Wednesday, March 28, 2012

It's "Simmer Time" Again

Well, folks, once again I'm turning the old cauldron down to simmer. That means that, for the next few days, comments won't get posted as quickly and it's unlikely that new posts will be made for a little while.

It's time for me to whisk my sweet and patient wife of more th
an 44 years off to an exotic venue to celebrate her steady march into geezerdom with me. I will be checking in from time to time and friends will be tending to the pack of pit bulls that guard our hacienda, so all is well.


Quite frankly, after the events of the past couple weeks - culminating with the administrative leave of City Clerk Julie Folcik and the chaos it has caused at City Hall - I need some decompression time. If you've been reading the comment threads here and elsewhere you know that there are some very vicious people out there with you - gutless cowards who post things anonymously here and elsewhere that they would never say to you in person. If you think all the comments you've seen here are bad, you should see the ones I didn't post! Yep, this event has energized the scum of the earth - a very sad commentary on our local society.

To those wonderful folks who work in City Hall, I feel your pain and hope you'll find a way now to just keep on working even though some of you will be looking over your shoulder all the time, wondering if you're next. Hang in, there....

Today, as I scurr
ied around completing errands, I found myself wondering just what school of management the city council subscribes to... my best guess is the Attila the Hun program, because that's what it looks like from my vantage point. Former Interim Police Chief Steve Staveley had it right when he left abruptly last year. In the letter he left in his wake he described members of our city council thus: "They are in my opinion incompetent, unskilled and unethical." Yep, he nailed it.


So, to Jim Righeimer, Steve Mensinger, Eric Bever and Gary Monahan, I sa
y this. Through your ham-handed, thoughtless, irrational and completely incompetent attempts to place your collective jackboot imprint on this city you have managed - in a short 15 months - to destroy it. You've fabricated crises to bolster your political agenda, failed to follow the rules designed to protect the employees, tried to take over this city using a bogus charter and have failed miserably at every turn. You disrespected the memory of Huy Pham and unleashed special investigators to defame him and take the heat from his death off of yourselves. You tried to quash the memorial service and tree-planting a couple weeks ago because it made you uncomfortable. Shame on you all.

You've taken
a meat ax to the staffing of public safety organizations, then tried to blame problems on them. The only thing you've accomplished is to make this city less safe, turned employee against employee and exacerbated a precarious fiscal condition by creating litigious situations that required spending money on lawyers like drunken sailors. You, in a fit of pique, refused to fund the Self Insurance Fund - the pot of cash that pays for litigation. I wonder how Jones Day is going to feel when their bills begin to bounce? And the Julie Folcik situation proves that you're more than willing to find a scapegoat whenever you think the need requires it. Every other city employee has learned a very valuable lesson from this one.


The people of this city are on to you, though. You knew they would be soon enou
gh, which is why you have placed every effort on fast-forward, trying to implement your insidious schemes before anyone caught on. Well, you've failed. In Righeimer's case, that would be "failed again". Enjoy the next few months, because I guarantee you that the voters in this city will, indeed, Remember in November.

Labels: , , , , , ,


Anonymous CM mama said...

Thank you Geoff for all of your attention to this mess and for keeping us informed. Enjoy time with your beautiful wife. Enjoy life!

3/28/2012 09:19:00 PM  
Anonymous Bubbles said...

Cheers to you and your better half! I don't post often, but I am a follower, and big fan, of your blog. Thank you for sharing your news and balanced views of the events in our city. I will look forward to more when you return. Have a wonderful time!

3/28/2012 10:23:00 PM  
Anonymous Robin said...

Happy Happy birthday Susie, you've been the wind beneath Geoff's wings all these years,and in the last year and a half surely put in overtime keeping him centered and healthy. I hope you guys have the time of your lives!

3/29/2012 01:14:00 AM  
Anonymous Robin said...

I hope someone lets Julie know all the good comments about her on the threads here. I wish she could be shielded from the hateful ones.

I still find it completely dissonant that on Monday Jones/Day argued it was simple human error, an inadvertent mistake, and should not keep the City’s charter proposal off the ballot even though a deadline was missed. Then Tuesday the Jones/Day’s attorney argued Ms Folcik acted with “Negligence” and ‘Failed miserably”. He piled it on, and made comments very similar to the City Manager’s Wednesday “quote” that it was “significant professional failure on the part of Julie Folcik.”

