OC Political

A right-of-center blog covering local, statewide, and national politics

Conner Trout Wasted Tax Dollars with Special Interest Deal on City Construction.

Posted by Dave Everett on June 2, 2026

Higher bids, fewer bids, difficulties getting bidders results in project with 1 bid and 59% over estimate. Also, a City Council vote to reject all bids for a project because bids were 30% to over 120% over the estimate.

Millions of taxpayer dollars are being wasted in the City of Buena Park because of a policy pushed by Mayor Connor Traut as he attempts to gain favor with the politically powerful Big Labor bosses in Los Angeles and Orange Counties.

Traut is essentially overcharging the public for construction projects by giving away no-bid, sole-source labor contracts called Project Labor Agreements or PLAs. These “deals” discriminate against over 80% of local construction workers, increasing the project price. In 2022 Traut proposed and pushed a PLA that helped his political donors but cost City of Buena Park taxpayers over a half-million dollars in overruns on just one project.

The Buena Park Mayor even changed the name of the controversial “Project Labor Agreement” to a “Community Workforce Agreement” in an attempt to hide the special interest deal for his political donors.

On March 8, 2022, the City Council approved a Community Workforce Agreement (CWA) between the City of Buena Park and the Los Angeles and Orange Counties Building and Construction Trades Council with a five-year term effective July 1, 2022

As Eric Christen from the Coalition for Fair Employment in Construction wrote to Traut and the other Buena Park Councilmembers, “…you are now stuck with this disaster until 2027. This canine affection for big labor special interests is now going to cost your taxpayers tens of millions of dollars.”

If you doubt that Connor Traut was behind the PLA/CWA special interest deal, look no further than the local labor bosses, who posted on their website as recently as February 12, 2025 that, “…In Buena Park, we saw firsthand the difference that Connor Traut made as a councilmember and mayor. With his leadership, the City of Buena Park entered into its first Community Workforce Agreement for infrastructure projects…”

So, let’s review how this special interest deal is working out for taxpayers. It takes years to build many of these public works projects, so in an effort to review the success or failure of this construction policy, the Buena Park City Council scheduled in November 2023 an “Update on the City’s Implementation of the Community Workforce Agreement.”

Beforehand, City staff had held a meeting with a couple of local union bosses to review some of the “challenges” the City has faced with administering the CWA agreement. The review stated that, “The City has faced challenges in receiving an adequate number of bids on some of the projects listed above, mainly attributed to contractor’s unwillingness to abide by the CWA. This has been experienced mainly on the projects that require specialty work such as pool improvements or park improvements. The City has also faced challenges in soliciting professional services for geotechnical engineering services and surveying services for the construction monitoring and staking of projects that are required to abide by the CWA.”

Industry Associations like the Western Electrical Contractors Association and the Coalition for Fair Employment in Construction warned Buena Park what a Project Labor Agreement would mean for taxpayers. Now the City has had to find out this reality the hard way. There was no rationale for a PLA. There was no data in support of it. This appeared to be just simply a political payoff to donors. Well, the results are now in.

In the 2023 review of the PLA/CWA, Connor Traut’s own city staff has made it quite clear why Buena Park projects are coming in so far above the estimates. It’s the PLA. Because he decided to hand Big Labor bosses a monopoly agreement for five years instead of figuring out if it even worked for the city and giving the City an out clause, taxpayers are now stuck with this policy until 2027.

And the challenges continued to go unresolved. In April 2024, theBuena Park City Council had to vote to reject all the bids for a PLA/CWA project. This project was for the Smith Murphy Park and Carl Brenner Park Accessibility Improvement Project for recently renamed Friendship Park and Carl Brenner Park, and re-advertise the project for bids. On March 28, 2024, six bids were received and publicly opened by City staff. The total bid amounts ranged from $1,012,847 to $1,779,240. This project was budgeted at $800,000, so the bids were 30% to over 120% over the estimate or $212,847-$979,240 over budget. The lowest, qualified bidder significantly exceeds the project’s allocated budget, and as a result, staff recommended the rejection of all bids

Then in July 2024, there was another whopper PLA failure in City of Buena Park. The City received 1 bid, 59% over the estimate, and the one bidder was not qualified.  The total bid amount for the bidder was $1,099,628. The Engineer’s estimate for this project is $690,000, so the one bid came in over $400,000 over budget.

It is clear the City has faced challenges in receiving an adequate number of bids mainly attributed to contractor’s unwillingness to abide by the CWA. Higher bids, fewer bids, difficulties getting bidders results in project with 1 bid 59% over the estimate. Also, a City Council vote to reject all bids for a project because bids were 30% to over 120% over the estimate.

Connor Trout wasted tax dollars with this special interest deal on city construction when he and his City Council members decided to move forward with a wasteful and discriminatory Project Labor Agreement (PLA) on all city work. It always reduces bidders and increases costs for taxpayers. By implementing a PLA, Traut codified discrimination into the city charter by making it all but impossible for Merit Shop construction workers, apprentices and contractors-who comprise 90% of the local construction workforce-from being able to work on projects.

Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a Comment »

BREAKING NEWS: Andrew Do Pleads Guilty and Resigns as Supervisor

Posted by Chris Nguyen on October 22, 2024

Supervisor Andrew Do has agreed to plead guilty to conspiracy to commit bribery and has also agreed to resign from the Board of Supervisors, effective today, as announced at a press conference by US Attorney Martin Estrada, OC District Attorney Todd Spitzer, FBI Special Agent in Charge Ted Docks, and IRS Acting Special Agent in Charge Linda Nguyen.

Do faces a maximum sentence of 5 years.

$2.4 million of misappropriated taxpayer money has been recovered from various bank accounts.

