Monday, February 27, 2012

Jimmy Fitzy In A Frenzy

Costa Mesa Sanitary District Director Jim Fitzpatrick - who also holds a seat on the Costa Mesa Planning Commission - apparently is in a major panic about the possibility of losing his seat on the Sanitary District Board. Today he fired off an email blast to who-knows-how-many friends and acquaintances, begging for their intervention in this matter. He asked them to attend the meeting to speak in his support and to send notes of support to Sanitary District General Manager Scott Carroll.


His correspondence is a disjointed, inaccurate call for action and attempts to deflect the fact that two legal opinions have determined that there is "incompatibility" between the two seats he currently
holds by attempting to make it seem that the majority on the Sanitary District Board are trying to dump him because he disagrees with opinions about contracts.

He also misstates the situation that existed with Mayor Gary Monahan. He says in his frenetic rant th
at Monahan held a position on the City Council AND the Sanitary District Board simultaneously for four (4) years. That's not true. Monahan was termed out of his council seat, so ran for a seat on the Sanitary District Board and won. Two years later, once he was again eligible to run for City Council, he ran and won a seat and then held both seats simultaneously for two (2) years. However, it is completely irrelevant, since the legal opinions the Board has in front of them clearly spell out that different rules apply to council positions than planning commissions.

Fitzpatrick a
lso included an attachment to his email - a confusing array of slides that look like they might have been done in a junior high school class - that perpetuate the falsehoods of his correspondence and his attempts to deflect the issue from him to others. Among those images is a copy of comments made on the recent Daily Pilot article about this issue by fellow planning commissioner, Rob Dickson, who makes his living as a paralegal for a big local law firm. Now, Dickson is a nice guy and pretty smart, but he's NOT a lawyer, so his opinion should be taken in the proper context.

Clearly, Fitzpatrick is in a panic and is flailing around like a guy in quicksand. Sadly, the more he fla
ils, the deeper he sinks.

Today, after reading Fitzpatrick's diatribe, I did as he suggested to his friends. I wrote to Scott Carroll,, and suggested to him that the Sanitary District Board review all the facts and legal opinions available to them and any precedents that might apply as they deliberate on this issue in their Closed Session tomorrow. I suggested that, if they determine that Fitzpatrick holds two positions that are "incompatible", they should ask him to resign. If he refuses and chooses, instead, to force the Board to take legal action to remove him, then that decision is on HIM, not the Board. Based on the facts of the issue available to me, including a review of the report from the law firm they hired to analyze and report on this situation, it is clear that Fitzpatrick's positions are "incompatible", and he should step down from his Sanitary District Seat.

I don't plan to attend the Sanitary District Board meeting tomorrow. The confine
s are just too cozy for me and there's no telling how long they will be in Closed Session. However, once they finish that part of their agenda they will report out the result and move on to the remainder of their Open Session agenda, HERE. It might be fun to be a mouse in the corner in the Sanitary District Conference Room tomorrow, don't you think?

Labels: , ,


Anonymous Sell-Out City said...

Maybe "Will the Shill" Swaim can do a fundraising thing and save his fellow boot-licker.

2/27/2012 01:55:00 PM  
Anonymous checkyoursix said...

You mention Rob Dickson's law firm by name. You also mention two legal opinions against Fitz'y position , yet you do not mention the name of these law firms or quote their opinions. I am hoping for a more complete reporting of this from you. The names of the law firms (I would think one of them is the San District lawyer), their stated opinions (do they say "may be a conflict" or "appear to be" or do they state it IS a conflict?), what cases do they cite concerning planning commissioners and San District incompatibility, what other rulings have been made by the AG concerning these two positions? This would help us all out if you have such information. Thanks.

2/27/2012 02:25:00 PM  
Blogger The Pot Stirrer said...

