I showed up to tonight’s South Santa Ana Merchants Association meeting and asked once more if the board members of this organization were going to allow the meeting to be filmed and made available on cable T.V. and the Internet. Once more I was told emphatically “no.” So I joined my fellow City Council challengers outside and we opted not to participate in the meeting.
Why did we do this? Why did Mayoral candidates Michele Martinez, George Collins and Stanley Fiala join me and my fellow Council candidates Lisann Martinez and Jim Walker in not participating in this meeting? We did it for principle. The meeting was open to the public – it was actually announced in the O.C. Register as an invitation to the public to participate. But the association board members opted to exclude most of the people of our city by not allowing video footage to be placed on T.V. and the Internet. In the end only about 20 people showed up.
I asked Maggie Rodriguez, who is this organization’s Treasurer, and Jorge Doffo, who is their President, why we could not film the meeting. They said that their fellow board members felt uncomfortable in front of the camera. Really? But two years ago when Collins filmed their last City Council candidates meeting, no one objected. So what changed in the interim?
They also said no one contacted him. That turned out to be a big lie. Collins DID contact Doffo, repeatedly. Doffo never returned his calls. Collins also emailed Mary Guzman, the association’s Secretary, many times. So yes, he DID try to work this out with them.
Rodriguez was particularly nasty. She said I never went to her meetings. Really? This was the fourth association meeting I have been to. She then said I don’t speak Spanish – but I teach in Spanish for Cerritos College and three other companies. And what the heck does that have to do with the issues at hand?
As I pointed out in my press release about our boycott, by saying no to the cameras they turned their backs on those residents of our city who could not be there. They missed out on some remarkable remarks by Santa Ana Mayor Miguel Pulido and his crooked Council cabal:
- Pulido said he was happy that the meeting was not filmed.
- When Glen Stroud asked Team Pulido (Pulido himself had already left) to explain why they spent $150,000 of our money to hold a special election so that Councilwoman Claudia Alvarez could get four more years on the Council, via the onerous Measure D, no one had a good answer. Councilmen Carlos Bustamante and Vince Sarmiento stammered away – and Alvarez simply had no clue what to say.
- Alvarez boasted that her parents were small business owners. I wonder what they think about the ridiculous fees that Alvarez and her cronies charge for Santa Ana business licenses? We pay over $600 while businesses in the City of Brea pay $50. What’s up with that?
- Pulido and company promised to hang banners in south Santa Ana touting their shopping district. How much is that going to cost – at a time that our city is $28 million in debt? They also promised, essentially, to subisidize the businesses on south Main St. That’s just nuts!
- Carlos Bustamante said that the Renaissance Plan is coming back soon. He and Sarmiento admitted the initial plan had been flawed. And they claimed they were not going to oust anyone from the Logan Barrio. THAT I don’t believe.
- Sarmiento said that there is no room for more parks – funny how they always find more room for $800,000 condos and high rise towers!
- Claudia Alvarez was asked what we can do about the drug problem – she said she could not say! Her response to the issue of the gang killings in our city was that we should focus on other things! She did however brag about the gang injunction and as usual said they have hired a lot of cops, even though in truth we are still far short the number of police officers we should have.
Here’s the kicker – a cop car waited across the street during the entire meeting. After the meeting the cops approached Alvarez and made sure she was OK. How much is it costing taxpayers to provide her with a police escort? Who is going to protect US from HER?
We gave the South Santa Ana Merchants Association an opportunity to reach out to the people of Santa Ana tonight – and they punted. Too bad. I have a feeling that they are less about helping our city and more about stuffing their own pockets. They take pride in dragging the local politicians to their meetings – but tonight the rest of us made a stand for principle. We refused to be played and while we were outside we were interviewed by a reporter from the Excelsior newspaper. We will have our video statements on YouTube by tomorrow. We report to the people of our city – if the SSAMA doesn’t like that, too bad. Tonight we showed them that we are NOT going to be pushed around. And we are NOT going to buy their favor the way Pulido and company do.
You want to know how to help the business community in Santa Ana? Well, let’s take a look at what Pulido and company have done to them:
- Pulido and his Council cabal voted to raise our water rates TWICE in the past year.
- Pulido and company endorsed the fraudulent SAUSD Measure G – a bond measure so bad that Trustee John Palacio said we DIDN’T need it! That’s right – Pulido and his cabal voted to raise our property taxes – just as the global economy went down the toilet.
- Pulido and company decided a few years ago to NOT allow Santa Ana business owners to use our public library for free. Their taxes fill our city coffers but they cannot use our one public library.
- Pulido and his team tried to raise our taxes via the infamous failed Ream Assessment a few years ago.
