For now, I just want to post some captioned photos from today’s 5th Annual Representative Ed Royce’s Women’s Conference at the Cal State Fullerton campus. The full story will take more time — but I think it will be worth it. Photos are in chronological order (with a few extraneous insertions, as noted.)
Agitators from Democrats of North Orange County and friends at left; church-based immigration fairness group at right.
The hand-written sign at bottom left announced the day’s theme:
“Royce’s ‘Women’s Conference’: Let’s Discuss Good Housekeeping — But Not Good Lawmaking!”
The time, according to my camera phone, was 9:03 a.m.
My being added to the photo adds little except illegibility.
Conference attendee Dot DeLeon explains to agitators why she had walked out of a breakout session on health that had seemed to her to be on the basic side.
The purpose of the taxpayer-funded conference was to talk to women about women’s issues — like cooking, health, and personal finance — not to promote any particular political candidate.
About 250 people had been gathered in the main room before breakout sessions. This count apparently includes Royce staffers and a large number of undercover correspondents for Orange Juice Blog and other Royce critics.
By 9:37, most of the taxpayer-funded snacks were gone — but not all!
… presumably grateful to Rep. Ed Royce for the free lessons.
The “Cooking Class” breakout session was attended by tens of women …
Here literally tens of women learned how to get ahead of those who did not attend the taxpayer-funded free conference arranged by the staff of Rep. Ed Royce.
Outside the “Getting Ahead” session I found Royce staffer Young Kim, an expected candidate against Sharon Quirk-Silva for AD-65. Excited at the prospect of being able to get a file photo (with a name tag!) for the 2014 campaign, I asked her if I could take her picture. After asking my purpose, name, and affiliation, and other preliminary questions, she agreed to smile and pose. The unusual character of her smile appears to be due to my clicking the shutter just a few milliseconds after she belatedly recognized either my name or that of the blog.
I next went to Orange County’s Credit Union’s session on personal finance. I liked what I saw of it. I look forward to the free men’s class on personal finance. One insight: attend free classes!
I think that we can safely increase our audience estimate for this panel from “tens” of attendees to “dozens” of attendees!
Orange County’s Credit Union set forth an impressive table — and they had oranges! Best of all, I don’t think that they had been paid for by taxpayers, unless the Credit Union is a subsidiary of one of the “too big to fail” banks that got bailed out during Rep. Royce’s time as Chair of the House Financial Services Committee.
They were a;sp certainly prepared for a larger crowd, which — despite the efforts of the Orange Juice Blog to publicize the conference — did not materialize.
On my way out of the building at 9:45, I saw Rep. Royce’s wife, Mary Porter, talking animatedly to a crowd of students, workers, interns, or something like that. I like taking more that one picture of this kind of action …
… so that in at least one of them, something like this didn’t happen. By the way, at the time I did not even notice the presence of Rep. Royce in her audience.
(This is a portrait of Rep. Royce with his wife at a gala for the Indian Diaspora. No word on his website about any personal finance and cooking classes for diasporic Indians, though.)
I was saddened that, having been distracted by the lighter clothing of his wife, I still thought that I had missed getting a shot of the elusive Rep. Royce. At 9:58, I was told by someone outside that he was in the building at the Registration desk. Catlike (or at least as catlike as I ever get) I walked down a side aisle to get a candid shot of him with my cell phone — which incidentally does not resemble any of the firearms that Rep. Royce wants people to be able to carry in public. It was only after snapping the photo that I realized that my presence had created a fuss. (The woman wearing white in the foreground had been quite pleasant to me prior to this and is not shown to her greatest advantage here.) The purple blur to the right is a portion of $160,000+/year Royce Chief of Staff Amy Porter, coming to tell me that no photography was allowed at this public event. Royce’s wife is seen next to where he is, inexplicably, crouching. The blurry woman in yellow behind her is, if my research is accurate Royce’s Deputy or Assistant or some such Chief of Staff Sarah Catalan (who would identify me only as Sarah), also apparently reacting out of extreme concern about the dangers of cellphone photography. (But all of that is a story for another time.)
Sarah Catalan is not only tall when compared to Ed Royce by the way. She also appears to have the ability to effortlessly adjust the sincerity of her smile to match the soul of the person standing next to her. (I’m skipping one — and only one — of the photos I took, by the way. It’s nothing embarrassing for anyone.)
