him and condemn the notion of a big initial payment he became agitated and began a completely unprofessional diatribe.
It was good stuff for the handful of his Fullerton Crazy claque in attendance who also faithfully believe any nonsense peddled by Zahra and who remain completely incurious about Zahra’s own string of malfeasances starting with immigration and marriage fraud to get into the country.
I am gratified to know that Zahra is a reader of this blog. It’s really too bad he can’t learn anything from it. He is not the least bit opposed to hidden taxes, per se; quite the contrary. However what he and his pals really love is an officially adopted tax, out in the open, when the community proves it is worthy of the higher paid city government that the new revenue buys.
Of course it didn’t seem to occur to Zahra that his admission about the FFFF post undermined his conspiracy theory that Bushala was somehow, somewhere tied to the new proposals by EDCO and Republic.
I observe that a third proposal, by CR&R offered four million bucks, upfront for street repair. This appeared to be seen as some sort of a philanthropic gift. It was seen as such by Councilman Nicholas Dunlap. This is naiveté or dumbness. Nobody works for free, and the cost of that four mil is obviously wrapped up in CR&Rs rate structure that would obviously be lower without their apparent upfront largesse.
The City’s special council mentioned that a lawsuit described as a precedent by opponents of the upfront payment idea was not really precedent since the matter was returned to a lower appeals court where the matter was settled without adjudication. According to this chap an upfront deal repayment would have to be legally justified based on the value of the franchise and that would be his job. I’m confused by this since the proposals by EDCO and Republic do not involve in-lieu franchise fees at all, but rather describe one-time monetary payments, exclusive of the in-lieu fee. This needs clarification.
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.
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.
The booby prize…
“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.
Ahmad Zahra acolyte and tender sprig Elijah Mannisero is at it again. In a very strange post on the Kennedy Sister Observer blog he takes offense at my recent post on FFFF detailing many of Zahra’s shortcomings – ethical, financial, and legal.
J’accuse!
Specifically, the fragile green shoot takes umbrage at the claim that Zahra filed a false police report back in 2021 against his colleague Fred Jung.
Most of the impressionable fella’s post wastes time explaining what everybody agrees happened: Zahra popped off to Jung with a snide comment, and the latter reacted verbally. It’s funny that Manissero makes it sound like Jung pursued Zahra into the back room, because that is where they all go after meetings – as evidenced by Dunlap, Whitaker, and Quirk-Silva’s presence there, also. He inserts some little snips to look like he has uncovered something. Whatever.
In young Elijah’s recounting Zahra was afraid that Jung would escalate his behavior so he went to the cops – the next day. He shares the fact that the cops did investigate something and closed “the case” for lack of anything that looked like a crime. Oddly, Elijah takes exception to my “timeline” although my post offered none.
It all amounts to FFFF badness and evil, of course. No “false report” was made and we are spreading disinformation.
But hold on a sec, Elijah. You have the whole police report, including the accusation, right? I won’t bother asking who gave it to you because I already know. However, here’s one small problem: you didn’t share any documentation on what the exactly Zahra claimed Jung did to require police involvement. Hmm. I wonder why not.
Young Maniserro tries to claim I mischaracterized something when I wrote that other councilmembers denied Zahra’s account. Not true. Elijah should have tried reading. Here’s what the post said:
The cops interviewed other councilmembers who denied Zahra’s tall tale. End of story. Except that the story has never been reported by Zahra’s Observer friends and of course never discussed by Zahra.”
So the point is not just what people saw and overheard. The issue is whether they saw and heard everything Zahra put in his report to the cops – the whole thing. Obviously, they didn’t. Readers of his post still don’t know what Zahra claimed happened that warranted police intervention, and sweet Elijah didn’t bother sharing the whole report from which he only cites the verbal exchanges, but not the actual accusation Zahra made to the police. Where’s the rest of the report? Let’s see the whole thing
Maybe Zahra honestly thinks “are you a little girl?” is a sufficient affront to call in the police to investigate a crime – in which case there is no false report – just a stupid waste of everybody’s time. Can he possibly have believed that? Or is it much more likely that he saw another opportunity to play victim by dragging the cops into a silly verbal exchange by pretending a crime happened to him, an opportunity that backfired.
