Mensinger's Heavy Hand Will Mark First Meeting of 2015

THE "BIG DOG" MARKS HIS TURF!
In the very first meeting of the Costa Mesa City Council of the New Year, rookie Mayor Steve Mensinger will attempt to mark his turf by convincing his fellow-council members to make some serious changes in the way council meetings are conducted in the future.  Since it is the last item on the agenda for the meeting on January 6, 2015, that's how I'll play it here, too.  We'll discuss it last...  You can read the complete agenda HERE.

REGULAR MEETING BEGINS AT 6:00
This meeting will follow the old agenda rules and will be preceded by a Closed Session beginning at 5:00 p.m.  They will discuss the lawsuit between the City and the Costa Mesa City Employees Association.  The regular meeting begins at 6:00 in City Council Chambers at City Hall.

TWO MAYOR'S AWARDS?  REALLY?
I note with great interest that this meeting will have not one, but two (2) Mayor's Awards!  I understand the first one - to Harland Anderson for his decades of service at the Boys and Girls Club - but don't have a clue about the second - to Boathouse Collective.  And I sure don't know why it was necessary to have TWO of these awards in a single meeting.  Seems to kind of dilute the idea, doesn't it?  It's kind of like befouling a good glass of bourbon with some Diet Coke.  I thought it was strange when former Mayor Jim Righeimer was tossing them out to everyone he knew like beads at a Mardi Gras parade - or so it seemed - but now Mensinger continues what is becoming a tradition with those guys - screwing up and diluting important recognition by the City.

FOLLOWING THE MONEY...
The Consent Calendar has more than a few interesting items.  Item #3, Warrant 2527, HERE, contains a list of recent payments.  I know those of you who actually care will follow that link and dig out information that interests you.  (By the way, they didn't make easy for us to find stuff because they published the roster sideways, so you might get a crick in your neck reviewing all 84 of those pages.)  Here are just a few entries that caught my eye:

Dougherty + Dougherty - $31,289.03 - for Interior Design.
Jones & Mayer - $148,402.70 - for a long list of legal work.
Lilley Planning Group - $23,025.00 - for planning consulting services.
Liebert Cassidy Whitmore - $6,246.95 - several legal items.
Scientia Consulting Group, Inc - $6,901.50 - IT Consultant.
City of Huntington Beach - $21,490.00 - Helicopter Svc, 10/14.
Liebert Cassidy Whitmore (again) - $20,382.16 - labor negotiations, etc.
Meyers Nave - $7,176.50 - Legal, Fairview Park.
Costa Mesa Conference & Visitor Bureau - $194,831.86 - BIA receipts, 10/14.
Liebert Cassidy Whitmore (again) - $7,150.00 - Training.
Scientia Consulting Group, Inc. (again) - $3,504.50 - IT Consulting.
Westminster Press, Inc. - $10,627.20 - Printing Toll Road and Charter Mailers.
Best Best & Krieger - $2,277.50 - Special Council Legal Services.
CSG Consultants - $12,705.00 - Bldg Inspection Services.
Interwest Consulting Group - $12,501.00 - Sr. Bldg. Inspec. Svcs.
Liebert Cassidy Whitmore (again) - $405.00 - 1 yr. basic library membership.
Tacos Chihuahua, Inc. - $2,388.18 - Catering Services, 12/11/14.

LEGAL FEES AND BACKFILLING STAFF SHORTAGES
So, that's a taste of how we spent your money over the last month or so.  Still spinning the counter on legal costs and consulting fees throughout City Hall to backfill the manpower shortage that exists.  I once joked four years ago that Righeimer's idea of a perfect city government would be Tom Hatch and a bunch of contract administrators to manage all the outsourced functions.  We continue to head in that direction.

