I REPORT, YOU DECIDE. By Barry Levinson

Barry Levinson

C.O.I.N (Civic Openness in Negotiations) – Well a few of us tried valiantly to persuade two other Fullerton council members in addition to our consistent friend and advocate for the people, Council member Whitaker to reject the City of Fullerton’s sham version of labor negotiation reform. Diane Hickey and I presented a comparison between the two tales of “good” government. The real version known as the Costa Mesa version and than the cynical, phony, corrupt version hoisted upon us at council last night by Human Resources Director Gretchen Beatty with the blessings I suspect from her boss, City Manager, Joe Felz.  Read the rest of this entry »

• I REPORT, YOU DECIDE. By Barry Levinson
• 

  BARRY LEVINSON

  This is my first opportunity to compare an excellent law, the CostaMesa Ordinance on Civic Openness in Negotiations (C.O.I.N.) vs. theFullerton Draft C.O.I.N Ordinance, which can be passed into law by a

  vote of our city council on Tuesday, June 17th 2014.

   

  Costa Mesa’s Civic Openness in Negotiations ordinance was

  designed to make public employee salary and benefit negotiations

  open and transparent to the public and to all members of the city

  council as well.

  First, the Costa Mesa ordinance makes it clear that “the city shall

  have prepared on its behalf, by an independent auditor, …. a

  study and supplemental data upon which the study is based,

  determining the fiscal impacts attributed to each term and condition of

  employment.”

  More importantly “the above report and findings of the independent

  auditor shall be completed and made available for review by the city

  council and the public at least thirty days before consideration by the

  city council of an initial meet and confer proposal to be presented

  to any recognized employee organization regarding negotiation

  of an amended, extended, successor, or original memorandum of

  understanding.”

  Finally, “the above report shall be regularly updated by the

  independent auditor to itemize the costs and the funded and

  unfunded actuarial liability which would or may result form adoption or

  acceptance of each meet and confer proposal.”

  The draft Fullerton C.O.I.N. ordinance includes none of the above

  specific steps to ensure the public is being kept informed with

  accurate and timely data and information.

   

  What does our draft ordinance include? It includes the following:

  “Staff shall prepare an annual analysis of cost and liabilities related to

  each Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) between a recognized

  employee association and the city of Fullerton …”. “The annual fiscal

  analysis shall be submitted to the City’s independent auditor during

  the course of the annual City financial audit.”

  Please notice ladies and gentlemen that this audit takes place

  annually, probably after the conclusion and the signing of the labor

  agreements. Learning of an error after a 3 or 5-year agreement has

  been signed, sealed and delivered is meaningless. How convenient

  for all city employees that City Manager Joe Felz and staff would

  rewrite this ordinance in this fashion. The auditing required under

  the Fullerton Draft Ordinance is a waste of money because it is not

  completed on a timely basis.

  Second, the Fullerton draft excludes the Report Format, which

  provides the framework and necessary detail to understand the

  impacts of various items in the proposals.

  Third, if the two items above do not derail the true purpose of

  C.O.I.N. then a simple majority of the council can do away with the

  requirement to have an independent negotiator. This part of the draft

  ordinance is ridiculous on its face. You take a cornerstone of the

  concept of C.O.I.N. and you make it optional with the vote of 3 out of

  5 members of the council. Section B.1 entitled Principal Negotiator,

  states “The requirement for an outside negotiator may be waived by a

  majority vote of City Council.”

  Fullerton city leaders have taken an open, fair and effective law for all

  parties and made it into a paper tiger.

  This is my first review of the Fullerton C.O.I.N. draft ordinance and

  you can see by the length of this critique that the two ordinances

  have far more differences than key points in common. In fact, I would

  be hard pressed to see any of the Costa Mesa key points being

  brought forward to our Fullerton ordinance. Based on all the above

  facts, it would not be far from the truth to state that our Fullerton

  ordinance literally guts the effectiveness of the Costa Mesa law.

  My recommendation is that we throw out this draft in its entirety. We

  start again with the Costa Mesa Ordinance as our draft ordinance as

  originally brought before this council some 7 months ago by Council

  member Whitaker. If any council members want to change any of

  the Costa Mesa requirements they should have documented valid

  reasons why their change would be for the better and each change

  should be voted on separately by our council.

