BY DUG BEGLEY
STAFF WRITER
dbegley@pe.com

Published: 05 April 2012 10:43 PM

Faced with a half-trillion dollars in Southern California transportation needs through 2035, officials Thursday called for higher gas taxes or a shift to a fee drivers would pay based on how far they drive.

“Without investment, our plans are just empty promises on paper,” said Simi Valley Councilman Glen Becerra, incoming president of the Southern California Association of Governments.

The agency’s regional transportation plan, approved Wednesday, outlines road, rail, transit, cycling and pedestrian spending in Riverside, San Bernardino, Orange, Los Angeles, Ventura and Imperial counties until 2035. Updated every four years, the plan is required if the region is to qualify for federal transportation money. It will be submitted to Washington officials later this summer with a detailed description of how local officials will pay for the projects.

Unlike previous plans, the new version assumes federal and state officials will raise taxes. It lays out specifics of when and how drivers and freight will be charged for their share of the cost of public roads, passenger rail and transit systems. Existing gas taxes will either increase or be replaced with a fee system based on the number of miles someone drives.

As gas mileage in modern cars and trucks has improved, the 18.4 cents in federal excise taxes on each gallon of fuel has remained flat since 1994. Less fuel consumption means less revenue, while construction costs are higher than they were 20 years ago. The trend toward more hybrid and electric vehicles will erode gas tax revenues further.

As a result, the Highway Trust Fund — federal money banked for road repairs and expansions — is being propped up by cash infusions from the nation’s general fund. Local money, raised normally through sales taxes, is paying a greater share of project costs as state and federal money decreases.

“There isn’t enough money in the pipeline for projects,” said former Gov. Gray Davis, who participated in Thursday’s discussions.

To address the money problem, the regional plan presumes a 15-cent hike in gas taxes between 2017 and 2024. In 2025, according to the plan, the federal government either will raise the gas tax again or shift to a fee based on how far someone travels. The revenue would be based on a fee of about 5 cents per mile, based on 2011 dollars.

If such a fee were imposed, someone who drives 15,000 miles a year would pay $750, compared with $190 in excise taxes over the same distance for a car that gets 30 mpg. With the fee, excise taxes on gasoline would be reduced or eliminated.

The tax increase or travel fee would raise about one-fifth of the money needed to widen roads, increase transit service and add new bicycle lanes to many local streets.

Officials acknowledge the additional taxes or the fee would be difficult to sell to voters and to lawmakers. Previous suggestions that gas taxes should be replaced with a vehicle-miles-traveled fee have proven unpopular.

Corona Councilwoman Karen Spiegel said lawmakers are unwilling to consider tax increases at this time. She predicted any state gas tax changes would end up in front of voters.

To read entire story, click here.

April 5th, 2012, 3:13 pm
Posted by Andrew Galvin

Remember that $73.5 million that Orange County grabbed from schools a few months back, forcing the state to make up for it? This was after the state grabbed $49.5 million in Vehicle License Fee money from the county to help balance the state’s budget.

Well, the state wants its $73.5 million back.

California’s Department of Finance on Thursday sued the county in Orange County Superior Court, asking the court to order the county to recalculate what it pays the state to help finance schools based on the department’s interpretation of state law.

In a 10-page complaint, the state argues that the county willfully miscalculated the amount it ought to be paying into the state’s Education Revenue Augmentation Fund. That decision by the county will force the state to “backfill” the money to K-12 schools that the county ought to be paying, but it leaves the state’s community colleges $12 million to $15 million short, the state says.

“We’re certainly disappointed that the state is resorting to a lawsuit,” said John Moorlach, chairman of the county’s Board of Supervisors, adding that “we certainly tried to work with everybody.”

The foundations of this dispute can be traced to the county’s 1994 bankruptcy. Afterward, the county needed a way to assure investors that it could make interest and principal payments on bonds it wanted to sell. The solution was a dedicated stream of revenue from VLF funds, allocated by the state to the county to back the bonds.

The allocation was continued in 2003, when the state moved to reimburse counties and cities for revenue they lost when the VLF was cut from 2 percent of a vehicle’s value to 0.65 percent. The following year, the county refinanced some of its bond debt and found that its creditworthiness had improved such that the dedicated VLF revenue stream was no longer needed to sell the deal to investors, said H.D. Palmer, spokesman for the Department of Finance.

Yet since 2004, Orange County has continued to receive “that extra increment of VLF revenue that 57 other counties have not, up until last year,” Palmer said.

Last June, SB 89 was enacted, cutting off the extra VLF revenue that had been given annually to Orange County. That put the county in a bind — it was counting on the money to balance its own budget.

To read entire story, click here.

The Southland’s housing market is flooded with cash-rich, bargain-hunting investors snapping up distressed homes and dragging down overall prices — but their presence also indicates the market could be nearing bottom.

At $260,000, the region’s median home price was only 5.2% above the low hit during the worst of the recession in 2009, according to San Diego research firm DataQuick. January brought a 3.7% decline in the median price, the point at which half the homes sold for more and half for less, compared with both a month earlier and a year earlier.

Foreclosures, tight mortgage credit and high regional unemployment remain significant impediments to a housing recovery, though experts warn that January is not indicative of how the rest of the year will play out. Many observers expect the long-suffering housing market to finally hit bottom in 2012, particularly if the jobs picture brightens.

“While we are seeing year-to-year declines in home prices, I think we should probably see things level out as we get further into 2012,” said Robert Kleinhenz, chief economist with the Los Angeles County Economic Development Corp. “As we get further into the year we may see home prices stabilize.”

A separate report by Irvine data tracker RealtyTrac showed progress on foreclosures last month, with California filings hitting a 50-month low, as fewer new foreclosure actions were filed last month.

A total of 51,584 foreclosure filings were made against California properties in January — from the default notice that begins the foreclosure process to the auction scheduling to sale of the house — a 23% decline compared with January 2011. California posted the nation’s second-highest foreclosure rate, after Nevada, and nine out of the 10 hardest hit cities were in the state.

Experts warned that the Golden State could see more troubled properties hitting the market now that a settlement over foreclosure abuses has been reached among state attorneys general and the nation’s five biggest mortgage banks.

The declines in December and January were broad-based and most likely due to banks slowing down on foreclosures during the holidays and in anticipation of a mortgage settlement with the government, said Daren Blomquist, an analyst for RealtyTrac.

Nationally, foreclosure filings increased 3% from December but were down 19% from January 2011.

The housing report by DataQuick, released Wednesday, highlighted two trends playing out in Southern California: Sales of new homes hit their lowest tally on record in January, while so-called absentee buyers — mostly investors as well as some second-home buyers — made up a record share of the market.

Short sales, in which a bank allows a home to be sold for less than what’s owed on the property, also hit a recent high last month.

Builders have trouble peddling new homes against the competition from cheap, distressed properties.

To read entire story, click here.

The Orange County Employee’s Retirement System ended 2011 with an investment return of 0.74 percent — that’s 7 percent less than projected.

But OCERS officials, though concerned, say it is too early to panic. For one thing, says CEO Steve Delaney, the 20-year average is 7.9 percent on investments, right where the system needs to be.

Also, OCERS makes enough on contributions to pay for current retirements, Delaney said. With an $8.8 billion portfolio, the system won’t need to start dipping into investments for another 10 years or so, he said.

OCERS wasn’t the only retirement system that made a poor showing last year. The California Public Employees Retirement System earned 1.1 percent last year, while the California State Teachers Retirement System earned 2.3 percent.

“We continue to feel the effects of the most precarious markets in decades,” said CalSTRS chief executive officer Jack Ehnes, in a statement. “The funding shortfall can be managed, but the governor and the Legislature must develop a specific funding plan, as only they have the authority to do so.”

Pension reformers looked at the the poor showings as evidence that retirement systems will ultimately tank, leaving the debt on the backs of taxpayers.

To read entire story, click here.

November 14th, 2011, 4:07 pm
Posted by Kimberly Edds, Staff Writer

In a bold move to make up for $49.5 million in tax revenues lost to the state earlier this year the County of Orange will grab $73.5 million in property taxes once destined for local school districts, County Supervisors Chairman Bill Campbell said Monday.

Campbell said that state coffers, not the school districts, will suffer, because a state law mandates that it backfill the reduction in local revenue.

County employees who were scheduled to be laid off December 1 as a result of the county’s $49.5 million shortfall received an unexpected reprieve.

A legislative money grab earlier this year targeted special funds Orange County receives from California vehicle license fees and uses to pay off its bankruptcy debt. That took the county from a balanced $5.6 billion budget that increased spending 2.7 percent to a budget that was $49.5 million in the hole.

The state and Orange County have been bickering over its share of property taxes and vehicle license fees funds for years. According to the governor’s budget staff, Orange County gave up some of its property tax revenue in exchange for a larger cut of VLF when it refinanced its bankruptcy debt in 2005. But county officials argue that Orange County has long been at a disadvantage when it comes to property taxes, a disadvantage made worse when the state changed the ratio between property taxes and the vehicle fees in 2004.

