This might become a regular feature: an FFFF reader just sent in a quick summary of interesting items up for discussion/vote at tonight’s Fullerton City Council meeting.
If there is anything else that needs to be brought up before tonight’s meeting, this is place to discuss it.
——————–
Nothing too exciting for the open session.
FFFF and Tony make the #2 Closed Session Agenda for tomorrow night’s meeting. Oh, to be a fly on that wall!
Heads up on Item #15 of the Open Session Agenda. Is management taking a pay cut? Great idea, take one for the team!
Item #16 looks like a ban on cell phone use. This matter concerns the use of cell phones and other electronic communication devices by Council Members and staff during Council meetings. One can only wonder what would be so important that it needed immediate attention by staff and council. Maybe it’s to deter all out secret bidding/bribing? Who knows! Sounds like a good idea to me.
Aside from the MILLIONS of dollars being allocated and reallocated into various projects, it looks like a quiet night…
For most people the idea of being one’s own boss is an alluring if somewhat daunting proposition. With the freedom and self-responsibility come the risks – of freedom and self-responsibility.
So imagine the pleasant prospect of being your own boss, answering to nobody, and at the same time enjoying the safety of a government job with a regular paycheck and pretty good benefits. This is what Fullerton City Council woman Pam Keller gets by being the Executive Director of the Fullerton Collaborative and remaining an employee of the Fullerton School District. The people who print out her paychecks have no idea how she’s spending her time. She doesn’t answer to them. And the Collaborative Board seems to have shown very little interest in her doings, possibly because she’s actually in charge. Pretty sweet gig if you can get it.
Pam Keller - Teacher on Special Assignment
The memorandum of understanding between the Collaborative and the school district lists a series of vague directives to be accomplished by the Executive Director through the school year. The two most specific of Pam’s duties are “assist schools to link with community partners for support services” and “increase awareness of schools regarding community services”.
So essentially her job is to communicate with schools. What does that entail? Fire off a couple of emails, make a phone call every once in a while? No, that would only consume a few minutes per day. There must be more to this $51,000-per-year job.
If we give her the benefit of the doubt, it’s likely that the achievement of these goals requires Pam to spend most of her workday meeting with teachers and parents, visiting schools and attending parent/teacher meetings.
Is that what she does? How much time does she spend with teachers and parents? What are her work hours? Since she really is only accountable to herself, does anyone else know?
Regular teachers must answer to parents, principals and ultimately the Superintendent. Who does a “teacher on special assignment”, funded by an outside organization, answer to? Does Superintendent Mitch Hovey appraise her performance? Could he take appropriate action if he didn’t think she was performing well? He certainly has no incentive to question her since the Collaborative pays her salary regardless.
Ultimately, we expect that the Fullerton School District will have to answer this question: Does the perverse nature of FSD’s employee arrangement with the Fullerton Collaborative cause harm to the public by diluting accountability and hiding conflicts of interest?
It was a fun party with an open bar. And then Dave Lopez showed up…
We missed an Ackerwoman press release about a week and a half ago (sorry but we really hate going to that site). It touted Fullerton “educational leaders” who have endorsed Linda Ackerman: Hilda Sugarman, Ellen Ballard, Minard Duncan, and Lynn Thornley – a who’s who of Fullerton RINOs and liberal educrat types. It’s really hard to find any term other than “followers” to describe this little band, but such are the extravagances of campaign rhetoric.
Our old pal Minard was even assigned his own hilarious quotation: “I first got to know Linda when she was a member of the PTA at Rolling Hills School in Fullerton. She has been a vital member of our community for over 30 years…” A member of the PTA? Well whoop-de-doo! Is that Duncan’s threshold for being qualified to serve in the Sate Assembly? Guess so. And of course trust Minard to use the wrong (present) tense. She hasn’t lived in our community for over 30 years. She spent the last ten living in another community!
