OC Political

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

Archive for the ‘Santa Ana’ Category

« Previous Entries
Next Entries »

Santa Ana City Council To Discuss Term Limits Monday

Posted by Former Blogger Chris Emami on July 13, 2012

Apparently the City of Santa Ana is going to be discussing term limits at their meeting on Monday. We here at OC Political have received a tip that item 85B on the agenda will be discussed. The item was agendized by Councilwoman Michele Martinez and is titled “DISCUSSION OF POTENTIAL BALLOT MEASURE REGARDING MAYORAL AND COUNCIL TERM LIMITS.”

Information is limited at this time as to specifically what the Santa Ana City Council will be discussing with regards to term limits, but this should make for an interesting topic of conversation with all of the recent buzz.

In a recent article that I posted here on our blog, I discussed a lawsuit that was filed by Parks & Recreation Commissioner Max Madrid. The lawsuit is looking to allow Councilwoman Claudia Alvarez run for a 4th consecutive term. Chris Nguyen has speculated that the lawsuit may get thrown out due to Madrid does not have sufficient standing to bring the suit forward.

Tensions will be high at this meeting with the recent arrest of Councilman Carlos Bustamante, what looks to be a very long agenda, and Councilwoman Claudia Alvarez looking to be out of office in the very near future. My though is that discussing term limits will likely not be the most friendly part of this meeting.

We will have more information on this item as soon as it becomes available.

Posted in Santa Ana | Tagged: , , | 4 Comments »

Will the Santa Ana Term Limits Lawsuit Be Dismissed by the Court?

Posted by Chris Nguyen on July 11, 2012

 You may have read the post by Emami yesterday or the Voice of OC article from Monday about the lawsuit filed by Santa Ana Parks and Recreation Commissioner Max Madrid, a staffer for State Senator Lou Correa (D-Santa Ana), to try to get Councilwoman Claudia Alvarez (D-Santa Ana) ruled eligible for another term despite her serving the maximum number of terms permissible under Santa Ana Charter Section 401 on the basis that when the term limit was changed from two terms to three terms was changed by Measure D in 2008 that the clock restarted for Alvarez since the measure didn’t say that terms prior to 2008 counted under Section 401.  Madrid is represented by Rancho Santa Margarita City Councilman Steve Baric, who is also Vice Chairman of the California Republican Party.

This morning, Chris Prevatt at The Liberal OC noted:

First, Madrid is not the party harmed by the determination by two legal opinions sought by the Council which are the foundation of Huizar’s statement in April that Alvarez is ineligible to serve past the end of her current third term. The only party harmed if Alvarez is denied access to nomination papers is Alvarez, not a third party like Madrid.

Looking at a copy of the suit, I suspect Prevatt is right, and the judge may dismiss the suit because Madrid indeed has insufficient standing to bring the suit.  As justification of Madrid’s standing, the suit states:

Petitioner and Plaintiff MAX MADRID (“Petitioner”) is, and at all relevant times hereto was, a resident voter and taxpayer of the City of SANTA ANA, (“City”), California.  Petitioner is currently registered to vote in the City and has paid property and/or sales taxes to the City within the past twelve months.  Plaintiff, as a municipal taxpayer seeking to avoid the waste of municipal assets, falls into the category of a type of claimant long recognized to possess a sufficiently intense interest in his claim to establish his “standing” to enter the courtroom.  Because a successful attack on wrongful municipal spending or disposition of assets in all likelihood may reduce the municipal taxpayer’s burden of meeting the expenses of government, courts do not doubt that a municipal taxpayer will effectively present his claim.  “[T]axpayers have a sufficiently personal interest in the illegal expenditure of funds by [municipal] officials to become dedicated adversaries.” (Harman v. City and County of San Francisco (1972) 7 Cal.3d 150.) In this capacity, Petitioner has standing to bring this action pursuant Code of Civil Procedure section 526(a) and case law.  Additionally, as a registered voter he has standing to challenge any implementation or application of the City Charter and ordinances.

