Australia’s heat wave this week required the addition of two new colors to their weather map: an already deployed purple for 50 degrees Centigrade and a held-at-the-ready hot pink for 54 C. For why Stephen Choi’s head (not shown to scale) is there, read the story.
Here are three things you should know about the U.S. Department of Energy’s “Solar Decathlon“:
- First, it’s spelled “Decathlon,” with no second “a,” so stop doing that.
- Second, its a premier national event for university engineering and design students — consisting of ten competitions that may help to promote technology, innovation, and interest in construction of solar homes — that has influenced the construction of similar competitions in Europe and, starting this year, China.
- Third, it moves this year from its initial home in Washington D.C., pushed out by the National Park Service, to it’s new California home in the Great Park in Orange Coun … wait, wait … we’re getting a news flash … please stand by!
Uh-oh. Another story has come in (with the extremely unfortunate time stamp of 4:24 a.m.) from Adam Elmahrek of the Voice of OC that might affect how we report that story. It seems that the new Irvine City Council majority took some extraordinary actions at its meeting yesterday (and early today):
- It disbanded the Great Park Board and replaced it with direct control by the City Council.
- It terminated its contracts for PR with Ford & Mollrich and for lobbying with Chris Townsend’s firm.
- It also called for a forensic audit of Great Park operations and accounts.
We’ll have to get back to our Solar Decathlon coverage and our “Australia reaching record highs” coverage later.
Looking at that second set of three bullet points, I suppose that a forensic audit could be at least a semi-urgent matter. A new City Council majority should generally feel free to audit its little heart out. Larry Agran has long maintained — and nothing but insinuation has been raised to contradict him — that there has nothing wrong has been done with Great Park management for such a forensic audit to discover, offering the bon mot “I don’t want to spend millions of dollars searching for an unaccounted ham sandwich.” (Not to worry: the tab will be only $250,000, at least to start. And really, a ham sandwich in Irvine? Surely Agran meant panini with pancetta!)
So, while $250,000 is a lot to spend on a goose chase — and a lot to give to a crony to conduct one, especially if it’s no-bid will get the audit contract and whether it will be no-bid, which may depend on the Council majority’s sense of irony — one certainly can’t complaint too much about their doing one. After all, reviewing the results of the audit will give the Council the opportunity to reconsider its PR and lobbying contracts and to restructure the Board, if any findings warrant it. What’s that? Look at the two bullet points above it? Oh, yeah, them. That is odd.
So what we’re apparently looking at here is the possibility that a fair and impartial audit will show that there was no corruption, that the Great Park was managed well under the circumstances (including an economic implosion), that Forde & Mollrich were actually doing decent PR for the money (although much of it aimed at targets outside of the local area, such as the ones who could decide to give the prestigious Great Park franchise and the commercial advantages that come with it to Orange County), and that Thompson’s firm was actually doing some quite effective lobbying on behalf of the Park — and that despite finding general good management the Council will have already taken the steps to remedy a problem that didn’t exist by executing its own power grab.
Tell me — why exactly were they in such a hurry that they couldn’t even wait for the results of their own precious forensic audit? Did they think the whole thing through?
The ironic part is that the more offensive and controversial of the first two bullet points — grabbing the Great Park (or maybe now it’s going to be the “Coulda Been Great Park”) for the sole control of the City of Irvine and whatever 3-2 faction happens to run its Council without the agreement of, or courtesy of consultation with, the rest of the County — is not actually the worse-timed of these two changes. Yes, the pleasure of their giving the finger not only to Agran and Krom but to the rest of the cities in the region who had thought that they were supposed to be part of the governing structure might have been painful for them to await, but if it was going to happen it doesn’t matter so much whether it was in January or November.
The truly bone-headed move is with summarily canceling those (very possibly extravagant for all I know) contracts right now — before that audit comes in and before one other thing happens: the Solar Decathlon, which starts Oct. 3 and lasts until Oct. 13.
This is a big deal for the Great Park, for Irvine, and for Orange County. It’s a party that we’d really like to go well. You know how much buzz Las Vegas is getting right now from its annual Consumer Electronics Show (CES)? This, while at a smaller scale, is in the same genre. Things will be shown at the Solar Decathlon that may dazzle and amaze and — yeah — stimulate cutting edge commerce right here in Orange County. It’s an EVENT!
And when you are having a really big EVENT, whether it’s the Olympics or the CES Show or your kids’ wedding, you may want to hire an EVENT PLANNER. And part of event planning — possibly even all of it, depending on what the contract says — falls into the category of … public relations! So, guess who has the expertise and relevant knowledge that goes into planning this signal event for the solar energy industry?
