Hit Piece On Foley Is Despicable

I AM REALLY TICKED-OFF!
Today in my mailbox appeared a hit piece on Costa Mesa Mayor Katrina Foley in an attempt to discredit her with casual voters - those who only pay attention to local politics during an election season.

LIE-FILLED HIT PIECE
This hit piece, paid for by a group called "Keeping Californians Working" in San Rafael, CA, is so blatantly full of lies that it boggles one's mind.  I've provided images of the front, back and inside so you can see the full extent of the lies involved..

LIES AND MISREPRESENTATIONS
On the inside you will see several newspaper headlines, an attempt to link Foley with the bad news each one portrays.  They are called "bad decisions" by Foley.  In fact, in most cases she was not even on the City Council at the time.  In other cases the situation misrepresents the facts.

NEARLY A MILLION BUCKS ON LIES
I'm told the slimeballs who paid for this piece of trash spent nearly $1 million to distribute their falsehoods to Orange County households.  Their desperation about the possibility of Katrina Foley finishing first or second in the upcoming March 3rd Primary Election is obvious.  There are three (3) candidates for State Senate - Incumbent Republican John Moorlach, newcomer Democrat Dave Min from Irvine and Mayor Katrina Foley.

PRESUMING GOP INVOLVEMENT
We presume my Republican Party is responsible for this crap.  They know that Moorlach will have a hard time holding his seat if he has to go head-to-head with Foley, but he can likely crush Min.

MY PARTY HAS LOST IT'S WAY
I don't know what's happened to my party.  The leadership certainly seems to have lost it's way somewhere since Ronald Reagan's tour as President.  Locally, they continue to shoot themselves in the foot and clearly are no longer in tune with the electorate.

CATASTROPHIC INFIGHTING
You will recall a couple years ago when Scott Baugh tried to eviscerate incumbent Congressman Dana Rohrabacher in the primary race.  The terrible stuff that appeared in our mailboxes about those candidates - particularly those criticizing Rohrabacher -  was awful... and it backfired.  Rohrabacher managed to survive the primary election and was paired up against Harley Rouda, a former Republican-turned Democrat.  Then, in the race headed to the General Election, Rohrabacher failed to debate Rouda and ended up losing the seat he had held for 30 years!

MOORLACH IS A GOOD GUY.... BUT....
I like John Moorlach.  He's a smart man and has a record of accomplishment in county government, but he is very outnumbered in the State Senate, where only 10 of 40 Senators are Republicans.  He has almost NO chance of making a difference in Sacramento.  What I DO NOT like is that he's apparently willing to let surrogates act to defame and flat out lie about Foley in order to retain his seat.

I LIKE KATRINA FOLEY
Foley is my friend.  I've watched her as a City Council member and as a Trustee on the Newport-Mesa Unified School District Board of Trustees and admired her dedication to our city for two decades.  She is smart, tireless and has a vision for Costa Mesa that is now coming to fruition.  She is a multi-tour mayor, having been elected by her peers, then - in a purely political move - was voted out of that spot.  She then ran for the seat as the first directly-elected mayor in the city's history and crushed then-incumbent and multi-term councilwoman Sandra Genis - one of the perpetrators of her earlier ouster.

I DON'T LIKE THE LIBERAL AGENDA
As a lifelong conservative I am not happy with the way the liberal majority in Sacramento is taking our state.  I disagree with almost every move they make, from the squandering of public funds to declaring California a Sanctuary State - spitting in the eye of the Federal Government, upon who we depend for funding of many projects.  Am I worried about Foley - another liberal politician - facilitating that which I find onerous?  A little.  However, I've watched her work.  She knows how to build consensus.    I will vote for her in the primary election.

WHY THE LIES?
I retired this blog nearly 3 years ago, but this nastiness has so angered me that I felt it was necessary to write about it.  Each of you will have to use your own judgment on this issue... just know that you are being lied to and ask yourselves why...

Survey Rejected, Lloyd Loved, Foley Furious

A MEMORABLE MEETING, FOR SURE
Well, now... that was fun!  Yes, sir, the Costa Mesa City Council meeting Tuesday night/Wednesday morning was one for the old memory book.  So much happened that I almost don't know where to begin... almost.

