Friends For Fullerton's Future

April 25, 2012April 25, 2012The Fullerton Recall

Some Recall Statistics

The folks over at Ballotpedia.com have been tracking California recalls for the last few years, and they show some interesting historical data on local city council races.

For example, of the 35 city councilmembers put on the ballot for recall since 2007, 32 were successfully removed from office.

2012 Recalls

Shasta Lake: Dolores Lucero

2011 Recalls

Bell: Hernandez, Jacobo, Artiga, Mirabal
Hercules: Donald Kuehne and Joanne Ward
Point Arena: Riboli, Sinnott, Ingham

2010 Recalls

San Jacinto: Stubblefield, Mansperger, Potts and Ayres
Hughson: Thom Crowder, Doug Humphreys and Ben Manley
Dunsmuir: Peter Arth and Mario Rubino
Livingston: Daniel Varela and Martha Nateras
Montebello: Kathy Salazar and Robert Urteaga
Mission Viejo: Lance MacLean
Poway: Betty Rexford
Lake Elsinore: Thomas Buckley

2009 Recalls

San Fernando: Jose Hernandez and Julie Ruelas
Cotati: George Barich
Oceanside: Jerry Kern
San Jose: Madison Nguyen

2007 Recalls

Lynwood: Byrd, Pedroza, Johnson and Vasquez

That’s a 91% success rate for Californians who’ve sought to toss crummy councilmembers out of office mid-term. And only one of those cities had a recall preceded by a media storm as intense as Fullerton’s…that was the infamous city of Bell.

So I’d say things are looking up for the people of Fullerton. Still, I’ve got a hunch that the boys in the Recall mailroom will leave nothing to chance.

April 24, 2012April 24, 2012"Dick" Ackerman

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

by admin37 Comments

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:

April 24, 2012April 24, 2012A Step in the Right Direction

We Get Mail: Fence Sitting Cardboard Candidate?

by The Fullerton Harpoon139 Comments

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?

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.

April 23, 2012April 23, 2012Bruce Whitaker

Bruce Whitaker on The Illegal Water Tax

by admin41 Comments

Here’s a Fullerton councilmember who not only understands the illegal water tax, he knows the right thing to do – end it, immediately. He also suggests a solution that would, over time, address infrastructure deficiencies that have been permitted by our aquacrats and city council. Good luck getting the Three Pompous Pumkins Bankhead, McKinley and Jones to go along with that!

Anyway, if you haven’t already done so, meet Bruce Whitaker:

April 22, 2012April 22, 2012Dead heads

Open Season on the She-Bear

by The Fullerton Shadow381 Comments

I’ve decided to re-run this post every few weeks from now until Pat McKinley is recalled. I want every woman in Fullerton to take a look at the twisted mess our former police chief is.

– The Fullerton Shadow

Yesterday, the She-Bear, ex-Fullerton Police Chief and current city council embarrassment, Pat McKinley, lumbered into Brea. His mission was to help the sweet ladies of the Soroptimist’s local defend themselves in dangerous situations.

Of course when he signed up for the gig, his hosts were probably unaware that as police chief of Fullerton he hired a serial sexual predator, Albert Rincon, who, even after numerous incidents of assault victim complaints, was permitted by McKinley to keep patrolling the streets of Fullerton. We know what he was patrolling for. Rincon’s MO was to falsely arrest, handcuff, then grope his victims in the backseat of an FPD patrol car.

Naturally, some womenfolk took umbrage at McKinley’s bald-faced hypocrisy, and showed up to ask the questions McKinley had been hoping like hell nobody would ever ask. To say that She-Bear stepped in his own poop would be the understatement of the year. He’s not going to be able to scrape this off his shoe anytime soon. Here’s some of the video:

He said what??!! “Those ladies weren’t people like this”??!! So now Pat McKinley gets to pick and choose which women deserve sexual battery at the hands of his hand-picked police officers?

And somehow this creep keeps a straight face as he urges women to use their “she bear” instincts to avoid the type of pervert cop he kept on the street, despite the fact that bent cops like Albert Rincon are armed with tasers and guns and are amply protected by the tarnished badges incompetents like McKinley not only give them, but let them keep.

The final insult? According to McKinley, Rincon didn’t sexually assault anybody. It was only “inappropriate touching.” Not a good thing, but “it ain’t a dangerous thing.” Well that may be a novel defense for rapists in the future!

I don’t know about you, but I say it’s time for this dangerous sadist to go.

April 21, 2012April 21, 2012Education Uber Alles

Beechwood Teacher Beats Rap. So Far.

by The Fullerton Harpoon118 Comments

Remember that strange episode up at Beechwood School a couple of months ago when parents were called in for a really scary meeting and not really told anything? Some teacher did something. Somewhere. Somehow. FSD Superintendent Mitch Hovey was just double-talking hard.

Now the OC Register is reporting that the still unnamed teacher’s offense – having “inappropriate” materials on his computer at school – does not rise to the level of a crime. At least that’s what Acting Chief Dan Hughes reported after an FPD investigation was submitted to our hard-working DA (okay, no snickering). Says Hughes:

“The investigation discovered potentially inappropriate photographs and videos on a school computer assigned to the teacher. But I am pleased to report that in this case, there is no evidence to suggest any Beechwood students were victims of a crime.”

Well, that’s good news, although what the guy had on his computer that caused all the hubbub remains shrouded in secrecy.

But according to the article Mr. Teacher isn’t out of the Beechwoods yet, and remains on “administrative” (presumably paid) leave while the Fullerton School District pursues its own investigation.

Jeez, Fullerton must be the public employee investigation capital of the Western World.

April 21, 2012"Dick" Ackerman

So Why Won’t He Just Do It?

by Jan Florys Dog27 Comments

Tarnation, Doc HeeHaw’s all het up on the topic a’ water rates and consarn it if’n he ain’t a-gonna share his mental commotion. Until suddenly he remembers he been told ta shut up!

So why didn’t somebody tell him that 15 years ago, and why won’t he just do it oncet and fer all?

April 20, 2012April 20, 2012Bruce Whitaker

Proving That Old Dogs Can’t Learn New Tricks

by Mr. Peabody21 Comments

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.

April 20, 2012April 20, 2012Behind Closed Doors

Paying a Fee to Pay Your Taxes?

by Travis22 Comments

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?

jones-gone-wild1 — Ya'll have gone insane. Now pay up, hear?

April 20, 2012"Dick" Ackerman

Larry Bennett Owes You A Month’s Worth of Water

by The Desert Rat20 Comments

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!