Julie Folcik was Jones/Day’s client. It seems very strange to me, one day defending her, the next day attacking her. Why would an attorney turn on their client like that? I was there watching but found it hard to believe an attorney was even allowed to do that to their own client. Are they?

The Court ruled on a narrow point of law. Perhaps the City’s investigation will look more on the human side and weigh one mistake, if it is found to be hers alone and not from some direction she got elsewhere, against an exemplary work history. Perhaps the investigation will indicate there is shared responsibility, or supervision would have been appropriate. Had Julie ever filed a charter proposal before?

Even for someone intelligent and experienced, there is always a learning curve on unfamiliar assignments. The clerk’s office with Julie at the helm has done more, with less help, under incredible pressure for many months. She is probably harder on herself than anyone else could be. Last week staff, councilmembers, and members of the public went out of their way to be supportive. Jim Righeimer was seen giving her a big hug. Why throw her under the bus now?

Besides being one of the sweetest people on the planet, she is incredibly efficient and professional, a hard worker, loyal, always positive, gracious and polite. If she ends up losing her job, (or quitting) good luck Costa Mesa on finding anyone nearly as competent and service oriented as Julie is.

3/29/2012 01:46:00 AM  
Blogger Joe said...

Have the best time!
Thanks again for all you've done for us.

3/29/2012 04:09:00 AM  
Anonymous CM mama said...

Thank you Geoff for all of your attention to this mess and for keeping us informed. Enjoy time with your beautiful wife. Enjoy life!

3/29/2012 08:02:00 AM  
Anonymous Leece at it, again said...

Here is our Council Member in the press today. You know the Council Member, the one who “listens” to everyone. Yes, Weathervane Wendy.

“It’s scapegoating, its deflecting, its distracting. It’s really casting dispersions on a great city clerk who has performed excellently,” said Leece. “We all make mistakes, but for the grace of God go on.”

Ummm, 4-1 Leece, it is casting aspersions, defined as “An attack on the reputation or integrity of someone or something”. But that has never stopped the fearless leader of the lunatic fringe.

Dispersions is defined as “The action or process of distributing things or people over a wide area.”

“But for the grace of God go on”? Ummm, wrong again. But let this be proof that Wendy beats to a different drum. I expected more from a bible thumper, God fearing woman, who tried to ban books from our schools. But that is just me. I am not a supporter, nor member of the lunatic fringe. Tinfoil on my head is not my thing … but, you go girl.

3/29/2012 09:53:00 AM  
Anonymous Eleanor said...

Have a great time off, Geoff. You have more than earned it.

See you at Ralph's!

3/29/2012 12:14:00 PM  
Anonymous Legal referral fees, said...

Have a good time.

One question, When a lawyer refers a clent to another lawyer a referal fee is paid , sometimes a % of billing. Did the relative of riggy refer jones day and the rest to the city. What is the potenial for non disclosure there.
Sure seems they are so happy to run up that bill

3/29/2012 12:34:00 PM  
Anonymous Bethany said...

I love this fantasy business world Mensinger and Righeimer have in their heads. Sadly I guess bankrupting companies isn't enough. By the real real world standards and by any business standard Mr. Hatch and Mr. Duarte would be losing their jobs over this.

3/29/2012 02:14:00 PM  
Anonymous spygate1 said...

Enjoy Geoff!! Don't stay away too long, or you either Katrina. You won't believe what is will be your most commented on newsbreak you ever had if you are here to break it.

3/29/2012 06:41:00 PM  
Anonymous Not too sure about that said...

Costa Mesa passed ridiculousness long ago.

"Frank Albers Mr. Moon I can't speak for him as I wasn't there and you weren't as well but I can say for sure that Mr. Hatch appreciates all of the employees and has as much compassion as anyone I know."

I would hope what Mr. Albers says is true. Unfortunately and sadly I feel the actions of the city's CEO say, With friends like Mr. Hatch the city employees apparently do not need enemies. Actions speak louder than words.