The most telling part of the post was Elijah’s attempt to drag Tony Bushala into it, somehow. Bushala wasn’t there at the confrontation, but he must be blamed for something or it wouldn’t be the Fullerton Observer. So the story twists itself to Bushala’s oversized influence, yadda, yadda, and transparency and the like.
What a mess.
Maybe his mom needs to run young Elijah’s sheets out on the line for the neighbors to see.
Some have questioned Dr. Ahmad Zahra’s claim that he quit his life as a man of medicine for a life as a filmmaker. But this claim is no longer in doubt.
A Friend has forwarded this image of the extraordinary Ahmad Zahra that clearly shows the good doctor from Damascus as a big time Hollywood cinematic auteur.
Hurry up, rent is due on this thing…
So there you have it. Who are we to argue with our own eyes?
Here’s an interesting bit from the “print edition” of the Fullerton Observer, proving that once again the Fullerton Klown Kar has no rearview mirror.
The story no one wanted to talk about.
The subject is the reopening of the abandoned UP Park, and all you have to do is look at the photo op result to guess that a history re-write is in the works.
While we were basking in the Spring-like day, most of the USA was under an unrelenting, repressive assault by ice, snow, and freezing rain. All of the speakers took notice of who was in the audience, mainly the Fullerton residents who did not give up on the idea of a local park, rallying support for an incredible 20-plus years. Assemblywoman Sharon Quirk Silva recalled how she was on the City Council in 2004 when the idea of revitalizing Union Pacific Park was discussed. Persistence from Fullerton residents kept the idea alive, so keep that in mind.
There’s a who’s who of Fullerton libs who can’t seem to have their pictures taken often enough, especially over there on the far left – the tarnished antique Pilferin’ Paulette Chaffee, who did less than nothing to have the park reopened. But then again, neither did Vanessa Estrella, or Sharon Quirk, or Jesus Quirk-Silva.
And on the subject of Quirk and Quirk Silva, the reimagining of history is appalling. Quirk got on the City Council at the end of 2004 all right. But at that point the first Union Pacific Park was just completed – brand effing new. Her statement is obviously meant to ignore the long history of bureaucratic failure that led to toxic soil removal and closure of a third of the park, to finally fencing off the whole damn thing because of the hypes, borrachos and homeless campers.
But just as important as hiding ugly truth is promoting your own accomplishment – finally doing what was thought impossible – after a 20-year fight! And let’s not forget the other myth – the popular struggle from la communidad, all of it ginned up, when it existed at all, by patronizing gringos at the Center for Healthy Neighborhoods, etc.
The Big Q probably doesn’t want you to remember that she was on the Council for another 8 years after her mythical park revitalization “discussions” allegedly took place, and so if the park wasn’t “revitalized” under her careful stewardship, why not?
The Fullerton Observer sisters and these political types want us to forget the real history of the UP Park – a poisoned public nuisance created by and for City bureaucrats as a Redevelopment money plaything who’s history would be a civic shame, if anybody in City Hall had any shame.
Now maybe you think that this is all trivial, this whitewash of the past. Not so. The conditions which caused UP Park #1’s failure are still there, even as more millions are thrown at UP Park #2. No one is paying attention because nobody cares.
One of our commenters recently pointed out the “reply” string on a Fullerton Observer post supposedly written by a guy named Kevin Curriston, a chap who doesn’t appear to be the literary type. Some of comments are pretty good. Naturally Sharon, the elder Kennedy Sister, leaps into the breach to validate the theme of the essay. Amy the Angry Little Bird is on hand too, to lend her support.
A guy named Brian calls bullshit on the supposition that 40 public commenters represent anybody but a small percentage of Fullertonions.