- Pulido and his crooked henchmen wasted $150,000 of our tax dollars on a bogus special election this year – so they could extend their own Council terms.
- Pulido and company gave away land to Don Crevier, a multi-millionaire, for his luxury car lot. And he was given massive tax breaks.
- Pulido and company gave out a pension spike this summer and vast raises to most city managers and employees this year – even though our city is $28 million in debt!
- And as I noted they vastly overcharge us for business licenses.
So when is SSAMA going to stand up to Pulido and his “Team” and fight them on these issues? My guess? Never.
Art,
Perhaps they did not want the forum to be videotaped by George Collins. Maybe they are aware of how he likes to edit video to falsely imply things or portray situations out of complete context. Collins like to brag about his handywork and post the false and slanderous videos on the internet.
I agree that if an unbiased third party wanted to videotape the event to televise it locally as a public service they should have been granted access. What do they want to hide? It sends a bad message.
However I have no problem whatsoever with them banning Collins from videotaping the event. His track record speaks for itself and he is proud of his false and slanderous video work. Why allow him to do it again?
“Police Escort”???? no wonder when I call dispatch for shots being fired in my 92701 zip code it takes an officer 15-20 minutes to respond….mind you that this is the area of town that is being faced with a SERIOUS GANG WAR
The “city” just keeps on misusing our money…
Claudia can just use her tongue for protection…its pretty lethal and venomous
Sean,
You’re right – but they also banned Time Warner and a film crew from CSUF. I could understand taking issue with Collins – even though he would have been happy to sign a promise that he would not alter the video. But they said no to ALL the T.V. media. THAT I have a problem with.
Here is a comment from our co-blogger Larry Gilbert:
Excellent report.
The top job of any elected official, be it in Washington, DC or the Santa Ana city council, is “public safety.” The following statement from this post blows me away.
Is this what is meant by Santa Ana winds?
“Claudia Alvarez was asked what we can do about the drug problem – she said she could not say! Her response to the issue of the gang killings in our city was that we should focus on other things! “
Sean is not right. Those are serious charges, he should back those up with specific examples. I believe that he is exaggerating.
The only videos which I have seen George “enhance” was to emphasize a point in a humorous fashion.
If the city clowncil does not want to be made fun of – I say to them, don’t make stupid remarks like Claudia Alvarez apparently did last night.
Do you know why Claudia stated why the public should focus on other things? Because she, along with OC demi-god Tony Raukaukus, can continue to crow about their ICE sweeps. The District Attorney’s Office needs drugs, gangs and fraud for their organization to keep thriving. Hey, she needs to keep her job with the OCDA……I don’t think she’ll be able to secure employment with another organization since she boasts such a venemous history.
What an abuse of power by having a SAPD watching over her. SA residents should file complaints with Walters just to get this in his craw……
What a joke….
Who cares if it will be videotaped?
The childish “if I can’t be on TV I won’t do the forum” attitude of certain candidates is pathetic. I think they know that they would not perform well in certain forums, and they hide behind the video excuse, pretending they are holding on to some ridiculous principle. In reality, the incumbents showed up, respected the community and busines leaders there for the meeting, did what was expected of them, and spoke to that portion of the community that showed up to hear them. Not the challengers. They cheated the members of the public that showed up of the opportunity to see if there is a difference between the candidates. The challengers deserve to lose every vote in that room.
I say show up and say your piece. As a candidate, you have an obligation to work with everyone in the community. When you aren’t even elected yet and you step up and say “these people won’t cave in and do what I want, so I won’t even try to work with them”, you show that you are incpable of rising above and doing what is expected of you. It’s petty and small, and demonstrates an inability and unwillingness to accept those in the community that you might not necessarily agree with. It’s a show of the poor leadership we can expect if these candidates are elected.
Campaigning is tough. If you won’t even show up and try to debate, you don’t deserve to win. The flimsy video excuse is just that, an excuse.
If elected, you will be expected to work with these and others that you have a grudge against. You will be faced with hard questions, both in public meetings, and in private. If you hide away now as a candidate, you certainly can’t handle the office. Your true colors were shown at the meeting last night.
“anonymous” sounds like something right out of the ” all hail the the Pulido team” play book. “anonymous”, just listen to what you are saying:
“The challengers deserve to lose every vote in that room.
I say show up and say your piece’
Hmmm.. if memory serves, the Pulido team recently walked out of the NAACP forum right before the important Q & A portion. I suppose they deserve to lose every vote, too.
“If elected, you will be expected to work with these and others that you have a grudge against.”
