And Now A Few Thoughts About Jim Righeimer

 FOR YOUR CONSIDERATION
We're a few months into the new council terms and there are a few things on my mind that just need to be said.

POWER SHIFT ON THE DAIS
The balance of power has shifted from one controlled with a dictatorial hand by Jim Righeimer over the past half-dozen years, where anti-employee initiatives, developer-friendly ordinances and personal political considerations drove the decisions made by the City Council to one where a more reasonable form of governance has taken over.

RIGHEIMER'S CABAL
Righeimer and his buddy, Steve Mensinger - unceremoniously dumped by the electorate last November - formed the core of that manipulative cabal.  They were supported by Eric Bever, then the lamest of lame ducks, Gary Monahan, in their quest to reinvent city government - to try to operate it like a business.  This resulted in some epic failures and have cost the city in millions of legal expenses and settlements.  And now there is Allan Mansoor - again.

MANSOOR HAS NO SKILLS
Mansoor has demonstrated - both during his previous tour on the City Council and as an Assemblyman - that he is an incompetent, completely ineffective politician.  He lacks the ability to articulate complex issues and build a consensus.  He is personally responsible for Righeimer's existence in Costa Mesa politics.

RIGHEIMER - THE WORST THING TO EVER HAPPEN TO OUR CITY
Righeimer has proven to be a cunning, conniving, political weasel and, in my humble opinion, is the single worst thing to happen to this city over the more than four decades I’ve lived here.  He waltzed into town more than a decade ago and was immediately placed on the Planning Commission by Mansoor, in what certainly looked like political payback for his and Dana Rohrabacher’s support in the 2006 election.  Since that time he has run roughshod over the rules of procedure, attempted to remake City Government with two failed charter attempts, gutted the finest police department in the county in a fit of anti-police malice and made our city less safe by putting potholes ahead of public safety.  The list of his missteps goes on and on.  With an unbreakable majority that included Mensinger and Monahan they sold out our town to developers and sober living interests.  Their actions have depleted our self-insurance fund due to the numerous lawsuits they’ve evoked.  They turned City Hall into a toxic work environment.  Righeimer’s actions resulted in poor Huy Pham leaping to his death as more than 200 illegal layoff notices were distributed. Former Interim Police Chief (twice) Steve Staveley, in his letter to the staff upon his departure, described the Righeimer-led council as, “..incompetent, unskilled and unethical.”  As it turned out, he was being much too kind to them.  The list of Righeimer’s misdeeds goes on and on...

STEALING THE PROCESS - DISENFRANCHISING LATINOS
Righeimer’s legacy will include all of the above, but the worst may be his hijacking of the process of turning Costa Mesa into a vote-by-district city.  The original legal challenge that caused that process to be put into motion was supposed to result in a greater opportunity for political representation of the Latino community that makes up roughly 37% of our population.  That could have happened with a 5-district configuration, with one of them being predominantly Latino.  At the last second Righeimer commandeered the process and inserted a 6-district plus directly-elected mayor scheme onto the ballot.  I attended all the public meetings on this issue and not a single person - not one - expressed a favorable view of that particular configuration.  Righeimer demanded that the consultant demographer include that configuration in the deliberations, then forced it onto the ballot.  I will forever regret not writing an opposing ballot discussion - nobody did.  The result of that theft will be that the Latino population of this city will have a much-diminished opportunity for representation from within their community than with the 5-district option.  Watch for Righeimer to try to manipulate the process of the integration of the new district voting scheme at the election two years from now.  It will take two election cycles to fully integrate the new system.  And, of course, Righeimer will be termed-out of his council seat in 2018, just in time to run for directly-elected mayor.  What a coincidence.

CURIOUS COINCIDENCE
Speaking of coincidences, with the influx of developer and sober living money into our city over the past several years, I find it noteworthy that both Righeimer and Mensinger have decided to completely remodel/rebuild their country club mansions.  It’s particularly interesting since Mensinger was out of work for a couple years recently.  I’m not trying to tie them to any kind of corruption - just observing the curious coincidence.  You can weigh that for what it’s worth.

KEEP YOUR EYE ON HIM
I'm confident the new council majority will return the city to a more appropriate direction and undo some of the more onerous effects of the Righeimer Regime.  I caution you all to keep on an eye on him as he jockeys for position for a run for that directly-elected mayor position that will become available next year.  He's a hack politician out for whatever is in it for him, with a demonstrable hatred for public employees and is not a factor for good in Costa Mesa.  Just assume that every time he opens his mouth a lie is about to be heard.

OCTA Board: It's Toll Lanes For The I-405!

COSTA MESA GETS SCREWED!
By now many of you who pay attention to this stuff may have read one of the many articles, like the one by Anthony Clark Carpio in the Daily Pilot, HERE, describing the decision by the Orange County Transportation Authority (OCTA) Board Monday to take the lead on the scheme to widen the I-405 and turn part of that taxpayer-funded roadway into a toll road.

