Archive for category Who’s who in Fullerton politics
Fawley’s follies-The Union Puppet and the union hacks on the front lines
Nuff already with this union puppet
There is a strange phenomenon taking place where the red Fawley signs go up. The opponents signs go down. Fawley is a union trifecta while she makes no bones about it being all in the family.
Here is what I think about your questions Mr. Imbriano-Fawley ignores multiple emails on wireless safety
She openly supports the irresponsible Read the rest of this entry »
Sex Ed Sharon Quirk Silva, her pit of hell planned parenthood endorsement and her cronies.
Posted by Joe Imbriano in Are they turning their backs on the children?, Eugenics, Fullerton politics, Hidden in plain view, The twighlight's last gleaming, Who's who in Fullerton politics on October 31, 2014
AN ENDORSEMENT FROM THE PIT OF HELL-
SEX ED SILVA has come a long way from her “socks” days.
PLANNED PARENTHOOD
THE FIGHT FOR THE RIGHT TO IRRADIATE THE KIDS:THE BATTLE FOR THE FJUHSD
Just about everything in this election can be summarized as pure and simple boil over from The Fullerton School District’s technology plan that is at COMPLETE ODDS WITH The Fullerton Joint Union High School District. THE CANDIDATES JUST WON’T PUBLICLY TALK ABOUT IT.
ITS ALL ABOUT THE KIDS? YEAH RIGHT!
You see folks, under the direction Robert Pletka with the support of the board members Read the rest of this entry »
SHARON KENNEDY AND THE FULLERTON OBSERVER
Posted by Joe Imbriano in Fullerton politics, the lamestream media, The twighlight's last gleaming, Who's who in Fullerton politics on October 20, 2014
Establishment protecting, status quo aficionado, Fullerton Observer publisher Sharon Kennedy.
The Observer is a local leftist paper that is about as bent on this towns leftist limousine big government liberal status quo as you can get. I believe that as of late however, it appears to be treading into some very dangerous territory with its printing of what I believe to be libelous and slanderous statements penned by Pam Keller and published by Sharon Kennedy herself that were intended to support the framing and incarceration of two totally innocent community activists, Mr. Barry Levinson and Mr. Alfredo Gutierrez by you guessed-Fullerton police chief Danny Boy Hughes. Read the rest of this entry »
Fullerton California Campaign Central I report, you decide. By Barry Levinson
Posted by Joe Imbriano in Fullerton politics, Who's who in Fullerton politics on October 6, 2014
Fullerton California Campaign Central
I report, you decide. By Barry Levinson
League of Women Voters Fullerton Candidate Forum, Thursday October 2.
Attendees: G. Sebourn, D. Chaffee, B. Chaffee, J. Rands, S. Paden, R. Alvarez and
L. Bennett
I rated the candidates by using both my knowledge of the issues and the candidates.
I considered whether they answered the question fully and directly; whether they
answered honestly, and how well they presented their points.
This is my rating order.
Greg Sebourn
Jane Rands
Sean Paden
Bill Chaffee
Larry Bennett
Doug Chaffee, Rick Alvarez tied for last
Greg Sebourn answered the questions directly. Both his content and his delivery
were good. I believed he gave each question some real thought before he gave his
answers. In other words, his answers did not seem rehearsed or pre-planned. That
is a good thing. We want our leaders to thoughtfully answer questions and not give
rote answers.
Grade: A-
Jane Rands also answered the questions directly. I thought it was her best
performance to date. I did disagree with a few of her comments but overall thought
she did a good job with the issues and her presentation as well.
Grade: B+
Sean Paden also answered the questions directly. His content was good but his
delivery was bad. He discussed the pension problem, which was the highlight of his
presentation. However, on one question he forgot to turn on his microphone so we
missed his first few sentences of his answer. Overall he was hard to follow because
he spoke to fast and did not speak loud enough.
Grade: C+
B. Chaffee did his best and answered all questions honestly. He is a nice man but not
qualified enough to be a good council member in my opinion.
Grade: D+
The last three candidates were very disappointing to me.