This photo was taken of Amy and Sarah, as I like to call them, at 10:10 from outside of the building — although no one disputed my right to be in the building and (if I understand them correctly) to register as “press” and even take photos inside the building if I chose to do so — after 12 interesting minutes during which I was not under police custody for taking a photo of Ed Royce (or otherwise.). A magnification of the central group (showing that Amy Porter was indeed wearing purple) appears below, as does a clearer photo of Ms. Porter from the Washington Post, where she was featured taking her dog into one of the Capitol Office Buildings.
Amy Porter with a better companion than Rep. Eric Cantor.
Amy Porter (in purple, at right), Sarah Catalan, and two shorter men.
And, as a special treat before we go, introducing the (cropped) official 2013-2014 election cycle Orange Juice Blog file photo of Young Kim!
Would love to see you spend more time posting on the positive and uplifting things liberals are doing such as philanthropic activities versus tracking the opposition. I want to help, not read about pot shots.
If you want to help, then — Looking just at the stories currently on our front page:
– the Clean Money Campaign just had its kickoff today and will need volunteers.
– Occupy Santa Ana continues its work on shelter for the homeless, especially critical as Armories close down the day after Easter.
– lots of work remains to be done with promoting Anaheim districting.
– The “No Deal With Poseidon” campaign needs help in a battle that for the most part will be fought city council by city council this year.
– We need help defeating “Chained CPI” proposals to further impoverish the elderly.
– Lots is going on regarding San Onofre, largely spearheaded by the San Clemente Greens.
Pick a cause and dig in! Rep. Royce’s taxpayer-funded-but-no-not-a-campaign event “women’s conference without women’s issues” is, however, something that I think demands attention — or, if it doesn’t demand it, it bears it well!
Please clarify. So did the purple wearing woman call campus safety on you?
Nope. I said “let’s go find the cop in charge here” and we walked out and did so. I was quite happy to talk to him about my First Amendment rights to take photos of people, from a distance (except in the one case that I had permission) at a taxpayer-funded event in a public building. He (understandably) did not prefer to have that conversation.
I am sorry I missed it. I like oranges!
Ahhh…Greg…I would never, ever describe you as “cat-like” under any circumstances!
Haven’t you seen those grumpy kitty shots going around?
i know ed royce and, greg, you are no ed royce
Of course I’m not — he’s “cat-like.”
i was going to say “stealth-like” but “cat like” works, with apologies to vern
So Greg,
Since you seem interested in “women’s events” did you also attend the Sharon Quirk Silva “Women of Distinction – 65th Assembly District” recognition ceremony? It was the same day. Cypress College.
I’d like to hear what you thought of that, since you seem to have some vague issues with the Royce event you attended.
Though I am not really clear on what the problem is from your writing. Maybe you could elaborate on that.
Made a mistake in an earlier comment – I thought Ed had voted against the Violence Against Women Act. In fact, he voted for it, but only after failing to remove what he would have liked to remove, “some or all protections for lesbians and transgendered women, Native Americans on reservations, and unauthorized residents.”
http://www.orangejuiceblog.com/2013/02/vawa-passes-compliments-to-reps-royce-issa-lowenthal-and-the-sanchezes-as-for-the-others/ In our county it was Rohrabacher and Campbell who simply voted no.
Those folks in the protest – I saw half of them the same day at our DISCLOSE Act bash – how do they do it? But before you all tell them “Get a job,” they do all have jobs, and it was Saturday!
I didn’t attend. I wonder why Sharon Quirk Silva would have singled out women to be honored. Were there no men that deserved honors? Maybe only male assemblymembers have events honoring men?
I just don’t know what the purpose of that would be.
As to the Royce conference, “reproductive rights, inadequate child care, the high cost of tuition and books, the unavailability of jobs, workplace sexual harassment and discrimination” are all worthy subjects for discussion but I am unsure I want the government to provide solutions to all those *problems*.
They’d be high cost solutions with the government involved, don’t ya think? Maybe there are no solutions!
I watched your Ashley Song video, I don’t really get Ashley Song’s beef. Maybe she feels the government should provide her with all her needs, like Sandra Fluke does.
OK, clearly there’s a lot that you don’t get about the women’s movement. That isn’t surprising; you’re embedded on a partriarchal society that does not generally interrogate the assumptions subtending … Hello? Sorry, did I lose you there? Let me start over.
