Friday, December 21, 2012

Fitzpatrick Lawsuit To Proceed

As reported by Bradley Zint in the Daily Pilot last evening, HERE, four members of the Costa Mesa Sanitary District Board of Directors voted last night to proceed with the lawsuit to force the remaining director, Jim Fitzpatrick, out of his seat.

Since the decision was made in a closed session - Zint tells us it actually took two closed sessions - we won't know how the discussions went as the Board considered the decision by California Attorney General Kamala Harris and the rebuttal letter to Harris by Assemblyman Allan Mansoor in which he says he will introduce legislation to basically nullify the grounds on which the Board has based their lawsuit.

It is our understanding that Fitzpatrick was warned more than once by Sanitary District Counsel Alan Burns when he initially ran for the Sanitary District Board seat that, because he was a Costa Mesa Planning Commissioner at the time, if he was elected he would be in violation of law by holding two incompatible positions simultaneously.  Despite that warning Fitzpatrick did run and win his seat - and kept his planning commission appointment, as well.  In fact, a couple months later - in what some interpret as an in-your-face move - he requested to be re-appointed to the planning commission and was, in fact, re-appointed.  He was reminded, again, that he held two incompatible seats and, since he chose to be appointed subsequent to his election, he should resign from the Sanitary District Board seat.  He refused and the lawsuit ensued.

Much later, apparently in an attempt to defuse the lawsuit, Fitzpatrick resigned his seat on the planning commission, but only after holding both positions in violation of the law for nearly 18 months - and receiving compensation for both positions.  A Costa Mesa Planning Commissioner is paid $400 per month - among the highest in the state - and a Sanitary District Board member can receive more than $1300 per month depending on the number of qualifying events/meetings he attends.  It is unclear whether he would be forced to pay restitution of the lawsuit is resolved against him.  OC GOP insider and Costa Mesa Parks and Recreation Commission member Jeff Mathews was appointed to fill Fitzpatrick's seat on the Planning Commission for the remainder of his term, which runs until 2015.

So, onward they go with the lawsuit.  I don't know whether Fitzpatrick was given the opportunity to resign his seat or not, nor whether the Board would drop the lawsuit if he does.  That would seem to be the most appropriate course of action at this point considering the Attorney General's opinion.

There is also a body of thought that postulates that the lawsuit should proceed to resolve this issue once and for all on a statewide level.  I'm not sure it's good for our community to be, once again, placed in a position of having precedent-setting legal issues created because of actions in our locale.  You will recall that, primarily due to the obstinance of now-mayor Jim Righeimer, his bogus outsourcing scheme has resulted in a legal opinion that may force every General Law city to unravel their own outsourcing programs, much to their chagrin.

Some, apparently including Fitzpatrick's former mate on the planning commission, Rob Dickson, expressed the view that the lawsuit should NOT be pursued because of the legislation Mansoor says he will propose.  That, of course - to use a Mansoorism - is silly.  As a member of the minority in the Assembly - and with a track record of having only one piece of legislation he proposed ever brought to a vote (the issue to eliminate the word "retarded" from the official state lexicon) - it is highly unlikely he will be successful in getting it passed.  Zint quotes Dickson as saying, "The precedent is very clear... it seems clear that this board is not interested in considering that the legislation run its course."  This does not surprise me at all.  Dickson has been supportive of Fitzpatrick throughout this ordeal.  We think he's got it wrong - the lawsuit should proceed.

Due to the lateness of the hour none of the Board members were available for comment.  We'll update this entry, or post another one, if and when those opportunities present themselves.

Labels: , , , , , ,


Anonymous payback said...

you say fitz has been in violation of the law. can you provide a judge's ruling stating this? so far we only have opinions of lawyers. if the final, legal opinion is important then use our ratepayers monies on this, if incompatibility is the issue, fitz has resigned the pc so no longer an issue. sounds like a personal vendetta and hopes of getting arlene appointed. by the time this clears the court fitz will be re elected so the only thing you get is to hurt him financially. of course there are posters here who like that aspect. hurt fitz, boycott torelli because of fisler, etc. two of those sanitary board votes to proceed will be up for election in 2 years. duly noted. Merry Christmas.

