Question: How did Don Bankhead and Dick Jones get to serve on the Fullerton City Council for a combined 40 plus years?
Answer: The election rules greatly favors the incumbents.
Now, of course no matter what the election rules are, the incumbent has a natural built-in advantage. They have name recognition and a record they can boast about, no matter how weak it may be in reality. They also have made alliances with powerful people in the community, which they can easily use to their advantage. However, in Fullerton that is only the beginning of the advantage these incumbents have with the current election system in Fullerton.
You see, in Fullerton, there is no limit on the number of challengers who can run for a council seat. Usually it takes only 18 to 20% of the total votes to win the election. There are no runoffs to get to a majority like there are in many cities. Fullerton’s excuse is that having another runoff election is expensive. However, it is not nearly as expensive as voting for 6% raises for the police, 9% raises over 2 years for the fireman and 90% pensions and free retiree medical for both groups. But the establishment elites always bring up money when they are against something and ignore the huge costs when it comes to voting for outsized public union employee raises and benefits. This is how the politicians who support the special interests cling to power, election after election, after election.
Demand that the city change the rules to make our election process fairer. Demand that they institute a requirement that to win a council seat, the candidate must reach a majority, i.e. 50% plus one.
You may recall, that the last time we had this majority rules system was in the 2012 Recall Election. The question was the following: Do you want to recall Council members Bankhead, Jones and McKinley? When approximately 65% of the voters said they wanted to recall them, new council members were then elected in their place. Remember, I reminded you that in a normal election cycle it takes only 18 to 20% of the vote to get elected to council. In the recall vote, double that amount or approximately 35% voted to keep them, yet with this fairer system they were defeated almost 2 to 1.
This reform will do much more for a fair election process than the currently considered District-wide election format. All the problems with the current system I have outlined will not be dealt with, with a District-wide election format.
Question you might ask: Why wouldn’t the council install this fairer system and why did they not do this years if not decades ago?
Answer: It would mean that the process would become fairer and reduce at least partly their built-in incumbent advantages. And how many politicians do you know who are willing to make it easier for a challenger to beat them and have to relinquish their power?
Now if all the council members want to show that they are fair and care about reform they would jump at this chance to make our election process, fairer and more democratic. The final question is will they do the right thing?
I report, you decide.
Barry Levinson
#1 by ??? on March 10, 2016 - 3:34 pm
Yup, and this nonsense that certain candidates who sellout to the public unions are at an advantage … Let’s follow the trend used by Mr. Levinson and look at past elections. In 2012, Bruce Whitaker, Jennifer Fitzgerald and Jan Flory finished first, second and third in the voting respectively and none of them got endorsements from the union. In 2016, Greg Sebourn was the target of hit pieces from the cop union and still won his seat back.
#2 by Fullerton Lover on March 11, 2016 - 2:48 pm
Why did John Wilson Phillips, son of a banker/developer that owns shopping centers around Fullerton, give the three city council candidates who were recalled that year, McKinley, Jones, and Bankhead, at least $1,000?
Why did he donate $5,000 to Larry Bennett’s failed bid to thwart the recall of those three city councilman in 2012?
Why did John Wilson Phelps give Jan Flory $10,000 to run for a city council position paying less than $10,000 per year?
Why did John Wilson Phelps give $500 each to Jennifer Fitzgerald and Rick Alvarez to run for city council in 2012 to replace the three candidates of his which were recalled?
http://docs.cityoffullerton.com/weblink/1/doc/520319/Page1.aspx
Why did he give $10,000 to Jan Flory’s campaign to run for Fullerton City Council in 2012?
http://docs.cityoffullerton.com/weblink/1/doc/520319/Page1.aspx
#3 by Anonymous on March 11, 2016 - 5:39 pm
Uh …. because he is smart??
#4 by Fullerton Lover on March 11, 2016 - 10:23 pm
…and then how old Jim Alexander’s political contributions on behalf of MG Disposal?
Anybody in Fullerton honestly think old Jim didn’t buy his way in?
…you may notice that Jim is also the CSUF’s Director of Property Development.
Any one else in Fullerton think that old Jim may have his finger deeply in the pie of “College Town’s” development?
http://www.zoominfo.com/p/James-Alexander/137431397
#5 by Anonymous on March 11, 2016 - 5:44 pm
But here are some even better questions for Fullerton Lover:
Who would be dumb enough to give Joe Imbriano a dime?
