Measure "O" - The Bogus Charter

PLENTY OF REASONS TO VOTE NO ON "O"

There are many reasons NOT to vote in favor of Measure "O", the most recent attempt by Mayor Jim Righeimer to take over complete control of our municipal government and solidify his position as a de facto dictator.  We'll enumerate them as time passes and we get closer to election day.

MOONEY'S COMMENTARY
However, I cannot miss the opportunity to direct your attention to Charles Mooney's current commentary in the Daily Pilot, HERE, which outlines the two sections of this very flawed document that, from my standpoint - and Mooney's too - are stakes in the heart of this measure - Sections 104 and 806.

PROBABILITY OF ABUSE OF POWER

Those segments provide the elected leaders of this city with unlimited power to do whatever they wish to do once this flawed document is adopted.  The kind of probable abuse of power provided by those sections is precisely why Costa Mesa should remain a General Law city, with all the protections from abuse that form of government provides.

READ IT YOURSELF

You will likely hear and read lots of rhetoric about The Charter as we head for the election in November.  It's hard to sort fact from politically-driven fiction.  So, I invite you to READ the document itself - it's not that complicated - and focus on Section 104 and 806.  I think you'll find Mooney's opinion accurate.  You'll find The Charter HERE on the City web site.  Additionally, if you go HERE you'll find other links that might be helpful to you, including direct arguments for and against The Charter and rebuttals to each.

A "STACKED" COMMITTEE

Keep in mind that when folks tell you that The Charter was created by a "blue ribbon" committee, that committee was stacked by Righeimer and his majority on the City Council with folks who he knew shared his vision for the takeover of the government.  I attended most of the Charter Committee meetings - I saw the interaction among the members and the bias they brought to the table.  I watched as facilitators Kirk Bauermeister and Mike Decker toiled to keep the meetings productive.  Attorney and former City Council candidate John Stephens - an opponent of The Charter - outlined the process and the result in a recent Daily Pilot commentary, HERE.

DON'T BE FOOLED...
So, don't be fooled by the smoke screen of Pension Reform - The Charter will do NOTHING to resolve our Unfunded Pension Liability!  Don't be fooled by the mantra of "Local Control" being chanted by supporters of Righeimer's latest Charter.  That is code for more power in the hands of the elected leaders, NOT the people of the community.

VOTE NO ON "O"!

Charter Committee Wraps It Up!

UNEXPECTED CHANGES MARKS A LONG MEETING
Last night the Costa Mesa Charter Committee used an extended meeting - four hours! - to wrap up their final version of the document they've spent the best part of a year cobbling together.  And this meeting, which should have been a walk in the park, still ended up with some high drama before it was all over.

MOST MEMBERS PRESENT

Most of the committee members attended this meeting, which began at 5:00 p.m., and finally wrapped up shortly after 9:00 p.m.  Only MaryAnn O'Connell and William Fancher were absent.  Both facilitators - Dr. Kirk Bauermeister and Dr. Mike Decker - both lawyers - Kimberly Hall Barlow and Yolanda Summerhill - and both staff members - City Clerk Brenda Green and Intern Sawyer Pendleton all were present.  A handful of residents also attended - a smaller group than normal, which dwindled as the meeting dragged on.  There were two of us and one lonely Daily Pilot reporter left at the end from the high of about 10 earlier.  (Ramos & Eckles shown)

FINE TUNING - WITH A CHAIN SAW!

Language for the Charter had been hammered out as the deliberations went along over the past many, many months, so the plan last night was to fine-tune it for presentation to the City Council on March 18th.  "Fine tuning" in this case included adding major segments from scratch in some cases and completely removing one section that had taken parts of three meetings to create last year. (Panian, Ramos & Bauermeister)

 

A WASTE OF TIME
The end result will be a short document - six or seven pages, depending on how it is formatted - that seems to not significantly change anything.  Almost every element included in the document is possible to accomplish under the current General Law rules that govern our city.  For that reason, this effort has been a colossal waste of time and resources.