As part of the plea deal, Do forfeits two properties purchased with the proceeds of the funds: 1 in Santa Ana and 1 in Tustin. He also agreed to forfeit any pension credits he gained since June 2020 when Do began the conspiracy.

His daughter, Rhiannon Do, has been offered a diversion agreement in exchange for cooperating in the case and forfeiting all illicit gains.

Of $9.3 million of taxpayer funds spent via COVID-19 contracts directed by Do, prosecutors stated 15% went to people who needed it while 85% went to conspiracy and to pay bribes. Investigators have traced approximately $700,000 in bribe payments to the Do family.

In addition to purchasing houses, the money was also spent via indirect payments to Do’s daughters, an American Express card, Do’s property taxes on multiple properties, and cash withdrawals from ATMs.

Reporters asked if others would be prosecuted, and Estrada and Spitzer stated the investigation is ongoing.

Click here to read the U.S. Department of Justice press release issued after the press conference.

Posted in 1st Supervisorial District, Orange County Board of Supervisors | Tagged: , , , , , | 3 Comments »

Promoting Educational Opportunities for Public Virtual School Students

Posted by Newsletter Reprint on October 27, 2023

An op-ed by Tab Berg, President of California Parents for Public Virtual Education, which represents over 4,500 online school families in Orange County.

Promoting Educational Opportunities for Public Virtual School Students

In an increasingly interconnected world, access to internet and healthy, nutritious foods has become vital for students’ academic success. As the landscape of education evolves, it is essential to ensure that all students, regardless of their socioeconomic background, have equal access to educational resources. The implementation of the Affordable Connectivity Program and the expansion of the National Free Lunch Program are crucial steps in narrowing the digital divide and promoting educational opportunities for public virtual school students.

The digital divide has long been a barrier to educational opportunities, leaving disadvantaged students at a significant disadvantage. The Affordable Connectivity Program aims to address this issue by providing low-income families with affordable internet access. By making internet connectivity more accessible, this program empowers students to engage in online learning, access educational resources, and expand their horizons beyond the confines of their physical environment.

Access to the internet is no longer a luxury; it is a necessity for academic success. Virtual schools provide a flexible and inclusive learning environment, allowing students to tailor their education to their needs. However, without adequate connectivity, many students are left behind, perpetuating educational disparities. The Affordable Connectivity Program is a vital investment in the future of our students, enabling them to compete in the digital age on an equal footing.

Education should not be determined by a student’s ability to pay. The expansion of the National Free Lunch Program ensures that students from low-income families have access to nutritious meals, regardless of whether they attend traditional or virtual schools. Proper nutrition is fundamental to a student’s overall well-being and academic performance. By providing free lunches, we remove a financial burden from families and guarantee that no child goes hungry.

Moreover, the National Free Lunch Program promotes inclusivity and levels the playing field for virtual school students. It recognizes that virtual education is not just a choice for some families but a necessity due to health concerns, geographic constraints, or other circumstances. Denying these students access to free lunches would further exacerbate inequality and hinder their educational opportunities.

Equal access to resources and opportunities fosters academic success. By providing public virtual school students with affordable internet connectivity and free lunches, we create an environment conducive to learning and growth. Students can engage in online discussions, collaborate with their peers, and explore a vast array of educational materials.

The Affordable Connectivity Program and the National Free Lunch Program empower students to focus on their studies rather than worrying about basic needs. When students’ physiological and safety needs are met, they can fully immerse themselves in their education, improving their academic performance and overall well-being.

Equal access to education is a fundamental right that should not be compromised by socioeconomic disparities. The Affordable Connectivity Program and the expansion of the National Free Lunch Program are critical initiatives that bridge the digital divide and promote educational equity for public virtual school students. That’s why California Parents for Public Virtual Education is calling on the California GOP delegation to do the right thing.

By providing affordable internet connectivity, Congress will ensure that all students, regardless of their economic circumstances, can participate in online learning and access educational resources. Additionally, the provision of free lunches removes a significant barrier to academic success for low-income students.

Investing in equal access to education is an investment in the future of our society. It empowers students to reach their full potential, regardless of their background, and creates a more equitable and inclusive society. Let us embrace these initiatives and work together, ensuring that no student is left behind in the pursuit of knowledge and opportunity.

Posted in California, National, Orange County | Tagged: , | Leave a Comment »

Guest Editorial: It’s Time to Bring Down Medical Costs for All Californians, Including Military Families

Posted by Scott Carpenter on August 30, 2023

By Brad White, Founder, Our Nation’s Heroes Foundation

It’s no surprise that rising health care costs are top of mind for many Californians. In the last decade, health care spending in California grew faster than our state’s economic growth.I have experienced this first hand after 2 trips to the Emergency Room then being hospitalized twice in the last year and a half. The first time in 2022 for 4 days for Congestive Heart Failure, High Blood Pressure and Diabetes; the second time I was hospitalized recently in June-July 2023 for 11 Days for 3rd Stage Kidney failure and put on Dialysis.

These increasing health care costs have an outsized impact also on one important group here in California: many of our military families. As the founder of Our Nation’s Heroes Foundation, a nonprofit that educates communities about how to support members of the U.S. military, I see how service members and their families can struggle to keep up with health care expenses. Many of these families rely on a fixed income, especially during deployment. And in a time of persistent inflation and economic uncertainty, increasing medical costs can be out of reach for these heroes and their families.

Hospital consolidation is to blame for a large portion of rising health care costs. After large hospital systems acquire independent, private physician practices, they then turn around and charge more for the delivery of medical services. Patients end up paying higher fees for the same care they previously received at a lower cost.Higher fees can lead to hundreds – or even thousands – of dollars in additional costs. And patients often don’t know they will be overcharged for their health care until they receive their insurance bill. These unfair and unexpected out-of-pocket costs can be detrimental for families on a fixed income who do not have thousands of dollars to spare.