Right! It’s THE PEOPLE WHOM THE IRVINE CITY COUNCIL JUST FIRED, that’s who! The Solar Decathlon people from DOE are (or were?) supposed to be meeting with them this very week!
So, in other words, even if you think that Ford & Mollrich (and maybe Thompson, to a lesser degree) have been overpaid for a long time, firing them now is INCREDIBLY STUPID. It’s like paying a monthly retainer to a wedding planner and then firing them — without actually knowing whether they’ve been doing a good job and despite their recently having cut their fee in half– a few months before the wedding. It’s like it’s begging for a disaster.
(I have this mental image of Arthur Forde and John Mollrich floating in the Great Orange Balloon on the afternoon of October 3, seeing the event unfurling beneath them in utter chaos, clicking glasses of champagne and laughing down at whoever takes over.)
And so, this premature and ill-considered decision may ruin one of Larry Agran’s greatest legacies for the City of … hey, wait a minute.
Maybe that’s the point!
I’d been thinking, when the juxtaposition of the Solar Decathlon and the firing of the people planning management of it first struck me, that perhaps Choi and his new majority were simply being petty, blinkered, and stupid. But maybe this is all intentional!
I mean, think about it: there’s no love lost between Agran (and to a lesser extent Krom) and the Council conservatives. The new majority seems to take delight in the prospect of dismantling Agran’s legacy insofar as it can in whatever time it has available to it. This is part of that legacy — and if and when it bellyflops they’ll be able to blame Agran even if it would have been just fine except for this inopportune intervention.
And let’s bear in mind — this even is all ultimately about government support for solar power. The Republicans don’t like government supports for alternative energy. You may remember that Romney himself campaigned against it last year, slagging Anaheim-based Tesla Motors and other companies. What skin is it off of Stephen Choi’s or Jeff Lalloway’s nose if the bright-eyed and innovative Solar Decathlon bellyflops? For the fossil fuel industry, it’s a plus!
So, at a time when new data is coming in certifying the critical state of climate change …
… as evidenced by temperatures over 122 degrees Farenheit is a large portion of Australia …
… which happens to be the largest exporter of coal in the world …
… which solar power, aided by technological and commercial advances spurred by and displayed at events like the Solar Decathlon, is likely key towards supplanting …
… Republicans in Irvine may be hamstringing that event before our very eyes.
I think that the management of the Solar Decathlon bears very close watching over the next 38 weeks. If it goes less well than planned, we may be able to look back specifically to last night in Irvine and remember when the critical mistake happened — for no good reason.
I guess that no-bid PR firm should have done a better job convincing folks the Great Park was great. Clearly they failed in their mission. Seems appropriate that they bite the big one. If you can’t keep the folks in power who are paying your bills, well . . .
Also, Dr D– two pretty flimsy arguments in this.
1) At no time has the Park’s board ever represented the entire county in either a voting capacity or a reporting capacity. Agran made sure of that. Please stop stating otherwise. Absolutely nothing has changed as a result of yesterday’s vote: The majority of the Irvine City Council still controls the management and direction of the Great Irvine City Park.
2) Republicans are against public investment in private enterprise in general. Calling out green energy as a specific leg of the platform is pretty misleading. There are plenty of investors, who are Republicans, putting their time and money into alternative energy.
How much does the decathlon cost the government and which agency is paying for it?
The notion that the “PR firm should have done a better job convincing folks the Great Park was great” presumes that the task of the PR firm was to convince people here in the County to patronize the park. That’s less proper — it being in effect propaganda — then at least one thing that it actually did with the money: identify the Solar Decathlon as an opportunity for which the Great Park Corporation could apply and managing Irvine to victory in that competition. You know when we say that something is “good PR”? Well, this is good PR.
No, The GPC Board didn’t represent the entire county; however, it had more input from outside of the city itself. And the current majority of the City Council did not have a majority of the Great Park Corporation Board — it had a third of it: 3 out of 9. Now it’s 3 out of 5.
Republicans are generally not against public investment in their own private enterprises — consider bank bailouts, etc. And green energy was the focus of the Romney campaign, if you’ll recall, with the attacks on Solyndra. (Yes, some Republicans are good on the issue.)
It’s a Department of Energy program; I don’t know how much it costs, but largely it’s a learning opportunity for the students involved, so my guess is that a lot of the benefit is in fame and prestige.
It’s privately funded (with some funding from fossil fuel, actually.) It was a trick question. I don’t think your critique really applies as a result.