A HOTLY-DEBATED ISSUE
As you know, this has been a hotly-debated issue for years, with many cities along the I-405 corridor between Costa Mesa and Seal Beach joining forces as the 405 Freeway Cities Coalition to attempt to see the widening of the highway to include only free lanes in addition to the one High Occupancy Vehicle (HOV) lane.

A PRE-EMPTIVE STRIKE
In the captioned article you'll find the curious deciding factor expressed by the President of the OCTA Board, Jeff Lalloway.  He is quoted as saying, "If we don't do it, Caltrans is going to do it.  And if Caltrans does it, no one's going to like it."  They apparently recognized that Caltrans has a gun to their heads, so they took what they hope will be a preemptive strike.  However,  Caltrans is still the BIG DOG, so I wonder just how the OCTA Board can feel comfortable that it may not come calling later - after all the heavy-lifting is done - and snatch excess toll revenues from the OCTA and the taxpayers who approved Measure M.

THE CHOICES
You may recall this chart, which shows all the alternatives considered.  The "preferred alternative" chosen by the coalition was Number 2.  What we're going to end up with is #3, which adds two lanes to the roadway each direction, one of which will be a toll lane, and converts the existing HOV lane into a toll lane, too.

ACCESS DENIED
One of the big sticking points is the fact that the corridor cities will be shut out of access to that traffic traveling on the toll road because there will be no off ramps to those cities.  If, for example, a person coming from San Juan Capistrano wants to shop at South Coast Plaza she will have to get off at Magnolia and come back to an off ramp from the non-toll lanes.  Remember when the 73 Toll Road was being hyped as "only 12 minutes from Capistrano to South Coast Plaza!"?  Well, that's over unless the existing off ramp at Bear Street is retained, and city traffic officials tell me that's not in the plan.  It makes me wonder where the Segerstrom family has been in this discussion?  Certainly, there have been no public utterances from them during the long years of debate on this issue.  It seems odd, since they have the potential to lose a lot of revenue from this plan.  Here's what Alternate #3 looks like.

FREE FOR THREE - REALLY?
According to the news reports, the current plan will provide free access to the toll lanes for cars with two or more passengers, but only for 3 years.  And, since it's likely that the toll collection apparatus will be automatic, reading your license plate and charging your account, how will that work, exactly?  Will the cameras across the roadway count the heads in the cars and NOT tally a toll?  Do we have the technology to recognize a sleeping child on the back seat.  Or even small children sitting in the third row of an SUV?  How's that going to work, exactly?

BOTH SIDES OF HIS MOUTH?
Mayor Pro Tem Jim Righeimer, a major opponent of this scheme, is quoted as saying "If we can have two or more [passengers in a vehicle], that solves a lot of our issues"?  Really?  That was NEVER part of his dialog against the toll lanes in the past.  His pitch was lack of access to or from them, and that he'd have to back track to almost Newport Beach to enter the toll lane heading north or south.

FAIRVIEW BRIDGE - AGAIN
So, presuming this scheme now moves forward - you can read the timeline HERE, we will now see the destruction of our virtually brand new Fairview Road bridge over the I-405 - a project that cost millions  to complete less than 5 years ago - and the chaos and inconvenience to thousands of Costa Mesa commuters daily.  And, the widening project itself is going to cause major problems for Costa Mesa neighborhoods that back up to the right-of-way in the form of pile driving at all hours of the day and night and the interminable dust and dirt falling on them during construction.

IT'S ALL ABOUT THE BUCKS - YOUR BUCKS
It certainly appears that this is really all about the money.  If Caltrans controls the project it calls the shots as to where the tolls in excess of the building costs will be spent.  OCTA thinks it can keep those bucks here in Orange County.  Sadly, this seems to be less about moving traffic efficiently than about the cash to be collected by those in what former Mayor Eric Bever - a major outspoken opponent to the chosen alternative - referred to as the "Lexus Lanes".  I always thought that was a curious statement from a guy who drives an Audi.

Correcting Bever's Effluent On Handling Effluent

BEVER'S BLATHER
Last week former Costa Mesa Mayor Eric Bever published a commentary in the Daily Pilot, HERE, that was very critical of the recently-announced plan in Bradley Zint's Daily Pilot articles, HERE, and HERE,  to replace the aging and pump-driven sewer system on part of Costa Mesa's Westside, in a segment of Talbert Regional Park and a little chunk of Newport Beach with a gravity-flow system.

CARROLL'S RESPONSE
In his critical mini-tome Bever got it wrong in many ways, which didn't really surprise some of us longtime Bever watchers, so we were not surprised when Scott Carroll,  General Manager of the Costa Mesa Sanitary District (CMSD) - one of the three signatories on the plan, along with the City of Newport Beach and the Orange County Sanitary District (OCSD) - produced a rebuttal.  That commentary appears online in the Daily Pilot, HERE, and will likely appear in print on Sunday.  Unfortunately, apparently space constraints caused a very heavy hand at the editing desk, because the punch line of Carroll's piece was omitted. NOTE: Friday morning the missing segment has been added to the Daily Pilot version and will appear in print Sunday, too.   You can read the agreement approved by the CMSD Board on March 26th HERE.  And, you can read the more than 300 pages of the Environmental Impact Report, from which this image showing the project was lifted, HERE.

