Thursday, October 23, 2014

Liar, Liar...

"JIM RIGHEIMER IS A BIG FAT LIAR"
That phrase was spoken to the mayor during the bifurcated public comments section late in the evening Tuesday, October 21st.  You can watch Anna Vrska express her opinion near the end of this video clip, HERE.  Here's yet another example...

RENFRO SIGNS IN ON GROUP HOME ORDINANCE
Earlier that day, at 2:52 p.m.,  after reviewing the text of the proposed Group Home Ordinance that was to receive a second reading at the council meeting that night, resident Carrie Renfro, who lives on Buoy Street, in the heart of a part of town significantly impacted by the Group Home problem, wrote to four council members - Mayor Jim Righiemer, Mayor Pro Tem Steve Mensinger and Councilwomen Sandra Genis and Wendy Leece with the following note:

"I applaud the city for finally taking some action regarding the out of control proliferation of group homes in our city; however, I am writing to ask that you reconsider the currently proposed ordinance.  The ordinance is not well written and only covers a portion of the residential areas. Further, it does not address the parolee situation.  I think it would be wise to wait a few weeks to see if the SCOTUS takes up the Newport Beach case which could have a huge bearing on how CM should proceed.  The current ordinance in its format will most certainly open us up for a lawsuit, which would further hold up any future ordinance. I figure if we are going to be tied up with lawsuit, let’s at least start with a city wide ordinance that is well crafted in the first place.  Thanks.


Carrie Renfro"

You may recall that Righeimer held one of his little mini-town halls on Renfro's side yard to discuss the infestation of Group Homes not too long ago.

RIGHEIMER RESPONDS...
At 3:26 p.m. that afternoon Righeimer responded to Renfro with the following note:

"Ms. Renfro,

Thanks for your email. The ordinance at this point applies only to R-1.
Our attorneys will start drafting R-2, R-3 etc. once and if the ordinance
is approved. Because the character of R-1 neighborhoods is different than
r-2 or r-3 neighborhoods, the ordinance will also be different.

Our ordinance is also very different from Newport Beach¹s. Newport already
lost in court and is asking for the U.S. Supreme court to take the case.
There is 20% chance they may take it. Meanwhile we have written an
ordinance we think can get though the courts once it is challenged.

Lastly, the ordinance was recommended by the task force that I put
together. Lisa Morlan, who is a founder of TBON, is OK with this ordinance.

Thanks again for your email.
Respectfully,
Jim

James Righeimer
Mayor, City of Costa Mesa"

MORLAN SETS THE RECORD STRAIGHT
Following the council meeting at which the ordinance received approval several of the members of the grass-roots organization Take Back Our Neighborhoods (TBON) expressed concern about it, and the statement made by Righeimer above in which he stated categorically that TBON member Lisa Morlan "is OK with this ordinance."  He also identified her as a founder of TBON.  She's a member, not a founder.  The letter below, written to Renfro by Morlan at 2:04 p.m. on 10/22/14, explains in no uncertain terms Morlan's viewpoint on the ordinance and Righeimer's falsehoods in his letter.

Hi Carrie...Thank you for forwarding the email Mayor Righeimer is sending out...

First of all, I never received a copy of the group home ordinance to review prior to it being shared at the 1st planning commission.  I missed the last week of the Task Force meeting when the ordinance was voted on and finalized by the Task Force (I was in Washington).  I'm not even sure if a final draft was given to Task Force members to review.  How could I possibly endorse the City's propose group home ordinance without having access to it?  I would have wanted to thoroughly go through it with a fine tooth comb before giving it a thumbs up or down.  I did request a copy of the ordinance draft before I left for vacation; however, Rick Francis from the City told me I couldn't have one because of confidential and legal concerns.

For the record...this is my where I stand on the issue:

1.  The mayor should not be putting my name, or TBON's name on any email.  He did not ask me if I endorsed the current group   home ordinance.

2.  I will call/email Mayor and ask him to remove my name from any email, letter, or publication he hands out to the public.

3.  I believe Costa Mesa needs an ordinance to better regulate the over proliferation of group homes in Costa Mesa., but the current one did not have my stamp of approval.  I never had access to view the final proposed ordinance.