This situation is untenable and unacceptable. That’s why our congressional delegation must support recently proposed legislation in Washington, D.C., that would work to fix unfair billing practices and improve access to health care for all Americans, especially our service members.

The Facilitating Accountability in Reimbursements Act (FAIR), introduced a few months ago in the House, would require increased price transparency in medical billing. Similar legislation – the Site-based Invoicing and Transparency Enhancement Act (SITE) – has been introduced in the Senate.These bills would prevent hospitals from charging inflated fees for services provided at their outpatient departments, including newly acquired independent, private physician practices. More transparent pricing, in turn, reduces unexpected out-of-pocket expenses and helps families save money. This crucial reform would allow patients to feel confident about receiving the care they need at a price they can afford.


The FAIR and SITE Acts would also have a significant national impact by relieving the financial burden currently carried by federal taxpayers. It’s estimated that Americans overpay close to $40 billion in costs due to these unfair billing practices. Adopting site-neutral legislation could reduce Medicare spending by $153 billion and Medicare beneficiaries could see a reduction in premiums and cost-sharing by $94 billion. And total national health expenditures could be reduced by as much as $672 billion. That money could be a lifeline for many.


Reducing medical costs would benefit our service members who serve our country and their families. It is imperative that the California congressional delegation – support the FAIR Act and encourage their Senate colleagues to support the SITE Act. Passing these bills would offer much-needed reform to a system that isn’t working. It’s time to fix it.

Posted in Uncategorized | 1 Comment »

Does Irvine Mayor Farrah Khan’s Secretly-Negotiated Construction Deal Have To Come Back For A Final Vote? Kamala Harris Says “Yes” It Does.

Posted by Dave Everett on June 24, 2023

As I wrote about last week, at the June 14, 2023 Irvine City Council meeting, Irvine Mayor Farrah Khan sprung a secretly negotiated construction deal on the city’s residents that will block 80% of the city’s construction workers from working on city construction projects in Irvine. The normal public process for these sole source, no-bid, multi-year contracts for all construction labor is where there is one vote to start PLA negotiations and a subsequent vote to approve the final PLA language that is “negotiated.”

One of the questions I asked at the meeting was “Does this secretly-negotiated construction deal have to come back to the Irvine City Council at a future meeting for a final vote?” Staff and the four Democrat members of the City Council appeared to believe that the PLA does NOT have to come back for a final vote. Unfortunately for Mayor Khan, former Attorney General Kamala Harris says “Yes” it does need to have a final vote because otherwise it would have been “negotiated” in secret/in closed session.

Begin forwarded message:
Date: September 21, 2015 at 4:45:08 PM PDT
To: OPINIONLIST@AGPROD2.DOJ.CA.GOV
State of California Department of Justice, Office of the Attorney General Kamala D. Harris
September 21, 2015
Published Attorney General Opinion No. 14-302
The following opinion is now available on the Attorney General’s site:
The labor negotiations exception to the open-meeting requirements of the Ralph M. Brown
Act does not permit a community college district’s governing board to meet
in closed session with its designated representative to discuss the negotiation of a project
labor agreement because the contractors and laborers covered by such an agreement are not
district employees.
Download the published opinion (PDF) by clicking the Opinions Search, which contains
published opinions from 1986 to the most current.

Coincidently, this opinion was requested by Irvine’s current Orange County Supervisor Don Wagner. Below is a 2015 article in the Orange County Register by then-Assemblyman Don Wagner about negotiating PLA’s in “Closed Session.” The article reiterates the opinion of California Attorney General Kamala Harris when she ruled that you can NOT negotiate a PLA in closed session. It is interesting that she would confirm an anti-union position in the middle of her run for the U.S. Senate to replace Barbara Boxer. 

Another non-union construction association, the Associated Builders and Contractors, asked Assemblyman Wagner to make the written request to the California Attorney General to get a ruling on the issue, because our local community college had tried to negotiate a PLA on their $198 million dollar construction bond. The ruling forced the college to vote publicly on the final deal.

Hopefully, the City of Irvine will also make an effort to act transparent and take a final vote on this special interest deal. The public deserves to know how this deal for sole source, no-bid, multi-year contracts for all construction labor became policy in the city and how Mayor Khan’s political donors (Big Labor union bosses) were involved.

Transparency Extends To Construction Deals / Oct. 1, 2015
http://www.ocregister.com/articles/public-685473-act-brown.html
BY PHILLIP YARBROUGH and DON WAGNER / Contributing writers
“…The fight for transparency continues today, and a recent ruling by California Attorney General Kamala Harris reaffirms the protections of the Brown Act. After learning of some improper closed-door negotiations, we asked the Attorney General’s Office to clarify whether government construction contracts that exclude nonunion firms are subject to the Brown Act. 
Government construction contracts that require union-controlled hiring practices are commonly referred to as project labor agreements. By restricting government construction contracts to PLAs, contractors must sign an agreement subjecting their employees to union oversight. In order to receive a contract, a company must submit its employees to union controls and force employees to pay union dues, whether or not they are union members. 
Monopoly hiring power is given to unions under the provisions of PLAs.
Many local government officials, unfortunately, have wielded their authority to grant the lopsided privileges of PLAs to union-only firms. It is these same union-only firms, and their affiliates, who have then made substantial political contributions to these same officials. This was all done under the cloak of closed-session negotiations, where public opinion and scrutiny was unwelcomed…” 
-Phillip Yarbrough is a Rancho Santiago Community College District trustee; Don Wagner is a state Assemblyman representing parts of Orange County.

Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a Comment »

Is This Another Backroom Deal By Democrat Farrah Khan’s Political Consultant?