3/29/2012 09:25:00 PM  
Blogger kwahlf said...

Happy Birthday to Susie!
I hope you have a great vacation, Geoff.
Thank you for all you do to keep us informed.
Don't stay away too long please.
We need you!

3/30/2012 12:21:00 AM  
Anonymous Darrow C. said...

The next investigation should be by the State Attorney General of Mr. Duarte. You want to talk about gross incompetence. His advice to the city should be the dictionary example of gross incompetence. Not knowing or simply lying saying the city can outsource all those services to private groups which now has the city paying huge attorney fees is much more catastrophic to the citizens of Costa Mesa than the clerks mistake. Of course that's not all. He looks like he didn't read the MOU's or again is just lying to the city when saying they were following the process correctly when we know they weren't when outsourcing to public entities they needed to include employee group representatives. That hugely incorrect advice by the high paid City Attorney caused the city more embarrassment. If Julie Folcik loses her job there needs to be an investigation into the City Attorney and maybe even this City Council because they all should have known and maybe they all did know and just have no respect for following the law or contracts.

3/30/2012 07:37:00 AM  
Anonymous Tom Egan said...

The DP today reveals Folcik well knew the deadline, further evidence that she was pressured to fudge. I repeat my comment from Wed. post City Clerk Placed On Administrative Leave!

Could it be that Ms. Folcik was simply doing as she was told by micromanager Jim Righeimer? The last 15 months have demonstrated that Righeimer has definite ideas about how things should be run and that he wants things done HIS way (or the highway)! Typical for a WDD (Wheeler Dealer Developer).

I can easily imagine that he wanted to game the system by peeking at the “Against” arguments after they were submitted to the City Clerk so he could tweak his “For” arguments. Being a WDD, he would be savvy enough to know there would be no time pressure on him because City Clerks are allowed to submit ballot arguments (but not resolutions) to the ROV on the next business day.

What might have tripped up Mr. Too-clever-by-half Righeimer – remember he’s a WDD – is that in his zeal to stick it to the people against his charter, he might have overlooked one tiny little detail: THE RESOLUTION BY THE CITY HAD TO BE TO THE ROV BY THE DEADLINE, 5 PM FRIDAY.

It’s obvious why the deadline is, well, a line beyond which you are dead: California statute decides when resolutions shall be submitted. The ROV has no latitude. Further, city resolutions are typically adopted days and even months before the submittal deadline, so why wait for the last minute? For example, the tiny city of Auburn (east of Sacramento) adopted its charter resolution last September for this same June 2012 election.

It’s the arguments, NOT the resolution, that are allowed to be filed the next business day.

But would Righeimer be so headstrong that he would run right over professional city clerk Julie Folcik?

Remember the previous city attorney Kimberly Hall Barlow? The Pot Stirrer’s first reaction to the news of her departure was, “Uh-Oh! I wonder what she knows that we don't that would cause her to bail out just as a new municipal administration is getting started?” (

Subsequent events suggest that Barlow left because she wouldn’t approve of the demand by Righeimer (supported by Monahan and Bever) to issue layoff notices RIGHT NOW! instead of waiting until studies had been done to see which, if any, layoffs were prudent. She, being an experienced city attorney (and smart: she graduated third in her law school class at UCLA) would have researched the employee agreements and found TROUBLE with Righeimer’s Fire, Aim, Ready approach. I can imagine their final confrontation with Righeimer confidently saying: “It’s my way or the highway.”

Exit Barlow. Enter Tom Duarte. I don’t remember hearing him disagreeing with anything except when he told Monahan to let Terry Koken continue his rhyming comments during public comments last July 19.

While we’re at it, remember how the professional opinions of interim Police Chief Steve Stavely and consultants were summarily ignored by Righeimer/Monahan/Bever? Stavely was so incensed at the airy dismissal of his professional recommendations that he quit immediately, blasting the council as “incompetent, unskilled and unethical.”

Was he naïve? A guy who had been a police chief for over 29 years with three cities? Hardly. Then why? He explained, "I've been doing this for a very long time and I can read a budget. I am unable to sit there and accept checks for looking pretty. I can't do it. If we can't move the organization forward, that's the way it is."