4.  I do believe the City attorney's did work very hard to research information to compose the ordinance.  I do know they spoke with the former mayor of Orange and the attorney who crafted their group home ordinance, Newport Beach council, League of Cities, experts in the field including Hoag Hospital.  Data of negative impacts (past and current) have been collected and reviewed, including emails/letters of complaints from Costa Mesa residents.  I do not have any reason to believe the City attorneys who worked on the ordinance were swayed to do anything illegal, unethical, or half-assed.  It is my belief the composing of the ordinance was done professionally, responsively, and with good intent (Yes...I know...many will probably shake their heads over my comment).  I understand why people are doubtful...there have been too many lies, and who can Costa Mesa citizens trust on council.

5.  I believe the group ordinance is a good start; however, it does need refining...which I hope and pray the City will do.  Would I like to see the current ordinance cover all of Costa Mesa...absolutely yes.  However, from a legal standpoint, I do understand the City attorney's recommendation to start of with R1 first.  Do I like that...no.  But I'm not an attorney who has expertise in how to battle the many law suits that are going to undoubtedly happen.  Court battles are a whole different ballgame.

6. My greatest concern is that the City will not have the manpower, such as code enforcement, and the means withal to implement/enforce the group home ordinance.  Even if the group home ordinance is crafted to cover all R1 and R2 neighborhoods, and written in a manner that earns everyone's approval, who is going to enforce it?  How is it going to be enforced?  How many City employees are going to be needed to effectively and consistently handle this?

7.  Lastly, I am NOT the founder of TBON!

Please feel free to share my email with others.  If there are further questions, please feel free to call or email.

Best regards,
Lisa Morlan

THANKS, LISA...
Morlan certainly grasps the issue and has an excellent perspective on the problem and the barely marginal solution provided by the Group Home Ordinance.  A couple speakers Tuesday night opined that the City was in for some serious legal problems with this ordinance.  One even told us that our "pockets are not deep enough."  He's probably right.
 
A SERIOUS PROBLEM WITH THE TRUTH
I don't know exactly what Righeimer's problem is with the truth, but he certainly has one.  This is only a recent example of him misstating the truth - the list is too long and painful to recount here.  He just seems to make things up as he goes along, apparently expecting that nobody will notice.

JAY HUMPHREY IS CORRECT...
This is just one more reason he must not be returned to the City Council.  As Jay Humphrey said in a recent Daily Pilot commentary, HERE"This council election is, more than anything, about trust.  Whom do you trust?"

Labels: , , , , , , ,

18 Comments:

Blogger kwahlf said...

Two things happen when someone lies.
He/she loses both trust and respect from
others.
It's extremely difficult to get those two things
back.

Thanks, Geoff.

Katrina and Jay for CM City Council.
No on Measure O.

10/23/2014 07:04:00 PM  
Anonymous Terry Koken said...

Put 'em all together, they spell...

R is for the Runaround you give us
(We've spent five thousand man-years waiting for adjournment or our turn to speak)
I's for Idiotic measure O;
(Recycled idiocy!)
G is for the Goddamn fools who like you;
(Both of them!)
H is for Huy Pham, who had to go...

E is for Effectiveness -- you have none
(Look at outsourcing, layoffs, turnarounds, and pensions!)
I's for Interrupting everyone
(Anna Vrska, Wendy Leece, Cindy Black, and others)
ME is for your gross and deadly Ego
(Self-importance keeps compromise from being done.)
R is for our city's ru-i-un.

Put 'em all together, they spell DISASTER --
A word that means Jim Righeimer to me.
(sung to the tune of "Put 'em all together, they spell "Mother".)
--in case anyone wants the lyrics.

But wait... Does he really lie? Does he prevaricate? Does he dissimulate? Does he disingenuate? Does he fib? Does he tell WHOPPERS? Does he swear falsely in the name of the Lord? Does he write fiction? Does he tell fairytales or sea stories?

Naw, Geoff, he just MISSPEAKS.