Meanwhile property tax collections have continued to inch upward while vehicle license fees have been on a steady decline.

County lawmakers and union officials failed to persuade state legislators to give back the $49.5 million before the Legislature’s session ended Sept. 9.

A month later supervisors authorized laying off public defenders and county prosecutors, agreed to pull $8 million from county reserves, cut millions in funding that pays for medical care for the poor and planned the closure of hundreds of jail beds to bridge the gap. The move drew howls of protest from the county’s sheriff, district attorney and department heads, who argued that years of weathering the bad economy had pushed them and their budgets to the brink.

But before people were laid off and many of the cuts were put into effect, attorneys with County Counsel came up with an option that gives the county even more money in property taxes than the VLF funds that are being taken away. County attorneys say they have that authority under section 97.70 of the state Revenue & Taxation Code.

To read entire story, click here.

Frank C. Girardot, Staff Writer
Created: 09/30/2011 05:03:08 PM PDT

Local officials are bracing for a radical realignment of the state penal system that will place thousands of low-level felons in county jail rather than prison.

Depending on whom is doing the analysis, the change, which started to take place Saturday, could either result in a huge crime spike or a noticeable drop in recidivism rates.

Concerned about the plan and its potential impact on public safety, the Los Angeles County Board of Supervisors met with Gov. Jerry Brown on Monday in Los Angeles, said Supervisor Michael Antonovich, who represents the Fifth District, which includes Claremont, San Dimas and La Verne.

“We had a phone conference call with the governor and were shocked at his lack of understanding of the consequences of dumping state felons on the doorstep of every county in this state,” Antonovich said.

“Many of these people are mentally ill – severely mentally ill – and the board’s position was that we will not accept any of the severely mentally ill,” he said. “If we are forced to do that, we will sue the state. That’s what led to this meeting with the governor.”

The realignment came about as the result of AB 109, a bill signed by Brown in April that promised to “stop the costly, ineffective and unsafe `revolving door’ of lower-level offenders and parole violators through our state prisons.”

In different ways county court officials, prosecutors and cops are preparing to deal with the fallout.

Rising crime

Los Angeles County District Attorney Steve Cooley – for one – warns the plan will result in a “public safety nightmare.”

“We are going to go from the lowest crime rate in 60 years to the biggest spike in crime in our lifetime,” Cooley said. “On top of that it’s going to force more case settlements and the quality of prosecutions will decline.”

Estimates done by the Vera Institute – an independent, nonpartisan, nonprofit – note that jails operated by the Sheriff’s Department annually book 171,000 inmates and maintain a daily population of about 19,000.

Additionally, L.A. county jails – like Wayside, Pitchess, Men’s Central and Twin Towers – operate under a consent decree designed to reduce overcrowding.

“Chronic overcrowding in the county’s jail facilities has already generated a number of serious problems: the federal government has placed a cap on the number of people the jails can legally house, rehabilitative services are insufficient to serve inmates’ needs, and the jails have high levels of violence – both among inmates and between inmates and correctional officers,” according to a study done by the New York-based institute.

Which means, “There is no county system to handle 12,000 to 13,000 new prisoners,” Cooley said. “Sheriff Baca has an early release system to live within the cap. The county can’t handle it … there’s no place to put them, no physical bed space.”

Teaching the 3Rs to the N3s

On the other hand, Los Angeles County Sheriff Lee Baca believes his deputies can do a better job than the state when it comes to managing “low-level offenders.”

Specifically, Baca hopes to provide an education to felons referred to in the new law as the N3s – nonviolent, non-sexual and non-repeat offenders.

He points to programs like Father Greg Boyle’s Homeboy Industries in Los Angeles as proof that education and job skills can help criminals turn their lives around.

“We have to look at what we are doing here differently,” Baca said. “We have to see if education rather than business as usual will be what it takes to make this work.”

Making it work will not only include housing the new class of felons in county jail, but also using GPS tracking and monitoring once they are released. Much of that data will be available to deputies via computer terminals installed in their patrol cars.

Additionally, county probation officers will take on the added task of supervising prisoners who were formerly placed on parole.

“The other side of this is the enforcement side,” Baca said. “I’ll be dealing with the absconders. We’ll be doing geomapping of parolee addresses and conditions of their parole 24/7.”

To read entire story, click here.

Published: Sept. 30, 2011 Updated: 5:56 p.m.
By KIMBERLY EDDS / THE ORANGE COUNTY REGISTER

The County of Orange needs to make $29 million in cuts, lay off dozens of employees and dip into its reserves under a plan recommended by the county’s chief executive officer to recoup $49.5 million the state took to fix its own budget issues.

The plan would avoid draconian service cuts and massive layoffs, but it also relies on $8 million in county reserves and estimates that better-than-predicted sales and property tax revenues will continue. Those solutions are temporary, county budget officials warn.

“These solutions, if they’re not available in year two, these cuts will have to grow,” said Frank Kim, the county’s budget director.

The county is engaged in an exercise in frustration, having gone from a balanced $5.6 billion budget that actually increased spending 2.7 percent to being $49.5 million in the hole as the result of a Legislative money grab targeting special funds Orange County receives from California vehicle license fees while the county pays off its bankruptcy debt.

“It’s not a shortfall,” Vice Chairman John Moorlach said. “It’s a theft.”

County lawmakers and union officials failed to convince state legislators to give back the $49.5 million before the Legislature’s session ended Sept. 9. The county has now hired outside lawyers to explore any legal options the county may have to recover the money, but even if the courts agree that the state should pay what is owed the county cannot force the state to write a check.

The state reimburses the county for state-mandated services rendered by the county, but payment delays can range from a few days to months, Kim said. At the same time, the county still has to pay its employees and vendors. California already owes Orange County an additional $91 million for a wide variety of state mandated services, and it remains unclear if and when the county will see that money.

“The state is the multi-ton elephant in the room,” said county Chief Financial Officer Bob Franz. “They have a lot of authority.”

The loss of vehicle license fees has forced the county to push through a months-long budget process in a matter of weeks.

The Board of Supervisors will discuss the CEO’s recommended plan at Tuesday’s board meeting along with a more draconian proposal that would slash 175 county jobs, shut down the fourth floor of the Men’s Central Jail and make service cuts across the county.

Eighty-eight percent of the county’s $5.6 billion budget is restricted revenue including pass-through money from the federal and state government to pay for services. The remaining 12 percent – $663.8 million – funds the county’s core public safety services and general government, and that is what the county can control.

“Services are required to be provided,” Kim said. “But the service level is at the county’s discretion, and that’s what gets impacted.”

Among the hardest hit by the CEO’s proposal are the county’s public safety services, including the Sheriff’s Department, the District Attorney’s Office and the Public Defender.

To read entire story, click here.

September 29th, 2011, 3:33 pm
Posted by Kimberly Edds, Staff Writer

The County of Orange was unfair to the Sheriff’s deputies union when it moved deputies out of jailhouse jobs and replaced them with civilian jailers in an attempt to save as much as $34 million a year, a California Court of Appeal ruled.

The appellate court also upheld an order by Orange County Superior Court Judge Kazuharu Makino barring the Sheriff’s Department from making any staffing changes at its jails – for now.

Caught in the middle of the fight is the department’s Correctional Services Assistants program – which trains civilians in jail operations to work along with sworn deputies. Eventually, the department hopes CSAs will make up as much as 35 percent of its jail staffing.

Union officials repeatedly warned the Sheriff’s Department beginning in 2008 that the department cannot replace deputies with civilians without first meeting and conferring with the Association of Orange County Deputy Sheriffs.

The county argued the Sheriff’s Department should be exempt from the “meet and confer” requirements of the contract with the union because it is trying to improve “the economical and efficient operation of local government.”

The county went ahead with the CSA program. The union sued last year, arguing the sheriff’s department sidestepped collective bargaining requirements and demanded a temporary restraining order blocking any reduction in deputy jail positions.

Makino sided with the union and issued the temporary restraining order.

The county appealed Makino’s ruling, claiming that the restraining order was improper because AOCDS wasn’t likely to prevail in its lawsuit against the county.

Justice Richard Fybel of the Fourth Appellate District, Division Three, sided with the union in a 25-page opinion issued Wednesday.

“The trial court did not abuse its discretion by concluding a preliminary injunction should be issued pending trial in this matter, after balancing the likelihood the Association would prevail on its claims and the relative harm the Association and defendants would suffer as a result of the issuance or non-issuance of the preliminary injunction,” Fybel wrote.

The three-justice panel ordered the county to pay the union’s legal bills.

A handful of CSAs have been working the county’s jails since January 2010; but apparently it wasn’t until a shift change last summer at the Theo Lacy jail in Orange that a deputy went to the union to complain.

It seems some of the positions – there are about 50 CSAs working in the entire jail system at the time– that were once up for grabs by deputies were converted to CSA spots – without going back to the bargaining table. And that didn’t make the deputies too happy.

Makin’s restraining order, froze jail positions as they categorized as they were on July 30, 2010.

