Adios, Free Speech - The Dictator Has Spoken!

 DICTATORSHIP TO BE ESTABLISHED
Next Tuesday evening, July 1st, very near the end of the scheduled City Council meeting, the Costa Mesa City Council will be asked to consider replacing an existing section of the Municipal Code - section 2-61, Propriety of conduct while addressing the council, with a completely new version of this ordinance titled Conduct While Addressing The Council.

"BENITO ACOSTA" TAUGHT US NOTHING!
The lengthy staff report, HERE, outlines why the contract legal council, to which we pay outlandish fees, think this is necessary.  They use as a reference point the Benito Acosta affair in which then-mayor Allan Mansoor  cut his presentation off at 2:25 and had him dragged from the council chambers because he wanted to finish his allotted three minutes.  It's been nearly a decade since that event and, based on what this new ordinance says, it looks like we've learned NOTHING!  And we're still paying, literally, for it to this date.  References are made on almost every Warrant the council approves for charges for "Acosta Appeal", or similar entries.  Ironically, the Warrant included in the Consent Calendar of this meeting staff report does NOT include an Acosta reference.

FIRST MUZZLING, NOW JAIL TIME
I've written many times in this space about the heavy-handedness of the current council majority and, more specifically, Mayor Jim Righeimer when it comes to stifling dissent.  He's manipulated the agenda to quash public comments by forcing folks to wait until the very end of the meeting - sometimes well after midnight - to step to the podium to address valid concerns with the elected leaders of this city.  He frequently interrupts speakers, including fellow-councilmembers, during their specified time, which certainly breaks their thoughts and diminishes their presentations.  Fortunately, Sandra Genis and Wendy Leece refuse to let him bully them.

NOT A CARROT - A CLUB
This new ordinance, if passed as it is written, provides the authority to the mayor to bludgeon speakers into submission and to abridge their right of free speech.  If the council follows this advice it will be like funding a retirement annuity for Orange County lawyers, who we will have to pay to defend actions based on this bogus ordinance for decades to come!

I IMAGINE...
I can see it now... "Stop talking!  Somebody else already said something like that!"  "Shut up, or else!"  "Sir, please leave the chambers, now!"  "Officer, please escort that person from the council chambers!"  "Sir, I told you to leave and now you've returned!  Officer, please arrest that person for violation of Section 2-61, b (8) of the Costa Mesa Municipal Code - being repetitive!"

TAKE A MINUTE TO READ IT...
I've copied and pasted the text of much of this proposed new section of the Municipal Code below.  Take a couple minutes to review it.  I've highlighted some of the sections I think are going to be problematic in bold red for ease of reading.

"UNDULY REPETITIVE"
In my view, perhaps the most egregious item on this list - one that could end up with a speaker being charged with a misdemeanor if carried to the extreme, is number 8.  This item describes an act of disorderly behavior as, "Continuing to speak after being informed by the presiding officer that the comments are unduly repetitive of either prior comments from that speaker or comments by other speakers."  So, the mayor gets to decide whether your comments - the product of your own thought processes and passions - are "unduly repetitive" of comments made by other speakers?  Really?  This item, alone, tells me that we've learned nothing from the Benito Acosta affair.

AND MORE...
I suspect some of you may find other elements of this proposed section of the Municipal Code troubling, too.  To me it clearly demonstrates that the mayor will stop at nothing to clamp down on opposing views, including violating the right of free speech.

HERE'S THE TEXT OF THE NEW SECTION:

2-61 Conduct while addressing the council.

(a) Any person who engages in disorderly behavior that actually disrupts,
disturbs or otherwise impedes the orderly conduct of any city council
 meeting shall, upon an order by the presiding officer or a majority of the
city council, be barred from further audience before the city council during
that meeting, pursuant to the provisions of subdivision (c), below.

(b) Disorderly behavior under subdivision (a) may include, but is not limited to,
the following:

(1) Speaking without being recognized by the presiding officer.

(2) Yelling, or using a loud, disturbing voice.

(3) Using profanity or obscene gestures.

(4) Continuing to speak after the allotted time has expired.

(5) Speaking on an item at a time not designated for discussion by the
public of that item.

(6) Throwing objects.

(7) Speaking on an issue that is not within the jurisdiction of the city
council.

(8) Continuing to speak after being informed by the presiding officer
that the comments are unduly repetitive of either prior comments
from that speaker or comments by other speakers.

