.
Some Things You Should Know About Jane Rands and Barry Levinson
I think that if Fullerton voters knew how much more Barry Levinson and Jane Rands have done for the Fullerton community that the other council candidates put together – done for free, out of simple civic-mindedness, their choice would be a lot easier.
Let’s start with the conservative auditor Barry. Some of what he’s done for the town in recent years doesn’t quite fit the usual caricature of heartless conservatives.
For two years now he has been fighting to expand the hours of the library‘s main branch, re-open the Hunt auxiliary library, and get the idle Bookmobile back on the road. Barry considers libraries and literacy to be as vital to Fullerton’s health as police and fire services. To conservatives and liberals alike who claim libraries aren’t needed so much in this day and age of the internet, he responds that not all residents have access to internet either, especially the elderly and low-income. This is the conservative I’m backing in Fullerton.
As a Parks & Rec Commissioner he’s especially proud of re-opening the Independence Skate Park, which has been a “roaring success.” Also, as he loves to boast, he was the main driving force behind Fullerton’s Ordinance 3149 a few years ago, which prevents sex offenders from living within 2000 feet of a school, park, or day care center.
Both Barry and Jane have been very active in the fight to save Coyote Hills from Chevron’s development and the attendant corporate welfare, and they strongly urge you to vote NO ON W, no matter how you vote in the Council race. Jane especially, as a proud and active environmentalist, has been fighting to Save Coyote Hills for at least seven years.
But you may be surprised to learn she’s been just as much a fighter for fiscal responsibility as anyone on the “right” in Fullerton. In fact, Jane was the first voice – before Bushala’s blog – to sound the alarm about the illegality of Fullerton’s water tax. (Regarding the return of that tax to ratepayers, about which alarms of bankruptcy have been sounded by Fullerton’s fearmongers, both candidates agree with two ideas that are turning out to be pretty much a consensus among responsible Fullerton voices – return the money in small chunks over a period of time as rebates on each water bill; and allow citizens to opt out and have their share go to infrastructure like it was always supposed to.)
Jane’s also been the chairperson of the city’s Bicycle Users Subcommittee, which reviewed the entire bike master plan for the city, and brought the Puente Street link to fruition.
Perhaps most importantly for this troubled town, she and her significant other Matt Leslie have spent a year working on a plan for a Civilian Police Commission, which has recently been submitted to the council and will probably proceed into reality as soon as these divisive elections are over, no matter who makes it onto council. (One hopes.)
Did I mention that Barry is an auditor by trade? Every City Council should probably have an auditor on it. Every member has things they’d like to spend money on and things they’d like to shave off, but someone with Barry’s expertise is best able to figure out how to make that happen with minimal waste and maximum effect. Also, Barry prides himself on his skills as a negotiator – having already met with police union leaders to try to come up with ideas to save the city money as painlessly as possible – something certain current councilmen have prided themselves on NOT doing.
In short, the record of these two candidates’ service to the city they love puts all the other Fullerton candidates to shame. You can stop reading now, if you promise to vote for Jane Rands and Barry Levinson.
Jan Flory: The Candidate of FEAR.
I think I’ve got it, what disgusts so many people, including me, with the “Democratic” candidate Jan Flory. It’s that the root of her politics, the way she presents herself and her issues, is based on FEAR more than anything else.
Two-thirds of her message is FEAR of a Bushala-influenced majority. How it would purposely drive the city into bankruptcy. How it would outsource all city jobs. How she (and her more pathetic sidekick Alvarez) are the only things standing between YOU and such a nightmare.
Her shameful backing of Measure W, which she prefers not to talk about even though Chevron’s “Yes on W” propaganda prominently features her name and approving quotes, is based on FEAR – she comes off (honestly or not) as a RELUCTANT supporter of the Chevron development (while accepting $500 from them) – claiming wrongly that Measure W is the “best deal” the city could get to avoid a crippling LAWSUIT.
And her shameless obeisance to law enforcement and their desires is also part and parcel of the politics of fear. This was memorialized in her lavishing praise (and an award) on Pat McKinley soon after the Kelly Thomas murder – that’s Pat McKinley, former police chief and then-councilman then facing recall for covering up and minimizing the Kelly murder and other police abuses – a lovefest meant, and understood, as a big “Fuck you” to the forces of reform.
Her FEAR (feigned or not) of a Bushala majority has driven the intelligent woman to absurd extremes. One is the embracing of consummate empty suit Rick Alvarez as a running mate – both of them were recruited for the race by crooked Repug Dick Ackerman (you catch that, Dems?) and each of them has received of a whopping $43,000 of police union money (right when independence from the police is SORELY needed on council.)