It was never 3 of 9. Ever. Come on now, sir. Call a spade a spade. Everyone is still playing by the same rules.
I guess we won’t know what the firm’s deliverables were . . . seeing how there was never a bid, which would lay them out . . .
Final thought re: Green energy, if you’re going to call it out, call it out correctly. The critique was on failed public investment in failed private companies, but I concede your point that it’s fairly common for politicians to accept subsidies for their own pet projects.
Ryan, do you seriously contend that, because there was no bid, the deliverables at issue here were never laid out? Oh, if only there were some kind of document that two parties could sign laying forth these sorts of expectations! That’s a great idea — let’s come up with one! We’ll need a catchy name for it — maybe we can call it a “dontract”! Hmmm — I have a feeling that that’s close, but I’m sure that term could be refined.
Solyndra was an attack on public investment in green energy. Go look up some old Romney speeches if you must.
Let me explain how I derived the figure “3 of 9.” There were 9 people on the Board. Of them, 3 were the Council majority. Did they have allies, such that they would win most votes 7-2? Sure — but that’s not an intrinsic part of the design of the Board. Does that matter? Yes, because coalitions and loyalties can shift. (For a pertinent recent example, see Patrick’s comment below; search for the word “Ellzey.”)
No, I’m not seriously contending that there wasn’t a contract . . . BUT, from the casual observer’s point of view, it doesn’t exactly look like we had hard deliverables from which to base incentive payments. After all, they got $20MM for what?
I’m sure the park got something, but for that much money, it should be a little more obvious. That’s a lot of money, Dr. D.– which is why folks are pissed off. An open bid would have presented those high level deliverables in a transparent way . . . instead we’ve got to go digging for them and that ain’t right in Agran’s giant stack-o-crap. We should be able to look at the park and see $20MM worth of improvement. Do you see it? If so, can I borrow those rose lenses?
You’re misusing the term “Allies”. That’s like saying that Viche France was an “ally” of Italy.
Well, no. It was a puppet state of Germany. So it goes with the four votes. We’re looking at the reality of the situation, not how it appears on paper.
In other words, nothing has changed other than the vote of the electorate. Everyone is playing by the same rules, which is the majority vote in Irvine wins. If Mr. Agran doesn’t like it, well, he had the means and time to change his circumstance; he only lacked the motive.
Your guess as to why.
RE: Solandra, the attack was pandering to the electorate as a potential weakness on President Obama (in my opinion.) The fact the company was green was convenient; the fact the company went bankrupt after being federally subsidized was material.
No bankruptcy = no critique.
+1 to “Dontract”. Well done.
Perhaps casual observers should look more formally, then.
As we demonstrated in the past couple of weeks, most critics of the Great Park critic can’t even tell you what is going on there right now. The ones I recall are swap meets and a big organic farming operation, but I know that there were more. Have they tried to find out? (And before you say “well, then it should have been better publicized,” convincing the public to like the Great Park would be criticized as political use of public money, if the only way to save the Great Park was to vote Democratic — as was apparently so.)
What did the park get for the Fo&Mo money? Uhhhhhhhhhh — how about winning the competition to be the Solar Decathlon site, which the current Council majority may now be squandering? That will be — uh, could be — uh, would have been? — a continuing big benefit to Irvine.
If, as I’m told, these contractors found it, planned the effort to get it with the city, and successfully bagged it, that may well be worth $20 mil in the long term — although of course it’s a deferred return. You do know that cities hire PR firms to design and pursue their desire to host the Olympics, right? Same principle. Expenditure first, return (largely in prestige and reputation) later. That return is now being squandered.
So you want to see the $20MM worth of improvement right now? A big part of that, using a long-term strategy for building a major public area, is in holding this big event — and doing so again and again in the future, as Las Vegas does with the CES show.
Your unveiling a tart metaphor doesn’t make it apt. Tastelessness aside, the outside board members are not the equivalent of conquered countries. They’re people who signed on to the big plan — giving the stability required for the big plan to come to fruition.
(Re: Solyndra Again — go refer to old Romney speeches. Watch for subtext if need be.)
No, they shouldn’t have to look a little closer. This is a public works project (or at least it should be.) The value should be obvious to the casual observer.
I’m sorry, $20MM for the Solar Decathlon, an event so prestigious that it got relegated to the back of the National Mall for other higher priority activity? FYI– this is an bi-annual event. No guarantees for 2015 in Irvine.