COMMITTEE DID A GOOD JOB

Don't get me wrong... the Charter Committee did a good job.  They all worked hard, did their homework, remained mostly civil to one another and clearly found unanticipated respect and admiration for fellow members of the committee.  They flogged controversial issues into submission throughout this process, trying to find common ground and, when that was not possible, working on language that will pass muster with the voters. (Bauermeister shown here)

SALARY DISCUSSIONS
In that regard, the language included a segment regarding Council Member Salaries - the issue that was discussed at length over several meetings.  I reported at the time that they finally decided that each council member should receive a monthly stipend of $2,100 per month, and that any other optional benefits - health insurance, for example - would be deducted from that amount.  Currently each council member earns $904.40 per month and also receive health care benefits ranging from zero to a couple thousand dollars each month. (Shown here, Kevin Tobin with Ron Amburgey)

FEAR DRIVES LAST MINUTE CHANGE
However, as the discussion worked its way to this issue last night, committee member Andrew Smith (shown here with Amburgery and Ramos) balked.  After all that hard work and negotiation among the members previously, he feared that the voters would only see it as a move to double the council's salaries and that, alone, would drive a stake in the heart of the Charter.  Back and forth the discussion went and, eventually, the committee agreed with Smith and the language will be amended to indicate that the council will receive salaries consistent with state law.  As a sidebar - if they had NOT included specific language regarding salaries it would theoretically been possible for a future council to pay themselves big bucks - as in City of Bell big bucks - because the Charter language is such that if something is NOT specifically mentioned the council can pretty much do what they wish.  That's something to remember.

SOME THINGS NEVER CHANGE
Member Gene Hutchins - a nice guy (shown here with Tobin and Bauermeister) - had another of his Unfunded Pension Liability meltdowns.  Even though committee members are supposed to present new ideas or expansion of old ones by the Friday before their Wednesday meetings, Hutchins has consistently - and frustratingly - brought what he thought was significant information to the committee the NIGHT of the meeting.  Last night - their last night - was no exception and things got just a little heated as he just would not take no for an answer.  As had been the case throughout this process, every time the subject of Unfunded Liabilities was mentioned he practically launched from his chair, eager to get into the discussion.  He's also a member of the Pension Oversight Committee and, apparently, has enlisted that entire group to help him craft language for the Charter on Pensions.  Keep in mind that the Pension segment had already been put to bed at a previous meeting.  This time, though, he brought several NEW segments he insisted were crucial for the Charter.  In the end his ideas failed to gain support from the committee.

ACTUAL FINAL LANGUAGE IS PENDING
Eventually the final document, which received so much manipulation last night that I just couldn't keep up with all the language alterations, will be completed by the legal staff and presented to the council next week. (Tom Pollitt and Tom Graham Shown)

HERE'S THE FRAMEWORK
The document includes a three-paragraph preamble and eight (8) articles.  This is what the Table of Contents will look like:
 Article 1.     Incorporation and Powers
             Section 100.  Name of City
             Section 102.  Boundaries
             Section 104.  Powers

Article 2.     Form of Government
             Section 200.  Form of Government and Powers
             Section 202.  Administrative Officers

Article 3.     Elective Officers
             Section 300.  Terms
             Section 302.  Presiding Officer
             Section 304.  Council Member Salary
             Section 306.  Incompatible Offices

Article 4.     Elections
             Section 400.  Elections
             Section 402.  Initiative, Referendum, Recall

Article 5.     Finance
            Section 500.  Budget Reserves

Article 6.    Personnel
            Section 600.  Retirement Benefits
            Section 602.  Civic Openness In Negotiations
 

Article 7.    Public Contracting
            Section 700.  Public Contracting
            Section 702.  Prevailing Wages
 
Article 8.   Miscellaneous
             Section 800.  Charter Review
             Section 802.  Outsourcing
             Section 804.  General Plan Consistency
             Section 806.  Construction and Interpretation
             Section 808.  Severability

SPECIFICS COMING SOON
I'm not going to begin to try to give you all the language because there are segments that need to be burnished by the legal staff based on last night's activities.  Nor can I give you the final version of the Preamble for the same reason.

NOT INCLUDED, BUT...
The committee also will present to the council a short list of things NOT included in their document, but that the council may wish to consider.  Those are:

• Community Outreach
• Establishment of a Citizen's Academy
• Consider a specific percentage of a budget surplus earmarked for reserves
• Current Council Members to cease "participation" in Pension Plan
• Adoption of a Private Pension Plan for new hires
• Use of Certificates of Participation to pay down liabilities

WHAT'S NEXT?
Here's the tentative schedule of events as this process moves downstream.