(click on image for easier reading)

HERE'S THE FULL VERSION
So, in the interest of continuity and clarity - but certainly not brevity - I have reproduced the entire text of Carroll's submission to the Daily Pilot.  I could have just provided the missing piece, but this way you can read straight through it.  Basically, the last half of the piece - the reason WHY this long-considered project is necessary, beginning with the paragraph that starts, "Finally..." - was not included in the Daily Pilot.  Here is Carroll's piece verbatim:

Commentary: Getting the facts right about Canyon Drive pipeline
By Scott Carroll
April 7, 2015

I want to take this opportunity to clear up the misstated facts made by Eric Bever’s commentary titled, “Railroaded over the Canyon Drive pipeline action” dated April 6, 2015.  On March 26, 2015 the Board of Directors approved a Cooperative Agreement, which is a three party agreement between the Costa Mesa Sanitary District (District), Orange County Sanitation District (OCSD) and the City of Newport Beach that describes each agency’s role in the project.  The District did not award contracts for engineering designs and/or construction because the cooperative agreement has not been approved by all three parties, permits have not been issued by regulatory agencies and bid documents need to be prepared.  The District has every intention of completing its fiduciary responsibility to our ratepayers by soliciting bids from qualified contractors, evaluating bids received and then approving a contract to the responsible low bidder. 

In regards to Mr. Bever’s transparency claim, the District has always discussed this project in an open public forum since 2007.  In addition to March 26, the District has discussed this project on February 10, 2015, July 22, 2014 and July 31, 2013 and by subscribing to the District’s E-mail subscription residents will always be made aware of this project.  Also, Mr. Bever believes the District did not listen to concerned residents, but the truth is the District did meet several times with concerned residents regarding Talbert Regional Park and the District even considered adopting the residents preferred alternative identified in the Environmental Impact Report, Victoria Street Gravity Alternative, but it was determined that the impacts and disruption to Victoria Street would be too great.  However, the District did agree to reduce the project scope to protect Talbert Park and save nearly $1 million.

The District has always acknowledged that residents on or near Canyon Drive will be temporarily disrupted during construction, but the disruption will be no way near the two year timeframe that was once reported in the newspaper.    Disruption on Canyon Drive could be as long as three weeks in any one location, which is why the District is going to schedule open meetings with residents.  The District wants to show residents the proposed designs, traffic plan, mitigation measures including dust control, noise abatement and other factors, but to accomplish this we need a set of detailed plans and those plans are not prepared yet because the District still has to solicit bids and award a contract for engineering design.

Finally, I want to reiterate why the Board of Directors believes this project is very important to Costa Mesa. This project, when complete, will decommission force main pipes and seven lift stations (five stations belong to the District).  Force main pipes and lift stations are the number one concern in the wastewater industry because if the pipe fails wastewater would spray like a geyser and contaminate anything it comes in contact with.   Lift stations require an enormous amount of energy to push the wastewater.  When lift stations fail due to power outages the wastewater will rise in the station and overflow into storm drains and contaminate beaches and waterways.

This project will eliminate the risk to the public’s health and the environment, which is the District’s overall mission, “Protecting our community’s health and the environment by providing solid waste and sewer collection services.”  If this project does not proceed, the District will have to reconstruct all the force mains, lift stations, and install gravity sewers on Wilson Street and Hamilton Street, all of which is more expensive and would lead to substantially more disruption than the decommission option.  The same holds true for OCSD, if they do not construct their portion of the decommissioned network, they will have to upsize their existing trunk sewer in Fairview Road, which would also lead to far more disruption than constructing their portion of the abandonment sewers.

Yes, Mr. Bever is correct that this project will be a temporary disruption in some neighborhoods but we believe maintaining the health and safety of the public and the environment significantly outweighs a temporary disruption.   The District will do everything within our means to ensure the public’s quality of life is not disrupted during construction and we will make sure the public is well informed about the construction timeline and scope of work. 

SCOTT CARROLL is General Manager of the Costa Mesa Sanitary District

STILL A LONG WAY TO GO
I spoke with Carroll about this issue.  He advised me that we are a long way from this project commencing.  The two other signatories must still go through their approval process.  All the engineering and design work is still pending.  Several public outreach meetings will be held, probably not until next year, since this project is not anticipated to begin until late in 2016 or early 2017.