How will Joe Imbriano raise money for his campaign?
How much money will Joe Imbriano actually raise?
Will he even be able to collect the 20 signatures needed to run in the first place?
#6 by Reality Is.... on March 11, 2016 - 7:10 pm
LOL
#7 by Fullerton Lover on March 11, 2016 - 10:34 pm
It’s sort of a rhetorical question, as the ONLY reason that people give money to ANY politician is for ACCESS to them when they need a “favor”.
This video reminds me of how I picture Reality Is after some one stole the police scanner he used to listen to when he was growing up.
https://youtu.be/92XVwY54h5k
#8 by Fullerton Lover on March 11, 2016 - 11:35 pm
…now see me personally, I’d be asking myself, ” why would James Alexander/ CSUF Property Services, be giving a lovable loser like Larry Bennett $500 in campaign contributions in his bid for city council in 2014?
Oh, do you think it’s because Larry is on the Fullerton Planning Commission and can bamboozle the best of them?
Page 5 of the link to the Fullerton City Clerk’s office document archive…
http://docs.cityoffullerton.com/weblink/DocView.aspx?id=550388&page=5&searchid=fa45c5e3-5dba-4855-8f9d-12f91d03dbd7
#9 by We Deserve Better on March 12, 2016 - 11:42 am
Do not take my word for how the FPOA Union (Fullerton Police Officer’s Association ) buys influence with city council and OC Supervisor’s elections, listen to Andrew Goodrich: ABOUT THE AUTHOR: Andrew S. Goodrich, Sr., has been with the Fullerton PD since 1990. He was a FPOA board member from 1995 to 2003, and has has served as insurance commissioner, secretary, and most recently, the vice president. He can be e-mailed at agoodrich@fullertonpd.org.
THE VALUE OF POLITICAL INVOLVEMENT Your association’s role in local politics
By Andrew S. Goodrich
Politics is always an interesting game. It can be gut wrenching, but always interesting. We need only look to our own recent national election to see the process at its best (or worst).
The reality is that, as a local police (or sheriff’s) association, our ability to influence national, or even statewide elections is minimal to non-existent. However, there are numerous opportunities to influence those elections that are closer to home, namely elections for city council and county supervisor.
I will put in the punch line here, at the beginning of the story, in the hopes that after reading
it, you’ll want to read on. In the past two city council elections in our town, we have actively endorsed five candidates for office. This includes a candidate who was running against a two- time incumbent. We are batting 1,000; all five candidates (including the one running against the incumbent) have been elected to office.
Now, back to the story about a medium-sized association in a conservative Orange County city that had a great political awakening starting in that very notorious last election year.
Fullerton is by most measurements a medium or greater sized city and agency. With a population of about 122,000, and a police department of 150 sworn officers, it would be in the top 200 largest agencies in the nation.
However, Fullerton is overshadowed by Los Angeles, Anaheim, Santa Ana, and a host of smaller agencies. Just a stone’s throw north of Disneyland, Fullerton is a very conservative community, with a conservative city council and leadership history.
For years, this conservative element dominated city politics, including the way in which elections were run and candidates chosen. Like most of our government, incumbents rarely (if ever) lost contested elections.
Meanwhile, the men and women of the Fullerton Police Officers’ Association (FPOA) saw their salaries dwindle when compared to neighboring agencies. While still not being underpaid, there was significant disparity between very similar agencies. In addition, equipment and working conditions were also on the decline.
Fullerton is one of two local agencies in all of Orange County without working computers in the patrol units, and the police station is a relic held over from before World War II as a Public Works Administration effort.
On the other hand, the community is extremely supportive of the police department and its
officers. Fullerton PD is a very high-service department, handling calls that many other cities would balk at.
The FPOA was like most smaller associations, who did little other than give away money to a few local causes and pay for legal representation for the members. A Political Action Committee (PAC) was started around 1994 in a well-intentioned effort to have a voice in local affairs. However, the PAC did little other than offer token endorsements to candidates, and offered no real support or clout.
There were rumblings among many of the members to step-up association activities, and take
a more activist approach to everything from negotiations to political campaigns. There was an election for the 1999 presidency of the FPOA between a moderate former vice-president, and a more radical (and younger) officer. The moderate candidate won by a margin of one vote. There was a rematch for 2000, and this time, the “radical” won with about 70 percent of the vote.