ANOTHER EXAMPLE OF STAFF SHORTAGES
Item #4 is a contract for $88,475 for annual updates on the City's Pavement Management Program.  The staff report, HERE, explains the need.  Under the "Alternatives Considered" section we find this statement -     "However, due to the current manpower capacity, level of effort, and lack of expertise in the use of the required pavement management software, a significant delay in implementing this project would be experienced, and having these professional services performed by a highly qualified outside consultant is recommended." Yep, can't run a business without the staff and/or expertise.

MORE DEVELOPMENT ON THE WESTSIDE
Items #6 and 7, HERE and HERE, are approvals of final tract maps for projects on Meyer Street and Miner Street, respectively.

ANOTHER HOTEL ADDED TO THE BIA LIST
New Business #1, HERE,  is a modification to the Business Improvement Area (BIA) to add the new BLVD Hotel, for a total of eleven (11) participating hotels in the city.

MORE "MUSHROOMS" POPPING UP ON THE WESTSIDE
New Business #2, HERE,  is the Urban Master Plan Screening Request for a 4-unit detached common interest development at 2068 Maple Avenue.  This appears to be similar to other projects sprouting up on the Westside of town - three stories plus a rooftop patio.

MENSINGER FLEXING HIS MUSCLE, NOT HIS BRAIN
Finally, the final item on the agenda, New Business #3, HERE, is the item I mentioned right at the top of this page - Mayor Mensinger's attempt to leave his personal footprint squarely on the neck of concerned residents by tinkering with an already-flawed public commenting system to potentially make it even more onerous.  Briefly, here's what he wants to do:

• Change the regular council meeting start time to 5:45 p.m. from 6:00 p.m. (closed sessions would begin at 5:00 and end at 5:45).  This will, of course, make it more difficult for working folks with an interest in City issues to get to the meeting on time.
• Conclude "Special Presentations" by 6:00 p.m.  Yeah, good luck with that!  Like this meeting, with 2 Mayor's Awards, for example.  We'll put a clock on it...
• Public Comments would occur from 6:00 p.m. - 6:40 p.m. to "allow for a 33 percent increase in scheduled Public Comment time near the start of the meeting."  OK, so, instead of maybe 10 speakers having time to address the council, this scheme will provide for another three, maybe!  And...
• Require that all speaker cards for "Public Comments" be submitted at the beginning of the regular meeting prior to the first speaker.  That means that if you wish to rebut an earlier speaker or amplify someone else's comment, but did not fill out a card BEFORE they spoke, you're out of luck.
• Fear not!  If you submitted a speaker card in a "timely fashion", but did not get to speak during the Public Comments section, you will be given the "opportunity to address" the council at the end of the meeting.  (It's interesting to note that the revised order of business, below, doesn't show time for that activity.)
• Remove the "Continued Public Comments" and "Council Member Comments" sections of the agenda.
• Require that those wishing to address an item on the Consent Calendar fill out a speaker card prior to the start of the Consent Calendar.  Again, if you wish to rebut or amplify a comment and had not filled out a card you're out of luck.
• Items "pulled" from the Consent Calendar for separate discussion will continue to be "trailed" to the end of the meeting, just as Dictator Righeimer did in his regime.
• Perhaps the most interesting change is the requirement of all council members to limit their "Council Member's Reports, Comments and Suggestions" to 3 minutes!  I can hardly wait for THIS discussion!  And, this rule can be waived by THE MAYOR or by majority vote of the council.  Well, we all can count to 3, so we know what will be happening up there if THIS draconian rule is applied.  