Hah, that’s a joke. Ms. Alvarez is making no secret at the candidate forums about her bitter grudge against Michele Martinez and they are currently working together (I hope).
Your positions don’t even hold water, anonymous. Sorry.
I wholeheartedly agree with Anon,(even though it really bugs me when people don’t use their name here) Talk to the people that take the time to come, that to me is one strike against.
My “positions” are based on the actions of the candidates at last night’s forum. I did not attend the NAACP forum, so I don’t know what happened there. I do know what happened last night.
As for Alvarez, I don’t know what personal issue triggered the animosity between her and Martinez, but I do know that when they are up on the dias during council sessions they vote on items and do the city’s business, ultimately working together inspite of their personal issues. I do wish the catfight would stop, though. It’s not very good for the public to see that type of nonsense.
What I believe to be the most important priority for all candidates in an election is to provide as much relevant information as possible, to as many citizens as possible, about what distinguishes the candidates from one another.
Over the past many years I have seen half the Santa Ana City Council meetings blacked out. Essentially allowing only half the business of our City Council to be available to those who wish to know more about it.
If you want any degree of transparent government, in a city of well over 350,000 people, it is essential to employ the technology that has long been available. What is hard to believe is that there is any question as to the necessity and inherent responsibility of good government to televise public meetings.
In the past, the rational for not televising meetings was to stop “certain people” from “showboating”, or what also can be recognized as – suppressing dissent.
What is most difficult to accept is the rationale for not televising Council Meetings on the grounds that some of our elected leaders are not “comfortable” in front of cameras.
I would think everyone would agree that the role of leadership is not about becoming “comfortable” and that real democracy is by it’s very nature a messy business.
If there is any justification for the “silly season” or what we like to call our electoral process, then let it be found in the opportunity it presents to citizens with the clear choices of just who is more likely affect government and the community – for the better.
Last night’s Candidate’s Forum was an unfortunate affair for many reasons. But the one thing that it did achieve was to distinguish the candidates and what they stood for.
I think it is important to state on last nights forum, that all the candidates were there. I saw each and everyone and spoke to them all.
In the comments it is coming across as if the boycotters did not even show.
But they did show up for the forum, and tried to get a compromise that would fit the “open government” stand they are pushing.
I disagree with “Team Challengers” boycott of the forum, but I understand the position they took not to participate.
There is another chance to see the 4 mayor candidates tonight at Santa Ana College at 6pm.
Junior,
Take a look at George’s website or You Tube and you will find George’s editing skills at play.
In one case he took a video of me speaking out against Janet Nguyen and edited in video of Councilman Tinajero criticizing Thomas Gordon. George posted the video as Sal criticizing me and at no time did he say that the video was meant to be humorous or anything other than factual.
For those that were not in attendance at those meetings, they would believe the video posted by George was a true account of Sal criticizing me. This is clearly not the case.
Since posting it George has bragged about it and was almost giddy when he asked Sal if he had seen it.
This is one example of how George twists the truth via the editing machine. Perhaps you should take a look at his site before passing judgement on my comment.
Sean,
As I stated earlier, the SSAMA could have allowed someone else to film the meeting if they had an issue with Collins. They banned ALL video cameras. This move clearly backfired on them. I doubt very much that they will learn their lesson…
Aww,
It all makes sense now. Sean is mad @ Collins because he dared to tread on the sacred Mills/Tinajero relationship. How dare Collins make fun of their spiritual alliance?! Everybody now: “Aawwwww”
Of course, this tangent Mills takes us on distracts us from the real issue at hand. As I stated before, why even have this forum with very limited exposure to the voters? Cook was able to talk to all the candidates, but how feasible is that? Were all the 20 audience members able to chat with all of the candidates as did Cook? Didn’t think so. What if more had showed up? What then? Another slap at the face of voters by the PRC (Pudrido/Ream Cabal).
This time around the SSAMA “forum” was nothing more but a dog and pony show. It is up to the voters to figure out who the dog was and who the pony is.
Also, it also appears that we need to change Crazy Claudia’s name to “Paranoid Claudia”. Jeez, what a nutcase!
Sean,
99% of Collins’ videos are unadulterated. He is pretty good about this. Most of the time his edits are simply efforts to clean up the videos.
Collins is a producer and his documentaries have been distributed and viewed throughout the world.
And, as I have stated, the SSAMA had the option of allowing Time Warner to shoot the video at this forum. They declined. We boycotted. End of story.
The fact that Collins picked on you and Sal is irrelevant to this story.
“The fact that Collins picked on you and Sal is irrelevant to this story.”
Art,
The fact that Collins has a history of posting misleading edited videos is not irrelevant however.
