Police Claim Rejected And More

GOOD NEWS - A SHORT MEETING
Well, the good news is that the Costa Mesa City Council meeting ended really early last night!  We were out of there shortly after 8:00!  Sandy Genis hammered the meeting adjourned at precisely 8:11 p.m. - Mayor Jim Righeimer and Mayor Pro Tem Steve Mensinger had recused themselves from the last two items trailed from the Consent Calendar because both dealt with the lawsuit they've filed against the Costa Mesa Police Officers...

BAD NEWS - MAYOR DISPLAYS HIS MEAN SIDE
The bad news is that, during this abbreviated meeting, we had reaffirmed for us that our mayor may be the most vindictive partisan political hack ever to occupy a chair on the dais.  In my memory only Eric Bever showed such signs of petty, peevish and downright mean-spirited behavior, but he doesn't come close to Righeimer in that regard.  Nope... old Eric is a choir boy of perfect decorum compared to the carpetbagger who now sits on the throne.

LATE START, STILL FINISHED EARLY
I expected this meeting to be a brief one, and it was despite getting a late start.  When they finally called the meeting to order it was 6:15 - a little long considering they had 90 minutes to wrap up their five-item closed session.

CMPOA CLAIM REJECTED, 3-0
When asked for a report out of the Closed Session contract City Attorney Tom Duarte reported on two items.  Number 4 on that agenda was the claim placed by the Costa Mesa Police Officers Association requesting that the City cover its legal fees in the lawsuit filed by Righeimer and Mensinger.  Since both men had to recuse themselves from any involvement on that issue, the remaining council members - Gary Monahan, Sandra Genis and Wendy Leece - voted unanimously to reject the claim.  Duarte also reported that the council, on a 4-1 vote, agreed to authorize litigation against Civic Center Barrio organization.  So, more litigation is in the city's future... no surprise.

MADAME SCARECROW PRESENTS...
During the Presentations segment the ever-vivacious Charlene Ashendorf gave a report to the Council about the success of the Scarecrow Festival - a part of the 60th Anniversary celebration.   She provided a brief history of similar events in the region's history.  Apparently the first such festival in 1938 drew over 20,000 visitors.  This year, which we're told will be the inaugural event, 32 scarecrows were fabricated and displayed.  She told us plans are already underway for the 2014 version, and referred to the rousing success of a similar event in the small Central Coast community of Cambria, where 500 scarecrows dotted the landscape during the month of October.  Kudos to all her team members for a job well done.

DOING IT BECAUSE HE CAN
When the agenda turned to the Public Comments Righeimer attempted, quite ham-handedly, to explain why he, on his own initiative, recently chose to change the rules and - as a direct result - disenfranchised many people who had attended previous meetings to speak to the council only to be shut out because he arbitrarily decided to place restrictions on the number of speakers in the beginning and to trail the remainder to the end.  At the last meeting, that meant five speakers who couldn't wait until 11:30 went home without having a chance to speak to the council.  It's clear that Righeimer thinks that is the sole arbitor of who can speak and when they can speak.

RIGHEIMER VIOLATING THE LAW
Sandra Genis opined that Righeimer's action violated state and municipal law, and quoted chapter and verse to him.  He arrogantly then instructed CEO Tom Hatch to just put the issue on the agenda so they can resolve it, knowing full well he has the votes.  Poor guy, now he'll just have to deal with the bother of following the rules - not something he does very well.

LOOKING FOR A LITTLE GRACE
The Public Comments segment began promptly at 6:30 and Righeimer named off 10 people who had turned in speaker cards.  Wendy Leece beseeched him to have the grace to permit more speakers if the first ten finished before 7:00.  And, in fact, that's what happened - thirteen speakers managed to address the council in that half hour - and most took the opportunity to criticize the new method of managing the comments segment.

FINALLY, SHE GETS TO SPEAK!
Fairview Park Citizens Advisory Committee member Anna Vrska, who has been shut out at the last meeting twice, asked for some clarifications and offered suggestions for the change.  She was the first of nine speakers who addressed the issue during the first segment.