HEADING FOR DAWN...
The meeting ran until 12:45 a.m. Wednesday, so I'm going to give you just a little shorter version so I can get to bed before dawn... another busy day is ahead.

TCA DOING BETTER
The meeting began with a report from the Transportation Corridor Agency (TCA), outlining it's recovery from the fiscal abyss and showing the progress being made.  It was good news.  You can read their information on the two images below.   Click on them to make them bigger.

HANK LLOYD
Public Comments was VERY interesting.  Of the twenty people who spoke between 5:50 and 6:45, nearly one third of them addressed the possibility of Hank Lloyd leaving the Costa Mesa Tennis Club, including Lloyd, himself.  In a nutshell, a Request For Proposals for the operation of the Tennis Center was issued and Lloyd - who has operated it for 17 years with great success, putting Costa Mesa on the Tennis Map - found the changes in the terms too backbreaking to attempt to manage.  A half-dozen folks spoke on his behalf and at least that many more came to the meeting in support of Lloyd.  The upshot was that the council directed staff to look into the situation surrounding the very significant increase in costs to Lloyd - they involved passing through charges for electricity and water that had not been part of the arrangement in the past. 

PUBLIC COMMENT POTPOURRI
Other speakers addressed group homes; inconsistent planning rules; insufficient data on the Consolidated Plan survey; lack of a Economic Development Plan; the pending demolition of the Costa Mesa Motor Inn and the impact on residents; poor condition of baseball fields; the departure of Communication Director Bill Lobdell to the Irvine Company; the shortage of police and public records requests.

FOLEY ON MORALES AND MORE
During Council Member Comments, Katrina Foley asked for the meeting to be adjourned in memory of Crystal Morales, daughter of CMPD Detective Jose Morales, who tragically died in a traffic accident last week.  She also spoke of the Young Kim press conference on I-405 Toll Roads earlier in the day; the Hank Lloyd RFP issue; an electronic waste collection at Costa Mesa High School from 10:00 to 2:00; Fire Department staffing; her previous request for a council goal-setting meeting and more.

GENIS ON LLOYD AND SEGERSTROM
Sandra Genis also addressed the Tennis Center issue and two items on the Consent Calendar.  She asked for the meeting to be adjourned in honor of Henry Segerstrom, the visionary creator of South Coast Plaza, who died recently at age 91.  She also mentioned the 70th anniversary of the liberation of Auschwitz.

MONAHAN SPEAKS!
Gary Monahan actually had something to say at this meeting - he pointed it out to me for all to hear...  He spoke of Little League and AYSO openings and, in response to an earlier speaker's concern about the Conference and Visitor Bureau funding, misspoke about the Transient Occupancy Tax (TOT), stating it was voluntary.  He's wrong... a segment of the TOT - 3% - is voluntary for eleven (11) hotels in town.  The city receives 11% from those hotels - it's 8% for all others - then returns the 3% to the Conference and Visitors Bureau for business development purposes.  He also mentioned that Costa Mesa Chamber of Commerce President Ed Fawcett will soon retire and an announcement will be made about his party.  He asked CEO Tom Hatch about Talbert Park, and any plans for Costa Mesa to take it over.  He also addressed the Hank Lloyd situation.  As it turned out, he should have not said another word.  More on that in a minute.

RIGHEIMER ON COPS
Jim Righeimer also addressed the Hank Lloyd situation, kind of scolding Lloyd for not speaking up sooner - the council received his letter Tuesday.  He addressed the Young Kim press conference - he did not attend.  He also mentioned the meeting tonight, Wednesday, at College Park Elementary where several members of the city council and staff will discuss sober living homes and the current status of policing.   Addressing the latter, he responded to Jay Humphrey's question about Righeimer and Mensinger "pulling out all the stops" to get the CMPD staffed up.  He mentioned a letter the council received from the CMPD, which is now on the City Website, HERE.  Hatch later addressed this memo, too.  Review the letter for yourself and you will find a schedule - "glide path" as Righeimer referred to it - that theoretically takes the CMPD from the current strength of 108 officers to 144 by the end of 2016.