When our new president came into office, he had a broad goal of making the FPOA a more viable employee association, attempting to have a voice in city affairs through an active campaign for political candidates. He and I spoke at length on how to accomplish these goals, and devised a strategy that worked for us. The agenda we ended up with was influenced by a variety of sources, including information we had taken from other local associations who were already politically active, strategies from a police union seminar, and our own ideas.
I cannot overemphasize the importance of leadership. Many of the people who were involved all year long were the same people that had been involved in the past, but hadn’t had the direction or will to do what we wanted and needed to do.
This is not a “knock” on our previous presidents, just a difference of direction and devotion. A core circle of leaders is needed who are willing to make the tough decisions, in spite of the inevitable consequences that result when authority is challenged. Without this core, the effort would have been a disastrous failure.
Another factor to consider is the political backlash. There will be many in your city or county leadership who do not want you to be politically active. “They” have had things their way
for years and years, and “they” do not want a group with the credibility that you have usurping “their” program. We felt a lot of pressure from the local newspaper, various leaders and administrators during our first real election cycle in 2000.
One of our first tasks was to review the candidates that the previous board had endorsed for the 2000 primary. These endorsements were made at the end of 1999, and we wanted to make sure that they reflected our changed attitude.
One of these candidates was our own city councilman, who was running in a hotly contested primary for a state Senate seat. There was talk about whether to pull the endorsement because of perceived past grievances. What followed was heated debate between all of the board
members, who were almost evenly split.
One of the hardest things that police officers acting as board members must do is divorce themselves from many of our natural instincts. Politics isn’t like friendships, or even working relationships. Politics is business, and seldom black and white. There are not simply good guys and bad guys, with no middle ground. The political arena is almost completely gray.
In the end, we decided to keep the endorsement in place, but only after making our concerns very clear to the candidate. He still had our support, and we demonstrated our serious intentions. We have gone on to develop a good working relationship with this candidate.
I should address here the whole idea of a police association supporting any candidates for office. Many of our rank and file wrestled with the idea of whether it was appropriate for us as an association to “sully ourselves” in local politics. It took a great deal of education and debate, but the vast majority was convinced.
Law enforcement has always had an interest in politics. Whether it’s the “Three Strikes” law, legislation allowing maliciously accused officers to sue their accusers, or 3%@50 retirement, law enforcement has a definite interest in law and politics.
When it comes to local politics in a city of our size, an organization such as ours is one of the few groups citizens feel they can trust. So it is not only our own self-interest that we are looking after, but also the health and well-being of our community.
We developed our position in the community by donating $15,000 per year to local groups, individuals and charities. This includes a small scholarship program that we began in 2001, where we give six local high school seniors $500 toward their next year’s college tuition. Politics is all about money. In order to be effective, a “war chest” was needed. Our president made the rounds of the PD, and personally spoke with every member. Our PAC membership went from about 50 to 98 percent.
Next, we decided to admit our own fraility and limitations as we ventured into this unknown territory. We were all cops, moonlighting as board members and political activists. It was decided we would hire an experienced political consultant to help and advise us along this complicated path.
We realized that it would cost about $15,000 to hire a consultant, but the board was determined to do this the right way, and the expenditure was approved. It seems as if many associations decide to “go it alone,” hoping to save money.
Having an experienced consultant on staff was invaluable. He assisted with strategy, legal questions, and interviews with candidates, developing mail pieces, and analysis. Convincing our membership that this was a necessary expense was well worth the effort. I cannot overstate the need to have a good political consultant on board your program to run an effective campaign.
The next thing we did was to interview all of the candidates who would come to see us.
We asked the tough questions, and chose to endorse one candidate who was a sitting councilmember, and a second who was a complete newcomer. We took a big risk, and chose not to endorse our sitting mayor.
We sent out several professionally produced mailers, including absentee ballot applications. These mailers included one which had several of our members standing together, with pictures of our candidates superimposed over us, and the phrase, “We stand behind Clesceri and Norby for City Council”.
Lastly, we did something very unusual for a police association. We walked precincts. Our consultant produced “precinct walk kits” for each member to take with him/her on the walk. We only spent our time speaking with high potential voters, and targeted the districts to maximize our effectiveness.