(9) Attempting to engage the audience rather than the City Council.

(10) Disobeying any lawful order of the presiding officer or a majority of
the city council.

(11) Refusing to modify conduct after being advised by the presiding
officer that the conduct is disrupting the meeting.

(c) Enforcement. The rules of conduct while addressing the city council set
forth above shall be enforced in the following manner:

(1) Call to order and warning to desist. Whenever practicable, the
presiding officer or a majority of the city council shall give a warning
to the person who is breaching the rules of conduct to be orderly
and to comply with the rules of conduct hereunder. Such a warning
 shall articulate the rule of conduct being violated and the manner in
which the person must comply.

A warning shall not be necessary when it would not be effective
under the circumstances, including when, but not limited to, the
disturbance is such that the warning cannot be heard above the
noise, or the conduct of the person or persons constitutes an
immediate threat to public safety, such as the throwing of objects or
specific threats of harm and the apparent, present ability to carry
out such threats. A warning shall also not be necessary when an
individual violates the rules of conduct more than once during a
council meeting, or continuously violates the rules of conduct
council meeting after council meeting.

(2) Order barring person from meeting. A person who engages in
disorderly behavior shall be barred from the remainder of that
council meeting by the presiding officer or a majority of the city
council when that person: (i) continues the disorderly behavior after
receiving a warning pursuant to subdivision (c)(1); (ii) ceases the
disorderly behavior upon receiving a warning pursuant to
subdivision (c)(1), but later in the same council meeting resumes
such disorderly behavior; or (iii) engages in disorderly behavior and
no warning is practicable under the circumstances, pursuant to
subdivision (c)(1).

The continuation of disorderly behavior after receiving a warning,
repeated disorderly behavior during a council meeting, disorderly
behavior at council meeting after council meeting, or disorderly
behavior that is so significant that a warning cannot be given,
constitutes the type of behavior that actually disrupts, disturbs or
otherwise impedes the orderly conduct of a city council meeting.
 
(3) Removal. If the person barred from the meeting does not voluntarily
remove him/herself upon being instructed to do so by the presiding
officer or a majority of the city council, the presiding officer or the
majority of the city council may direct the sergeant-at-arms to
remove that person from the council chambers.

(d) The following conduct shall be unlawful and shall be punishable as a
misdemeanor:

(1) Continuing to engage in disorderly conduct, which disrupts, disturbs
or otherwise impedes the orderly conduct of any city council
meeting, after receiving a warning pursuant to subdivision (c)(1) of
this section.

(2) Refusing to leave a city council meeting after being directed to do
so pursuant to subdivision (c)(2) of this section.

(3) Returning to a council meeting after being barred, removed or
directed to leave such meeting pursuant to subdivisions (c)(2) and
(c)(3) of this section. 

YOU MAY WISH TO ADDRESS THIS ONE...
As the mayor continues to steamroll over our rights, I suspect there may be one or two of you who feel strongly enough about this to step to the speaker's podium Tuesday evening to address it with the council.  Keep in mind that it's not the law yet, and the old ordinance had the word "insolent" removed from it because that was a problem.  So, I guess you can be insolent if you wish - I don't recommend it, though.  And, I certainly don't recommend you echo resident Tim Lewis from the last council meeting.  Otherwise, just tell them how you feel.

A VIDEO REMINDER...
And now, Benito Acosta, Allan Mansoor, and former Police Chief John Hensley reprise their roles in this video clip.  As an aside, look for Tea Partier Phil Morello, bellowing at the top of his lungs at the very end of the clip.  It's always a pleasure...

While The Cat's Away...

MISS ME?
Well, did you miss me?  I know you must have, because some of you have gotten into mischief while I was gone on my short - much too short - respite.  I tried to keep track of you by reviewing and posting your comments on my last two entries, but even I was amazed that you managed to submit over 80 comments on my last two posts!

SO MUCH VENOM, SO LITTLE SPACE...
And, I tried to follow along with "all things Costa Mesa" by reading the Daily Pilot online and found that a few of you had so much venom in your systems that even dumping on my blog didn't satisfy you, so you soiled some pretty good commentaries on the pages of the Pilot, too.