12/21/2012 05:12:00 AM  
Anonymous gotcha! said...

it appears there is no official ruling yet on incompatibility despite you saying Mr. Fitzpatrick broke the law. Going forward, if a COURT, not an attorney, says the offices are incompatible then Mr. Fitzpatrick should be made to resign the Planning Commission and hold only one position. Oh, he did already? What's the problem then? Frogs?

12/21/2012 05:25:00 AM  
Anonymous sk said...

It is too bad Fitzpatrick still continues to fight a losing battle, costing the residents of Costa Mesa. I support the Board in continuing the process to remove Fitzpatrick despite the negative and misleading statements Fitzpatrick continues to make. If the Board did not choose to move forward (since Fitzpatrick is not willing to honorably step down) they would not be working in the best interest of the ratepayers. It would be easier to let it go and escape the bad publicity Fitzpatrick had created for them but they are standing strong and doing what is right.

12/21/2012 07:31:00 AM  
Anonymous History Channel said...

I remember when a certain blogger published a rather unflattering cartoon referring to Fitzy being a butt-kisser. Then the lad showed up at Council and took up 3 minutes whining to Daddy Riggy about "lack of respect." As if it was somehow owed to him.

Now with the legal issues and pending litigation, I can see Fitzy running to Daddy Mansoor and begging for help. Hopefully said legislator will consider his own reputation and simply allow the lawsuit to run its course. Why should Mansoor, already considered weak in some quarters, cash in chips for a guy who was warned and instead chose to defy? What's in all this for the people of Costa Mesa? How many cops can we hire with money that might be wasted on Fitzpatrick?

Further, Why is City employee Dickson talking about pending litigation involving the City? Did he get a law degree, pass the Bar, and join the firm hired to represent the City? We understand him defending a friend, but believe he should avoid the appearance of conflict of interest or impropriety.

12/21/2012 08:59:00 AM  
Blogger Mike H. said...

Go ask the court then, gotcha/mora. You'll get your day there. While you're hanging out, go ask someone about "statue of limitations" while you are at it.

12/21/2012 10:12:00 AM  
Anonymous gotcha Mike! said...

oh, ok Mike. But no one seems to recognize what you call a "statue" of limitations. Please enlighten us since you are so spot on.

12/21/2012 03:38:00 PM  
Anonymous Statute Of Liberty said...


12/21/2012 07:06:00 PM  
Anonymous Dickson is a JOKE! said...

Very sad and pathetic watching Rob Dickson and Fitzpatrick now crying about listening to the people, cost and public interest.
What a freaking hypocrite. He cared nothing about any of that when his buddies all they wanted to do was get rid of employees and disregarded what the public was telling them and oh those exhorbant legal casts.
Dickson makes me sick.

12/21/2012 11:59:00 PM  
Anonymous Mr. Dickson got sum splaining to do? said...

Rob Dickson completely misrepresents what the AG said. First of all they refuted every claim by Fitzpatrick and supplied backing to their opinion even though Mr. Dickson says no precedence. They provide precedence just not Planning vs SanD. But they detail very well many conflicts they see.

In regards to the persuasive comment this is where MR. Dickson really misrepresents the comment. The AG used the wording persuasive as a so what. They said no matter how persuasive it may be it doesn't matter as it isn't their call. Not that it is persuasive as Mr. Dickson states. In fact though they clearly write as if it isn't persuasive as in their opinion because when legislature is referred to they clearly believe and they provide written backing that it means the Council and not planning. Fitzy tried to say it also includes planning by reason.

But clearly below is the Ag opinion on the compatibility and I don't see how anyone can say they don't find the 2 positions incompatible and they support Fitzy's challenges because they negated every one of his claims.

In light of the overlapping jurisdictions of the Commission and the District, and the potential for conflicts of interest between them, we conclude that the two public offices held by Mr. Fitzpatrick from December 2010 until mid-May of 2012 present a “possibility of a significant clash of duties or loyalties between the offices” within the meaning of Government Code section 1099(a)(2), and that they are therefore incompatible offices under section 1099 and the common-law rule.

12/22/2012 01:24:00 AM  
Blogger just wondering... said...