MENSINGER ON SEGERSTROM
Steve Mensinger talked about his history with Henry Segerstrom - he attended his service over the weekend.  Apparently his Aunt Peggy - who was the mayor of Modesto - went to Stanford with Segerstrom.  He asked Hatch to figure out a way for the City to honor Segerstrom.  He mentioned that he will be out of town for the long weekend ahead, going with Hatch to Washington, D.C. for the mayor's conference.  He discussed the group home issue brought up by resident Barry Fisher, and mentioned Hank Lloyd, too.  He also spoke of the press conference earlier in the day, which he did attend.

HATCH - COPS STAFFING AND MORE
Hatch took his turn and made a lengthy presentation.  He echoed what is in that CMPD report mentioned above, and expanded on the fact that we are hiring excellent recruits.  We've had the top recruit in the past two classes.  Foley wondered what we were doing about attracting lateral transfers from other jurisdictions because all Hatch was talking about was new recruits, none of which would be ready to be functioning on his own for nearly two years.  She wondered what we are doing to retain cops.  Hatch addressed the group home meeting today, and spoke about the staffing of Code Enforcement.  He addressed the Tennis Center issue and reminded the council that they just cannot turn off the RFP process because they've had several people respond to it now.  He will work with the City Attorney on the issue

Four items were pulled from the Consent Calendar for later discussion.

MONAHAN GAFFE, FOLEY AND RIGHEIMER SCRUM
Then the fun began... At 7:47 p.m. Lawyer and negotiator Laura Kalty addressed Public Hearing #1, the extension of the side letter between the City and the Costa Mesa Police Management Association (CMPMA).  This should have been a short, sweet discussion, but the wheels came flying off.  During the discussion Monahan let slip information about negotiations with the Costa Mesa Police Officers Association (CMPOA) that could have only come from information he gathered in a Closed Session negotiating session and Foley jumped right on it.  Trust me when I tell you that finding that section of the video tape is going to be worth your time!  At one point things got so heated that Mensinger actually pounded his gavel on the dais and demanded order be restored.  Foley and Righeimer got into a shouting match, exacerbated by her challenge of a legal opinion provided by City Attorney Tom Duarte.  Foley pointed out what she referred to as a manipulation of the process where Righeimer and Mensinger are not supposed to be privy to ANY part of the negotiations between the City and the Costa Mesa Police Association because they are involved in a lawsuit with the association.  Foley and Righeimer yelled back and forth at each other and Mensinger finally called a 5 minute break.  During that time Foley and Duarte were at the coffee cranny at the rear of the dais and she could be heard screaming at him. 

PUBLIC CONCERNS
When they returned four members of the public addressed this issue.  Gene Hutchins, once again, gave his rote rant about unfunded pensions.  That issue seems to be like a chunk of spinach he cannot remove from his teeth.  Tamar Goldmann expressed concern about hiring laterals because of the hostility between Righeimer, Mensinger and the CMPD.  Jay Humphrey expressed consternation at the outburst, and the reason for it.  He cautioned council members - he's been there - to just hold their tongues on the dais.  Anna Vrska observed that she has experienced some shoddy legal work via Jones & Mayer herself, amplifying what Foley had complained about earlier.

FOLEY CONCERNED ABOUT LEGAL OPINION
Foley then apologized for her passion on the issue.  She is concerned about the confidentiality of the Closed Session and was concerned about liability the City might have as a result of Monahan's gaffe.  She expressed concern that the City Attorney was turning a blind eye to the issue, then said there is NOTHING we can do about it.  She said it degrades the process and degrades good faith.  She told Hatch she wanted an independent legal analysis of Monahan's comment.

CONCERN ABOUT WAIVING CONFIDENTIALITY
Genis expressed concern that if, as Duarte had said earlier, Monahan's comment effectively waives the City's confidentiality, she didn't want him waiving HER confidentiality.  Whew!  This was one for the ages!  All that ended at 8:25 and we had four more hours to go!  Ugh!