THE NEW ORDER OF BUSINESS
Here's the proposed revised order of business:

(a) Closed Session (as required)
(b) Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag
(c) Moment of Solemn Expression
(d) Roll Call and Call to Order
(e) Closed Session Report
(f) Announcements
(g) Special Presentations
(h) Public Comments (Up to 6:40 p.m., may be extended by the Mayor or a
majority vote of the City Council)
(i) Council Member’s Reports, Comments and Suggestions (3 minutes each,
may be extended by the Mayor or majority vote of the City Council)
(j) CEO Report
(k) Consent Calendar
(l) Public Hearings
(m) Old Business
(n) New Business
(o) Items Removed from the Consent calendar
(p) City Attorney’s Report
(q) Adjournment

STEP ONE - TIGHTEN GRIP ON THROAT OF PUBLIC
So, the new mayor, in his first managerial act, moved decisively to further restrict dissenting opinions by moving the meeting to an earlier time and placing a tighter stranglehold on opposing viewpoints.  Any thought that this was going to be a "kinder, gentler" adminsitration is now fully erased.  What we will now see is a tighter restriction of free speech by a guy who can barely follow the agenda when he's NOT in charge.  And, I suspect we'll see him wield that gavel Righeimer gave him in the first meeting to attempt to maintain control - somthing I've not seen before in a dozen years watching council meetings.  This is NOT going to be a pretty picture.  Stay tuned, folks.

Righeimer To Codify Quashing Of Criticism

THE MOST IMPORTANT ITEM TUESDAY
There are a lot of items on the agenda for the Costa Mesa City Council meeting beginning at 6:00 p.m. next Tuesday, December 3, 2013, HERE, and I'll address the rest of it on another post.  Nothing, however, is more important than an item stealthily placed on the Consent Calendar than the final item, #14, titled, "Modifications To Public Comments And Consent Calendar On The City Council Agenda".  You can read that agenda item HERE.

QUASHING DISSENT
This move, in my opinion and that of many other residents of this city who actually follow what goes on at City Hall and at these meetings, is a two-pronged attempt by Mayor Jim Righeimer to stifle opposing views.  In the nearly three years since he took office - and power - his decisions and actions have caused a large and very vocal cadre of residents to step up and speak up during the Public Comments segment of the meetings and exercise their right - using the three minutes provided - to express their opinions, offer suggestions and criticize an individual council member or members for perceived missteps.  That's the way it's supposed to work.  Got a grievance? Speak up!  See that finger up there?  Righeimer's giving us another one...

SOMETIMES MANY SPEAKERS LINE UP - SO WHAT!?
Sometimes the Public Comments section of the meeting, which has traditionally been on the agenda early in the meeting following Announcements and Presentations, can stretch for a half-hour or more, depending on the hot button issues of the day.  In the past there have been meetings where twenty or more speakers lined up to speak.  In those cases the Public Comments segment could take an hour.
THE OLD (RIGHT) WAY
The Consent Calendar typically follows reports from the individual council members and the report from the CEO - after the Public Comments segment.  As some may know, unless an item is "pulled" from the Consent Calendar for separate discussion and vote by a council member, staff member or member of the public,  the entire Consent Calendar - there are fourteen (14) items on it Tuesday - will be voted upon as one vote.  If any item is pulled - there is zero chance that Item #14 won't be pulled Tuesday - in the past the council would vote the remainder of the Consent Calendar items in one vote, then proceed to consider those items pulled in order, one at a time, with a separate discussion and vote for each.  The public could comment on any such item if they choose to do so - also with three minutes allotted for that comment.

DICTATORSHIP IN ACTION
However, everything changed at the meeting of October 1, 2013.  That's the meeting where the mayor, apparently tired of hearing speaker after speaker step up and criticize his policies and practices, unilaterally decided to change things on the agenda.  That's when he decided to limit speakers in Public Comments to the first 10, then trail any remaining speakers to the end of the meeting.  Simultaneously, he arbitrarily decided to also trail any "pulled items" from the Consent Calendar to the end of the meeting.  This effectively stifles the opportunity of residents to address grievances with the council.  In a recent meeting, for example, another five speakers remained after the initial ten had spoken.  By the time their turn rolled around it was well past 11:00 p.m. and all had long since departed.