Mr. Dickson got some splainin' to do: YES! Dickson apparently has absolutely no reading comprehension whatsoever. I'm concerned that the city is actually paying this guy good money for some reason. Is this guy the best we could do?

12/22/2012 09:32:00 AM  
Anonymous No Bridge and Happy said...

If a judge rules that the offices are incompatible, F'trick is a private citizen.
Because he swore an oath of office (an act which has grave legal and moral implications), he loses the first office.
In this case, that was Sanitary District. He had already lost the Planning Commission seat by swearing in at Sanitary District. He then swore in at Planning and therefore lost the Sanitary District. By resigning from Planning, he is a private citizen. Assuming that the judge rules the offices incompatible.
He was warned that exactly this would happen and he chose not to head the multiply legal and lay warnings.

12/22/2012 10:48:00 AM  
Anonymous Keep Fitzy on SD said...

No Bridge, that scares me. You are correct and seem to be able to understand what you read. So if a judge rules them incompatible there are several provided instances where he not only must sacrifice the first position but there is a statement that it is presumed even if he doesn't resign he does not hold the position legally. And you are again correct when he was then elected and sworn into the planning commission he needed to vacate the Sanitary District position.

Why this scares me is because he then as a private citizen would need a job and you can bet this council will order city CEO Hatch to create a director or some other position to insert Fitzpatrick.

I say let him stay on the SD where he is just an annoyance and can't do any harm.

12/22/2012 02:44:00 PM  
Anonymous Al Kohl said...

Does Fitzpatrick have health issues we the voters need to know about?

12/22/2012 04:23:00 PM  
Anonymous sk said...

To Keep Fitzy on SD - Are you serious? Allow Fitzpatrick to stay on the Sanitary District where he can't do any harm? You must not understand the situation, but putting that aside why should residents let someone stay in office because you think it would be the lessor of two bad situations? Also, I don't think Fitzpatrick has the support you think he does.

12/22/2012 05:11:00 PM  
Anonymous Can't people just be honest? said...

Here is one comment by Rob Dickson that is just plain false.

"Rob Dickson · Top Commenter

Terri Fuqua, please read the AG opinion, it draws no conclusions and in fact states that Fitzpatrick's arguments are persuasive."

Now let's look at the truth and not Dickson's lies or mistatements.

The AG absolutely made several conclusions as their opinions.

1) They concluded that the 2 positions are incompatible. They spent a good amount on the conflicts that are there and other things to back up their conclusion.

2) They concluded that legislature means the City Council. They again provided facts and comparisons to back that up.

3) They concluded Fitzpatrick can't pick which seat he wanted to keep. They provided detailed facts to back this up too.

4) They concluded when Fitpatrick was sworn in on the Planning Commission he then held the San District title illegally as they concluded the 2 are incompatible.

5) The AG does not in fact say Fitzy's arguments are persuasive. The fact is the AG refuted nearly all of Fitzpatricks arguments. The one instance Robert Dickson tries to deceive everyone over also does not state it the way he portrays it.

The AG only used the word persuasive for one of Fitzpatricks arguments and that was to the legislature issue. According to Fitzy should THE LEGISLATIVE BODY should include the Planning Commission. The AG clearly stated they disagreeed with this. They even dug so deep as to go into the meaning of THE as compared to A etc. Had this been inclusive of the Planning they would have said A Legislative Body and not THE LB. They then said no matter how persuasive Fitzy's argument MAY BE it's a matter not for them to decide. They didn't say his argument was persuasive and they used the word persuasive only on the legislative issue and not the other issues.

So you can see Rob Dickson either purposely mistates the use of the word persuasive in the context used or he just doesn't understand what he read. He also made a false claim stating the AG didn't draw conclusions.

I think it's purposely done as Dickson appears to be fairly intelligent.

12/22/2012 05:11:00 PM  
Blogger just wondering... said...

Either Dickson's errors were stated unintentionally and he is plain stupid, or it was intentional, and he's extremely deceitful. This is the same thing he did in discussing the charter. You wouldn't even recognize it after he gets done interpreting it. I think Fitzy finally found someone else on his level, and thats not a compliment.

12/22/2012 08:26:00 PM  
Anonymous Take Heed said...

