M.
.
.
UPDATE: The revised headline pretty much speaks for itself. At Monday night’s DPOC meeting, Ben Vasquez showed up and gave a nice speech, aided by other DPOC stalwarts such as Dr. Bill Honigman, Jeff LeTourneau, and Tish Leon. Miguel Pulido did not show up despite his endorsement being recommended by the Endorsement Committee (the composition of which Florice Hoffman disputes in a comment below.) The Central Committee decided to take the recommendation off of the consent calendar, and after the speeches — no one at the meeting spoke for Pulido, including his ally Claudia Alvarez, pictured with him above — 23 people voted for Vasquez, 4 voted for No Endorsement, and one person who was apparently out of the loop supported Pulido. I did pull Alvarez’s name from the consent calendar, but when her race later came up I was unable to speak on why I did so — corruption at the Rancho Santiago Community College District and her close ties to Pulido — because Chair Vandermeir ruled that the body had to reject the recommendation before we could get to the merits. That’s our county’s Democratic democracy for you!
(1) A Brief Introduction (at Least “Brief” Compared to What I’d Say If I Had Your Unlimited Attention)
It’s truly shocking — or at least it should be, for local Democrats — that Orange County’s Republican Party is so much more transparent about presenting, conducting, and processing its endorsements than the Democratic Party of Orange County. (To see how the Republican Party does it, read these reports from the “semi–official” blog “OC Political.” I take no joy in saying this, but the transparency of the process is exemplary and the work that Chris Nguyen does documenting it is superb. By comparison, I was stopped from videoing Miguel Pulido’s pitch to the body two years ago — I wanted to get his promises down into the record — in the middle of the speech, based on a new anti-transparency policy imposed by DPOC Henry Vendermeir. And, as you’ll see below, it has gotten worse.)
As we discussed last month — yeah, do go ahead and re-read that piece, please — the DPOC’s process is both opaque and rigged, showing the kind of contempt for internal democracy that has helped land our candidate for President in a dead heat with a pathologically lying, emotionally stunted, fascistic psycho clown. Why can’t WE change our process to something like what the local Republicans have? Well, as the old joke about psychiatrists changing lightbulbs goes, “first the lightbulb has to want to change.” And we, emphatically, don’t.
That’s what you get when your political claque gets so far from its grassroots that it fears their input.
DPOC Endorsements are conducted by a five-person Endorsements Committee led by Vandermeir and California Democratic Party Regional Director Florice Hoffman — and pretty much nobody else. (Hoffman’s South County counterpart Phil Hanneman, is, I’m told, not a player; Treasurer Bruce Johnson would not cross Vandermeir on a bet and Secretary Arnel Dino is not one to make waves. So, so far as I can tell — and that’s not far only because of the pitch-black lack of transparency (although some things do leak out) — the whole process depends on agreement between Vandermeir (who seems essentially to promote the agenda of former Chair Frank Barbaro and a few others) and Hoffman (whose own moral compass makes her an ardent feminist but whose business interests make her effectively a tool for the Teamsters Union and the Building Trades.)
So if you want to get recommended for an endorsement, now you know who to talk to! And that, sadly, is the point of the whole enterprise. Other than serving as a shunt through which well-heeled interests can funnel unlimited donations (and even direct them when it comes to communications among Democrats) and directing what “activist resources” can be funneled to serve favored candidates (and away from endorsed candidates up against favored rivals), generating endorsements are pretty much the only reason that power-holders in the party need the DPOC to exist.) Since January of 2014 — when Vandermeir hobbled the still-lame Resolutions Committee by jettisoning its chair Jeff LeTourneau and replacing him with, essentially, a vacuum — it certainly hasn’t been for the purposes of effective public outreach into community and promotion of their interests before their local City Councils. (That still happens sometimes, but painfully, grudgingly, and not all that well.)
So, guess when most of us learned who was being recommended for the supplementary batch of endorsements at tonight’s 7:00 meeting? If you said 4:20 on Friday afternoon (because you know a thing or two about Barbaro), you’re wrong! My email, at least, arrived at 4:19!
Of course, more people might have filled out applications for endorsements than appear on the list of recommendations. Guess when we found out who these alternatives were, who the committee could have chosen but didn’t, or in what races they didn’t endorse at all, or anything related to local ballot measures?
