Category: Watch Your Wallet

Posted on"Dick" Ackerman

Play It Again, Dick

by 20 Comments on Play It Again, Dick

One might ask the question, “How in the world did Fullerton get stuck with not one, but two Dick Jones”?

This spectacle of Doc HeeHaw sharing his consternated confusion over the illegal water tax boils down to this: his lawyer, Attorney Dick tells him it is illegal and should be got rid of (15 years too late, of course); and Doc Dick agrees. His solution? Change the name of the tax!

Can it be possible that he actually believes the idiocy that tumbles out of his yapper? When it comes to muddled, loud, Southern-fried buffoonery there’s just no beating F. Dick Jones.

Read More
Posted on"Dick" Ackerman

Jerk McPension Opposes “Knee Jerk” Effort To Kill Illegal Tax

by 37 Comments on Jerk McPension Opposes “Knee Jerk” Effort To Kill Illegal Tax

No surprise punches from Pat McPension, as he disagrees with Bruce Whataker about what to do with the money that is taken from us via an illegal tax on water. Mr. McPension has become quite fond of this tax since it went to pay his own bloated salary and pension over the years.

McPension wants to keep our money in an “escrow account” so that if and when the “experts” properly educate him and the rest of the council, they can decide what to do with their ill-gotten gains; then, presumably, “they” will let us peons know. McKinley goes even farther claiming that he supports plowing the illegal tax back revenue back into water infrastructure without so much as wondering how the infrastructure got so neglected in the first place.

Well, here’s what I say: a person who has the opportunity to kill an illegal tax and doesn’t is no better than the person who supports an illegal tax in the first place. 

Here’s McPension in action:

Read More
Posted onA Step in the Right Direction

We Get Mail: Fence Sitting Cardboard Candidate?

by 139 Comments on We Get Mail: Fence Sitting Cardboard Candidate?

I found this communication in our in-box yesterday:

An Open Letter to Doug Chaffee

April 23, 2012

Dear Mr. Chaffee:

I support the recall effort and will vote in favor of removing all three councilmen on June 5th.  I support the statements made on the Notice of Intent to Recall, and I believe any candidate running to replace a recalled councilman should believe the same.

I saw this on Euclid today.  The homeowner seems to be on both sides of the fence.  It begs the question: Are you?

Um, anyone miss the irony?

The rumor mill is spinning around town.  It claims that you’re proud to receive Pat McKinley’s endorsement of your candidacy should the recall succeed; and worse publicly stated as much during a fundraising event at the Pint House several weeks ago.  If this is true, this is not compatible with the Notice of Intent to Recall.  You have to pick a side and you have to do so definitively.

In fact, I demand you take one of four positions immediately.

1) If you have stated that you’re proud to receive McKinley’s backing, you must withdraw your candidacy from the special election on June 5th.  This statement does not meet with the spirit of the recall and is insulting to the electorate.  Candidates not supporting the spirit of the recall should not be on the ballot.  Just because you had some extra campaign signs sitting around from 2010 doesn’t mean you’re entitled to run.

2) If you find it morally acceptable to be proud of McKinley’s endorsement of your candidacy, state so in bold letters on all your campaign literature, website, Facebook account, and during any public appearances you make.  Failure to be transparent on this issue is dishonest.

3) If you’re not proud of McKinley’s endorsement, state loudly and often that you’ve signed the recall petition and outline why Pat McKinley needs to go.  Demand that those posting propaganda against the recall remove your name from their lawns.  Take a stance and make it clear that no supporter of Pat McKinley is a supporter of yours.

4) Do nothing.  If you ignore this open letter and succeed in your candidacy, count on being recalled.

Sincerely,

Ryan Cantor

P.S. Dear Friends, just to show what a small world it is, after all, the property above is the residence of one Beatriz Gregg, mater familias of the Gregg clan that includes our old pal Aaron, whose 2010 campaign was, um, something of a personal embarrassment.