Posted by Dave Everett on June 15, 2023

Last night at the Irvine City Council meeting, Irvine Mayor Farrah Khan sprung a secretly negotiated construction deal on the city’s residents that will block 80% of the city’s construction workers from working on city construction projects in Irvine. 

How Much Could This Cost Irvine Taxpayers?

If Irvine completes $200 million dollars of construction, Mayor Khan’s special interest deal (PLA) will cost Irvine taxpayers roughly $30 million dollars in higher costs.  Unfortunately, the Irvine City Council ignored all the questions asked at the meeting and sent in via email before the meeting about cost increases and reduced bidders. In the last year, Southern California has seen cost increases and reduced bidders at Midway City Sanitary District, the City of Long Beach, and the City of Palm Springs. The threat of increased costs is very real in today’s construction market.

Why Was This Negotiated In Secret?    

Another concern the public should have about this special interest deal is how it came to the Irvine City Council. It is one of the topics I asked the City Council about during my comments representing the Western Electrical Contractors Association. Besides pointing out the inherent discrimination in PLAs and the increase in price Irvine taxpayers can expect, I also highlighted the fact that this all seemed to be done in secret – rather than the normal public process where there is one vote to start negotiations and a subsequent vote for the final language that is “negotiated.” However, no one was interested in our comments and seemed to have unfortunately made up their mind in secret. I’m planning on writing another blog next week going into the legality of this issue more in-depth. Former Attorney General Kamala Harris agreed that PLAs cannot be negotiated in secret or closed session.

Did Farrah Khan’s Political Consultant Play A Role In This “Negotiation”?

It has been well documented that Irvine Mayor Farrah Khan’s political consultant, Melahat Rafiei, has recently been involved with several secret backroom deals. The first was her involvement in the Anaheim Mayor Harry Sidhu indictment, which coincidentally reopened the construction around Anaheim Stadium.  The LA Times reported that the California Democratic party leader was “linked to a sprawling corruption investigation of the proposed sale of Angel Stadium land…Rafiei, who has been accused of trying to bribe public officials in a mushrooming federal corruption probe…acknowledged in the letter that she was a confidential witness in the FBI probe of the proposed $320-million sale of Angel Stadium land. Federal investigators said in a court filing that they believe fraud, bribery, obstruction of justice, witness tampering, and other corruption in the negotiations between Anaheim and the Angels over the proposed sale.”

FBI investigators said in an affidavit that while Rafiei cooperated with their inquiry for a time, the witness was complicit in corruption, and no further cooperation is expected. “I also believe CW1 (Irvine Mayor Farrah Khan’s political consultant, Melahat Rafiei) has omitted material facts to investigators throughout CW1’s (Rafiei’s) cooperation with the FBI, including additional instances where CW1 (Rafiei) has offered to pay bribes to elected public officials,” Special Agent Brian Adkins wrote in an affidavit. The document was attached to a criminal filing charging the former head of the Anaheim Chamber of Commerce with lying to a mortgage lender as part of the scandal.

The second backroom deal by Irvine Mayor Farrah Khan’s political consultant, Melahat Rafiei, involved pot dispensaries in Irvine. As reported by the The Voice of OC, Melahat Rafiei’s “recent political scandal is enveloping city hall, in which she (prominent Democrat consultant and lobbyist Melahat Rafiei) plead guilty to a scheme to bribe two councilmembers in 2018. Irvine Councilwoman Tammy Kim, who also paid Rafiei as a consultant, claims Rafiei regularly tried to insert herself into city hall on Kim’s behalf. “Her talking points were being written by Melahat and she was in the room for all her meetings,” Kim said. “I believe she was on a lot of things, or that Melahat had access to city staff on the mayor’s behalf.”

The third backroom deal by Rafiei involved  Irvine Councilwoman Kathleen Treseder. Treseder began publicly raising complaints about Rafiei’s work while on the campaign trail, claiming in a letter sent to Voice of OC that Rafiei admitted to arranging a deal to put Farrah Khan on the state Coastal Commission.

And now we have this current PLA popping up with a backroom memo from Mayor Farrah Khan. It seems only fair for the public and taxpayers to ask what role, if any, prominent Democrat consultant and lobbyist Melahat Rafiei played in this Project Labor Agreement (PLA) negotiation. 

Considering that Rafiei’s clients include Anaheim Councilman Jordan Brandman, six current Long Beach City Council members, and the mayor, and multiple failed campaigns for county supervisor, backing candidates like Garden Grove Councilwoman Kim Nguyen in her 2020 bid and Joe Kerr’s 2022 run, according to county campaign finance disclosures (Rafiei also advised now disgraced Los Angeles City Councilman Kevin De Leon,) – it again only seems fair for the public and taxpayers to ask what role, if any, Melahat Rafiei played in this Irvine PLA negotiation. Anaheim has a PLA. Long Beach has a PLA. Garden Grove has a PLA. Los Angeles has a PLA. Which city is next on Rafiei’s to-do list?

We often see these special interest deals passed to try and gain favor with Big Labor unions when Democrat politicians aspire to higher office. Jose Solorio passed a PLA at Rancho Santiago Community College while trying to run for State Senate. Coast Community College District Trustee Jim Moreno tried to pass one while running for Supervisor. Garden Grove passed one right before Kim Nguyen and Jim Kerr started running for Supervisor. But thus far, Farrah Khan has yet to declare for Senate, Assembly, Supervisor, or Congress.

According to the OC Independent, “Irvine Vice Mayor Tammy Kim, 52, has announced her intention to run for mayor of Irvine in 2024. .. term limits prevent Current Mayor Farrah Khan from seeking re-election in 2024. 