L. Bennett is a smooth talker and tries to sell himself as a real conservative who
will be a good steward of our finances. Yet he was the campaign manager for the
NO on Recall Campaign in 2012 and a staunch supporter of McKinley, Bankhead
and Jones who helped get us into this financial mess. Two of them (Bankhead and
Jones) voted for the huge police and fire pension spike back in 2002 and McKinley
got a huge bump in his pension thanks to that vote which was retroactive for all
active safely employees. That pension spike allows safety employees to retire with
90% of their last year’s pay after 30 years of service as early as 50 years of age.
McKinley hired some bad cops in my opinion that have already cost the taxpayers
approximately 2 million dollars and going higher.
Bennett kept his comments very vague. For example, he mentions the need for
pension and retire health care reform but is totally silent on how he intends to
accomplish this goal. He also does not tell us what pension reform will look like. He
also repeatedly in his campaign has mentioned that he is a consensus builder. I have
a real problem with that claim. As stated above, it was Larry Bennett who was the
campaign chairman for the No on Recall in 2012. This was a very contentious and
divisive issue, regardless of what side you were on. It was certainly not a consensus
building process.
Grade: D-
R. Alvarez gets a failing grade for two reasons. First for making at least one huge
misleading statement and two for failing either in this forum or on his campaign
website to even mention the biggest financial problem facing Fullerton taxpayers,
which is the $182,000,000 unfunded pension liability and the unfunded retiree
health insurance liability. His misleading statement concerned his position on
the Downtown Core and Corridor Project (DCCSP). He stated that he has “serious
concerns” about the DCCSP. Ladies and Gentlemen, R. Alvarez voted to approve the
DCCSP as a member of the Planning Commission just a few short months ago despite
his “serious concerns”. Enough said on that issue.
Grade: F
D. Chaffee also gets a failing grade for misinforming the public. He stated in his
closing arguments, which ladies and gentlemen are prepared remarks the following:
He said he is “supported by the Orange County League of Woman Voters”. The
moderator had to remind the audience at the end of the forum that the League is
non-partisan and NEVER ENDORSES OR SUPPORTS ANY CANDIDATE. Also in my
opinion he had a hard time coming up with the answer to why he deserves to get
reelected. Looking forward to participating in Love Fullerton Day next May did not
strike me as a really good reason to vote for or reelect any candidate.
Grade: F
Why the FJUHSD crosses the line and why The Voters Within The Fullerton Joint Union High School District Should Vote “No” On Measure I
Posted by Joe Imbriano in Are they turning their backs on the children?, Fullerton politics, Hidden in plain view, Who's who in Fullerton politics on October 4, 2014
Why The Voters Within The Fullerton Joint Union
High School District Should Vote “No” On Measure I,
a $175,000,000 Bond Issue.
By Barry Levinson
Throughout this year I received three color brochures from the Fullerton Joint Union High School District (FJUHSD).
Each brochure mentioned that they are considering a new bond issue. Finally on
August 5th, the school board voted to place this $175,000,000 25-year
bond on the November 4, 2014 ballot. The added cost to the taxpayer
will be $19 per $100,000 of assessed property value. If your home is
assessed for $500,000, your added tax burden will be $95 per year for
25 years. Taxpayers must remember that the $175,000,000 price tag is
the principal value of the bond. We the taxpayers are on the hook for all
the interest as well, which easily doubles the total cost.
It was irresponsible that the board waited until the very last minute to
make its’ decision to place this bond before the voters. Taxpayers will
be saddled with this increase in property taxes for decades, while the
voters have only three short months to consider this huge bond issue.
What the district will not voluntarily mention is that we the taxpayers
will still be paying off the last FJUHSD bond approved in 2002 for
another 13 years.
 Marilyn Buchi |
 Andy Montoya |
 Robert N. Hathaway |
 Barbara Kilponen |
 Robert Singer Ph.D. |
The bond will be repaid over a 25-year period. However, the list of
things that the school district wants to use the bond money for are both
long-term and short-term projects. Finance 101 states that it is bad
economic policy to finance short-term projects with long-term money.