CSAs, who make between $20.47 and $27.41 an hour, also help save money because they receive less lucrative benefits and pension package than those given to deputies.

To read entire story, click here.

Ellis

Posted: Friday, September 23, 2011 2:14 pm | Updated: 10:00 pm, Fri Sep 23, 2011.

NORBERTO SANTANA JR.

Friday, Sept. 23, 2011 | Orange County Marketplace swap meet owner Jeff Teller, a driving force behind the two-year fight to stop the sale of the local fairgrounds, has been kicked off the property.

The Orange County Fair Board in a 6-3 vote terminated their lease with Teller’s Tel Phil Enterprises, which has operated the swap meet at the fairgrounds in Costa Mesa for 42 years. It was the latest blow delivered in a feud that continues to escalate.

The increasingly hostile nature of the relationship between the board and its tenant was on full display Thursday. At one point, Teller called the Fair Board’s action a “terrorist threat.” Later in the meeting, board member Dale Dykema said the Tellers are “not easy to deal with.”

The reason given by board members for terminating the lease was Tel Phil’s business model, which members said is no longer viable. They pointed to slumping sales in recent years as proof.

Fair Board Chairman David Ellis and others complained that the rent paid by the Tellers (25 percent of gross sales) had been reduced in recent years, indicating potential problems.

Yet as they were attacking Tel Phil’s business model, board members were also authorizing requests for proposals for another swap meet operator at the site. A representative from Delaware North, which runs swap meets, attended the meeting.

Other fairgrounds activists said the real reason for the attempted ouster of Tel Phil is political retribution.

Teller became one of the key leaders of the Orange County Fairgrounds Preservation Society, which formed in 2009 after former Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger put the fairgrounds up for sale and the Fair Board began a series of ill-fated, and in some ways illegal, attempts to sell the 150-acre property.

Teller was instrumental in gathering more than 50,000 signatures against the sale and was the lead plaintiff in a series of high profile lawsuits that eventually halted the sale of the property and kept it in public hands.

“It’s ludicrous that Fair Board members who schemed to buy the fairgrounds for themselves by forming a private foundation in 2009 have decided to retaliate against the OC Marketplace, one of the key entities that helped to stop the sale of the fairgrounds,” said activist Theresa Sears.

“It looks like retribution for exposing their dirty deeds.”

Teller’s attorney, Ruben Smith, pleaded with the board to avoid the grinding legal battle sure to follow the lease termination.

“Why would you punish a tenant that filed the lawsuit that successfully thwarted the sale of the fairgrounds?” Smith asked in open session. “If it wasn’t for the that lawsuit. none of us would be here. Put the politics aside and do the right thing.”

Fair Board attorneys, meanwhile, gave a detailed presentation showing that there have been numerous disputes with Tel Phil about coordinating swap meets with other events as well as issues like charges for sweeping.

“We’ve got a tenant out there that thinks they own this 150-acre property … and that is wrong,” said Ellis. “That relationship is beyond broken.”

Board Vice Chairwoman Joyce Tucker said the relationship was so strained that something like a marriage counselor was needed.

Just how bad the relationship has become was apparent during an exchange between Teller and Dykema. During the discussion between board members and Teller’s attorneys, board member Kristina Dodge asked that Teller himself speak.

To read entire story, click here.

Orange County Fair Board Chairman David Ellis

NORBERTO SANTANA JR.
Posted: Tuesday, August 23, 2011 6:43 am
Updated: 12:16 pm, Tue Aug 23, 2011.

Tuesday, August 23, 2011 | The Orange County Fair Board’s attempt to privatize the county fairgrounds in Costa Mesa — a two-year saga that prompted multiple investigations and lawsuits — ended last month when Gov. Jerry Brown officially nixed a proposed sale to the Newport Beach-based Facilities Management West.

But what has not ended is the heightened scrutiny — both locally and statewide — of how fair boards operate and the sometimes-murky ways in which they finance their activities.

The scrutiny is also coming at the height of fair season, with Orange County just finishing its summer fair and the Los Angeles County Fair set to start in two weeks.

In addition to cutting more than $30 million in state subsidies for local fairs, Brown has appointed a task force to study how California’s 78 county fairs should operate. The goal of the 28-member panel, according to state Department of Fairs spokesman Jay Van Rein, is to determine “what are all of the options out there” for governance and funding.

Meanwhile, Nick Berardino, general manager of the Orange County Employees Association and one of Brown’s most recent appointees to the local Fair Board, is pushing for formation of a citizen task force to review the many issues raised by the botched attempt to sell the 163-acre grounds in Costa Mesa.

“We’ve seen these quasi-government agencies and entities that are creatures of the state, and no one is watching them too much,” said Assemblyman Jose Solorio (D-Santa Ana). He submitted several bills over the past two years dealing with the proposed fairgrounds sale and is working with Brown’s staff and the statewide task force.

“We need to increase transparency, monitor their work and make sure they are efficient with our taxpayer or customer dollars,” said Solorio.

Yet while Solorio is pushing for more transparency, local Fair Board leaders are pushing back against Berardino’s calls for a public review.

Both Dave Ellis, Fair Board president, and Steve Beazley, CEO of the Orange County Fair and Event Center, say there’s no point in going over the past. Ellis refused to place the issue on the agenda for the Fair Board meeting Thursday. He has also refused to answer a reporter’s questions on the issue.

Berardino said he will continue to press for a discussion.

“As public officials, Fair Board members owe it to the community and taxpayers to take every possible step to ensure transparency and good government,” Berardino wrote his fellow board members last week. “The path to good governance must be cleared of any barrier to open and effective public discourse.”

Unanswered Questions

The ongoing scrutiny of Ellis and other Fair Board members focuses primarily on their failed effort to buy the fairgrounds through their own non-profit entity when former Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger put it up for sale in the summer of 2009.

The main unanswered question — which is the focus of an investigation by the state’s Fair Political Practices Commission — involves the quick hiring of former state Sen. Dick Ackerman and the county’s lobbyist, Platinum Advisors.

Critics of the Fair Board have spent the past two years protesting those contracts. They argue that not only was Ackerman’s secret hiring a violation of the state’s open meetings law but his contacts with state legislators regarding the sale amounted to illegal lobbying because he had been out of office less than a year.

Orange County District Attorney Tony Rackauckas investigated Ackerman’s hiring and found no criminal wrongdoing.

Rackauckas’ investigation drew heavy criticism, however, and a Voice of OC story later revealed that DA investigators never looked at Ackerman’s own legal billing records. The records show Ackerman phoned several Orange County legislators immediately before and after crucial votes on the fairgrounds sale.

There are also questions about how the Fair Board paid Ackerman.

Payments to Ackerman came from LSA and Associates, which was one of the Fair Board’s existing subcontractors. LSA paid Ackerman’s law firm, Nossaman LLP, more than $100,000. Platinum Advisors received more than $50,000, according to Ackerman’s billing records.

However, Ackerman billed LSA for services involving contracts for paving the parking lot at the equestrian center and for a master plan update, according to Ackerman’s billing statements and contract documents.

Yet there is no evidence that Ackerman had anything to do with the paving of the equestrian center or the master plan update. He has not returned calls for comment on his work for the fairgrounds.

An Imploding Agency

Also muddying the waters are documents showing that Ackerman’s payments were steered through the California Construction Authority, a little-known and now defunct joint powers authority established by fairs to speed up construction of facilities.

To read entire story, click here.

Tuesday, July 19, 2011 – 06:00 p.m.

The Lewis Group of Companies strike again and more questions come forth!

This time it’s a large parcel of land, owned by the Orange County Flood Control District, and located in the City of Highland sphere influence.

Yes, right again!

Another Lewis master-planned community proposal is in the works.

The idea of building 3,000 to 4,000 homes in an area with limited transportation access in itself is actually kind of amazing.

Especially when one considers public safety and fire hazard concersn.

This time the deal is reportedly being helped along with the assistance of Mr. David Ellis, owner of Delta Partners LLC and The David Ellis Group. (Vanity! Don’t you love it?)

Ellis

Yes, sources say that Ellis, also the political arm of San Bernardino County District Attorney Michael Ramos, is involved the mix.

It appears like Ellis helped usher this sweetheart deal for the The Lewis Group, who is also a staunch political supporter of his client the District Attorney.

We’re receiving some pretty interesting information on this deal.

Stay tuned…….

South California
Supervisor urges 13 counties to secede
Neil Nisperos, Staff Writer
Created: 07/11/2011 08:10:22 PM PDT

RIVERSIDE – A local lawmaker has called for much of Southern and Central California to secede from the Golden state.

Riverside County Supervisor Jeff Stone’s vision for a new state mirrors the kind of California that Republican lawmakers have been working toward attaining. But GOP lawmakers say pushing their agenda for relaxed regulations and pension reform has been a challenge with a Democratic governor and a Democratic-controlled Assembly and Senate.

Clearly frustrated with the opposing priorities of the state, Stone lists statistics for key areas in which he said California has faltered.