SMALL LOT ORDINANCE CHANGES APPROVED
Public Hearing #2 was the amendment to the Small Lot Ordinance.  Several speakers expressed concern that these modifications were just more developer giveaways.  I'm giving you the short version.  After a 30 minute discussion during which the parking changes were the primary focus, the council gave first reading to the changes on a 3-2 vote - Genis and Foley voted no.

SENIOR COMMISSION UP TO SEVEN
Old Business #1, the expansion of the Senior Commission from five members to seven, took about two minutes and passed, 5-0.

FINANCIAL AND BUDGET POLICIES APPROVED
We then launched off into the three Finance-related issues, guided by Interim Finance Director Steve Dunivent.  The first was the Financial and Budget Policies, which passed, 4-1, with Genis voting no because of a language issue.

GENERAL FUND RESERVE STUDY
The next was the discussion of the General Fund Reserves Study.  Following a 45 minute discussion - during which Foley and Righeimer agreed that the staff report was too conservative - the council passed the plan, 4-1, with Monahan voting no.  The staff report was modified to make the Reserves goal $55 million,  and the annual contribution to the Reserves $1.5 million, part of which would be the annual repayment of money the State stole from us.  That should be around $700,000 each year for the next 10 years or so.  The staff report wanted just over $63 million, with up to $2 million annually going toward the reserves.  Keep in mind that our reserves were over $73 million before the recession the end of the last decade.

BUDGET REVIEW
The third item was the Mid-Year Budget Review.  Among the suggestions by speakers were an accelerated payment of the Fire Side Fund.  One speaker was concerned about where the legal costs were paid from, since the Self Insurance fund normally associated with it has been depleted to just about $2 million from $22 just a few years ago.  Nobody seemed particularly concerned about that.  The council passed the staff report, 4-1, with Genis voting no.

NO SEPARATE SURVEY
Finally, at 10:45 and without a break, we launched off into Mensinger's request for a Fairview Park Use Survey. After a 30 minute discussion - during which Righeimer, in particular, showed impatience with the process, stating that he "just wanted to get it behind us" - the first of sixteen (16) members of the public stepped up to address this issue.  Even Hutchins rejected the survey idea - but he took a completely out of context jab at Foley for her vote on the Police Pensions half a decade ago.  Of those, only the final speaker - Mensinger friend, Chuck Perry - said anything even remotely in support of Mensinger's scheme.  All the others, in one way or the other, rejected the need for the survey.  Eventually, at 12:15 a.m., the council voted 5-0 to NOT conduct a separate survey, but fold some Fairview Park-specific questions into the scope of work for the consultant that will soon be retained to facilitate the update of the Master Plan of Parks and Open Spaces.  The council will consider that contract at it's next meeting on March 17th.  So, Steve didn't get his survey

MORE MARATHON INFO REQUESTED

The council moved quickly through the "pulled" Consent Calendar items until they got to #8, the Orange County Marathon issue.  Righeimer excused himself and left the auditorium because "Scott Baugh is the Chairman  and I don't want to hear about it."  It turns out, based on the testimony by Gary Kucher, who runs the Marathon, that Baugh is NOT the chairman of anything.  He is a member of the OC Marathon Foundation Board.  Foley wanted to know specifics about the costs to the city for supporting the marathon - specifically, the costs and reimbursement for the CMPD and CMFD.  During the conversation it came out that the  charges had been reduced a couple years ago, apparently because Costa Mesa charged more than other cities.  The discussion took about 30 minutes, but they finally passed the item, 4-0, with Righeimer out of the room and we finally adjourned at 12:45 a.m.! Arrgghh!

And, Finally, The Charter And Ethics...

THINGS TO CONSIDER
Tuesday many of you will go to the polls, sample ballot clutched tightly in your hands so you can remember all those decisions you made at your dining room table on the important issues to be considered by the electorate, and step up to cast your ballot.

IMPORTANT ISSUES
There are many important issues facing the voters on this one, even though it's a mid-term election.  In Costa Mesa there are two that require your careful contemplation - the election of two council members and Measure "O" - the Charter.