And it drives her to – warning, funny part coming up – mythologizing the three recalled councilmen as “wise, sober, seasoned statesmen.” That’s Dick Jones, Don Bankhead, and McKinley she’s referring to, LOL. I don’t know if her stump speech has gradually become that ridiculous and divorced from reality over the months, I’ve only heard it just the once at the “Meet and Greet” at my church last week. But in case anyone there had forgotten what these “wise, sober, seasoned statesmen” were really like, it just so happened that BANKHEAD HAD INVITED HIMSELF TO THIS EVENT!
And when the giant grinning dolt strode forward to make his own speech, it provided the perfect punch line to Flory’s deification of the old council – at least to anyone paying attention. The hulking doofus spent most of his time quibbling with the order of events in a story that Barry had told, possibly hoping to get brownie points from the Flory/Alvarez contingent for picking on one of their opponents. Nobody could figure out what his point was, and he had to be told twice to wrap things up by the moderator – the only candidate to achieve that distinction, comparable only to his having been recalled from Council twice!
The Empty Suit
The most pathetic candidate at this Meet and Greet was Jan’s running mate, Ackerman-ite Republican Rick Alvarez. I’d already been warned that he is an “empty suit” who will say anything to any crowd and has no record in the community, and also that he will dependably brag about being a “small businessman” and Cuban immigrant. Halfway through the event I sensed that Flory and Alvarez, both realizing that their pro-Measure-W position was unpopular, were avoiding that subject. So I asked them all where they stood on the proposed Chevron development on Coyote Hills.
And Alvarez, standing up immediately, addressed me with some indignation as though it were a question I had no right to ask. He protested that it didn’t MATTER what his position was, that he SHOULDN’T SAY what his position is, because it’s up to the People, and whichever way it’s decided he’ll respect that and work with it as a Councilman. I asked, but don’t you think, if you feel strongly one way or the other, your voice as a candidate can be influential? And also, don’t you think that a candidate’s position on this shows how they think about city interest vs. property owners, environmental concerns, etc etc, that any voter would like to know? And he said no, it’s nobody’s business what he thinks about W, except he does NOT want to see 760 homes built on Coyote Hills.
And then Jane stood up to call bullshit, telling the audience that Rick DID clearly state in front of the Chamber of Commerce not long ago that he does support W. THAT really pissed him off, and he owned that, sure, okay, he is a Yes on W, but he still does NOT want 760 homes on Coyote Hills. Jane pointed out that Measure W IS 760 homes on Coyote Hills. Rick was furious. It was funny. He’s a real piece of work.
The “Golden Ticket”
The church lady who had organized this meet and greet had originally only invited Flory, Alvarez, and Kitty Jaramillo, along with Mayor Quirk-Silva who (sad to say) supports these three. I took the liberty myself to invite Jane and Barry because I think they’re incomparably better, and also in hopes of getting some interesting debate going. Apparently some people were incommoded by my audacity.
Flory and Alvarez came with a gang of apparent city workers, including some cops and Pam Keller, wearing GOLD-colored teeshirts proclaiming themselves to be supporters of “The Golden Ticket” – that would be Flory and Alvarez. I asked them, “Why golden? How is this a golden ticket?” And they sputtered, “Because … because they’re the BEST!” I think these city workers feel that their jobs are safer under Flory and Alvarez than they would be under a scary scary Bushala majority, which they’ve been convinced is the only other alternative. One young man on the Golden Team was particularly aggressive, and led his comrades in cheering each time Jan or Rick or Kitty would speak. “Yah! Jan! We’re all behind you!”
After the opening statements, right when I was expecting some questions and debate, this cat raised his hand and complained, “We came here for Jan, Rick and Kitty. We didn’t know these other candidates were gonna be here! Can we just meet with them off to the side?” And half of the supposed meet-and-greet became a little pep-rally / strategy session off in a corner of the auditorium, as the rest of us grownups went off to discuss weighty matters with each other.
Is Measure W a Legit Litmus Test?
Some say no. It’s just one little issue out of many. It will be decided by the public. I disagree. Not only is it huge in its own right – in the money involved, in the environmental and other impact – it’s also a perfectly great indicator of how a prospective councilperson would represent the interests of their city – its people, its treasury, its environment – against adversarial interests.
And, in brief, to wrap this up, most of the candidates FAIL this litmus test in this non-Fullertonian’s view: Flory fails, Kiger fails, Alvarez fails, Whitaker fails, Fitzgerald fails, Bankhead re-fails and re-fails. Jane and Barry rule. Discuss.
…and Kitty Makes Three!
Some folks don’t GET bullet-voting, and since they will WANT to vote for three candidates since they can, I would suggest Kitty Jaramillo. She is a nice lady who’s been fighting to save Coyote Hills for a decade. Down side, she’s unlikely to stand up strongly while negotiating reform with the police, since that’s where she comes from. But on the other hand there’s about zero chance of her getting into the top three. As long as voting for Kitty keeps you from voting for Flory, Kiger, Alvarez, Whitaker, Fitzgerald, or Bankhead, then go for it!