 

Read More
Posted onBruce Whitaker

Proving That Old Dogs Can’t Learn New Tricks

by 21 Comments on Proving That Old Dogs Can’t Learn New Tricks

Here’s the title of Sylvia Mudrick’s press release describing Tuesday night’s council action with regard to Fullerton’s illegal 10% water tax: “Council approves eliminating franchise fee on water rates.” That’s not true. Yes, the council voted to stop transferring the illegal tax to the city’s General Fund, but they most certainly did not approve to eliminate the franchise fee on water rates – just the transfer, which means we will keep paying the illegal tax into some sort of escrow fund until a Prop 218 hearing can be held – the Prop 218 hearing that should have been held 15 years ago! Of course in the meantime there is no legal requirement to hold a Prop 218 hearing to quit collecting the 10%; and it looks like Quirky and Whitaker got sideswiped on the scam that will put another $400,000 in the escrow account as City manager Joe Felz tries to cook up a scheme to hang on to as much of that annual $2,500,000 he can.

But back to Mudrick: of course she has been happily peddling pro-city baloney for years, and as a retiree she is still doing it, now as a double-dipper.

The worst part of the press release is the bogus recitation of the history of the water tax, conveniently omitting the fact that periodic complaints have been coming from citizens since at least the early 1990s. Syl would have you believe that it was the City that brought this scam to light and that they have been proactive. Wrong. The City has been hiding this massive scam for decades; the tax has been patently illegal since 1997,  and everybody in authority in City Hall knew it, a fact curiously omitted by our highly pensioned and still remunerated Public Misinformation Officer.

 

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
PRESS RELEASE #09312               4/18/2012

Subject :Council approves eliminating franchise fee on water rates
Contact :Sylvia Palmer Mudrick, Public Information Coordinator, Fullerton City Manager’s Office
(714) 738-6317

The Fullerton City Council voted at its Tuesday (April 17) meeting to eliminate the transfer of a franchise fee charged on water rates in the city, effective May 1.

The water franchise fee was first adopted in 1968 when the council assessed a fee of 2 percent of the Water Fund as a means of reimbursing the costs to the city’s general fund for operating a water utility.  The fee was raised to 10 percent in 1970.

In fiscal 2010-11, the city’s general fund received approximately $2.5 million from the water franchise fee.

The franchise fee came under review in 2009-10 at the conclusion of a five-year water rate study.  At that time, the council formed an Ad Hoc Water Rate Advisory Committee composed of citizens who were tasked with studying all facets of operation of the city water system.

In conjunction with its action Tuesday, the council directed the Ad Hoc Water Rate Advisory Committee to study and make recommendations on a method for the city to charge for the direct cost of operating the water system.

In addition, the council asked the committee to make recommendations on a method for reimbursing citizens for the actual cost of the franchise fee paid for the past three years.

Further information about the council action may be obtained by calling the Fullerton City Clerk’s Office at (714) 738-6350.  Further information about the franchise fee and the water rate study may be obtained by calling the Fullerton Water Engineering Office at (714) 738-6845.

Read More
Posted onBehind Closed Doors

Paying a Fee to Pay Your Taxes?

by 22 Comments on Paying a Fee to Pay Your Taxes?

Even the heartless IRS wouldn’t try to pull something this repugnant.

A frustrated local business owner sent me this copy of his annual Fullerton tax renewal in which a $25.00 tax payment was accompanied with a $20.00 “processing charge.”

 

You read that right. It’s an 80% surcharge for the city’s Herculean effort to cash your check and rubber stamp you as paid.

All local business owners must pay this ridiculous fee, from doctors and lawyers to handymen, ice cream trucks and taxi drivers. Presumably the actual processing is handled by administrative staff, who are likely already being paid out of the General Fund for other duties. How did they reach that $20 cost? Who knows?

And who decided that business owners should have to pay a fee to pay their taxes? 

Ya'll have gone insane. Now pay up, hear?
Read More
Posted on"Dick" Ackerman

Larry Bennett Owes You A Month’s Worth of Water

by 20 Comments on Larry Bennett Owes You A Month’s Worth of Water
The sad slouch became a permanent thing...

Several months ago Anti-recall lackey Larry Bennett challenged you to find the illegal tax on water on your monthly bill. It was pretty disingenuous even for a slimmer like Larry. FFFF pointed out that the illegal tax wasn’t listed on the bill, which of course is one of the reasons it is illegal!

On Tuesday night good ol’ Larry all but admitted that there was indeed a 10% tax on your water. Of course he tried to diffuse the ugly truth by saying that 1) he likes paying the tax (could be true – he’s a damned fool); and, 2) the tax helps keep his grass green and his flowers happy because he’s a water hog (the first part is a falsehood; the second, yes, I believe he likes to waste water). Naturally, he was just parroting the nonsense of his hero Doc HeeHaw who also claimed some part of the 10% went to water delivery – an outright lie.