• March 18, 2014 - Charter document presented to the City Council at regular City Council Meeting
• April 15, 2014 - 1st Public Hearing (regular City Council Meeting)
• May 20, 2014 - 2nd Public Hearing (regular City Council Meeting)
• June 17, 2014 - City Council to vote whether to place on ballot in November (regular City Council meeting)

PLENTY OF TIME FOR OUTREACH - OR MISCHIEF
Keep in mind, the deadline for placement on the November ballot is August 8, 2014, so the council has plenty of time for manipulation of this document and to hold workshops, town halls and whatever other form of community outreach they feel is important to sell this document to the voters.  There's also plenty of time to tinker with the document to satisfy personal objectives.

SAYING GOODBYES...
Last night, as the committee met for what will likely be the final time as a group except for the reception that will be held for them immediately preceding the March 18th council meeting, they went around the table to share their thoughts on the experience.  Some of the comments were quite moving and obviously very sincere.  Member Hank Panian's (shown here with Harold Weitzberg) comments were particularly moving.  He was on the original charter commission back in the 1970s.  He spoke of having been part of the group that founded what is now Mesa Water District back in 1960 and he helped create the Newport-Mesa Unified School District also during that decade.  He said he was grateful because through this committee he, "Finally have a chance to help shape the future of the city."  The common thread through them all was that each one learned a lot during this process, gained new respect for individuals and the staff and were uniformly glad they participated.  Congratulations to them, the facilitators and staff for all the work they did.

NOW WE'LL SEE...
Now we see what happens with this work product.  We'll see if the council decides to add items to it or make changes at all.  The next couple months will be very interesting.

Charter Committee Hijacked By Partisans

WE SHOULD HAVE KNOWN...
A funny thing happened on the way to a Charter last night.  As the committee headed for the home stretch after months of diligent, tenacious and sometimes heated discussions during which polar opposite viewpoints seemed to drift together and much progress had been made, the whole process was hijacked!

PARTISANSHIP SURFACES
At the first meeting in months where all the committee members were present and at what was supposed to be the next-to-last meeting of their process before their work product - a Charter for the City of Costa Mesa - was to be presented to the City Council, the true colors of some of the players around the table finally surfaced.

EARLY PROGRESS STALLED
After facilitator Dr. Kirk Bauermeister and his sidekick, Dr. Mike Decker, got the committee off and running in what certainly looked like a productive evening when they promptly dispatched with Jim Righeimer's Paycheck Protection scheme and Eminent Domain as unworthy of being placed on a Charter, I thought they might actually have a chance to produce a document within their schedule.  Now I'm not so sure.

LEGAL "GUIDANCE"
Just before 8:00 member Andy Smith turned the discussion to lawyer Kimberly Hall Barlow and suggested that she and fellow-lawyer Yolanda Summerhill might wish to provide the committee with "guidance" about what they might be missing in a Charter document as the headed for the finish line.  This was a stunning development, since it has been understood from the beginning that the staff, including the lawyers, were there to provide technical/legal advice to the committee - to help them produce a document that was legal in form and format - NOT to provide input on the content of the document segments.  The members of the committee have had at their disposal from the very first meeting copies of many other charters from which to glean ideas for inclusion in a Costa Mesa Charter.  It's going to be very interesting to see how Barlow and Summerhill play this one.

LET IT GO, DUDE!

Another late-in-the-game curve ball was generated by member Gene Hutchins - who continues to be unable to get beyond the Unfunded Pension Liability issue - when he tossed into the mix some lengthy language regarding Pensions that had been conjured up by the Pension Oversight Committee, of which he is also a member.  Based on the brief discussion last night, this item is likely going to take an hour or more to flesh out at a time when the committee expected to just be polishing their final document.

GRAVE ROBBINGHowever, the biggest surprise/disappointment came when Smith - did I mention that he and Mayor Pro Tem Steve Mensinger used to share a cubicle at Arnel Development? -  reached down into the grave and attempted to resurrect Measure V, Mayor Jim Righeimer's failed Charter from the 2012 election.  Although they've had more than six months to tinker with that document and other charters, this attempt to bring back that document from the dead was a shocker.  It all began simply enough, with a request to carve out the verbiage from Section 201 (e) Qualifications for City Council members and include it in their Charter.  There seemed to be unanimity on that subject when, all of a sudden, then the whole thing took on a life of its own and now the committee will be pouring over Measure V with an eye to plugging items from it into their Charter!

