Fullerton council members would never really try this -- would they?
The Friends for Fullerton’s Future blog has two stories out since Friday on Democratic reactions to the Fullerton recall — one of which you see cross-posted just before this story. One notes that the Democratic Party of Orange County Central Committee endorsed the Fullerton recall. The cross-posted one notes that many of Fullerton’s liberal “old lions” took out an ad opposing it in the Fullerton Observer. Comments to each were … well, maybe they’re worth reposting in a later story, but that’s not what this story is about.
Many Fullerton Democrats seem somewhat conflicted about the recall. I don’t know any who will defend police brutality; most seem to agree that FPD made some has made bad hires, including some who were involved in the killing of Kelly Thomas. (Does this rise to a “culture of corruption” — or is this just pretty much how police departments, and other bureaucracies, almost everywhere operate? Let’s just say that I’m not convinced that a police force hand-selected by Bruce Whitaker and Tony Bushala would be immune from rallying around the accused in blue after someone was killed. It’s pretty much the nature of the beast.) If the water tax was truly and clearly illegal in all respects, then yes it should go. (But what will Fullerton do without it? I’m getting to that.)
It’s the third leg of the FFFF hot-issue tripod — the notion that public unions are bad, public employees are bad, public pensions are bad, and that they have long been an injustice foisted upon the citizenry — that I think could save the incumbents and that I think motivates the reaction of the liberal anti-recall Fullerton forces (of which I am not one.) Put simply, the problem is this:
They are concerned that Tony Bushala and the FFFF claque of commenters, included candidates who might replace the incumbents, are completely nuts.
(Reading FFFF’s comments, as we’ll be doing later this week, does nothing to allay that fear — but I’ll emphasize up front that none the comments I’d cite on this point come from either Bushala or the FFFF-associated candidates.)
By “completely nuts,” I don’t mean hallucinating, delusional, paranoid, sociopaths — although there might be a touch of that in some cases. I mean “nuts” in a policy sense: rabid, radical, reckless, irresponsible people who don’t mind wreaking havoc because someone else will end up paying for the damage. I mean, in other words, that the critics’ concern — which I don’t know is valid — is the FFFF crowd is willing to consider drastic and uncalled-for solutions, which would do great harm to the city. Beyond this, by not campaigning directly on those issues they are pulling a “bait and switch” on the electorate.
Is all of this true? I don’t know — but I can ask them! In fact, I’ll do that below.
Here to me is the prototypical example of a jaw-dropping, reckless irresponsible policy — an example of policies that some people fear so much that they will vote against the recall if that is the best way to prevent a council majority that might implement them. I present this policy not because I think that Sebourn, Levinson, and Kiger actually favor it, but because I want to give them a real clear chance to deny it — to commit to the electorate that this is NOT what they stand for. (This assumes, of course, that they don’t.)
Here is the campaign issue that dares not say its name:
“To curtail its pension obligations, Fullerton should explore municipal bankruptcy.”
This is not the only possible terrible policy idea out there, but it’s among the most shocking. In the past few months I’ve brought up the issue in comments both at FFFF and here, asking for people to reject it categorically as a possibility. And I have not gotten the reassuring rejections that I would have expected.
So now I’m going to ask here — and I’m going to ask loudly:
Will City Council candidates reject this possibility, period?
If so, and if another few assurances are given, then I don’t think that the prospective three new members of the Whitaker claque are going to scare people enough that they’d rather live with “the devil known.” But if they won’t reject it — quickly and loudly — well, then to me that is the real issue here: not only whether the incumbents deserve to stay in office (they don’t) but whether the cure of their potential replacements could be worse than the disease.
Is it crazy to think that the FFFF could explore a municipal bankruptcy for bargaining position? Let’s take a look.
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
The Google and I did some research.
(1) This is from FFFF, September 26, 2010; “English Major” writes on the future policy alternatives for the City Council in cruel economic times:
The chances of raising local taxes, like Don Bankhead did (and McKinley and Jones would have likely joined him) in 1993 seems dim. Nobody’s going to stand for it. Not even the ignoramuses who voted them in.
And this leaves us with the spectacle of the public employees fighting among themselves for their share of the diminishing fiscal pie. And to that I say: Amen! Competition is good. It causes us constantly to assess our priorities. It’s true that the cops and emergency service providers will have the advantage, standing, as they already do, at the head of the line. But will the public stand for library or park closures in order to fund these people? The RINO mantra of “public safety” can only take its chanters so far. Sooner or later reality demands a check.