Jobs, Stone said, are leaving the state in significant numbers. He added that the state has too many excessive and duplicative regulations, residents are overtaxed, state pension reform is needed, and illegal immigration is a huge cost to taxpayers.

Stone said automation in production is also key.

“The state is more interested in preserving antiquated jobs than using existing and emerging technologies to reduce cost and expedite services to the taxpayers,” according to Stone’s report. “Why do we need 250 offices of the Department of Motor Vehicles? Why can’t a citizen pay their fees online and renew their car registrations? Gas consumption and traffic loads would diminish, and long waiting lines at DMV offices would disappear.”

Stone has called for the counties of Fresno, Imperial, Inyo, Kern, Kings, Madera, Mariposa, Mono, Orange, Riverside, San Bernardino, San Diego, and Tulare to consider the de-annexation of their regions from the state of California for a new 51st state to be called South California. He said other local officials may join in the discussion as well.

Los Angeles County is not included on Stone’s list.

“I’ve heard from thousands of people who have shared their anger and frustration, living in this dysfunctional state and see that this is the only solution to remedy what was once the fourth largest
economy in the world,” Stone said. “My goal is to bring all the local officials together in a summit. Any local jurisdiction in the state is invited to share what they think of the state’s continual pillaging of local governments and refusal to enact appropriate pension reform and reverse the job unfriendliness of the state.”

Assemblyman Curt Hagman, R-Chino Hills, said he understood Supervisor Stone’s frustration, “but I don’t think voters would approve it.”

Tim Donnelly, a fellow Republican Assemblyman based in Hesperia, said voters are dissatisfied with the Legislature, but added, “It is our role to change that.”

“The people are demanding that their elected representatives actually represent them,” Donnelly said. “What we need to do now is restore the people’s voice in California; I am not giving up on our state.”

Janice Rutherford, a San Bernardino County supervisor, offered a voice of support and is interested in further discussion about the details of the proposal with Stone.

To read entire story, click here.

Housing market
Business suffers all over SoCal
Sandra Emerson, Staff Writer
Created: 06/13/2011 09:22:10 PM PDT

Southern California home sales continued at a snail’s pace in May while the median sale price fell by the largest amount in 20 months.

The poor performances were due to buyer uncertainty, tight credit and lackluster hiring, according to San Diego-based DataQuick Information Systems.

Last month’s home sales for all Southern California counties were 29 percent below the May average.

Sales in May were only lower in three years: 1993, 1995 and 2008.

“It just speaks to the weakness in the housing market,” said Andrew

LePage, an analyst for DataQuick. “Historically speaking, these are very weak sales across Southern California.”

The 1,152 newly built homes that sold in the Southland last month marked the lowest new-home total for the month of May since at least 1988, according to DataQuick.

The number of homes sold in San Bernardino County dropped 18.1 percent since May 2010, with the median home price falling by 6.3 percent to $150,000.

However, according to economist John Husing, the $150,000 home price has remained steady for several months, and comparing median home price to a year ago is a false comparison.

“The reason for that was a year ago there was an upward movement in price because federal tax credits were convincing an inordinate number of people to go out and buy houses, so it was an abnormal situation,” Husing said.

He said the volume of homes sold also surged last year due to the tax credit.

Total new and resale homes and condos in Los Angeles, Riverside, San Diego, Ventura, San Bernardino and Orange counties were down 17.4 percent from May 2010 and up 0.3 percent from April.

To read entire story, click here.

SANTA ANA – The sale of the Orange County fairgrounds to a private company is dead, unless the state Supreme Court resurrects the deal.

The Fourth District Court of Appeal struck down the sale of the 150-acre property, finding that the bidding process was fatally flawed.

The sale of the Orange County fairgrounds was rejected by a three-judge panel Tuesday.

“Any future sale must begin again at square one,” the court wrote.

In October, the state agreed to sell the fairgrounds to Facilities Management West for $100 million, after a year in which another bidding process and negotiations to sell the property to Costa Mesa both fell apart.

After losing bidders filed a lawsuit, a local court put the sale on hold in November.

The Court of Appeal heard arguments May 14 on whether to continue that hold.

The three-judge panel based its decision Tuesday on two reasons: the lack of an appraisal and the lack of a procedure for losing bidders to protest.

The law authorizing the sale of the property required that the agency handling the sale provide the Legislature with a comparison of fair market value and the terms of the sale in its notice of the sale.

However, it didn’t set up a protest procedure by which losing bidders could ask the agency handling the sale to reverse its decision.

The court ruled that it should have, citing a textbook and the North American Free Trade Agreement as authorities.

The focus of its ruling, though, was the question of fair market value.

The court found that the state Department of General Services, which handled the bidding process, failed to provide the Legislature with a comparison between the $100 million sale price and “fair market value.”

The department reported that the sale price was fair market value, citing state law, which provides that a “transaction based on … a public bidding process shall be deemed to be the fair market value.”

It should have sent the Legislature an appraisal, the court ruled. “(F)or the Department to give the Legislature a comparison of the fair market value of a given property so as to be able to compare it with a proposed sale necessarily entails some sort of estimate.”

The high bid and the real value are two different things, and the state acknowledged as much, the court wrote.

In March 2010, the state rejected the high bid of $56.5 million cash submitted in its first bidding process.

“One should bookmark that fact,” the court wrote. “The Department at the time obviously had a good idea of the Fairground’s fair market value independent of whatever bid happened to be the highest.”

Justice Kathleen O’Leary hit on that point during the May 14 hearing, asking why the state got a high bid of $56.5 million in the first auction, but $100 million in the second.

Deputy Attorney General Michael Witmer, representing the state, said then that it was because the first auction required all cash up front, while the second allowed for financing.

To read entire story, click here.

UPDATED with reader poll on whether we should stop using the photo of Obama as a chimp.

The Orange County GOP official who sent an email portraying President Barack Obama as a chimpanzee was censured this morning by the county party’s executive committee in a 12-2 vote.

The censure of Marilyn Davenport, an elected member of the county GOP’s governing Central Committee, resulted from the finding that she violated bylaw provisions prohibiting action that “intentionally cause(s) the embarrassment” of the party. It is the strongest step the county party could take under its bylaws. According to state law, it was not an offense that qualified for her removal from the committee.

County Republican Party Chairman Scott Baugh condemned the April 15 email shortly after it was made public, and called for a county GOP ethics review of the matter.

“She was censured because she knew the email she was sending out was controversial,” Baugh said after this morning’s vote. “After it went out, she downplayed it as a joke. Instead of owning up to her error, she immediately sought to blame others.

“That resulted in a three-day barrage of negative media attention.”

Davenport’s initial apology, sent as an April 16 email, included the lines, “We all know a double standard applies regarding this President. I received plenty of e-mails about George Bush that I didn’t particularly like yet there was no ‘cry’ in the media about them.”

Part of Davenport’s initial apology, sent as an email on April 16, read, “We all know a double standard applies regarding this President. I received plenty of e-mails about George Bush that I didn’t particularly like yet there was no ‘cry’ in the media about them.”

Baugh said a subsequent apology from Davenport, issued as a printed statement on April 18, appeared to be contrite and sincere – but that things then took a turn for the worse.

“Her subsequent press conference and media tour only served to reignite the controversy,” he said.

At the April 20 press conference in her Fullerton driveway, Davenport read the April 18 apology – but went on to say that she didn’t consider the email racist and that she wasn’t sure Obama was U.S. born.

Davenport ally Tim Whitacre, also an elected member of the Central Committee, dismissed the censure as inconsequential and said it was based on a misinterpretation of the GOP bylaws.

“Once again, Baugh and company totally misuse the bylaws to extract their ounce of blood from their target,” said Whitacre, who unsuccessfully challenged Baugh for the chairmanship in January. “I think he perceives this as sending a message to people to not step out of line and that it deflects criticism of his leadership. But this censure means nothing coming from him.”

Baugh had previously called for Davenport’s resignation – she’s consistently said she won’t quit – and he reiterated today that he would still like to see her step down.

“I still think, for the health of the party, she should resign,” Baugh said.

To read entire story, click here.

Capitol Alert
The latest on California politics and government
May 1, 2011

California Democrats adopted a series of predictable positions as their convention this afternoon – supporting Planned Parenthood, healthy oceans and the California Dream Act, for example – but a shot at one Orange County Republican caused a minor stir within the ranks.

A resolution condemning Marilyn Davenport for an e-mail depicting President Obama as an ape was the only item whose approval was not at least near-unanimous. Some delegates raised concerns about free speech and suggested it is not the party’s place to call, as the resolution does, for Republicans to remove Davenport from her position on a local GOP board.

The item was approved after brief debate on the convention’s final day. Alice Huffman, president of the state NAACP, said the resolution was not about free speech, but a response to “racism, hatred.”

The three-day convention, at the Sacramento Convention Center, ended without an appearance by Gov. Jerry Brown. Brown, who was scheduled to speak today, had a cancerous growth removed from his nose on Friday and is skipping public events until his stitches are removed, his office said.

To read entire story, click here.