The calumny about how "an honest politician stays bought..." will never apply to Jim: First, he's not a politician, but an autocrat (Look them up and get a good grasp of the distinction!) since he's never tried to bring anyone around to his view. And we don't have to worry about "honest", do we? Regardless of whether we call it "misspeaking" or one of those other terms, Jimmy (the colloquial term for a tool for forced entry) certainly has no concept of, nor admiration for, that commodity which we, the people, call "truth".

"To Carthage then I came, where a chorus of unholy loves sang all about mine ears..." -- St. Augustine.

"Delenda est Karthago!" -- Cato the elder.

10/24/2014 01:41:00 AM  
Anonymous Where's My Coffee? said...

What can one say, Geoff? Its true.

10/24/2014 08:03:00 AM  
Anonymous breaking bad said...

Sadly there appear to be many who don't tell the truth at the top. The female code enforcement officer Bill Lobdell claims in the Daily Pilot was inexperienced and that is why she removed signs from private property was hired as a CE officer in June of 2012. So are we to believe a CE officer working through the last election where sign stealing and placement regulations was once again a major controversy didn't know the rules this time around. But fear not my friends now she has received proper training.

This is like the ridiculous claim where the city policies weren't followed during the 60th. Another lame excuse to blame it all on lower staff to cover for upper management telling those in control to make it happen. But fear not my friends we now have the controls in place and staff now skilled to not let that happen again. At least not until upper management tells them to make it happen.

The spin masters are at it again.

10/24/2014 08:27:00 AM  
Anonymous It has to be said...

He is so comfortable at lying, he believes himself.  He is devoid of conscience and is able to engage in destructive behavior with little or no guilt; he lacks empathy; is undeterred by, and can't learn from the negative consequences of his own behavior.

An individual diagnosed with Narcissistic Personality Disorder (Diagnostic Criteria, American Psychiatric Association) needs to show at least 5 of the following criteria:

-Has a grandiose sense of self-importance (e.g., exaggerates achievements and talents, expects to be recognized as superior without commensurate achievements).

-Is preoccupied with fantasies of unlimited success, power, brilliance, beauty, or ideal love.

-Believes that he or she is "special" and unique and can only be understood by, or should associate with, other special or high-status people (or institutions).

-Requires excessive admiration.

-Has a sense of entitlement, i.e., unreasonable expectations of especially favorable treatment or automatic compliance with his or her expectations.

-Is interpersonally exploitative, i.e., takes advantage of others to achieve his or her own ends.

-Lacks empathy: is unwilling to recognize or identify with the feelings and needs of others.

-Is often envious of others or believes that others are envious of him or her.

-Shows arrogant, haughty behaviors or attitudes.

10/24/2014 10:34:00 AM  
Anonymous Skeptical in Costa Mesa said...

Must be taking lessons from the president? It's always someone else's fault.

10/24/2014 05:26:00 PM  
Anonymous Terry Koken said...

Have you noticed how frenetic and desperate Martin Millard's non-endorsements of Righeimer are getting? Not to mention pathetic... I think he's abandoned Rita: there's been no apple pie for four or five days now.

Nobody comments on his posts; is it because you have to shower after going there? Maybe we oughta say something, so he doesn't feel too lonely...

10/25/2014 01:37:00 AM  
Anonymous Robin Leffler said...

Help find our signs: We "lost" 120 signs over the past weekend. Most disappeared between 5:15 and 8;30 Sunday pm. 70 of them in and around Mesa Verde. I called the City to see if they had picked them up. Nope, not them! They had a few they picked up Monday. So who is stealing CM4RG signs? If you see anyone doing that please email info@cm4rg.org. Take pictures if possible.

10/25/2014 03:22:00 AM  
Anonymous Just the facts Mam said...

Anyone else find it ironic that the Cops Voter Guide had Riggy being endorsed? Of course he had to pay for it.

10/25/2014 07:31:00 PM  
Anonymous breaking bad said...

Now we have Mr. Graham, a Parks and Rec. Commissioner, following in the footsteps of the Mayor and Mayor Pro Tem making total misrepresentations regarding pensions and their history. You'll recall the Mayor and Mayor Pro Tem falsely claimed the CMCEA unsustainable pension increase happened during the consent calendar where the Mayor Pro Tem even took it further claiming it was done while residents were asleep. Anyone who has attended council meetings in the past knows very well consent calendar items were most always handled early in the council meetings. Making the underhanded implications by the Mayor Pro Tem simply false.