Sorry, no sale. Great event, but not going to justify that kind of money. For $20MM in PR, perhaps Irvine could have had the Olympics. I wouldn’t be surprised, at all, if Salt Lake City spent less than that on their Olympic PR campaign.
“Your unveiling a tart metaphor doesn’t make it apt. Tastelessness aside, the outside board members are not the equivalent of conquered countries. They’re people who signed on to the big plan — giving the stability required for the big plan to come to fruition.”
Nice try. Again, no sale. Show me a consequential decision that Agran’s appointees disagreed with, that wasn’t overturned by the council at a later date, and perhaps your leap of faith is justified. I think you probably owe us that.
The value of the Solar Decathlon needn’t be $20M by itself for the point to stand — as I said. (“A big part of that.”)
Agran wanted people who understood, agreed with, and were committed to enacting his grand plan. So, I’m not surprised if (… if …) they never disagreed with him — but it was because they were sold on the idea rather than bought.
Greg, the mission of Forde & Moolrich was two fold. First, was to help keep their man, King Larry in power, which they did until recently. Secondly, was to put as much Great Park money in their own pocket as possible? They also achieved that goal bankrolling over twenty million dollars during the past seven years. Not a bad job if you can get it. Maybe, I should have jumped on the bandwagon years ago when Larry Agran suggested I might want to do some consulting work for him at the Great Park. Nope forget that, I still have to look myself in the face in the mirror every morning when shaving. I used to like Larry Agran and worked to help get him elected in his first campaign, but the man we knew then is not the man we see today. “Power corrupts, absolute power corrupts absolutely.”
On the Solar Decathlon commentary. Had you been at the meeting last night you would have heard Great Park CEO, Mike Ellzey discuss the consequences of terminating the two contracts, both which had included Solar Decathlon work. Ellzey noted that the PR firms were filling only one part of the overall Strategic Plan being developed for the event. The Great Park Team actually running the event and doing most of the heavy lifting are Irvine City employees, are not being replaced and are moving full speed ahead on the event. CEO Ellzey under intense questioning by Agran & Krom who kept crying, “the sky is falling, the sky is falling,” refused to say what they wanted him to say (to his credit) and indicated that as of 8 AM today, he himself would be moving to fill the void left by the two PR Firms. I have to say, I was impressed by both Mike Ellzey and Tim Shaw, Manager of External Affairs (Decathlon Coordinator). Bottom line is that the Solar Decathlon is not only alive and well, but is moving forward on schedule.
On the past Great Park Board. The four appointees were neither independent or representative of Orange County. Each was handpicked by Larry Agran for being a political cronie and willing to do his bidding. Not true you will say? Look at the vast majority of Great Park Board votes in the past and you almost always see a 7 – 2, majority. That would have been Choi and Shea and then Choi and Lalloway in the minority. For their tireless role as a Larry Agran puppet, each Director received an $880 dollar a month stipend, That equates to $10,560 per year, which is pretty fair wages for a non-union puppet. Don’t kid yourself into believing these guys were representing anyone in Orange County but themselves. They were placed on an Advisory Board when Agran, Krom & Kang took the orginal Great Park regional concept and hijacked it to direct control of the Irvine City Council. By the way, Shea and Choi both voted against the move to seize control by Agran. All the new Irvine majority did last night was to conduct a hostile takeover of the Corporation, fire the old Board and cut out the middleman. Now, I don’t know what is in the mind of the Council majority but would not be shocked to seedown the road when the dust settles a new Advisory Board appointed which does reflect both county wide perspective and people with the kind of expertise needed to develop the Park. I stress the word “develop” here and not more planning.
People need to give the new Council time to get their feet on the ground, see what is happening and who knowsthey may just like it? One thing for sure, the buck stops at the door of the new majority.
You write:
“Greg, the mission of Forde & Moolrich was two fold. First, was to help keep their man, King Larry in power, which they did until recently. Secondly, was to put as much Great Park money in their own pocket as possible?”
Why the question mark there at the end? Do you think that it protects you from being sued for defamation so long as it’s not, sort of, a declaration?
Patrick, I hope that you’ll pardon my language, but it sounds to me that you are talking out of your ass. Put up or shut up. Give me facts, stripped of passionate terms such as “hijacked” and “hostile takeover,” or stop safely accusing people of wrongdoing from your desk chair.
