Fair Board Like A WWF Match!

WE NEED TO GET A FENCED OCTAGON!
OK, I'm not a big WWF fan, but attending Fair Board meetings is clearly going to be like going to one of those events in person!  Geez!

SHOUTING MATCHES
I attended the most recent Fair Board meeting this morning and found it to be enlightening, to say the very least.  Suffice it to say that it's a darn good thing that fifteen feet and a big conference table separate new members Nick Berardino and Stan Tkaczyk from hold-over member Dave Ellis and his new pal, Ali Jahangiri.  A couple times during the two and half hour meeting I found myself wondering why we just didn't adjourn to the parking lot and let those guys go at it.

CRITICISM OF DAILY PILOT ARTICLES
As expected, the recent spate of Daily Pilot articles - three of them - that appeared in one edition caused much controversy.  Speakers before the Board took exception to how some of the information had been presented regarding the costs of keeping horses at the Equestrian Center.  The writer of the article, Jon Cassidy, and the Editor of the Pilot, John Canalis, both were present and heard the complaints.  It's my understanding that a correction will be published soon.

ASSUME ELLIS WAS "THE SOURCE"
Beyond that, it was clear from the heated discussion between Berardino and Ellis - with Tkaczyk occasionally chiming in - that the source of the information was most likely Ellis.

ATTORNEY GENERAL REBUFF - AGAIN
The second article dealt with the decision by the State Attorney General to step away - again - from the Fair Board as a "client", requiring the board to seek outside legal counsel.  Apparently the AG is unhappy that there remains on-going turmoil about the proposed sale of the fairgrounds by certain members of the board three years ago.  Lame duck CEO Steve Beazley explained the chain of events and correspondence that led to the AG rejecting the Fair Board.  In fact, on the agenda today was an item about the forming of a committee to investigate the whole sale mess.  More on that in a minute.

"WORKER" PUBLIC ART DISCUSSED
The first agenda item under "Governance Process" dealt with Nick Berardino's suggestion that there should be some kind of public art commemorating the contribution of agricultural workers to the growth and development of Orange County.  A very professional presentation was made by staffer Joan Hamill, showing examples of such art and describing probable methods of making a selection.  After a short discussion Chair Joyce Tucker appointed Berardino and Tkaczyk as a committee to get the ball rolling and report back to the Board at a future meeting.

FAIR SALE REVIEW COMMITTEE
The second item was the review and approval of the scope of work for the Fair Sale Review Committee and to provide direction regarding the appointment of committee members.  It all began smoothly, with Berardino announcing the names of various members submitted by community organizations that were involved.  The Costa Mesa Chamber of Commerce had not been contacted yet, but would be, plus the chairwoman still had to name two at-large members from the community.  Apparently, from a comment she later made, two retired judges had declined positions in this organization.  At this point things really got interesting.

 ELLIS TRYING TO KILL THE INVESTIGATION

By the nature of questions raised by Ellis - a person who logically would be one of the subjects of any investigation into the fair sale - it was clear to most observers that his intent was to encumber the process to the point that the group would be unable to do the job.  He presented the Board with a list (which he described as a "partial list") of 71 individuals he felt should be interrogated by the committee to get to the bottom of the issue.  Besides himself and every other then-sitting Board member, it included state and federal legislators, county officials, elected city officials (past and present), other bidders on the property, consultants involved in the process and many, many more.  Ellis also raised the question of the Bagley-Keene Open Meeting law, indicating that this committee must be guided by the rules of that law.  He also suggested that every member should be required to complete financial disclosure forms.  As he indelicately put it, "You know what I make, now I want to know what you make."  That comment set the tone for the "discussion".  During one heated exchange Berardino accused Ellis of trying to stop the committee, stating, "I think you're hiding something!"   Newby Ashleigh Aitken helped un-muddy the water when it came time to vote specifically on the Scope Of Work segment, which eventually passed unanimously.

JAHANGIRI PROPOSES CHAOS
Then more jockeying about the participants on the committee ensued.   Member Ali Jahangiri threw a monkey wrench into the works by demanding that committee membership should be open to anyone and everyone!  Berardino reminded him that all this had been hashed out at a meeting he failed to attend and that such a request would make it virtually impossible for the committee to function.  I saw just the slightest glimmer of a smile on Ellis' face...  The Board rejected that irrational request and resolved to have a total of 5 "at-large" members on the committee, up from two, and that Chair Tucker would appoint them.   Eventually, after much public comment, the Board voted to move forward with the committee as recommended plus the additional at-large positions and a pending contact with the Chamber of Commerce.  Only Ellis voted no.