Well, we know Ackerwoman’s residency is a lie, even if Minard won’t talk about it: she lives in Irvine and rents an address in Fullerton. She also advertises herself in this press release as “an independent businesswoman” and we now know that that’s a falsehood on two counts. We have also discovered her fake charity that diverts lobbyists contributions towards Hawaiian vacations for her and her pals in the legislature, although such flagrant fraudulence seems not to have made much of an impression on Duncan and his pals on the FSD board.
It’s sort of depressing to see these folks turning a blind eye to prevarication and misrepresentation. Makes you wonder a bit about what kind of values are being passed along via the FSD.
Maybe I was just dizzy from balancing all those budgets...
UPDATE: HERE’S AN INFORMATIVE POST WE RAN A COUPLE OF WEEKS AGO ABOUT HOW GOVT REVENUE RAISERS DO IT AND EVADE THE “TAXER” LABEL. THE OTHER GIMMICK IS ‘FEE” INCREASES. IT TELLS YOU ALL YOU NEED TO KNOW ABOUT ACKERWOMAN’S HOLLOW NO TAX PLEDGE.
Yesterday we published an e-mail from Joe Sipowicz about the lame-brain “no tax pledge” signed by Mrs. Linda Ackerman, presumably to shore up uncertainty about her conservative credentials. She needs to.
As Joe trenchantly pointed out, there are all sorts of ways to raise revenue without calling them taxes. Let’s cast our minds back a few months.
Back on April 14 of this year, never dreaming of ever becoming a candidate for political office, Linda Ackerman went along with the pro-government revenue crowd – voting to raise MWD water rates by an astounding 19.7%. That’s right folks. A 20% commodity increase for the water MWD provides to local water purveyors – like the City of Fullerton; and to the OC Water District for basin replenishment.
Here’s the excerpt from the April 14, 2009 MWD meeting minutes.
47859 Regarding the water rates and charges, Business and Finance Committee Chairman Grunfeld remarked on the unprecedented amount of time both Directors and staff spent on the rates and charges, keeping in mind their fiduciary duties and general responsibilities to the 19 million people that Metropolitan serves via their respective member agencies. Committee Chairman Grunfeld then moved, seconded by Director Santiago, that the Board adopt the CEQA determination and approve Option #2 set forth in the revised board letter signed by the General Manager on April 7, 2009, with an amendment to add Item (d) and:
a. Approve an 8.8 percent increase in water rates, plus a $69/AF Delta Supply Surcharge for a total average increase of 19.7 percent, effective September 1, 2009; b. Adopt Resolution 9087 to Impose the Readiness-to-Serve Charge;
Minutes -9- April 14, 2009
c. Adopt Resolution 9088 to Impose the Capacity Charge, said resolutions entitled:
Resolution 9087: RESOLUTION OF THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF THE METROPOLITAN WATER DISTRICT OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA FIXING AND ADOPTING A READINESS-TO-SERVE CHARGE FOR CALENDAR YEAR 2010
Resolution 9088 RESOLUTION OF THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF THE METROPOLITAN WATER DISTRICT OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA FIXING AND ADOPTING A CAPACITY CHARGE EFFECTIVE JANUARY 1, 2010
and
d. Direct staff to work with the member agencies and the Board to evaluate the historical cost-of-service methodology utilized by Metropolitan, including a review of additional fixed charges, including property taxes, with the intent to ensure that all rates and charges recover the full cost of service when the Board establishes rates for the 2010/11 fiscal year .
Comments were made by Directors for and against the motion with emphasis on the treatment surcharge and decreasing reserves. The Chair called for a vote on the motion.