Greg, The question mark, was merely throwing that reference out as a question and letting the reader decide for themself. I would say that 20 million plus dollars on “no bid” contracts would qualify as putting a great deal of money in their pockets. Never accused F & M of doing anything illegal, just as I have never suggested Larry Agran did anything illegal with his campaign financing shenanigans. They are both very effective political operatives and very good at what they do. I begruge no one an opportunity to make money, as long as it is done ethically. However, there is a fine line between legal and unethical. In my opinion contracts going to friends and political backers without opening them to bids by other vendors would qualify as unethical in anyone’s book. As far as my choice of phraseology on the other terms you mentioned, “Hostile Takeover” is a common term used in the business world and is not passionate, that is unless you are the one who lost your empire. “Hijack” might be a bit more emotional, but seems to fit the moment with all the whining and sniviling going on by the Agranista people. Guess we will have to agree to disagree on this one.
Throwing out a question and lettin’ the reader decide, were you? OK, then we can look at your confident assertions of fact and stamp them as bullshit.
You apparently think that all no-bid contracts are unethical. (Well, you’ll never run out of reasons for outrage, then.) They certainly can be a problm — and yes, when friends and backers are involved, one has every reason to scrutinize them more closely. But — you haven’t done that. You’re just pouring out insinuations because, apparently, you don’t like the plan. If you want a not-so-great park — or subdivisions and strip malls (if that’s what the highest bidder wants) rather than some grand plan, then you’re well on your way to satisfaction.
As for “hostile takeover,” if you really want me to explain what the term is used for, in the business world, and invite you to explain how the metaphor applies, we can do that. Or I can make it easy for you — it doesn’t apply well.
As for this:
“On the Solar Decathlon commentary. Had you been at the meeting last night you would have heard Great Park CEO, Mike Ellzey discuss the consequences of terminating the two contracts, both which had included Solar Decathlon work. Ellzey noted that the PR firms were filling only one part of the overall Strategic Plan being developed for the event. The Great Park Team actually running the event and doing most of the heavy lifting are Irvine City employees, are not being replaced and are moving full speed ahead on the event. CEO Ellzey under intense questioning by Agran & Krom who kept crying, “the sky is falling, the sky is falling,” refused to say what they wanted him to say (to his credit) and indicated that as of 8 AM today, he himself would be moving to fill the void left by the two PR Firms. I have to say, I was impressed by both Mike Ellzey and Tim Shaw, Manager of External Affairs (Decathlon Coordinator). Bottom line is that the Solar Decathlon is not only alive and well, but is moving forward on schedule.”
Well, we’ll see, won’t we? I hope that you won’t disappear from the discussion if things go south. It’s interesting to know that Mike Ellzey’s workload is light enough that he can suddenly take over the portfolio of two squads worth of contractors. And he can do all of the professional public relations work himself also, despite no apparent background in the field! How stunning! Or — what bullshit! We’ll see which.
Here’s something to chew on in the meantime: did the DOE’s contract requirements for the site that would take over the Solar Decathlon include, as one might think, that there would have to be a professional level PR program in place for the event, given that the primary purpose of the event is to publicize these innovations?
Did anyone check? Did anyone think to check? Hey, you seem to know everything about this — you must know the answer! So what is it? Is Mike Ellzey’s taking over all of these functions starting at 8 a.m. satisfactory under the contract with DOE?
(Oh, and who is taking over Ellzey’s other functions in the meantime?)
It’s nice that he gave testimony helpful to the new Council majority. To me, that tells me only that he knows who is now buttering his bread.
“It’s interesting to know that Mike Ellzey’s workload is light enough that he can suddenly take over the portfolio of two squads worth of contractors. And he can do all of the professional public relations work himself also, despite no apparent background in the field! How stunning! Or — what bullshit! We’ll see which.”
That’s also an argument for why the contractor sucks.
I have no idea what the workload of Mike Ellzey is or what he plans to do to fill the gap. He is a top notch professional and CEO of a major Corporation (Great Park) and his commitment to the Council at the Tuesday meeting was enough to convince me that the guy knows what he is doing and he and his staff will get it done. I have no inside information on what is going on at the Great Park and am merely comenting on my observations. My source was the presentations at the GP Board Meeting on Monday night and the Council Meeting Tuesday, plus what I read in the media. There was some discussion about the DOE contracts but I don’t recall the specifics. I believe they dealt more with core goals to be achieved for the the event , rather than who it was to achieve them. My guess is that Ellzey will not be doing the specifics himself, but will be lining up experts from within the City staff or even outside people to fill the gap.
In my outside, looking in laymans opinion, it would have been more logical for the Council to terminate the contracts of the two companies which they did. At the same time they could have authorized the GP CEO to negoitiate new contracts with both companies to continue only those services related to the Solar Decathlon until completion of the event. Still, based on the presentations I saw at both the meetings, I am confident the GP staff will get the job done and the event will be a success.