DISENFRANCHISING RESIDENTS
Similarly, items "pulled" from the Consent Calendar will typically be those some residents feel require separate discussion - for whatever reason.  It might be a question about an engineering contract, or an expenditure on one of the Warrants that are usually found on the Consent Calendar.  Whatever it might be, it's important to that resident, so the council should hear the issue out before voting.  By trailing those "pulled" items Righeimer disenfranchises those residents who can't hang around City Hall until midnight.

ON THE CONSENT CALENDAR?  REALLY?
Righeimer has run roughshod over the agenda for the past couple months with disastrous results.  So, at the last meeting, he finally conceded that they should have the item placed on the agenda for official consideration by the entire council - knowing full well he has the three votes it takes to make the changes official.  However, when the agenda was released last Wednesday afternoon - and after everyone had departed that might answer questions about it - the item showed up - as #14 on the Consent Calendar.
WHAT?
Now, here's the rub... This item is to theoretically codify the way Righeimer has been bending the rules to suit his own personal agenda - to have the council officially vote on it, right?  Well, what happens to the Public Comments segment that precedes it?  Will it be split again, before the vote is taken?  And, if they follow Righeimer's corruption of the agenda policy before the vote is taken, Item #14 will be "pulled" and then trailed to the end of the meeting!

HOW WILL THAT WORK - EXACTLY?
And, another wrinkle to consider.  If you click on that link to the full agenda at the top of this entry, then scroll down to the section marked "PUBLIC COMMENTS" and to the second paragraph, the first sentence read as follows:  
Questions and comments made by public speakers may be addressed by the City Council during Council Comments or by the Chief Executive Officer during the CEO’s Report.
 
 Well, how is that going to work, exactly, since a good number of the comments would be trailed to the end of the meeting - hours AFTER the council members and CEO have made their comments?

A LARGER PROBLEM
Also, there is a larger problem with items ON the agenda which speakers want to address.  The agenda instructions says the following:
If you wish to address the City Council on a matter listed on the agenda, please complete and submit a speaker card to the City Clerk. Speaker cards will be accepted until the agenda item is called.

STIFLING SPONTANEITY
Well, it is NOT unusual at all for speakers to hear comments of others, then decide they have something to add to the discussion - an amplification of a statement, a different perspective or a rebuttal. This policy will foreclose that opportunity, since speaker cards will NOT be accepted once an item has been called.  We've seen this happen at recent meetings and it's a travesty.  And, it's not clear how Righeimer plans to apply that rule to the Public Comments segment.  if he is consistent with the rule, then he could forbid someone from speaking at the "trailed" section of Public Comments who had not submitted a speaker card at the beginning of the meeting.  Again, I've known speakers to jump off their couches at home while watching the meeting and dash to council chambers to address an issue when the discussion was complicated and/or contentious.


A GOOD IDEA

As one might expect, opinions on both sides of this issue have come hot and heavy to the local media.  Resident Susan Shaw commented in the Daily Pilot on November 27th, HERE, that, if the mayor insists in implementing this new system, then the council should do the same.  Allow one council member to speak up front and trail the rest to the end.

LEECE HAS IT RIGHT

Councilwoman Wendy Leece published a commentary in the Daily Pilot Friday evening, HERE, that emphasized that by implementing this policy the mayor will be repressing free speech, and that the resident's views are every bit as important as those of developers sitting in the audience hoping to convince the council to approve their profit-making project.  Please read her commentary.

"HERE'S JIMMY!"
Predictably, Righeimer has also produced a commentary in the Daily Pilot today, too.  You can read it HERE.  He recognizes the firestorm he's ignited and is doing everything he can to douse the flames before Tuesday's meeting.  He talks about "balance" in the meetings, and the need to "do the city's business".  Well, Mr. Mayor - just what the heck to you consider the opinions of your electorate to be if not the city's business?  I guess he just doesn't like those developers sitting out there in the audience, looking at their watches and glaring at him while they wait in line for their agenda item to come up.