HOMELESS TERRORIZING SENIOR CENTER
Senior Center Executive Director Aviva Goelman address the council on the on-going and growing problem of homeless folks infesting the grounds of the Senior Center.  It is so bad now that young children who attended church there last Sunday were approached by homeless men and threatened with razor blades if they didn't bring food for them.  Goelman told the council that many activities have shown a severe drop off in participation - like the ballroom dancing tonight, which has dropped from around 50 participants down to fewer than a dozen because of the fear of the homeless folks.

FEAR AND INTIMIDATION - REALLY?
Tea Party Tom Pollitt, who had been handing out bootlicking leaflets to arriving audience members praising the council for their "accomplishments" - most of which had already been scheduled before his pals took office - rose to complain about intimidation and bullying.  I had to fight back a smile as he said that because his pals are the primary offenders of bullying.  He praised Righeimer and Mensinger for "putting their lives on the line" as they bravely lead the city.  What a load of crap!

CAN'T FUNCTION? - STEP ASIDE!
If those guys are so traumatized by the events as they allege in their lawsuit - if they cannot earn a living, as they allege in the lawsuit - then they should step down from their council positions and permit people who are actually able to function to be seated in their places.  Anyone paying attention realizes that nothing has changed with those guys.  They continue to make boneheaded decisions - just as they did before their lawsuit - and will undoubtedly continue to do so down stream.

WHAT ABOUT EARLY-RELEASE CONS
Resident Scott Morlan spoke about a recent meeting of Speak Up Newport at which the Newport Beach Chief of Police address the issue of the early release of state prisoners.  He apparently has hired new staff to deal specifically with that problem.  Must be nice to have a council that will agree to that kind of staff adjustments for critical issues - we here in Costa Mesa have exactly the opposite issue. We have a council majority that is so clueless about what it really takes to provide a safe city that they refuse to let the City hire more officers on a timely basis.  Morlan asked just what Costa Mesa is doing in anticipation of the increase in early-release convicts in our community.

AN ACTIVISTS WHO'S WHO...
Among the other speakers who chastised Righeimer for his abuse of the comments segment were Robin Leffler, Cindy Brenneman, Jay Humphrey, Greg Thunnell, Perry Valantine and Beth Refakes.  Each address other issues, too, but their anger was palpable on the mayor's abuse of his authority simply because he doesn't like to hear complaints from the residents of this city.

DEVELOPERS OVER RESIDENTS
During Council Member Comments Righeimer led off by explaining that Chief Tom Gazsi has a plan for the early-release convicts and he requested a report at a future meeting.  He then, again, launched off into a tirade about why he chose to split the public comments and also to trail any "pulled" consent calendar items.  As we listened to his sputtering fusillade of rhetoric it was very clear where his allegiance lies.  To him, it's much more important that developers not be required to hang around too long to present their schemes to the council.  His choice is to make the residents - the voters - wait to air their grievances.  I'm VERY sure this behavior and his arrogant disregard for the rules will become part of the campaign dialogue in the coming months.  He stated that he wants to be sure the BUSINESS of the city gets done - he emphasized that word, hence the caps.  Yep, business is more important to him than the residents of this city.  Laughter erupted throughout the auditorium as he said, "This process works great!"

HAT TIP  TO SANDY....
During her comments Genis addressed the need to move forward for a permanent facility for local Veterans, then addressed recent comments from the speaker's podium that were tinged with ethnic intolerance, describing that behavior as unacceptable.  When she mentioned my blog entry about the 150th anniversary of Lincoln's Gettysburg Address I thought Mensinger and Righeimer's heads would explode.  I smiled...

LEECE DEFENDS OUR 'BASIC HUMAN RIGHT'
Leece addressed some of the concerns by earlier speakers, including Goelman's concerns about the safety at the Senior Center, Pollitt's comments about bullying and Morlan's concern about early prison releases.  She then launched into a dialogue about Righeimer's scheme to transform the Public Comments segment, describing them as an abridgment of our "Basic Human Right" to be heard.  She then discussed her decision to vote to deny the claim from the CMPOA, indicating it was a tough choice, but the correct one.