STEALING CAMPAIGN SIGNS
I noted while I was away and upon my return that the morons who think it's very funny to steal and deface political signs were very busy last week.  So busy that, apparently, Police Chief Tom Gazsi found it necessary to email every candidate with the following message: 

CHIEF GAZSI'S MESSAGE

The City has received several reports of the theft of political signs and banners from private property. The City and Police Department take allegations of theft seriously. The Police Department is receiving information relative to these cases and is investigating leads as possible. Should you witness a theft, please get the most accurate information possible, including a full description of persons and vehicles to include license plate numbers. If you have any information or witness a potential theft of political signs or banners, you should contact the Police Department immediately at (714) 754-5252. Generally, these types of cases are reported over the phone or through our on-line reporting system. While you may do that, please know that we have been dispatching officers to receive information related to these cases and will continue to do so. Our field personnel have been briefed on the thefts and will continue to patrol check areas for similar incidents.

Thank you,

Tom Gazsi

Tom Gazsi
Chief of Police
Costa Mesa Police Department
99 Fair Drive/Costa Mesa/CA 92626
(714) 754-5117
tgazsi@costamesaca.gov

MORELLO'S MELODRAMA
As kind of an exclamation point to this problem, resident Phil Morello submitted a letter to the editor of the Daily Pilot, HERE, that moaned about having political signs removed from his property - 38 of them!  While I DO NOT condone the theft or defacing of ANY political signs, if Morello - the President of the Costa Mesa Republican Assembly and a frothing mouthpiece for the OC GOP and sycophant of the current city council majority - lived across the street from me and I was forced to endure 38 political signs staring at me from his lawn for the best part of two months, I'd be contacting Code Enforcement about resolving that blight!  If any of you readers are pilfering or damaging political signs PLEASE STOP DOING IT!  Please stop acting like pre-pubescent knuckleheads, for goodness sake!

WHO IS "PHIL LESH"?
By the way, an interesting sidebar to the particular Mailbag segment that included Morello's letter is the fact that one of the other letters published with his was signed by someone calling himself "Phil Lesh".  Turns out that, based on some complaints, the editors tried to verify the author's identity and were unable to do so, so they yanked the letter from the online version.  Sounds like that sieve got just a little tighter - a good thing, in my opinion.

CHARTER CHATTER
Jim Righeimer's Charter got a lot of play on the pages of the Daily Pilot, too.  My pal, Chuck Cassity, penned a commentary praising the document, HERE; the League of Women Voters produced a carefully-crafted letter opposing it, HERE,  and the folks at Costa Mesans For Responsible Government (CM4RG) published a document titled "16 Different Red Flags With The Proposed Charter", HERE, that lays out in clear, unambiguous language why THIS PARTICULAR charter is a bad idea for our city at this time.

WHO?
Somebody named Timothy Sesler, who purports to be an attorney and lives in Costa Mesa, gave us his best impression of the late Rodney King's "can't we all just get along" message with a commentary in the Daily Pilot, HERE.  I don't know this person but recently his name has appeared throughout the comment threads on Daily Pilot articles and commentaries.  Based on those I can say with confidence that he is squarely in the camp of the current council majority.

EPPERSON SETS THE RECORD STRAIGHT
And, retired Costa Mesa Police Lieutenant Clay Epperson found it necessary to rebut the falsehoods and criticisms published earlier by Planning Commission Chairman and council candidate Colin McCarthy - setting the record straight, HERE.  It's really too bad that such a correction was necessary, but McCarthy has demonstrated that he's never bothered by playing fast and loose with the facts, requiring folks who care about the truth to correct him.

DON QUIXOTE AND SANCHO PANZA
Another interesting part of that commentary was the comment thread that has evolved.  It includes critical remarks from councilman Steve Mensinger and his lapdog, Jim Fitzpatrick - apparently now publishing both as himself AND "Costa Mesa Taxpayer", since he's been handed the presidency of the Costa Mesa Taxpayer's Association - the local shill organization for the OC GOP.  In fact, like Don Quixote and Sancho Panza, Mensinger and Fitzpatrick seem to have become a regular tag-team on the blog comments lately.

IT'S GOING TO BE INTERESTING!
If the past couple weeks are any indication, the next five are going to be VERY interesting.  This week the candidates are required to provide the City Clerk with their most recent financial information, which will certainly make for some interesting reading.  I wouldn't be surprised if someone is caught red-handed stealing campaign signs.  And, in the middle of it all, we have a couple more opportunities to hear about the issues.  The much-anticipated Feet To The Fire debate of Jim Righeimer's Charter between Mister-Cut-And-Paste himself - Mayor Pro Tem Jim Righeimer and former councilwoman Katrina Foley will take place in two weeks, on Monday, October 15th.  And, the final candidate forum - hosted by the Eastside Costa Mesa Neighbors Group - is scheduled for later that week, on Thursday, October 18th.  Both events will take place at the Neighborhood Community Center, 1845 Park Avenue (Lions Park).  Don't worry - I'll remind you as those dates get closer.