THE WORST "TIME THIEF"

He has complained in the past about the length of the time it takes for speakers to fully vent their views, yet he is, by far, the worst - to use Mayor Pro Tem Steve Mensinger's new favorite term - "Time Thief" on the dais.  Time after time he will rant and rave about this issue or that, sometimes going on for fifteen or twenty minutes at a pop.  At the last meeting he chewed up a huge chunk of time telling the audience that he was "shocked and appalled" at the lack of public outcry about the alleged planting of a tracking device on Mensinger's truck.  On and on he went - venting his spleen about something that could only be considered "city business" if you realize that those two men are actually suing our police men and women for imagined infractions and alleged stress.

AND, FROM BOREDOM CENTRAL...

And, of course, the most recent pandering mouthpiece for the current power elite in Costa Mesa, Dennis Popp - the author of the most boring and incomprehensible blog you can imagine - piped up to support Righeimer in his own commentary in the Daily Pilot, HERE.  He, that renowned Constitutional Scholar, opines that there is no abridgment of the 1st Amendment of the Constitution by the mayor's scheme to quash public comments.  Certainly, his years of nursing experience prepared him to deliver that lofty legal viewpoint.  Until he began his blog I didn't think it was possible to pile manure that high.

EVEN BEVER DECIDED AGAINST IT

I've watched a lot of council meetings over the past decade and a half.  I've seen councils come and go and I've seen attempts to juggle the agenda by more than one or two of them, including Gary Monahan.  Most recently Eric Bever considered proposing a similar scheme, but even he thought better of it later.

SHALL WE COUNT?
In my opinion, Righeimer is feeling a lot of heat due to the many, many missteps he and his pals have taken over the past nearly three years.  The opposition is more organized and more vocal now because his screw-ups have caused more people to begin paying attention.  And, there are simply more problems in our city today.
For starters:

• The advent of more drug and alcohol rehabilitation homes.
• The decline in staffing levels at the police department, already at critical levels and getting worse 
• AB 109 prisoner releases.
• Our inability to attract more police officers quickly enough to back fill existing and anticipated vacancies.
• The heavy-handed negotiating tactics presently going on with the so-called "miscellaneous employees" contract.
•  His ham-handed attempt to oust half those employees more than two years ago which resulted in a lawsuit that remains unresolved.
• The toxic workplace he has created, amplified by the "bunker mentality" - the "us against all of them" attitude -  on the fifth floor of City Hall.
• His stubborn unwillingness to consider paying down the Unfunded Pension Liability although he keeps bringing it up as the root of all evil in the city.
• The creation of superfluous and unnecessary committees, filled by cronies to perform useless tasks while sucking up valuable staff time and keeping the real work of the city from being done promptly. 
• The brewing scandal swirling around the 60th Anniversary Celebration finances.
• His willingness to expose the city to lawsuit after lawsuit, apparently considering litigation just another "cost of doing business".
• Controversies around the future of Fairview Park.
• His insistence on attempting to jam yet another charter scheme down the voters throats despite his personal charter being crushed at the ballot box just a year ago.  

THERE'S PLENTY TO DISCUSS

There are PLENTY of things the residents of this city may wish to discuss with the council in an open forum - not some "Meet the Mayor" coffee klatch in a neighborhood yard where maybe twenty friends assemble, blow him kisses and hear him pontificate.  By attempting to implement this scheme he clearly wants to mute the voices of discontent.  What he is doing, though, is bringing those people together - just as his many other gaffes have done - to speak with a unified voice against what Leece describes in her commentary as a violation of "a basic principle of human liberty: free speech."

AND NOW, A MESSAGE FROM YOUR MAYOR...

Consent Calendar Dollars And Laguna Beach Defense Bucks

FINAL 2007 MEETING
The Costa Mesa City Council will wrap up 2007 at their final meeting of the year on Tuesday, December 4th. Except for a study session scheduled for the 11th, they will not meet at an official scheduled meeting again until January 2, 2008. They will go out with a bang.