C’mon, GUESS!
That’s right — WE DIDN’T! We STILL don’t know who else wanted to be endorsed — except in those cases where some candidate has taken the long route and written all of us (and in one case, for me, telephoned as well) to LET us know! We have to ask, in every race, whether there were additional applications — and the Chair’s position is that he doesn’t even have to tell us (although last month he grudgingly did inform us, on an ad hoc basis, upon specific request.)
So OK, OK — let’s say that we DO find out who else applied for a given office. When do we get to hear from the various candidates? AS A RULE, WE DON’T! Not unless we fail to affirm the Endorsement Committee recommendation. And it doesn’t just require TWO people — a motion and a second — to pull someone’s name from the consent calendar. It requires enough votes to deny the Endorsement Commitee a 60% majority.
Well, when do we we get to debate whether we should pull a given race? AS A RULE, WE DON’T! We only get to debate whether we should pull a race for debate after we vote on the Endorsement Committee’s recommendation. In other words, we have to vote on whether we will vote a given race without discussing anything about merits of the candidates! Only after we decide that we do not trust the Endorsement Committee’s recommendation — a slap in the face that aspiring politicos tend to refrain from doing, especially when voting on signed ballots! — can we ever get to debate the merits of the candidates in a given race!
In August, we only overturned a committee recommendation twice — when the Committee couldn’t muster a plausible argument against endorsing Donna Acevedo-Nelson in Anaheim City Council District 5 (literally. the explanation was something like “we didn’t know her very well”) and in Anaheim Council District 3, when we decided that we really did prefer the Latino community and civil rights leader Dr. Jose Moreno whose joining the party was considered our greatest coup in 2014, over Frank Barbaro’s fair-haired boy Jordan Brandman, the guy whose actions we had condemned after he tried to derail the Anaheim Districting proposal and then proposed changing the district lines specifically to pluck Dr. Moreno out of his Latino district east of Euclid and into a conservative majority white district where he could not run against Brandman!
And we only barely got to be able to hear the candidates and debate that race at all!
(2) The Endorsement Committee’s 14 Recommendations
So, with that brief introduction out of the way, here are the 14 recommendations for DPOC Endorsements that are presently on tonight’s consent calendar:
City Council Races:
School Board Races:
(3) Discussing All of the Recommendations Except for Pulido, Alvarez, and Gonzalez
Mary Rawlings-Rios: She’s a definite yes. I don’t know anything about her, but she is a de facto running mate for already endorsed Democrat Ross Chun. Without her, Bill Phillips and Mike Munzing have a better chance of winning, due to voters’ tendency to vote for as many people as there are positions. (I discussed this previously with regard to Jamison Power in Westminster, who does not have a “running mate.”)
Debra Lewis: Lewis was the first-ever Mayor of Rancho Santa Margarita and is running on a platform of reining in developers. The other candidates are Michelle Brough (whom I think is Asmb. Bill Brough’s wife), Nadia Khalil, Paul Wyatt, and Penny Maynard. Seems like a good endorsement to me.
Ida MacMurray and Jess Badillo: Yes to both. The La Habra City Council could use a nice takeover. A three-Latino majority could transform the City for the better. Incumbent Rose Espinoza is also running and already endorsed by the DPOC.
Roman Reyna: Incumbent Reyna has been a disappointment on the OC Water Board, and that is pretty damned distressing. But he’s stayed firm in opposition to Pulido, and that’s good. His opponent is OC Sheriff Officer Juan Villeregas, whose candidate statement leaves some doubt as to his worthiness.
Trung Ta: Ta, an Engineer and Project Manager, is running against incumbents Michael Simons and Susan Henry and fellow challengers Saul Lankster and Colin Melott to fill one of two seats. None of the other four are endorsed by the OCGOP, so I’d like to hear from someone why the incumbents should or should not be replaced. I wouldn’t plan to pull this one, but if Teachers Union expert Karen Ridley did, I’d second it.
Leslie Bubb: Bubb is an educator running against incumbent Dana Black. No strong feelings either way.
Amalia Lam: Lam is a social worker running against four other contestants for two spots, including the excellent Gina Clayton-Tarvin. (I don’t know Gina’s party affiliation and I don’t really care. She’s doing a great job for her community.) I’d like to know whether Lam is running in support of or against Gina. The answer would determine whether I pull this. The other candidates are Norm Westwell, Patricia Singer, and Kathryn Gonzales.