IGNORING THE WILL OF THE PEOPLE...
I've written many times about Measure "O", which I've described as the bastard child of Mayor Jim Righeimer's Charter, the flawed and failed Measure "V" from two years ago.  You will recall that the cardboard voting booths had barely been deconstructed and stored away before Righeimer demanded that a Charter be considered again this year.  He cobbled together a weak process - hand-picking the committee that was stacked with folks he knew would re-create his document and perpetuate his myopic vision of how our city should be governed.  Former council candidate John Stephens (he lost to Gary Monahan by 155 votes two years ago) provided an excellent reconstruction of the process in a Daily Pilot commentary HERE last August.

TOO MUCH POWER

Without beating this dead horse further, Measure "O" is a bad document, flawed in so many ways, but the worst part is the fact that sections 104 and 806 provide unfettered power to the city council.  Short of breaking state or federal law, under the Charter contained in Measure "O" it can do whatever it wishes, whenever it chooses.  That is much too low a bar for the governance of our city.  Vote NO on Measure "O".

 
TAKE BACK OUR CITY!

The other reason I'm writing this tonight is to remind you that it is critical to the future of this city that it be returned into the hands of the residents and voters.  It is currently in a stranglehold imposed by developers through a developer-friendly council majority headed by Jim Righeimer and the lock-step lemmings of the Orange County Republican Party, whose leader, Scott Baugh, has declared our city "Ground Zero" in their ongoing attempt to smash public employee organizations.

READ WHAT I'VE WRITTEN BEFORE

I've written extensively on this blog, HERE, and simultaneously in the Daily Pilot, HERE, about why you should NOT vote for Righeimer, and select Katrina Foley and Jay Humphrey instead.  I've described Righeimer as a carpetbagging political opportunist who has attempted to use the electorate of Costa Mesa to impose his warped values that have been soundly rejected elsewhere.  I've described him as a man who abhors rules - unless he makes them himself, and even then he applies them unevenly.  His attempt to layoff half the so-called "miscellaneous employees" three years ago is the perfect example of that behavior, but certainly not the only one.  Read my other essays, linked above.

UNETHICAL LEADERSHIP

Tonight, probably my final post before you cast your ballot, I want to remind you that he recently rejected an Ethics Policy - an issue that was also rejected by his hand-picked Charter Committee during their year-long deliberations.  Shortly after midnight on May 7th of this year, at the tail end of a City Council meeting that began more than six hours earlier, he rejected even the concept of an Ethics Policy.  You can read the staff report HERE, the language of the proposed Administrative Regulation that would have bound employees, HERE, and the actual language of the proposed Ethics Policy, HERE.  At the end the council, on a 4-1 vote (Wendy Leece voted NO) voted to simply "receive and file" the staff report and not be bothered with such an inconvenience.  I wrote about it HERE.  In that entry I provided you with this paragraph to sum up my thoughts on the event:

*****
IT'S "HIS WAY" OR...
The meeting ended with us knowing a lot more about Mayor Jim Righeimer.  We know that the rules don't apply to him, and that he won't approve any attempt to make rules that he has to follow - the Ethics Policy, for example.  I read the policy and the modified version handed out at the meeting.  It wasn't quite ready for prime time yet, but it would only take a little tweaking to make it work - some process issues needed to be clarified.  So, dear readers, know that your mayor - the guy with hands firmly on the steering wheel of your city - simply isn't going to be bothered by ethical issues.  He's going to do things HIS way, whether you like it or not - and he's got the votes to do exactly that.  Six months from now you have a chance to change that situation.
***** 

HE IS UNWORTHY...

Well, that "six months" mentioned above is NOW!  The fact that Jim Righeimer is unwilling to be bound by ethical conduct as a member of your City Council should make every one of you carefully consider your vote Tuesday.  He is a man unworthy of your trust and certainly not your vote.  If you wish to watch that segment of the May 6/7, 2014 meeting click HERE.

PLEASE VOTE...

Please find your way to the polls Tuesday and vote to return mature, responsible, ethical leadership to our city.  Vote to take Costa Mesa back from outside interests - developers who will defile our city with high-density vertical developments then go on their merry way and politicians with no skin in our game, willing to use Costa Mesa as a Petri Dish for their experimentation.