California Business and Professional Code, section 6126, quoted in part:

a) Any person advertising or holding himself or herself out as practicing or entitled to practice law or otherwise practicing law who is not an active member of the State Bar, or otherwise authorized pursuant to statute or court rule to practice law in this state at the time of doing so, is guilty of a misdemeanor punishable by up to one year in a county jail or by a fine of up to one thousand dollars ($1,000), or by both that fine and imprisonment.

12/22/2012 11:35:00 PM  
Blogger just wondering... said...

Only mental

12/23/2012 06:50:00 AM  
Anonymous listen up said...

there is no legal opinion on this subject you nitwits. all your blabbering ad nauseum from fuqua and sk is meaningless. if there was a court ruling it would have been cited.
no ruling yet
no official opinion yet
nothing yet

hi alf

12/23/2012 06:58:00 AM  
Anonymous Keep Fitzy on SD said...

sk, Fitzpatrick has no support on the SanD. He will not be able to do any harm there. But if he leaves the SanD and they reappoint him to the Planning Commission he has Dickson, Mathews, and McCarthy to support him. If they don't reappoint him to PC then look for them to create a position at City Hall.

If you think they let him go into exhile think about this. Temianka, Dickson, Mathews, Lobdell, Joyce, Francis, Gazci, Duarte. They take very good care of their supporters.

Keep an eye on Sessler, Mora, de Arkal and this Lucas fellow. Commissions, job titles, business thrown their way or whatever they will be piad back.

Fitzpatrick drove that cart around and speaks at CC meetings to support them. They aren't going to turn their backs on him.

So who doesn't understand all this and which would you rather have?
1) Fitzpatrick on SD with no support
2) Planning Commissioner Fitzy with tons of support to do almost anything he wants
3) City Employee Fitzy head of some newly created department like a Green Department of city hall.

as I said exhile isn't going to happen so you have to pick one. You've seen these guys operate you know they aren't going to leave him hanging.

12/23/2012 03:45:00 PM  
Anonymous Reality said...

It doesn't really matter where Fitzpatrick hangs his hat; I guarantee it will be a disaster. I doubt the City Council will hand him a job that pays real money. If they do, it will be a difficult decision to defend. Unfortunately for Fitzy, his glory days are over. All eyes are on him and next time, he will have to deliver something more substantial than “they’re out to get me, personal grudges, trash contract out for bid, and I’m asking the tough questions, blah, blah, blah…” You can fool some of the people some of the time, but not all of the people all of the time. He is an idiot, time to go.

12/23/2012 08:30:00 PM  
Anonymous Timberbake said...

After Righeimer is recalled or "promoted" to County Supervisor (which would be Waterloo for our little Napoleon)by ocgop, the boy band named above by commenter "Keep Fitzy on SD," will be hard-pressed to stay on tour.

Mensy doesn't have the juice or IQ to lead in the long run.

We will support sane people like Genis and Stephens and eventually prevail.

12/23/2012 08:47:00 PM  
Anonymous amused said...

Lotta paralegals are lawyer wanna-bes with a chip on their shoulder. It's scary when they know enough to manipulate the truth and sound plausible, but it's cool when people like "Mr. dickson got gome splainin to do" and "Can't people just be honest?" call them on it. Love it!

I'd rather find a vampire in my closet then a paralegal with a chip. They are some of the nastiest, most veracity-challenged critters in America.

12/23/2012 11:33:00 PM  
Anonymous sk said...

Keep Fitzy, While I certainly understand your concern regarding Fitzpatrick in other positions this is a legal issue and looking the other way or allowing it to continue isn't right regardless how concerned we are with what he will do when he is removed from office at the SD. Unless the city has changed its rules and regs creating a position for Fitzpatrick would not be allowed As for the others people you mentioned residents have to voice their opinions through their votes and get them out of office.

12/24/2012 06:09:00 AM  
Anonymous legal eagle said...

sk is assuming a lot. when fitz wins the sd will be paying his lawyer some big bucks, not just the discount rate he is working for. this precedent is established in case law. payup sk if you live in the service area.

12/24/2012 11:13:00 AM  
Anonymous No Bridge and Happy said...

