Audio Recording Problem Solved!

THIS IS IT!
OK, last gasp on this issue... It looks like I've solved the accessibility to the audio recording of my interview with Tom Johnson last Sunday on KOCI FM, 101.5.  I know.. you're thrilled, right?

ON YOUTUBE
Anyhow, I managed to massage and manipulate the audio and deposited it on my YouTube page for future listening for posterity - or whatever passes as posterity in this ethernet age.

BEFORE YOU PULL THE TRIGGER...
So, just click on this link and off you go.  Be forwarned, though - the audio begins IMMEDIATELY, so if you're in a quiet place - like at work, for example - be ready to turn your volumn down post haste lest you get caught.   Ready?  GO! https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dlRJ-ZO39j4

MUCHAS GRACIAS, AMIGOS
Thanks, again, to Tom Johnson and the good folks at KOCI for the opportunity to chat, and especially to Brent Kahlen for making the audio recording available.

The Future Of The Daily Pilot

THE FUTURE OF LOCAL PRINT MEDIA
Among the many issues Tom Johnson - former publisher of the Daily Pilot and host of the "Sunday Brunch with Tom Johnson and Lynn Selich" program on radio station KOCI FM - discussed with me on Sunday was the future of the print media and, specifically, the future of the Daily Pilot in light of the turmoil swirling around the attempt by the Daily Pilot's parent, Tribune Publishing, to acquire Freedom Communications - parent of the Orange County Register and the Riverside Press Enterprise - out of bankruptcy.

WE NEED THE DAILY PILOT
During our conversation I told Johnson that I felt the Daily Pilot - our newspaper of record for more than a century - needs to find a way to survive.  Although no longer "daily", it provides an irreplaceable unbiased small-town feel in the delivery of local news - the stuff we really care about.

EVERYTHING YOU NEED TO KNOW
Then, very late Sunday night, Kevin Roderick - who publishes the LA Observed blog - published an outstanding summary of the events of last week regarding the Tribune/Freedom Communications debacle, HERE.  His piece provides several views of the issue and is a must-read for those interested in this situation.

A PAY WALL?
Also, Johnson mentioned the rumor that the Daily Pilot will soon have a pay wall.  I've heard that rumor and had it verified by those who should know and it appears to be true.  In my opinion, that would be catastrophic for that newspaper!  The Register tried it and failed miserably.  I fear a pay wall for non-subscribers - we subscribers would be exempt from it from what I hear - would do significant damage to the Pilot page views, those magic numbers that attract advertisers.

NOBODY DOES IT BETTER - YET
I, personally, WANT the Daily Pilot to survive and thrive.  Although others have tried, so far nobody has found a way to provide local coverage better.

A "COMPETING BLOG"?
In a segue, Johnson asked about the impact of what he called a "competing blog" in town - which he described as having been generated to offset this blog.  It turns out he was really talking about the Costa Mesa Public Square Facebook page - not a blog, and far from it.  We briefly discussed that page - how it evolved from Bruce Krochman's original idea nearly two years ago for an open, carefully moderated site for the discussion of important issues - into a closed society where only those blessed may even view the content being discussed.  We discussed the fact that the operators of the blog not only toss folks who offer opposing viewpoints, but seek them out on other sites and expel them from the CMPS for comments made elsewhere.

HYPED BY OFFICIALS
We also discussed how elected and appointed city officials use the site as their own little venue for spreading their philosophy among the true believers who inhabit the site, and how they openly tout it from the dais of their respective meeting venues as "the place" to discuss issues - even though it's NOT an open site.  The hypocrisy is palpable!

NOT COMPETITION, JUST PROPAGANDA
The CMPS is not "competition" for this blog and can't even be considered as such until it's open to EVERYONE, just as we are here.  Yes, to post a comment here you must register, but nobody is banned or blocked.  And, in fact, since I cross-post every blog entry on my Facebook page, anybody can post comments there, too.  When those officials tell the populace that the CMPS is The Place To Go, they forget to mention that it's only open for true believers, or those willing to sit quietly in the corner and not make waves.

