Counterfeit COIN - Just the Facts

by Mayor Pro Tem Greg Sebourn, PLS & Council Member Bruce Whitaker

The issue of open negotiations in government finances is nothing new.  In fact, Fullerton considered this at its November 5, 2013 City Council meeting in which the matter was tabled for nearly seven months.

Elected officials have a fiduciary duty to manage your tax dollars and the public has the absolute right to know how and why their tax dollars are being spent.  This right to know is underscored since unionized labor is the single largest budgetary line item for the City and the fact that the City is still operating with a City Council approved (3-2) structural deficit of at least $1.6-million! 

Fullerton taxpayers have a long history of being shortchanged by City Hall.  From illegal taxes to redevelopment waste, Fullerton taxpayers have every reason to question who is proposing to spend how much and on what.  Civic Openness in Negotiations, or COIN, offered a glimmer of hope to Fullerton taxpayers before being surreptitiously replaced with a Counterfeit COIN. 

On June 17 the Fullerton City Council voted 2-3 (Ayes: Whitaker & Sebourn; Noes: Chaffee, Flory, & Fitzgerald) to approve COIN based on the original model approved in other jurisdictions including Costa Mesa.  COIN would have provided a new level of openness and transparency into labor negotiations.  Unfortunately, after that motion failed, three Council Members (Chaffee, Flory, & Fitzgerald) voted to approve an ordinance that gives the illusion of transparency and rigor to a backroom process that has to this day remained secret.

Fullerton’s Counterfeit COIN ordinance lacks the two most critical components that make COIN an effective process for taxpayers and city workers - transparency and accountability.  Supporters of Counterfeit COIN point to the model guidelines “LABOR NEGOTIATION STRATEGIES AND PRINCIPLES” by the Association of California Cities of Orange County (ACCOC).  The guidelines offer up sample language and suggestions for COIN-like ordinances but Counterfeit COIN ignores the first rule of the guideline, Use of Outside Negotiators, as well as the second which calls for use of an independent auditor for financial analysis.

COIN and Counterfeit COIN both have a process for disclosure to the public regarding what the Council and public employee unions have negotiated behind closed doors.  Fullerton’s Counterfeit COIN, however, only applies to written offers.  Further, it does not specify when the details of the proposed agreements, offers, or counteroffers must be made public.  This means there may be countless secret “trial balloons” offered by both sides before settling on written terms.  This is where Counterfeit COIN fails the transparency test.

Accountability is completely absent from Fullerton’s Counterfeit COIN as well.  COIN required that all negotiations and economic analysis were to be conducted by professionals that were not subject to a public pension system and far removed from City Hall.  They are to be independent from the negotiating parties in every way.  Counterfeit COIN offers certain criteria that must be met in order bring in any outside parties. Even if the criteria is met, Counterfeit COIN requires the Council appoint a representative as a representative to the outside Negotiating Team, and further requires that representative be a public employee who stands to benefit by the outcome of the negotiation process.

COIN is really quite simple despite attempts to create the illusion of complexity or difficulty.  There are just three key components of COIN:  Independent Negotiator, Independent Economic Analysis, and Timely Public Disclosure. 

The lack of labor union opposition to Fullerton’s Counterfeit COIN sends the message to taxpayers that this new ordinance brings no substantive changes to the backroom labor negotiations. 

Until a clear majority of the Fullerton City Council is willing to recognize that feathering the beds public employee unions is contrary to their fiduciary duty, Fullerton’s legacy of backroom negotiations lead by city staff to benefit city staff will continue. 

More of the same, same as before.  

Whitaker for City Council

Join us!