If the powers that be were to somehow create a job for F'trick, it might be good.

Based on his background as revealed on his website, he seems not have worked in such an environment and might actually learn what it is like to report at a regular time to work every work day, report to a boss every work day, deliver useful work product every work day, and perform the myriad of auxiliary tasks that employees are required to do that are not listed on any job description every work day.

In addition, he would not usually be asked for his opinion on everything his boss was doing and if it was given might be thought of as insubordinate, particularly if the opinions were given the manner that he seems accustomed to in public meetings.

Bosses are not usually interested in having subordinates ask them the "hard questions" about everything that the organization does in every interaction. In addition, rapidly tire of questions that have been asked and answered to their satisfaction more than a couple of times.

However, this fantasy is highly unlikely to come to pass.

12/24/2012 11:31:00 PM  
Anonymous pocket Aces said...

AG says the rule doesn't apply to bodies with only advisory powers. I think the Planning Commission only has advisory powers except in the instance of a CUP. There may be another instance, I think there is but cannot remember what it was. So it will be interesting if a COURT rules that the PC only has advisory powers on things that may affect the SD. Fitzy has a good chance on this. We will all end up paying his lawyer. I blame that on SD. Of course SK thinks Fitzy should fold and save us the money. Fitz should not fold, he should go all in. A win would be a good reason to recall the other board members.

12/25/2012 10:20:00 AM  
Anonymous No Bridge and Happy said...

It seems to me that he PC has decision making authority. Yes, items can be appealed to the Council; however, most items that appear before the commission are not appealed and the decisions of the commission are final.

12/25/2012 12:19:00 PM  
Anonymous Hardy Har & Har said...

What is this nonsense about creating a job for Fitzpatrick???? He'll get no job and the council will not appoint him back to any commission. The council majority is dumb but not that dumb to ruin their own reputations even more. I think it's safe to say Fitzpatrick is done.

Now is the time to educate that Rob Dickson IS NOT an attorney nor does he hold a J.D. degree. Dickson likes to tell people he knows law. Wrong, sir, you know how to write about law after it's been dictated to you by an attorney. I get the feeling that Dickson will be the next local blowhole to get himself into legal trouble. Dickson had better be really careful trying to pass himself off as an attorney.

Fitzpatrick should shut up, go away, grow up and maybe come back down the road after he has learned to zip his mouth.

I have to admit that I'm shocked that Fitzpatrick's golf cart did not make the Daily Pilot's Top 100 list.

12/25/2012 08:17:00 PM  
Anonymous pocket aces said...

if pc is final then it is a legislative body and not incompatible? will be interesting

12/25/2012 09:03:00 PM  
Anonymous sk said...

I don't pretend to understand all the legal issues, but it sure seemed like a conflict of interest to me when Fitzpatrick wanted to give the san district funds to the City to help them out with their budget issues.

12/25/2012 09:48:00 PM  
Anonymous Careful said...

Ferryman was on both the Sanitation district AND NMUSD School Board.

Perry ran for the Water board while on the Sanitation district. AND lost

This is not about ethics

This had always been about getting Fitzpatrick off that board

SK is not telling the truth

We saw in the last election that name recognition wins elections.

The board is trying to get him off that board but all they are doing is building his name recognition

They will put him back on the planning commission. They will make him chairman.

He will run for city coumcil and win

12/26/2012 06:55:00 AM  
Blogger just wondering... said...

They were not the ones rendering opinions. Dickson is. Try a little harder to follow along, will you? I know it will be difficult, but I am sure even you can do it, Marty.

12/26/2012 07:52:00 AM  
Anonymous Troll Tracker said...

Troll "Careful" re Fitzy:

"We saw in the last election that name recognition wins elections.
The board is trying to get him off that board but all they are doing is building his name recognition."

Yea, the Bever landslide (1500 votes) last November proved your statement about "name recognition." Not. Once a public fool is outed and identified, they're done.

"They will put him back on the planning commission. They will make him chairman.
He will run for city council and win."

They will bring the Titanic back to the surface and make him captain.
He will get to New York in record time.

Because of his great work ethic, education, and political skills, he will be offered a CEO position at a major golf cart manufacturer and will forever live off the fat of the land.