THANKS FOR THE OPPORTUNITY
Anyhow, thanks again to Tom Johnson for the opportunity to chat with him on these and other issues.  If I can figure a way to embed the recording of the program I'll do so.  Unfortunately, it appears that no podcast link is available.  I'll try to figure it out...

Guess Who's Going To Be On The Radio?

ANOTHER LIFE ADVENTURE
Life is full of new things, right?  Yes, even at my age!  Well, Sunday presents a new experience for your humble correspondent.  Your previously mute purveyor of information and opinions will be a guest on "Sunday Brunch with Tom Johnson and Lynn Selich" on KOCI, 101.5 FM, beginning at 11 a.m.

DON'T EXPECT TOO MUCH FROM ME
Don't get your hopes up, dear readers.  Unlike many of our local politicians, I've never considered myself a particularly strong public speaker, but Tom Johnson asked me to appear on his program this weekend - Lynn's off at some exotic locale - to talk, as he put it, "all things Costa Mesa".  He asked me previously, but I was under the weather with what many of you have had since Christmas.  It's my understanding that it will just be Tom and me, chatting a little about the city that's been my home for more than four decades while you chow down on your Bangers and Mash and sip Mimosas.

WIDE OPEN AGENDA
I really have no idea what we'll discuss.  I suspect the growth-oriented initiative - which is properly identified as "An Initiative To Require Voter Approval On Certain Development Projects" - will find it's way into the conversation, but I don't pretend to be an expert on that subject and Jay Humphrey already covered it on this show recently.  We will probably talk about the upcoming election and politics in general.  We may talk about the staff shortages in Costa Mesa, and what caused them.  We won't have a lot of time, so we'll just play it by ear.

WE GO WAY BACK
I've known Tom since the early 2000's.  He was the publisher of the Daily Pilot when I wrote my first commentary, responding to a column by Byron de Arakal, which they published.  That's what started this whole thing, so I guess he has to share some of the blame, right?  Over the years he, his editors and their successors have offered me a weekly column more than a dozen times, which I gratefully declined.  Tom asked me to be one of the local folks on his advisory board when he and Bill Lobdell began their fledgling online news source, The Daily Voice.

WE DON'T ALWAYS AGREE
He and I do not always agree on issues - some of you who follow the blog already know that - but we've remained cordial over the years and I admire his long-time community involvement.  The Daily Pilot was in good hands when he was in charge.  He's a man who gets things done.

WARMING UP THE AUDIENCE FOR CHIEF LEWIS
I'm told my segment will lead off the show and will likely be a warm-up for the really big guy, recently appointed Newport Beach Police Chief Jon Lewis.  Now THAT interview will be worth the price of admission!

RADIO OR ONLINE
So, if you're not doing anything for a few minutes at 11:00 a.m. on Sunday, March 20th, tune in to 101.5 FM or you can listen to it live online if you go to their website, www.kociradio.com.  I guarantee nothing except to fill up air space for a quarter hour or so.  Even better, stick around and hear Chief Lewis tell you about his vision for the Newport Beach Police Department.

Feet To The Fire - Tired Of Waiting***

 WAITING FOR COVERAGE
Yesterday I spoke with Costa Mesa's Director of Communication, Bill Lobdell, about the video coverage of the Feet To The Fire Forum held last Thursday, September 18th at Orange Coast College.  I had hoped to provide you with a link to the streaming video of that event, plus other information.  He told me the streaming video would be available "soon".  Well,  it has been nearly a week and it's still not up and I'm tired of waiting for it.

ME
You can read what I wrote about that event HERE.

BRAD
You can read what Bradley Zint wrote about it in the Daily Pilot, HERE.

CHRIS
You can read the real-time live blogging done for the OC Political Blog by Chris Nguyen, HERE.

KOCI-FM AUDIO
You can hear the audio coverage from radio station KOCI-FM by clicking HERE, then on the audio link.

3RD PARTY VIDEO
You can view a third party video of the event in two segments, HERE and HERE.  It's not high quality video, and it doesn't capture every word, but it's better than nothing.