INCONVENIENCE AND IMPROVEMENT
He confirmed that some residents on Canyon Drive will be inconvenienced for short times as the new pipe is installed.  He also confirmed that the OCSD will be doing the work in Talbert Park, and will be laying the pipe there beneath the existing service road.  And, he told me that each of the seven (7) pump stations will be removed once the new gravity-flow infrastructure is in place and operating, although one article indicates that one of the pumping stations will remain.  The final engineering details have not been completed.

SEEMS LIKE A GOOD IDEA
Based on what I know at this time - the actual facts of the issue presented by Carroll and a cursory pass through the EIR - this complex and expensive project, estimated at over $23 million, of which the CMSD segment will cost around $7 million, certainly seems to be a proactive solution to the problem of expensive and aging pipes and pumps in that part of our city and another example of the CMSD Board and management getting out ahead of a problem.

An Echo That Gets Louder Each Day

DUSTING OFF SOME OLD STUFF
The very first entry I posted when I began this blog on July 9, 2005 - hard to believe that the 10th anniversary is approaching - dealt with the specter of eminent domain on the Westside of Costa Mesa.  This entry was on an old blog host - which I've described as a bargain basement blog host - without the ability to post comments.  I changed hosts to the current Blogger format 18 months later.  If you want to read any or all of those old entries, there's a link over on the right of this page that says "A Bubbling Cauldron (7/05 - 10/06)".  Just click on the title or on that link, then scroll down to the bottom of the page and navigate through the various entries.  Or, go over to the "Archive Index" on the left side of the page, click on it, then look for something of interest.  It's cumbersome, which is one reason I changed hosts.

HAVE FUN...
Anyhow, I thought you might find what I wrote back then to be of interest, so I've copied and pasted that entire first entry below, just as it appeared then.  It was published just before 3 p.m. that afternoon.  Enjoy.

*****

Saturday, July 9, 2005
EMINENT DOMAIN AND THE WESTSIDE

The potential redevelopment of Westside Costa Mesa got a whole lot more interesting recently. On June 23, 2005 the United States Supreme Court ruled in a Connecticut case that eminent domain can be used to force property owners off their land so another entity can replace it to generate more tax revenue. However, the Fifth Amendment of the Constitution states, in part, "nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation". In this case that term, "just compensation", is just another way of saying, "way below market value".

If I were a business property owner on the Westside of Costa Mesa I would be shaking in my boots about now. It was bad enough when the residential overlay was approved for the entire area that will permit a willing industrial property owner to sell to a developer and facilitate the integration of residential units in the present industrial area. This recent ruling makes it a whole new ball game. Now eager developers can sweet talk our City Council into using the sledgehammer of eminent domain to oust even the most reluctant of property owners. Do I hear the jingle of campaign finance coins in the air?

You're probably saying to yourself, "Nah, our council members would never do that." Well, don't be too sure. It takes lots of money to successfully run for public office. Eric Bever, for example, managed to round up over $50,000 for his war chest in his slim victory last November. He and his pal, Mayor Allan Mansoor, seem likely to run again - Mansoor in 2006 and Bever in 2008 - so developers with jingling pockets will probably start showing up on their doorsteps pretty soon with plans for the "mansionization" of the Westside.

Ambitious Mayor Pro Tem Gary Monahan, who theoretically is termed out of a council seat after his current tour, might be looking forward to higher office - perhaps County Supervisor. I imagine he will have his ear cocked for the sound of jingling coins, too.

Lest you think the ladies on the dais will be left out, I suspect Katrina Foley and Linda Dixon can expect the developers to come calling, too.

If you're thinking to yourself that this won't affect you, think again. If you own a one of those little, old homes on the Westside in an area that falls under the shroud of the residential overlay, you might be getting a queasy stomach right about now. If you had a cocky smirk on your face a couple months ago when the Westside Redevelopment Oversight Committee's recommendations were usurped by Bever's sleight of hand that put the residential overlay over virtually the entire Westside because you thought it would rid you of obnoxious industrial neighbors, think about this: As I understand this ruling, it would be entirely possible for a residential property owner living in a redevelopment zone to be forced to sell his home for "just compensation" so a new, larger one could be built that would generate more property tax. If your little bungalow just happens to sit on a sliver of land that might be a key acquisition for a larger development, we could soon be seeing your taillights as you head out of town, because you sure won't be able to afford another place in Costa Mesa with the proceeds of your "just compensation".

Are you nervous yet? You should be - especially in this city, where the ruling troika on the City Council has already demonstrated a smug willingness to play fast and loose with the rules.

I, for one, expect to have more than a few sleepless nights about this issue.

*****

AND, SO....

In case you're wondering, here's what the folks visiting Trader Joe's, between Superior and Pomona Streets along 17th Street, see as they head for the parking lot entrance.

Latinos And Election Of Council Members By District

AN INTERESTING ARTICLE
A long piece by Jill Cowan in the Daily Pilot Saturday afternoon titled, "At-large voting: Latino handicap?", HERE, will certainly generate some interesting discussion in Costa Mesa political circles.