And hovering in the back of the room, like the chorus in a Greek tragedy is the specter of municipal bankruptcy, Vallejo-style – the game changing possibility that all public administrators and employees should want to avoid like a plague. But the public may have reason to be more ambivalent about that prospect.
So cheer up!
That’s my emphasis there near the end; that’s my colorful double emphasis for that last line. Fullerton could always go bankrupt — “so cheer up!” Whaaaa’?
(2) One commenter has on several occasions cheerily discussed municipal bankruptcy without challenge:
First, if Fullerton cannot pay for the pension obligations they can easily get out of it! Really? Yup! A good ol municipal bankruptcy will work wonders. Then its up to a judge to decide how the assets of the city are divided up and what liabilities to dump! The judge may be of the municipal union persuasion, after all this is California. In that case, pensions will be considered more important to save than streets, sewer, water, fire, and other services.
Or, the judge may be an Orange County type where it won’t bother him or her to chop pension obligations down to a more reasonable level.
So Fullerton is looking at bankruptcy in the next 10 years due to the pension excesses of the dithering dinosaurs!
No one seems to have batted an eye at this.
(3) Candidate Travis Kiger’s article “Ballot Challenge: Does Fullerton Really Have $500,000,000 in Pension Debt?” is built around the assertion that
Has Fullerton’s pension debt really risen to half a billion dollars?
Yes. According to the CalPERS pension system’s own analysis in this OCRegister article, the lump-sum payment to close out all of Fullerton’s pension liabilities (debt) right now is somewhere between $456,000,000 and $540,000,000.
Candidate and FFFF columnist Greg Sebourn commented in response to the story:
The fact remains that Fullerton is on the hook for $1,000,000,000.00 in unfunded pension liability and redevelopment debt.
Actually, the Register article only addresses the cost to Fullerton if it leaves CALPERS:
Last month, the fund’s board decided to recalculate the unfunded liability of any agencies that want to leave the system, using a discount rate of 3.8 percent instead of 7.75 percent.
That means that a city that believes it owes a bajillion dollars will be told it owes something closer to four bajillion if it tries to leave.
Be that as it may, though, this is apparently what Kiger and Sebourn believe. If true, might the option of municipal bankruptcy look good to them? (But, if municipal bankruptcy is the drastic cure, are they right about the disease? It looks to me like Kiger’s assertion depends on the presumption that Fullerton will leave CALPERS; has he even campaigned on that?) Either way, if they see municipal bankruptcy as an appropriate option given this admittedly daunting (if accurate), shouldn’t this be an issue discussed in the campaign?
(4) I’m not sure whether FFFF has 100 regular commenters or 10 of them using 10 names apiece, so I don’t know if this is someone mentioned above or someone different, but here goes:
Bankhead, McKinley and Jones will be the pro-union pension trifecta that will bankrupt Fullerton. That’s the only way we’ll ever get out from under these pensions.
This was in response to Kiger’s article, in which he states:
The commitments we’ve made to current employees cannot be changed without a bankruptcy. The only lever we really have left salary and to a lesser extent, contributions. Cut salaries, raise employee contributions… or go broke.
(5) A commenter responds to an eager-seeming question here
Yes, … things have crashed as you put it and there isn’t enough money….what to do, file bankruptcy perhaps and start over?
with a reasonable point:
Bankruptcy is a bad option for cities. It’s a last resort, no way to save the city option. Most cities will be able to balance their budgets and survive just fine. Most have. Bankruptcy also doesn’t just let cities off the hook for retirement pension funds. That’s why you have heard of what, maybe 2 cities go the bankruptcy route?
Later in the comments section, someone disagrees:
“[Police engage in] dangerous public service”…..blah blah blah
I would rather protect myself and have my grandchildren have a bright fiscal future.
We just need to file bankruptcy and start over.
Someone save us from these heroes who start retiring at 50, just pitiful.
(6) Here’s a nice exchange on the topic under this post back in June 2010:
The only way out of this extortion is to declare bankruptcy and let a court renegotiate pensions with retirees.
To this, one commenter added:
This is the ONLY answer… Ca. BANKRUPTCY!!!
But another commenter objected:
You bankruptcy fans: Please keep current on things, will you! You should have learned by now that the State of CA cannot claim bankruptcy, and for cities and counties, bankrupty is no magic route to disbanding pensions. The only three entities in the State to ever go bankrupt, Desert Hot Springs, Orange County, and Vallejo still have fourishing public employee pension plans. Otherwise, Vallejo is still in the dump overall and will be for years to come. Any citizen wishing to see their own entity go bankrupt should be tried and found guilty of sedition.