CMTV COVERAGE ON TELEVISION

You can watch the CMTV presentation on Channel 3 (Time Warner Cable) or Channel 99 (ATT U-Verse) starting next week on the schedule listed below:

***
AS PROMISED
And, if it ever becomes available, I will provide a link for the CMTV streaming video at this location.  You can link to the CMTV coverage HERE.

COSTA MESA BRIEF COVERAGE ADDED, TOO
And, I apologize to my pal, old Barry Friedland, for overlooking the coverage he and his "staff" provided at the forum.  They have produced 28 minutes of before-and-after interviews recorded at the event.  There is no coverage of the forum, per se, but it does provide some interesting - if one-sided - perspective.  You can view it on YouTube HERE.
Enjoy.

Charter Audio Debate Wrap-up

A LAST SHOT AT THE CHARTER
Tuesday night Costa Mayor Pro Tem Jim Righeimer and Planning Commissioner Rob Dickson debated Righeimer's Charter with Councilwoman Wendy Leece and retired former Costa Mesa Planning Executive Perry Valantine in a 90 minute event moderated on radio station KOCI-FM, 101.5 moderated by hosts Troy Davis and Steve Ray.  The event will be available for future listening by mid-day Wednesday at www.kociradio.com.

RUNNING COMMENTARY FOILED
Initially I had planned to do a running commentary as the event progressed.  Very shortly I realized that I couldn't do it because I would have never been able to keep up with the fabrications, misdirection and smoke being blown at the listeners by Righeimer and, to some extent, Dickson.  So, I just took copious notes and will try to give you a feel for the event now.
 
FORMAT
The hosts asked six questions of the panel.  The order of speaking was chosen by lot.  Each was given 2 minutes to respond, 2 minutes for a rebuttal and 30 seconds to respond to the rebuttal, if necessary.  Each gave a 2 minute opening statement and a 1 minute closing statement.  It actually went pretty well.  Only once was a speaker interrupted - Righeimer just couldn't keep his yap shut.

OPENING STATEMENTS
I'm going to paraphrase most of the comments except where I was able to accurately capture a quote.

VALANTINE WAS FIRST
In the opening statements Perry Valantine led off and told us he found the Charter a rather confusing document.  He said that it is essentially a contract that the voters are being asked to sign without all the blanks being filled in.  He pointed out that it fails to follow the recent "anti-Bell" law that requires the new powers being bestowed on the City.  The ballot description does not do that.  (You may recall that a special meeting was called by contract City Attorney Kim Barlow to do some "language clean up" that resulted in the reference to no-bid contracts being specifically deleted).  He compared the Charter to  buying a new car but leaving it up to the dealer to decide the kind of car.

RIGHEIMER WAS NEXT
Righeimer was next and he led off with this statement:  "That was interesting.  That doesn't sound like our charter."  He then launched off into a summary of how he found the city when he took office nearly 22 months ago.  He said he wanted to "do things", but couldn't because "we were not a charter".  He said "I put together a first draft that went through many iterations".  (Well, we all saw just how few changes were made during the public hearings!)  He said his Charter is no different than other charters. (Really?)  He said that 60% of it follows General Law and complained about "fear, misinformation and doubt".  (That became his mantra throughout the evening.)

WENDY LEECE'S TURN
Wendy Leece thanked Righeimer for all the energy he put in to get the charter on the ballot.  (I couldn't tell if that was a tongue-in-cheek comment or not).  She said we are in a very stable situation now and complained about the "process" used to present what would amount to our "constitution".  She briefly described Righeimer's request almost exactly a year ago for the City Attorney to bring back suggestions for a charter, then proceeded to present HIS charter after midnight on December 7, 2011.  She said neither she, nor the other council members, had a chance to sign in on it and that the she and the others couldn't collaborate on it - "at least not in an open forum".  (Yes, Wendy, I DID pick up on that)

DICKSON MAKES HIS POINTS
Rob Dickson expressed frustration with the process.  He said he viewed this charter as "emancipation from Sacramento" - a phrase he would repeat frequently.  He said the charter is a good basic framework and that it protects the citizens.  He said citizens elect leaders, retain the power, can recall council members.  He said we will have the power to hire and fire, to take control back and make our own financial decisions.  He said that if we had been a charter city the 3%@50 pension would never have happened.
 