Veteran Councilman Larry Agran, also a Democrat, has declared his intention to run in 2024 for mayor. The 78-year-old Agran has served three previous stints as Irvine mayor: from 1982 to 1984, 1986 to 1990, and 2000 to 2004.”

So, in conclusion, it was an interesting City of Irvine PLA fight. Only Republican Councilmember Mike Carroll voted “no” on the PLA. All the other 4 Democrat Councilmembers voted “yes.” As I mentioned above, I am hoping to do a deeper dive into how illegal and inappropriate the process was to “negotiate” this special interest deal. Still, for the time being, Irvine taxpayers will waste $30 million dollars for a construction policy that excludes 80% of Irvine’s construction workers and apprentices.

Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a Comment »

Anaheim Elementary School District Limits Participation By Minority Contractors

Posted by Dave Everett on May 10, 2023

At the last regularly scheduled school board meeting, the Anaheim Elementary School District (AESD) voted to expand a special interest deal they had passed in 2018 on construction for the school district. The 2018 special interest deal is most commonly referred to as a Project Labor Agreement, but it was renamed by the AESD Board as a “Community Benefit Agreement” in an attempt to put a new face on an old idea that comes with a lot of controversy.

When one of the public comments at the Wednesday April 5, 2023 school board meeting mentioned that these special interest deals on construction are very controversial and discriminatory, AESD Trustee Ryan Ruelas responded that “…the public comment made by this gentleman from wherever, yeah, …I really don’t care what he has to say…”

Trustee Ryan Ruelas’ attitude is not surprising considering that according to the Anaheim Observer website, Ruelas has boasted in the past that, “I’m a union guy through and through.”

Unfortunately for Anaheim parents, not only do these special interest deals on construction waste taxpayer dollars and leave students with 4 buildings for the price of 5, but they also discriminate against minority contractors. 

Minority contractors say PLAs perpetuate the discrimination that has long pervaded construction unions. In an affidavit submitted to the court, Harry C. Alford, President of the National Black Chamber of Commerce, stated that 98% of black and Latino-owned construction companies are non-union and PLAs restrict the use of minority contractors on public projects. (https://www.forbes.com/sites/danielfisher/2013/11/15/lawsuit-asks-should-taxpayers-pay-more-for-labor-peace/)

In a district that is majority Latino it is hard to imagine why the school district would want to discriminate against Latino and black non-union construction companies. But feedback from the community does not seem to be a very high priority for the Anaheim Elementary School District. They only had two public comments the whole evening on their public agenda and those were both submitted electronically earlier in the day. The first comment was from Eric Christen from the Coalition for Fair Employment in Construction (CFEC.) 

Even before reading the comment submitted by CFEC, the staff member reading the public comments was confused by the name switch from “Project Labor Agreement” to  a so-called “Community Benefit Agreement” and starts with her own editorial about how the comment from CFEC is not about any item on the agenda that she can tell. Finally ending her editorial comments, the school district staffer read the comments from the Coalition For Fair Employment In Construction which detailed how this special interest deal will ban over 80% of construction workers from working on the job. When you ban 80% of the construction market, or 80% of any industry, the remaining 20% becomes in higher demand and prices go up. 

In addition, as CFEC pointed out, you receive fewer bids on each construction project. The comments went on to point out two California cities that had enacted Project Labor Agreements and how they received so few bids that they had to re-bid the project. In response, that is when AESD Trustee Ryan Ruelas said that, “I don’t have you know a question or anything like that, but I do have a comment… I think the comment that was made in regards to, the public comment made by this gentleman from wherever, yeah, …I really don’t care what he has to say…”(Skip 3 hours and 34 minutes into the video to hear AESD Trustee Ryan Ruelas “I really don’t care what he has to say” comment: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iXIGn0GBqeQ&t=6209s)

Ruelas’ apathetic dismissal of CFEC’s legitimate concerns struck Trustees Jose Paolo Magcalas and Mark Lopez as so funny that they had to share a glance and a smile.  

Then with no debate and no discussion, all five board members rushed to approve the discriminatory special interest deal on school construction. This is actually the first time Mark Lopez has voted for this type of waste and discrimination on a school district construction because he was not a board member in April 2018 when the original PLA vote occurred – nor was Trustee Juan Álvarez. Mark Lopez’s vote was especially curious since he used to work for one of the Republican Orange County Supervisors. AESD Trustee Jackie Filbeck voted for this discriminatory special interest deal both times.

So unfortunately, the motion was approved for an amendment to the Community Benefits Agreement (CBA) between the District and the Los Angeles and Orange Counties Building and Construction Trades Council and the Signatory Craft Councils and Union for the addition of the project at Patrick Henry Elementary School which will be subject to the CBA.(Agenda can bee seen here: https://drive.google.com/file/d/1X-U3VTu34JsOTa7RJwvtNmlzbVdNJ8xY/view)

Let’s hope that Anaheim Elementary School District doesn’t have a budget downturn like California did from 2022 to 2023. When budget surpluses vanish, that is when elected officials look back at wasteful discriminatory special interest deals like this one and start to care – instead of saying, “I really don’t care what he has to say.” The public will have another opportunity to speak out against this special interest deal tonight at the regularly scheduled school board meeting for the Open Session Meeting in the Board of Education Board Room, 1001 S. East Street, Building B, Anaheim, California. (https://drive.google.com/file/d/1ZSdTkJibn_WgyOE6Op6QvKwPjvwjy9r0/view). If we do not put an end to these special interest deals on school construction, the real losers will be our students, taxpayers and minority contractors.

