Feet To The Fire Charter Debate

LIVED UP TO THE HYPE
Well, in my opinion, the Feet To The Fire charter debate between Katrina Foley and Jim Righeimer last night lived up to the hype that preceded it.  And, also in my opinion, just as has been the case since Righeimer proposed this scheme eleven months ago, it's going to boil down to who you choose to believe.

 A PACKED HOUSE
The room provided at the Costa Mesa Neighborhood Community Center was packed.  Most folks paying attention estimated more than 500 people were in the room and it seemed to be fairly evenly split between supporters of Jim Righeimer's Charter and those who oppose it.  Both sides were VERY vocal.

 ARMED TO THE TEETH
For the most part, Foley and Righeimer were cordial to each other - even though they each accused the other of not presenting accurate statements throughout the evening.  Both came armed with study guides.  In fact, Righeimer brought a half-dozen binders with information, including the entire Costa Mesa Municipal Code - which he used as an exercise device from time to time.

 STREAMING VIDEO AVAILABLE NOW
This event lasted only an hour and may be viewed on hostess Barbara Venezia's web site, www.feet2thefireforum.com.  I must tell you, though, the quality of the streaming video leaves much to be desired.  The video is sub-par and the audio breaks up or fades away from time to time.  AND, annoying commercials pop up much too frequently.  My choice will be to wait for the Costa Mesa Television crew's professionally prepared version that will be available shortly on the City web site and will be placed in the rotation on CMTV.  

 HERE'S MY TAKE...
Until you have a chance to watch the event for yourself and form your own opinions I'll give you some of my impressions and observations, acknowledging right up front that I strongly oppose Jim Righeimer's Charter.  Nothing that occurred last night changed my mind on any issue.

RIGHEIMER BLAMED "THE UNIONS"
Righeimer used the party line - he blamed "the unions" for all the ills of the city.  He said he needs the charter so he will have the tools to resolve our financial crisis.  Although asked many times, he never really did answer the question - "What will the Charter allow you to do that you can't do now?".  When Foley posed the question, "Beyond the outsourcing and prevailing wage, name ten other things that you would do under the charter that you can't do now because they are illegal."  Righeimer said "None."

ELIMINATES COMPETITIVE BIDDING
Foley, for her part, harped on the fact that Jim Righeimer's Charter eliminates competitive bidding.  She and Righeimer went round and round on the issue.  It was the old, "It doesn't", "It does, too", "No, it doesn't", "Yes, it does!" routine.

RIGHEIMER PERPETUATES THE "BIG LIE"
Venezia expressed the view that she said many have expressed to her that Jim Righeimer's Charter happened too quickly and asked Righeimer his views.  He responded that the unions want to drag it out.  He then said, "We had six meetings.  We had hundreds of different things that came in.  We made hundreds of changes to the charter from the beginning to the end.  And that's the process we did."  Well, ANYONE who followed this "process" knows that's just not true.  Even with the very short time available, residents submitted a couple hundred suggestions for improvements and modifications to his charter, but almost all were rejected out of hand.  This is all part of the BIG LIE Righeimer and his pals are foisting off on the voters.

...BECAUSE WE KNOW BEST!
During the discussion Venezia asked Righeimer why he didn't form a committee of concerned residents to help with the creation of the Charter he responded thus.  "You could do a bunch of committees.  You could go ahead and put a bunch of frosting on it and make it look different.  In the end, the council's going to vote on what they're going to put in."  There you have it!  They didn't need to consider input from residents because they already had their minds made up.

TRUST AND COOPERATION
Discussing the outsourcing disaster Foley said, "What was required was trust and cooperation.  That's what happened in the prior outsourcing and that's not what happened now.  I just think the Newport Beach charter is a very critical charter that, if you were going to copy and paste from any charter, you would have looked to Newport Beach because it has very strong protections for the residents.  It's all about local control.  Many sections of the Newport Beach charter require voters of the electorate to vote on them... not three members of the city council."  Of course, she is correct.  If Righeimer and his pals on the council had simply followed the existing rules about outsourcing, most of what they want to accomplish would have been done by now.  Instead, they jumped the gun, violated their rules and the result is a very costly law suit.  Earlier she had told Righeimer, "You could have probably copied and pasted from Newport Beach and we probably wouldn't be sitting here."

WHAT FOLEY "FEARS"
Orange County Register columnist Frank Mickadeit, who seemed bored to be there, asked Foley early on what she feared about the charter as proposed.  She gave examples of exorbitant fines - like the fine for trash cans being left out over night proposed by Righeimer when he was on the Planning Commission.  She feared the unbridled power  - a coup by three council members.  She feared the loss of personal freedoms and used this line to emphasize her point, "If you want to keep your boat, express it with your vote."  She expressed concerns about the possible privatization of our municipal parks - acknowledging that council member and candidate for election Steve Mensinger wanted to use Fairview Park for sports fields.