But what is worse is that the CMCEA pension enhancement was not done as a consent calendar item at all. It was done under established rules and at 3 separate council meetings. Those rules called for the issue to be handled at a Council Meeting (done May 20th 2008), followed by a time period it had to be ratified by the employees ( done in June 2008), then followed by a 1st and 2nd reading with a final vote at that 2nd reading. So 2 more City Council Meetings also covered the issue in 2008.

Mr. Graham now pens a commentary in the Daily Pilot filled with more ignorance, or idiocy or just downright intentional false claims.

I will address Mr. Graham's claims in the next comment.

Let me say that I am not happy with the costs to the city of the pensions either but I don't feel that gives me the right to just make things up to support my unhappiness and create hate and anger over the pension costs. But apparently the Mayor, Mayor Pro Tem and now Mr. Graham do.

10/25/2014 08:07:00 PM  
Anonymous breaking bad said...

Mr. Graham's comments
"Why, as a general law city, under the umbrella of the state, were we not apprised by the state of the fiscal dangers associated with these massive pension commitments?"

Well Mr. Graham contracts cities didn't get that either. Plus nobody saw nor predicted one of the worst recessions. Should they have? Maybe, but the point is your comment is totally irrelevant to whether one is a general law or contract city.


"Why, as a general law city, were there no requirements for the city to be represented by professional labor negotiators when negotiating with the unions?"

There is nothing in the General Law statutes that prevented any General Law city from using professional labor negotiators. In fact Costa Mesa is still a general law city and during the CMCEA recent negotiations they did use a skilled representative. So once again your comments is totally irrelevant to whether one is a charter or general law city.


"The city of Costa Mesa needs to stop being a general law city, under the umbrella of the state, and become a "home rule" city, a charter city like Newport Beach, Huntington Beach and Irvine."

Mr. Graham how has being a charter city helped with these cities you mention regarding pension liabilities number? Huntington Beach about $355,000,000. Newport Beach about $255,000,000. Irvine is actually low at about $100,000,000 but keep in mind they use OCFA so they have no fire pensions to cover. I would like to add something else about Irvine that debunks your comment. Irvine general city employees as a charter city actually get a better/higher retirement calculation than Costa Mesa general city employees as they get 2.7% over CMCEA getting 2.5%. Looks like that charter city thing really kept those pension enhancements down huh Mr. Graham?

10/25/2014 08:46:00 PM  
Anonymous Casual Viewer said...

Good presentation of the facts, breaking bad. I hope you send a letter to the DP so this information gets to print readers, too.

10/26/2014 08:59:00 AM  
Anonymous Skeptical in Costa Mesa said...

Facts? They don't need to stinking facts! Emotion is what they run on.

10/26/2014 11:40:00 AM  
Anonymous breaking bad said...

I don't understand the silence by the Associations. All these lies and misinformation and the Associations seem to be sitting in a corner. Maybe Righeimer and Mensinger have them all scared this time around.

I am not saying pull a trailer but at least address honestly the lies and misinformation.

Their silence leaves all the false claims by guys like Tim Sessler and Andrew Smith mostly unchallenged, except by A Bubbling Cauldron.

10/26/2014 02:01:00 PM  
Anonymous breaking bad said...

Andrew Smith I guess an even better questions would be Andrew do you even understand the differences between the charter, The US Constitution and the Declaration of Independence?

'Andrew Smith Perhaps a better question of Ms. Black is "Would you have signed the Declaration of Independance?" Perhaps she is on Tean Britain."

And this is one of the guys pushing the charter. Was he part of the committee too? Unbelievable!!!

10/26/2014 07:03:00 PM  
Anonymous Disgusted Republican said...