I’m taking your “not getting it” (rather than possibly “pretending not to get it”) at face value. I guess my first question, then, is: do you WANT to “get it”?
If not, then there’s no point in discussing it; you get a golf clap for incorrectly invoking Sandra Fluke and you can sit down. If you actually *want* to understand why women might believe that special honoring of their achievements in traditionally male-dominated endeavors is worth note, I’ll be glad to explain it to you.
It’s entirely possible there is a lot I don’t get about the women’s movement. But this was a women’s conference, as was Sharon Quirk’s.
Ya know, maybe what I don’t care for is the concept of “group rights”. Special rights for special groups. That sort of rights was left out of our constitution by the framers, they only talked about individual rights.
Not that special groups aren’t clamoring for special group rights every day. Clearly they are. We just are not supposed to address those demands. Under the constitution, that is.
I feel I should have all the same rights that other individuals of whatever sex or other factors, and I don’t feel I should have any special rights, and neither should they. And maybe special women’s conferences and honoring parties are part of the problem. IMHO.
What do you think?
“I cannot fight upon this argument ; It is too starved a subject for my sword.”
— Troilus and Cressida.
No, Sharon Quirk’s was not a “Women’s Conference.” Where did you get that idea?
What do I think? I think that your argument is (looks through thesaurus) facile.
Anatole France would like to elaborate on “special rights”:
“The law, in its majestic equality, forbids the rich and the poor alike to sleep under bridges, to beg in the streets, and to steal bread.”
I have no misconceptions. It was I that posted the actual name of the Quirk event above. Sorry about the error. Note to self: “Must use actual truth”
“Women of Distinction – 65th Assembly District” is not a “Women’s Conference.” Sharon’s event was honoring female community leaders. A “Women’s Conference” would generally address political issues of concern to women as women. Royce’s “Women’s Conference” was essentially a live version of Redbook or another women’s magazine. Here, check out the categories on Redbook’s website:
These are not illegitimate or uninteresting topics — they’re just not political. Nothing that would lead one to question why Royce keeps a spotless anti-choice record and opposes equal pay.
Royce’s conference covered topics in these areas:
I guess that “Beauty & Fashion” and “Mom & Kids” would be too obvious?
Greg,
Again, I regret the error. Women of distinction, women’s conference.
As to choosy women and Royce, no argument there.
Why do you say Royce opposes equal pay?
I don’t know if he does, but I just wondered where you got that.
I can’t imagine opposing equal pay is an official plank.
He opposed the Lily Ledbetter Act in 2009.
I think that was about lawsuits. Maybe he is against everyone suing everyone else. I know I am.
But as a member of the bar maybe you’re for that, huh?
Sounds like a conflict of interest to me.
BTW, someone with admin rights to this blog should turn up the comment threading levels.
Greg, Steve beat me to it (I think), but I thought that the major point of the Lily Ledbetter Fair Pay Act of 2009 was with the statute of limitations and not equal pay for equal day.
Well, that all makes sense, if you-all think that a woman getting paid less than a man for decades is not that big of a deal and not worth burdening the legal system with.
You think the correct solution is to make it possible to sue your employer for years and years. The litigation should go on forever.
I would be against any such nonsense. I guess Royce and I are the same in that respect.
Like I said, Greg as an employment law attorney, maybe he has a conflict of interest.
A law is only as good as its enforcement. Lily Ledbetter took appropriate action as soon as she learned that she had been a victim of discrimination, which had previously been hidden from her. She did not receive the benefit of the law because of this sneaky tactic. Congress fixed it by changing the time when the statute of limitations goes into effect to when a reasonable person should have known about the wrongful act — as is common with many other torts.
Royce voted against it. His position was that if you got away with discrimination for a while, you should enjoy the benefits of it!
Steve: “conflict of interest”? That’s a weird perspective. Anyway — if so, my interest is declared. People can Google “Lily Ledbetter Act” and check for themselves.
I read about it. I am all for fair pay.
I don’t think it makes sense paying different amounts for the same work.
That said, there are many reasons one employee makes more or less than another. Experience, the number of errors, leadership ability, even negotiation ability could affect pay differences. How about the number of absences or tardies?
I admit to being troubled by that but heck, how are you going to be able to groom the leaders of tomorrow if everyone’s pay is always the same, like we are all union members? This isn’t the shoe department at Kmart, where if you don’t show up we’ll just slide someone else in there in your place and you don’t have to know anything.