I stopped a few pages into the Google search, but there’s more. (I’ll also skip, for now, the time in the past few months where I have asked Tony and others from FFFF whether they really did think that municipal bankruptcy was a legitimate option for the city to consider — and unless I’m forgetting something, I don’t think that I’ve gotten a reply. I have to leave something for the follow-up.)
(Note also: the State of California has recently passed legislation that made it harder for municipalities to pursue bankruptcy — and an even tougher bill has been introduced. If you want that background, read the story and some interesting comments here. )
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
I am not ascribing the views of FFFF commenters regarding municipal bankruptcy to Kiger, Levinson, Sebourn or other candidates who frequent or are positively discussed on FFFF. I don’t presume a single thing about their own views, although I am very much looking forward to hearing what they are. The above list exists simply to make a point:
Yes, people who are obsessed with Fullerton’s pensions are discussing this possibility.“
It’s up to the recall candidates — not just the three I name above, but all 13 of them (and I suppose the three incumbents as well) to either acknowledge that they are “ruling this in” or else give an ironclad commitment to rule it out to address this issue one way or the other or to be called out for chickening out. I think that Kiger and Sebourn are dramatically overstating Fullerton’s realistic current pension obligations — but they don’t! If the problem is this dramatic, then how dramatic of a potential cure do they envision?
I’m rooting for them to say “no, we would never do this” — which would make me sleep a little more easily about the prospect of their election. But if that’s not where they come down, then don’t voters have a right to know? Shouldn’t this be part of what Fullerton voters discuss? With such potential stakes, isn’t it not only responsible for the media to ask, but irresponsible for the media not to ask?
So the question is simple:
“Would you ever consider exploring municipal bankruptcy as a viable possible response to Fullerton’s pension obligations and other liabilities?”
I’ll list the names of each of the 13 candidates below and I’ll add their “yes or no” answers here and in comments as they arrive.
Don Bankhead’s seat:
Rick Alvarez —
Jane Rands — NO (4/30)
Greg Sebourn — MAYBE (4/30) see here.
Paula Williams —
Dick Jones’s seat:
Dorothy Birsic —
Glenn Georgieff — NO (4/30)
Michael Hakim —
Travis Kiger —
Roberta Reid —
Pat McKinley’s seat:
Doug Chaffee —
Barry Levinson —
Sean Paden — YES (5/1)
Matthew Rowe — A long, very thoughtful and reluctant MAYBE. (5/4)
*Dr. Diamond – kudos for effort in your investigation into the triad of issues you present. They are certainly NOT connected as you know. Recall – YES! Pension Reform: YES! Bankruptcy: NO!
It kind of goes like this: You have leadership at the City level which includes a very strong City Manager (who you fail to mention), along with a tough minded and well directed City Council (determined to protect to health and safety of the city coffers) and you come up with a PLAN. That plan includes immediate negotiations with all Employee Unions and Groups withing the City. That plan demands greater employee contributions to all those enrolled in the current Pension, Retirement and Healthcare plans. It creates a 2nd tier for all new hires and any new employees which care to particpate. You get those employee groups to agree that should CALPERS downgrade the value of their annual contributions that current employee perks may have to be either momentarily of permanently frozen at current levels.
What seems to be missing in Fullerton is leadership, direction and a willingness to step up to the plate with any semblance of resolution. The thought that Sharon Quirk-Silva would bail out of Fullerton at this time to run for Assembly is ludicrous. Leadership folks….think leadership. Dump the City Manager if he can’t get it done. Dump the three blind mice. Get a new Police Chief. Wait, borrow, negotiate or beg – but now is certainly not the time to go Bankrupt.
Thanks, ‘ships.
We may agree or disagree about all of what you propose. If the approach of the FFFF candidates is to create a two-tier system with greater employee contributions, etc., that’s a legitimate topic for debate.
My question is simply whether one particular response is or is not ruled out. You seem to rule it out, for now, which is “certainly not the time.” Would you rule it out categorically, or just for “now”?
Your charming belief that the City Manager and/or the Mayor can overrule the three-member Council majority in such matters seems ill-founded. How is the City Manager to “get it done” — fire the Council majority? And why and how is a new Police Chief going to be different from any other? Maybe there’s an answer to that — but Police Chiefs pretty much tend to defend their officers until it becomes impossible. Where do you expect to find one that doesn’t?