MORE THAN CURIOUS
This is more than a curious turn of events.  Unless there are serious politics at play here, why would they attempt to dredge up a document that failed convincingly at the ballot box - nearly 60% of the voters rejected it?  There is only one answer - that the Righeimer/Mensinger appointees on the committee have waited until the very last minute to spring this on the committee and facilitators to force the process to hastily consider segments of that document with the hope of jamming them through onto their Charter due to severe time constraints.

IT WON'T WORK!
Well, let me tell them that it won't work!  Sure, they can go ahead and try it and, perhaps, even get much of it included as their fellow committee members run out of gas.  But, the community didn't support Measure V and I doubt very much they will support "Son of  V", either!  No, this is going to be just one more example of where the cabal that controls this city is too clever for it's own good.

NOT SURE THEY CAN MAKE IT
In two weeks, March 12th, the committee will meet again in Conference Room 1A, starting their deliberations earlier than usual - at 5:00 p.m. - and will work late if necessary to finalize their document.  It's going to be VERY interesting to watch this little soap opera evolve.

A Very Busy Week Ahead In Costa Mesa

LOTS HAPPENING IN TOWN THIS WEEK
Here's a quick look at what's happening in Costa Mesa during this upcoming week.  There are lots of meetings, some with overlapping schedules, so diligent observers of civic matters may have to make some tough choices.


PLANNING COMMISSION
Monday, February 24, 2013 at 6:00 p.m. in City Council Chambers the Costa Mesa Planning Commission will hold another meeting.  You can read the entire agenda HERE.  The agenda is small, and may result in a fairly short meeting, which might find Chairman Jim Fitzpatrick twiddling his thumbs again,  because one of the biggest items - a 250 unit apartment complex proposed for Baker Street - may be continued to future meeting.

SANITARY DISTRICT VOTES ON ORGANIC RECYCLING
Tuesday, February 25, 2013 the Costa Mesa Sanitary District Board will meet at a new location - Sonora Elementary School, 966 Sonora Road - beginning at 5:30 p.m.  The agenda is HERE.  This is the meeting at which the Board will likely make a decision on the much-discussed plan to change the way we, their ratepayers, handle our Organic Waste - green waste and food waste.  You can read the two staff reports on that issue - the review of the Organics Recycling Program Enviornmental Review, HERE and the CR&R Environmental Services 2nd Amendment to Contract, HERE.  As I've said before, this looks like a proactive plan to manage our Organic Waste in light of legislation that will severely limit what can be placed in landfills.  This meeting was moved to Sonora School to provide a larger venue - and one in the north part of town - so interested persons may attend and express their views.

CHARTER COMMITTEE
Wednesday, February 26, 2013 the Costa Mesa Charter Committee, facilitated by Dr. Mike Decker and Dr. Kirk Bauermeister, will meet again beginning at 6:00 p.m. in Conference Room 1A at City Hall to continue their attempt to cobble together a Charter to be placed on the ballot in November.  The agenda is HERE.  To give you a flavor of how these meetings have gone you can read the proposed Minutes from the last meeting HERE.  The committee will review the current charter document, HERE; discuss Mayor Jim Righeimer's favorite topic, Paycheck Protection, HERE and Eminent Domain, HERE.  And, you can read Correspondence from Committee Members HERE.  Based on information distributed at the last meeting, the goal is to finalize and vote on the Preamble and Charter Document on March 12th.  The Committee will present their work product to the City Council on March 18th, preceded by a reception for them at 5:15 that day.

PARKS AND RECREATION COMMISSION
Thursday, February 27, 2013 the Costa Mesa Parks and Recreation Commission meets at 6:00 p.m in Council Chambers at City Hall.  You can read the agenda HERE.  They have a fairly short agenda, but there is one big item scheduled for discussion - the Field Allocation and Current Facility Outline, HERE.  Finally, we get to see some numbers!