Nelida Mendoza: Mendoza (appearing here without her “-Yanez”) is an incumbent. She’s running against virulent Republican budget hawk Thomas Anthony Gordon (a member of the OCGOP’s five-person Endorsement Committee!) and Tony Tapia, whose name sounds familiar but whom I can’t place. (For all I know, he’s just there to split the Latino vote.) The Rancho Santiago Board has been rife with controversy and petty chiseling scandal this past year, as we’ll discuss below when it comes to another of its seats — and I’d bet that my Republican friends would argue that Gordon would be a great antidote. Could be — but I don’t think that Nelida is a significant part of the problem. I’ve had various run-ins with Gordon online and find him truculent and doctrinaire. (I know — I’m a fine one to talk!) Even if he would be an effective — and I’m not saying that he would — I won’t intervene on his behalf. He has enough going with him through the OCGOP.
Chris Brown: The entertainingly named Brown, an incumbent running against fellow incumbent Tina Karanick and challenger Tony Cousimano, is the wife of conservative Democrat and former Buena Park Mayor Art Brown, who has been a bit of a euphemism for male genitalia at me in the past. Would I pull her name over it in retaliation? Of course not. Relax, Mrs. Brown.
Matthew Singer: Singer, an attorney, is a one of three challengers to incumbents Tammie Bullard, Francine Scinto, and James Laird. The other two challengers are Karen Twaddell and Elias Tefere, who if I recall correctly ran for something in June. I don’t know whether the challengers are running as a slate, but this is an instance where I will defer to Florice, who knows the area well and is probably not grinding an axe for the Teamsters.
(4) Pulido, Alvarez, and Gonzales — Pull, Pull, Pull-ido!
Miguel Pulido: No, no, NO! Frank Barbaro’s longtime crony — famed for pay-to-play as a consultant on projects being considered by the city of which he is Mayor — is not someone the DPOC should endorse in the best of circumstances. (If you don’t know why not to endorse Pulido — and turnover leading to lack of institutional memory is doubtless what the Endorsement Committee is counting on — check out these most recent stories and search our archives for more. But in this case, he’s also running against the excellent gentleman Benjamin Vasquez — a teacher and housemate of progressive labor leader Julio Perez — and that makes this endorsement a slap in the face to progressive Democrats everywhere. (Perennial fringe candidate Steve Rocco is also running.) Pulido will probably win on his own, even if Vasquez can get the endorsement (with much the same coalition that Jose Moreno used last month. We can deal with that, as we have before. But the idea that the Endorsements Committee sprung this on us at the last minute like this is insulting and infuriating. Seriously, shame on them.
Claudia Alvarez: Alvarez had been the top Council ally of Pulido and, as night must follow day, is not a reformer. Rancho Santiago has been having a heaping helping of scandals during her tenure as Board Chair — not all her fault, of course, but … “not a reformer.” Getting rid of Jose Solorio was a start on the way to reform. Steve Nguyen is a Republican, but as memory serves Ceci Aguinaga is a Democrat and is both honest and earnest. (I don’t know whether she sought an endorsement, though I soon will.) Alvarez probably wins reelection here either way, but like other ethically skeevy incumbents she does not deserve an endorsement — especially when she has snuck into the second, lower-attendance endorsement meeting. Read the Voice of OC and OC Weekly archives for lots more on Alvarez.