With this history, the odds are that WDD Righeimer shot himself in the foot trying to game this deadline. Folcik is just the scapegoat so he can maybe keep his increasingly leaky political boat afloat.

It’s a reasonable guess that Folcik is up there with Barlow and Stavely in the pantheon of talented professionals who have been trashed by Righeimer/Monahan/Bever.

3/30/2012 03:21:00 PM  
Anonymous Tamar said...

Darrow C., Costa Mesa certainly could use your help.

You obviously know more about law and city government than I do. If you have—or anyone else has-- additional information that would help return Costa Mesa to responsible governance, I’m sure the organization Costa Mesans for Responsible Government ( would be happy to hear from you.

3/30/2012 03:50:00 PM  
Anonymous I'm shocked! Shocked! said...

You wrote: " have managed - in a short 15 months - to destroy it." On behalf of all of the dedicated city workers who are still cleaning our streets, fighting crime and fires and doing all of the other daily things that make this city run, I resent and reject this statement. Costa Mesa is not destroyed - it is still the great city it was and you owe these people an apology for using them to further your own agenda. You claim to support them but your true colors have been revealed. They are merely a wedge for you to use as you need. Shame on you for this reckless statement.

3/31/2012 02:03:00 PM  
Blogger The Pot Stirrer said...

You can resent all you want. That comment was directed at the majority on the council, not the city employees. I know THEY are still trying to hold it together, despite all this council does to tear the city apart.

3/31/2012 04:22:00 PM  
Anonymous Real reporters needed said...

Geoff when you get back from your hiatus would you ask the people you know at the Daily Pilot why the original story has been changed/edited? Even worse and irresponsible the Pilot doesn't mention it's updated or has been added to and subtracted from? What kind of journalistic integrity does the Pilot have...ZERO?

I was on a business trip and I read this story when it first came out and was not only angered at the city for what they are doing but for the reporting on this. Joe Serna has to be the worst reporter EVER. This guy can't spell, write, report and worse yet investigate anything.

While there is nothing any of us can do about that, I would still like to know why this story has been changed and the Pilot does not alert it's readers to this. I will post a continued post on many questions I have based on the original written piece that has been suspiciously changed and not labeled as such.

3/31/2012 04:52:00 PM  
Blogger Joe said...

"I'm shocked...(GW)owes these people (city workers) an apology for using them to further your own agenda."

I'm a lot smarter than you troll,
and the only agenda I can see Mr. West having is spotting, then disseminating, the truth. Your dumb 6th grade "reverse psychology" ploy is riggdiculous. Each day more and more Costa Mesans see who the real thugs are in this town.

Clue: They're not members of employee unions or associations.

3/31/2012 05:43:00 PM  
Anonymous Reporters needed said...

The first read of this article regarding the email exchanges was Thursday afternoon or early Friday. I was so focused on my business trip that I can't remember when I actually read this and could only quickly jot down some issues that jumped out that I wanted to respond to after my trip. Keep in mind the Pilot has now changed the original writing and I will point these out also. There are some other things I didn't jot down that also appear to be changed. The Pilot does not alert any of the readers this story has been changed, edited and added to.

Here is what jumped out in the original version.

The Pilot wrote emails were sent from MS Cotton Nov, Dec, I believe maybe Feb and then March 8th to MS Folcik and that MS Folcik responded to MS Cotton's March 8th email the day of the deadline. Yet the Pilot instead of posting that email response they posted MS Folcik's Feb. 27th response. This is completely ridiculous and deceptive. Wouldn't the March 9th reply to the March 8th email be the reply of the most importance. Now of course the Pilot has suspiciously added the March 9th response.

Here is probably why. The Feb 27 email repsonse clearly says according to the DP. MS Folcik says she will have the papers submitted by March 9. The March 9 email reply according to the NEW changed DP article they don't give a date or claim of submittal it only says thank you for the inoformation. Below is the direct quote from the DP regarding the March 9th email suspiciously not used in the original article... "Folcik replied to Cotton's email the day of the deadline, essentially thanking Cotton for the information."

Keep in mind folks the reply email on the deadline day was never quoted or commented to what it said in the original written article only that there was a reply made that day.

