HERE ARE SOME OF MY THOUGHTS AS WE ENTER A CRUCIAL ELECTION YEAR OF 2016 WITH THREE FULLERTON COUNCIL MEMBERS UP FOR REELECTION, FITZGERALD, FLORY AND WHITAKER.
BY BARRY LEVINSON
BARRY LEVINSON
Question? Can any elected official expect real change when they do not hold elected officials serving with them accountable for their special interest voting record, knowing that the special interest politicians hold the voting majority? For if the same people or their allies keep on getting elected, how can we expect any different and I would add better results going forward?
As Albert Einstein once said: Doing the same thing over and over again and then expecting a different outcome is the definition of insanity…. and I would add self-delusional as well.
I would argue that those elected bodies frequently act more like a Private and Exclusive Club than a representative body of the people. Their votes so often ignore the will of the people, but help the well-connected special interests. They also seem to have this unspoken rule, not to openly and publicly criticize colleagues on their respective votes, even when those votes do not agree with their campaign slogans and/or promises. Does this rule help the people or does it shield the politicians from justifiable criticism on their voting records? Are elected officials trading their silence for future political support?
Part of the reason for bad government of course, is the public’s lack of involvement with the political process. Political mailers that have little connection to the truth can fool many voters. So in fact, the public needs to realize that their ignorance of the facts results in many bad choices at the voting booth.
However, this article is not about what the public could do better to effectuate a better government but what our elected leaders can do to make for a better and more representative government for the people.
Question? If a politician runs for office as a fiscal conservative and votes for deficit budgets rather than making changes to live within the taxpayer’s means, should not that politician be held accountable by their fiscally conservative colleagues?
I say emphatically yes. For if that same elected official wins reelection touting their fiscally conservative record, I believe one can state that the other elected officials’ silence aided and abetted that person’s reelection.
Well in Fullerton, we have 3 Republican elected council members’ Whitaker, Fitzgerald and Sebourn. In fact, Fitzgerald was the swing vote to pass a two-year $2.8 million deficit budget. This $2.8 million deficit is actually understated because it excludes major costs such as the cost of water for the entire city of Fullerton and all the unfunded pension and retiree medical care costs. Why do you think Ms. Fitzgerald cast this deciding vote? Is it because she votes in support of her special interest friends, the public unions and the real estate developers? Overwhelmingly, these groups do not live in Fullerton. Why then should the public unions be allowed to bleed us dry of our tax money? Why then should the high-rise real estate developers be allowed to destroy the quality of life Fullertonians have cherished for decades?
I have not heard one word from the council dais from either Council member Whitaker or Sebourn pointing out why a supposed fiscal conservative council member, Fitzgerald would vote for budget deficits. It is not to late for either or both gentlemen to go on the record with this very justifiable criticism of Mayor Fitzgerald.
Saying what you mean and more importantly doing what you say is what makes for an honorable council member. Without it, we the public, are not voting for trusted public servants but rather for an illusion painted skillfully by a less than honest politician. In 2016 let us speak out as one and hold all our elected officials accountable. Remember Fullertonians that when a council member lets a fellow council member off the hook, it too often means that we the people have been placed on that hook.
Finally, I like to leave the readers with one last thought. If we as a people can’t elect a majority of representatives who put the welfare of the people before the special interests on the local level, how can we ever expect anything better on the state and national levels?
I report, you decide.
#1 by Barry Levinson on January 4, 2016 - 1:48 pm
It was the Fullerton City Council (which at the time included Jan Flory) Another View that voted for the steep increase in police and fire benefits for the city of Fullerton approximately 13 years ago. That vote is the main reason why there is such a large unfunded pension liability. I was stating that the city of Fullerton is not required to show the cost of the unfunded pension liabilities when coming up with its yearly budget, which is now $2.8 million in the red over the next two years. I also said the city does not show the cost of its water usage because it passes all of that cost to the ratepayers in the form of higher rates. Will you Another View pay for my entire water bill? I did not think so, then why does the city mandate that we the consumers pay directly for the water they consume year after year. Maybe if they paid for their own water and identified it properly as a separate line item cost in the budget, we would have known for example, about the excessive water loss at Laguna Lakes many years ago. What is not seen, can not be fixed? What is hidden from the public can be ignored by the city? These two off budget items would add millions to our existing budget deficit.
More evidence of the lack of transparency in the City of Fullerton budget, which is the joint responsibility of the City Council and our City Manager, Joe Felz.
#2 by Another view ... on January 5, 2016 - 11:25 am
My recollection is that Ms. Flory voted AGAINST the pay and benefit increases for public safety workers which is the reason those unions did not endorse her in her bid for re-election at that time.