Elizabeth Gonzalez: I’m going to pull this one. She is running against Irv Trinkle, a longstanding board member who has some criticisms about some of his fellow Board Members. I mistakenly thought that he had withdrawn from the Centralia School Board race two years ago to make way for one-time (and maybe current, I have no idea anymore) Brandman protege Connor Traut, and made the mistake of publishing that recollection. Trinkle wrote into this blog tearing me a new orifice in a pretty delightfully entertaining fashion:
Mr. Diamond, Regarding Centralia School District Area 3 race with 2 candidates for 1 seat. “Trinkle” did not bow out to let Traut have a seat in 2014. “Trinkle” and Sequeria were defeated by Traut fair and square as he spent a huge sum to get his name out. Two others got elected and neither were incumbents. “Trinkle” spent 13 years busting his butt along with some other special folks to make Centralia a great district. Only now with Traut, Montez, and Charoen doing their political stuff do we see over spending and a lack of concern for anyone other than themselves and their political aspirations. Liz Gonzales was recruited heavily by Traut and Montez to run and attempt to defeat “Trinkle” so they can have another puppet working with them. “Trinkle” is running for the right reasons with no political agenda or aspirations other than doing what is right for the kids and employees of Centralia and the community. I know all this to be fact and am willing to discuss it if you so desire. My website:www.irvtrinkle4education.org
To which I responded:
Mr. Trinkle,
We’re not the New York Times, prepending everyone’s name with “Mr.”, “Ms.”, “Dr.” et al. No offense is intended by reference to you by your last name, which henceforth will be hard for me to think of without “scare quotes.”
I’d have to go back and read my articles from 2014; my recollection was that someone — I’d thought it was you — was edged out of the race to suit Connor’s seemingly limitless ambition. Did you edge out of the race tentatively for a time and then edge back in? I apologize if my memory was faulty — or perhaps it is not faulty but the people informing me about you were wrong (perhaps intentionally.)
Tell us more about the foibles of Centralia!
I don’t know whether Irv Trinkle is a Democrat, Republican, or neither. But his reply to me is enough to make me want to hear from the candidate — and, if he is a Democrat and happens to be there, from him.
As OC becomes more blue and real money comes to the table, it will be fun to watch the Democrats acting just as despicably as the repuglicans. We’ve already seen it with Pulido and Daly and Agran. Soon it will be rampant.
Pull Liz? Mr. Diamond, I respectfully disagree. Liz Gonzalez is the pro-labor pro-choice teacher-recruited and teacher-endorsed honest PTA-mom Democrat. She is running against a dishonest Tea Party Republican who verbally abused Liz’s children online, was hated by the teachers when he was in office, was voted out in a historic landslide by our community in 2014, and even continues to be a gadfly against a current school board and new Superintendent who brought universal childcare and preschool to our students in-need! As a teacher in the Centralia School District, I am proud to stand with all of my colleagues to ensure that manipulative dreadful sack of hate is never elected to our school board again!
I did pull her, because I wanted to ask for her reaction to Mr. Trinkle’s comments about the Board. But she didn’t show up, and other people weren’t interested. Her affiliation with Planned Parenthood seemed to be a big reason why; I’m pro-choice as well but for a School Board seat that doesn’t mean a whole lot when her opponent is old enough that he’s never going to do something like run for Congress or Supervisor.
I’m sure that you’ll understand that it is hard to know how much to credit your observations and claims when you are anonymous. But I’ve approved both your comment and Mr. Trinkle’s, and I look forward to each of your responses to the other. It would be useful for you to drop the verbiage like “dreadful sack of hate” and just come up with simply assertions about what specifically he supposedly did to warrant your invective. Parsing your paragraph, you say that he’s:
dishonest
a Tea Partier
a Republican (personally, I don’t much care)
verbally abusive online to her children (that could mean so many things)
was hated by teachers (why?)
a gadfly (could be good or bad)
manipulative
attacking someone who brought universal childcare and preschool to children in need
That last bit interests me: I favor universal childcare and preschool, but that doesn’t mean that a specific plan to provide it can’t have flaws enough to provide a legitimate feast for a gadfly. Can you tell us more about both this program and his criticisms of it? Was that the grounds on which he attacked the Supe? Because someone can achieve something great like that and still be vulnerable to legitimate attack on other grounds.
I like “teacher-recruited and teacher-endorsed” as a rule, but as with any other candidate for any other interest group I can imagine exceptions. (The point of labor representation, like the point of legal representation, is not to ask for what’s just but to settle for what’s obtainable. One of the best School Board members that I know of in OC was Sharon Brown of the La Habra Elementary School District — and at times the teachers hated her. That doesn’t mean that she was bad, but simply that her role put her in opposition to their best hopes.
So I’m prepared to think ill of Mr. Trinkle — sorry, Mr. Trinkle, but I’m being candid — but I’d need a lot more specific and verifiable basis than this. You’re welcome to provide it, but if it’s so verifiable I hope that it might come from someone who, by not being anonymous, would have to face consequences for exaggerations and misrepresentations. Ms. Gonzalez herself would be an ideal choice!