Winnies, Greg is not asking what YOU think is a good idea. He’s trying to determine what the actual candidates think is a good idea.
I’ve got to get English Major to write more posts. That guy is a literary lion.
And Tony, while not a candidate himself, says:
(Or do I misinterpret you’re positive response to the “cheer up” post?)
The expected replies from Travis, Greg, and Barry just got more interesting!
Really, Tony. That does sound like a smart-alecky “hell yeah.”
Glenn Georgieff weighs in with a NO.
*You guys have got to stop rolling those left wing Luckies up in your right pants cuff.
Greg Sebourn chimes in with a resounding, but thoughtful and respectful, MAYBE:
“Good morning Greg and happy Monday. I found your email in my spam box so I apologize for the delay. I read your post and it appears that you have some doubt about the pension and RDA obligations. I pulled the pension numbers from the 2011 CAFR and the RDA numbers from the report that the City sent to the California Department of Finance. Together, they total more than $1.1-BILLION that Fullerton taxpayers are on the hook for. I can send you the public records if you are having trouble locating them on the City’s website.
You pose an interesting question:
“Would you ever consider exploring municipal bankruptcy as a viable possible response to Fullerton’s pension obligations and other liabilities?”
The key word is VIABLE. I don’t know how “viable” bankruptcy is as an option for dealing with our pension and RDA debt.
I do know that it is foolish to be so closed minded as to not at least explore or consider ALL possible options so that we can weigh their merits and vet the pros and cons. That is how one determines the viability of a solution. Doing so in public meetings is what I consider to be good governance while making backroom deals and shutting out the public from the discussion is not only bad governance but a good way to spur a recall election.
Thanks for asking; I wish more would do the same.”
I think that Sebourn gives a well-considered response here. It sounds to me, though, like he’s saying “yes.” The question is whether he’d consider exploring the possibility (versus ruling it out.) He won’t know whether it’s “viable” before exploring it, so he’d be willing to explore it.
While I’d prefer the “I’d rule it out” answer, I admire his candor. And, as in Vallejo, and mid-90s OC, it’s not like it never gets considered.
So: two responses so far and we already have a dispute! Nice!
I asked Greg S. directly — he says he’s not saying “yes”:
So now it sounds to me that Greg S.’s answer is “I might consider examining it, but based on what I have been told I currently think that it would be a poor choice and not viable, although I’m open to argument.”
So we have one of those — and one “no” from Georgieff. (And a “har-de-har” from Tony.)
Greg,
I cannot rule it out, if that is what you are asking.
Would we really want an elected official ruling out options before bringing it before the dais?
There are few things I would make that sort of blanket statement about. One of them would be the use of public funds to subsidize private development as was the case with the RDA which has since been decommissioned. I cannot imagine a private land development project that should be subsidized by taxpayers.
OK. Personally, I would rule it out — and I’d rule it out long before I’d rule out subsidizing private development with public funds, which is an idea that has merit in theory but not as much in execution — but those sorts of differences are what makes politics interesting.
I don’t want to hijack my own comments section, but: why do you apparently distinguish between government making people rich through land projects and making people rich through, say, contracting with them for their dubious standardized testing and distance education services for public education? (I don’t know whether you’re opposed to public education, but for this question let’s presume that if it’s not a positive good, as I’d see it, it’s at least a “necessary evil.”)
Greg — I think this goes back to a piece you posted several weeks ago about the water “tax”. First, precipitate a financial “crisis” of your own making, then justify whatever steps it takes to solve the crisis you just created. All done in the name of ideology rather than the community good. They tried it in Wisconsin and they tried it in Costa Mesa and neither has worked out well.
Here’s a really radical idea — cut the hysterics and name-calling on all sides, define the problem objectively, then sit down with all parties concerned to work out a solution. Fullerton isn’t the only city with an unfunded pension liability. That;s not really the issue. The real issue is what kind of risk does it pose? And what does “unfunded liability” really mean?
Just about all businesses have some level of unfunded liability. How many banks have enough cash on hand to pay off every customer if they all showed up on the same day to withdraw their funds? None! With pensions (public and private) as with any long-term cash flow, you analyze the risk and take the proper steps. Throwing out numbers without context is meaningless.
Well-said — I’ll look forward to seeing if you get any response to that analysis!
“…a financial ‘crisis’ of your own making…”
Nice try. I didn’t vote for our $547.6-million pension debt and I certainly didn’t vote to incur $657.9-million of redevelopment debt. Those decisions were made by the council majority being recalled.
