.
.
.
Taxpayer Funds have been given away at all levels of government (Federal, State, County, City, district or agency), and the Citizens have no Recourse. The Citizens Need Veto Power of Bailouts to prevent recurrence, especially when resources are limited and the votes are improper.
.
GIFTS Of PUBLIC FUNDS:
- For example, at the Federal Level, We had the $19.6 Trillion financial industry bailout of 2008, out of a total annual US economy of $13.5 Trillion.
- We had the City of Bell’s excessive and improper “compensation” of its City Manager and council members.
- Back in December 2010, In Santa Ana, I identified the gift of public funds of about $200,000 (unused vacation, and unused sick leave) by BACKDATING by 13 years, the start date of the former city attorney, a date that the city attorney chose. This was in addition to the $142,000 that he received in severance, when it appears that he resigned. Generally, no one is paid severance when resigning.
- CLICK HERE For My Letter to Santa Ana City Council of 13-yr Backdating, dated of December 20, 2010.
- CLICK HERE For Letter to OC Grand Jury Requesting Investigation
.
ANAHEIM’s $158,000,000 GIFT:
And now in the City of Anaheim, we just had an unusual rushed decision to give away about $158,000,000 to favored developers, for the Garden Walk project.
The City of Anaheim did not have to give away this gift of public funds of $158,000,000 because:
1) Libraries, parks, or jobs are being closed or eliminated, and other services cut.
.
2) The City Manager who is also a long-term Finance Director recommended against this. And Tom Tait, Mayor; and Lori Galloway Mayor Pro-Tem were also opposed.
.
3) The City had other Financing options it could have pursued.
.
3A) LOAN. The City could have LENT the money.
.
3B) CASH FLOWS. The City could have added a clause that it would take a percent of Positive Net Cash Flows as they are generated. This way the financial impact to the City and its citizens would have been minimized by recouping more and a lot earlier.
.
4) HOTEL VACANCIES. It was not necessary for the City to give away funds because this was not a priority. For example, if these project/Hotels did not get built, the tourists would still have a place to stay because hotels do NOT run on 100% occupancy (there are always vacancies), and the City would have been collecting revenues, rather than giving away revenues.
.
5) The City could have negotiated terms favorable for its citizens or associations in return for this giveaway:
.
A) Better competitive salaries and benefits;
.
B) Discounted room nights, or use of conference facilities at favorable DISCOUNTED rates for Anaheim residents and Anaheim based not-for-profit groups/associations or chambers of commerce.
.
C) Community Benefits Agreements as other proactive cities do.
.
6) SEPARATELY:
It appears the will of the people has been ignored and proper process violated, especially given the rushed and unusual way in which this DISCUSSION item became an ACTION item.
This is more suspect given the Conflicts of Interests that have surfaced both in terms of Thousands of Dollars in donations, and the too-cozy relationships giving also the appearance of improper conflicted relationships by the council members voting for this rushed action item.
.
7) PREVENT FURTHER RECURRENCE:
.
A) What avenue do citizens have or should have when give-away of funds are “voted on”?
.
B) What should happen when elected or appointed officials violate their FIDUCIARY Responsibility; Ignore the recommendations of Staff, and are no longer relying on experts?; or Act but NOT in the best interests of its citizens; or act in a Conflicted manner?
.
Should the ONLY avenue be the courts (Preliminary Stay or Permanent Injunction etc ), which is very costly? I say NO.
.
FAIL-SAFE/CITIZENS VETO power Option through new State Law.
.
I am a candidate for State Assembly, 69th Assembly District (Santa Ana, Anaheim, Garden Grove, and part of Orange).
.
In addition to focusing at a minimum on improving Education, Job Creation, and affordable and accessible high quality healthcare, I am also focused on reforming our process to protect our citizens and taxpayers from improper gifts of public funds, because I am tired of seeing this time after time.
.
Thus, another solution is to protect the Citizens/Taxpayers interests by making local government decisions (County, City Council etc) SUBJECT TO Citizen review within a reasonable period of time, and if no citizen action is taken, then the local government decision is FINAL.
.
A decision to give away public funds, could be SUBJECT TO citizen review by requiring a certain percent involvement and within a reasonable period of time.
.
For example, of how this would work is as follows:
.
i) If 10% (or some other percent) of total citizens WHO VOTED in the last local election gather SIGNATURES in opposition from the local registered voters, within say 30-45 days, then the local government (County, City etc) decision is STOPPED and PENDING.
.
ii) Then if the citizens gather in opposition a total of 33% SIGNATURES (or some other percent) of total citizens WHO VOTED in the last local election within say 30-45 days, then the citizens have VETOED THIS DECISION.
.
iii) For similar action to be reconsidered at a later date, at least 75%-80% of the local government (County, City etc), must state their intention within 30-days to bring this matter up again within ONE-YEAR, or 66% within TWO-YEARS; otherwise a similar motion can not be considered until after THREE or FOUR years have lapsed.
.
The purpose for this is to Protect the interests of Citizens/Taxpayers and to give notice to the community of those local government politicians who are voting against the will of the people.