DOOMED EFFORT
No provision has been made for legal guidance for this committee, no budget has been discussed and - despite several pleas by proposed members - the Board did not approve a mechanism to extend the life of this committee beyond the original 120 days.  If, in fact, Ellis' list of 71 names is just a starting point and if each of them must be interrogated to reach a decision AND if the Board and other entities will be required to provide the documents demanded by at least one member, I fear this committee will simply be spinning it's wheels and is doomed to failure.

SOME MEMBERS ARE BAILING OUT ALREADY
A sidebar... some of the proposed members of the committee were in attendance at this meeting.  This afternoon I've been advised that some of them may be having second thoughts and will withdraw from participation.  It's hard to blame them after watching this disfunctional display this morning.  Chair Tucker had that perpetual "deer in the headlights" look on her face, failed to control the discussion didn't provide any leadership that I saw.  That's too bad.

PACIFIC AMPHITHEATRE RENOVATION DELAYED
The final item on the open session agenda was the presentation of the proposed remodel of the Pacific Amphitheatre.  It was a short presentation because the staff, after reviewing all the elements, have decided that it is just not possible to pull everything together - and find the money to perform this renovation - in order to begin this fall.  They asked, and the Board agreed, to extend the time for them to do further analysis.  By the way, the plans look GREAT!

BYRON MAY BE RIGHT
So, another interesting morning in the land of Newport-Mesa is under my prodigious belt.  This one was certainly an exercise in frustration - like watching a ship steam at full speed through stormy waters without a firm hand on the rudder.  The residents of our county deserve better...  Maybe my friend, Byron de Arakal - who was quoted extensively by one speaker today - is right.  Maybe we SHOULD just sell the place!

Curious Timing Or PR Spinning At The Fairgrounds? (Amended)

BIG NEWS AT THE FAIRGROUNDS!
Tonight I write to you about a curious phenomenon that occurred in one of our local newspapers today.  After what seems like months of absence from the pages of the Daily Pilot - it's really only been a few weeks - all of a sudden today there are three (3) big news stories dealing with the Orange County Fair and Event Center online Tuesday night which will likely appear in print Wednesday.  Yes, I know there is almost always some little piece in the Daily Pilot about this or that event at the Fairgrounds - it's what they do across the street from City Hall, after all.  While informative, I'd have to describe most of those as benign.  Not so with the pieces that will appear today.  NOTE:  Before I was out of bed this morning former Fair Board President Dave Ellis signed in with a couple clarifications.  You can read them below in green italics.

LAST "NEWS" A MONTH AGO
The last "news" story about the Fairgrounds before today was an article on March 22nd describing the cessation of elephant rides during the annual Fair.  Before that was a story a month earlier about two new Fair Board members - Ashleigh Aitken and Stan Tkaczyk - being appointed by Governor Jerry Brown.  Today the Daily Pilot made up for lost time.  In no particular order, here are the three stories regarding the Fairgrounds that appear today.

ONE-SIDED CALCULATION OF VALUE
First, is a piece by Jon Cassidy - former Orange County Register reporter who now writes the occasional story for the Daily Pilot as a contractor - titled, "Fair collects little from Equestrian Center".  You can read it HERE.  It outlines the financial part of the equestrian activities at the Fairgrounds with a slant on the story that would lead one to believe there may be a move afoot to further reduce - or completely eliminate - the equestrian activities at the Fairgrounds.  In recent years the footprint of that activity has been reduced by 50% and it is widely known that former Fair Board president Dave Ellis was a main proponent of ousting the horse folks and paving over that area and using it as additional parking.  No mention is made in this particular article of the value to the community of the equestrian activities on the Fairgrounds property.  Nor is there any historical context of those activities - only raw numbers.  It seems one-sided. (Dave Ellis says,"in 2009 former Fair Board President Julie Vandermost led the effort to terminate the equestrian operation, not me.  It has never come to a vote so you do not know what my position is, or might be.  I think you might be listening to some folks that have a different agenda.  However, I do have a concern fair revenues subsidizing private clubs operating on public land.")