I have been and am still involved with several committees doing my part to find solutions to the financial crisis created by the City’s lack of leadership. And all the while the council majority has approved tax bonds and expenditures we cannot afford.
So, while it is nice to think that discussions will result in necessary changes and reform, the reality is that failed leadership will only lead to more failure.
With Fullerton’s pension obligation at $547,600,000 and redevelopment obligations worth $657.9-million, it is time to recall Fullerton’s failed leadership and bring new people to the table.
No, I would not consider municipal bankruptcy to try to get out from under Fullerton’s pension obligations.
*Can any of you guys get down to the problem? God, ruminations on whether you philosophically should or shouldn’t touch it there …ridiculous. If we have a Pension shortage, borrow to fill it, ask the participants to add more each month or freeze it at present levels.
The RDA money should be totally off the table. Heck, we wanted that RDA money used for a Charles Schultz Memorial Rolller Skating Arena dedicated to/for kids under 6 years old. If we can’t have that – we want all that money sent back to Downtown Jerry Brown…right now! For those that misuse the RDA money – send them to jail. They are nothing more bank robbers in suit and tie.
Thanks, Wimships. But of course, you guys aren’t running for Fullerton council, are you? We are trying to find out the intentions of the folks who ARE running for Fullerton Council. I don’t know how we can make that any clearer to you two.
Is it time to consolidate?
Orange County has 34 cities 14 non cities with over 3 million people.
That means there are 35 city/county managers, 5 Supervisors, over 200 council members, 2 dozen police chiefs, etc etc etc. That is a hell of a lot of management costs to bear.
As a comparison.
The city of New York has 5 counties within city limits with over 8 million people. But add up the management numbers. Mayor’s, councils, city managers, police chiefs (New York has one of each and 80 council members)
The OC = @264 plus
The Big Apple = @108 plus
Why do the people of Orange County pay 200 percent more than other large communities for basic services provided by low level civil servants?
During the 2010 census, the bureau divided The OC into 4 areas. Fullerton, Huntington Beach, Newport Beach, and Santa Ana. Time to consolidate the cities and reduce the county management and budget way way down.
Greg Diamond
My answer to your question, as framed, is a yes. I would add that failing to even “explore” the possibility of municipal bankruptcy would hamper our efforts to right our city’s finances and would increase (rather than reduce) the possibility of bankruptcy over the long term.
*Cook: Call Bloomberg….he is finally out on his three terms as Mayor of NYC…he
thinks exactly like you do.
“Trying to find out…..” hmmm. So, you ask them – don’t like their answers and then
ask them again. Sorry, we don’t get that. How about this? Your Mom bought a Liar Loan House in Newport Coast for a cool $12 million. The value of the house is now $6 Million. Should she walk away, sell it to a Saudi Prince or invite Octo Mom to inhabit it for $50 bucks and leave town?
Come on guys…..ask those “wunderkind” some real questions!
“Would you ever consider exploring municipal bankruptcy as a viable possible response to Fullerton’s pension obligations and other liabilities?”
Municipal bankruptcy should be the last option for Fullerton. I am running for city council in order to prevent Fullerton from going bankrupt, not to accelerate that possibility. As a matter of principle, I believe in paying one’s debts; but moreover, I believe that too much debt is unhealthy– whether it is for an individual, a corporation, an investment bank, or a government entity. We have to be realistic about the burden that we expect of our taxpayers in a difficult economy. I do not begrudge police officers and firefighters for earning pensions and benefits– I take issue, however, when those pensions and benefits far exceed those of any other occupation with comparable levels of education and work experience.
Some will argue that police officers and firefighters deserve such generous pensions because they put their lives on the line. In that case, why should police officers earn over 80% of their pay in retirement, when someone retiring from the armed forces after 20 years earns 50% of their base pay (not full compensation)? Can anyone find an example of another profession where somebody can retire in their 40’s or 50’s and receive almost their full salary in perpetuity? It doesn’t exist because it is not economically sustainable in any industry. Public employees deserve our admiration and gratitude, just like any other workers; but let’s not forget that taxpayers are workers, too. Unemployment levels are still fairly high, and sales in most industries are down from where they were a few years ago. This means that wages have stagnated and competition for jobs has increased for most people. This reality translates into less disposable income for people to spend around town on goods and services. Therefore, sales tax revenues, which account for nearly 25% of city revenues, are down. Property taxes, which account for approximately 45% of city revenues, are also down due to lower property values. The decrease in city revenue means that Fullerton’s previously negotiated labor agreements become a much bigger burden on the city budget and deprive the city council of needed funds to invest for the future.