Fundraiser to re-elect

Mayor Pro Tem Bruce Whitaker

                             to Fullerton City Council 2012

Where: The Matador Cantina

in historic downtown Fullerton

111 N. Harbor Blvd, Fullerton, CA 92832

Just North of Commonwealth on the West side of Harbor

Parking and entrance in rear

When: September 10th, Monday evening @ 6:00 pm

for excellent cocktails and delicious appetizers

$25 Supporter

$100 Patron

$250 Sponsor

*there is no maximum contribution limit for City Council

　

Please RSVP to ElectBruceWhitaker@live.com

or Linda @ 714-981-7303

Unable to join us? Please mail contributions to :

Elect Bruce Whitaker 2012

P.O. Box # 1444

                                     Fullerton, CA 92836

Bruce Whitaker Campaign Committee - ID #1330388

Whitaker for Council

Join us!

Fundraiser to re-elect

Mayor Pro Tem Bruce Whitaker

                             to Fullerton City Council 2012

Where: The Matador Cantina

in historic downtown Fullerton

111 N. Harbor Blvd, Fullerton, CA 92832

Just North of Commonwealth on the West side of Harbor

Parking and entrance in rear

When: September 10th, Monday evening @ 6:00 pm

for excellent cocktails and delicious appetizers

$25 Supporter

$100 Patron

$250 Sponsor

*there is no maximum contribution limit for City Council

　

Please RSVP to ElectBruceWhitaker@live.com

or Linda @ 714-981-7303

Unable to join us? Please mail contributions to :

Elect Bruce Whitaker 2012

P.O. Box # 1444

                                     Fullerton, CA 92836

Bruce Whitaker Campaign Committee - ID #1330388

You're Invited...

Where is Fullerton's Independent Advocate?

Fullerton water rate payers are becoming increasingly weary and suspicious of politicians and managers who have relied on the City's Water Fund to help offset the rising labor costs at City Hall. 

Inflation is at about 3.15% on average for 2011 and keeping up with it is challenging in a recession. Being somewhat predictable, we can manage to keep pace with it and plan for future investments in the water system.

However, Fullerton, much like Los Angeles, relies on the water rate payers to help offset and pad the ever-rising costs of labor. That's not fair.

So who at City Hall can Fullerton's water customers turn to when the City Council is dazzled by brilliance and baffled by BS?

No one.  There is no one left in City Hall to turn to when City staff draft a report - true or not - that paints a grim picture of the City if rates are not immediately increased.

To counter the misleading and false emergency to generate cash-flow which will be used to make up for poor fiscal management and planning, some communities, Los Angeles included, have turned to independent advocates or rate payer advocates.

The problem is that the advocate, which might be a single individual or a committee, is appointed by the very people who have their hands in the cookie jar thus making the advocate less than independent.

Fullerton is special.  Not because of the large number of schools or the inexcusable level of apparent police corruption but because Fullerton already has an independent advocate.  The Fullerton Association of Concerned Tax Payers (FACT) was created in 1996 after the last recall effort of 1993-1994 when the City Council voted to create a utility tax.  FACT founder, Bruce Whitaker, was elected to the Fullerton City Council in November 2010.  Time and again, FACT has fought for Fullerton taxpayers.  Current FACT president Jack Dean took over the organization in 2003 and has since launched http://www.pensiontsunami.com/.

FACT has helped residents, business owners, and taxpayers tackle the issue of excessive and unnecessary taxation.  FACT has a close relationship with the Howard Jarvis Taxpayers' Association (HJTA) which came together recently and challenged Fullerton's illegal and unnecessary in-lieu franchise fee which skims 10% of the total revenue from the Water Fund.  Some say the "fee" is nothing more than robbing Peter (the Water Fund and water consumers) to pay Paul (employee salaries, pensions, and benefits).

FACT has saved Fullerton taxpayers more than $150-million since its work to repeal the utility tax. 

FACT was the sole Plaintiff in lawsuits against the Gray Davis administration and, later the Schwarzenegger administration to block the issuance of pension obligation bonds of $2 billion and just under $1 billion respectively.  The second lawsuit was successful at the Sacramento Superior Court and later at the Court of Appeals and has since provided protection against the State issuing bonded indebtedness without voter approval.

FACT remains the only guardian against unfair and unwarranted taxation, whether disguised as a fee or buried in your utility bill. 