I don’t see how preventing the City from stopping a Councilmember from running for another term prevents “the illegal expenditure of funds” by the City or “wrongful municipal spending” by Santa Ana.   The suit offers no justification for why registered voters have “standing to challenge any implementation or application of the City Charter and ordinances,” particularly since this one merely deals with the eligibility of a candidate.

California Code of Civil Procedure Section 526(a) states:

526. (a) An injunction may be granted in the following cases:
(1) When it appears by the complaint that the plaintiff is entitled to the relief demanded, and the relief, or any part hereof, consists in restraining the commission or continuance of the act complained of, either for a limited period or perpetually.
(2) When it appears by the complaint or affidavits that the commission or continuance of some act during the litigation would produce waste, or great or irreparable injury, to a party to the action.
(3) When it appears, during the litigation, that a party to the action is doing, or threatens, or is about to do, or is procuring or suffering to be done, some act in violation of the rights of another party to the action respecting the subject of the action, and tending to render the judgment ineffectual.
(4) When pecuniary compensation would not afford adequate relief.
(5) Where it would be extremely difficult to ascertain the amount of compensation which would afford adequate relief.
(6) Where the restraint is necessary to prevent a multiplicity of judicial proceedings.
(7) Where the obligation arises from a trust.

I don’t see Alvarez’s inability to run for Council as harming Madrid in any of the seven ways above.

Now, if the City Clerk did allow Alvarez to run, then a person could bring suit to stop her on the argument that they could suffer harm by having an ineligible person on the ballot, as that could a) harm their own run for Council or b) be the illegal expenditure of funds cited in Madrid’s suit.

Relief can only be granted to Alvarez.  The only person who can be harmed by preventing Alvarez from running is Alvarez.  Madrid doesn’t have standing to bring the suit, and consequently, I suspect the Court will dismiss the case because of Madrid’s insufficient standing.  If Alvarez wants to be ruled eligible to run for a fourth term, she is going to have to file suit herself, as only she has suffered enough harm to gain sufficient standing in court.

Posted in Santa Ana | Tagged: , , | 6 Comments »

Lawsuit In Santa Ana Over Term Limits

Posted by Former Blogger Chris Emami on July 10, 2012

According to the Orange County Register it appears that the City of Santa Ana is going to have a Judge determine whether or not Councilwoman Claudia Alvarez run for a 4th term. She is currently finishing up her 3rd term and needs a ruling quickly on this with filing opening up on Monday for this seat.

This lawsuit comes as a result of the passing of Measure D in Santa Ana back in 2008 which extended it from 2 consecutive terms to 3 consecutive terms a Councilmember can serve. Apparently Santa Ana has a rule that you must sit out 8 consecutive years after you finish your 3rd term (This seems extremely draconian compared to other cities).

It is important to note that the lawsuit has not been filed by Alvarez herself, but instead by Max Madrid a Parks & Recreation Commissioner appointed by Alvarez. Rancho Santa Margarita City Councilman Steve Baric (Vice-Chairman of the California Republican Party) is the attorney on behalf of Madrid on this case.

Based on the way Measure D is written the only change made to Section 401 of the Municipal Code was a simple change to simply the number of consecutive terms a Councilmember can serve. With no other changes being made by the measure it will make it tougher to argue a loophole.

The argument being made by the proponents of the lawsuit appears to be that with the passage of Measure D the term limit count on each Councilmember was reset. I will let you make your own judgement on the interpretation of section 401:

Sec. 401. – Qualifications of members.

To be eligible to be elected to the office of councilmember, a person must be a qualified voter and a thirty (30) day resident of the ward from which the candidate is nominated at the time nomination papers are issued as provided for in the Elections Code of the State of California, except that the mayor need only be a registered voter and thirty (30) day resident of the city at such time. In the event any councilmember other than the mayor shall cease to be a resident of the ward from which the councilmember (or, in the case of an appointee, the councilmember’s predecessor) was elected, or in the event the mayor shall cease to be a resident of the city, the office shall immediately become vacant and shall be filled in the same manner as herein provided for other vacancies; provided, that where a councilmember ceases to be a resident of the ward from which the councilmember (or, in case of an appointee, the councilmember’s predecessor) was elected solely because of a change in boundaries of any ward as in this charter provided, the councilmember shall not lose the office by reason of such change. If a member of the city council shall be convicted of a crime involving moral turpitude, the office shall immediately become vacant and be so declared by the city council.