MANSOOR'S CAMPAIGN TRAIL
Also on that date Assemblyman Allan Mansoor is holding a Town Hall meeting at the Costa Mesa Neighborhood Community Center at Lions Park from 6 - 7 p.m. to discuss issues that he feels are important to constituents as he moves forward with his attempt to win the Second Supervisorial seat occupied by John Moorlach.  Mansoor faces an uphill battle against Michelle Steel, who has received support from most of the big dogs in the OC GOP.

Progress And Angry Frustration Mark Charter Meeting

THE "DOCTORS" AT THE HELM
Nearly two dozen visitors observed as the Costa Mesa Charter Committee, facilitated by Dr. Kirk Bauermeister and Dr. Mike Decker, met again Wednesday night to continue the long, slow march toward having a document ready to present to the City Council by the end of February.  And the stress of their task is beginning to show.

The items discussed last night were:

• Outsourcing
• Sale of City-Owned real estate
• Unfunded Pension Liability
• COIN

JEFF ARTHUR ON PENSION LIABILITY
The agenda was juggled a little to accommodate a presentation on our current Pension situation by Jeff Arthur, Chairman of the Pension Oversight Committee.  Arthur presented a group of slides explaining pension jargon and some significant numbers.  As of 6/30/12, our unfunded pension liability is at $228,000,000.  He showed charts, none of which are suitable for duplication here, showing the growth of the obligation, and also mentioned some possibilities the Charter Committee may wish to consider for inclusion:

• Prohibit retroactive benefit increases
• Council supermajority for increases
• Vote of the people for increases

He also suggested that the City review PERS status annually and have PERS provide 30 year projections.

NOTHING TO BE DONE...
The committee discussed Arthur's numbers at length and speculated about things that might be done in a Charter and acknowledged that there is NOTHING they can do about the current unfunded liability.  They came up with a statement requiring voter approval for any increase in pension/other retirement and post retirement health benefits.  It's unclear just how that might be implemented, so it will be discussed further at the next meeting - on February 12th in Conference Room 1A at City Hall at 6:00 p.m.

OUTSOURCING
They moved on to Outsourcing.  Bob Ooten, current member of the Costa Mesa Sanitary District Board of Directors and a man with decades of experience managing operations with the Orange County Sanitary District presented his views on the value of Outsourcing earlier during Public Comments.

Following a lengthy debate the committee came up with the following language for the Charter on this issue:

The City may enter into a contract for any services unless limited by the constitution of the State of California.  The City shall periodically review its existing operations and services to consider whether said operations and/or services may be performed as, or more, efficiently and effectively by a third party.  Any contract entered into pursuant to this provision shall be ratified in accordance with the procedure set by the City Council. 

SALE OF PROPERTY
They briefly spoke about the Sale of City-Owned Real Estate and left the following statement to be discussed further, if necessary:

The sale, conveyance or exchange of any real property owned by the City shall require supermajory approval of the City Council.

ENUMERATED POWERS
They also briefly considered the following language for the Charter:

All powers of the City shall be vested in the City Council except as otherwise provided in this Charter.


POLLITT FLIPPED OVER "COIN"
The then moved on to COIN, Mayor Pro Tem Steve Mensinger's much-ballyhooed and as yet untested scheme to improve transparency in labor negotiations,  and a discussion of whether it should or shouldn't be placed in a Charter.  At this point the tensions between some members that had been building began to manifest themselves.  Sharp comments between Harold Weitzberg and Kerry McCarthy and Weitzberg and Tom Pollitt marked the discussion.  Frequent references to "the unions" rankled Weitzberg and the comments seemed more political than helpful.  At one point Weitzberg corrected Pollitt's remark that a "union-backed council" approved recent pension increase decisions - reminding him that the council majority that approved those changes was not "union-backed".  Pollitt lost it!  His face turned beet red, he slammed his fists together, jumped up, turned briefly toward Weitzberg, then spun on his heel and stormed angrily into the small kitchen room and slammed the door behind him.  He returned about a minute later, apparently calmer, but left the meeting promptly after it ended shortly thereafter.  That was the worst moment of all the meetings so far and doesn't bode well for future meetings.

MORE ANGRY COMMENTS
Member Bill Fancher also complained to Decker and Bauermeister about being ignored, and that it took 20 minutes for him to be recognized to make a statement or ask a question.  I didn't see that happening, but he might have thought it did.  Again, another tense moment.  Clearly, the stress of this process is getting to some of the members.  Only Mary Ann O'Connell was absent tonight.