This was not on my radar, despite knowing Mr Trinkle through our late, great, mutual friend, Hoagy. But something here does not gel. We have a rant posted in the guise of being written by a teacher. I not only challenge that this juvenile whining was written by someone with an advanced degree, I have a hard time buying this was written by someone over the age of 12. This now makes me wonder who has a stake in the issue, but is too cowardly to come out and admit to who they are? And that ALWAYS gets my attention. So let’s review;
dishonest
**Well there is a broad brush…dishonest in what way? Does the gentleman lie about his age? Perhaps Mr. Trinkle stretches the importance of positions of responsibility he has held? Oh no, wait, sorry, that was someone else.
a Tea Partier
**A) seems a bit far to the right for what I know of Mr. Trinkle.
B) Who the Hell cares? People who dump a Tea Party label on Republicans as though it is the equivalent of “spawn of satan” are the leftist equivalent to the uber-right who claim Obama is a Muslim. Since when is being a Muslim a bad thing? Seriously, people, can we get more imaginative in the slurs we choose to fling and actually accuse people of things that are BAD?
a Republican (personally, I don’t much care)
**I do. Why is being a Republican bad? Unless this is only for the purpose of endorsements within the DPOC. Then I suppose an opponent who is a Republican would be listed as a bad thing.
verbally abusive online to her children (that could mean so many things)
**One would assume a complaint had been lodged against the SCHOOL BOARD MEMBER for being verbally abusive to children. Where is that complaint please?
was hated by teachers (why?)
**My union hates me after our negotiations too. If the other side LIKES you when negotiations are complete, it means you left money on the table. Teacher recruited is a scary issue. Too much fox-henhouse there for my taste.
a gadfly (could be good or bad)
**as someone who wears the badge proudly, you will have to do better than that in using it as an epithet.
manipulative
**So is the current Board President, who actually sucks at it. So I would think returning someone to office who is good at it would be an improvement. Or does this teacher think those elected to MANIPULATE the District into a better position in which to serve the children is not going to be manipulative? Seriously? A teacher wrote this?
attacking someone who brought universal childcare and preschool to children in need
**When did Mr. Trinkle attack the Superintendent? That sounds like something on a permanent record. Meeting minutes? Scratched into the side of someone’s car with a set of keys?
Centralia is not my back yard, and God knows I have enough to keep me busy. But I smell something fishy in the air. A cat fish? A sail fish? Oh, I know, it smells a lot like a CONNOR fish…and that gets me curious. Every. Damn. Time. Game on.
Greg, (A bit less formal) Mrs. M. (anonymously) has brought out some interesting points. I plead guilty to being a registered Republican. To use a well known individuals quote: “What difference does it make.” The school board is supposed to be nonpartisan.
All else except for one other item, I plead “Not guilty.” I do my best to “HATE” and feel good about that acronym which obviously means “Help All To Excel.” If you want to see what the total explanation and response to one each misguided/misinformed teacher, let me know and I can fill your column for you. Also, any teachers that don’t hate me, you can donate to my campaign by way of my web site: http://WWW.IRVTRINKLE4EDUCATION.ORG
“YOUR OPPORTUNITY FOR PRIZES
Each $10 donation enters you into a post election drawing.
One winner receives an option to select lunch for two at either Knott’s Berry Farm Amber Waves Restaurant or Knott’s Chicken Dinner Restaurant or select a $50 gift certificate from a retailer of your choice. That along with a complete set of Paragon Pens in all seven colors.
The second prize will be a set of pens.”
Mr. Trinkle, I don’t think this is legal.
Not sure one way or another of legality but I don’t need issues. Only friends donated so far and I will just buy them all lunch at one time or another. They grab the pens anyway but I will pull the drawing offer immediately. Thanks for alerting me to the potential legality issue.
Now to get that offer off anyplace I posted it. – Irv –
PRIZE DRAWING STOPPED BUT EVERYONE WON!
The legality of a prize drawing for donations was questioned. I don’t need any issues with legal stuff related to a campaign. To be fair to anyone that already donated, I owe you lunch and some pens or a refund or that gift certificate. Let me know when you ready and we will do it. I thank Mr. Zenger who alerted me to the potential issue.