A person who has served three (3) consecutive terms of four (4) years each shall be eligible for appointment, nomination for or election to the office of councilmember (regardless of wards represented by that person during such period) no sooner than for a term beginning eight (8) years after completion of that councilmember’s third consecutive full term.

Short or partial terms shall not be considered in determining eligibility for appointment, nomination or election. For purposes of this Charter, short or partial terms shall only be those where the councilmember was elected or appointed to replace another councilmember who left office before the latter official’s term expired. Any councilmember who assumed office at the beginning of a term and left office early for any reason whatsoever shall be deemed to have served a full term.

Interestingly this section also points out what will happen to Councilmember Bustamante should he be convicted of the crimes he has been accused of. My interpretation of the section is clear that once you have served three consecutive terms you are termed out. It is not up to me though, as we will have to see what the court says.

Posted in Santa Ana | Tagged: , , | 5 Comments »

What’s Next for Bustamante and What Happens to His Council Seat

Posted by Chris Nguyen on July 3, 2012

Carlos Bustamante’s Mugshot

Clearly, the biggest news in OC politics this week is the arrest of Councilman Carlos Bustamante (R-Santa Ana) on twelve felony counts, including six counts of false imprisonment, three counts of assault with the intent to commit a sexual offense, one count of stalking, one count of attempted sexual battery by restraint, and one count of grand theft by false pretense.  Additionally, there were four misdemeanor counts and a sentencing enhancement added.

These charges are in connection with his time as Director of Administrative Services for OC Public Works.

Listed with the occupation of consultant on his booking record, Bustamante was released on $100,000 bail last night at 11:25 PM.

District Attorney Tony Rackauckas will be holding a press conference at 9:30 AM this morning to discuss the Bustamante case in greater detail.

Gustavo Arrellano at OC Weekly reports that Bustamante has a court appearance on Thursday.

Whatever is the end result of his felony prosecution will be between him, his lawyers, and the DA’s office, and possibly, a jury.

However, as Bustamante is a councilman, we will now take a look at the political implications of his arrest.  He is almost assuredly not going to run for a third term in November.  Even if he does run, he will lose, unless he gets a very extreme split of the anti-incumbent vote (remember, Judge Ronald Kline still received 35% of the vote after being publicly accused of child molestation and being indicted for possessing over 100 images of child pornography).

Assuming Bustamante does the rational thing and does not seek re-election, what happens to Bustamante’s seat in the meantime?  Will it go vacant?  According to Government Code Section 1770, there are 12 ways in which a city councilmember’s seat can become vacant:

An office becomes vacant on the happening of any of the following events before the expiration of the term:

(a) The death of the incumbent.

(b) An adjudication pursuant to a quo warranto proceeding declaring that the incumbent is physically or mentally incapacitated due to disease, illness, or accident and that there is reasonable cause to believe that the incumbent will not be able to perform the duties of his or her office for the remainder of his or her term. This subdivision shall not apply to offices created by the California Constitution nor to federal or state legislators.

(c) His or her resignation.

(d) His or her removal from office.

(e) His or her ceasing to be an inhabitant of the state, or if the office be local and one for which local residence is required by law, of the district, county, or city for which the officer was chosen or appointed, or within which the duties of his or her office are required to be discharged.

(f) His or her absence from the state without the permission required by law beyond the period allowed by law.

(g) His or her ceasing to discharge the duties of his or her office for the period of three consecutive months, except when prevented by sickness, or when absent from the state with the permission required by law.

(h) His or her conviction of a felony or of any offense involving a violation of his or her official duties. An officer shall be deemed to have been convicted under this subdivision when trial court judgment is entered. For purposes of this subdivision, “trial court judgment” means a judgment by the trial court either sentencing the officer or otherwise upholding and implementing the plea, verdict, or finding.

(i) His or her refusal or neglect to file his or her required oath or bond within the time prescribed.