For example, a prudent person would not take out a 25-year loan to
finance the purchase of a new computer with a useful life of only 3 or 4
years.
A responsible board would have proposed this bond issue at least 3-6
months earlier in the year. It seems the board purposely waited until
the very last moment to spring this very large bond issue on the public.
A school board more concerned with transparency and openness would not have waited so long.
They still have not provided the public with
the details we will need to make an informed decision. According to one
current board member, the board members themselves have not been
given a specific accounting on how the money will be divided by school
and by project. Good governance requires better, and we the people
demand better from every member of this board and from our
Superintendent.
Do not attempt to adjust the resolution. Seeing things clearly is not my intention.
Under Superintendent’s Bond Resolution Remarks – August 2014,
Superintendent Giokaris states the following, in part:
“Bond financed projects will address facilities needs for repairs,
upgrades, and improvements in the following areas if approved by the
voters.” He goes on to state: “During the economic crisis that began in
2008/2009 and still continues, the District’s operating budget was
reduced by $14 million each year. While we have managed with 11%
fewer dollars to improve our programs and student achievement, there
is no money left to address facilities needs.”
The Superintendent is inferring that much of that $14 million yearly
reduction in the FJUHSD operating budget was taken from facilities,
including the repairs and maintenance the district now wants to
complete with part of the bond proceeds. If I do a little old fashioned
math, you will see that as much as $84 million ($14 million x 6 years)
has been diverted away from facility repair and maintenance. Now the
district wants the taxpayers to bail them out and to help cover up their
poor financial management for the last six years. I say to voters within
the FJUHSD, that we should not reward the district for their poor
decisions. Let the district acknowledge that they made poor choices in
the past and that going forward they will now live within their means.
Please note that the FJUHSD has one of the highest average payrolls of
any school district in Orange County.
There are 13 Bond Money Project Areas that are identified in the
Sample Ballot and Voter Information Pamphlet. For example one project
category is Competitive Athletic Facilities and Physical Education, which
includes to “Renovate/modernize/expand/upgrade existing facilities
district-wide”. Under Gymnasiums it includes painting. Under Sports
fields/tracks it includes all weather tracks, new and/or artificial turf.
Under Baseball/softball fields it includes field/infield renovation, newgrass and/or artificial turf.
None of the items that I have just mentioned
will last 25 years or more. Clearly repairs should have been done on a
regularly scheduled basis as part of a well thought out maintenance
plan. But your tax dollars to repay the new bond issue will be spent on
repairs and maintenance as well as long-term improvements. Why is this
important to bring up to the reader? The simple answer is that while
some of these repairs and maintenance projects will only last 5 or 10
years, we the taxpayer will be paying for it for 25 years. Does that mean
the board will come back again in another 10 years or so to ask for more
tax money to repair these items once again? Why has the district failed
to set aside the proper amount of annual funds to take care of the usual
repair and maintenance items that are very predictable?
The Superintendent states as I mentioned previously that there was a $14
million reduction in the district’s operating budget for the last 6 plus
years. Why hasn’t the district made the proper adjustments to take care
of these repair and maintenance needs of the district during that
time frame? The taxpayers deserve answers to these questions
While the school board is blindly following the new and unproven
Common Core requirements from state bureaucrats with virtually no
parental involvement or consent, the board at the same time wants a
boatload more of our hard-earned tax dollars.
I ask of you, as taxpayers, citizens and parents:
Does it sound fair that the same school board who is marching in
stride with state-wide bureaucrats to take away our local control of
our schools is asking us to give them hundreds of millions more of
our hard-earned tax dollars?
Does the fact that they either do not have or have not shared with the
public any detailed accounting of how the money will be spent by
school or by project seem open and transparent?
Does it make good fiscal sense that they have listed many projects
whose useful life will be long gone a decade or two before we finally
pay for the bond itself?
Does it make any sense that we the taxpayers should bail out the
district for their poor financial management of the school budgets for
the last six years?
The only logical answer to these questions is “No”.
Vote “No” on Measure I, the $175,000,000 FJUHSD bond issue.