FIRST QUESTION
Troy Davis asked the first question: What is your primary reason for support - or non-support - of the charter?

Righeimer took this one first and began by saying, "I'm obviously supportive.  It's an excellent charter."  He went on to state that it's a framework to handle our finances and that he's tired of having to pay $41 per hour to a stop/go sign-holder.  (That's become part of his mantra lately)  He said we can't outsource unless we get permission from the employees.  He again said that 60% of the charter follows General Law.

Leece said she's all for saving money and that outsourcing may be one way.  She expressed concern about accepting lower quality if we outsource, particularly in public safety.  She mentioned that the CMPD staffing is down to 131 and that crime is up and worried about how we balance keeping our residents safe and still save money.  She encouraged folks to read the charter - it's only 9 pages - particularly Section 103 concerning the power bestowed on the council.

Dickson said "I'm for the charter."  He said he wanted to "echo Jim's comments". (No surprise there)  He said he'd lived in Costa Mesa 20 years and watched us "burn through reserves". (Another part of the talking points)  He complained about deferred maintenance.  He said the charter "gives the power to the people".  He also said that "fear tactics are complete noise and it assumes the voters are stupid and just don't care." (Just a little condescending!)

Valantine said he's "not opposed to the concept of a charter, that after 60 years since incorporation maybe it's time for us to think about it".  He's just not for THIS charter, due mainly to the process, lack of sincere community input, insufficient definitions of powers and the issue of no-bid contracts.

In his rebuttal Righeimer said it's "the same old stuff" and complained that people didn't do anything about if for 25 years.  He said "There's not really complicated issues here."

Leece said it DOES NOT address pension reform.

Dickson said the citizens will participate in pension reform.

Valantine said he was "trying to decide if we're all reading the same charter".  He said it doesn't have anything to do with current pensions.
 

SECOND QUESTION
Steve Ray asked question #2: What provisions of the charter are essential?

Leece led off by complaining about the process.  She said it should have involved a study session, with legal advice to keep us out of trouble.  She referred to the recently-deceased Ray Watson who helped develop Irvine, whom she described as a visionary who valued input from the public.

Righeimer dismissively said, "I don't know where to go with that.  Costa Mesa is not Irvine."  He then launched into what would become a major talking point - that "labor unions are spending a half-million dollars to defeat the charter."  Referring to Leece and Valantine, he said, "As nice as these two people are over there, it's all about the money."

Valantine expressed concern about Section 103, which he paraphrased as meaning "even if we don't list it here we can do it."  He pointed out that contract levels can be set by resolution - a much looser standard than using an ordinance.  He expressed concern that the charter dodges portions of the state code designed to "eliminate fraud, corruption and favoritism."

Dickson again used his "emancipation from Sacramento" chant.  He said it is "actually a great charter" and went on to state that "we are allowed to choose who we contract with" and "we can set the limits" and mentioned Section 401c.  He said the "language of the charter governs" (which is one very scary fact).  He said "None of it is the crazy sort of fraud and abuse."  He liked the section that eliminates "the ability of unions to take contributions out of paychecks."

In rebuttal Leece said that Rob is correct - residents can comment on pensions but the charter does nothing on pension reform.

Righeimer said, "It's really simple.  Why is a half-million dollars coming from labor unions out of Sacramento?"
 

THIRD QUESTION
Davis asked the third question: He said the some folks who oppose the charter say it's a plan to bust public employee unions and asked for the panelists thoughts.

Righeimer denied the charge, saying, "First of all it's not about busting anything."  He then went on to list factors he finds so onerous about the public employee contracts - pensions, sick pay, vacations.  He complained that Newport Beach has better looking parks than we do and thought we can do better by outsourcing.