Marilyn Davenport

April 21st, 2011, 11:53 am
Posted by Martin Wisckol, Politics reporter

Santa Ana Republican Virgil Nickell wants to know why the county GOP doesn’t kick Marilyn Davenport off the party’s governing Central Committee.

After all, committee members kicked him off the panel in 1999 and he hadn’t attracted anything like the national firestorm surrounding Davenport as the result of her email depicting President Barack Obama as a chimp.

Scott Baugh, chairman of the Republican Party of Orange County, has said state law blocks the committee from throwing Davenport off. He’s asked the Fullerton woman to resign – she’s said she will not – and he’s told the GOP’s Ethics Committee to review the matter, although issuing a censure is the most the committee can do.

Baugh has drawn flak from some Davenport supporters for publicly condemning the email, and helping fuel the public airing of the conflict. But Nickell is among those Republicans who say Baugh should be more forceful on the issue.

“I wish that the Republican Party would stop harassing the Mexicans and the Asians and the blacks, and start inviting them into the party,” Nickell said. “I want them to be more inclusive and not be so elite.”

To read entire story, click here.

Friday, April 22, 2011
By Ed Mendel

Orange County supervisors led by John Moorlach took on the legal issue of boosting pensions for years already served under a less generous plan. They lost when the state Supreme Court last week unanimously refused to hear their appeal.

An innovative part of the county lawsuit contended that a pension increase given deputy sheriffs in 2002 produced a pension debt or “unfunded liability” that exceeded a century-old debt limit in the state constitution.

After a stock market crash and deep economic recession punched big holes in pension investment funds, estimates of state and local government pension debts nationwide have reached a trillion dollars or more, helping make public pension costs a hot topic.

The Orange County pension suit, one of the first in the new political climate, drew legal briefs opposing the county position from the California Public Employees Retirement System and the state attorney general when Gov. Jerry Brown held the office.

A brief supporting the county position was filed by the conservative Pacific Legal Foundation, which blocked an attempt by former Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger to issue a pension bond without approval by a vote of the people.

The high court let stand an appeals court ruling that said the Orange County pension unfunded liability is not subject to the debt limit because it’s not a fixed amount due immediately. It’s an estimate of future shortfalls based on a number of variables such as investment earnings.

The appeals court said, among other things, that an unfunded liability is not created at the time of a pension increase but occurs over years and could even be “avoided entirely” if, for example, investment earnings are better than expected.

A well-publicized part of the county lawsuit said the pension increase given deputy sheriffs, which extended retroactively to years already served under a less generous plan, violated a state constitution provision that prohibits “extra compensation” after service has been rendered.

The appeals court cited other rulings approving post-service compensation for overtime and holidays if needed to retain and recruit employees. The court also said the county failed to address a bill, SB 1696 in 2000, authorizing retroactive pension hikes.

The high court’s denial of an appeal was a blow to Moorlach. He said pursuing a lawsuit to curb the soaring cost of pension benefits was one reason he left the higher pay and “life-time security” of the elected county treasurer’s office to become a supervisor.

Now he is being criticized for running up about $2.3 million in county legal fees. Some think the cost could double if the courts order the county to pay the legal fees of the deputy sheriffs association.

Moorlach said the attempt to save the county hundreds of millions in the years ahead justifies the legal fees. He said the failure of the state Supreme Court to hear the appeal leaves the basic legal issues in the lawsuit unsettled.

“Someone else is going to have to try to clear it up,” Moorlach said. “It will be interesting to see how and when that happens.”

The increase approved by the board of supervisors in 2001 boosted deputy sheriff pensions by 50 percent. The formula was increased to 3 percent of final pay for each year served at age 50, up from 2 percent at 50.

In following years the supervisors voted three more times to renew the labor pact with the higher formula. Then as the economy weakened and budgets tightened, the supervisors voted in January 2008 to prohibit payment of the pension increase for years served before the new formula took effect.

Some pension reform advocates and lawyers say Orange County had a weak case. Instead of reducing pensions for years already served, they want a test of whether the courts will approve a reduction in current worker pensions for years served in the future.

Notably, the watchdog Little Hoover Commission issued a report in February warning that pensions will “crush” government. Retirement costs are expected to take a third of the operating budget in Los Angeles, San Francisco, San Diego and San Jose.

The commission said that the standard way of dealing with unaffordable pension costs (negotiating lower pensions for new hires and increasing employee pension contributions) will not cut soaring costs quickly enough.

“The state and local governments need the authority to restructure future, unearned retirement benefits for their employees,” the commission said, urging that legislation be enacted.

The commission acknowledged that legislation authorizing government agencies to reduce unearned pension benefits for current workers “may entail the courts having to revisit prior court decisions.”

A series of court decisions are widely believed to mean that once a worker is vested, the pension is a contract that can’t be cut unless offset by something of equal value. It’s the reason that cost-cutting lower pensions are for new hires, not current workers.

A lawyer who thinks that the court decisions allow cuts in the unearned pensions of current workers, Jeffrey Chang, has outlined his view on the website of his Folsom law firm.

He argues that some of the Orange County appeals court ruling bolsters his position, particularly a section on vested pension rights that mentions a decision cited by Chang.

The appeals court ruling quotes from a 1978 decision that said before retirement the employee does not have “any absolute right to fixed or specific benefits, but only to a ‘substantial or reasonable pension.’”

Chang said he is a consultant not a litigator. But among litigators, he said, there have been discussions about who wants to be the “guinea pig” and push the theory forward, knowing that it could all the way to the U.S. Supreme Court.

“My feeling is it’s an important enough issue that frankly somebody needs to do it,” he said.

A pension reform group, the California Foundation for Fiscal Responsibility, has talked about an initiative that would test cutting unearned benefits. Several initiative proposals are on the group’s website, but no specific plan has been chosen.

Dan Pellissier, president of California Pension Reform, said his group currently is polling to see if there is support for an initiative that would cap pensions and switch new hires to a 401(k)-style individual investment plan, now common in the private sector.

To read entire column, click here.

Thursday, April 21, 201 – 07:40 a.m.

The Orange County Board of Supervisors led by foolish supervisor John Moorlach just had their hats handed to them by the California Supreme Court.

Last year the supervisors embarked on an endeavour to repeal enhanced benefits a previous board of supervisors granted to the county’s sheriff’s deputies.

The argument presented was that granting the benefit known as “3 at 50″, meaning a pension formula equal to 3% of compensation for each year of service payable at age 50, violated the state constitution.

Yes, it does sound stupid.

Every court in the state agreed and handed a victory to the Association of Orange County Deputy Sheriff’s and its president Wayne Quint.

The legal bill based on this bad legal advice?

A tidy $5 million!

But it’s other people’s money.

The Orange County GOP official who emailed a controversial photo depicting President Barack Obama as a chimp reiterated her apology today, but also said that she didn’t consider the rendering racist and that she wasn’t sure Obama is U.S. born.

“I guess we should know his origin, shouldn’t we?” Marilyn Davenport, an elected member of the county GOP’s governing Central Committee, told a phalanx of media at a press conference in her Fullerton driveway.

Asked about the certificate of live birth released by Obama, Davenport said, “I don’t know if that’s real or not.”

On Friday, Davenport fowarded an email showing a chimp family with Obama’s face photoshopped onto the juvenile chimp with the text, “Now you know why – no birth certificate” – a reference to those who believe Obama was not U.S. born and have asked for additional proof of his citizenship.

The email went to seven fellow members of the Central Committee, including county Republican Party Chairman Scott Baugh. Baugh said the email was racist, called on Davenport to resign, and ordered the committee to perform an ethics review of the incident.

Davenport reiterated today that she had no plans to resign.

(Story text continues below video.)

At the press conference, Davenport read the apology she issued in written form on Monday. It said, in part, “I am an imperfect Christian lady who tries her best to live a Christ-like honoring life. I would never do anything to intentionally harm or berate others regardless of ethnicity.”

Fielding questions from reporters today, she said she now understood how the email could be considered offensive but that she didn’t find it racist.

“I considered it to be political satire,” she said. “I did not send it to people I thought would be offended….

“I think it is only racist when the intent in my heart is racist, and that was not my intent.”

She said that none of her black friends had complained about the email – but upon questioning, said she had not heard from any of her black friends about it and had not asked any of them what they thought.

To read entire interview, click here.

April 19th, 2011, 4:35 pm
Posted by Martin Wisckol, Politics reporter

The Orange County GOP chairman is being criticized for his public condemnation of an email depicting President Barack Obama as a chimp.

Deborah Pauly, the first vice chairman of the Republican Party of Orange County, said the controversial email sent by another elected member of the county GOP’s governing Central Committee was a matter that should have not been handled in the public eye.

County GOP Chairman Scott Baugh publicly called on the sender, Marilyn Davenport, to resign and Monday ordered the committee to launch an ethics review. The accompanying negative publicity could have been avoided, Pauly said.

“It should have been handled internally,” Pauly said. “What Scott should have done is pick up the phone and talked to Marilyn.”

