Archives for posts with tag: 2016 Elections

 

Fitzgerald State of City Campaign Website Comp copy

The taxpayer funded State of the City videos, as they appear on Jennifer Fitzgerald’s campaign website.

Fitzgerald State of City Campaign Website 2

The “Economic Development” segment of the taxpayer funded State of the City video, as it appears on Jennifer Fitzgerald’s campaign website.

Matthew Leslie

Jennifer Fitzgerald’s super slick, professional re-election campaign website features something that should surprise and anger voters. Scroll down past the billboard sized images of the candidate to find prominently displayed the five-part “State of the City” video. Separated into subjects like “Quality of Life,” and “Economic Development,” the video was presented in April as a regular part of an annual fundraiser for the local Chamber of Commerce. The video is also available on the City of Fullerton’s website, because the city pays for it, and it isn’t cheap.

City of Fullerton State of the City

2016 State of the City video as it appears on the City of Fullerton’s website.

The 2016 State of the City video was produced by Pipeline Digital Media of Fullerton. (You may have seen Pipeline’s Todd Huffman on the evening of August 2nd shilling for the awful district elections Map # 8A, supported by Jennifer Fitzgerald.) The City of Fullerton’s check register shows two 2016 payments to Pipeline Digital Media in the amounts of $ 9,600.00 and $ 15,700.00, as well as three other payments to the company in 2015. One cannot ascertain from the check registers provided which of these two payments might have been made for the State of the City video, but a Public Records Request filing should provide that answer.

City of Fullerton Pipeline Screen

The State of the City, produced by Pipeline Digital Media.

What is certain is that Jennifer Fitzgerald’s campaign didn’t pay for the video, because it isn’t listed on her Form 460 campaign filings. If someone else paid for it, it should be listed as an in-kind donation to her campaign. No such in-kind donation appears on her 460 filings either, so we can only assume that Mayor Jennifer Fitzgerald is appropriating an expensive, taxpayer funded video meant to promote the city for her own personal political campaign. Is it realistic to think that no one at city hall has noticed?

pipeline_3-11-2016

City of Fullerton check register showing a $ 9,600.00 payment to Pipeline Digital Media on March 11. 2016.

pipelinedigitalmedia

City of Fullerton check register showing a $ 15,700.00 payment to Pipeline Digital Media on May 13, 2016.

 

Matthew Leslie

District elections Map # 8A splits the entire downtown residential district into five separate pieces, an idea so obviously stupid that the bar owner map’s supporters had to line up a veritable parade of stooges to speak in its favor during last Tuesday’s City Council meeting. Many of these speakers had something to gain from the scheme, as we’ll see in later parts of this story. Others, well, one has to question both the judgment and humanity of whoever put Don Bankhead up this task.

Mr. Bankhead made a rare appearance in the chambers he occupied as a councilman and mayor for so many decades, “over thirty years,” he claimed that night, even though he served for only 24 years.

We begin this clip with Mayor Jennifer Fitzgerald, who couldn’t keep the exasperation from her face as Mr. Bankhead approached the podium and then began his comments with an audible grunt. Next, Jan Flory and Don Bankhead shared a chuckle about who was going to kill him first, Ms. Flory or his wife, if he ran for office again. My money is on Jan Flory.

Mr. Bankhead unintentionally made a terrible argument against district elections by opining that things ran pretty well the old way, without districts, presumably when he was on the council. He followed it with a pretty good argument for the proposed new system by noting that “the only benefit” candidates would receive would be that they would only have to walk their respective districts during election season, and not the entire city, as he recalled having done when he ran for office. Somehow, I don’t imagine Don Bankhead knocking on doors in every part of the city. I never saw him at my door.

Throughout his comments he repeatedly confused the names of maps 2B, the map supported by Kitty Jaramillo and others, and 8A, which he was obviously supposed to support. The twice-recalled former councilman voiced his support for map “2A,” though there was no such map before the council that night. Even when queried by Jan Flory and then corrected by Jennifer Fitzgerald, Mr. Bankhead tragicomically stuck to his guns, insisting that “2A” was “the one that we’re here to talk about.” In other words, it was just like old times, when he was serving on the council, but without the highlighted script for him this time.

Matthew Leslie

On Tuesday, August 2nd, City Council candidate Jane Rands explained to the Fullerton City Council that their prior adoption of the bar owners’ Map # 8A for the District Election measure in November was not an option for the ballot because a judge had found fault with the map’s division of the downtown residential district into five parts. I am including both the video above and the text of her comments below.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9BQ1QQEerGE&feature=youtu.be

Jane Rands Opposes the Fullerton City Council’s Selection of Map 8A for Fullerton, 2016 

Map 8A Violates the Settlement Agreement – Select Map 10A Instead

Comments given to the Fullerton City Council by Jane Rands, August 2, 2016…

“We are discussing this issue again because a judge has GRANTed the plaintiff’s motion and ORDERED you to hold another public hearing, this time, “to adopt a map that complies with the procedure and requirements of the Settlement Agreement.” If your goal tonight is to “ensure that the district elections measure is included on the November 2016 ballot,” as stated in the staff report, you cannot select map 8A again as it violates the settlement agreement.

Contrary to the assertion in the staff report that, “The court rejected the plaintiffs’ claim that Map 8A …was not the product of the public process set forth in the settlement agreement,” the hearing minutes reveal that “the court’s review of the transcripts of the 5-17-16 and 6-7-16 Council meetings indicates that Map 8A was not developed in accordance with the procedure provided in paragraph 6 of the parties’ settlement agreement.” The judge reasoned that since, “There is no evidence that the proponent of Map 8 and Map 8A ever participated in the community deliberative process,” that, “that map (Map 8A) arguably constitutes a breach of the settlement” and was “adopted through a process completely antithetical to that contemplated by the Agreement.”

In the staff report, I also take umbrage to the dismissal of the court’s admonishment on the importance of the principle of a community of interests, particularly as I am a resident of the downtown community that Map 8a disrespectfully divides into 5 districts. I attended the July 20 hearing, took copious notes, and studied the court’s Minute Order. It is beyond me how any competent assessment of the proceedings could conclude that “the Court indicated that it was unclear whether the selected map took into account communities of interest in dividing the downtown.” What the judge did state was “unclear” was “how many of these supporters (of Map 8A) actually reside in the downtown area” and “how the division of the downtown area of the city gives appropriate consideration to this principle (of a community of interests as described in the California Constitution).”

At the July 20 hearing, Judge Horn’s ruling was confirmed that “The parties’ Settlement Agreement requires that the electoral district map be drawn in accordance with those criteria (in Elections Code Section 21601),” including community of interests. It was very clear from the discussions that afternoon, that the judge’s statement that “Map 8A would seem to run afoul of at least one of those factors (in Section 21601)”was in reference to communities of interest being violated by Map 8A’s dismemberment of the downtown neighborhoods.

The staff report says that the City Council can select Map 8A again tonight, but that does not mean that you should. From observing the mess that has resulted from the hostility of the Council towards the inclusion of voices from throughout the city being represented on our City Council by way of district elections, I can only conclude that this advice is intended to thwart the district election ballot measure.

To affirm your previous selection of map 8a would be mistake, a mistake that will cost Fullerton taxpayers scads more money to litigate a resolution to the plaintiffs’ simple request to put district elections with a legitimate map before the voters on November 8, 2016.

If you want to move forward, select a map that complies with the state and federal voting rights acts and the Settlement Agreement, including all aspects of Section 21601 and the map author having participated in the public process, select Map 10A.”