  In my humble opinion, the Costa Mesa Civic Openness in

  Negotiations Ordinance is an excellent law. The only fault that some

  may find with it (certainly not me) is that it will actually accomplish its

  proclaimed purpose.—BARRY LEVINSON

I REPORT, YOU DECIDE.-by Barry Levinson

I attended the Fullerton Republican Women’s Federated meeting on May 28, 2014. The guest speaker was our Police Chief Dan Hughes. He gave an interesting if somewhat disjointed speech. He indicated that it was good for his department to acknowledge when they do not live up to the highest standards. Yet, he then referred to activists and complained that whatever the FPD actually does, these activists are going to complain about his department.

Dan, either you want legitimate criticism or you want to bitterly complain whenever a member of the public has a legitimate beef with the FPD. Your speech certainly sent out mixed messages much like that famous pair, Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde.

He also handed out the 2013 FPD Annual Report, which he indicated was the first one published since way back in 1967.

In it I noted that for 2013, the FPD Supervisor of the Year was none other than Sergeant Kevin Craig, the highest-ranking officer present during the beating death of Kelly Thomas. Craig, you may recall, testified in late 2013 or January 2014 for the defense of Ramos and Cicinelli, claiming that none of the actions taken by any of his fellow officers, including himself that night were indeed against FPD policy. It seemed rather odd that even before the criminal trial had begun, Dan Hughes chose this man to be his star performer.

Why, Dan, did you fire Ramos, Cicinelli and Wolfe, when your Supervisor of the Year testified that they did nothing wrong? Your training officer, Corporal Rubio also testified that they did absolutely nothing wrong.

I guess those officers were just walking by and Kelly Thomas just happened to repeatedly strike himself in the head, face, body, etc. and died. I guess Kelly Thomas asked Fullerton Police Officer, Jay Cincinelli if he could borrow his taser, so Kelly could inflict maximum damage to his own face. I guess it was just those 6 officers’ misfortune that they happened to be on their normal rounds when that terrible incident occurred.

One must accept the above scenario as the truth to be able to understand why not one of those 6 officers ever spent a night in jail. But those pesky activists — you know, the protestors — Dan Hughes will make darn sure that they spend some time behind bars. Because that is the fair-minded, not-politically-motivated police chief we are so lucky to have represent us in the most ethically run city in the state of California. Count your blessings, Fullertonians. The city of Bell has nothing over us. After all, they just stole money, not a life!

I forgot to tell all of you, that our police chief kept on repeating one point over and over again during his presentation. That point was that Dan Hughes just does not pay any attention to the politics within Fullerton. No, he just sends 6 police officers, including 2 supervisors as well as several police vehicles to Pasadena for half a day to arrest AJ for a misdemeanor failure to disperse.

I now have learned from Jean Thaxton’s public comments at last council meeting that Dan Hughes put together a police committee to review the tape of the Ramos, Cicinelli not guilty protest that took place on January 18, 2014. Based on that review, FPD filed that non-violent misdemeanor charge against peaceful protester and live streamer, AJ Redkey for failure to disperse (failure I guess to not disperse quickly enough for Dan Hughes because others have alleged that the same tape shows Mr. Redkey running from the protest area at the time the police asked the protestors to disperse). We all know that had to be the highest priority for our FPD that day. Clearly, if AJ Redkey was the most dangerous “suspect” that needed to be arrested that day 40 miles away in Pasadena, and you could afford to send 6 officers to make that arrest, then I would humbly point out that the FPD is greatly overstaffed!

By the way, it is my understanding that the most common way, the easiest way and probably the cheapest way to make that arrest was to call the Pasadena Police Department and ask them to make that arrest. I guess that easy solution never crossed your mind, Chief Hughes. I guess the next question is why did that simple and easy solution never cross your mind? Or maybe it was personal to you Dan Hughes, like the game of political payback! Just like the reports that the FPD riot police who taunted those protestors who were arrested on January 18th, 2014 with saying the words Not Guilty over and over again! If true, it shows a great lack of maturity and professionalism by those officers.

But unfortunately for the good people of Fullerton, the alleged bad acts of one or more Fullerton police officers do not end there. In fact, it was reported that those 10 arrested protestors complained that their very lives were threatened by at least one Fullerton police officer who was transporting them to jail. These protestors complained that they were threatened that when they arrived at the Orange County jail all their faces (including both men and women) will be smashed in by 12 waiting OC Sheriff Deputies. Yet when Dan Hughes was asked whether he had reviewed the DAR’s (Digital Audio Recorder’s) of those officers to investigate those extremely serious charges, our open and honest police chief remained totally silent.