This jumped out at me so much that in my notes I wrote this comment..."That is BS to not provide the most recent response. What was in that email. Someone get that before it's destroyed."

This is DP type reporting. Rank Amateuristic folks.

But I am not done yet.

3/31/2012 05:49:00 PM  
Anonymous Reporters Needed said...

MS Cotton according to original DP article and not this changed version stated in her email of March 8th reminding MS Folcik the deadline was March 9th and can't wait till Monday.

This seemd peculiar. Why would MS Cotton on Thursday March 8th say March 9th is the deadline and not tomorrow is your deadline or tomorrow March 9th is your deadline. I don't know about most of you but when I refer to tomorrow it's not usualy by date. But what makes it even more amazing is that MS Cotton then refers to March 12 as Monday. It can't wait till Monday she says.

I don't know what this means or what it shows but there is no consistency at all. Personally I would think people would have used the more urgent TOMORROW for the next day instead of March 9th and instead of just saying it can't wait till Monday that is where I probably would have stated it can't wait till Monday March 12th.

This is not an accusation of anykind against the Registrar or MS Cotton. Just pointing out some peculiar events and comments.

oh but there is more...

3/31/2012 06:03:00 PM  
Anonymous Reporters needed badly said...

now the original article, not the new suspiciously changed version, stated that the next day after the deadline Mr. Kelley emailed MS Folcik to call him. I do not believe the article said Saturday. It said to my recollection the next day. It did however claim MS Folcik then emailed everything over on Saturday afternoon then submitted copies Monday March 12th but it was too late.

So again the DP has now changed some of the information. OK maybe they relized how pathetic the first written piece was or maybe something else is at work here. But what I find really interesting is why would Neal Kelley email MS. Folcik to call him on Saturday after the deadline when he knows he can't accept the filings after the deadline and he actually rejects them on Monday.

All pretty interesting but the saddest thing is a decent, honest and dedicated employee is most likely going to lose her job.

3/31/2012 06:13:00 PM  
Anonymous Reporters needed really badly said...

I am preparing for my next week business trip so this is all I can write this weekend.

But I wanted to make this comment too.

How can the attorneys argue this was a minor clerical error. Raise all these defenses about postponed dates for arguments caused a great deal of confusion and more and now the city, who had their lawyers argue on her behalf, and CEO Hatch say it was "significant professional failure" Did the city lawyers lie in court?

There is significant professional failure in our city right now alright but it's not on the clerk's part.

I will try to follow this while on the road next week. knolit utyNum

3/31/2012 06:23:00 PM  
Anonymous Holmes said...

reporters needed you were right. The Original Story: Even the headline has been changed.

Suspended city clerk told of deadlines in emails

Mar 30, 2012 (Daily Pilot - McClatchy-Tribune Information Services via COMTEX) -- Costa Mesa City Clerk Julie Folcik was repeatedly reminded of county election officials' March 9 deadline to get a proposed city charter on the June ballot, emails show.

Folcik missed the deadline and a judge this week declined the city's request to put the measure on the June ballot. She has since been suspended from work.

Employees with the Orange County Registrar of Voters told Folcik about the deadline in emails dated Nov. 9, Dec. 5 and March 8, the day before the documents were due, according to email records obtained through a California Public Records Act request filed by the Daily Pilot.

"Be sure to get the [resolution] to us by Friday to put the measure on the ballot," Kay Cotton, manager for voter services wrote the morning before the deadline in an email to Folcik. "That can't wait until Monday by statute." Folcik replied to Cotton's email the day of the deadline, and in an email on Feb. 27 said, "I will have the documents to you by March 9, 2012." When the registrar's office closed that evening, Costa Mesa hadn't submitted anything.

The next day, Registrar Neal Kelley emailed Folcik asking her to call him. Folcik emailed everything over that afternoon and submitted copies in person Monday, March 12. But it was too late.

The exchanges could cast doubt on the claim that Folcik was merely mixed up about the deadline, an argument she made in court filings last week when she asked a judge to allow Costa Mesa's initiative on the ballot.

Folcik was told several times that the registrar needed all the necessary documents to put a city charter initiative on the June primary ballot by 5 p.m. March 9, a deadline that she missed by one business day.