CLOSING SOUND BITES
Venezia gave each of them a chance for one last sound bite to express their views on the charter.  Foley said, "It's not about local control by the residents, it's about control by a coup of three people."  Righeimer said, "Don't be afraid of the monster under the bed.  It gives you local control and it saves money for the parks and the roads and the facilities we need in this city."  Foley is correct.  Righeimer is basically saying, condescendingly, "Just trust me.  I know what's best."  He affirmed that attitude when he referred to our form of government being a representative Republic, where we, the voters, elect folks to make decisions for us.  That's true, but it doesn't mean that the elected officials have no limits on what they can do.

PLEASE WATCH THE TAPE...
I encourage you to watch the tape of this event and judge for yourselves who the "winner" might have been.  I'll provide the replay schedule when it becomes available.

WHAT DID I THINK?
So, after all that, what did I think of the evening?  I think Foley remained calm and composed, even when the interrogation seemed to be stacked against her.  I think Righeimer dodged too many questions and that he still doesn't bat an eye at giving an answer that is untrue.  I think that a person attending the forum with no prior knowledge of this charter controversy would leave feeling unfulfilled.  I think that too many questions were left unanswered and the format permitted too many interruptions by both of the participants and those grilling them.  Still, it had value and I found myself wondering what the three dozen bright young people from Michele Lee's Newport Harbor High School Advance Placement Government class who attended thought about the event.  I'd love to hear from some of them...

NONE OF THE FAITHFUL CHANGED THEIR MINDS
One thing is sure - no minds were changed among the faithful on each side of the issue.  Those who support Righeimer's scheme were very vocal from the back of the room and those who support Foley were equally vociferous.  It was close, just like this race will probably be.  Now, off to the final candidate forum on Thursday, same time, same place.

Employee Free Speech Challenged?

I WROTE ABOUT THIS EARLIER
Tuesday I wrote an entry, HERE, that in part questioned a recent letter sent by Costa Mesa CEO Tom Hatch to all city employees defining "guidelines" for them related to political activities.  I wondered in that entry what penalties there might be for non-compliance and whether the City Council will be required to sign that memo.

SEPARATE CORRESPONDENCE TO HATCH
I also wrote to Hatch that day asking him for answers to eight (8) specific questions related to his memo dealing with the penalties and many other concerns I have, including the apparent prohibition for employees to speak before the City Council on political issues - like Jim Righeimer's Charter.  Other questions referred to the "guidelines" application to the City Council, since they, too, are employees; how he plans to monitor the use of the City's wireless network; how he plans to monitor employee conversations and how he squares the prohibitions on using "public funds" when the city has, for example, spent lots of public funds to promote the Charter.  In my last sentence to him I speculated that, if he followed his own rules, he might not be able to reply to me since there was a political element in my correspondence to him.  To date I've received no reply. 


DAILY PILOT COVERS THE STORY
Today the Lauren Williams wrote about this issue in the Daily Pilot, HERE, and included copies of Hatch's memo to the staff, HERE, and Costa Mesa City Employees Association President Helen Nenadal's response, HERE.


SO, WHAT IS THE TRUTH?
In Williams article she quotes Communication Director Bill Lobdell - who earlier said former City Manager Allan Roeder established a custom of this kind of correspondence - as stating, "CEO Hatch's memo followed in that tradition - a preventative action to avoid violations of state law during what promises to be a closely watched city election."  She then quoted Nenadal as saying that, in her 30 years with the city, she's never received a similar memo.  That leaves one wondering what the truth is... 


THE GOVERNMENT CODE
In case you're interested, you can find the section of the California Government Code relevant to this issue HERE.

THE ACT OF DESPERATE POLITICIANS
This situation reeks of certain desperate politicians attempting to discourage opposing views from major stakeholders in this process - the employees/residents who have a very large vested interest in this election.  We know, from having observed this council very closely for over eighteen months, that none of the majority handle criticism very well.  Steve Mensinger, for example,  just couldn't believe that actual residents of this city could possibly disagree with him, much less boo him so heartily at the recent Feet To The Fire Forum.  Get over it, Steve. Some people just are not buying what you're selling.

AN ACLU INVITATION?
There are knowledgeable folks in the community who feel Hatch's memo may create major legal issues for the city.  This seems to be precisely the kind of issue our friends at the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) like to get their teeth into - remember Benito Acosta?  I hope they are wrong.  This current municipal administration has already spent way, way too much money on legal fees with their ham-handed attempts to bust the associations - unions, in their parlance.  I guess we'll see soon enough.