PS: It is now over a month and counting when I first asked Dan Hughes to tell me the name of the Officer who replaced Reserve Officer Bill Wallis performing the very important role of monitoring and enforcing Fullerton’s Sex Offender population. I am becoming suspicious that Dan has not and maybe does not want to hire a replacement for Bill Wallis. That would certainly have the same or greater chilling effect as repealing our Ordinance No. 3149. No manpower, no enforcement, no protection for both our children and our women from dangerous sexual predators.

Barry Levinson

Barry Levinson

There are many people who are upset about the FPD sending 6 police officers and several vehicles all the way up to Pasadena for a half day just to arrest AJ Redkey on a misdemeanor warrant, for failure to disperse during the January 18th protest over the not guilty verdicts of Ramos and Cincinelli. On June 3rd you will have the opportunity to speak before our city council. This issue is on the agenda as Item No. 9 under Regular Business. It will be very interesting if our Police Chief responds to questions from our council members if not from the public.

FPD chief Dan Hughes

Every time I think of that arrest the only two words that make any sense are; political payback! Unless, AJ is a violent felon (and based on all newspaper reports this is not the case), the FPD’s actions are indefensible. Please note that all 5 people streaming (broadcasting) over the internet during the Kelly Thomas not guilty verdict protest on January 18th, 2014 were arrested by the FPD. Coincidence or payback! Remember it was reported that those that were arrested that day while in the police van were heckled by the FPD’s finest with the chant….Not Guilty, Not Guilty! If true just another example of the total lack of professionalism of some of our men and women in blue. I believe that story because I personally know a woman who was not allowed to use a bathroom that day within FPD headquarters after 2 police officers asked her if she was a protester. She said she was peacefully protesting and they told her to take a hike. This woman had major surgery a few days prior and any fool could see that medically she was not doing well. I happened to talk with her right after this alleged innocent and I believe her story 100%. But I guess it was not those 2 officers day to serve and protect the public. 

Dan you must be so proud of those 2 officers for refusing a sick woman the “privilege” to use our taxpayer funded FPD bathroom as well as those officers in full riot gear taunting those arrested protesters. A reasonable person would begin to notice a pattern of harassment, by taunting some of the citizens they come into contact with. We all witnessed for ourselves the taunting of Kelly Thomas by Officer Ramos on July 5^th, 2011. Instead of police training Dan, how about sending those officers to a class with “Miss Manners”? How about a civics class that teaches your officers the meaning of the words, public servants?

Dan I know a half days pay for 6 highly paid FPD officers for a misdemeanor arrest warrant for an activity that occurred 4 months prior, may not seem like a lot of money to you since you make almost $200K a year plus another over $100K in benefits. However, it makes us taxpayers feel like we had our pockets picked by the FPD.

piece of cake

The other words that I cannot get out of my head are these; 2013 FPD Supervisor of the Year, Sergeant Kevin Craig! You know him as the highest-ranking officer participating in the KT beating death. He testified for the defense that he saw no violations of any FPD policy or procedures the night of July 5th, 2011. He came on the scene and witnessed 4 officers literally beating the life out of a 135 pound unarmed shirtless man with enough of Kelly’s blood all around to make an ER doctor sick. Yet he apparently did nothing to stop this totally unnecessary and senseless beating.

Question to Dan Hughes. Since your award winning Sergeant Craig and your FPD training officer testified under oath, that all officers conducted themselves within prescribed FPD policies and procedures, why sir did you fire Ramos, Cincinelli and Wolfe? Either they did something terribly wrong that night or they did not. You cannot continue to have it both ways. You cannot continue to state that you took care of the problem while you never have admitted any bad acts by those 6 men!

We also know based on the testimony of a Fullerton fireman that Sergeant Craig nor any of the other 5 involved officers directed paramedics to help Kelly Thomas to give him the much needed immediate medical attention he desperately needed that night.

—BARRY LEVINSON

I REPORT, YOU DECIDE.

On Memorial Day, a solemn day that our nation honors those that fought and sacrificed so much in order to preserve the precious freedoms we have here in America.

Well this report should question how our city can make arbitrary decisions that seem to fly in the face of those very freedoms that our soldiers have fought to protect for the last 238 years!