The city manager called Folcik's error a "significant professional failure" and suspended her earlier this week pending an investigation.

Orange County Superior Court Judge Franz Miller ruled this week that the city won't get an exception because it didn't show how delaying the charter proposal until November would irreparably harm Costa Mesans.

Delaying the vote actually gives residents more time to understand what they're voting on and actually saves the city money, proponents of the delay argue. Twitter: @JosephSerna ___ (c)2012 the Daily Pilot (Costa Mesa, Calif.) Visit the Daily Pilot (Costa Mesa, Calif.) at Distributed by MCT Information Services

3/31/2012 07:28:00 PM  
Blogger The Pot Stirrer said...

Just curious... what time did you read "Real reporters needed"s first comment here?

3/31/2012 09:41:00 PM  
Anonymous Holmes said...

Geoff, reporters needed is my wife. She is very concerned about Julie Folcik's job. She has been following the happenings in Costa Mesa as much as she can but she doesn't usually respond.

She came home this weekend and became upset while reading online.

I have written here before and told her she should put her thoughts here. She was very hesitant because she was recalling things from some scribbled notes made while away. But she was sure the Daily Pilot had changed the story because of her notes compared to what she read today.

Being the good husband I am (ha ha) I had her write her thoughts to the cauldron and when she was finished I went searching for the original story. It took me all but 10 minutes to track down the Daily Pilot's original version. I reread both several times and found the differences to be worth posting the original again.
So I copied and pasted it to your blog.

I didn't plagiarize or change anything and left all the credits in tack. I believe everything was perfectly legal with the cut and paste.

4/01/2012 12:26:00 AM  
Blogger The Pot Stirrer said...

Thanks... It's an important issue and I understand why your wife was ticked-off. My concern was how you read it BEFORE I posted it! Thanks for clearing that up. Nice to have a family posting here. ;-)

I fear this issue is far, far from over. Perhaps the biggest point for me is how two lawyers - Duarte and Grabowski - threw Julie Folcik under the bus while theoretically performing as HER attornies. There is AT LEAST an ethical issue there - and maybe a legal one, as well. Smarter folks than I am are researching that right now.

4/01/2012 12:45:00 AM  
Anonymous Can do no wrong said...

Pot Belly, you mean Folcik, the one who is compensated at over $150,000 a year? That one? The one that had been advised of the due date, then confirmed the due date?

Unless an email surfaces the she was told not to send the info, can you say fired?

4/01/2012 10:02:00 AM  
Blogger The Pot Stirrer said...

Yep, that's the one. She's the one who has had to deal with this band of buffoons for more than 15 months, trying to keep track of their capricious whims, almost incomprehensible mutterings, mixed messages and petulant diatribes. Yep, that's the person.

Here's a question for you, specifically... if YOUR lawyer decided YOU were expendable how would YOU feel? Not very good, I imagine. We KNOW that Duarte was there the afternoon of March 9th, hovering around the City Clerk's office right up to the close of business. Was he there to oversee the process or to hamper it?

4/01/2012 10:46:00 AM  
Anonymous Central Valley Farm Animals said...

"you mean Folcik, the one who is compensated at over $150,000 a year"

What's up Stevie- the crumbs OCGOP send you aren't quite enough? How's the "consulting" business?

Folcik's salary is 122K; the benefits ARGUABLY approach 150. So what?

Come on back up here and work the fields. You can't handle Costa Mesa.

4/01/2012 10:54:00 AM  
Blogger Bruce Krochman said...

Dear Reporters Needed,

I deal with election deadlines all the time and I will always use the date of a deadline as I can not assume when the email will be opened. I would not want to risk someone opening an email the following morning to read "tomorrow" is the deadline when in fact it is that day.

To your larger point, I too read the first version of the article and would appreciate the DP notifying readers that it has updated/edited/fixed/whatever a story that was posted online earlier. Even in the print edition.

4/01/2012 11:06:00 AM  
Anonymous Bad Journalism said...