Again, Patrick, your “confidence” does not inspire my confidence.
I remember being told of an instance years ago where a company decided to save money by firing its aged bookkeeper of long-standing. It then told her that it expected her to train a replacement and to be available for consultation as problems arose.
She said “OK” — and sent them a proposed annual contract for services that was 4-5 times her previous salary. As she pointed out, if they thought that they could find someone to figure out the history of the company’s transactions and her system without her, they were welcome to try.
“At the same time they could have authorized the GP CEO to negoitiate new contracts with both companies to continue only those services related to the Solar Decathlon until completion of the event.”
Yeah. Let’s see how much Fo&Mo and Townsend want to charge for that. I expect that they’ll be really conciliatory and willing to work for peanuts.
Ryan’s right, Greg, the Irvine Council ALWAYS had dictatorial power over the Board; three members of the Council have ALWAYS made the decision on what to do with the Park, and what the new majority did last night – even though they comically overuse the word streamlining – really WAS just streamlining.
Isn’t it weird that you have to GUESS, to theorize, about the good things that Forde and Mollrich might have secretly been doing? No wonder the new majority is demanding an audit. I want to know too. Right now what we do have is the docs that Voice of OC has snagged. Let’s go see if there’s any evidence that they did millions of dollars worth of work finding the Solar Decathlon and applying for it.
I don’t find any outrage in last night’s events, but some entertainment value for sure. I was at the meeting but had to leave early … I’m still figuring out what I could write valuable about it that hasn’t been written. The high point (at least before I had to leave) was definitely Spitzer’s tirade.
That may have been how it worked out, Vern, but it was not intrinsic in the design of the Board. The four non-Council members and any single Council member could have formed a majority on any particular vote. Now, the Council majority always wins.
They could have replaced two of the outside members, had they chosen, with ones of their choice. That would be less offensive — but less “in your face.”
I haven’t researched what Forde and Mollrich did for their contract, which is why I have to guess. I don’t know whether that information is publicly available in some way. If you can find out, great. I don’t know why they would not make it publicly available now, given the forthcoming audit. Does it seem impossible that it’s … reasonable? What a shocker, if so.
That may have been how it worked out, Vern, but it was not intrinsic in the design of the Board. The four non-Council members and any single Council member could have formed a majority on any particular vote. Now, the Council majority always wins.
I’m not sure you’re understanding, Greg. The four non-council members’ votes never counted for jack. This was Agran’s doing. Approve of his actions or not, like him or not, he has been dictatorial. The Council majority always won. Agran made it that way. Now he’s on the short end. Have you got that?
As there are “7-2 votes” described elsewhere around here, their votes were clearly counted. Otherwise you couldn’t get to “7.” You seem to suggest that Agran had appointed people who agreed with him — or, more to the point, agreed with the Master Plan that he spread out all over the floor on Tuesday night. Well — yeah, that’s usually how it works. And yet, these outside Board members were in a position to blow the whistle (even if it meant sacrificing their big $880/month!) on anything that warranted it. Now, no one, outside of a very political Council, is in such a position — and complaints from one Council faction towards another are likely to be dismissed as partisan. That’s a significant change.
As for “Agran has been dictatorial” — you’re debasing the meaning of the word. Obama, Brown, and many others have also appointed people who agree with their plans in order to get them through. Is that all you need to do to be considered “dictatorial”? Usually, even using it as loosely as you are here, it involves some abrogation of proper processes of deliberation and management. Well, what are those offenses here? Winning a bunch of votes isn’t proof of guilt.
Greg, you’re also assuming that the 7-2 (or a 5-4 vote, whatever . . .) vote was binding.
What was stopping Agran from overturning the recommendation of the board at the next council meeting using his majority vote?
*chirp chirp chirp*
Indeed it was nothing.
In addition, using your example . . . what would happen to President Obama’s appointees if he were to lose an election?
Oh, right . . .
Vern is right in that the 7 – 2 votes by the Great Park Board were administrative exercises only. The Board votes were advisory, much like the Planning or Finance Commissions. Their recommendation then went to the City Council where the vote was usually 3-2.
