Fullerton California Campaign Central I report, you decide. By Barry Levinson


 

images-11 (1)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

 

images (17)

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-

 

download (13)

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+

 

 

download (14)

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+

 

 

images (18)

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.

download (15)

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-

 

 

rick-alvarez-e1403030872694

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

 

 

download (16)

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

  1. #1 by Anonymous on October 7, 2014 - 8:31 pm

    Rick Alvarez is well, lets just say, eh, well on second thought, let’s not. Chaffee, were should we begin?

(will not be published)


Copyright © 2013 TheFullertonInformer.com. All rights reserved. TheFullertonInformer.com is the legal copyright holder of the material on this blog and it may not be used, reprinted, or published without express written permission. The information contained in this website is for entertainment and educational purposes ONLY. This website contains my personal opinion and experience based on my own research from scientific writings, internet research and interviews with doctors and scientists all over the world. Do not take this website, links or documents contained herein as a personal, medical or legal advice of any kind. For legal advice, please consult with your attorney. Consult your medical doctor or primary care physician for advice regarding your health and your children’s health and nothing contained on this website is intended to provide or be a substitute for medical, legal or other professional advice. The reading or use of this information is at your own risk. Readers will not be put on spam lists. We will not sell your contact information to another company. We are not responsible for the privacy practices of our advertisers or blog commenters. We reserve the right to change the focus of this blog, to shut it down, to sell it, or to change the terms of use at our discretion. We are not responsible for the actions of our advertisers or sponsors. If a reader purchases a product or service based upon a link from our blog, the reader must take action with that company to resolve the issue, not us. Our policy on using letters or emails that have been written directly to us is as follows: We will be sharing those letters and emails with the blogging audience unless they are requested to be kept confidential. We will claim ownership of those letters or emails to later be used in an up-and-coming book,blog article,post or column, unless otherwise specified by the writer to keep ownership. THE TRUTH WILL STAND ON ITS OWN AND THE TRUTH WILL SET YOU FREE-SEEK IT AT ALL COSTS!