Voice of OC reports that Gafcon, the Great Park Design Studio operator, has responded to charges of incompetence with an hour-and-half long video attacking Chrsitina Shea — who isn’t running for re-election.
“If you’re explaining, your’re losing.”
What does Gafcon CEO Yehudi Gaffen think he is accomplishing with 90 minute, lawyerly video restating a long list of negative statements from the depositions? Does this sound like anybody’s idea of effective PR?
Adam Elmahrek reports “the video takes direct aim at .. Shea. ” Which is odd, because Christina Shea is the one member of the current council majority who is NOT up for election. Wouldn’t it make more sense to attack Stephen Choi or Jeff Lalloway?
If Gafcon thinks they need to defend themselves against the HSNO auditors — or the “witch hunt” as Beth Krom calls it — why are they showing their cards before HSNO files the final report? Now HSNO knows which bits of paper to include in the report to undermine the Gafcon video.
If this is how Gafcon ran the Design Studio — and the Depositions make clear that Gafcon CEO Yehudi Gaffen ran the show day-to-day until Mike Ellzey grabbed the reins — then it’s little wonder Larry Agran needed to keep Forde & Mollrich on retainer.
In meantime, I am working on a long post about the depositions of Yehudi Gaffen, Brendan McDevitt, and Pat Fuscoe. Careful reading reveals how Design Studio functioned (short answer: with only occasional contact with reality).
UPDATE: I reached out to Alex Ziegaus of Southwest Strategies, who is handling Gafcon PR on this issues. He explained, “”We have made no effort to be involved in the election, our work is aimed at exposing the false statements made about our firm’s capabilities and performance.” So Greg got that right.
However, Greg misunderstands why the Great Park depositions are being released in such an odd way. They aren’t being “selectively leaked.” They are being publicly released as soon as available at the request of the City Council Minority.
Nother’ great post Tyler. The arrogance of Gafcon to try and blame Christina Shea for them not accomplishing anything at the Great Park. She had no power and was purposely left out out of the important decision loop by Larry Agran. She had to sue the Great Park at her own expense just so she could look at the resumes of Great Park CEO candidates.
Video is persuasive till you remember that Great Park CEo Mike Ellzey said in his deposition that he felt threatened by Gaffon, that Gaffon said he would come after him if he cut their contract! AND other former staff said in their depositions that they resigned because they did not want to be associated with what was going on! You can read their depositons on the City website, see link below
http://www.cityofirvine.org/cityhall/cityclerk/depositions.asp
Deirdre,
May I please email you? I think you can help me with the Great Park depositions. Thank you.
-Tyler
I’m not impressed with Gaffen, but based on the Voice of OC story on the same topic I think that you’ve pretty much completely missed (and therefore mangled) his intent here. Have you read that story? Do you disagree with the premise that he was trying to make a reasonable attack, regardless of whether or not it can be rebutted?
I never addressed “Gafs” intent, the reasonableness of complaints against Gafcon, or the quality of the rebuttal. That’ll be several other blog posts.
My point is that Gafcon has engaged in one freaking bizarre PR strategy.
To restate what the Great Communicator made a truism in American Politics:
“If you’re explaining, you’re losing”.
But since you were generous enough to ask my opinion: I think a “reasonable attack” during election season would focus on someone actually running for office.
You presume that it’s merely a “PR strategy” and merely focused on the election.
I presume (or at least hope) that you’ve already read this, but for the benefit of others here is the Voice of OC piece on the video. Readers can make up their own minds how well they jibe and, where they don’t, which seems more persuasive.
uh, Greg, the first three words of my post, “Voice of OC”, link to article. As you know, the VoOC article primarily summarizes Gafcon’s point of view without subjecting those claims to much scrutiny. (which is fine – that’s why it’s called “reporting”).
I presume the point of the Gafcon video and web page is PR, because the Great Park audit has created a nasty PR problem for Gafcon.
For example, having a sworn deposition in which the Chief Harbor Engineer for the Port of Los Angeles is quoted saying that Gafcon’s contract had been terminated early because of “over-billing, poor quality of work, and inability to meet deadlines” can’t be good for business.
I stand by the thrust of my article: Gafcon has taken an odd approach to addressing their PR problem.
And since the Great Park is currently a key electoral issue, this PR flub has political relevance whether or not Gafcon intended an electoral impact.
I see that you cited it, but it wasn’t particularly clear that you’d read it. With my previous comment and your reply, at least we’re finally on the same page of agreeing that two different perspectives exist.
What you seem to be arguing is that it’s odd for Gafcon (for whom, again, I have no love) to be “trying the case in the media.” But I think that it’s as reasonable a response as any to the abuse of process represented by the “Forensic Audit.” I (and you can look this up) favored it, saying (and believing) “let the chips fall where they may.”
But, in supporting it, I never expected this act of unmitigated gall: the Council majority saving up and then selectively releasing transcripts from the hearing in order to win an election. From a legal perspective, it smacks of abuse of process. You, as a non-lawyer, don’t take that seriously, but I do — and Jeff “Butter Wouldn’t Melt In His Mouth” Lalloway knows better than to mouth his quote in the VOC story as well.
I wish that I had a better non-ethnic term for what is happening than “Chinese Water Torture” (so, whoever does know one, please help me out and suggest it), but this carefully timed and culled series of disclosures has to be among the most unethical appropriations of legal process for political gain that I’ve ever seen.
A target of investigation is not SUPPOSED to have to deal with this sort of politically motivated abuse. I am completely prepared to accept that everything said about Gafcon is true — and yet, this is not how and where and when it is supposed to dribble out. I don’t think that there’s any guideline for how one is SUPPOSED to deal with such a situation. I’m confident, though, that Jeff Galloway does not believe what he said in the VOC story — and would never so counsel one of his own clients.
That you don’t understand how investigations are supposed to proceed, and why this shouldn’t be happening, is fine given that you are a layperson. That you then write as if your layperson’s understanding of the situation is sufficient is not. You, like Moxley, seem to think that the ANY possible tool that might remove Agran off of the Council is fair game — no matter, among other things, the quality and actions of his opponents. You can be a hack — but then expect to be judged as one.
Tyler, you’ve just scratched the surface on Yehudi!!! Deidre is spot on. Send me an email if you’d like more information.
Greg, I apprecaite your desire for fair and balanced evaluation. Basic question, why doesn’t Gaffen just do the right thing in the first place? This fellow has lots of history doing this same darn thing over and over. If the news didn’t get hold of the information and make it public, all this would be worked quietly behind the scenes by Mr. Gaf’s pr toadies and it would just be a spat that fades away.
Within the depositions, there’s one string of emails that Gaf forwarded up to Agran that really could use HONEST explanation. It shows a school board trustee rabidly defending Gaf, It is definitely an effort to change the way the news comes out about the situation.
This was all down in San Diego. Why do you suppose he would forward that string of emails between this school board member and the local newspaper watchdog editor demanding that a reporter’s story be changed to Mr. Agran in Orange County? I’m sorry–to “Mr. Agran’s wife,” since Mr. Agran is supposedly computer-illiterate? A savvy guy like Agran can’t master email?
Does Mr. Agran keep a close tab on San Diego goiings on, or was Gaf sending it to brag that he had a school board member in his pocket to do his ankle-biting? Was it to give Mr. Agran an example of how he could use others to deflect negative publicity?