From: George Giokaris <GGiokaris@fjuhsd.k12.ca.us>;
Subject: RE: Campaigning on School Property
Sent: Tue, Oct 7, 2014 12:08:56 AM
Sent: Monday, October 06, 2014 1:43 PM
To: George Giokaris
Subject: Campaigning on School PropertyDr. Giokaris,I heard something quite disturbing today and wanted to get your side of the story. What I heard would demonstrate a massive lapse in judgement which I just cannot fathom coming from you. I heard that you had Doug Chaffee advocating support for the bond on the Troy High School campus today and that you have PTA members using school facilities and equipment for phone banking and campaign organizing. Please let me know if any of this is true.Sincerely,
FJUHSD EMPLOYEE RANI GOYAL EMAIL CROSSES THE LINE
“Hello Indians!
I hope everyone has had a great start to their year and have settled in nicely to all that the Tribe has to offer. Attached to this email are some documents to help you understand Measure I that you will see on your ballot on November 4th. Please take a moment to look over the general information and the more specific information to FUHS. While not all the work needed at the school will get done if this measure is passed, a lot will be. This means that no matter the project, every student will benefit from the scope of work that is completed under this measure. Thank you for all you do for the school, your students and as always, Go Tribe!
Sincerely,
Rani Goyal
Principal”
______________________________________________________________________
By my reading of page 2 of this fact sheet from the California School Boards Association http://www.csba.org/Advocacy/~/media/CSBA/Files/Advocacy/ELA/2011_02_UseOfPublicResourcesForBallotMeasures.ashx, even CSBA interprets using the email list as crossing the line, and CSBA is probably one of the friendliest groups to the idea of school districts sending out school bond literature.
On page 1, CSBA notes there are three categories of activities designated by the State Supreme Court regarding public resources on election issues:
- Permissible informational activities
- Impermissible campaign activities
- Unclear activities which require further analysis based on the “style, tenor and timing” of the activity
Even if we generously interpret this document as falling in the “unclear activities” category (if we accept for the sake of argument that the email/attachment never expressly advocates). However, using the email list just two weeks before the election certainly causes “style, tenor and timing” problems.
A more reasonable interpretation that it’s impermissible campaign activities. That entire “The Why” section and possibly the last bullet of “District’s Facilities Needs” are express advocacy by my reading.
Under Education Code Section 7054, it appears either the FPPC or the DA could bring an enforcement issue against the district for this.
Fullerton California Campaign Central
Posted by Joe Imbriano in Who's who in Fullerton politics on September 29, 2014
Fullerton California Campaign Central:
I Report, Fullerton Voters to Decide-By Barry Levinson
Rating the Council candidates websites for content and for accuracy.
Rating System: If the candidate does a good job identifying the major issues, I will give them a rating as high as a C.
If the candidate does a good job spelling out specific solutions to all the problems as well, the rating can go up to an A.
If the candidates’ websites are misleading in any way they are downgraded. I believe honesty is the “best” policy. No one running for office should be allowed to either misinform or mislead the public.
- Greg Sebourn: B minus for doing a good job of identifying the issues, but failing to give any specifics for solutions. I boosted his score from a C to a B- for not embellishing his record. I believe candidates should be recognized positively for accuracy and honesty and downgraded for the opposite.
- Rick Alvarez: D minus For identifying only a few of the issues (infrastructure, economic development and public safety) with no specifics on solving our many problems. Mr. Alvarez does not even mention the huge problem of unfunded pension and retiree health care liabilities.
- Jane Rands: D minus I like her opening statement about balance. Unfortunately Rands has not provided us with much else. I know where Ms. Rands stands on most issues but she must share that information on her website.
- Sean Paden: D minus Like Ms. Rands, I know where Mr. Paden stands on many of the issues however like Ms. Rands his website is silent on all but one narrow issue. His issues segment states “Coming Soon”.
- Larry Bennett: F He mentions pension reform but takes it no further. He does not state that today’s pensions are way to generous and need to be scaled back if the city is ever to get back on a good financial footing. I downgraded him to an F for failing to fully acknowledge his past close support of McKinley, Jones and Bankhead and for some misleading comments on his website under his caption Working Together. He first states that he is a consensus builder. He was campaign chairman for the NO on the FULLERTON RECALL in 2012, a very contentious and divisive issue. He also states he is for civic openness but has defended what Councilmember’s Whitaker and Sebourn call the Fullerton Counterfeit COIN ordinance.