CHANGE IN STATE LAW?
A bill proposed by Assemblyman Roger Hernandez, would force all General Law cities with populations over 100,000 to elect council members by district.  In my view, this is a major over-reach by the State government.  If the objective is to provide more "representation" to our large Latino community, perhaps it should begin by getting out their votes.  History shows us that the large mostly-Westside population of Latinos seldom turn out at the polls, nor do they put forward candidates for commissions or committees.

REPRESENTATION
If the goal is to have each geographic area of the city "represented", we don't need this new law to do it.  Wendy Leece, Eric Bever and Allan Mansoor have represented the Westside in recent years.

NOT LIKELY...
However, if the Hernandez bill is an attempt to guarantee that one particular ethnic group is "represented", then perhaps we need a law that requires EVERY ethnic group have proportional representation on the City Council.  Of course, I offer that as an example of the absurd...

NO GUARANTEES
While I agree that we have seen few Latinos run for office - Cowan mentions Mirna Burciaga's failed campaign a few years back - simply forcing the city to elect council members by district would not necessarily result in more Latinos participating in the process.

PANDERING TO RADICALS
I began paying attention to local politics about the time Chris Steel and Allan Mansoor were elected.  Mansoor became the darling of the far right radicals among us.  He was named an honorary Minuteman, for goodness sake.  He is notorious for tossing Benito Acosta out of a council meeting and having him arrested after cutting short his time at the speaker's podium.  We are STILL paying legal fees on the lawsuit that resulted from his hasty, ill-advised act.  During his tenure, with the urging of current councilman Gary Monahan, the Job Center was shuttered, forcing day laborers back onto street corners - and it generated even more legal problems.

THE MOUTH FROM MESA NORTH
For most of the last decade a big part of the political agenda in Costa Mesa was driven by the persistent drumbeat of one racist individual, who took credit for both getting Steel elected and then, later, rejected by the voters.  He crows about getting Paularino Park - in his Mesa North neighborhood - turned into a passive park, forcing mostly Latino soccer players to find another venue for their after work exercise.  Fortunately, that campaign stopped right there.  Although that person continues to spew racist views from his blog and elsewhere online, his influence in the city has diminished - a good thing for all of us.

OK, BUT...
I DON'T necessarily have a problem with Costa Mesa council members being elected by district.   But the votes should be limited to residents within each district, not at-large, the way it's done in Newport Beach.  Candidate Lee Ramos, (shown here with his campaign manager, Dennis Popp) quoted in Cowan's article, seems concerned that by doing so we might "limit the talent we have in the city."  Of course, since he's part of the cabal controlled by country club cronies Mayor Jim Righeimer and Mayor Pro Tem Steve Mensinger, having been appointed to two very influential committees by them, I'm not surprised at his reaction.  If we were electing council members by district today he might be running against Monahan, who has shown to be virtually unbeatable each time he ran.

...THE STATE SHOULD BUTT OUT!
I DO have a problem with the State TELLING us how we must elect our council members.  Because of the strong liberal orientation in Sacramento, I won't be surprised if the bill proposed by Hernandez passes.  What I also have a problem with is that this bill will only add fuel to the fire for those in the community advocating a change to a Charter form of government.  Considering how the current council majority plays fast and loose with the existing rules, I shudder to thing of the damage they could do under a Charter form of government.

SHOULD BE INTERESTING
It's going to be interesting to 1) see what kind of discussion Cowan's article generates in the community and, 2) whether the bill Hernandez initiated gets passed by the state legislature.  It's an election year and his seat is up...

Righeimer To Codify Quashing Of Criticism

THE MOST IMPORTANT ITEM TUESDAY
There are a lot of items on the agenda for the Costa Mesa City Council meeting beginning at 6:00 p.m. next Tuesday, December 3, 2013, HERE, and I'll address the rest of it on another post.  Nothing, however, is more important than an item stealthily placed on the Consent Calendar than the final item, #14, titled, "Modifications To Public Comments And Consent Calendar On The City Council Agenda".  You can read that agenda item HERE.

QUASHING DISSENT
This move, in my opinion and that of many other residents of this city who actually follow what goes on at City Hall and at these meetings, is a two-pronged attempt by Mayor Jim Righeimer to stifle opposing views.  In the nearly three years since he took office - and power - his decisions and actions have caused a large and very vocal cadre of residents to step up and speak up during the Public Comments segment of the meetings and exercise their right - using the three minutes provided - to express their opinions, offer suggestions and criticize an individual council member or members for perceived missteps.  That's the way it's supposed to work.  Got a grievance? Speak up!  See that finger up there?  Righeimer's giving us another one...