12/26/2012 08:13:00 AM  
Anonymous sk said...

Mr. Perry stopped campaigning when he was told the water district position was incompatible. That is why Mr. Perry did not win the position. My concern is the legal issue. Fitzpatrick continuing the fight shows his character. And his character is what will keep him from winning future elections.

12/26/2012 03:30:00 PM  
Anonymous PFOS said...

Careful and leagle eagle, Careful...please enlighten us on the potential conflicts covered under 1099 and incompatibility of offices where a Sanitary District office conflicts with a Water District Office?

leagle eagle...

The AG in their decision really slammed the door on Fitzy. Every point they countered and presented either case law or precedent. It was astounding the detail and numerous 100% refuting of all his issues he raised. The AG sees this the opposite of Fitzy. Certainly a court may find otherwise but all the detail and case law the AG cited should indicate to any thinking person this does not look like Fitzy will win. Again he could win but even if he does with all the provided case law and precedent your comment minus any support for your comment is complete nonsense.

The AG also cited Planning Commissions vs School Districts and Planning incompatiblity with Water Districts.

I believe the only argument Fitzy has is the legislature isue. But even there the AG presented their opinion THE LEGISLATIVE BODY refers to one body and it's the City Council.

They even cited case law where you can't make BODY into BODIES.

I do not see how any honest thinking person can read the AG opinion and say this is anything but a huge blow to Fitzy.

12/26/2012 05:23:00 PM  
Anonymous SK has no credability said...

SK worked at the trash district so she should know better than to come here and spread so many bold faced lies.

SK will stop at nothing to protect her former board members.

But facts get in her way.

Here is the Daily Pilot article just before the election in 2010, with Art Perry having the most arrogant comment ever. He did not say he was pulling out, he said let the voters decide. Perry influenced the outcome of one of the tightest races in Costa Mesa history.

SK talks about a letter the lawyer sent to Fitzpatrick. Fitzpatrick had legal logic. Perry got the same letter yet SK gives him a pass even thoug he was clearly wrong. How arrogant of Perry to turn around and spend ratepayer money in a tactic to oust Fitz.

Perry ran and he lost,0,4961088.story

Perry has not spoken to his brother in months. Perry has resigned from Costa Mesa United. Perry has taken his golf ball and gone home. He left the golf event fund raiser high and dry pulling he and his team from an event that generates funds for youth sports.

This is the guy SK thinks is so great.

The other guy SK supports served on both the School Board and for 20 something years on the trash district. A conflict no one disputes. While on both, Ferryman gets a DUI,,0,6412140.story

12/26/2012 05:50:00 PM  
Anonymous FOPS said...

SK it's pretty funny. The AG adressed the issue of motive and it didn't matter or negate the legality. I couldn't stop laughing when reading Fitzy tried to raise that as some reason for the AG to not grant the right to sue.

Careful's comments are just as laughable. If they think the motive of the SD has any impact on the legality they are delusional. Also his comment Perry ran while still a SD member is ridiculous. Running for an incompatible office is legal and if you win you forfit the Fisrt office. However I agree the SD and Water District offices were incompatible in Ferryman's case. But I asked Careful about it to see if Careful has a clue about what he is talking.

It's like listening to children.

But leave to sue in quo warranto was granted.

I think this might mean Fitzpatrik wont be sued on paper by the San District it will read The PEOPLE of the STATE of CALIFRONIA...vs Fitzpatrick.

12/26/2012 06:11:00 PM  
Anonymous sk said...

Sk has no credibility – I can see you are upset that Fitzpatrick is losing this fight. It is apparent you are scared and grasping at everything you can. I am not worried by your comments about me because they won’t affect the opinion of the people who know me. Nice try though.ussestm1028

12/27/2012 06:58:00 AM  
Anonymous sk said...

FOPS - You are correct Perry did not take a position on another board and keep his seat on the san district board so it should not be compared to the current situation. The compatibility issue was looked at by legal counsel when Gary Monahan ran for City Council while sitting on the sanitary board. Fitzpatrick was noticed of the legal issue and continued to maintain both positions. I can understand not knowing and holding two seats but being given notice and continuing as Fitzpatrick did I can’t agree with.