- Doug Chaffee: F He mentions some of the problems but like the others does not provide specific solutions. He is downgraded from a D to an F for an important inaccuracy on his website. His website states that “ Chevron, which owns the land, will work to forge a deal to sell most or all of the land to The Trust for Public Land, a national land-conservation group, city official announced Tuesday evening”. Unfortunately, the Trust for Public Land has totally bowed out of any deal approximately a month and a half ago. This is a mistake at best or at worst an intentional factual inaccuracy.
- Bill Chaffee F He earns a failing grade for not having a website.
Cancer shields for cellphones circa 2001
13 YEARS LATER, WHERE IS THIS CHILD’S CANCER SHIELD WHILE HE AND THE OTHER FOURTEEN THOUSAND POTENTIAL VICTIMS IN ROBERT PLETKA’S FULLERTON SCHOOL DISTRICT CLASSROOMS ARE FORCIBLY EXPOSED?
THIS LAUSD TEACHER GOT ONE IN THE FORM OF THIS: Read the rest of this entry »
Fullerton’s downtown skid row: Dan Hughes and Joe Felz failing Fullerton and thier Fascist solution asking for the beginning of the end of the first and fourth amendments.
Posted by Joe Imbriano in Fullerton politics, Hidden in plain view, The twighlight's last gleaming, Who's who in Fullerton politics on September 22, 2014
ONLY A GOLD RUSH MINING TOWN AFTER DARK’S GONNA HOLD A CANDLE TO DOWNTOWN FULLERTON. STEP RIGHT UP AND DON’T BE SHY BUT MOVE ALONG OR ELSE…
Want to catch just one more look into her eyes after dinner? Why go anywhere else? Why wait for the Vegas bullet train to roll into town? Downtown’s got it all north of the tracks after dark ladies and gentlemen. What is your forte, aggressive pan handling, street circuses, drugs for sale, pot smoking with the pungent odor of skunk bud? Maybe you have a taste for the underage with fake ID’s. How about the scantily clad? Read the rest of this entry »
I am very surprised-I report, you decide by Barry Levinson
Posted by Joe Imbriano in Who's who in Fullerton politics on September 13, 2014
Barry Levinson
Fullerton California Campaign Central – 53 days and counting until Election Day.
(In 24 days Absentee ballots will become available for the November 4th, 2014 Election.)
Last night I revisited all the city council candidates’ websites. I am putting together a review of them that I will be presenting in the next couple of days. But for now I would like to give all of you a brief update as I promised I would keep all of you informed.
In reading the existing websites of Jane Rands, Greg Sebourn, Larry Bennett, Rick Alvarez and Doug Chaffee, I noted no material additions (actually I did not notice any additions) to their sites. That is disappointing in that none of them have any details on how they are going to solve our city’s many problems.
Bill Chaffee has no website and at this point I have no information that one is in the works for him.
The only new activity I have personally witnessed is the addition of candidate signs being put up in more numbers throughout the city. With regard to signs, I have noticed that Mayor Chaffee has probably put up the most signs so far, followed by Mayor Pro-Tem Sebourn, Rands, Bennett and Alvarez.
I have not seen any signs for either Bill Chaffee or Sean Paden. It is interesting to note that no candidate flyers have been left at my personal residence nor have I received any mailers for the candidates as of today. I would assume that some Fullerton residents may have already begun to receive hand carried information about one or more candidates. However, I do expect to get my fair share of them starting in the next few weeks.
I was just contacted by Kim Wolfe that Sean Paden has now set up his website as of today. http://padenforfullerton.com/ However, in looking at it just now, I noticed that it is still not complete by his own admission. Under the “Issues Section” it states “Coming Soon” and all it has is a reprint of his official 200-word campaign statement. Hopefully, he will add the Issue Section quickly. My Issues Paden for Fullerton
Barry Levinson
The strange dichotomy of Dan Hughes
To most Fullerton residents, the names Dan Hughes and Barry Levinson ring a bell. Dan Hughes is our current police chief who some say is simply Pat Mckinley with a smile. Others revere him as the much needed solution to the problems plaguing The FPD.