Anyway, I think that if he had a shred of honor, Bennett would now make good on his promise to pay your monthly water bill. But if you want to ask him you’d better hurry up. Larry will only pay the first person to e-mail him!

Read More
Posted on"Dick" Ackerman

Larry Bennett Likes Paying Illegal Taxes; Doesn’t Like Public Comments

by 75 Comments on Larry Bennett Likes Paying Illegal Taxes; Doesn’t Like Public Comments

Poor Larry Bennett. As spokeshole and Chief Liar for the moribund Recall No campaign he is upset that folks are disrespecting his Heroes on the council.

But get this: Larry doesn’t want his water rates reduced! He likes the illegal 10% tax and even wants to keep it because he somehow believes this will keep his grass green.

Of course, it’s funny to watch Bennett admit, sort of, that there is a $2.5 million problem after he challenged water rate payers to find the illegal tax on their bill; and it’s hard to tell if Bennett is just pimping for the Three Flat Tires or if he really believes that the illegal in-lieu fee has something to do with delivering water to his flower beds. However you slice it, this assclown is a first class tool.

And it’s pretty clear he doesn’t like annoying public comments that hold his Three Blithering Boneheads accountable for their miscreance and incompetence.

Read More
Posted onA Step in the Right Direction

Water Tax Scofflaws Admit Guilt

by 41 Comments on Water Tax Scofflaws Admit Guilt

Last night Councilmembers McKinley, Bankhead, Jones and Quirk-Silva finally admitted what the rest of us had been saying all along: the City of Fullerton’s in-lieu franchise fee is illegal, and has been for the past 15 years. After blowing off the issue for nearly a year (and really, a decade and a half) the city council was forced to suspend the fund transfer that went to pay for General Fund expenses.

Here is Doc Jones’ befuddled admission:

Note that the angrified and bewildered Jones believes that part of the 10% tax maybe had something to do with water delivery. Wrong. It all went to the General Fund to help pay for pensions and four-star hotel room junkets by Jones himself. The water infrastructure and repairs were never paid for out of the General Fund, either. That’s just more confused claptrap from Jones.

And by no means was the tax repealed last night. In fact, the fee will show up on your water bill next month, just as it always has.

Councilman Bruce Whitaker said it very clearly: the franchise fee was collected from ratepayers illegally, was never properly authorized by taxpayers under Prop 218, and needs to be completely thrown out altogether. Deficiencies in the water fund do not change this simple truth, and those shortcomings should be addressed separately with the full notification and approval of the public.

When the tax is finally repealed by a fresh city council, don’t forget that there are millions of illegally-taken dollars that still need to be refunded to water users.

Read More
Posted onBoohooism

The Power to Recall: Unambiguous, Indivisible

by 29 Comments on The Power to Recall: Unambiguous, Indivisible
Twenty years later and as clueless as ever.

The opponents of the Fullerton Recall, just like their predecessors in 1994, keep yammering about the “proper” use of the recall process. According to these worthy folks, the power of recall is only to be exercised in cases where an office holder has perpetrated malfeasance in office. Their argument is self-serving. And wrong. Here is what the State Constitution actually says, clearly and succinctly:

CALIFORNIA CONSTITUTION ARTICLE 2 VOTING, INITIATIVE AND REFERENDUM, AND RECALL SEC. 13. 

Recall is the power of the electors to remove an elective officer.

And that’s it. The rest is all about the technical procedure of doing it. There is no discussion of when recall is appropriate or when it may be used. None. From this terse definition we may reasonably infer that any use of recall is appropriate when the electorate deems it to be so. But what about malfeasance in office? That’s why we have a criminal code!

Of course it hardly needs to be pointed out that the Fullerton Recall has several great reasons to get rid of the Three Dithering Dinosaurs, including failure to lead, creating and tolerating a Culture of Corruption in the FPD, backing an illegal tax on your water for 15 years, and of course, let us not forget, all those insider deals to cronies and campaign contributors in which they gave away streets, sidewalks and government subsidies worth millions.

Anyway, next time you hear somebody like Molly McClanahan or Jan Flory cluck-clucking about this, be sure to to ask them if they’ve ever even bothered to read the State’s Constitution.

Read More