Anaheim Elementary School District Limits Participation By Minority Contractors

May 10, 2023

By Dave Everett

Western Electrical Contractors Association

Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a Comment »

A Word (or Two) about Judges on the Ballot

Posted by Craig P Alexander on October 14, 2022

Dear Friends,  

Almost every election I am asked about the judges on the ballot. Often I do not have a recommendation one way or the other. On this ballot you are going to find a long list of justices of the courts you are being asked to either approve with a yes vote or disapprove with a no vote. Let me give you some background about the elections for the California judicial system that might also help understand the old axiom “Elections have consequences.”  

California’s State Judicial System  

In California’s state judicial system (not Federal Court where the judges have lifetime appointments) there are basically three levels of judges. The first level is the Superior Court sometimes known as a “trial judge”. This is the judge you might meet if you have to file a lawsuit or “go to court” for any reason. You would be in a courtroom with only one judge who makes all of the decisions (or oversees the jury who makes many decisions at a trial). The other two categories of judges are actually “justices” who sit on the California Supreme Court or an intermediate Court of Appeals.  

Superior Court Judicial Elections

Superior Court judges are either elected to a six year term or appointed by the Governor and then stand for election at the next primary election (normally in June). An attorney who wishes to challenge a judge or run for an open seat (due to a judge passing away or who has retired) will become a candidate for that position. Sometimes there are several candidates for that one seat. If there are more than two candidates running and no one candidate gets 50% plus one vote, the top two vote getters have a run off election in November’s general election. This year in June in Orange County there were several Superior Court elections and only one of them resulted in a run off election. In that election attorney Peggy Huang is one of the top two vote getters and I highly recommend you vote for Peggy (https://www.peggyhuang.com/).   

California Supreme Court and Court of Appeal Retention “Elections”

When there is an opening on a Court of Appeal or the California Supreme Court, the sitting Governor appoints a person (often a Superior Court judge or a law school professor) and he or she is confirmed by the California Commission on Judicial Appointments. The justice then will stand for a “retention” election at the next general election (November of that year) and all justices stand for a “retention” election every twelve years. At this election the voters are asked if they wish to retain a justice (by voting yes) or to not retain a justice (by voting no). There is no opposition candidate running for that appeals court seat. Most often these justices are “retained” by yes votes of greater than 90% or even 95% of the votes cast. Most often if you ask a voter why they voted yes, they would have no idea why or what the justices’ rulings have been. It is rare that a justice of the Supreme Court or Court of Appeals is ousted in this fashion. They normally retire or die in office. But it has happened before.

In 1986 Governor George Deukmejian and many, many business interests and conservative elected officials grew tired of what is often called the Rose Bird Court (named for then Chief Justice Rose Bird). This court was famous for issuing what many people believe were poorly reasoned and even emotional decisions that hurt individual liberties and business interests. The governor and the others organized (and raised funds for) a campaign to convince voters to vote “no” to oust several of the most liberal justices on the Supreme Court. They were successful and all of the three justices involved were ousted at the November 1986 general election.  What happened after that? Governor Deukmejian then appointed new justices including then new Chief Justice Malcom Lewis who served until 1996 when he retired.    

Today’s Situation 

Fast forward to today, there is no campaign to oust any sitting Supreme Court or Court of Appeal justice. Therefore it is highly unlikely that by just word of mouth enough No votes would occur to oust any sitting justice today. But even if that did happen, who would appoint a new set of justices to the Supreme Court and Courts of Appeal? Governor Gavin Newsom! The last thing I would want to do is allow Gavin Newsom to have the opportunity to reshape the California Courts so dramatically and so much more to the left.   

So what is the answer to make changes in the California judicial system – better Governors and legislators being elected! Thus to the point that elections have consequences! Do you like the current United States Supreme Court after President Trump and the then Republican U.S. Senate appointed and confirmed three much more conservative justices? Well that was the result of many, many years of conservatives electing U.S. Senators and a President that in turn appointed conservative justices.    Can that happen in California? Yes but it is going to take many years to reverse the course of our state’s electoral politics. Basically re-educating the average voter why voting “liberal” is not going to get you a good result including a better state judicial system (unless you are a committed progressive liberal, then you are quite happy with the current state of affairs in California and welcome conservatives to move to Texas and Florida).   

There is no “quick fix” to the problem of years of voters voting into office progressive and aggressive politicians like Gavin Newsom. And I firmly believe it is the voters, not the elected politicians, who are most at fault for the outcomes of electing these types of people – high taxes, regulations, high government fees, employers fleeing the state, etc., etc. The power is in the voters hands to make this change and it is our responsibility as conservatives to educate them on why that is a better choice.       

Blessings!

Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a Comment »

Craig Alexander’s “Craig’s PICs” Voter Recommendations for the Nov. 8, 2022 General Election

Posted by Craig P Alexander on October 10, 2022

Each election I post my “Craig’s PICs” voter recommendations. For those interested, here they are:

craigs-pics-november-8-2022-general-electionDownload

Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a Comment »

Live from OC GOP Central Committee: Endorsements for November 2022 Election Round 3

Posted by Chris Nguyen on August 15, 2022

The following candidates who received the recommendation of the Endorsements Committee are up for consideration tonight by the Republican Party of Orange County Central Committee:

  • Carrie Hayashida for Cypress City Council
  • Hon. Bonnie Peat for Cypress City Council
  • John Gabbard for Dana Point City Council, District 1
  • Patrick Harper for Fountain Valley School District.
  • Laurie Merrick for Garden Grove City Council, District 3
  • Dr. Susan Prichard for La Habra City Council
  • Ben Yu for Lake Forest City Council, District 2
  • Hon. Scott Voigts for Lake Forest City Council, District 3
  • Aaron Washington for San Clemente City Council
  • Meghan Willis for Huntington Beach City School District Area 2
  • Autumn McCall DiGiovanni for Huntington Beach City School District, Area 4
  • Julie Norton for Huntington Beach City School District, Area 5
  • Kristen Seaburn for Newport-Mesa Unified School District Trustee, Area 7
  • Angela Williams for Orange Unified School District, Area 1
  • Madison Miner for Orange Unified School District, Area 4
  • Hon. Tim Surridge for Orange Unified School District, Area 5
  • Hon. Rick Ledesma for Orange Unified School District, Area 7
  • Richard Ingle for Placentia-Yorba Linda School District, Area 5
  • Kelly Felton for Tustin Unified School District, Area e
  • Hon. Phil Hawkins for Yorba Linda Water District
  • Hon. Brett Barbre for Yorba Linda Water District
  • Hon. Tom Lindsey for Yorba Linda Water District