12/27/2012 07:54:00 AM  
Anonymous No stinkin facts in their way said...

SK refuses to understand . Monahan served on both. Westminster and Midway San serve on both.

Like the board they refuse to acknowledge this fact

12/27/2012 10:55:00 AM  
Anonymous FOPS said...

Perfect example of how facts can be used to deceive by "No stiinkin facts in their way".

1) Monahan nor Ferryman holding 2 positions incompatible or not makes any of legal or illegal. If nobody challenges the holding of the positions then even illegally held positions slide by. Your comment Monahan did it so it's OK shows your ignorance or probably deceit.

2) in the case of Monahan he is part of the legislative body of the city and apparently according to what I have been reading and what Fitzy has raised is THE LEGISLATIVE BODY of the city is exempt.

The above is one of the 5 or 6 arguments Fitzy raised to try and persuade the AG where he failed miserably to do so. He failed on all his arguments he raised.
So I would have to assume you know this No Facts and just exhibit your deceit.

12/27/2012 01:15:00 PM  
Anonymous SK Rocks said...

SK, you are awesome! Having worked with you at CMSD for years, I concur with every single word your write on this blog as well as the Daily Pilot. Jim Fitzpatrick is just pissed because no matter how much he tries to disparage Art and Jim, nobody is listening to him anymore. It is quite hilarious how much he is freaking out and obsessively writing post after post on this blog. Too bad, so sad.

12/27/2012 03:11:00 PM  
Anonymous Can't people just be honest? said...

Rob Dickson has now become a complete liar. I know this type of language troubles some but the facts are this guy is just lying.

"Rob Dickson · Top Commenter


The comment posted on the blog you mentioned was anonymous, and that makes sense as the commentor misstates the opinion. I'm not going to waste my time responding to an inaccurate anonymous comment. I suggest that you read the AG opinion for yourself and draw your own conclusions."

Everything stated by me, the Dickson Counterpart was the exact truth. It is Rob Dickson making the false claims.

There is a lot to cover and it may take several posts so here goes...

1)following is the AG opinion that the 2 offices indeed are incompatible, this is cut and paste reposting their exact comments...
" In light of the overlapping jurisdictions of the Commission and the District, and the potential for conflicts of interest between them, we conclude that the two public offices held by Mr. Fitzpatrick from December 2010 until mid-May of 2012 present a “possibility of a significant clash of duties or loyalties between the offices” within the meaning of Government Code section 1099(a)(2), and that they are therefore incompatible offices under section 1099 and the common-law rule."

2) Fitzpatrick then claimed his resignation of the Planning Commission seat makes the entire issue moot.. But here is the AG office rejecting that claim also."In our view, however, there is still a question as to whether Mr. Fitzpatrick lawfully holds the office of District director. This is so because a person who unlawfully holds two incompatible offices is not generally considered free to choose which office to retain; rather, the first office is ordinarily considered forfeited as a result of the person having accepted the second office."

continued to next comment

12/27/2012 08:50:00 PM  
Anonymous Can't people just be honest? said...

3) Fitzpatrick then argues through the Health and Safety Code the legislature has abrogated the incompatibility of the 2 offices and that Planning Commission is covered here. Following is the AG refuting this argument.
"This provision plainly authorizes the simultaneous holding of two potentially incompatible offices. But, in our view, the authorization extends only to city council members, not to planning commissioners."

4)Fitzpatrick and now Dickson are trying to make motive appear to be negating issues. Again the AG covers this and refutes this too!
"We have previously addressed assertions of improper motives in other quo warranto cases, and we have repeatedly determined that such a claim, even if proven, would not be a valid basis for us to prevent an otherwise substantial question from being heard by a court."
5)Fitpatrick tried to say the SD cannot bring quo warranto because they are not an individual. Again the AG refutes this. "However, we and the courts have recognized a city’s right to bring a quo warranto action under section 803,41 and we have consistently construed section 803 as providing “that a public official or agency may qualify as a relator.”42 We conclude that the District may properly apply for leave to sue here."