SOMETIMES MANY SPEAKERS LINE UP - SO WHAT!?
Sometimes the Public Comments section of the meeting, which has traditionally been on the agenda early in the meeting following Announcements and Presentations, can stretch for a half-hour or more, depending on the hot button issues of the day.  In the past there have been meetings where twenty or more speakers lined up to speak.  In those cases the Public Comments segment could take an hour.
THE OLD (RIGHT) WAY
The Consent Calendar typically follows reports from the individual council members and the report from the CEO - after the Public Comments segment.  As some may know, unless an item is "pulled" from the Consent Calendar for separate discussion and vote by a council member, staff member or member of the public,  the entire Consent Calendar - there are fourteen (14) items on it Tuesday - will be voted upon as one vote.  If any item is pulled - there is zero chance that Item #14 won't be pulled Tuesday - in the past the council would vote the remainder of the Consent Calendar items in one vote, then proceed to consider those items pulled in order, one at a time, with a separate discussion and vote for each.  The public could comment on any such item if they choose to do so - also with three minutes allotted for that comment.

DICTATORSHIP IN ACTION
However, everything changed at the meeting of October 1, 2013.  That's the meeting where the mayor, apparently tired of hearing speaker after speaker step up and criticize his policies and practices, unilaterally decided to change things on the agenda.  That's when he decided to limit speakers in Public Comments to the first 10, then trail any remaining speakers to the end of the meeting.  Simultaneously, he arbitrarily decided to also trail any "pulled items" from the Consent Calendar to the end of the meeting.  This effectively stifles the opportunity of residents to address grievances with the council.  In a recent meeting, for example, another five speakers remained after the initial ten had spoken.  By the time their turn rolled around it was well past 11:00 p.m. and all had long since departed.

DISENFRANCHISING RESIDENTS
Similarly, items "pulled" from the Consent Calendar will typically be those some residents feel require separate discussion - for whatever reason.  It might be a question about an engineering contract, or an expenditure on one of the Warrants that are usually found on the Consent Calendar.  Whatever it might be, it's important to that resident, so the council should hear the issue out before voting.  By trailing those "pulled" items Righeimer disenfranchises those residents who can't hang around City Hall until midnight.

ON THE CONSENT CALENDAR?  REALLY?
Righeimer has run roughshod over the agenda for the past couple months with disastrous results.  So, at the last meeting, he finally conceded that they should have the item placed on the agenda for official consideration by the entire council - knowing full well he has the three votes it takes to make the changes official.  However, when the agenda was released last Wednesday afternoon - and after everyone had departed that might answer questions about it - the item showed up - as #14 on the Consent Calendar.
WHAT?
Now, here's the rub... This item is to theoretically codify the way Righeimer has been bending the rules to suit his own personal agenda - to have the council officially vote on it, right?  Well, what happens to the Public Comments segment that precedes it?  Will it be split again, before the vote is taken?  And, if they follow Righeimer's corruption of the agenda policy before the vote is taken, Item #14 will be "pulled" and then trailed to the end of the meeting!

HOW WILL THAT WORK - EXACTLY?
And, another wrinkle to consider.  If you click on that link to the full agenda at the top of this entry, then scroll down to the section marked "PUBLIC COMMENTS" and to the second paragraph, the first sentence read as follows:  
Questions and comments made by public speakers may be addressed by the City Council during Council Comments or by the Chief Executive Officer during the CEO’s Report.
 
 Well, how is that going to work, exactly, since a good number of the comments would be trailed to the end of the meeting - hours AFTER the council members and CEO have made their comments?

A LARGER PROBLEM
Also, there is a larger problem with items ON the agenda which speakers want to address.  The agenda instructions says the following:
If you wish to address the City Council on a matter listed on the agenda, please complete and submit a speaker card to the City Clerk. Speaker cards will be accepted until the agenda item is called.

STIFLING SPONTANEITY
Well, it is NOT unusual at all for speakers to hear comments of others, then decide they have something to add to the discussion - an amplification of a statement, a different perspective or a rebuttal. This policy will foreclose that opportunity, since speaker cards will NOT be accepted once an item has been called.  We've seen this happen at recent meetings and it's a travesty.  And, it's not clear how Righeimer plans to apply that rule to the Public Comments segment.  if he is consistent with the rule, then he could forbid someone from speaking at the "trailed" section of Public Comments who had not submitted a speaker card at the beginning of the meeting.  Again, I've known speakers to jump off their couches at home while watching the meeting and dash to council chambers to address an issue when the discussion was complicated and/or contentious.


A GOOD IDEA

As one might expect, opinions on both sides of this issue have come hot and heavy to the local media.  Resident Susan Shaw commented in the Daily Pilot on November 27th, HERE, that, if the mayor insists in implementing this new system, then the council should do the same.  Allow one council member to speak up front and trail the rest to the end.

LEECE HAS IT RIGHT

Councilwoman Wendy Leece published a commentary in the Daily Pilot Friday evening, HERE, that emphasized that by implementing this policy the mayor will be repressing free speech, and that the resident's views are every bit as important as those of developers sitting in the audience hoping to convince the council to approve their profit-making project.  Please read her commentary.