These candidates are also eligible for consideration by the Central Committee but received a neutral recommendation from the Endorsements Committee:

  • Simon Moon for Irvine Mayor
  • Namquan Nguyen for Westminster City Council, District 4
  • Steve Slawson for Placentia Yorba Linda School District, Area 4
  • Hon. Brooke Jones for Yorba Linda Water District

This ballot measure position is also recommended by the Endorsements Committee for consideration by the Central Committee:

  • No on Capistrano Unified School District Bond Measure

Previously endorsed candidates are listed here.

The invocation is led by Austin Edsell, the Pledge of Allegiance by Mission Viejo Mayor Wendy Bucknun, and the roll call by OCGOP Chairman Fred Whitaker. Yorba Linda Councilman Gene Hernandez swears in several alternates. The minutes are approved.

Chairman Whitaker speaks about the events and meetings of the past month. He urges Central Committee members to recruit friends to walk precincts and phone bank. He announced a special meeting for endorsements on August 29; it will be on Zoom so as not to spend extra money on hotel meeting room rental.

Whitaker explains the situation in Placentia-Yorba Linda Unified School District, Trustee Area 4. OC GOP told Steve Slawson’s team on July 18 they could wait until August, but OC GOP didn’t realize that Todd Frazier on the July 18 Endorsements Commitee agenda was for the same seat.

Whitaker also explains that the Endorsements Committee recommended Brett Barbre, incumbent Tom Lindsey, and incumbent Phil Hawkins for Yorba Linda Water District under the mistaken impression that incumbent Brooke Jones was retiring. Jones contacted OCGOP after Endorsements Committee met but before Central Committee, so all the candidates for YLWD were until the August Central Committee to allow all four to be reviewed together.

Whitaker introduces the first guest speaker, Chris Gonzales, candidate for the 46th Congressional District.

Gonzales speaks about his personal background, including his service in the United States Army and his legal career. He had considered running for the 47th Congressional District but supported Scott Baugh. He considered running for Mayor of Irvine, but he realized his passion was for federal issues. He decided to run in the 46th Congressional District, where his office is, because he feels the people of that District are the most in need, with crime, homelessness, and poverty. He speaks of his public service career of 30 years. He also speaks of volunteering for Bruce Herschensohn for US Senate in 1992 and compares his own race to Herschensohn’s. He also noted his unsuccessful run for Mayor of Irvine in 2010.

Whitaker introduces the second guest speaker, Eddy Marmolejo, California Chairman of the Republican National Hispanic Assembly.

Marmolejo speaks of his group’s mission and how it supplies volunteers for precinct walking and phone banking. He speaks of the importance of conservative values for Hispanics. He speaks of affordability and financial security for Hispanics. He notes the their group is working with the Republican Party at every level: RNC, CAGOP, and OCGOP. He speaks of the importance of communication and doing so in Spanish (literature where one side is in English and the other side is in Spanish). He comments about discussing key issues over carne asada, and cites the economy, education, and health care as the top three issues.

Chairman Whitaker and Mayor Rhonda Shader recognize the Volunteer of the Month, Kerry Zhang.

Zhang is a high school intern for the Scott Baugh for Congress campaign, where he is a top volunteer, even spending his 16th birthday volunteering with the campaign. Zhang spoke of the camaraderie of the campaign and the importance of volunteerism.

At 7:47 PM, Whitaker announces the beginning of the candidate forum in Placentia-Yorba Linda Unified School District, Trustee Area 4. He noted there would be a three minute opening statement for each candidate.

At 7:49 PM, Todd Frazier noted PYLUSD removing CRT from schools. He said COVID-19 revealed a lot about what was going on in school. His daughter quit sports because she felt it was too dangerous to wear a mask while engaging in athletics. He blasts DEI. He says they are taking the school district back from leftists. He opposes frivolous spending on teaching kids to play via DEI. He is a CPA.

At 7:52 PM, Steve Slawson has been running for a year and a half. He says this is like a small town campaign. He put his team together in March. He has a $30,000 budget and has increased it to $50,000. He has walked 1,200 houses already. He notes the incumbent, Karin Freeman, has to go. His children have been in the district for a combined 25 years. He even has the support of Freeman’s son. He volunteered in the school for 9 years. He saw a lot of things he didn’t like with Zoom school. He was on three PYLUSD committees. He was the sole Republican on those committees and fought for conservative values. He has also secured 13 slate mailers.

At 7:55, Whitaker asks for questions.

Jennifer Beall asks their top two priorities if elected.

At 7:56, Slawson says he would fire the lawyers and replace them. He would find a superintendent with CEO experience and who would follow the direction of the Board.

At 7:57, Frazier says he wants to block medical clinics on campus. He wants to retool PYLUSD administration.

At 7:58, Cynthia Thacker asks for the party registration of the Trustee Area 4.

Frazier says it’s 48% Republican and 27% Democrat and laments voter turnout.

Slawson notes the number of voters who turn out.

At 7:59 PM, Gene Hernandez asks if the candidates will step aside if the other candidate gets the endorsement.

Slawson says it is too late for that. And it should have been in March.