Barry Levinson, is a Fullerton resident who is a rare breed indeed. He is a civic minded individual who has the guts to tell it like it is and repeatedly ask the hard questions that most political slimeskins in this town wouldn’t dare to touch with a ten foot pole. Personally, the most perplexing questions that I still have, directly relate to Dan Hugh’s comments about the 33 minute and 33 seconds of video where Kelly Thomas was left for dead in the gutter after he was brutally beaten by officers of The FPD. Last night the issue was revisited with no exception.
In my opinion Fullerton is not healed from anything. No, the cancer is now in stage IV and the treatment plan costs are going to run into orbit from the Kelly Thomas murder, the fallout from the sham trial and the precarious termination of the officers.
The current Flory, Chaffee and Fitzgerald council members, in my opinion, still have their little happy parties and fluff gimmicks while holding the resident taxpayers in derision with their voting records. Meanwhile, Bruce and Greg struggle to keep the ship steered in the right direction in rough seas. Who will rise to the occasion in November? Will Barry? Perhaps yours truly?
At this point it is anyone’s guess. One thing is certain and that is Fullerton needs leaders and not lapdogs. Maybe whoever decides to throw their hat into the ring could use a refresher course on what courage really is and how to ask the hard questions. Weak, spineless, slimy politicians are what got us where we are. I say the hell with them and who needs them? Unless we can muster some real contenders coupled with some real civilian police oversight, we might as well leave the vampires in charge of the blood bank, lock our doors and stay home in November. I personally could care less about a few bucks added to my water bill every two months or a stinkin’ pothole if I still have to worry about getting beaten to death for not playing doctor with some deranged cop or framed like an picture at an Aaron Brother’s 1/2 cent sale.
Here is the clip http://fullerton.granicus.com/MediaPlayer.php?view_id=2&clip_id=513
Go to 28:20 and see for yourself. Here is what he has written and with his permission the following is published:
________________________________________________________________________________
By Barry Levinson | It is important to remind our city officials, the press and our community that our “new” police chief was our “old” captain who was the direct supervisor of officers Ramos, Cincinelli, Wolfe, Hampton, Craig and Blatney.
Anyone who is familiar with police work knows that the real training of officers comes not from the training officer but from their direct superior, on a day-in and day-out basis. That would have been then-Captain Dan Hughes. Therefore, I am disappointed that Chief Hughes has never expressed his regret that he obviously failed to train those 6 men adequately.
I have given Dan Hughes’ comments about his viewing the video over 400 times much thought and analysis. First, the video was 33 minutes and 33 seconds in length. It would have taken him over 222 hours to view that video 400 times. Should we believe that he spent five-and-a-half-plus 40-hour weeks reviewing the video while on duty, or even at home?
What about the actual comments he made concerning the contents of the video itself. His contention was that those police officers acted properly as seen on the video.
There are only two possible explanations for his comments.
The first reason is that he really believes that those six officers under his direct command were doing their jobs as he trained them or,
Second, he believed that the video would never be released to the public and so he felt safe siding with his men.
The first possibility shows that he is as guilty as any of those officers for not knowing the proper boundaries for police behavior. That is downright frightening.
The other possibility shows his willingness to mislead the public for his own benefit. This is not behavior that inspires confidence and trust.
But yet he terminated officers Ramos, Cincinelli and Wolfe presumably based on their actions that very night. What is the public to believe? The Acting Chief Hughes’s statements that after viewing that video over 400 times taking over 222 hours to complete, that he saw nothing wrong? Or the other Chief Hughes who terminated those three officers for their conduct that very night. Which Dan Hughes are we to believe?
Finally, when will the press, the public and every one of our council members, demand that he explain those glaring contradictions?
Barry Levinson
________________________________________________________________________________
Great questions Barry. Let’s see if we ever get our answers.
Recent Comments