That premise is not well-received in Fullerton Boohooville.
I particularly like Brian’s wicked request for Kennedy to share some of Zahra’s vast filmography.
A Mr. Matt Leslie reminds everybody that Zahra’s flipped on his first real decision and in doing so disenfranched a whole bunch of people when he appointed Jan Flory to complete Jesus Quirk-Silva’s term.
Matt LeslieThe author neglects to inform readers that Council member Ahmad Zahra did not attend this important meeting. Although it seems unlikely that other council members would have supported him for mayor, he had the opportunity to support Shana Charles for the position, but was not present to do so.Ed Response: Councilmember Zahra had a work trip out of town so did not attend the meeting.
BrianI see you seem to know a lot about council member Zahra, just what does he do for a living?
Sharon KZahra is a filmmaker. Currently the only Councilmember who doesn’t work is Jung. You can discover this kind of thing through the form 700 financial filings of each Councilmember. – though I notice Valencia has failed to file. Not sure why.
BrianWow, that is fascinating. Can you point me in the direction of some of his work?
AmyDunlap and Jung continue to gaslight the public and delude themselves by saying that public commenters are not representative.Every meeting brings new attendees infuriated by the actions of the majority, but Jung, Dunlap, and Valencia keep telling themselves the public’s voices don’t count. It seems they can’t bring themselves to accept that anyone could possibly disagree with their blatant corruption and repeated defiance of the wishes of the public.
BrianI’d imagine if you took two seconds to step outside your bubble, you may realize that in a town of 140,000+, 30 or 40 people don’t even represent a decimal of a percentage. And just because you comment, it doesn’t make your comments true. Much like this publication and the liberties it takes with the truth all the time.
Sharon KBrian – sounds like you are talking to yourself on that critique. Most people are busy with their lives and don’t pay that much attention. And of course over half of our town’s 140,000 or so residents are children. Others have jobs that interfere with council meeting hours, etc. Some don’t think it is possible to fight city hall. Some are just not interested. Having 40 people show up at a council meeting and speak on an issue is huge. If people didn’t come out we wouldn’t have any trails in town; there would be a polluting flour mill across from Amerige Heights; the toxic park and McColl dump site would not be cleaned up; our museum center would be high rise office building; we wouldn’t have saved FOX or Coyote Hills and much much more. Some politicians – just out for themselves and narrow special interests – can fool people for awhile but eventually the truth of their actions come out
AmyThose who disagree are welcome to attend a city council meeting, but for some reason they have not.Jung received unanimous opposition to his taking of the mayorship at the last meeting. Dozens of public comments unanimously supported creating a fund for immigrant support against ICE raids and kidnappings. Dozens still attended to beg city council not to kill the Walk on Wilshire – twice; the paltry number of voices in opposition were those financially aligned with Jung and Bushala. If opposition exists, it has yet to show up to city council meetings.
BrianLike I said, just because you comment, doesn’t make your comments true. With this statement you proved my point again. Full of inaccuracies. Do better.
AmyI don’t see how, but okay. I’m sure you know best.
Matt LeslieAmy, I opposed Walk on Wilshire for several reasons, not because I was “aligned” with anyone. Please be careful not to be dismissive of the concerns of those with opinions contrary to your own.
AmyI fully respect your right to your opinion, but I do disagree that the bollards – comparable to those used on nearly every trail in OC – were an actual impediment to cyclists traversing the Walk on Wilshire and merited removal of the whole thing. I definitely wouldn’t go so far as to say any opinion I disagree with is invalid. That would be absurd. But the argument seemed so ridiculous as to be disingenuous to me. Perhaps I’m reading too much into it.That said, as one of the fewer than 10 detractors, you’re certaintly entitled to your opinion. I hope the dismantling of the Walk on Wilshire that so many enjoyed brought you great happiness and satisfaction.
FrankStep out of your bubble pal.
