Who monkeyed with the agenda?

'Tis a good question.

At the October 2, 2012 meeting, just prior to the adjournment, Council Member Doug Chaffee moved to agendize discussing the position of the chief of police in the next open meeting.  Up to that time all discussions regarding the position have taken place behind closed doors during the closed session meetings.

Mayor Sharon Quirk-Silva, who is running against Assembly Member Chris Norby, said she would only go along with Chaffee's motion if it was to discuss the matter and not vote on it.

It bears repeating.  The Mayor said she would approve agendizing the discussion of the position so long as there was no vote taken.  Council Member Chaffee said, "well then why don't we just have a general discussion on the topic."

It was the clearly stated direction from the Mayor to City Manager Joe Felz to place on the agenda a public discussion regarding the position of chief of police.

If I sound like a broken record, play back the City's video at about 4:05:00.  

http://fullerton.granicus.com/MediaPlayer.php?view_id=2&clip_id=400

With this clear direction given, why did the item get agendized with the following language:

During the Staff / Council Communications portion of the October 2, 2012 City Council meeting, staff received direction to agendize City Council discussion regarding entering into negotiations with Acting Chief Hughes for the position of Chief of Police. Recommendation by the City Manager’s Office: Pleasure of the City Council.

Who came up with that?  Who decided that the discussion was "regarding entering into negotiations with Acting Chief Hughes"?

The Mayor agreed to agendize discussing the position but was reluctant to do so until after the election.  Chaffee responded, "then why don't we just have a general discussion on the topic...?"

The Mayor replied, "I can support having a conversation about it, agendizing it for our next meeting, October 16th, but not committing to a vote until the second meeting in November.  Then I think that way we are moving something forward as far as specifics but we're not voting on it, so I could support that.  Is that clear enough?"

"Yes" said Chaffee.

So again I ask, why does the City Council agenda state that the item is a discussion regarding entering into negotiations?

Shouldn't we be discussing terms and conditions?

Since Council Member Chaffee wants to discuss the position publicly, shouldn't the Council discuss what the terms of employment would be for the position?

Or is Fullerton so desperate to hire a police chief that the Council should select a chief before figuring out what the terms should be?  This would be a first.

The agenda memo says that the position has been pending for several reasons, specifically: "further consideration of the position classification; the conclusion of several reports regarding the status of the Fullerton Police Department; and the potential consideration of an informal analysis by the Orange County Sheriff Department."

With those unanswered questions lingering, why would the Council discuss directing the City Manager to begin negotiating with anyone?

And back to my initial question, who misunderstood the "clear" direction from the Mayor and monkeyed with the agenda?

City Council Meeting Tuesday Night

Fullerton City Council Meeting August 7, 2012 at 6:30PM at City Hall, 303 W. Commonwealth Ave

The Agenda has some big-ticket items that you should be aware of.  Among them is the massive issue of water rates and determining what costs should be appropriately charged to the Water Fund.  

There are a total of 27 items on the agenda and I hope to hear you speak about them.  Your voice matters so please speak up.

Click HERE for the Agenda!

The Taxpayer-Subsidized Racing Boat?

The City Council would like to give Sunny Hills High School $2,500 and sponsor the school’s participation in the annual Solar Cup Race.

Interestingly, the race is being put on by our water supplier, the Metropolitan Water District of Southern California. 

The idea behind the race, according to the City of Fullerton staff report, is for the high school students to build and race solar powered boats. 

And what are the benefits to the taxpayers?  According to the same staff report, the benefits to MWD and its member agencies include:

• Promote stewardship of natural resources, water quality and recreation
• Increase understanding of water conservation and many issues, perspectives, and science of water
• Greater ties to secondary education audience (high schools) in our service area
• Legislative outreach opportunities both locally and regionally
• Intense collaborative effort between MWD and sponsoring agencies
• Community outreach opportunities to service groups retirees or organizations – Lions, Elks Clubs
• Increase awareness to paths into water industry careers

And where will the $2,500 come from?  The Water Fund.  This is the same fund that, just a few short months ago, city staff were crying was underfunded and that they just had to raise our water rates.  They said they wanted to sell tens of millions of dollars in bonds to fund replacement of the City's ancient water system.

How is it we went from “Captain, Captain, the ship is sinking!” to floating a $2,500 sponsorship fee (made payable to a public agency – MWD) for a high school outreach program? 

What could have changed?  Did ending the decades-long franchise tax on the Water Fund result in more cash on hand for “outreach” efforts like this?  Was there a sudden revenue spike in Water Fund revenue resulting in a massive surplus?

Is this water education allocation a good use of public funds at a time when we are being asked to pay nearly double on water rates?  Does the Water Fund’s “water education” allocation need some scrutiny?

If any of these questions have raised the hair on the back of your neck, you might want to ask your City Council to justify this $2,500 expenditure.  In 2009, the City Council voted to support the Sunny Hills Team for the 2011 race in name only and not give them any funding.  That was responsible.

So what changed since 2009?  Our City Council voted to approve a two-year budget with a $8-million deficit and passed a $29-million tax bond that will cost Fullerton taxpayers $45.5-million!  Oh, and in 2010, the City Council voted to resume sponsorship of the team.  Now we’re broke!

Time and again, we see Fullerton’s failed leadership implement meaningless policies with little benefit to the taxpayer who makes it all possible. 

Waste at any level is waste and when we have a massive deficit coupled with out of control spending, it's time to stop the party bus. 

I know some of the teachers involved in the Solar Cup Race at Sunny Hills.  These are truly some of the brightest minds our high school district has to offer.  My opposition is to the City's use of our funds for the sponsorship and not extracurricular activities that help students learn.

I suggest the Sunny Hills team have fundraisers like the other clubs and athletic teams.  They should start soliciting donations from the District’s Board Members and Superintendent. 

The team should contact all of the City's, as well as the District's, employee unions and ask for donations.  Come election season they always seem to be flush with cash for campaign signs and glossy mailers - surely their members would like to contribute to such a worthy cause.

They can even call me, I'd love to chip in.  When the City said no in 2009, Marty Burbank jumped in and donated.  (MY HAT'S OFF TO YOU, MARTY!!)  But please don’t ask for money from City Hall until we can pay off the mounting debt and balance the budget.