As far as whistle blowing when you are friends and political allies with someone, you don’t blow the whistle on them. The one previous Board Member with a high degree of expertise, development experience and integrity didn’t blow the whistle, but resigned due to mismanagement and ethical issues at the Park. Greg you have followed Larry Agran long enough to know full well that he chooses his Council slate members based on people he can control and dominate. The Great Park Board was no different. Anyone who crosses Larry Agran is dsiposed of quickly and efficiently. Doubt that just ask former Council Member Chris Mears. Agran also destroyed former Council Member Dave Christensen when he crossed Larry. While not being destroyed, former close advisor and inner circle member Mark Petracca, cut the cord with Agran over ethical issues and is now a member of the fairly large Former Friends of Larry Club. Are those enough specific examples for you? Probably not, but it is what it is.
More boogieman stories from Patrick. I’ll wait for a less slanted source.
Ryan: “Republicans are against public investment in private enterprise in general.”
You should probably say, CONSERVATIVES are against public investment in private enterprise in general. So are a lot of progressives, with the exception of investments in green energy, which we consider to be our government helping to steer our economy in a healthy direction for our environment and future.
I wouldn’t say that “Republicans” OR “Democrats” in general oppose … well, corporate welfare. Look no further than Republicans and Democrats in Anaheim. Or let’s stick in Irvine and stick to the Great Park, and stick to Jeffrey Lalloway. You know the euphemism-du-jour for corporate welfare, or “public investment in private enterprise?” They call it “public-private partnerships.”
And with all the articles being written locally this week about the Great Park, one thing that has slipped through the cracks is a remark Lalloway makes to Norberto in the video here: http://www.voiceofoc.org/oc_south/irvine/article_646cb902-596d-11e2-891b-0019bb2963f4.html
Norberto asks HOW Jeff envisions the Park moving forward, and Jeff replies, “One way is through public-private partnerships, we have an awful lot of land out there, and there are an awful lot of people who would like to build recreational facilities.” Yes, he says “one way,” but that’s the only way he mentions. So, that’s a Republican right in the middle of this controversy who is aiming for public investment in private enterprise.
I’ll concede that.
“Or let’s stick in Irvine and stick to the Great Park, and stick to Jeffrey Lalloway. You know the euphemism-du-jour for corporate welfare, or “public investment in private enterprise?” They call it “public-private partnerships.”
Vern, when I think of Corporate welfare, special tax breaks and exempting political contributors from certain government regulations comes to mind. Additionally, I think of the bail outs the government gave to select corporations to keeep them afloat.
Public-Private sector partnerships do not creat visions of corruption and mismanagment in my mind, as do the above examples. For example, in the City of Irvine, we have utilized a Public – Private Sector partnership for many years. The Police Department uses Community Policing philosophy to generate partnerships with all stakeholders in the community. The City itself has partnered with a number of private sector entitile such as the Chamber of Commerce, Service Clubs and Non-Profit Organizations. These partnerships have been for the purpose of providing citizens with the type of government they want and making it first class in the process. I do not see these efforts as being corporate welfare. Public – Private partnerships work very well, are cost effective and have made a very positive impact on our City.
Sure, the new euphemism “public-private partnerships” does not create nasty visions, which is why it’s a handy euphemism! This is the same term they use in Anaheim to give away $158 million in taxes to a hotel developer friendly to the Council majority.
More to the point, what exactly is Lalloway proposing when he suggsets public-private partnerships as “the way forward” with the Great Park? Do you know?
Greg, it’s Townsend, not Thompson. And Forde, not Ford.
I’m just using my pet nicknames for them.
For the past several years residents of Irvine and Southern California have been waiting for developers of The Great Park to deliver the vision of the green, sustainable park of the 21st century that they’ve laid out. The plan for the park has won numerous awards for its design and vision. Unfortunately, the actual execution has been fraught with numerous stops and starts, controversy, and cost overruns. In its conception The Great Park is to be more than your typical green space, but a national treasure setting a new standard for parks worldwide.
From The Great Park website:
Spanning more than 1,300 acres (nearly twice the size of New York’s Central Park) the Great Park’s award-winning master plan embraces environmental sustainability, preserves Orange County’s agricultural heritage, and honors the military history of the former air base, setting a new standard for sustainable park design and urban planning. Upon completion, the Orange County Great Park will join America’s inventory of national treasures and set a new standard for great metropolitan parks around the world.
The concept is an amazing vision indeed, exciting in its sheer grandness and ambition. A key part of the plan for the park, and its subsequent legacy, is that the park will set a new standard for sustainability and urban planning. The conversion of the former El Toro Marine base is to set the example for what is possible in green sustainable building moving forward. It’s this vision, and award-winning plan that helped The Great Park win a very competitive bid to host the US Solar Decathlon this October. Formerly held every two years since 2002 on The Great Mall in Washington DC, the Solar Decathlon challenges collegiate team to design, build, and operate solar-powered houses that are cost-effective, energy efficient, and attractive (Solar Decathlon website). The winner of the competition will “blend affordability, consumer appeal, and design excellence with optimal energy production and maximum efficiency.”
