The Brea Dam issue may be new to some of you, but not to the Parks and Recreation commission in Fullerton, and especially not to Scott Stanford.
Is there a massive financial scandal brewing involving the property? Here is another SO CALLED CONSERVATIVE Scott Stanford parks and rec appointee from Foolerton’s decaying establishment who is just outright mad at Mr Imbriano, Mr Curleee, and anyone else who shines the light of day on issues. He personally asked me to post this so watch him in action. Just another city hall establishment sycophant who claims to be conservative.
Contrary to Mr Stanford, there is nothing PETTY about ramming dangerous cell towers into neighborhoods right next to peoples homes and right next to schools, framing and attempting to incarcerate citizen activists and a fellow commissioner, the disgusting, dilapidated, grafiitti riddled neglected unsanitary disgusting park bathrooms, busted drinking fountains, busted concrete, gopher hole laden dead parks, dead trees, treacherous decaying playground equipment, the dirty, attempted secret giveaway of the most valueable piece of real estate in the park and rec department, and of course the serious allegations of misuse of public funds at the Brea dam.
Of course Stanford states that he “has nothing vested in his position except for seeing the city run in a good way” Well this is not political, this is not a game, this is push back from awake citizens that want to see the city run in good way. We are not going away so maybe, like he has been tempted to do in the past, he should resign. If he doesn’t like the way this issue is being covered, and the fact that questions are being asked about our money, our parks and our representatives then get the heck off the commission so we can have someone else step up and join the lone voice of reason and logic, Mr Levinson.
So who is this guy? Well he votes for cell towers next to schools and homes without contracts and detailed information ignoring safety and health concerns just like the others with the exception of Barry Levinson.
Who the heck appointed this guy? Well of course he was an at large appointee so the entire council can take credit. Stanford was involved, by his own admission in the golf course giveaway back when the ball started rolling down the proverbial hill that David Curlee’s website http://breadam.org/ just put on the map.
Yes it is full of questions and the only answer this guy seems to have is crickets and innuendo. Par for the course when the lights are on and nobody’s home at city hall. Is Stanford just another RINO? Perhaps but that doesn’t matter because he is just an adviser to council. Fortunately for the taxpayers, because of a possible Brown Act violation and the voice of reason and due diligence, commissioner Levinson, the issue will be back at the table at the next meeting with a more detailed accounting in hopes of answering the serious allegations Mr. Curlee has made against the city of Fullerton. We will keep you posted.
#1 by Barry Levinson on January 12, 2016 - 1:27 pm
Sometimes it seems unreal, what I have to defend on the Parks and Recreation Committee. It is a permanent formal committee and as such the city is required to post an agenda at least 72 hours prior to the meeting. If a meeting is not to be held, i.e. cancelled it should only be based on the decision to cancel the meeting by a majority of the committee members. It should never be based solely on the recommendation of The Park and Recreation Director, Hugo Curiel and only one member out of a seven member committee. Earlier in the meeting I did state that when I was Chair, I always emailed all the members and asked them if they would agree to a cancellation of the meeting. I also stated it was my recollection that during my almost 5 years serving on the committee that until last fall, the Chair person and/or the Director of Parks and Recreation asked the committee members for their agreement to cancel a regularly scheduled formal meeting before taking that action. A committee’s actions is always based on the will of the majority. It is that simple. To ignore that concept disrespects the committee and its membership and seriously diminishes its independence. The fact that Commissioner Stanford, a self-proclaimed conservative seems to have a problem with that is mind boggling to me.