Leece said we're not talking apples and apples.  She agreed that using the lawns and medians in Newport Beach is a good comparison, but trying to compare our jail to others is not.  She complained about the hasty process that issued layoff notices before ANY studies were done.

Dickson said the charter was done to save money, not bust unions.  He complained about the employee associations inserting themselves into political activities and referred to the law firm that represented the police association until very recently as "unethical and illegal".  He referred to the recently adopted COIN program.

Valantine said, "I'm not inside anybody else's head" and compared recent actions in the city to those in Wisconsin.  He described them as attempts to "disempower unions".  He said that it "seems that getting back at the unions is in the author's mind."  he acknowledged that we can probably save money by some outsourcing - that "we've done it for years."  He said there is more than dollars involved, mentioning quality of work, institutional knowledge.  He expressed special concern that we lose a great deal in Disaster preparedness, citing that employees are, by law, part of disaster preparedness.

In his rebuttal Righeimer haughtily dismissed Valantine's concern, saying we can just "make disaster preparedness part of a contract".  He said "employees won't come here from San Clemente" during a disaster and that Newport Beach "keeps institutional knowledge by managing."

Leece expressed concern about losing institutional knowledge.

Dickson said, "Unions should not have a bigger seat at the table than the residents, but they do.", then mentioned that half-million dollars again.

Valantine wondered that, if the unions are really that powerful, why do we have four anti-union council members?

FOURTH QUESTION
Question #4 was posed by Steve Ray.  He said it has been theorized that the Charter would reduce spending.  He asked if it was true, and how much?

Leece took this one first.  She said that she was "sure outsourcing would lead to savings if we didn't have to pay prevailing wages" and that she was willing to look at that. She said that Huntington Beach and Newport Beach both DO pay prevailing wages.  She said we have our financial house in order and that the pension issue can be resolved in a calm, thoughtful manner.  We can ask our employees to pay more of the burden but that we've not been able to sit down with some of them lately.

Righeimer said, "It's real".  He referred to previously mentioned contracts.  And, he said, "Clearly the dollar issue over there.  I have no problems with the things they want but in the end it doesn't really matter.  We can talk about it, but a half-million would be there again".  He said, "We don't have the capability without the charter."  He mentioned that "Newport Beach is doing 35 amendments."  (Actually, it's 38)  He said "We can make changes to refine it.  We don't want so many bizarre political things in it." ( I assume he means those self-serving things he included in it)

Valantine acknowledged that some outsourcing makes sense, but it should be balanced.  He worried about low ball contracts and expressed concern that we might accept one of them and then sell our equipment, only to find the contractor cannot perform.  We'd be left without good options.  He discussed the heavy-handedness of the outsourcing process 18 months ago and the lawsuit appeal that's pending, indicating that the council pushed the employees into a corner by violating it's own rules.

Dickson said we have the ability to outsource everything, then said one of the "fear tactics" used is poor quality.  He also said "collaborative negotiations didn't work two years ago".

In rebuttal Leece said "we all want to save money but that we've alienated our employees and residents".

Righeimer dismissed Valantine's concern about the loss of capital equipment saying "It's just trucks and stuff like that."  He said "high level people in the city can manage the contractor."  (At this point I must remind you that when the whole outsourcing fiasco began I speculated that Righeimer's idea of a perfect city staff would be Tom Hatch and a handful of contract administrators.)

Valantine re-affirmed that contractor failure puts us in a bad situation. (Remember the contractor hired to construct the exo-skeleton on City Hall to protect it from earthquakes who went out of business?)

Dickson said he was at the meeting in 2010 and described the council members as "begging".

FIFTH QUESTION
Davis then asked #5 - no-bid contracts

Righeimer said, "There is no such thing as no-bid contracts".  He then went on to complain about the expense of advertising contracts (sounds like he's already thinking about pals he can help out).  He chided the opposition again for "fear and misinformation", then told us that the "Purchasing officer can overrule the City Manager."  (I sure didn't feel very comfortable with that revelation!)