Donations are still needed and will be greatfully accepted but no drawings to be held. Votes are even more important.
I am curious about that; because Trump has been filling my email inbox with offers to enter me in a drawing to fly with him and his campaign team on the campaign plane. Now, the temptation to donate to Team Trump being as low on our household budget as it is just dropped even lower with the threat to actually have to share confined space with Trump. But if Trump can do it, why not Mr. Trinkle? Or is it only illegal for local races? Where do i find these little bits of legality for myself? Thanks for the correction, David, we don’t want Mr. Trinkle inviting trouble. Or at least save the trouble for the kind that merits another tattoo, and really good story.
Flying with Trump is not a reward or an inducement of any kind. Sort of like going to the dentist and all the magazines have Kim Kardashian on the cover.
No problem there.
Again thanks for the tip. I wish this had come up during the 2014 campaign when one candidate was offering event tickets of assorted types to some folks in Cypress if they put his yard sign in front of their homes and he got elected. That has to be considered even worse than a drawing for free stuff. Now I am wondering if when I walk and visit neighbors during the campaign, explain my agenda and leave them a printed version of same, is it then illegal to give them a pen with my name on it so they can fill out their ballot? I’d like to think that my special pens only mark the box next to my name but that is probably pushing the point. Any thoughts from anyone other than one angry and very delusional teacher who weighed in earlier.
Remember that my “HATE” is an acronym: “Help All To Excel!” The Resource Center I co-founded 20+ years ago is open every school day for everyone that I “HATE.”
Mr. Diamond or “Diamond” or “Greg” as you prefer, with a strong military background, I am very much accustomed to addressing folks as Mr., Mrs. Ms. etc. until we become acquainted. Having said that and having worn a “Crackerjack” uniform for about 17 years in the Navy before donning khakis as a Chief Petty Officer, it was almost always last name only to our peers and seniors when addressing us. Ex. “Trinkle, get your tail over here!” Absolutely no offense as it has been something like 40 years ago when that was the norm. I appreciate your response to my comments to your 2014 article. To the dismay of some, I am a registered Republican but am probably too broadminded to say that I am hard core. I have in the past flipped from one party to another when I just did not appreciate the national political arena. I am almost ready to go middle of the line and go “do not declare” for the future. As far as my 13 plus years on the Centralia School Board and my potential future on that board, nobody can ever accuse me of being unfair or partial. I am there for the children and the best education we can get for them along with the entire staff and their careers and well being. Did I always do the right thing? Maybe not but at the time I thought it was the right thing to do. That hind sight and 20/20 vision thing does come into play. I would very much like to accept your invite to meet up so you can know who “Trinkle” really is. I’d love to host you for a cup of Joe. Not sure what the url issue is with the web request but it really does connect at: irvtrinkle4education.org Be well sir and I look forward to that meeting.
yes Ben got the endorsement over the committees recommendation. I applaud the body of the DPOC for standing up for what is right.
And your methods, Greg, don’t help the Democratic Party of Orange County move in the right direction. There is no such thing as a perfect democracy. Henry and the DPOC do the very best that they can with limited resources, limited time and limited staff. It’s very easy to criticize. Being obstructionist and hateful because you disagree does not have to be part of the process. I wouldn’t recommend anyone to write for your blog!
Thank you for the comment, Sue. You certainly are loyal to your leader.
You seem to have a narrow perspective when it comes to what a county party can actually do when it comes to democratic function and representation. (I would say that I don’t know where you got such an idea, but I suspect that I do know.) As countless county parties across the U.S. show, it doesn’t actually take more resources and staff time to have a more democratic system rather than a tightly controlled one that doles out perks and power to a relatively limited few — but you are not aggrieved because Henry’s leadership is specifically designed to appeal to the people of your demographic. (It’s certainly not designed to reach out to the masses.)
The DPOC has enough people like you to keep Henry in power and to allow him to violate our bylaws whenever he wishes — you seem proud of not caring about that — but you’re not representative of Democrats elsewhere in the county (let alone people whom the party could attract if it weren’t bent on simply being a vehicle to promote narrow and regressive interests). I honestly don’t know if you understanding what the fighting on DPOC is actually about. It’s neither obstructionism nor hatred; it’s about aggressively reaching out into parts of the County beyond the Gold Coast and its annex in Fullerton.