.
In our civil law abiding society, the consent of the governed is supreme. When the Will of the People is disregarded or violated as we have repeatedly experienced recently with no recourse or remedy, then the People must withdraw its consent or grant its consent Subject to Review by The Will of the People!
.
Francisco “Paco” Barragan
Candidate for State Assembly 69th AD
FranciscoForAssembly.com (website under construction)
My opinions only and not those of any group
Citizens have veto power through a constitutional provision we call a”referendum”.
You might want to look it up.
Could this payment be taken away by referendum once it had made — and, for all we know, contracts signed in expectation of it? I’m not sure it’s so easy.
There is another “R” that comes into play, though. Ask the City of Fullerton.
@ Mayor Quimby:
Thank you for your comments.
My general understanding when I had previously looked up California’s Constitution was that the Referendum process referred to Acts passed by the Legislature.
Per Wikipedia,
“[LAWS ALREADY ADOPTED BY THE STATE LEGISLATURE MY BE VETOED BY MEANS OF A REFERENDUM.]
To qualify a referendum for inclusion on the ballot, a referendum petition must have been signed by at least five per cent of the number of voters in the previous gubernatorial election. This is also known as a “petition referendum” or “people’s veto”.”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/California_ballot_proposition
And then in those cases where it applied to City or County governments, which is the focus of my proposal, it had some EXCEPTIONS. A big exception being that the Referendum process does NOT affect/apply to a City having a Charter.
Also relevant to our consideration and discussion, some cities, like Santa Ana and Anaheim are Chartered cities.
http://www.ci.santa-ana.ca.us/facts/
http://www.anaheim.net/docs_agend/charter.pdf
Per CA’s Constitution, “ARTICLE 2 VOTING, INITIATIVE AND REFERENDUM, AND RECALL
SEC. 11. (a) Initiative and referendum powers may be exercised by
the electors of each city or county under procedures that the
Legislature shall provide. Except as provided in subdivisions (b) and
(c), this section [DOES NOT AFFECT A CITY HAVING A CHARTER].”
Thus, it appears that we still have the opportunity to STRENGTHEN the citizen’s referendum/Veto power by removing exceptions of Chartered cities.
I am not an attorney, but I am a concerned citizen that wants to ensure greater power in the citizens especially when gifts of public funds are involved.
P.S. Separately, in a prior case where the referendum process came into play, the City of Anaheim was considering LOANING 2/3 of funds, rather than GIVING the funds away.
http://www.usatoday.com/sports/basketball/nba/kings/2011-04-21-sacramento-anaheim_N.htm
again thank you for your comments.
Francisco “Paco” Barragan
“referendum” cool, will look it up.
So what exactly does it mean to have a “Charter”, to be a “Charter City”
Definition and Comparison of a “Charter City” vs a “General Law City”
http://www.cacities.org/chartercities
http://www.cacities.org/resource_files/29142.Chart_General_Law_v._Charter_Cities-07-26-11.pdf
Dub-I, go to the link on the right column of the page and read A Bubbling Cauldron for all of the background you need. Essentially, instead of a city being subordinate to the state when it comes to legislation, voters grant the government to exercise all powers that aren’t specifically restricted in the charter. (And, as you might guess, the charter proposed by Costa Mesa is not at all restrictive.) Being a charter city can make a lot of sense, but I can give you a sense of the problems with having a weak charter and out-of-control city leaders in three words: City of Bell.
Brandman didn’t just support the $158M tax giveaway.
http://ocpoliticsblog.com/auhsd-trustee-brandman-waived-thousands-in-school-developer-fees-too/
Brandman, Daly, Broadwater, Solorio … all distinguished DINO endorsers of Joe Dovinh!
Well Vern if you far left types were smart you would endorse Dovinh too. It is funny that you malign the GOP for screwing the Vietnamese while you do the same damn thing!
I should support a bad candidate just because of his race? STUPID. Why would I ever do that?
And, per you, Dovinh = the Vietnamese? Very insulting to the Vietnamese I would say. You should wash your mouth out with soap.
Pedroza – You have disqualified yourself from any rational discussion concerning Brandman.
Go back to your own crappy blog and continue the circle jerk with your 4 or 5 looney commenters.
If it was just me criticizing him that would be one thing, but now even Los Amigos are going after him. His shilling for greedy corporate types has finally hurt his political ambitions. I am of course most pleased about that.
Jordan Brandman’s duplicity and hypocracy is what is bothering Los Amigos of Anaheim.
According to Dr. Jose Moreno, President-Los Amigos, Jordan B. REFUSED to take a stand on a public issue because he said that he could NOT because he was a Trustee for the Anaheim Union High School district. And then Jordan goes out and DOES take a public stand in favor of this inappropriate and unusual give-away of public funds by the Anaheim City Council.
Dr Moreno and other educators within Los Amigos also have a very serious issue of Jordan’s support of “Color Coding” of Latino students which reminds many of them of the past segregation of students in OC.
Jordan really sounds all around like a “Democrat” to be against, like I always thought, and it’s got nothing to do with the Sean/Art line of attack against him.