Leece pointed out that the lack of a threshold dollar amount is one reason this is a weak charter - that we didn't do our due diligence.  She said that section is vague because it was rushed and that it can lead to friends being handed large contracts.

Dickson bemoaned the fact that this has become an issue and echoed Righeimer's concern about the cost of putting jobs out to bid.

Valantine said the rules don't apply to friends and frat brothers and reiterated the need for a specific threshold number.  He said the charter exempts the city from all California statutes regarding bidding and purchasing and mentioned that other cities included protections in their charters.

Righeimer's rebuttal was strange and telling.  He said, "It's offensive to me that we're wasting our time talking about this instead of the half-million coming into the city."

Leece said the number should have been in the Charter and disagreed with Dickson's characterization of the 2010 meeting.

Dickson said he appreciated Valantine's concern about favoritism, fraud and corruption.

Valantine said that Newport Beach and Irvine have specific numbers in the charter.  Huntington Beach has no dollar amount but it can be established by ordinance. Righeimer's charter says the number can be established by ordinance or resolution.  In the case of using a resolution, it is not subject to a referendum and could happen between Friday and Monday - not in a public meeting.

 SIXTH QUESTION
Steve Ray posed question 6 - a look into the future.  What will the city look like?  What will the opinion of the charter be?

Leece referred to city founder Bob Wilson's book about a man who threw tomatoes at people who disagreed with him.  She, as a teacher, expressed disappointment for the current divisive conditions in Costa Mesa.  She described missed opportunities and lots of legal expenses that probably could have been avoided.  She recommended a NO vote on Measure V and a Yes for Sandra Genis, John Stephens and Harold Weitzberg.

Righeimer said that in 20 years we WILL have a charter.  "If it doesn't pass we'll just do it again.  It will make no difference if we have 20 meetings with everybody holding hands singing Kumbaya - It will get passed."

Valantine said he was not sure we had to go out 20 years.  "The city is 60 years old and I've been here for 40.  The last two years have been the most tumultuous I've seen".  He then addressed the real reasons for our financial distress - the economy tanked and the CalPERS numbers suffered.  He said that he's afraid he "will look back on this period as the most angry, vicious time in the history of the city."  He referred to bright lights - Fire Chief Tom Arnold's restructuring plan, the Orange County Fire Authority review of our operations, increased pension contributions and new pension tiers.

Dickson said he hoped all our storm drains would be repaired and installed.  He said that "we would have gone through two amendment processes by then". (Of course, that's a good point.  Jim Righeimer's Charter only calls for a review every TEN YEARS!  As our neighbors in Newport Beach certainly know, that's not nearly often enough.)  He praised the city staff, then, when mentioning the current hard-fought, heated process, said, "It all started with Jim's comment on pension unsustainability."  (How very, very true)

In rebuttal Leece mentioned the $240 million in unfunded pension liability, indicating it was not a bill we have to pay today - that it's spread out over decades.

Righeimer said it's a "real debt".

Valantine said he'd like to look back at good things that had been done.  He'd like to see that it took a couple years to create a good charter.

Dickson said he'd like to see this charter pass because it will save us money.

CLOSING STATEMENTS
Dickson thanks the hosts for an informative debate.  He again mentioned his "emancipation from Sacramento", that the charter is a strong document and that it retains 60% of the protections we get from general law.

Valantine said that the proponents would have us believe the charter takes power from Sacramento and gives it to the people.  It gives power to the council.  A wiser choice is to not adopt a flawed charter - a blank check.  He suggested we discuss it and study it through an elected citizen's commission.

Righeimer said it's important that we have our own constitution.  He again mentioned that "half-million dollars", prevailing wage and being under the thumb of Sacramento.  He then said something he mentioned earlier - "Perfect is the enemy of the good".  (We suppose he's implying that those opposed to HIS charter are looking for perfection.  I don't believe that's the case.  I believe they are looking for a solid, carefully-crafted document that serves the needs of the community, not just the personal political agenda of one man) He closed by saying it's all about the prevailing wage.