This true story starts with the passage of the amended sex offender residency restriction ordinance as follows: Rather than first incorporate the many modifications to the draft amended ordinance that were suggested mainly by me at the May 20 council meeting into a draft ordinance ready to be approved without any further changes at our very next council meeting, the council did this instead. They voted 4-1 to approve the unfinished amended ordinance with the proviso that the city attorney would make all the necessary changes before the 2nd reading of the ordinance in two weeks. Although hopeful that the many changes would be incorporated, I believe that the proper way to get this done correctly, was to first make all the changes to the amended ordinance and then bring it back to the next council for the 1st vote and reading. Rarely, in my experience does the council allow for any changes once an ordinance is passed the first time.

The concern that the city needed to move quickly because of a threatened lawsuit was a very poor excuse to rush this amended ordinance through at the May 20th council meeting.

You see ladies and gentlemen, the city leaders, i.e. Joe Felz, Dick Jones and Dan Hughes were notified that the vagrancy part of Ordinance No. 3149 which deals with keeping child sex offenders out of parks and schools was preempted by state law and that specific part of Fullerton’s law was ruled unconstitutional, according to the case Dermody vs. the people of California filed 4/11/2013. Since the city through our city attorney made no attempt to appeal this decision, the only other thing to do was to go back to council and ask to make the necessary changes to the law to place the entire law back into full compliance with the state. This was totally ignored by our city leaders until May 6th of this year; 13 months after the city knew the law was in violation, due to the Dermody case decision.

They not only squandered 13 months to act, but they unofficially decided at that time to not enforce the entire Ordinance, even though the residency restriction was and still is perfectly good law in full compliance with state statutes. For 13 months they let the council and the good people of Fullerton believe that Sex Offender Ordinance No. 3149 was still being enforced by the city’s police department.

Joe Felz did not have the decency to let my wife and me know the ordinance that we worked day and night on for over 7 months to get written and then passed in 2010 was not being enforced at all for over 13 months and counting. If you think we recently received any kind of apology from Mr. Felz, you would be greatly mistaken.

Why did they knowingly not enforce a hard fought and won ordinance to help protect our children from the worst kind of sexual predators, is a question all of you should ask our city manager, city attorney and our city police chief at the next council meeting?

It is scandalous that they would put our children at risk for their own self-serving reasons.

Finally, I thought Fullerton city laws that were passed had to be enforced unless or until the same council that passed it in the first place officially repealed them. I guess our city has “their own “special” way” to enforce or ignore laws at their own whim. The city IMHO, completely stepped over their legal bounds by arbitrarily and unilaterally deciding not to enforce the major part of Ord. 3149, i.e. the residency restriction as well as the vagrancy part.

Shame on you Joe Felz, Dick Jones, and Dan Hughes.

You do know better and should have done the right thing from the very start. Fullerton, the last time I checked was still a city in the great state of California and California was still part of these United States of America. When did the city decide we became a third rate banana dictatorship where the leaders can pick and choose at their discretion the laws they choose to enforce or not enforce.

If anyone does not believe that the city was not enforcing our Sex Offender Ordinance No. 3149 since last April 2013 through today, all you have to do is go to the May 20th City of Fullerton Regular Meeting Agenda statement. There you would click on the Assessment of City’s Sex Offender Ordinance, Agenda Item No. 7 to get the city attorney’s own write up on this issue, Subject: Assessment of City’s Sex Offender Ordinance, page 10 Item C.1. “The Dermody Decision”. There you will find this quote from Jim Touchstone, our Deputy City Attorney as follows:

“In April 2013, the Superior Court Appellate Division heard the matter and determined that the city’s park exclusion provision contained in the Ordinance (Section 7.150.050) was preempted by state laws and was unenforceable on that basis. Accordingly, the City currently is prohibited from further enforcement of that section of the Ordinance.* The city Attorney’s Office informed the City of this ruling shortly after it was issued. As such, the City ceased enforcement of the Ordinance at that time.” *

Based on the above quoted language, it is clear that we cannot even count on our city leaders to enforce current laws whose sole objective is to help keep our children safe. Remember the city chose not to enforce the entire ordinance when the court only stated that the vagrancy part of the ordinance not be enforced. This is a huge difference and one that the city has never explained to me or to our council either.

Please note that I, Barry Levinson added the bold face and italics for emphasis.

In conclusion, any concerned Fullerton citizen, student, business owner or employee should be outraged at the conduct I described relating to our City Manager, Joe Felz, our City Attorney, Dick Jones and our Police Chief, Dan Hughes.

All of us should attend the next Fullerton City Council meeting on Tuesday, June 3rd, 2014 starting at 6:30 PM and demand answers.

Thank you.

Barry Levinson

BARRY LEVINSON