Some employees are just better and deserve a raise. Some can do better work or work more independently than others, and that could account for pay differences. Some take all their sick days and that could affect their advancement. Some need direct supervision, or even more than that. I have had employees like that, and I didn’t give out raises to people I had to watch and help with their work.
I don’t think those differences are reasonably resolved by litigation. I think it should be resolved without the trail lawyers involved.
I don’t think having depositions to try to determine that Joe can indeed do the same work Amy can but twice as fast or with half the errors is a good way to resolve this.
It’s a very high cost way and results in settlements to save litigation costs and bad caselaw. Unwarranted payouts to people who really don’t deserve it but happen to have a better attorney. That just sucks.
Maybe that’s what Royce was against.
gentlemen, just remember this….as nick curren once said “sheena’s back in town”
Hi, Greg,
Thanks for showing up yesterday at the Ed Royce Women’s Conference, and for your insightful presentation of what all was going on inside.
Also, nice homage to Modest Mussorgsky.
My concerns about the conference come from two main areas: the cost, and the content.
About the cost: this was an expensive presentation to put on, including items like
• Rental on the CSUF Student Union
• Salaries for the three campus police officers (at least one of whom was on overtime), the parking lot attendants, and Rep. Royce’s staff, who were presumably working past their normal schedule.
• Food (which, according to one staffer was going to be thrown away if it were not eaten–his staff couldn’t figure out how to give food away on a college campus?).
• Compensation for the celebrity chef Jamie Gwen and others who appeared.
So, a fair question to ask is, who paid for all this? If it was paid for at taxpayer expense, like the mailed out invitation was, how much did it cost? Was it paid for directly out of Rep. Royce’s office, or from his campaign funds?
If it was not paid for at taxpayer expense, then who did pay for it? And why?
About the content: there seemed to be much more meringue than filling. Preparing nutritious meals, buying a house wisely, and making sound investments are worthwhile topics for discussion, but difficult to do when women’s wages are kept artificially low, access to decent and affordable health care for one’s self and family is strangled, and spousal abuse is tacitly approved.
One of the most troubling aspects of the conference, however, was that Rep. Royce and his staff seem to have the whole gestalt backwards.
Ed Royce is not the sole proprietor of a company, to whom we should show obeisance. He and his staff are civil servants (and some less civil than others), paid for with our tax dollars, and accountable, at least in theory, to us and our interests since we are his constituents.
During the three and a half hours our group was standing by the main entrance, no one on Rep. Royce’s staff, much less Rep. Royce himself, came out to wish us good morning, invite us in for food or coffee (which we probably paid for), or offer to discuss issues.
Rep. Royce spent four and a half million dollars just in 2012 to get this job; we’d like him to do the job.
John,
First, thanks for picking up on the Mussogorsky reference! That was a nod to my classical pianist friend Vern. (Unfortunately, I remembered the pronoun incorrectly.)
You ask good questions. My guess is that Rep. Royce’s staff “volunteered,” on “their own free time,” to work on what they would steadfastly maintain was “not a campaign activity.”
As for giving away food, it’s actually a serious problem regarding liability as it leaves one open to the possibility that someone receiving it could be subject to food poisoning.* I know that some (most?) soup kitchens don’t accept non-packaged food donations due to such concerns. Of course, people are welcome to eat the food while it is in place, so the obvious solution for future Royce Conferences is to bus in the homeless from everywhere to enjoy the bagels and such remaining from the end of the conference. (I’m sure they’ll be right on it.)
*(Note that I am NOT saying that there would be any more reason for anyone to think that food coming from Rep. Royce would be more likely to be poisoned than food from any other conference sponsor. I know of no instance in which Rep. Royce has ever intentionally poisoned a citizen in his district.)
It should be Draws “A” Crowd” — not Draws “An” Crowd.
The rule is that you use “a” before words that start with a consonant sound and “an” before words that start with a vowel sound.
You’re right, of course; Thanks. I’ve changed the title accordingly. Originally, I had had an adjective starting with a vowel in there before “crowd,” but I forgot to change the determiner when I took it out.
As a writer, I blame the copy editor.
Your unofficial proofer here. Please review how the captions display. Several are cut off at either the left or the right.
Nice post. Pictures are so much easier to read than text.
Huh, I thought that I’d fixed that. I’ll take another look. Thanks.