MY GIFT FOR YOU
I brought you a little post-vacation gift, too.  This little six-second video clip is dedicated to our own "3 A'M'igos" - Gary, Colin and Steve - who pretend they're running individual campaigns, but their messages are virtually identical and their names are defiling the landscape as a trio on signs and banners all over town.  Enjoy...


IN CASE YOU'RE WONDERING...
And, in case you were curious about how I'm going to vote, I'm NOT going to vote for anyone with a surname that begins with an "M".  Nope, I'm going to grab that ballot and vote for the first three names under "Costa Mesa City Council" - John Stephens, Harold Weitzberg and Sandra Genis - 1-2-3 - then I'm going to slide right on down and VOTE NO ON "V".  Simple...  

1-2-3 and NO on V!

Insolence OK Now...

APPELLATE COURT RULING
Lauren Williams wrote an article in the Daily Pilot yesterday, HERE, telling us that on Wednesday a federal appellate court held that a Costa Mesa ordinance that restricts "insolent" speakers when addressing the City Council is unconstitutional.  This springs from the Benito Acosta affair several years ago when Mayor Allan Mansoor cut him short while speaking to the council and Acosta was subsequently dragged from the council chambers and arrested. 


WHAT A DIFFERENCE A WORD MAKES
According to the article, by simply removing the word "insolent" from the code the remainder of the ordinance is constitutional.

THE DEFINITION
Here's a definition of that word from Dictionary.com.

in-so-lent - boldly rude or disrespectful; contemptuously impertinent; insulting.

CURRENT MUNICIPAL CODE SECTION
This is how the section of the Municipal Code, Section 2-61, presently reads:

  (Click on the image to enlarge)

LET INSOLENCE PREVAIL!
So, I guess it's OK for you to be "boldly rude" or "disrespectful" or "contemptuously impertinent" and "insulting" when you address the council.  It's a little confusing because the definition of "insolent" includes impertinent yet the article says the code will be OK without that word.  If so, it will continue to contain "impertinent".  We need some clarity here.

 CAREFUL ABOUT THE REST OF IT, THOUGH
However, apparently you may not make any personal, profane or slanderous remarks.  And, you can't yell at them, either - much as you might feel like it.

  REMEMBERING BENITO...
And, just in case you're interested, you can watch what happened to prompt this whole thing in the first place in this short video clip.  As you watch it you can use the timer to see that Mansoor does cut him off.  You'll also see then-Police Chief John Hensley direct the officers to take Acosta out.  Way down at the end of the tape, around the 4:50 point on the counter,  you'll see Phil Morello, President of the Costa Mesa Republican Assembly and organizer of the recent Tea Party "demonstration" at City Hall protesting the incident involving Jim Righeimer and the CMPD  in the upper right corner of the frame, hands cupped over his mouth, as he screams the words to "God Bless America" at the young woman who had been singing "We Shall Overcome". 

 
SOME THINGS NEVER CHANGE...

By the way, Acosta was recently seen at the demonstrations in Anaheim being escorted to a police car.  He was subsequently released.  Funny how some things - and people - just don't seem to change.

"Demonstration", Updates And CMPD Response

A LITTLE TEA PARTY DEMONSTRATION
Today, Saturday, August 25th, a group identifying themselves as members of the Newport/Costa Mesa Tea Party, conducted a demonstration on the sidewalk along Fair Drive in front of the Costa Mesa Police Headquarters.

PEACEFUL
The group, who apparently rallied to the call of Costa Mesa resident and long-time activist Phil Morello, paraded along the sidewalk for at least an hour, beginning shortly after 1:00 p.m.  When I left at around 2:30 most of the participants had long-since departed.  Morello and a few others remained.  The only excitement was a guy in a white pickup truck that twice drag-raced down Fair Drive in front of the Police Department while I was there.  Passersby would occasionally honk their horns - I guess in support.