IHTBS - The RIGmeister is a liar and does lie with absolute ease, and your description of the Narcissistic Personality Disorder does fit the bill, but I've always thought the RIGmeister to be of the sociopathic persuasion. Perhaps it's a combination of both. There is an excellent (award winning) book The Sociopath Next Door, by Martha Stout, PhD, 2005, that's an eye opener and a definite must read if you ever think there might be sociopath in your life. Many of these sociopathic traits are similar to the narcissist: no conscience, right or wrong doesn't mean anything to them, they lie, use, and manipulate to get what they want, they are never at fault, nothing is ever their responsibility, it's always someone else's fault/responsibility, they are always only the "victim", they have to win at any and all cost, they have no consideration of or care about consequences, and it goes on and on! It's really very worthwhile researching this personality disorder along with the NPD. They seem to fit right in with the RIGmeister's actions and behaviors. And this man wants to be reelected to our city council.

While researching online, I can across this: some ways to try to identify a sociopath.

(Extracted from an article by Robert Matthews in the Sunday Telegraph Review, May 4th 1997)
How to identify a sociopath:
The following questionnaire is based on research and experiences of socialised psychopaths. For each trait, decide if it applies to the person you suspect may be a socialised psychopath, fully (2 points), partially (1 point) or not at all (0 points).

Do they have problems sustaining stable relationships, personally and in business?

Do they frequently manipulate others to achieve selfish goals, with no consideration of the effects on those manipulated?

Are they cavalier about the truth, and capable of telling lies to your face?

Do they have an air of self-importance, regardless of their true standing in society?

Have they no apparent sense of remorse, shame or guilt?

Is their charm superficial, and capable of being switched on to suit immediate ends?

Are they easily bored and demand constant stimulation?

Are their displays of human emotion unconvincing?

Do they enjoy taking risks, and acting on reckless impulse?

Are they quick to blame others for their mistakes?

As teenagers, did they resent authority, play truant and/or steal?

Do they have no qualms about sponging off others?

Are they quick to lose their temper?

Are they sexually promiscuous?

Do they have a belligerent, bullying manner?

Are they unrealistic about their long-term aims?

Do they lack any ability to empathise with others?

Would you regard them as essentially irresponsible?

A score of 25 or above suggests strong psychopathic tendencies. This does not mean the person is a potential mass-murderer: socialised psychopaths are not mad, nor do they have to resort to violence. Even so, a close professional or emotional relationship with a socialised psychopath is likely to prove a damaging experience.

No kidding! In my scoring, the RIGmeister received a 26 and that's without answering several ones I have no idea about and not about to guess!
It will be very telling if the RIGmeiater loses next week and he starts his high-pitched squealing that he lost the election because of someone else's fault ("victim", not my fault or responsibility) and even tries to sue people(has to win at all costs). Frankly, I wouldn't put it past him. I actually wouldn't even put it past him to sue people who tried not to have him reelected even if he does win!
Whatever his personality disorders are or are not, remember in NOvember: Righeimer is bad for our city in so many ways and on so many levels. Vote for Foley and Humphrey to return the city to sanity and to her residents.

10/26/2014 11:29:00 PM  
Anonymous breaking bad said...

Back in the 1990's from a congressional field hearing.
Just quickly, Mr. Righeimer, you said in your testimony in California, the only way that a worker can stop having his earnings used for political purposes is to resign from the union. My understanding from today's testimony is that that's not true; that is, you can ask for your money back.

 

Mr. Righeimer. Well, actually, they are two different things. Some unions will have a separate check-off for additional dollars. What we're talking about is actual union dues that are used towards political purposes.

So someone will say "I don't want to give money." They'll say "There's a PAC we have. And I don't want to give money to that PAC." And they say "Fine. You don't have to give money to that PAC."

What most union members don't realize is that actually out, of their dues, money goes toward it.

 

Mr. Filner. But they have a legal right to ask for it back, right?

 

Mr. Righeimer. Right. But then --

 

Mr. Filner. So your statement is just false.

 

Mr. Righeimer. No. They would become an agency fee shop person. They no longer can vote for union issues.

 

Mr. Filner. Any reasonable person reading this would see that you're misstating the state law and giving an untrue rationalization for your initiative.

10/28/2014 09:25:00 AM  
Anonymous Where's My Coffee? said...

Breaking Bad, thank you. That tells me what a liar Rig is and that he is doing it intentionally.

10/29/2014 01:05:00 PM  

Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home