Pauly also criticized the Central Committee members who forwarded the email to former California GOP Chairman Mike Schroeder, who alerted the press and attacked the email as racist.

The controversy has attracted national attention, and a protest scheduled for Saturday outside Davenport’s Fulllerton home is to include members of Project Islamic H.O.P.E, the NAACP, and Rev. Al Sharpton‘s National Action Network, said Najee Ali, director of the Los Angeles-based Project Islamic H.O.P.E.

Pauly said the image was “indefensible,” but said Davenport “wasn’t doing anything she thought was hurtful.”

Baugh has called the email “without question racist” and said it was important to publicly denounce the email immediately to make it clear that such behavior was not in the spirit of the Republican Party and would not be tolerated.

In addition to criticism of Baugh, some Republican activists have criticized Schroeder for alerting the press, saying he should be blamed for giving the county party a black eye.

“Mike Schroeder acted with intent to hurt Marilyn and to hurt the Orange County GOP,” said Teresa Trujillo. “It’s Mike Schroeder flexing his muscle. He took something that should have been inconsequential and turned it into an international media circus. Mike Schroeder should be the one apologizing to Marilyn Davenport and the Orange County GOP.”

Trujillo said Davenport intended the email to be joke among a few members of the Central Committee, to whom she sent the photo along with the text, “Now you know why – No birth certificate!”

“This is somebody who doesn’t understand the power of the Internet, and thought this was giggles among friends” Trujillo said.

But Schroeder said that such behavior by an elected official – especially when she sends the email to other elected officials – is nothing to keep quiet about.

“Anybody who sees it has an absolute responsibility to denounce it,” Schroeder said. “It shouldn’t be allowed to blow over. It shouldn’t have ever been part of a cover up.

“The minute I saw this, I went directly to the press. Anybody who doesn’t understand that this isn’t a fundamentally racist statement doesn’t understand racism.”

I asked Schroeder if this wasn’t one more in a series of recent incidents – including a Los Alamitos mayor sending an email depicting the White House garden as a watermelon patch and a Newport Beach councilman saying there were already “too many Mexicans on the beach” – that were tarring the GOP as racist.

“Every party from time to time has its nuts and its racists and they always will,” he said. “The Democrats had George Wallace and David Duke…. (Davenport) doesn’t represent the party – but how we respond to it does.”

Schroeder did not identify the two Central Committee members whom he said forwarded him Davenport’s email. But Pauly said she wants the ethics review to look into who the two were.

To read entire story, click here.

April 18th, 2011, 8:05 pm
Posted by Martin Wisckol, Politics reporter

The Republican official who emailed a controversial email depicting President Barack Obama as a chimpanzee issued an apology this evening, but county GOP Chairman Scott Baugh continued to call for her resignation and ordered an ethics review of the controversy.

At the monthly meeting of the county party’s governing Central Committee, Baugh expanded on his earlier criticism of Marilyn Davenport, the Central Committee member who sent the email.

“The email without question is racist,” Baugh told the committee and television news cameras at the GOP’s meeting at the Irvine Hyatt. “Free speech is not just a right. It is a responsibility. You are not just speaking for yourself – you are speaking for those who elected you.

“We are the party of Lincoln. There is no place in this party for racism. Second, we are the party of personal responsibility.”

Marilyn and Dick Davenport, from Marilyn Davenport’s Facebook page. Used with permission of Tim Whitacre.

Baugh said earlier that state law prevents the committee from removing the
Fullerton member from her post, and can only condemn her action. Davenport was not at Monday’s meeting.

Davenport’s email on Friday photoshopped Obama’s face on the photo of a chimp, with the text, “Now you know why no birth certificate,” a reference to those who believe Obama was not U.S. born and have asked for additional proof of his citizenship.

When the media began reporting on the controversy on Saturday, Davenport wrote an email saying, “I’m sorry if my email offended anyone.” She then went on to say she didn’t think the email was offensive and that the media didn’t give similar press to attacks on George W. Bush during his presidency.

That apology raised more issues than it resolved, and Baugh said at tonight’s meeting that a true apology takes responsibility and doesn’t blame others.

To read entire story, click here.

March 21st, 2011, 4:44 pm
Posted by Martin Wisckol, Politics reporter

Orange County continues to be the 800-pound gorilla of California Republican politics, thanks in good measure to the size of the county and the number of major donors. But O.C. continues to slip in its ranking of the state’s most GOP counties. And that gorilla may have shed a few pounds.

In 1999, the party fell below 50 percent of all county voters for the first time since 1984. In 2001, it lost its spot as the California county with the highest percentage of GOP voters. By 2007, it ranked ninth among the 58 counties.

It is now 18th, with a 43-percent share of registered voters, according to Secretary of State rankings released last month.

Modoc County Republicans lead the list, with 49.5 percent of voters, followed by Placer County with 48.2 percent, and Lassen County with 48.1 percent.

Alameda County leads the list for Democrats, with 56.7 percent, follow by San Francisco County with 56.1 percent and Marin County with 54.9 percent.

Orange County Democrats, with 31.9 percent share, rank 10th from the bottom.

To read entire post, click here.

By Norberto Santana, Jr.
Posted: Tuesday, March 15, 2011 3:54 pm | Updated: 6:41 pm, Tue Mar 15, 2011.

Ever since he was elected last summer, Orange County Supervisor Shawn Nelson has been trying to get rid of pensions for local elected officials.

It hasn’t been easy.

At first, Nelson tried to get officials to adopt a simple 401K plan instead of a pension. That proposal — delayed at virtually every meeting where it’s been on the agenda — never got far even though most supervisors publicly said they supported the idea.

Things might be changing.

Nelson and Supervisor Bill Campbell said they have developed the basics of a proposal that would have future supervisors switch their pension for the U.S. government’s Social Security program.

“This is a very hot topic,” Nelson said, noting concerns about public sector pensions.

Nelson noted that he got some inspiration from Assemblyman Curt Hagman who proposed taking pensions away from all elected leaders. Frustrated with how little progress he’s achieved on his 401k plan, Nelson said this option seemed workable.

“Put all future electeds on a FICA system,” Nelson said.

Under state law, supervisors are allowed to opt-in or out of the county pension system. Since taking office, Nelson joined Supervisor Pat Bates as the only two supervisors who are foregoing a county pension. The others will still get a pension even if they change the rules for future boards.

The taking of pensions has been a sticky issue for top local officials, especially as anti-pension rhetoric continues to heat up in this Republican-controlled county.

It has become a particularly awkward issue for Supervisor John Moorlach, who has made a name for himself as a prominent critic of public sector pensions.

To read entire story, click here.

March 8th, 2011, 8:02 am
Posted by Kimberly Edds, Staff Writer

The County of Orange took the next step in its fight to overturn the county’s generous “3 percent at 50″ pension plan for sheriff’s deputies, filing its petition with the California Supreme Court.

The case is in its third year of litigation. A county court victory could save as much as $500 million. A loss could mean the county will have to pay their $2 million-plus legal bill along with the legal bills for the deputies’ union.

It’s up to the state Supreme Court whether to accept the petition. The Association of Orange County Deputy Sheriffs has 20 days to file a response.

Justices for the Second Appellate District in Los Angeles sided with the sheriff’s union, agreeing the pension plan’s benefits do not violate the state constitution. The decision leaves the county holding the bill for hundreds of millions of dollars in long-term retirement debt.

“The County emphasizes its current difficult financial situation and the ‘ruinous fiscal irresponsibility’ of the prior board of supervisors,” read the 29-page appellate opinion issued Jan. 26.

“Imprudence, however, is not unconstitutional.”The Board of Supervisors voted 4 to 1 last month to appeal the ruling. Supervisor Janet Nguyen was the lone dissenting vote.

“I think its collective bargaining abuse when you grant retroactive benefits,” said Vice Chair John Moorlach, who has led the charge to sue the deputies union. “It makes the city of Bell scandal pale in comparison.”

The Watchdog has calls into AOCDS president Wayne Quint and we’ll update you when we hear back.

The county has already spent $2.26 million as of July 2010 pursuing the lawsuit, according to documents provided in response to a California Public Records Act request.

The County of Orange sued the association in 2008, trying to pull back the so-called “3 percent at 50″ benefit, which allows deputies who have worked for 30 years to retire at age 50 with 90 percent of their salaries. County supervisors signed off on the benefit in 2001, despite warnings that the good economic times would not last forever.

Seven years later, the Board of Supervisors decided granting retroactive benefits violated state law, because retiring public safety employees were paid extra compensation for work they had already performed. The county also argues it was illegal, because it agreed to spend the money without voter approval.

The county sued. It was Mario Mainero, formerly Moorlach’s chief of staff, who led the war cry for the county to file the suit against the Association of Orange County Deputy Sheriffs.

Mainero, who left the county in May to teach at Chapman Law School, has been hired back by the county to continue its fight against the deputies’ lucrative pension benefits. Chief Executive Officer Tom Mauk hired Mainero in December for $75 an hour.

To read entire story, click here.