I think a council with Barry and Jane Rands taking the place of Travis and Mayor Sharon would be a fine council, and JUST COULD HAPPEN TOMORROW. Be bold, Fullerton, don’t vote out of fear, pick the Pro-Fullerton Team!
Boom.
. . .
Shakalaka.
Well done, Vern. OK GREG– LET’S HEAR IT! 😉
Done, sir.
Good piece, I didn’t know Barry and Jane had all that under their belts…I suspected there was more, but I didn’t know specifically. Good souls.
Yep, it is indeed the Politics of Fear. And why not? So is fighting climate change.
Some things are worth fearing. Flory legitimately fears what Tony Bushala will do to Fullerton enough to have come out of retirement and had to endure more vicious crap than any other candidate in Orange County this year, me included. She didn’t do it out of ambition or vanity; she did it out of a sense civic duty.
As a friend and admirer of Tony’s, Vern, you don’t see — maybe can’t, maybe just won’t — that when it comes to anti-union and so-called “small government” issues, Tony is cut from the same cloth as Jim Righeimer. He has FAR more redeeming qualities than does Righeimer, is correct on MANY issues, and is charming and educated and admirably devoted to his beliefs.
Despite how I get treated at FFFF, I mostly like him. He’s a fighter — and the world needs more of them. Unfortunately, he’s also going to slit Fullerton’s throat.
He’s not malicious or amoral like Righeimer. He truly believes that a good throat-slitting is just what Fullerton needs right now. He can explain in great detail why a good vigorous exsanguination (followed, of course, by emergency treatment that he’s sure he can figure out) will do wonders for the city. The only problem is that he’s wrong.
He’s wrong — and he has the reckless arrogance of something who will not himself pay the price for being wrong. So he has to be stopped — not because he’s evil, but just because he’s wrong, and because Fullerton can’t afford that magnitude of wrong.
It’s possible that Fullerton will survive the re-election of Kiger, should it happen, but the re-election of Kiger itself would make it unlikely. The only thing that stands between Tony and his effectuating his plans — aside from an uncooperative bankruptcy court, but then it will be too late — is Greg Sebourn’s concerns about re-election. But if Kiger and Whitaker are re-elected, Sebourn would seemingly have no reason to fear anything except crossing Tony — and so he won’t.
I’ll make you a challenge, Vern: you explain to me how Tony’s economic vision for the city differs from Jim Righeimer’s. I don’t mean Tony’s opposing redevelopment boondoggles; his stance there is fine. I mean busting public employee unions, slashing public services, outsourcing what isn’t slashed, and probably (whether he admits it or not) trying to use the bankruptcy process to renege on pension obligations — and probably failing. (Dan Walters of the Sacramento Bee longingly dreams of such things here — http://www.sacbee.com/2012/11/05/4960788/dan-walters-bankruptcy-filings.html.)
The answer is that HE ISN’T DIFFERENT FROM RIGHEIMER IN THOSE RESPECTS.
And yes, Geoff West and Greg Ridge and Katrina Foley and all of the others are ALSO playing the politics of fear — because fear is appropriate there and also here.
Tony’s your friend and I presume that he’s been talking to you a bit about these things and explaining that he’s nothing to fear, oh no. Time will indeed tell which of us is right — but I will tell you publicly what I would not tell you privately because I hate those sort of whisper-behind-the-back games of intrigue: I think that you’re being played.
For those other than Vern, my position remains, from watching Tony and his blog, is that it is likely that there is a close race for the third seat on the Council between Kiger and Flory. You can vote for both, neither, one, or the other.
I hope that you’ll save one slot of your three to vote for Flory, to stop Kiger. But Tony is doing everything he can (and Vern can confirm, if he wants, as to whether he’s bending Vern’s ear in private) to keep you from voting for Flory because she — not Barry, not Jane, and not Kitty — is the most real threat to Kiger’s re-election. As usual, you vote in that race or you let others decide it for you. Tony wants you to take a pass on it.
Yep, it’s the Politics of Fear, all right — just like it is in Costa Mesa, a place where Vern and others here get why that is.
You have about half of it right. Jane and Barry are good for all the reasons you mention. But Travis and Bruce are the best at keeping the cops in check and in Fullerton that takes precedence. Not sure how you missed that.
Thanks for the much needed comic relief. I am exhausted.
Speaking for myself again and not the No on W organization, I am voting for Jane, Kitty and Barry.
P.S. I ran for council many years ago on this issue of Saving Coyote Hills (and thankfully lost). I was criticized for being a one (and insignificant) issue candidate and by many in my own party (for another few more days). The time wasn’t right then but I hope it is now for Jane. In any case, that experience is not lost. I’m using all of the lessons learned there to kicking a$$ for No on W.