The most recent opinion provided to the district was from Meyers Nave, a law firm in Los Angeles. Their opinion was QUITE specific and included chapter and verse of the appropriate laws, including references to section 1099(a)(2) of the Government Code and section 6480(b) of the Health and Safety Code. I have no idea how many other opinions the AG has made in situations like this. Thanks for asking.

2/27/2012 02:37:00 PM  
Anonymous Terry Koken said...

How'd you come by the email? and is it private, or can we all see it? and, if so, where?

2/27/2012 02:40:00 PM  
Anonymous checkyoursix said...

Thanks Stirrer. I just went back and read minutes from San District. It sounds as if Mayers Nave gave a "free" opinion at a conference, probably in a break out module, where a Director raised his hand and asked a question and got a response. I don't see where they actually hired them yet for an opinion other than this quick Q&A. It's not a shocker that Mayers Nave said there may be a problem, hire us and find out. If they say it is, it is still a little early to call on Fitz to resign or take all the blame for legal fees. That's sort of like saying the CM unions cause all the legal fees in the City for not letting outsourcing just happen without a fight and court opinion. Hopefully Mayers Nave can give the Board case law examples before they move forward and spend a lot more monies on a gamble, which one judges opinion is. This looks like a 50/50 proposition for both sides from what I have read so far. No need to rush to resign, let it ride through the courts and get a final absolute opinion for all the money, ratepayer money, that Board is willing to spend. A resignation will never get that question answered. Better yet, drop it and let someone else bring this forward on their own dime, not ours. I would think Robin may agree with me on some points here?

2/27/2012 03:16:00 PM  
Blogger The Pot Stirrer said...

Terry (and Checkyoursix),
I've seen the correspondence between Meyers Nave and the San. District. Can't share it, but all the chapter and verse that 6 is looking for is there. It's my impression that the District hired the law firm specifically for that analysis. Perhaps, if you attend the meeting tomorrow, more information will become public.

2/27/2012 03:44:00 PM  
Anonymous justme said...


The District did hire the firm and received an opinion their is a conflict.

Terry Koken - I just sent the email to Debbie

2/27/2012 03:49:00 PM  
Anonymous clarificationplease? said...

unfortunate you cannot share your inside info, I find this whole issue very interesting and cannot attend tomorrow's San meeting.
Jumping ahead, I know there is some kind of process spelled out as to what office is abandoned by taking another office. Hope you know what I mean. So, when Fitz was sworn in as San Director did he forfeit planning or did the opposite happen? I think when Jim Fisher resigned planning to go to Water(and get away from Mensinger and Righeimer, and McCarthy I suspect), Fitz took his place, way before the election. What office is deemed "given up" in Fitz's case?

2/27/2012 04:08:00 PM  
Anonymous Good ole Aunt Bertha said...

Very interesting discussion going on here....

First, Fitzy my dear, why don't you man up and just tell everyone that YOU are the author of all these posts instead of hiding behind all these silly names?

Second, you can also explain to us why YOU weren't present during any of these ethics training classes? Perhaps this is the main reason you are having such problems.

It seems to me that you are proving that you are NOT a very ethical person. You have engaged in trying to smear a mans good name and character. I for one, will not hesitate to tell every single person I know that you are scum of the earth.

Good day sir!

2/27/2012 04:34:00 PM  
Blogger The Pot Stirrer said...

It is my understanding that, because Fitzy was sworn in as a Planning Commissioner subsequent to being seated as a Sanitary District Director, he must give up the first seat - the San. Dist. seat. And, since this was a subject of discussion prior to the election, he certainly cannot say he didn't know about the potential jeopardy his position was in.

2/27/2012 04:49:00 PM  
Anonymous Inquiring Mind said...


Can you please explain how you received a confidential legal document not released by the Board?

2/27/2012 04:51:00 PM  
Blogger The Pot Stirrer said...

Yes, I can...

2/27/2012 04:53:00 PM  
Anonymous Hardship? said...

Does Fitzpatrick have regular business or employment income outside these boards??