The following is a record of the vote on the motion:
Ayes: Anaheim (Dir. M. Edwards, 3,466 votes), Beverly Hills (Dir. Wunderlich, 2,033 votes), Central Basin Municipal Water District (Dirs. Apodaca and Hawkins, 11,185 votes), Eastern Municipal Water District (Dir. Record, 6,731 votes), Inland Empire Utilities Agency (Dir. Santiago, 8,440 votes), Las Virgenes Municipal Water District (Dir. Peterson, 1982 votes), Long Beach (Dir. Lowenthal, 3,984 votes), Los Angeles (Ayes: Dirs. Grunfeld and J. Murray. Absent: Dirs. Quiñonez and Sutley. 40,455 votes), Municipal Water District of Orange County (Ayes: Dirs. Ackerman, Dick, and Foley. Absent: Dir. Bakall. 34,917 votes), San Diego County Water Authority (Dirs. Barrett, Lewinger, Pocklington, and Steiner, 38,213 votes), San Fernando
Minutes -10- April 14, 2009
(Dir. Ballin, 150 votes), Santa Ana (Dir. Griset, 2,169 votes), Santa Monica (Dir. Abdo, 2,332 votes), West Basin Municipal Water District (Dirs. Gray and Little, 13,663 votes), Western Municipal Water District of Riverside County (Dir. Lopez, 8,456 votes). Total 178,176 votes.
Noes: Burbank (Dir. Brown, 1,803 votes), Calleguas Municipal Water District (Dir. Grandsen, 8,160 votes), Foothill Municipal Water District (Dir. J. Edwards, 1,272 votes), Fullerton (Dir. Blake, 1,457 votes), Glendale (Dir. Kavounas, 2,226 votes), San Marino (Dir Morris, 399 votes), Three Valleys Municipal Water District (Dir. De Jesus, 5,031 votes), Torrance (Dir. Wright, 2,186 votes), Upper San Gabriel Valley Municipal Water District (Dir. Robinson, 7,257 votes). Total 29,791 votes. Not Participating: Pasadena (Dir. Brick, 2,037 votes). Total 2,037 votes. Absent: Compton (Dir. Arceneaux, 362 votes). Total 362 votes.
The Chair declared the recommended water rates and charges and resolutions to impose charges for fiscal year 2009/10 passed by 178,176 ayes, 29,791 noes, 2,037 not participating, and 362 absent.
Thanks, for that one Linda! Anything else you’d like to share with us?
The OC Register reports about a strange event that went awry: a pumpkin launched from a pnuematic “cannon” by engineering students overshot its target and crashed through the scoreboard of the CSUF football field.
So why is this an apt metaphor for Redevelopment? Consider the venue: a football stadium financed by the Fullerton Redevelopment Agency for a football program that was disbanded the year after the stadium was built . Then consider the dopiness of the event itself. Then reflect upon the fact that the participants didn’t seem to have a clue what they were doing – missing their mark by 120%.
And finally, the cavalier attitude of the event organizer: damage was minor, and “They had no idea how far it was going to go,” (Keith) Brush said. “You know, with engineering projects, they usually don’t work out the first time.” And of course the the ultimate subjective stamp of approval that would have done any Redevelopment Director proud: 3000 kids had a good time. And of course we can’t put a price tag on that, now can we?
At least the pumpkin launch damage will only cost a few thousand bucks to fix (just wait’ll CSUF gets done with that bill!). Fullerton Redevelopment boondoggles cost a lot more.
Watch this CBS “60 Minutes” documentary on the swine flu epidemic of 1976. It went on air only once and was never shown again. This will shock you.
In the video, a government agent is caught lying to the public about risk of neurological disorders in subjects who took the swine flu vaccine. Mary Tyler Moore is interviewed after the government claimed that she took the swine flu as part of its widespread televised propaganda. She denies to the reporter that she ever took the swine flu.
In 2009, the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services has granted complete legal immunity to the manufacturer of the H1N1 swine flu vaccine.
UPDATE: Here’s a post from last winter, published again to remind the Friends that Fullerton’s decision-makers promised to put the term limits issue on the next available ballot. Of course that opportunity came and went with the 72nd Assembly Special Election primary. It could still be done in January 2010 if the Special Election itself is required. In any case there is a General Election primary election next June. So let’s all remember!
In dramatic fashion our friends on the Fullerton City Council decided on January 6th that the voters of Fullerton should decide whether a twelve-year term limit for council members is right for Fullerton.