Thanks Vern, great write up. I wish it came a few days ago, but better now that not at all.Thanks also to Angela for all that she has done to protect Coyote Hills from Chevron. Good luck to you and to the Candidates. Good luck to Fullerton.
I’m looking forward to Wednesday.
I side with Greg on this one. Going with the FFFF slate is at best a Faustian bargain. Selling the City’s soul over a few issues is no path to reform.
Maybe you should read this, noclib. What ffff slate?
Mesrs. Kiger and Whitaker. I know you don’t explicitly endorse them in this article. I merely point out why I agree with Greg’s argument.
I DID implicitly say, though, that I dont think theyre so Satanic that Fullertonians should give their votes to a couple of utter dickwads in the desperate hope of keeping them out. I dared Fullertonians to instead vote for the BEST.
The “city’s soul?” And what might that be?
Typical gibberish.
It’s the soul that every American city has when it’s functioning properly;
A sense of community, the belief that we’re all in this together, a belief in fairness, that particular segments of a city do not get favorable treatment, that all it’s citizens have a voice.
Does that answer your question?
Interesting.
So you believe the cops preying on the citizenry is fair? Is developers getting free land and city streets fair? Is it fair when water users are ripped off for 15 years with an illegal tax? Is it fair that government employees get to retire 15 years before private sector workers while getting exorbitant pensions?
Who had a “voice” under the rancid Flory-Bankhead-Jones-McKinley regime except the bureaucrats in City Hall?
In other words your “soul” is really just a notio contiguous with you political beliefs about what’s right and proper?
Instead of nattering on about atmospheric abstractions why don’t you try a little self-examination and see if you believe that what’s been going on in Fullerton the past 20 years is legal, ethical, or honest.
Typical partisan response.
The virtues I expressed cross partisan lines. But thanks for showing your true colors.
To be fair, Anon, your virtues were challenged by specific examples where the practice of what you’re preaching wasn’t exactly followed. I don’t get injecting partisanship as a retort.
Using your argument, is wanting government that’s “legal, ethical, [and] honest” not virtuous? Does it not also cross party lines?
Pardon me, Mr. Cantor, but there isn’t a single partisan note in my original comment. None. I defy you to find one.
Mr. Bushala is the one who condescendingly brushed aside Noclib1’s comment, as if a city can’t have a “soul.”
He then injected partisanship by mentioning particular individuals and issues. Then he acted like I was the one using “notions contiguous with you political beliefs” when I did no such thing. He, however, did. Ironic, wouldn’t you say?
As for your suggestion regarding wanting “legal, ethical and honest” government, yeah, add that to my original list.
“Pardon me, Mr. Cantor, but there isn’t a single partisan note in my original comment. None. I defy you to find one.” — Question from you.
“Typical partisan response.” — You in your prior post.
Also, it wasn’t my suggestion, it was Mr. Bushala’s.
I would agree that the tone change was introduced by Tony.
Anyway– this isn’t my show. Just trying to spark some conversation as to what good government and good dialogue looks like in Fullerton. It’s the next step on our road to recovery and the sooner someone picks it up, the better.
Anon- out of curiousity, what is partisan about what he said?
What evidence do you have for the accusation that “the ffff slate” (is there one? the only article specifically endorsing candidates on ffff also endorsed Rands and Levinson as well as Kiger and Whitaker) is against any of these things: “a sense of community, a belief we’re all in this together, a belief in fairness, etc.”?
None.
Kiger and Whitaker would agree with you on all of these things. Particularly on “all its citizens have a voice.”
You are attacking a straw man. Typical for when one has no valid argument.
Mr. Cantor, I asked you to find a single partisan note in my ORIGINAL comment.
You didn’t.
You did, however, note that I highlighted Mr. Bushala’s introduction of partisanship. Thank you.
Actually, you didn’t– but if that’s what you meant to do, I don’t see any partisanship in your original comment.
Epic failure here on my part. Just attempting to stoke good discussion and not get into a debate of he said she said.
I wish that we could make you put up a bond, Tony, to cover the damage that will be done when Fullerton files for bankruptcy and the federal judge stuffs you plans into a wastebasket and imposes a receivership. But frankly, even you couldn’t afford that much.
Did the city have a soul when Dick Jones and Don Bankhead walked away with every election for 2 decades? Take it from a former alter boy, the recall was our Confessional, and dealing with continued police association hacks must be our act of contrition, but now we are free to vote for people of substance and independence like Barry Levinson and Jane Rands.
I’m going to go vote and then stop by St. Mary’s to light a candle in hopes that Rick Alvarez is smited down by the almighty electorate. Go in peace.
I want to vote against anyone who favors drug use and anyone who has been convicted of drug sales