"HERE'S JIMMY!"
Predictably, Righeimer has also produced a commentary in the Daily Pilot today, too.  You can read it HERE.  He recognizes the firestorm he's ignited and is doing everything he can to douse the flames before Tuesday's meeting.  He talks about "balance" in the meetings, and the need to "do the city's business".  Well, Mr. Mayor - just what the heck to you consider the opinions of your electorate to be if not the city's business?  I guess he just doesn't like those developers sitting out there in the audience, looking at their watches and glaring at him while they wait in line for their agenda item to come up.

THE WORST "TIME THIEF"

He has complained in the past about the length of the time it takes for speakers to fully vent their views, yet he is, by far, the worst - to use Mayor Pro Tem Steve Mensinger's new favorite term - "Time Thief" on the dais.  Time after time he will rant and rave about this issue or that, sometimes going on for fifteen or twenty minutes at a pop.  At the last meeting he chewed up a huge chunk of time telling the audience that he was "shocked and appalled" at the lack of public outcry about the alleged planting of a tracking device on Mensinger's truck.  On and on he went - venting his spleen about something that could only be considered "city business" if you realize that those two men are actually suing our police men and women for imagined infractions and alleged stress.

AND, FROM BOREDOM CENTRAL...

And, of course, the most recent pandering mouthpiece for the current power elite in Costa Mesa, Dennis Popp - the author of the most boring and incomprehensible blog you can imagine - piped up to support Righeimer in his own commentary in the Daily Pilot, HERE.  He, that renowned Constitutional Scholar, opines that there is no abridgment of the 1st Amendment of the Constitution by the mayor's scheme to quash public comments.  Certainly, his years of nursing experience prepared him to deliver that lofty legal viewpoint.  Until he began his blog I didn't think it was possible to pile manure that high.

EVEN BEVER DECIDED AGAINST IT

I've watched a lot of council meetings over the past decade and a half.  I've seen councils come and go and I've seen attempts to juggle the agenda by more than one or two of them, including Gary Monahan.  Most recently Eric Bever considered proposing a similar scheme, but even he thought better of it later.

SHALL WE COUNT?
In my opinion, Righeimer is feeling a lot of heat due to the many, many missteps he and his pals have taken over the past nearly three years.  The opposition is more organized and more vocal now because his screw-ups have caused more people to begin paying attention.  And, there are simply more problems in our city today.
For starters:

• The advent of more drug and alcohol rehabilitation homes.
• The decline in staffing levels at the police department, already at critical levels and getting worse 
• AB 109 prisoner releases.
• Our inability to attract more police officers quickly enough to back fill existing and anticipated vacancies.
• The heavy-handed negotiating tactics presently going on with the so-called "miscellaneous employees" contract.
•  His ham-handed attempt to oust half those employees more than two years ago which resulted in a lawsuit that remains unresolved.
• The toxic workplace he has created, amplified by the "bunker mentality" - the "us against all of them" attitude -  on the fifth floor of City Hall.
• His stubborn unwillingness to consider paying down the Unfunded Pension Liability although he keeps bringing it up as the root of all evil in the city.
• The creation of superfluous and unnecessary committees, filled by cronies to perform useless tasks while sucking up valuable staff time and keeping the real work of the city from being done promptly. 
• The brewing scandal swirling around the 60th Anniversary Celebration finances.
• His willingness to expose the city to lawsuit after lawsuit, apparently considering litigation just another "cost of doing business".
• Controversies around the future of Fairview Park.
• His insistence on attempting to jam yet another charter scheme down the voters throats despite his personal charter being crushed at the ballot box just a year ago.  

THERE'S PLENTY TO DISCUSS

There are PLENTY of things the residents of this city may wish to discuss with the council in an open forum - not some "Meet the Mayor" coffee klatch in a neighborhood yard where maybe twenty friends assemble, blow him kisses and hear him pontificate.  By attempting to implement this scheme he clearly wants to mute the voices of discontent.  What he is doing, though, is bringing those people together - just as his many other gaffes have done - to speak with a unified voice against what Leece describes in her commentary as a violation of "a basic principle of human liberty: free speech."

AND NOW, A MESSAGE FROM YOUR MAYOR...

Costa Mesa Employee Compensation Report

 NUMBERS NOW AVAILABLE
As I mentioned briefly in an earlier post, the 2012 Costa Mesa City Employee Compensation Report is now available for viewing on the city web site, HERE.  And, if you want to compare it to the 2011 report you can view that one HERE.



MISLEADING USE OF "FACTS"
Some will recall that certain members of the City Council went berserk when this listing was first produced last year.  They and many of their sycophants - in an election year - misrepresented the numbers to pillory "greedy union employees", always failing to mention that the reason many of the persons they criticized were members of public safety organizations and the council at that time refused to permit the leaders of the Police and Fire organizations to staff at reasonable levels.  That refusal led to mandatory overtime in those organizations to provide adequate staffing for our safety, which pushed individuals up the compensation list.  Many times now-mayor Jim Righeimer referred to a "firefighter earning $350,000" - a lie of the first magnitude.  He was referring to Fire Battalion Chief Bill Kershaw, who was at the top of the 2011 list because he worked more than 4000 hours during that year.  And, that "$350,000" number included almost $70,000 in pension costs - not dollars he put into his pocket.  And, Righeimer conveniently rounded the numbers up - Kershaw's number, including the pension costs, was actually $346,167.60.  Kershaw is #2 on this year's list, at $296,733.97 but you can be sure it will come out as "$300,000" as critics flap their jaws on this issue.