Most residents will agree that infrastructure in Fullerton is neglected. Our roads have too many potholes and water lines are crumbling, despite an imposed water tax that grosses the city about $25M per year, yet doesn’t seem to pay for the water infrastructure for which it is being levied. Why should this be the case when Fullerton spends 50% of its operating budget on the police department that employs about 200 people, of which nearly 150 are cops? I don’t believe that Fullerton has too many police officers; I believe that we spend more than we should on the ones we have retired. Looking back on the myriad of police misconduct incidents in the past two years alone, as well as the tens of millions of dollars in potential liability facing the city from pending lawsuits, it is easy to see that we are not getting what we pay for. Fullerton cannot expect to be on sound financial footing as long as we have two retired cops and their bumbling ally, Dick Jones, constituting a three-person majority on the council and blocking any efforts toward accountability and reform.
I am not against public employees. In some areas like city maintenance, our departments are probably under-resourced and employees underpaid. When I last looked at the city budget, I was surprised to learn how thinly staffed some of our city departments actually are. It seems to me that the city council has robbed some departments of resources for the benefit of others. By simply prioritizing city services and re-allocating the resources that we do have appropriately, we should see significant improvements in city infrastructure and services, without having to raise fees on businesses and residents. Our municipal government and the work that our city employees do on behalf of the public serve a valid role. I contend that our city council and city manager ought to ensure that our municipal government operates in an efficient and cost-effective manner that is responsive to the needs of the public.
It is my sincere hope that Fullerton is never in a position to declare bankruptcy. In any negotiation, there is give and take. The taxpayers have already given up much of their own disposable income, job security, and potential to invest because of the economic challenges of the past four years. Yet, the need for city services has remained constant. As a result of diminished municipal revenues, it is only fair that public safety labor agreements are brought in line to reflect reality. Choosing between municipal bankruptcy, or raising the burden on taxpayers, is a false dilemma for Fullerton. We can avoid bankruptcy and return to sound financial footing by spending our city revenues more wisely and bringing a modicum of fairness back to public safety labor agreements.
Anyone seen Doug Chaffee? Looks like he’s ducking yet another question.
He and I spoke at the Monday night function. I hope to have an interview with him on the topic this week or next.
That’s interesting. Everyone else has the confidence to put their own words in their own writing. Seems like a conflict of interest if you’re writing down the answer to your own question. It also seems unfair that you gave him an extra opportunity to answer the question in person while everyone else only got an e-mail. Did you chase down Mr. Levinson as well? It seems like everyone should only get the same bite at the same apple.
How about we hear directly from Mr. Chaffee instead? Seems only fair. I’d hate to think that I have to show up on Mr. Chaffee’s door step to get an answer myself. That’s not exactly transparent.
Are blogs beneath him?
I understand how Travis and Barry might want to avoid answering the question, because their honest answers would be likely to scare people out of voting for them. Don’t understand Chaffee not being able to jot off a few lines though. He’s just risk-averse and controversy-averse, isn’t he? Like his critics say.
This reflects well on the people who did answer, either with simple answers like Jane and Glenn, or complex nuanced answers like Matt and Greg S.
Yes, it does reflect well on those who did answer. (Don’t forget Sean Paden.) But some people don’t read blogs. (I find it completely incredible, of course, but it’s true.)
Our conversation was about the Kelly Thomas killing, the video of which had just come out, not about bankruptcy. I can tell you what he said about bankruptcy, but I don’t want to upset Ryan Cantor!
Ryan, I think that you would be serving Matt’s interests more effectively if you did so less aggressively. I ran into him at the Fullerton Library event. We got to talking about the case from a legal viewpoint. Unlike you and Matt, I don’t think that he reads the blogs and probably took little note of my earlier request.
I’m not sure what exactly you’re objecting to — everyone still has the exact same chance to answer the question. If Levinson or Alvarez or anyone else who hasn’t answered sends in an answer, I’ll print it.
Are you complaining because he doesn’t come to this blog? While I appreciate it when candidates come here, I don’t think that they have a responsibility to do so. I am interested in pursuing his response because I found it to be an interesting conversation taking place from a lawyer’s perspective — something that (unless Whitaker has a law degree) doesn’t exist on the Council. If you’d like to chance to respond to anything I get from that conversation, you’ll certainly have your chance — and I’m confident that you’ll take it. Does that really strike you as unfair?
“I don’t want to upset Ryan Cantor!”– GD
Good. I’ve framed that and it’s up in my garage.