In short, a pretty exciting and prestigious event and exactly what the Great Park was designed to host and feature. The Great Park competed with several other bidders on the Decathlon and was awarded due to its vision, beautiful sunshine, and space. Unfortunately, when planning and executing an event like this, timing and preparation is everything and the this week’s power play by the GOP led Irvine City Council has raised some serious question marks about the ability of the council and park management to pull off this event on their own.
After mismanaging the park project for nearly a decade the City Council moved to dismiss the independent park board members and the PR firm contracted by The Great Park, Forde and Mollrich. As I’ve noted there are real concerns with the no-bid contract awarded the PR firm and there are questions about the effectiveness of the independent board members, so this decision is not necessarily a bad one. The council arguably made the right decision in moving the remove Forde and Mollrich. The problem here, in relation to the Solar Decathlon, is timing. Removing the PR Firm now, in the months leading up to this important event shows a real lack of business insight from the GOP led council. As anyone who’s actually run a business or been successful in the private sector can attest, bold moves without backup are a problem. It’s one thing to remove the current PR firm with a real succession plan in place. To remove the firm with seemingly no plan in place is perilous.
Delivering a large-scale event like the Solar Decathlon takes real planning, and planning takes time. Beyond the actual logistics of the event is the importance of marketing the event. For green building and sustainability the event itself is important, but it will lose value if attendance is affected by the event not being marketed from a PR perspective. The choice to suddenly remove the Forde and Mollrich, with no backup PR firm on the horizon took place with little or no input from the actual Solar Decathlon or those managing the project. As a result the incoming council majority has dramatically increased the pressure to deliver a successful event. At the same time they’ve really put the onus on The Great Park CEO Michael Ellzey, who insists he can deliver the project successfully.
The changes made this week by Jeff Lalloway, Steven Choi and Christina Shea may prove to be the right one in the long run. Perhaps the independent audit of park proceedings will reveal real mismanagement and waste. Virtually everyone agrees that the large no-bid contracts awarded Forde and Mollrich were not in the best interest of the project and the local taxpayers. Still, the PR firm did serve a purpose and was in fact set to meet this week with representatives from the Department of Energy and the Solar Decathlon. Dismissing Forde and Mollrich without a backup plan was an error in judgment not because of the importance of Forde and Mollrich but because of the lack of a backup plan.
The correct move would have been to continue the Forde and Mollrich relationship while opening up bidding for rival PR firms. This would have allowed the Solar Decathlon to move forward without these hiccups while still allowing the council to determine the best way to proceed forward from a Public Relations and project management perspective. If during the next several months the council decided to change PR Firms, this process would have allowed them to make that change while not impacting the Solar Decathlon. If they chose to replace Forde and Mollrich they could have done so with an interim plan in place, one that would not damage the execution of the Solar Decathlon
For the future of this important project let’s hope that Michael Ellzey and the council are able to deliver this project as planned. If successful this project could find a permanent place in Orange County and moving forward can help The Great Park achieve the vision it set out to achieve. Unfortunately, based on the ongoing mismanagement by the Irvine City Council I have my concerns.
Katherine
Thanks for all that input Ms Daigle.
Hey, you know what you don’t sound like? Some puppet of Larry Agran, as the OC Weekly tried to portray you.
Delightful sarcasm that doesn’t sound at all like Gustavo Arellano aside, Katherine sounds like someone who believes in the original plan for the Great Park. Hopefully, that in itself is not suspect.
Oh, who am I kidding? Of course it’s suspect! And her conceding that these changes may be appropriate but as surely ill-timed given the oncoming big reputation-establishing — why that’s just her cleverly acting reasonable to fool us, I suppose.
As for me, I’ll be blunt rather than clever: tell me, what incentive does the current City Council leadership have for the Solar Decathlon to go well? Because they care about preserving and advancing the legacy of Larry Agran and Beth Krom? Maybe they can be shamed into doing better than having an already-burdened Ellzey take on the entire PR project himself in his spare time — but if it goes south, the result seems to be that they can declare the Great Park experiment a failure and concentrate on building a Great Walmart Superstore there.
Katherine just provided a better and more detailed statement than I could muster about the Solar Decathlon and it’s importance to the Great Park plan — if there still is one. I think that she deserved better than — hey, you know what? — that.
(P.S. Children, Vern and I never fight. We’re just discussing things loudly.)