MORE SURPRISES IN STORE?
The agenda for Tuesday's meeting looks fairly routine, but with these folks you just never know. You will recall that our young jailer/mayor chose to spring his infamous plan to cross-designate all Costa Mesa police officers as immigration screeners two years ago at the final meeting of the year and ignited a firestorm that persists to this day.

THAT'S A LOT OF ASPHALT!
One thing I noticed on this agenda is the amount of money to be authorized in the Consent Calendar. The Consent Calendar is where "routine" items are placed and typically voted on in one big hunk, sometimes without any discussion at all. In addition to the usual warrants authorizing payroll and city operating expenses, this time there are eight items - numbers 7 through 14 - involving much needed street rehabilitation projects around our city. If you include item number 5, which will facilitate the completion of access roads and improvements to streets for the Home Ranch Project, and item number 6, a consulting contract to provide conceptual design and public outreach services for the proposed mulitpurpose trail at Paularino and Santa Ana Delhi Flood Control Channels, our city council may authorize the expenditure of nearly $12 million with a motion and vote that might take no more than 15 seconds! The breakdown is listed below:

Item 3 - Warrant Resolution 2189 - Payroll #723 $2,418,455.91
Payroll #722A $1,047.03
Operating Expenses $2,532.134.51
Total....$4,949,543.39

Item 4 - Warrant Resolution 2190 Operating Expenses $396,040.06

Sub-Total - Items 3 & 4....$5,345,583.45

Item 5 - Purchase of two parcels to facilitate completion $213,168.00
of improvements to Harbor Blvd. and 405
access to the Home Ranch project

Item 6 - Prof. Svcs. Contract - Multipurpose trail $92,277.00

Item 7 - Roadway Rehab. - East 19th St. $555,555.00
Santa Ana Ave. to Irvine Ave.

Item 8 - Roadway Rehab. - Baker St. $751,649.00
Fairview to Bear

Item 9 - Roadway Rehab. - Harbor Blvd. $1,430,213.98
Wilson St. to Newport Blvd.

Item 10 - Roadway Rehab. - Sunflower Ave. $1,092,387.38
Harbor Blvd. to Hyland

Item 11 - Roadway Rehab. - Hyland Ave. $859,000.00
So. Coast Dr. to MacArthur Blvd.

Item 12 - Roadway Rehab. - So. Coast Dr. $475,363.10
Harbor Blvd. - Hyland Ave.

Item 13 - Roadway Rehab. - So. Coast Dr. $842,030.00
Carmel Dr. to San Leandro Ln.

Item 14 - Parkway Concrete Repair and $374,800.00
New Sidewalk Project

Sub-Total - Items 5 - 14....$6,686,443.46

Grand Total, all items.....$12,032,026.91

Now, before you get all hot and bothered, all these items seem to be important projects and do need to be authorized, but it makes this taxpayer swallow hard when I realize that, in one quick wave of their magic wand, the City Council will agree to the expenditure of $12 million of our hard earned dollars. This is especially interesting when you consider this same group haggles over pennies during the budget discussions.

BREAKING NEWS! COST OF GARCIA'S FOLLY IN LAGUNA BEACH REPORTED!
The Orange County Register, in it's Immigration Blog, reports this morning that the City of Laguna Beach spent $75,000 defending itself in the lawsuit by Minutechick Eileen Garcia challenging their day laborer center. Combine that with the thousands of dollars being spent by the City of Costa Mesa in the Benito Acosta trials because of our young jailer/mayor's actions almost two years ago and it sure looks like those Minutemobsters really like to spend our hard-earned tax dollars on their flights of fancy. I find that amusingly curious since both Eileen of Laguna and our mayor claim to be conservatives. I guess they are good students of Minuteman Grand Pooba, Jim Gilchrist, who reportedly has had some difficulty managing money himself.

That should give you something to chew on this weekend as you stay all warm and cozy inside trying to figure out what that wet stuff is that's falling from the sky while watching the Trojans and Bruins battle for a potential Rose Bowl bid.