Our candidates came out with us, talking to the members and the citizens. The result was an average of a plus-20 percent vote for our candidates in the precincts where we walked.
We told our members that one four-hour block, every two years, wasn’t too much to ask for, and most agreed. We had a high participation level that paid off on Election Day.
The results on Election Day were that both of our candidates won. But of course, our lingering question was, “Was this a fluke, or were we genuinely effective in our campaign?”
Much too quickly, 2002 arrived and the process was started again. In the interim two years, we raised our PAC dues to $5 per pay period (every two weeks). This earns our PAC about $33,000 every election cycle, which is the minimum we need to be successful. Our dues had been $2.50, but this was not sufficient for the election program that we wanted to run.
In 2002, we partnered up with our firefighter association in support of three candidates. Partnering with the Fullerton Firefighters Association (FFA) allowed us to pool our resources and produce a more effective campaign. One of these candidates was a long-time councilmember. The other two were newcomers, and one of these newcomers was running against a sitting incumbent.
This was a big risk for us. Do we risk alienating an incumbent that has a very good chance of winning? With the advice of our consultant (who we called back to help us again), we believed that she could be beaten. The other newcomer was running for an open seat, but against a candidate that had been the favorite, and had many other local endorsements.
Once again, we put up signs (“Your Police & Fire support Nelson, Bankhead, Wilson for City Council”), sent out mailers, and walked precincts.
Election Day came and went, and when the votes were counted, all three of the candidates who
we supported had won. We were most surprised (pleasantly) that our newcomer had beaten the two-term incumbent. We felt pretty confident that our question on the day after Election Day 2000 was answered. “It wasn’t a fluke, and we were genuinely effective!”
What have we gained from all of this? We are now on very friendly terms with our council members. We know them, and they know us. We have the ability to call on one of them, and talk about our point of view and our concerns to a willing listener. This is all that anyone can ask.
And as elections go, we’ll be at it again in 2004. We ask all of our members to contribute to the PAC, and we ask every member to contribute in some way each election cycle. This can be putting up signs, or walking precincts.
This is not an easy road to navigate. It takes leadership, determination and resources. However, the reward can be significant, especially if your city/county has ignored your voices for too long. Meanwhile, during the past two years, we have been in the process of constructing a new
police department building, and are awaiting final software implementation for our patrol unit computers.
All in all, I’d have to say it wasn’t a fluke after all.
ABOUT THE AUTHOR: Andrew S. Goodrich, Sr., has been with the Fullerton PD since 1990. He was a FPOA board member from 1995 to 2003, and has has served as insurance commissioner, secretary, and most recently, the vice president. He can be e-mailed at agoodrich@fullertonpd.org.
#10 by Reality Is.... on March 12, 2016 - 8:24 pm
Damn again that’s the best you can do is an article from 2004? On police union politics? Goodroll isn’t even in that union anymore. He’s with the big boys now after Travis helped get him promoted. You guys can only come up with old shit to talk about to bash the cops. Yawn.
#11 by Joe Imbriano on March 12, 2016 - 10:53 pm
RI what do you know about the 15 police cars at the Transit center and the woman arrested for filming the police?
#12 by We Deserve Better on March 13, 2016 - 11:23 am
Reality Is ignores the facts about the FPOA and their documented strategy to buy influence at Fullerton City Hall. Yes this is a big deal. I know facts, the truth, and doing what is right has no bearing on you Reality Is but thank God there are better people in the world and especially in Fullerton than you.
#13 by Reality Is..... on March 13, 2016 - 4:24 pm
I don’t ignore anything that the police union does politically. It’s reality. It’s part of police life across the nation. Policing is political. It always has been. It’s more political now than it ever has been. Just like everything else, it’s all about the appearance of political correctness now. There is nothing to hide. The police union’s across this nation meet with politicians daily. They donate to their political aspirations. They meet with city council members and state leaders often. So not sure what you mean by their strategy to buy influence. No one has ever said that policing and police unions aren’t political. I’m still waiting for Barry and Joe to show me the pay and benefits scale over the last 10 years for our comparison as to why they get such boners over the latest 6% raise that was spread out. I’ll be waiting awhile. It doesn’t fit their biased agendas.