FORGOTTEN REIMBURSEMENT
Another fact conveniently neglected was that much of the overtime that shows up in the public safety staff numbers overtime attributed to instances where firefighters were sent to wildfire locations as part of our mutual aid agreements and we are reimbursed for that cost.  Similarly, when members of the police department work overtime to provide contracted support for the Orange County Fair those costs are also reimbursed to the city.

NEW FIRE STRUCTURE WILL SAVE MONEY
The much-delayed Fire Department restructuring plan proposed by Interim Fire Chief Tom Arnold, based on the presentations made months ago, will save a lot of dollars.  We hope that plan, one we're told is being fine-tuned for presentation at yet another study session, will finally be approved and implemented.

FOLKS AT THE TOP
As you scroll down the list you'll find Police Chief Tom Gazsi at the top - a bargain by anybodys estimation.  You'll also see outgoing Interim Director of Economic and Development Services and Deputy CEO Peter Naghavi, who's numbers include almost $50,000 cash out for unused leave and vacation in anticipation of his departure this year.  He was supposed to depart at the end of the year, but agreed to stay to help select his replacement and aid in the transition.

LOOK AT "OVERTIME HOURS"
Here's an interesting exercise for you.  This year the report includes an "Overtime Hours" column.  As you scroll down the list you'll find fourteen (14) of the first 22 persons listed show more than 1,000 overtime hours.  Continue to scroll and you'll see that nearly half of the top 41 persons listed - 20 - show overtime hours greater than 1,000 hours.  Those hours represent time spent on the job that most would prefer to spend with their families.  The overtime is necessary to keep us safe.

NON-SWORN STAFF
CEO Tom Hatch, during his comments last Tuesday at the council meeting, addressed the reduced staffing levels by observing we have more non-sworn staff today than we did previously.  Well, most of those positions were ones that had been canceled during the budget crunch, then re-filled recently.  Those folks, as wonderful and dedicated as they are, cannot go out and snatch up criminals like the shotgun bandit earlier this week. They can't go out and work effectively with the multiple gangs in our city.  They can't jump into a patrol car or onto a motorcycle to snag DUI offenders.  They won't be out patrolling the illicit massage parlors mentioned at the last council meeting or working the "problem motels" in our city.

POLICE STAFFING
The Police Department had, just a few years ago, 164 sworn positions.  Today the authorized strength is 131, which includes 5 "grant officers", the funding for which was from federal grants for only 5 years.  The last City Council - the core of which is still in control - ignored their own consultants and former Interim Chief Steve Staveley, both of whom said the bare minimum staffing level should be 136 - 140 would be better - and slashed the budget to its current level.  And, of course, they disbanded the A.B.L.E. helicopter program - the model for municipal airborne law enforcement organizations throughout the country.  Are we safer today?  Of course not!  The year end crime statistics, HERE, clearly demonstrate that fact.

OUR "JIFFY LUBE GUY"
So, as you scroll down the Employee Compensation List and questions arise, just take a deep breath and think about what those numbers really represent.  Before you force your blood pressure off the charts because Billy Folsom - #315 on the list - earned $82,000 last year before he retired, understand that you're looking at 30 years of service and a man who could keep every vehicle in the fleet running.  This is the man referred to derisively by Righeimer and his sycophants as a "Jiffy Lube Guy."  Of course, that derision has nothing to do with the fact that Folsom was an articulate outspoken critic of the council's outsourcing scheme (he says, tongue in cheek).

COUNCIL MEMBERS
In case you're interested, you can find the City Council members listed way, way down the list.  Wendy Leece is #461, with a total comp. number of $32,386.28.  Gary Monahan is just below her at #462 with the same dollars.  Steve Mensinger is at #464 with at total comp. of $31,590.63 and departed Eric Bever is at 466 and $31,106.78.  Mayor Jim Righeimer is at #530 with a total comp. number of $1,322.07.

COIN - TRANSPARENCY OR A CLUB?
The City is about to launch negotiations with the General Employees - the members of the Costa Mesa City Employees Association (CMCEA) - immediately.  Their contract expires in a week.  We'll find out very soon just how Mayor Pro Tem Mensinger's COIN ordinance, HERE,  is going to work and whether it will facilitate openness and timely negotiations or become an anchor and a club used to flog employee organizations into submission.  I'm hoping for the former.

HAVE FUN
Have a great weekend as you peruse the Compensation report.  I'll look forward to your observations.