  PHIL'S MARCHING ORDERS
Before beginning the demonstration Morello gave them, literally, their marching orders.  He said, in part, "These individuals, by whatever actions are occurring, are trying to intimidate and make people change their positions so that they vote in their own best interests instead of the interests of the voters they represent.  We can't have that.  That's the classic definition of thuggery.  So, that's why we're here today.  We need to show support and we're not going to put up with it anymore." And off they went...

TWO DOZEN PEOPLE
The group was a mix of Costa Mesa residents and folks from out of town.  I spoke with people from Laguna Niguel, Newport Beach and elsewhere.  My guess, including estimates by other media folks present, was that it was about 50/50.  The total number of participants at any time was around 24, plus a few children carrying flags.

 CONCERNED ABOUT RIGHEIMER'S SITUATION
Although the signs expressed a degree of outrage, the demonstration was quite calm and civilized.  The folks with whom I spoke were uniformly concerned about the recent event that caused Mayor Pro Tem Jim Righeimer to be asked by a member of the Costa Mesa Police Department to take a field sobriety test on his front porch.  Some folks were more aware of the facts than others.  Some had no clue - they just responded to the call for action.  Some agreed with Righeimer's statement that he had been "set up", while others withheld judgment until the facts are known.

OATH KEEPERS
The group "Oath Keepers" had a small contingent on site.  They stood at the corner of Vanguard Way and Fair Drive with a banner, shown below.  From time to time one of their members used a bullhorn to shout, "Costa Mesa Police Officers, Honor Your Oath!  Your Oath Is To The Constitution, Not To Unions!" 

OC GOP CENTRAL COMMITTEE REPRESENTED
I spoke with many of the participants over the hour I was there.  One of the organizers was a fellow named Bill Dunlap, from Newport Beach.  He's a member of the Orange County Republican Party Central Committee and espoused a broader concern - a national view of this situation.  He left early to mow his lawn.

MORELLO'S SIGN
It was clear that this was a hastily-organized event.  The signs were hand-made with a certain degree of lack of precision.  The most provocative sign I saw was the one Morello was carrying, tightly snuggled up to an American flag.  The photo of that sign is below.

  NO OFFICIALS ADDRESSED THEM
To my knowledge - at least while I was there - nobody from The City, nor the CMPD, addressed the group.  A conversation with a lieutenant on duty at the time led me to believe no contact with the group was planned as long as they demonstrated peacefully and lawfully.

 SKIMPY MEDIA COVERAGE
Only the Daily Pilot was there to represent the "real media". You can read Serna's report HERE.  No television nor radio crews showed up while I was there.  One local gadfly showed up before the event commenced, took one or two photos, then left after about five minutes without speaking with any of the participants.  Facts never seem to get in the way of his opinions on his blog.

  HUNTINGTON BEACH CHOPPER PAID A VISIT
I don't know if anyone called it, but the Huntington Beach Police Helicopter did a fly-by during the demonstration.

 YELLOW RIBBON...

I couldn't help but observe the large yellow ribbon tied to a tree in front of the CMPD headquarters, along with the sign honoring Officer Jon Smith, currently deployed in Afghanisan that stood along the demonstrator's line of march.

 REGISTER PRODUCED A NEW ARTICLE
In addition to the coverage already provided by the Daily Pilot and the Orange County Register - all of which was linked in my earlier blog entry - the Register posted a new article today, HERE.  If the Daily Pilot produces an article covering this event I'll link to it here later.
 

A SUPPLEMENTAL POLICE DEPARTMENT PRESS RELEASE
Late this evening the Costa Mesa Police Department issued a supplemental Press Release addressing this issue.  The text of that message follows:

UPDATE TO PREVIOUS RELEASE.
No additional information available at this time.

Following an incident reported to the Costa Mesa Police Department on Wednesday, regarding the alleged driving violations of Mayor Pro Tem Jim Righeimer, an investigation was initiated by the Professional Standards Bureau and the Investigative Bureau, at the direction of Chief Tom Gazsi.  The source of the call and the alleged report of inappropriate driving is under investigation. Although the caller suggested the Mayor Pro Tem may have been driving impaired, the responding officer confirmed that Mr. Righeimer was not under the influence.  A vigorous investigation continues concerning the motive and nature of the call.  The Department anticipates a future review of this matter by the Orange County District Attorney’s Office.  