To your other point, the city’s payments to CalPERS are most definitely included in the budget.
Thirdly, the city’s water costs are documented. Easy to find too.
#3 by Anonymous on January 5, 2016 - 11:57 am
Not last time around-raises for all
#4 by Barry Levinson on January 5, 2016 - 2:28 pm
Another View you are mistaken. Council member Flory voted for the huge pension increase for Fullerton fire and police after 9/11, which allows them now to retire at the age of 50 with 90% of their pay after 30 years of service. The average 50 year old male lives on average to about 82 years of age. So these public servants make 90% of their pay in retirement for an average of 32 years, 2 more years than they actually worked. Without major changes to the current pension system or greatly increasing our taxes, all cities with this overly generous pension plan can expect to be facing bankruptcy down the road.
#5 by Barry Levinson on January 5, 2016 - 3:21 pm
As I said above, without major changes to the current pension system or greatly increasing our taxes or both, all cities with this overly generous pension plan can expect to be facing bankruptcy down the road.
How’s that for safety Fullertonians?
#6 by Reality Is..... on January 5, 2016 - 5:02 pm
I’ve heard that for years. All cities are going bankrupt. However, so far only a few cities that were very poorly run have even attempted it. San Bernardino will be the first big test case. They have lost over 1/4 of their police force already. Smart cops.
#7 by Another view ... on January 5, 2016 - 8:41 pm
Fullerton is not in danger of bankruptcy, nor will they be. Yes I agree the public pension system needs an overhall. But to blame the Fullerton council for that is wrong, misleading and self serving. The problem lies in Sacramento.
#8 by Reality Is..... on January 6, 2016 - 4:45 pm
I remember Tony Bushala and Travis and Whitaker and a few others on that anti city government, anti police train, said that Fullerton would be bankrupt in two years. That was 5 years ago. Fullerton and almost all other California cities are doing fine now. It’s all just BS talk. The only thing that could impact the future of PERS and that pension system is if the former Mayor of San Jose and his butt buddy somehow get their dreams on a ballot. They figured out that the only way to end the PERS system and benefits is to completely halt contributions from new employees. That would shut it down and crush the California economy instantly. Until then, which shouldn’t ever happen, PERS will thrive and so will California cities.
#9 by Reality Is..... on January 5, 2016 - 4:58 pm
The average life of a retired cop is not 82. Do some more research if you are going to spout figures like that. It’s not even close to 82.
I’ve heard it for the last 15 years that this pension thing is going to be the end of California. But cities continue to thrive, have balanced budgets and move money into the rainy day funds. Yes, I think city employees across the board should get pay raises of 2-4%. Every year. COLA is something that a pay raise like that barely even dents. Not sure why you think that’s such a big deal. I think just about every person I know in the private sector also gets pay raises of some % each year. You are just a cop and city employee hater so you fail to see the fairness in a small raise. What’s the average pay raise per year for police in Fullerton? Tell me that. Since they gave up so much, like all police departments and city employees across this state in the hard times. So go ahead. Tell me what’s the average yearly raise over the last 10 years for Fullerton Police.
#10 by Barry Levinson on January 6, 2016 - 4:48 pm
The average life of a retired police officer is actually slightly higher than the average males life expectancy calculated at age 50. These are the statistics.
A police officer who is ethically challenged is a danger to us all. They have the power to destroy innocent lives. That is just one of the reasons that POBAR needs to be overhauled.
The law should not protect bad police officers. Reality Is has a consistent track record on this website of spewing misinformation. People who have no respect for the truth should never wear a badge.
It is precisely the fact that my dad was such a great police officer – honest, dedicated and brave that I expect some level of honesty, decency and work ethic from every law enforcement officer. I am sure many have those great qualities but we have seen in Fullerton that too many fall way short.
#11 by Another view ... on January 5, 2016 - 6:05 pm
I don’t know you, but it kind of sounds like you really just don’t like public safety workers for some reason. I agree that our public pension system needs an overhaul.. But as I said earlier, to say it’s all Fullertons fault, is misleading and inaccurate
#12 by Anonymous on January 5, 2016 - 7:21 pm
I guess Another View just wants to condemn this site rather than answer to the fact that it was the Fullerton City Council around the year 2002 that voted for a 90% safety pension after 30 years at the ripe young age of 50. It was adopted in Fullerton by a majority vote of the Fullerton City Council…not the county, not the state, not the federal government. Do you understand now Another View?
#13 by Reality Is..... on January 6, 2016 - 4:39 pm
along with every other city police agency in the State of California. Yes what you said is true. And it’s a large part of why Fullerton is such a great police agency today. If they didn’t vote that in, all the cops would have left for surrounding agencies that did vote it in. It was really that simple in 2002.