My invitation for people to write for us was to give people a chance to cover their local elections in a forum where people would actually read them — because we, for example, aren’t familiar with the specific issues at play in most South County cities. Thank you for taking a strong stand against liberals and leftists providing election coverage that could positively affect local races. We certainly wouldn’t want to see that, would we?
(This is the sort of thing I have to deal with in DPOC, readers. Republicans, rejoice.)
It’s all the officers so include Fran Sdao, Monika Broome, Shelly Haggerty and Jeanette Burns to the officers. I also think you might want to read the applications. Also you have no clue how I voted in the committee and I also Sara Ruckle Harm attends for Refion
Region 18. I also think there should be more of a in depth process and that the central committee should read the applications and have a better chance to talk to the candidates.
At least the list went to the central committee with the agenda unlike the local and state ballot measures.
I agree with your last two sentences.
I would indeed have wanted to read the applications, but they were only available at the office. Why we wouldn’t scan and make them publicly available the way many interest groups do, after inducing many candidates to take positions we favor on various issues, escapes me.
My understanding (from a good source who was not present) is that the process did not include the Vice-Chairs, but that could have been disinformation. (“Officers” is sometimes used to signify only the Chair, Treasurer, and Secretary; other times includes the Vice-Chairs as well.) My recollection is that at the first endorsement meeting Henry said (I think in answer to a question from me) that it was five people, himself, two officers, and the CDP Region 17 (you) and 18 (Phil) Directors. If Vice-Chairs were also involved, then Henry could indeed have done anything he wanted to over your objections; in fact, if Arnel was cozying up to Henry rather than to you, they and Bruce could have made a 60% majority without you as well.
I would ask you more about the process — were these physical meetings, virtual meetings, with or without discussion, how many people, what internal threshold for a result? — but I don’t presume that you’re at liberty to answer. If you were rolled over by a majority of the Endorsement Committee, then you are not properly subject to the criticism I posted (although for it to have essentially been a one-person show then makes things even worse.) Your discussion of what happened on the committee, when asked to justify certain decisions (such as in Anaheim District 5), however, led me to infer otherwise.
If you want to use your considerable argumentative skills to justify why we should not have been allowed to debate any issues or ask questions of candidates prior to the vote on whether to leave a given race on the consent calendar, that would be most welcome. Like many others in the room — though not, alas, a majority, or at least not a majority brave enough to stand up the the Chair over it — I found the process to be ludicrous and atrocious.
Interestingly in the Trinkle column, he was previously endorsed by the teachers union over the years and not at all their enemy. But perhaps the personal friendship between the teachers union leader (who hosted a fundraiser for Liz before they endorsed her, talk about ‘unbiased’) might have something to do with this endorsement at well. Many teachers I know are not pleased with it and would prefer Irv.
If you want some details, come sit at a current board meeting and watch Henry play on his phone and abstain from most votes, or just plain doze off. He’s certainly using this position as a stepping stone and unconcerned with the actual kids he’s supposed to be serving, and blatantly so. And Art sued the district claiming a Hispanic could never be elected to the board, cost the district in excess of $200,000, then won anyway proving himself wrong. Think of what that money could have done for our kids instead.
And Liz claims she was endorsed by Irv’s campaign manager, and when asked to remove that endorsement, she fought it and now that false claim is in the ballot because the court case to remove it was delayed too many times.
Who would think so much drama in a little tiny school board election. But most people don’t read beyond the ballot statement, even if it is in error they won’t know, so it might just work.
Sounds like a bunch of children on here going yadadadadada. Liz is a great candidate for this election coming up, there are the people who will disagree, but she’s more than likely got the fresh face to put into that position, more over Irv who should really think about another district or position elsewhere. Let’s be real for a second: there is a time and place for everything, now is her time. She will be a great person on the board once we vote her into it!
I dont know if you guys are aware, but Jose Solorio just stepped in it. See the link below. This is why we cant have nice things:
http://voiceofoc.org/2016/10/jose-solorio-raises-legal-questions-by-using-campaign-money-for-apartment-rent/
haha we are very aware. Yesenia has been having a fit and a mutiny with her branch of SEIU, over their endorsement of Solorio and Brandman – as she says, “NOT the people’s friends!”
The moment this VOC piece came out she was rubbing it in their faces.