Best Regards,
Tim Schennum

WE NEED FACTS - NOW!
There is clearly a lot of tension in Costa Mesa about this issue - appropriately so, in my opinion.  Until all the facts are known about this event folks on both sides of this issue will fill in the blanks with their own conjecture and speculation.  So many questions, too few answers.  The longer it takes to get answers the worse it is for the City.  We need to know:

• Why did the man who called 911 do it? 
• Was he acting as an employee of the law firm that worked for the Costa Mesa Police Officers Association? 
• Who, if anyone, paid him to do it? 
• Was he just acting as a "rogue operator", which he apparently has a history of doing during his time as a police officer in Riverside before he left that job under a cloud?
• Is he subject to criminal penalties for reporting Righeimer?

THIS WILL AFFECT THE ELECTION...
This event, in my opinion, has changed the face of the election dramatically.  We need answers FAST.

Why You Can't Trust Righeimer With His Charter

PROMISES A LEXUS - DELIVERED A YUGO
OK, it's time to talk seriously about Jim Righeimer's Charter.  Make that "more seriously", because many of us who oppose his scheme to take over Costa Mesa government completely by trying to convince a typically disengaged electorate that his bogus plan will solve every single problem in the city by providing "local control" HAVE been taking it VERY seriously for most of the past year.  Righeimer is, essentially, promising us a Lexus and has delivered a Yugo.

BECOME A "BIG BOY"
From the very beginning, when Righeimer first proposed his plan in November of 2011, his motives were suspect.  He told us it was time to join the "big boys" - the 25% of California cities that have a Charter form of government.  He avoided mentioning that 75% of the cities in this state remain General Law cities and benefit from the protections from corruption that a Charter makes so possible.


IGNORES BELL
Righeimer shrugged off suggestions that Bell was a Charter city and it became the poster child for corruption around the country.  He blamed the Bell fiasco on one person, Robert Rizzo, but neglected to mention that a disengaged electorate permitted the conversion to a Charter city with a vote of only 450 voters in a special election.
 
FEAR AND MISINFORMATION
For nine months - that's been the gestation period of Jim Righeimer's Charter so far since he first hatched the scheme in November, 2011 - he has attempted to frighten the voters with the specter of financial ruin, when, in fact, things were getting better through the cooperative efforts of the staff and the fiscal management of the previous administration began to have an effect.  Along the way he conveniently ignored the fact that nearly all of the California cities that have recently declared bankruptcy are Charter cities.

MORELLO - BANKRUPTCY AN OPTION
In fact, Phil Morello, president of the Costa Mesa Republican Assembly and one of the most visible supporters of Jim Righeimer's Charter, may have actually let the cat out of the bag recently.  At the July 31st council meeting, when the council took the vote to place it on the agenda, Morello casually mentioned that one acceptable way out of our financial difficulties would be municipal bankruptcy!  More than a few of us who pay attention to these issues wondered if he might not have been telegraphing the plan if the Charter is adopted in November.  That would be the ONLY way Righeimer can get rid of the employee association contracts.

JUST NOT THIS CHARTER
I've said it before and will say it again - and again and again, if necessary - I am NOT necessarily against Costa Mesa becoming a Charter City.  The problem is THIS Charter, and the lack of safeguards included to head-off a Bell-type situation.  It was clear from the outset when Righeimer first charged contract City Attorney Tom Duarte to return with the details in writing of what it would take to convert our city from a General Law city to a Charter city, that he had an agenda.  Then he, himself, did all the work by cutting and pasting snippets from other city's charters in a patchwork that blended his own, personal political agenda and the lack of controls mentioned earlier.
 

 HE JUST DOESN'T LIKE RULES
From the first day Righeimer became part of the government of our city - when he was appointed to the Planning Commission by then-mayor Allan Mansoor despite the fact that he had failed to meet the application deadline and after having lived in our city for only a few months - it was obvious that he didn't like all those nasty rules that he had to follow.  When Mansoor appointed him in what certainly looked like an act of political patronage for the help Righeimer and his buddy, Dana Rohrabacher, gave to him during his re-election campaign in 2006, the handwriting - graffiti, actually - was on the wall.  The Orange County Republican Party, skippered by Scott Baugh, was ready to take over our city and had massaged the dim and gullible Mansoor as the preamble to that effort.