Ellis

By Vern Nelson
February 28, 2011

Given the shitstorm coming down the pike for the various insiders implicated in the attempted Great Swindle of the Orange County Fairgrounds, we figure it’s time to start introducing some of the players whose names you’ll be hearing a lot in the news in the coming months. And current Fair Board chairman Dave Ellis is one such character who’s been particularly fascinating to me for a long time now. Publicity-shy, he’s conducted his 25-year political career as much as possible in the shadows. (He now prefers to be called “David,” probably because it’s even harder to google.)

Why is it, I wondered, that so many people – of every political persuasion – say things about Dave like:

“That was the sleaziest political operative in Orange County who just walked past.”

- a long-time Newport Beach Republican activist.

“I shook his hand and then looked for some hand sanitizer.”

- Geoff “Pot Stirrer” West, conservative blogger of “A Bubbling Cauldron.”

“It’s impossible to insult Dave Ellis: He lives in the sewer, he knows that he lives in the sewer, and he’s proud of living in the sewer.”

- a colleague who has worked with Dave for years.

I knew I needed more details! But even the most cursory sketch of the man’s quarter-century political career quickly bloats into an encyclopedia of OC GOP corruption and scandal. At all the great moments – from the 1994 bankruptcy, to the attempt to foist an El Toro International Airport on the public, right up to this year’s Fairgrounds Swindle – Dave Ellis was there in the center, pulling strings, raking in bank, and chuckling to himself.

I’m glad it’s impossible to insult Dave Ellis, because I want to do a complete portrait of him, warts and all (or should I avoid redundance and just say “warts?”) And why should he feel insulted anyway, given that what most of us would consider misdeeds, Dave considers great successes!
“Cutthroat” Consulting, 1985 to present.

Newport Beach is a Republican universe. Hence, not only are Dave’s clients all Republicans, the folks he attacks, the enemies he’s made, are also mostly all Republicans. OJ blogger Ron Winship, a former council candidate and victim of Dave’s, tells me that if you’re not on Dave’s team, you’d better be expecting a scurrilous and deceptive attack mailer a few days before the election, leaving you no time to respond.

Here’s one typical dirty trick Dave played on behalf of one of his Newport Beach clients: In the 2002 council race there was an anti-development slate known as the “Greenlight Committee.” (One constant seems dependable: Dave is always on the side of unlimited development, and politicians with that philosophy tend to be the ones to hire him.) That year, Dave’s pro-development client Gary Adams was in danger of being defeated by his Greenlight opponent Richard Taylor.

So Dave, without Adams’ knowledge (and improperly using his “Airport Working Group” connections) created a totally deceptive robo-call message that went out to thousands of NB voters in the last few days before the election, claiming 3rd candidate Ron Winship was the “Greenlight candidate” and encouraging all anti-development Newporters to “vote for Greenlight candidate Ron Winship.” This successfully split the anti-development vote and drained enough votes from Taylor to Winship to throw the election to Adams.

Typically, when asked if he was responsible for this lying robo-call, the mendacious Ellis laughed heartily and denied it – twice. But after Taylor hired a detective who tracked the message down to the “Airport Working Group” (which was practically synonymous with Dave) he copped to having “created” the message, but protested that he never “authorized” its being released, blaming THAT on “the vendor.” Yes, and the impeccable Dave Ellis has some prime beach-front property in Costa Mesa to sell you.

Apparently Dave was forced to go “talk to the DA” about this whole affair. (Picture a few cozy moments confiding in a Father Confessor, followed by martinis and backslaps.) The main reason this story got as much press as it did is because Mayor Adams, unaware of the trick played on his behalf and mortified to have won in such an underhanded way, went on to craft a law to prevent such abuses in the future.
*

People who’ve been inside Dave’s office tell me that, like a safari hunter with stuffed heads adorning the walls, his rooms are wallpapered with his trademark “Eleventh-Hour Hit Pieces.” The kind that usually spell success for Dave’s clients. The kind that (I imagine) drove his longtime partner Scott Hart to sever ties with him ten years ago (or am I just projecting the relief in Scott’s voice in this article?) The kind that drove the beloved Barbara Venezia out of politics in 2006, to put and end to the savage attacks on her husband. By the way, two years later Babs struck back with this pricelessly catty passage in her Register column:

To read entire updated story, click here.

OC Watchdog ~ Your tax dollars at work
February 24th, 2011, 1:34 pm·
Posted by Tony Saavedra, Register investigative reporter

Two high-ranking officials at the Orange County Employees Retirement System have been placed on paid leave in connection with a $228 million mistake that has resulted in multi-million dollar pension catch-up bills for agencies countywide.

In particular, the Orange County Fire Authority has been handed a catch-up bill of $76 million – the amount of contributions that went uncollected for eight years for “special pay” stipends for paramedics, EMT’s, and others with specialized jobs.

“To get a bill like that was devastating,” said Joe Kerr, president of the 800-member Orange County Professional Firefighters. “How could this oversight have gone on for so many years?”

OCERS has agreed to let the firefighters pay the bill over a 25-year period, at $4.5 million a year, beginning in July, said Lori Zeller, OCFA assistant chief of business services.

The county will pay up to $7 million a year extra to make up for the uncollected contributions owed by county agencies for other county employees. The county’s share of the shortfall in contributions is $120 million, including deputies and others from the sheriff’s department. The rest is spread among the other agencies that belong to OCERS.

OCERS Assistant CEO Steve Cadena and Finance Officer Michelle Williamson were put on leave Feb. 18 while the agency conducts an audit on the massive mistake. Chief executive Steve Delaney said the action was taken to allow auditors to work unhampered.

Cadena earns $154,668.80 annually and Williamson makes $112,569.40.

Pensions themselves were not affected by the mistake, officials said.

“We are working with OCERS to sort through it all and they are doing reviews to make sure it doesn’t happen again,” Zeller said.

To read entire story, click here.

Posted: Tuesday, February 22, 2011 9:58 pm | Updated: 12:59 pm, Tue Feb 22, 2011.
NORBERTO SANTANA, JR. Voice of OC

Wednesday, February 2, 2010 | Last October, when District Attorney Tony Rackauckas cleared former State Senator Dick Ackerman of any illegal lobbying on the proposed sale of the Orange County Fairgrounds, his report stated that Ackerman didn’t violate a state ban on lobbying former colleagues because “his contact was not with state legislators.”

Yet detailed legal billings, submitted by Ackerman’s law firm to the Orange County Fair Board and obtained by Voice of OC, show that the former legislator contacted several members of Orange County’s delegation to the state Legislature before and after key votes in July 2009 that authorized the sale of the fairgrounds.

The report stated that Ackerman — who was secretly hired by the Fair Board shortly after former Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger put the fairgrounds and other state assets up for sale in 2009 — did make contact with the governor’s office and agencies regarding the fairgrounds, but did not engage in lobbying.

The report went on to say, even if his contact with these officials were to be construed as lobbying, he was not violating the law because “as a former legislator, Mr. Ackerman was only precluded from “lobbying” “other members of the State Legislature.”

But the report made no mention of conversations that Ackerman’s own billing records show he had with legislators from Orange County days before and after they voted to sell the fairgrounds on July 23 and 24, 2009.

Ackerman’s law firm, Nossaman, submitted the bills to the California Construction Authority, the state agency used to hire Ackerman on behalf of the Fair Board.

The report also failed to mention that Ackerman’s contract with the Fair Board specifically mentions that he was to be “liaison with state elected officials.”

A state law passed by voters in 1990 prohibits former state lawmakers from lobbying their former colleagues for one year after they leave office. Ackerman was a state senator from 2000 through 2008.

“It sure looks like he’s lobbying,” said Jessica Levinson, an attorney in charge of political reform efforts at the Los Angeles-based Center for Governmental Studies.

“It stinks.”

Ackerman has not responded to several phone calls over the past months seeking comment on his role in the fairgrounds sale.

Rackauckas Chief of Staff Susan Kang Schroeder defended the report, but would not specifically discuss the newly revealed records.

“The evidence we had supports the findings we made,” she said. “If anyone has further evidence that is contrary to the evidence we have, we’ll be glad to look at it. And it may bring us to a different result.”

State Senator Lou Correa and State Assemblyman Jose Solorio — who are now suing to stop the sale — both remembered that Ackerman had contacted them before their original vote. However, neither could remember the specifics of their conversation with Ackerman.

“With term limits, I can’t keep up with the new members let alone those that are termed out,” Correa said.

Solorio said Ackerman gave him updates on the situation with the fairgrounds and the formation of a non-profit to purchase the property.

“As legislators, we were just hearing what he had to say,” said Solorio, who noted that at later hearings on the fairgrounds sale in Costa Mesa, the role of Ackerman was tough to figure out and triggered many questions.

“My assumption was that he was doing whatever he could legally do. It wasn’t my assumption he couldn’t give us background on these items,” he said.

Both Correa and Solorio said the disclosures were “troubling” and would likely trigger further reviews, from agencies outside the district attorney’s office.