If you are having a hard time digesting City-imposed fees and taxes, and if you are tired of the lip service of politicians, please support the Fullerton Association of Concerned Taxpayers - your ONLY independant advocate in Fullerton.

Fullerton council member describes a completely dysfunctional City Hall

Fullerton City Council Member Bruce Whitaker spoke on camera about the dysfunction plaguing Fullerton City Hall.  He describes receiving reports that were complete fabrications and being stonewalled by City Manager Joe Felz and the City's Risk Manager. 

Fullerton's previous risk manager, Darryl Raymond Phillips, pleaded guilty in June to several work-related felonies. 

After all of the signs of government corruption that we have seen in recent months its no surprise that managers and department directors are not cooperating.  Their actions beg the question, what are they hiding?  Public humiliation or something much larger?

Please watch this video through to the end. 

Despite Missing Key Documents, Fullerton City Council Approves Deficient Deed

Item 18 of the Fullerton City Council Agenda for tonight (December 21, 2010) seemed innocuous enough.  It made simple mention of “HAWKS POINTE DEVELOPMENT CONSERVATION EASEMENT”.  It certainly sounds like a dullard. 

As a licensed professional land surveyor and Fullerton resident, it is my business to understand what the council is up to and what it means for me and my family.  Item 18, it simply peaked my interest.  It is also safe to say that a lay person would likely not have been so intrigued.

(Download the agenda and item 18)

I downloaded and poured over the document which was labeled “Conservation Easement Deed”.  Ok, so what are they doing, granting or accepting an easement?? 

Like so many instruments of this sort, the first recital directs the reader to exhibit “A” for the legal description of the encumbered property.  And being a licensed professional land surveyor, the only type of professional authorized to prepare legal descriptions in California, I turned to exhibit “A”.  At least I tried to…

It appears that someone at City Hall neglected to include the now missing exhibit “A”.  If you are not a surveyor, you may be wondering why this is a problem.  It is a huge problem in that there are rights being transferred along with covenants, terms, conditions, and restrictions and it would be nice to know where these obligations began and ended. 

Imagine walking into an escrow office and being asked to sign the documents.  When you notice that there are pages missing, the escrow officer blows off your concern and tells you that the pages will be added later.  A person with average intelligence would put the pen down and refuse to sign anything else until the documents were complete. 

When item 18 came up on the consent calendar (that’s the part of the agenda which gets approved without discussion because f its routine nature) one well informed and conscientious council member, Bruce Whitaker, pulled the item from the consent calendar for discussion with staff. 

When he asked the staff about the missing document, he was told that the description will be added later.  That’s the same as negotiating the purchase of 40 police cars with all of the various options and warranties but without including the price tag.  In both instances, you just don’t know what you are getting yourself (or your taxpayers) into.  

Perhaps the next time Chevron shows up with a proposal for their West Coyote Hills property they simply omit a few key provisions which they can add later when they are ready to do so. Surely the council won’t object. 

Had the staff brought the documents to the assistant city engineer, I believe the omission would have been caught and corrected prior to any decisions being made by an uniformed council. 

The City Attorney was quick to note that the legal description would be added later.  Would he buy and accept a deed with no property description?  I think not.

One staffer, Alice Loya, stated that legal descriptions are more accurate but not as easy to read as a map would be.  I beg to differ with respect to the accuracy of legal descriptions but I’m digressing from my pointed concern.  The staffers seemed to get hung up on the mention of a missing map and just did not care that a key element to the agreement was missing. 

How many other documents has the Fullerton City Council approved wherein key elements were missing because someone was too lazy or inept to provide the council with complete documentation?  Maybe it is time for a forensic audit of the numerous fee and bond packages the council has approved over the past several years.

In the end, the Fullerton City Council voted 5-0 and agreed to the terms and conditions set forth without having any clue as to what land was covered by the terms of the agreement. 

The action leaves the city and taxpayers wide open for a civil action in the future as well as a cloud of title on whatever property description is slipped into the deed prior to recordation. 

With any luck, the OC Recorder’s Office will deny the request for recordation so that the city can get its collective at together.