MENSINGER APPOINTMENT LOCKED IT UP - NOT!
Righeimer ran unsuccessfully for City Council in 2008 and when he was finally elected to the City Council in 2010 - the first time he was actually elected to something in his political life - his frustration with the rules became even more apparent.  After he facilitated the appointment of his pal, Steve Mensinger, to the City Council he apparently thought he had all he needed to take over - a 4-person majority on the council.  He was wrong, of course, because even a super-majority has to follow the rules.

PREMATURE LAUNCH
When he and Gary Monahan hatched (no offense to our City CEO, Tom Hatch) their outsourcing scheme at Monahan's pub and launched it prematurely by issuing layoff notices to more than 200 municipal employees on St. Patrick's Day, 2011 they made a major gaffe - several, actually - that has resulted in millions of dollars in litigation costs and has done immeasurable damage to the reputation of our city.  And Huy Pham jumped from the roof of City Hall.  And then-mayor Monahan chose to continue to pour beer for his customers rather than see to the needs of the employees of our city.

AMBITION AND UNION-HATRED DRIVES HIM
All this because Righeimer has a long-standing hatred of unions and has spent much of his political life trying to crush their influence.  In his haste to start tossing municipal employees out the door he and his pals forgot to follow the rules.  This has become a familiar theme.  The great irony of that outsourcing fiasco is that, if they had actually just followed the rules last year, it is possible that a big chunk of their outsourcing scheme might have been consummated by now.  Instead we, the taxpayers and voters of this city, are paying one of the most expensive law firms around, Jones Day, nearly $500 per hour with NO CAP on it.  In the fiscal year that ended June 30th we had paid them nearly $1 million and that tally isn't complete yet.
 

UNWILLING TO NEGOTIATE
So strong is his union hatred that it has virtually rendered Righeimer incapable of considering any kind of serious negotiation with the employee associations in our city.  NOTE:  They are NOT unions - they don't have the right to stage job actions, for example.  Even though both the police and fire departments are seriously understaffed, the Righeimer-led council refuses to permit hiring replacements or to fill the pipeline with new folks to cover anticipated retirements.  They demand a second pension tier be established BEFORE replacements will be approved, yet have refused to consider serious offers made by both bargaining units.  And, they've spent over $40,000 on a labor negotiator in just a few months to facilitate their plans.  As a result, every resident, visitor to our city and business within our borders are at much greater risk.  He is not only willing, but apparently eager, to place our public safety at risk to further his political future.

MORE ABUSE OF POWER
There are many, many examples of his attempts to abuse the power of his office, but the last time the council met - in a hastily-called "emergency" meeting to "clean up some administrative issues" - we saw just how dangerous he will be if HIS charter passes in November.  That meeting - covered on this blog and in the local media - demonstrated the lengths to which Righeimer and his pals on this council will go to hide the truth from the voters of this city.  It was called with only hours left before the deadline to submit the paperwork to the Registrar of Voters and at a time that left NO time for the opposition to re-frame its argument against the charter - their deadline had passed.  By approving the elimination of a reference to "no-bid contracts" in the Ballot Descriptions, Summary and Enumerations of Powers section that is required by law to be included in a charter proposal, Righeimer and the council demonstrated their disdain for the voters - even more than they've been showing in recent months.  They know that the voters will NOT, in all likelihood, read the entire text of the charter.  They'll depend on that summary to tell them what they need to know - and it doesn't do that now.
 
3 MONTHS AND COUNTING...
We now have 13 weeks until the election.  During that time there will be, so far, five (5) candidate forums at which Jim Righeimer's Charter might be discussed.  One of the meetings, on September 5th, is dedicated specifically to that subject.  I fully expect to see the proponents of the charter attempt to manipulate the facts and, perhaps, flat-out lie to the public about this issue.  They will almost certainly demonize those opposing it.  I encourage each of you to pay attention, attend as many of those events as you can or watch the taped version on CMTV - each will be covered.  This issue is too important to just casually stroll into the voting booth and flip a coin.  It is the second-most important decision the voters of this city will make - the vote to incorporate nearly 60 years ago being the first.  We'll try to help you understand the issues and the candidates as the campaign season move along. 

TRUST AND A PROMISE NOT DELIVERED
As Daily Pilot columnist Jeffrey Harlan and former city executive and frequent council critic Perry Valantine have reminded us in recent weeks, this is really a matter of trust. So far, Jim Righeimer has failed that test.  Remember, he promises us a Lexus and has delivered a Yugo - with him at the wheel.  Vote NO on Jim Righeimer's Charter.