BK I agree with your point. Can I point out that in the Serna written article pasted above which is being stated was the original version does not do what you are saying. If you read it it seems to be saying that on Thursday the registrar says have it to us by Friday. There is no date mentioned. I agree with you dates should always be given to avoid any discrepancies. Just saying by Friday, which Friday? Tomorrow or next Friday. Especially if they didn't open the email until like you said the next day.

But to me the main point appeared to be if you read that above version it clearly says the registrar sent an email on March 8 and Folcik replied. But oddly the reporter used a February reply and not the much more pertinent reply of March 9.

From what we have seen in court and other sources timelines for some aspects were changing. One would need to ask the question did anything change or happen after the Clerk' s quoted February reply to extend portions of the deadline.

If the answer is yes then I can see the confusion on the deadlines even though in February it was understood the deadline was March 9.

I agree the Daily Pilot needs to set the record straight and explain why they used the February response and not the March 9 response until they reedited the entire story.

This is pure horrible journalism.The integrity of this newspaper is questionable.

4/01/2012 01:16:00 PM  
Anonymous So this is how a business is run! said...

What is sad is the 2 version of this story by the Daily Pilot were meant to cast doubt on the credibility of the clerk. What the Daily Pilot tried to do was make everyone think on March 9 the clerk knew of the deadline and responded as such but their proof was an email from February 23 or 27.

The Daily Pilot failed and exposed their credibility and that of the City Legal team and the City itself.

The high powered legal team argued in court there was confusion and deadlines changed and it was good faith. Does anyone here believe the attorneys didn't have the same emails the Pilot now tries to use against the clerk making her look like there was no doubt. If the attorneys didn't have these emails then shame on them for incompetence and if they did have these emails and they indeed show the clerk knew then shame on them for lying in court.

Then we have the city CEO's gutless response. What did he call it Significant Professional Failure.

Argue in court it's a good faith clerical misunderstanding until you lose. Then it becomes Significant Professional Failure.

Why is the city's attorney who was should have been managing this closely not responsible and being fired also?

4/01/2012 01:44:00 PM  
Blogger Angry White Man said...

The corrupt Riggfailure regime intentionally had the clerk miss the deadline so they can fire her with cause. That way they can hand pick yet another YES man (or woman)for the clerk position to continue their campaign of harassment on the employees and continue their reign of incompetence on our community

4/01/2012 02:00:00 PM  
Anonymous Tom Egan said...

If they fire Julie Folcik and stay true to form, they'll outsource the job to a consultant or possibly a temp agency. Whatever it is, it won't be another public employee, because their gig is to reduce the number of public employees, the national GOP goal.

Hatch or Francis could sign off on the temp clerk's work to make it legal, so they could keep this up for a long time.

This is reminiscent of how Secty of Defense Donald Rumsfeld was able to boast of being able to fight two wars with a smaller military ... he hired contractors for many jobs that soldiers used to do.

I haven't seen any proof that this saved America any money. In fact, it makes sense that Rumsfeld would have had to pay contractors more money than American enlistees, at least for the dangerous jobs. What I have seen is proof that stretching his military so thin over two wars and ten years has created a lot of burned out and ruined veterans.

Might this happen to Costa Mesa's public employees after thinning the ranks and giving plush jobs to contractors? Will loyal employees get burned out while temps with no ties to the city waltz home with fat paychecks and unfurrowed brows?

4/01/2012 05:38:00 PM  
Anonymous Face Facts said...

Hey, ALL of you (including Geoff) need to face a very simple fact:

Julie said she would have the documents to the ROV by March 9th. She didn't deliver.

How can anyone possibly blame anybody other than Julie?????

All of your doubletalk is nothing more than nonsense.

4/01/2012 05:49:00 PM  
Anonymous ByeBye said...

The Righeimer thugs are being defeated on all fronts. Even Uncle Dana can't save them.
With the great court victory, Foley redeemed her mistake in letting Mensinger get a council seat.
The tide is turning.

4/01/2012 06:08:00 PM  
Anonymous Face This said...

There's much more to the story that's not out yet. The RigThugs want to sacrifice Folcik but the citizens are wise to their tricks.
Maybe Colon get another 6 people to help him give out flyers.

4/01/2012 08:05:00 PM  

Post a Comment

<< Home