FOR MATURE, RESPONSIBLE LEADERSHIP

Righeimer Explains COIN, Sort Of...

MORE ANTI-UNION RHETORIC

Costa Mesa Mayor Jim Righeimer, hot on the campaign trail to attempt to retain his city council seat in November, presented his opinions of his buddy, Mayor Pro Tem Steve Mensinger's COIN ordinance to the editors of the anti-union publication Union Watch last week.  You can read the entire entry HERE.

READ IT YOURSELVES
While I know you'll read the entire interview of eleven (11) questions for yourselves, I'm going to share some observations of mine with you.  That's why you're here, right?

WHICH IS IT?
Right off the bat Righeimer is asked what COIN stands for and his answer is, "Civic Openness in Negotiation.  It is also referred to as 'open public employee negotiations'."  OK, so is it going to be "COIN" or "OPEN"?  I mean, this thing is still unproven and now they want to change the acronym?!  Yikes!

GIVING CREDIT, MORE OR LESS
Righeimer gives full credit to the creation of this anchor on negotiations to Mensinger.  He credits him for being the inspiration, and also gives credit to the law firm of "Leesberg Cassidy".  Of course, he meant Liebert Cassidy Whitmore, the highly-compensated law firm who provides us with the negotiating horsepower that, so far, has resulted in NO successful negotiation after more than a year.

TANGIBLE EXAMPLES, PLEASE
When asked about "tangible examples" of the COIN ordinance he admitted that, "The first contract that has been reviewed under the new COIN process hasn't been finalized.  But before it is front of the public, both parties are more reasonable in their offers and counteroffers because they know the public sees it.  In the past, one side might ask for 50 items just to overwhelm the city.  They don't do that any more."  Wow!  Really?  50 items!  How would he know that, since he wasn't privy to any of the prior negotiations?

LONG TERM BENEFIT?...
Question #9 was, "Over time, just how much benefit do you believe can come from tough COIN ordinances?"  His answer just rocked me back.  He said, "Well, a big benefit that could have occurred is that we would not have the pension problem we have today if we had had COIN back when the pension enhancements were being negotiated.  COIN also slows down the ability of unions to come back in the future and repeal agreements they don't like."

...NONE!
OK, his first sentence didn't even come close to answering the question, and the reason is that NOBODY knows yet exactly what the impact of COIN will have downstream - except negotiating and recruitment chaos.  His second sentence implies that the "unions" - we don't have any in Costa Mesa - could repeal a previous agreement.  What?  How?  An agreement is an agreement...

WHO OPPOSES?
Question 10 asks, "Do you consider a COIN ordinance to be of bipartisan benefit, and if so, who opposes COIN ordinances?"  I love his answer to this one!  He says, "For the honest brokers on both sides, transparency is not bad.  The people who are against it are the people who like the system the way it was - they would just make political endorsements or attacks in order to get a vote where a politician would not have any other input.  The guys who like the backroom deals don't like COIN."

BACKROOM DEALS!
Read that last sentence again...  Now recall that he and his majority adamantly refused to consider a COIN-type ordinance for ALL municipal contract negotiations.  Then consider that Righeimer has been going behind the scenes (backroom deals?) negotiating with business owners and developers all over town.  Where does he get that authority?  This is a perfect example of his willingness to ignore the rules, and another perfect example of why the voters should deny him a return to the council and certainly reject the Charter - a tool for even more abuse of the voters and taxpayers of the city.

"THE NEW STANDARD"
At the end he predicts that COIN is "going to be the new standard", and that he expects the "process to become normal procedure, everywhere, within the next ten years."

HOW ABOUT SOME SUCCESS FIRST?
Well, a more prudent politician might wait until there is a track record of success with the COIN process.  So far - as he readily admits in this interview - we have had NO negotiation come to fruition using the COIN process.  In fact, it certainly seems to outside observers that the process is taking a much longer time than in the past.  No, Righeimer can't just wait for facts - not with his political future on the line.  When he loses his seat in November his buddy, Scott Baugh, is going to have to find another job for him.  He may find another gullible town and have him drag his carpetbagging carcass there to see what damage he can do.