Leece closed by saying that she's not voting for the charter because it's a weak charter and far from the best we can do.  It lacked true community involvement.  She reiterated that our financial house is in order and we're seeing more cost savings every day.  She emphasized that the future is bright for Costa Mesa, but this charter has too many flaws.

THANKS FOR READING
OK, for those of you who managed to make it through this tome - thanks.  If you have time, go to the KOCI link above and listen to this yourselves.  It turned out to be more enlightening than I anticipated.  Six more days...

Charter Debate On KOCI-FM 101.5 Tuesday

RADIO DEBATE TONIGHT
KOCI-FM, 101.5, a local radio station that serves most of Costa Mesa and Newport Beach, is hosting a series of live radio broadcasts this week in the run-up to the elections next Tuesday.

RIGHEIMER AND DICKSON VS.
Today, Tuesday, October 30, 2012, at 6:00 p.m. for approximately one hour Troy Davis will host a discussion of Jim Righeimer's Charter, Measure V.  Participants will include Costa Mesa Mayor Jim Righeimer (sperm donor of the Charter) joined by his appointee on the Planning Commission, Rob Dickson.

LEECE AND VALANTINE
They will face off against councilwoman Wendy Leece and former Planning Department executive and current community activist, Perry Valantine.

LIVE ON RADIO OR STREAMING AUDIO
You can listen to this program live on radio or live streaming audio on your computer at www.kociradio.com.  This should be a lively affair and I find myself wondering how two calm, courteous individuals like Leece and Valantine will fare against the pugnacious Righeimer and the thoughtful, but misguided, Dickson.  I guess we'll see.

Undercard To Monday Night's Rumble(Updated)*

"IN THIS CORNER..."
We just received notice that, as an undercard of sorts to Monday evening's Feet To The Fire Charter Debate between Jim Righeimer and Katrina Foley, tomorrow - Saturday, October 13th - Troy Davis will host Orange County Employee Association Assistant General Manager Jennifer Muir and Daily Pilot columnist and Costa Mesa buttinski, Jack Wu in a discussion of Jim Righeimer's Charter.  Too bad this will be radio - Jennifer is a real hotty.  Wu, not so much.

SATURDAY AT 10:00 A.M.
Yep, Davis will host what may be a lively discussion on his Money Matters Radio show on KOCI, 101.5 FM from 10:00 - 11:00 a.m.  Additionally, Davis will be live in their chat room at www.kociradio.com (click "chat" in the upper right corner) so listeners can join in the conversation if they are so moved.

GIVE ME SOME FEEDBACK, PLEASE
This should be a very interesting hour.  I'm going to try to catch it - unless there's a particularly good college football game on television.  For those of you who DO listen, I'd appreciate your feedback here in the form of comments.  Let us know what you think of the discussion.



*UPDATE OF THE BROADCAST
Thanks to all of you who sent comments following the broadcast this morning.  Many of you made excellent observations.  Some of the rest of you just needed something to yap about - business as usual.

MUIR ON HER GAME - WU NOT SO MUCH
I did listen to the entire broadcast.  I, too, was disappointed that Jennifer Muir had to bug out early, leaving Jack Wu alone to misrepresent issues for the final few minutes.  In my view, Muir was BY FAR the better prepared of the two.  Her answers were crisp and she quoted proper citatitions in Jim Righeimer's Charter accurately.  Wu seemed to be way, way off his game.  He muttered his answers and just didn't seem to have done his homework.  Even better, a couple times he made statements that only supported something Muir had just said, acknowledging, for example, that people just don't trust Righeimer.  I guess Jack's too busy managing Dana Rhorabacher's campaign finances.

THANKS..
I'm grateful to KOCI and Troy Davis for this presentation, and for the opportunity to play a small role in it as a participant in the chat room they had going during the program.  I'm also grateful to those other folks who participated in the chat room.  I think those comments helped Davis keep the discussion going.

KOCI A VALUABLE TOOL...
I confess that I don't listen to KOCI much, but this is a valuable tool to inform the public about a variety of issues.  I hope Davis and the management of the station find a way to keep this particular ball rolling.