Why the BFD and panic?
Just drop one and move on.

2/27/2012 05:12:00 PM  
Blogger Gericault said...

The Pot Stirrer said...
Yes, I can...


2/27/2012 06:08:00 PM  
Anonymous Leaked @ The Peak said...

There's legal documents that get leaked all the time, and why not. It's good that some of sneaky stuff that happens behind closed doors gets exposed.
Make up your inflated mind Fitzy, and if your so worried about the taxpayer why would you want to waste any money fighting this battle that you created?

2/27/2012 07:49:00 PM  
Anonymous Can't wait said...

Guess what? I just heard that FITZY is the one who leaked the confidential memo from the attorney!

And, not that this is such a big surprise...FITZY is also the one who contacted the reporters to leak Art's quote.

Unbelievable!! Awesome job orchestrating your own dimise.....I can't wait!!!

2/27/2012 08:57:00 PM  
Anonymous Instant Karma said...

When the Riggclones and their shills release legal stuff (like deposition transcripts) they deem helpful to their takeover, they celebrate their own "cleverness."

They forget it works both ways.

2/27/2012 09:06:00 PM  
Anonymous Themosticles said...

Once again, Costa Mesa Republicans just do not think the rules apply to them.

2/27/2012 09:26:00 PM  
Anonymous Sherry said...

Jim is saying the board wants to oust him because he is fighting to have the trash contract go out to bid. Makes no sense, he is one vote. The trash collection issue is complicated one. Trash contracts with all local government are long term. They have to be due to the expense involved in buying the trucks and facilities needed to recycle the garbage. Costa Mesa’s hauler uses a single stream collection process, meaning all trash goes into one container and is separated by recyclables by trash company employees at their facility. This single stream collection method requires only one truck per collection route rather than three trucks per collection route if residents have three containers and separate the trash themselves. Three trucks per collection route increases air pollution and causes wear and tear on our streets. If the contract goes out to bid and the costs are lower it will likely be to a 3 container, 3 truck hauler.

2/28/2012 07:34:00 AM  
Anonymous Fitzy needs a Job said...

Just because you have low friends in what you think are high places doesn't mean you can do what you want.

If Fitzy is really worried about giving up his $5.00 or whatever it is for serving on the Sanitary Board, I'll take up a collection so he can pay his bills.

2/28/2012 08:24:00 AM  
Anonymous robotbreach said...

wonder what a surprise resignation from Planning by Fitzy would do? If the conflict is removed, would the Board still move forward? No if this is about conflict. Yes if it is personal and/or about Arlene. Fitz, drive them crazy and resign from planning this morning. And thanks Shirley for a copies of those two emails. (love your user name, very funny!) Very good stuff for a mailing at election time.

2/28/2012 08:39:00 AM  
Anonymous robotleech said...

Riggy say march, we march.
Riggy say kneel, we kneel.

2/28/2012 09:30:00 AM  
Anonymous Tom Egan said...

Themosticles said... “Once again, Costa Mesa Republicans just do not think the rules apply to them.”

An interesting conjunction with an article this morn in the LA Times headlined, “The rich may be likelier to cheat.” It reports (,0,5965885.story) recent research on cheating.

After describing the study methodology, the story describes the conclusions: “Because rich people have more financial resources, they're less dependent on social bonds for survival, ... As a result, their self-interest reigns and they have fewer qualms about breaking the rules.

"’If you occupy a more insular world, you're less likely to be sensitive to the needs of others,’ ”

We report, you decide.

2/28/2012 12:02:00 PM  
Anonymous Confused said...

The trouble with Haters is that they let emotions run their logic.

So, does Fitzy need a job or is he rich?

2/28/2012 02:31:00 PM  
Anonymous too fast too funny said...

Too fast. He seriously asked that? To use Fitzpatrick's own words "not fast enough"
I almost feel bad for the guy.

2/29/2012 07:54:00 AM  

Post a Comment

<< Home