ATTORNEY GENERAL DROPS FAIR BOARD AS CLIENT - AGAIN
The second article appearing today is another piece by the recently-ubiquitous Cassidy titled, "Attorney general drops Fair Board as client."  The thrust of the story, which you can read HERE, is the fact that the State Attorney General has, once again, refused to represent the Fair Board in matters involving the lingering questions about the bogus sale scheme that occurred a couple years ago, citing conflict of interest concerns.  Again, the equestrian users are a centerpiece of this article.  And, again, this piece seems to have a distinctly pro-Fair Board slant.

WHERE DID HE GET THOSE NUMBERS?
The third article appearing today is columnist Steve Smith's little epistle titled, "Fair Board gets it right when helping foster kids."  You can read Smith's disjointed piece HERE.  OK, some of you will say the use of "disjointed" is a little harsh, but that's how I view it.  He begins with a supposed quote from Robert Kennedy, then follows up with a couple other unattributed numerical quotes, including his statement, "80% of complaints will come from 20% of the citizens."  I don't know where he got that one, but I suggest it's not even close.  I suspect that most of the complaints by citizens come from a very small percentage of the populace - maybe 5% or less.  I state that based on a decade of watching our local government in action and realizing that fewer than 50 people regularly speak up at public meetings - those people that actually pay attention to issues.

FOSTER FAMILY NIGHT AT THE FAIR
He then veers into the excellent program wherein the Fair Board provides a "foster family night" - an evening at the Fair before it's open to the public where foster families may attend and not have to deal with the rest of us.  It's a good program and, according to Smith, was previously paid for by private funds.  This year the Board hopes to attract 25,000 people to the event - nearly three times last year's number - and it will be funded by an additional dollar charged on tickets for shows at the Pacific Amphitheater.  (Dave Ellis says, "One more small detail in your Foster Family story.  Steve Smith posted this comment (below) to his story as a clarification on the funding of the event.  This is an important item … Joyce Tucker and I start raising the 150K in the next couple of weeks … I’d like to make it clear that the vast majority of the funds for the event will be from private sources.  The $1 per PacAmp ticket is designed to help if we fall short.  In the event of a surplus of funds the remainder will flow to a college scholarship program for foster children.

smi161 at 3:32 PM April 24, 2012

Readers, please note: Funding for the foster family night will include significant private donations in the range of $150,000. Any leftover funds will be used to establish a scholarship program for Orange County's foster children. SS")

TAX OR NOT?
He then gets into the "is that buck a tax?" issue, and whether people should be subjected to paying an additional tax.  He decides that, yes, we members of the public should fork over another buck to pay for this program.  According to him, "it's the least we can do".  Really?

DISMISSING CRITICS
Smith then brushes aside criticism of the program wherein some apparently have suggested this is another "deal" contrived by the Fair Board.  I don't know if it is or not - Smith cavalierly dismisses that thought - but it speaks volumes about how at least a few members of the public feel about the Fair Board.  They've learned not to trust them.

OPPOSING VIEWS FROM "MALCONTENTS"
In his final sentence Smith says, "One night at the fair is the least we can do to say thank you to these families through a small charge, even if the malcontent 20% believe otherwise."  I highlighted that word because it rings of a phrase planted by someone pushing the Fair Board view of anyone who dares to criticize them.

COINCIDENTAL TIMING OR PR CAMPAIGN?
My point here is that each of these articles have managed to appear all at once on the pages of our local newspaper of record and have just the slightest whiff of PR-flackery in them.  I'm not suggesting that Cassidy nor Smith are biased in their reporting, but none of the three articles seem to carry the kind of balance one might hope for.  Yeah, I know - Steve Smith is a "columnist" and, therefore, not required to be "fair and balanced" in his presentation of issues.  And, of course, he makes his living as a PR flack.

I LOVE THE SMELL OF PR SPIN IN THE MORNING
What I AM suggesting is that this kind of smells like the work of a good Public Relations person - someone hired to pump out "news" with a definite slant in favor of the Fair Board's views.  In my view, there's nothing wrong with that as long as the local media is not complicit in presenting only one side of the issue.  It's something to consider.