A Big Gun

Ackerman — one of Orange County’s most senior Republican power brokers — was hired by members of the Fair Board sometime in 2009 to help them get control over the 150-acre property in Costa Mesa.

Their plan — to buy the property through a non-profit foundation — blew up soon after it was made public.

State officials are now trying to sell the property to a Newport Beach firm, Facilities Management West, with the aim of making the fairgrounds more profitable by packing in more events.

That deal has stalled after activists and several state elected officials filed suit. Hearings on the lawsuit were postponed until March so Gov. Jerry Brown can consider his options.

Activists and officials have long alleged that various groups trying to buy the fair have broken the law.

FMW has been accused of improperly using insider influence, chiefly through Gary Hunt, an Irvine company official who was a chief campaign finance fundraiser for Schwarzenegger and now works with California Strategies, which represents FMW in Sacramento and is also lobbying for the sale.

Missing Facts

The District Attorney’s investigation, which began in late 2009, was prompted specifically by allegations of lobbying by Ackerman and conflict of interest allegations against Fair Board members.

The 47-page District Attorney’s report provides a chronological account of the fair saga and details Ackerman’s role in the process. But documents and interviews reveal that investigators either left out or failed to uncover key facts regarding Ackerman’s involvement.

For example, Ackerman’s own legal billings note that he called to just about every member of the Orange County Board of Supervisors about the sale. Yet the district attorney report only mentions two supervisors contacted, and doesn’t list them by name.

“This is another strong argument in support of the idea that local agencies like the county need a lobbyist registration law,” said Correa, who has sponsored such legislation this year.

Many players on the fairgrounds saga — key elected officials in Costa Mesa and the state — as well as dissident fair board members like David Padilla said Rackauckas’ investigators never contacted them for information.

Also missing from the District Attorney’s report are key components of the job contract Ackerman signed with the Fair Board.

For example, in their report, the District Attorney investigators mention four key things Ackerman was hired to do for the fairgrounds. They are:

* Ascertain the seriousness of the State’s intent to sell the Fairgrounds.
* Explore local community interest and desire to keep the Fair.
* Ascertain local governmental interest in obtaining control over the O.C. Fairgrounds to ensure continuation of the Fair.
* Research and examine the property records of the O.C. Fairgrounds to determine if there were any encumbrances that would hamper any efforts to gain local control.

However, according to a copy of Ackerman’s employment contract with the Fair Board obtained by Voice of OC, he was hired to do two other things that the District Attorney’s report does not mention. They are:

* Acting as a liaison with the City of Costa Mesa, the County of Orange and the State relative to the proposed sale
* Acting as a liaison with State Elected officials relative to the proposed sale.

Ackerman’s hire date (hidden through a land use subcontractor to the fair board known as LSA Associates) is unclear because his employment contract is both dated October 28, 2009 (in type) and July 31, 2009 (in handwriting). The District Attorney’s report said Ackerman was hired in May.

Ackerman’s legal work for the fair board began as early as May 2009, according to his own billing records submitted to the Construction Authority.

In the first months of legal billings, Ackerman’s contact seemed heavily focused on fair board member David Ellis — a powerful Republican political consultant in Orange County — as well as the Fair CEO Steve Beazley.

To read entire story, click here.

By Vern Nelson
February 22, 2011

Given the shitstorm coming down the pike for the various insiders implicated in the attempted Great Swindle of the Orange County Fairgrounds, we figure it’s time to start introducing some of the players whose names you’ll be hearing a lot in the news in the coming months. And current Fair Board chairman Dave Ellis is one such character who’s been particularly fascinating to me for a long time now. Publicity-shy, he’s conducted his 25-year political career as much as possible in the shadows. (He now prefers to be called “David,” probably because it’s even harder to google.)

Ellis

Why is it, I wondered, that so many people – of every political persuasion – say things about Dave like:

“That was the sleaziest political operative in Orange County who just walked past.”

- a long-time Newport Beach Republican activist.

“I shook his hand and then looked for some hand sanitizer.”

- Geoff “Pot Stirrer” West, conservative blogger of “A Bubbling Cauldron.”

“It’s impossible to insult Dave Ellis: He lives in the sewer, he knows that he lives in the sewer, and he’s proud of living in the sewer.”

- a colleague who has worked with Dave for years.

I knew I needed more details! But even the most cursory sketch of the man’s quarter-century political career quickly bloats into an encyclopedia of OC GOP corruption and scandal. At all the great moments – from the 1994 bankruptcy, to the attempt to foist an El Toro International Airport on the public, right up to this year’s Fairgrounds Swindle – Dave Ellis was there in the center, pulling strings, raking in bank, and chuckling to himself.

I’m glad it’s impossible to insult Dave Ellis, because I want to do a complete portrait of him, warts and all (or should I avoid redundance and just say “warts?”) And why should he feel insulted anyway, given that what most of us would consider misdeeds, Dave considers great successes!
“Cutthroat” Consulting, 1985 to present.

Newport Beach is a Republican universe. Hence, not only are Dave’s clients all Republicans, the folks he attacks, the enemies he’s made, are also mostly all Republicans. OJ blogger Ron Winship, a former council candidate and victim of Dave’s, tells me that if you’re not on Dave’s team, you’d better be expecting a scurrilous and deceptive attack mailer a few days before the election, leaving you no time to respond.

Here’s one typical dirty trick Dave played on behalf of one of his Newport Beach clients: In the 2002 council race there was an anti-development slate known as the “Greenlight Committee.” (One constant seems dependable: Dave is always on the side of unlimited development, and politicians with that philosophy tend to be the ones to hire him.) That year, Dave’s pro-development client Gary Adams was in danger of being defeated by his Greenlight opponent Richard Taylor.

So Dave, without Adams’ knowledge (and improperly using his “Airport Working Group” connections) created a totally deceptive robo-call message that went out to thousands of NB voters in the last few days before the election, claiming 3rd candidate Ron Winship was the “Greenlight candidate” and encouraging all anti-development Newporters to “vote for Greenlight candidate Ron Winship.” This successfully split the anti-development vote and drained enough votes from Taylor to Winship to throw the election to Adams.

Typically, when asked if he was responsible for this lying robo-call, the mendacious Ellis laughed heartily and denied it – twice. But after Taylor hired a detective who tracked the message down to the “Airport Working Group” (which was practically synonymous with Dave) he copped to having “created” the message, but protested that he never “authorized” its being released, blaming THAT on “the vendor.” Yes, and the impeccable Dave Ellis has some prime beach-front property in Costa Mesa to sell you.

Apparently Dave was forced to go “talk to the DA” about this whole affair. (Picture a few cozy moments confiding in a Father Confessor, followed by martinis and backslaps.) The main reason this story got as much press as it did is because Mayor Adams, unaware of the trick played on his behalf and mortified to have won in such an underhanded way, went on to craft a law to prevent such abuses in the future.
*

People who’ve been inside Dave’s office tell me that, like a safari hunter with stuffed heads adorning the walls, his rooms are wallpapered with his trademark “Eleventh-Hour Hit Pieces.” The kind that usually spell success for Dave’s clients. The kind that (I imagine) drove his longtime partner Scott Hart to sever ties with him ten years ago (or am I just projecting the relief in Scott’s voice in this article?) The kind that drove the beloved Barbara Venezia out of politics in 2006, to put and end to the savage attacks on her husband. By the way, two years later Babs struck back with this pricelessly catty passage in her Register column:

To read updated story, click here.

Posted: Monday, February 21, 2011 6:24 pm | Updated: 8:22 pm, Mon Feb 21, 2011.
NORBERTO SANTANA, JR. Voice of OC

Tuesday, February 22, 2010 | The state’s Fair Political Practices Commission has launched an investigation into whether contacts former State Senator Dick Ackerman made with current legislators on behalf of the Orange County Fair Board constituted illegal lobbying.

Fair Board members hired Ackerman, who left the state legislature at the end of 2008, as consultant in 2009 while they were attempting to purchase the 150-acre fairgrounds in Costa Mesa through a nonprofit foundation.

The plan crumbled following public outcry against selling the fairgrounds. Nonetheless, all the maneuvering among Fair Board members and Ackerman eventually caught the attention of Orange County Supervisors.

In October 2009, they formally requested county District Attorney Tony Rackauckas to investigate possible conflicts of interest by Fair Board members as well as Ackerman’s dealings. State law forbids legislators from lobbying their former colleagues for a year after they leave office.

After a yearlong investigation, Rackauckas cleared Ackerman and the Fair Board members of any wrongdoing, saying in his report that Ackerman didn’t violate a state ban on lobbying former colleagues because “his contact was not with state legislators.”

However, a story published earlier this month by Voice of OC revealed that Ackerman’s own legal billings show him having interaction with key Orange County legislators before and after key votes that put the fairgrounds up for sale.

“Based on the story, the Committee’s Enforcement Division has opened a proactive investigation into this matter,” said FPPC Executive Director Roman Porter.

Porter declined any further comment on the specifics of the probe.

Ackerman did not return a call for comment on this story. And DA officials have declined to discuss the details of their report.

To read entire story, click here.