Pam Keller joined campaign promise keepers Shawn Nelson and Sharon Quirk in placing the issue on the first available ballot, which should be in June, 2010. Predictably, antediluvian councilmen Don Bankhead and Dick Jones opposed the motion believing that you can never be around too long, be too hidebound, too boring, and too inert to serve the public.
As usual, the good government types (i.e. we know what’s good for you so sit down and shut up) like Jan Flory were on hand to oppose the idea, knowing as they do that the longer you are in office the more likely you are to identify with public employees instead of constituents. These folks pretend to defend the public’s right to choose who their elected representatives are even though they don’t seem to trust the public to do much of anything else without government intervention.
We strongly support term limits. We believe that public choice will be enhanced by term limits because the well-financed incumbents will be forced to give way to new representation that might actually give people of real talent a chance to participate in governance, people who now largely acquiesce to the inevitability of incumbency. Fortunately, a majority of the council seem to agree.
The outstanding legal issue is whether the limits can be applied to previous years in office. The final wording of the plebiscite will have to address this. Let’s hope it works out so we can end the Age of Dinosaurs in Fullerton.
Check out this fun post by Dan C-somethingorother at theLiberalOC blog. I’ve been named the scariest blogger in OC! Not #3, not #2, but #1! Like Coach used to say they only come after you when you’re carrying the ball!
I think Dan C. is still mad at me for saying that he and Matt Cunningham were just maggots (or maybe it was parasites) burrowing into different sides of the same rotten apple.
I am derided for not pursuing Dan’s “reasoned debate” (say Dan, any more jokes on Norby marriages?); and also that I am a bully (although he remains silent on whom I have bullied); and also because there’s a Chris Norby sign somewhere in Tustin; and because Jim lacy offered to include us in his defense of free speech; but Dan is just a spokeshole for the crooked Boss Agran machine in Irvine so we can pretty quickly find his spot on the shelf and put him on it. He actually goes on to say that he wants Ackerwoman to win just to hear me whine. Well, that won’t happen!
But anyway, its good to get peer recognition whenever you can and some supposed insults can be proudly worn as a badge of honor.
The LiberalOC? Hell, we get more daily hits than they do! And with Dan’s help we’ll get even more.
Hey, big boy, wanna create a Redevelopment Project Area?
Today the fraudulent “Alliance for California’s Tomorrow,” the pay to play slush fund that’s been attacking Chris Norby, recorded an interesting contributor: Marshall Linn. Mr. Linn is the President of Urban Futures, the Redevelopment “consultant” that cooked up the totally bogus Redevelopment expansion scheme for Fullerton. He kicked in $2,000.
Well, now we take that personally! Urban Futures is nothing more than an opinion for hire – hacks and paid Redevelopment agency hookers. They make Mr. Linn’s nice living for him by creating phony justifications for Redevelopment: recognizing blight where none exists. FFFF is suing the City of Fullerton for its fraudulent Redevelopment expansion, and now the president of this parasitic enterprise is trying to defeat Chris Norby – enemy of eminent domain and Redevelopment abuse.
Well, Marshall, thanks for popping up like the weed you are. This will make our dealings with the city that much more entertaining!
In what seems to be an increasingly desperate campaign, the Ackerwoman sent out a mailer to Democrats trying to woo their unlikely votes. Nothing all that unusual there. The only problem is she says that she “is not defined by being a Republican.”
Can someone please help take my shoes off?
Oh, oh. Seriously no bueno (as Art Pedroza would say) in some circles. See, Linda is a national GOP committeewoman and is a (seemingly permanent) fixture on the OC GOP central Committee. This has caused a bit of a stir, even at the Red County blog that heretofore had been treating the Ackerman, Inc. prevarications with kid gloves. Blogger Allan Bartlett has demanded Ackerwoman’s resignation from the national committee post haste.
So now Linda has to start scrapping off the bottom of her Gucci shoes, explaining to friend and foe alike just what that mailer really did mean. If she placates the Republicans, she’s sure to offend any Dems or DTS voters stupid enough to have fallen for the ruse in the first place.
Nothing too exciting for the open session.