Frazier says he would have done so before candidate filing closed on August 12 because it is no longer possible to do so.

Brett Barbre asks about top endorsements.

Frazier notes OCGOP, CRA, OCBE, PYLUSD Trustees Shawn Youngblood and Leandra Blades, and Yorba Linda Councilman Gene Hernandez.

Slawson notes Don Wagner, Scott Voigts, Steve Vargas, and Dylan Callaway.

At 8:02, Kristin Manna asked about campaign finance.

Slawson has $23,000 cash on hand and is adding another $20,000.

Frazier has a $20,000 budget and has received donated printing for signs, banners, and T-shirts.

At 8:03, Ray Gennawey asks about cash on hand.

Frazier says $2,000.

At 8:04 PM, Chairman Whitaker says the candidate forum for PYLUSD has concluded, and a vote will take place later. He introduces the Yorba Linda Water District candidate forum.

Brett Barbre has lived in Yorba Linda since 1969, been active in the party since 1985, and was elected to the water district in 1998. He speaks of establishing the district website, the importance of groundwater, the challenges of the 2008 fire, and fire hardening of various water infrastructure. He speaks of labor issues coming up. He notes Phil Hawkins and Tom Lindsey are his running mates.

Phil Hawkins has been on the YLWD Board since 2010. His first job was for Assemblyman Wayne Grisham in 1988. His father was elected to the Assembly in 1994. Hawkins was on the LA Central Committee from 1996-2000, when he moved to Orange County. He’s lived in Yorba Linda since 2001. After the 2008 fire, he joined a YLWD citizens advisory committee. He was appointed to a vacancy on the YLWD Board in February 2010. He won elections in 2010, 2014, and 2018. Because he came in with the fire, fire hardening is one of his priorities. He is endorsed by his co-worker Tim Shaw and Congresswoman Young Kim.

Brooke Jones says he is a lifelong Republican and is in good standing. He ran in 2016 and 2018, and was the top vote-getter both times. He says Barbre gave the false information that Jones was not running and notes he finished candidate filing before Barbre. He noted prior boards raised fees by 148%. He noted he was the only Board Member to oppose a fee increase proposed by Barbre. He represents YLWD on the OC Sanitation District and the Independent Special Districts of Orange County.

Tom Lindsey was appointed to YLWD in 2021. He was a two-time Mayor of Yorba Linda. He has helped elect other Republicans to office. He calls for taxpayer protecting and state government shielding governance at YLWD. He’s voted to challenge State mandates. He’s been endorsed by OCGOP in every campaign he’s run in, including a recall election that took place just weeks before the general election. He states he feels a greater urgency to defend conservative values. He notes his 12-year-old granddaughter was asked by her pediatrician due to state law about whether she would date a boy or a girl, and she didn’t even understand.

At 8:18, Ben Yu asks if any of them will suspend their campaign if they don’t get the endorsement.

All four say they will not.

At 8:19, Kermit Marsh asks each candidate stood on the Yorba Linda recall.

Hawkins supported Craig Young and Tom Lindsey.

Jones says he was not involved.

Lindsey was a target of the recall and obviously opposed.

Barbre opposed the recall. He notes that the old recall proponents endorsed Jones for YLWD.

At 8:21 PM, Chairman Fred Whitaker asks Endorsements Committee Chair Jeff Barke to deliver the report of the Committee.

Barke thanks Whitaker and apologizes for the committee’s errors. He thanks committee members Gretchen Cox, Erik Weigand, Gene Hernandez, Ray Gennawey, Alberta Christy, and Austin Lumbard. He thanks OCGOP staff. He highlights a few specific applications.

In Newport Mesa Unified School District, Trustee Area 7, Kristen Seaburn was recommended but Barke has just learned of another Republican who intends to apply for the endorsement.

Namquan Nguyen has withdrawn his application from Westminster Council District 4.

He says Simon Moon is a wonderful person but there are multiple Republicans running and has little political experience as he is running to be Mayor of a major OC city.

He brings up Placentia-Yorba Linda Unified School District Trustee Area 4. He says there were items that the Endorsements Committee learned about Slawson but did not specify what the items were.

The consent calendar of affirmative recommendations, less Newport Mesa Unified School District Trustee Area 7 (Kristen Seaburn), is approved by voice vote.

A motion and second for Seaburn is made and approved by voice vote.

Whitaker asks if there is a motion on Simon Moon for Irvine Mayor.

There is a motion and a second for Moon.

Baron Night speaks in favor of Moon. He says Moon has asked for the endorsement and probably won’t win. He feels endorsing is a way to get Moon involved in the party. He says Moon seems to be a good person. He says Moon can build up name ID for future elections. He points to an unnamed candidate for whom this worked.

Chairman Whitaker says this is a difficult position. He notes how party resources have to be used and if the effort has a shot at winning and whether it will help or detract other races. He notes this is the first time in 20 years that the number of Republicans running matches the number of seats available, and the vote will not be split. He says there are multiple Republicans running for Mayor but none of them have the experience to run a successful campaign to unseat the Democratic Mayor. These Mayoral candidates may draw money away from the Council candidates.

The vote for endorsing Moon fails 12-25. NO ENDORSEMENT FOR MAYOR OF IRVINE.

The motion to unendorse Frazier failed 7-34. FRAZIER RETAINS ENDORSEMENT IN PYLUSD AREA 4.

Chairman Whitaker notes that the Brooke Jones endorsement request has been rendered moot since Barbre, Lindsey, and Hawkins were already endorsed for YLWD.

There are various Executive Committee reports and club reports.

The meeting adjourns at 9:06 in memory of Sharon Rogers, Joy Neugebauer, and Gwen Dyrud.

Posted in Republican Central Committee | 1 Comment »

« Previous Entries