'SHOCKED AND APPALLED!'
Righeimer then - even though he'd already had his turn to speak - AGAIN launched off into a rant about the lawsuit, stating over and over again that he was "shocked and appalled" at the silence he hears on the subject.  He said, "The silence is deafening!"  He has obviously already convicted his "enemies" before ANY evidence has been presented and before ANYONE has been charged with a crime.  From where I sit, it seems that many members of the community - while concerned about the charges being alleged - have the maturity to wait for the legal process to run its course before making judgments.  Clearly, the mayor has a HUGE problem communicating with the community.  That "silence" he perceives should be telling him something...

MONAHAN ACTUALLY TALKED!
 For the first time in months Gary Monahan actually had a few things to say tonight.  He first expressed concern about the coyote problem and invited everyone to contact him on his private email address, gary@skoshmonahan.com, if they've had problems in their neighborhoods with coyotes.  He then told us that local radio station KOCI, 101.5 FM is gathering cash and toys for the Toys for Tots campaign.  He also congratulated Newport Harbor High School for remaining in the football playoffs and promised to wear a USC cap since the Trojans defeated Stanford last weekend.  (Genis pointed out that she, in deference to the Trojans defeat of her Stanford Cardinal, was wearing Trojan colors)

HALF THE CONSENT CALENDAR ITEMS ARE "PULLED"
Then the Consent Calendar was considered and more than half the items were pulled, either by the council or public.  The remainder were passed and the pulled items were trailed to the end - again, delaying the process for residents with concerns.

TRAFFIC IMPACT FEES STAY THE SAME
Righeimer then jumped right into Public Hearing #1, the discussion of the Traffic Impact Fees.  After a ten minute discussion the staff recommended action was approved on a 5-0 vote.

MARK YOUR CALENDARS
Then Righeimer finally recognized that he, once again, forgot the CEO report, so turned the meeting over to Tom Hatch.  He announced three future study sessions that might be of interest to the public.  They are as follows:

12/10/13 - Homeless situation

1/14/14 - General Plan Update

2/25/14 - Mid-Year Budget Review

NEW INFORMATION DIRECTOR ON BOARD
Hatch then introduced the new Interim Information Technology Director, Steve Ely.  Those who follow these things realize that he will immediately have a full plate to deal with, since the entire city government complex, including public safety venues, will be undergoing significant technology upgrades, both in hardware and software and a whole new internet backbone.  I spoke with him after the meeting.  He comes from Xerox and apparently has strong credentials.  He's going to need them.

RECEPTION FOR THE NEW FIRE CHIEF
Hatch also mentioned that our new permanent Fire Chief, Dan Stefano, will report for work on Monday, December 2nd and there will be a reception for him before the council meeting on the 3rd from 5-6 p.m. in Conference Room 1A.

A NEW RECORD!
Old Business #1, the new Fire and Building codes, took a record 30 seconds to consider and pass!

KOKEN'S FOIL SOLUTION
We then reached the "trailed" segment of the Public Comments and the remaining three individuals who were shut out earlier had a chance to speak.  The irrepressible Terry Koken led off, not with a song as he sometimes does, but with an invention he made to help deflect whatever external beams that are affecting certain council members - a foil device that he offered free of charge.

MORE CLARIFICATION
Sue Lester asked for clarification of the process of determining who gets to speak during Public Comments and asked that someone confirm that Righeimer and Monahan, who were absent from a recent meeting, had received the critical training on governmental ethics.  Nobody responded.

TRAILED CONSENT CALENDAR ITEMS
The trailed items from the Consent Calendar involving the tract map, the bike grant application, new public safety computer systems and the two items involving our new investment strategy were all dispatched promptly on 5-0 votes.

'SMASHING GENIS IN THE FACE'
Then as the end of the meeting approached, the remaining two items from the Consent Calendar were to be heard.  However, Righeimer and Mensinger recused themselves because they involved the lawsuit they filed against the Costa Mesa Police.  Before they departed, though, Righeimer again went on a rant about this situation and said, "I will vote on the contract.  A judge will decide and I will vote!"  He compared this situation to one where a developer might "smash councilwoman Genis in the face" after she'd expressed her view that she wouldn't support the project.  She would then sue him and she couldn't vote on the project.  He used that analogy twice before he and Mensinger sauntered out of the chambers.  I thought his comments were, at the very least, in poor taste - nothing new for him.