Sean,
I know. That is why it was so egregious for the SSAMA board to also prohibit ANYONE else from filming the meeting, including Time Warner.
I believe the reason they said “PROHIBIT EVERYONE FROM FILMING” is so there would not be any cries of discrimination.
Rick,
Then you are wrong. They did it so that their buddies on Team Pulido wouldn’t have to worry about their comments being scrutinized and posted on YouTube. Check out Pulido’s finance reports. Doffo and his pals are big contributors to Papi Pulido…
Did SSAMA charge to attend this dog ‘n pony show?
At one time I made the effort to attend a SSMAMA sponsored forum a few years ago and they were charging to attend the event. At that time I made the decision to never attend one of their so-called community events. And I also made the decision to not patronize their businesses because they pay lip service to Pulido & his cabal and the Chamber.
So pleased Pedroza, Walker, L. Martinez, M. Martinez, Collins & Fiala walked out.
BTW .. apparently Pulido does not have to comply with the city ordinance about not displaying political signage on our parkways.
Crazy Claudia is so damn predictable. The alleged police protection is from the many wives who are after her because she swoops in and enchants their husbands. Could this be the business she alludes to when she allegedly touts the family business? An earlier blogger comments about the alleged use of her tongue. Whew! It’s sharp and acid through & through.
Sean can you prove what you just said?. Can you be tangible about it?. or you are just a kid crying to mamma because nobody like you?. Be a man of principles and relize that censorship is not part of America!.Does not matter who is filming ,doesn’t matter if we like the cameraman!. That is okay in communist countries or countries with teocracies or dictatorships, but NO IN AMERICA!!!!!!!!!!.
Mary,
Do you even read what is posted before you start spouting off?
I clearly stated exactly what I was referring to. Go back and read slowly and you should be able to see what I wrote and where to find it.
You are right Art, Santa Ana is in desperate need of more libraries. The literacy rate is pretty bad as demonstrated by Mary.
Time Warner no longer covers Santa Ana events and hasn’t for quite some time. (The Comm-Link forum was covered by staff from the city of Santa Ana.)
Tell us, where did you get the information that Time Warner made an attempt to cover it and was denied?
The truth is that they were not going to cover it and never were. To say they were denied is simply not true. Art and the other candidates are trying to use this claim to bolster up their flimsy excuse about boycotting the forum over the video.
anon (7:10),
Your info is bad. Time Warner was turned away by SSAMA when they had their SAUSD candidates meeting.
And a crew from CSUF was rejected this time.
Not to mention the fact tbat ALL parties interested in filming were shut out.
Perhaps the SSAMA board did not want us to see that hardly anyone shows up for their meetings. Or maybe they did not want the public to know that they shake down politicians and don’t really care about what happens to the residents of our city.
Where do Doffo and Rodriguez live, I wonder? Newport Beach perhaps?
Sean stop crying on mama’s lap. Be a man and stand up for American values of freedom od speech and press.Who does the videotaping is irrelevant!.
The challenger candidates all have one campaign point in common. It is transparent government.
An aspect of transparent government is openly informing the city’s residents about civic activities. Candidate forums is part of this trnasparent goverment campaign issue.
The merchant group invited the candidates to participate in their forum. The challenger candidate group found out about the no televising structure of the forum at a late hour. The no video of the event is inconsistent with their shared campaign pledge of open government.
This forum structure inconsistency was pointed out the the merchant group. The merchant group decided to accomodate the group that supported not televising the event.
The challenger candidate group then decided not to accept the merchant groups ‘s invitation to the forum.
The decision not to accept the invitation was to stay consistent in their pledge of transparent government.
The merchant group apparently decided to accomodate the incumbent team in staying consistent in supporting a closed government.
The organizing group is responsible to make sure all invited candidates are in agreement as to structure of the forum.
The challenger candidate group not accepting the invitation is a reflection of poor forum management.
Candidates have a responsibility to not participate where their participation can be interpreted as hypocritical of their campaign pledges.
The challenger candidate group made the right decision, in this sense, to not accept the invitation to the forum.
The forum organizing group must be considerate of the candidate’s campaign pledges and not compromise them by how they structure their forum.
Mary,
Nobody’s crying in anyone’s lap.
First you claimed I could not back up what I was saying, now you invoke “American values”. WOW!!!!
Who does the videotaping is not irrelevant when the person videotaping has a disingenuous agenda.
Work on your literacy and stop spending so much time blabbering on the blogs.
Sean said: “The literacy rate is pretty bad as demonstrated …”
However, the incivility and discourtesy rate is pretty high as demonstrated by Sean in the above comment.
Junior,
I am civil towards those that show civility and courteous towards those that show courtesy.