Sharon KBrian – if you are talking to me – you are right — I guessed that there are way more children than there are at least according to the stats I just looked up that say there are only 32,000 children under 18 in Fullerton. But when you are figuring out percentages of people think about the fact that – according to the OC Registrar of Voters – only 7,432 voted for Jung; 9,546 for Dunlap and 3,489 for Valencia in the last election. That certainly does not make a majority. Some of those who voted for Jung, Dunlap are among those who have come to council and said they were unhappy with their votes on various things and felt fooled when the vote to keep Walk on Wilshire open – turned into an expansion suggested by the two – and then that vote was postponed until after the election and both Jung and Dunlap proceeded to vote no. Really the point is that we residents of town want a fun place to live that we are proud of where people want to visit and small businesses can thrive. Dulling it down by reducing unique features, curtailing music, outdoor patios, walking paths, safe bike paths, etc does not make our town attractive to anyone. And everything turns into a big fight with residents begging for good decisions. And I am not alone in really hating their recent decision to not help residents targeted by ICE and other weird unfair decisions like not following fair rotation so every district gets chance to have their representative as mayor.
Matt LeslieAnd, by the way, if you want to talk about steamrolling over public opinion go watch the videos of Ahmad Zahra’s first council meetings in 2018. Dr. Zahra first voiced support for a special election to fill a vacant council seat, a position in line with nearly all public speakers on the issue during meetings. But he quickly changed his position entirely, aligning himself with a council majority who disregarded expressed public opinion in favor of an election and instead voted to appoint a someone to the vacant seat.Zahra’s swing vote to appoint a council member instead of holding an election disenfranchised an entire district of the city, instead foisting upon them an unelected representative for the two full years remaining in the council term. This decision was of much greater significance, in my opinion, than choosing a mayor from among sitting council members (something the appointed council member got to do). Where was the concern for “the public” then?
Somebody posted a comment the other day about some guy named Tim Johnson. I don’t know Tim Johnson, and I hadn’t even heard anything about him. I was directed to his performance at the last council meeting.
I would really worry about this guy’s mental and emotional well-being. Or I would if he weren’t such a puckered asshole.
You can watch his performance on the City Clerk’s website. His diatribe starts at 1:49:35 mark, right after young Oliver, the No Account of Montecristo.
It’s become a rather worrisome trend lately for the harangues of a few malcontents at council meetings to vent their angry spleen in increasingly agitated, even violent language and behavior. This Tim Johnson individual is a good example.
Constantly slapping the podium; offering wild gesticulations; pointing at councilmembers; shouting angry and abusive language; this seems to be this person’s stock-in-trade.
There was no substance in Mr. Johnson’s diatribe except hatred for Fred Jung who has not been sufficiently contributory to making Fullerton fun! Like his kindred spirits at said podium he seems to think insulting people is an effective way to get them to do what you want. He also seemed to think he has a right for councilmembers to look at him as he denigrates them.
A little research suggests Tim Johnson organizes a bike parade on the 4th of July. His web presence is something called “Fullerton Loves.” He is therefore qualified to determine right from wrong.
Like many other local oracles he approves of those who gives him attention. Nick Dunlap does, apparently, and so does the relentless self-promoter Shana Charles, the otiose councilmember from District 3. The cops and firepersons go to his parades, I guess. And that is the launching pad for his little rocket: Jung makes backroom deals in a cigar lounge, etc., etc.
I’m glad there is a police presence at council hearings as a handful of angry people try to shout down councilmembers with catcalls from the back rows. The obnoxious Kennedy Sisters have already been escorted out for disrupting meetings. Sooner or later civility is going to have to be enforced by the FPD.
There is a conga line of eccentric bloviators who keep showing up at Fullerton City Council meetings to berate the so-called “council majority.” Some of them are quite abusive and accusatory. Some then try, or pretend to try, to get the objects of their disapprobation to do something for them. Any attaching tissue to reality seems to be non-existent.