6) lastly Dickson tries to claim the opinion favors Fitzpatrick. However the real truth is the AG ruled in favor of the SD on every issue and the main issue was can they sue and the AG said they agreed with the SD and is giving them the right to sue Fitzpatrick in the NAME of the PEOPLE of CALIFORNIA. Here is the AG summary inspite of what Dickson says.
"In summary, we conclude that Relators’ application raises substantial questions of fact and law meriting judicial resolution, and that the proposed action in quo warranto would serve the overall public interest in ensuring that public officials avoid conflicting loyalties when performing their public duties. Accordingly, Relators’ application for leave to sue in quo warranto is GRANTED."

12/27/2012 09:10:00 PM  
Anonymous Can't people just tell the truth? said...

OK last point. Dickson tries to claim the AG found Fitzpatrick's claims persuasive. A complete and utter lie. Here is the comment using the word persuasive. Not at all in the context Dickson tries to mistate and deceive people over. They state in regards to an issue of the legislature that they already said they disagreed with and provided facts to back them up that No matter how persuasive his argument MAY BE it actually doesn't matter to them as they feel the legislature should decide. They never ever say they feel his argument is persuasive and in fact as we have seen they have refuted that particular argument and every argument he raised verbatim and provided a great detail of case law and facts to support their positions refuting everything Fitzpatrickj tried to raise.

"Mr. Fitzpatrick suggests that such technical interpretations should not be applied here because both policy and logic favor extending abrogation to planning commissioners, noting that the city council created and appointed the Commission in the first place and that the planning agency’s functions may be performed by the city council itself.36 But, no matter how persuasive this reasoning may be, we believe that it is for the Legislature, not for us, to determine when it is necessary or appropriate to permit a single person to hold two or more incompatible offices,37 and that we are not at liberty to extend such permission when the statute itself does not.38"

so as you can clearly see Rob Dickson is the one lying here and I have posted the AG rulings substantiating everything I said.

12/27/2012 09:26:00 PM  
Anonymous sk said...

Thank you "Can't people just be honest" for taking the time to respond point by point to Fitzpatrick and Rob. I do hope these people like crow because I think they may just be eating some.

12/28/2012 06:55:00 AM  
Anonymous watcher said...

so it appears that there will be COURT hearing to decide this. The AG cannot decide this. Has an AG ever lost a court case? You betcha!
Bottom line: there is no court opinion on this. All the rest is pure speculation. 3-1 Fitz loses but definitely not a 0 chance. Why are SD Directors even doing this? Because they will be exposed, because they want Arlene back and are itching to appoint her. The SD has a bad name among the special districts over this. While not a major talking point, the comments definitely are skewed against the Board by other special district members. the sd directors sit in a tight group at various functions and no one else in attendance even talks to them before or after meetings. Meanwhile the rest of the room is networking. They are outcasts except for Schafer.

12/28/2012 07:43:00 AM  
Anonymous Can't people just be honest? said...

Watcher please read the AG and Deputy AG opinion and ruling.

You say there is no court opinion on this. There is no court opinion on whether a PC can sit on a SD that is true but not telling of the entire story.

But there are other case law or court opinions regarding similar agencies cited regarding incompatibility.

Water District and School Districts is one. Plus the AG was very thorough in laying out duties of each and their possible conflicts that could arise between the PC and SD.

They provided numerous case law and court rulings that while not directly ruling on PC vs SD incompatibility supported their opinion that PC and SD are incompatible offices to hold silmutaneously.

Fitzpatrick's only hope lies with the PC as the legislative body of the city? Again the AG provided several facts that support their claim PC is not the legislative body of the city.

So yes technically there appears to never have been a court challenge in California deciding specifically PC vs SD incompatibility but there are other similar rulings regarding other agencies to give us an idea this does not favor Fitzpatrick. It's not really PURE speculation. From past rulings and from facts etc. we can make educated comments which is way more than just pure speculation.

But anything can happen in a court as we have seen. Bottom line the history and precedents that are pertinent to this case appear to favor the SD request and that is why the AG agreed to let them sue in the name of the People of California.

12/28/2012 11:30:00 AM  
Blogger just wondering... said...

Watcher: so?

12/28/2012 11:46:00 AM  

Post a Comment

<< Home