FINAL VOTES...
Monahan, Genis and Leece voted 3-0 on Item 14 - the new salary structures for the police - and voted to receive and file item #2, since it was only a reading folder item and was rendered moot by their earlier closed session vote.

CLOSING WITH A SMILE...

The meeting ended on an amusing note when, following those votes, someone asked if they should bring Righeimer and Mensinger back, Genis exclaimed, "No!", then gaveled the meeting adjourned.  I smiled.

MOUNTAIN OF PAPER!
Silly me... I forgot to mention something else interesting from last night's meeting!  As I gathered the staff reports from the foyer of the auditorium I notice a big stack of papers clamped together near the bottom of the shelf.  I grabbed one of the piles, then later asked City Clerk Brenda Green what this was.  I could already see the complete text of the lawsuit filed by Mensinger and Righeimer and his wife.  She told me that it was ALL the correspondence they had on the lawsuit and it was provided because the council has decided that if a majority of the council members have the information then the public should have it too!  Well, this pile of paperwork weighs in at just over 3 pounds and is at least three hundred sheets thick, most printed on both sides!  I suppose sometime between now and Christmas I might find a day or two to read it all... Ugh!

Peter Naghavi - The Perfect Public Servant

A WONDERFUL TRIBUTE
Last night I was honored to be invited to a little retirement party thrown for Peter Naghavi - the Costa Mesa employee with the longest title in the building.  Currently his title is "Economic and Development Services Director/Deputy Chief Executive Officer".

MORRIS - MASTER OF CEREMONIES
The man who hired Naghavi in the Transportation Department almost two dozen years ago, retired Public Services Director Bill Morris, put this event together and was the Master of Ceremonies.  He invited folks to stand and praise - or otherwise address - Peter Naghavi's long and illustrious career with the City of Costa Mesa. 

ROEDER AND MORE
Among those who stepped up were former City Manager Allan Roeder, former council members Mary Hornbuckle, Jay Humphrey, Sandra Genis and current councilwoman Wendy Leece.  Naghavi's current boss, CEO Tom Hatch, shown below with his wife, Vanessa, stepped up to praise him, as well.

PERRY BROUGHT DOWN THE HOUSE
Former co-workers like Perry Valantine, shown here with his wife, Pam and Naghavi, stood to share stories about their time with Naghavi.  Valantine brought down the house when he identified himself as an 8-year retiree who has learned to speak in 3-minute increments. 

HELEN BROUGHT UP THE TEARS
Employee association president Helen Nenadal stood and presented what may have been the most serious moment when she thanked Naghavi for "being there for us" during the very trying past nearly two years.  She referred to the events of St. Patrick's Day, 2011 and praised Naghavi for being their rock - always there for them.

FREEMAN TEASED US
Former Segerstrom spokesman Paul Freeman stepped up and shared stories that I'm sure were edited for a "general" audience - there is probably a much more "adult-oriented" version that he really wanted to tell.  Freeman and Naghavi have become great friends through their business contacts.

POIGNANT SPEECH BY HIS SON
Naghavi's son also spoke about life with his father and his friends.

THE CONSUMMATE PROFESSIONAL
The thread through all the comments made by Naghavi's friends and co-workers was that of a consummate professional - a man of his word that you could count on.  Whether he was your peer, boss or subordinate, the message was the same.

PROUD TO BE HIS FRIEND 
Personally, I've gotten to know Peter Naghavi over the years that I've been paying attention to city issues.  He was always responsive to questions I've had for clarification on one issue or another.  He never turned me away and, based on the comments last night, it sure sounded like that's how he treated everyone.  He's been a cheerful, enthusiastic, honest man to deal with - again, part of the thread of the comments last night.  He may have been the perfect municipal employee.  I'm proud to be Peter Naghavi's friend and wish him every success wherever his post-retirement takes him.  He's much to young a man to simply just pack it in, but I suspect there's a lot of travel in his near future.  He will leave his post with the City in December and will be sorely missed.

(A special thanks to Soraya Julian for the use of several of her photos from the event last night.)

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...