TIME TO TIGHTEN FOCUS
I suspect the next couple meetings could get interesting as the committee begins to tighten up the language they've created.  They've almost finished their agenda and appear to be on  schedule for that end of February date to present their work product to the City Council.  We'll see on February 12th.

SANITARY DISTRICT BOARD TO CONSIDER ORGANICS RECYCLING
Off to the Costa Mesa Sanitary District meeting Thursday at 5:30 in the Neighborhood Community Center, 1845 Park Avenue (Lions Park) to hear the Board discuss their Organics Recycling scheme and see if they actually vote on it.  It's possible they will commission more community outreach meetings like the two already held to further gauge community sentiment for this costly, inconvenient change in the way our trash is handled.

Charter Committee Turns For Home

HEADING FOR THE HOME STRETCH
The Costa Mesa Charter Committee met Wednesday night for their first meeting of the new year and made good progress toward their goal of presenting a finished document by the end of February.

MOVING SMOOTHLY
Guided by facilitators Dr. Kirk Bauermeister and Dr. Mike Decker, the committee briskly moved through a couple of pending items with a collegial approach to the decision-making process.

COUNCIL STIPEND
In the case of Council Members compensation, the committee overwhelmingly resolved to include in the Charter a segment providing for an annual stipend of $25,000, a portion of which could be used to purchase health care coverage if individual council members chose to do so.  In an interesting sidebar, announced City Council candidate and committee member Lee Ramos expressed concern that candidates need to know what they're signing up for - meaning himself and others running this year.  I smiled.

NO "BUDGET RESERVES" LANGUAGE IN THE DOCUMENT
They then moved on to the subject of Budget Reserves.  After significant discussion, on a 9-2 vote, they resolved to place a strong statement about the need for having healthy emergency reserves, but NOT to include any requirement within the Charter document itself.

PANIAN'S PROPERTY TAX IDEA...
Following a break they took up, once again, the issue raised by member Hank Panian - to consider the possibility of foregoing property tax revenue in the interest of tax equity.  His contention was that new buyers were being unfairly taxed base on current property values when compared to homeowners who purchased before 1975 - and the advent of Proposition 13.  This issue had been discussed in two previous meetings, but any decision was withheld until staff provided them with relevant data.  Interim Finance Director Steve Dunivent gave them most of what they asked for in a format that made it easy to understand.  Among the more interesting statistics provided were that 14% of Costa Mesa city parcels are based on 1975 or earlier assessments.  69% are assessed at the land base values between 1980 - 2000.

...WILL NOT BE IN THE CHARTER
As a result of the analysis of this information and serious discussion, the committee overwhelmingly - on a vote of 10-1 - decided NOT to address this issue in the Charter.  I must state that during all the discussions on this issue over three meetings the committee worked hard at fleshing out the possible value of this idea with civility and respect.  It was given a fair hearing from my perspective in the Peanut Gallery.  Read Brad Zint's piece from the Daily Pilot HERE.

 CHARTER REVIEW LANGUAGE
They also addressed the Charter Review issue again, assessing two choices for wording in the Charter as possibilities.  They ended up with a hybrid of both that reads as follows:

"Every 10 years, the City Council shall form a Charter Review Committee to review the existing City Charter and determine whether any amendments, modifications or repeal of its provisions are necessary.  The City Council may, at its discretion, appoint a Charter Review Committee at any time."

UNFUNDED PENSION LIABILITY NEXT TIME
They began a discussion on the Unfunded Pension Liability issue again.  According to member Gene Hutchins - also a member of the Pension Oversight Committee which met earlier Wednesday - that committee is not prepared yet to provide information that would be helpful to the Charter Committee.  Regardless, after some discussion, it was decided to ask the Chairman of the Pension Committee, Jeff Arthur - who sat in on part of the meeting last night -  to make a presentation to the Charter Committee at its meeting on January 22nd.

NEXT MEETING ON JANUARY 22ND
The work schedule for that meeting will include Outsourcing, City Owned Land, the Preamble and a review of the document.  It's likely that, with three more meetings remaining in their schedule, they will be prepared to present a document to the City Council by the end of February.  We'll see...