(j) The decision of a competent tribunal declaring void his or her election or appointment.

(k) The making of an order vacating his or her office or declaring the office vacant when the officer fails to furnish an additional or supplemental bond.

(l) His or her commitment to a hospital or sanitarium by a court of competent jurisdiction as a drug addict, dipsomaniac, inebriate, or stimulant addict; but in that event the office shall not be deemed vacant until the order of commitment has become final.

He’s alive (a), he’s not incapacitated (b), he filed his oath years ago (i), his election was valid (j), his office does not require an additional bond (k), and he has not been committed to a hospital or sanitarium (l).

If (e) or (f) apply, then he will be a fugitive from the law, as I’m pretty sure he’s not allowed to leave the jurisdiction.

He cannot be recalled (d), as Elections Code Section 11007(c) prohibits recalls when there’s less than six months left in an elected official’s term.

That leaves us with (c), (g), and (h).  However, (g) is overridden by the stricter Santa Ana City Charter Section 403:

If a member of the City Council absents himself from all regular meetings of the City Council for a period of sixty (60) days consecutively from and after the last regular City Council meeting attended by such member, unless by permission of the City Council expressed in its official minutes, his office shall become vacant and shall be so declared by the City Council.

So that leaves us with California Government Code Section 1770(c) and Section 1770(h), along with Santa Ana City Charter Section 403:

  • Now, (c) is the most straightforward: Bustamante can resign, or he can hang on to office as the legal proceedings on his charges move forward.
  • Subdivision (h) depends on the outcome of his criminal proceedings: if he pleads guilty to at least one of the felonies or if he’s convicted, then (h) will occur.
  • With City Section 403, he’s already missed the July 2 Council meeting because he was arrested on his way to that meeting.  If he misses the July 16, August 6, and August 20 meetings, then he will have absented himself from council meetings for sixty days.  The council could then declare his seat vacant at the September 3 meeting, though there’d only be two months until the election to fill his seat for the normal four-year term.  If he shows up to just one of those three meetings, then Section 403 will be rendered inoperative.

The other part of Section 403 of the Santa Ana City Charter reads:

In the event of a vacancy in the City Council, for whatever cause, the City Council shall declare the office vacant and fill the same by appointment. In each case the person so appointed shall hold office until the next general municipal election and until his successor is elected and qualified for the remainder of an unexpired term. Such appointee must, at the time of his appointment and continuously for one (1) year prior thereto, have been and be a resident of the ward from which his predecessor was elected. If the City Council shall fail to fill a vacancy by appointment within thirty (30) days after such an office shall have become vacant, it shall forthwith cause an election to be held to fill such vacancy.

In essence, if the Council fails to make an appointment within 30 days of the vacancy, then they will trigger an election.  I would note Bustamante’s term expires five months from today.  Filing for most offices closes on August 10, but for races where an eligible incumbent chooses not to file (e.g. Bustamante), the deadline is extended to August 15.

If Bustamante resigns before August 15, it’s still possible for the Santa Ana City Council to appoint someone to Bustamante’s seat in time for candidate filing.  If he resigns after that, they could appoint a caretaker or one of the candidates but that person would not have the incumbent designation on the ballot.

Posted in Orange County, Orange County District Attorney's Office, Santa Ana | Tagged: , , , | 6 Comments »

Santa Ana Councilman Bustamante Arrested for 12 Felonies, Including Assault, Attempted Sexual Battery, False Imprisonment

Posted by Chris Nguyen on July 2, 2012

Carlos Bustamante

The Office of District Attorney Tony Rackauckas has issued a media advisory indicating that Santa Ana City Councilman Carlos Bustamante (the former Director of Administrative Services for OC Public Works) has been arrested for twelve felonies: grand theft by false pretense, stalking, attempted sexual battery by restraint, three counts of assault with the intent to commit a sexual offense, and six counts of false imprisonment.  The arrest also included four misdemeanors and a sentencing enhancement, according to the media advisory:

Orange County District Attorney
Media Advisory

WHO: Orange County District Attorney (OCDA) Tony Rackauckas

WHAT: Will hold a press conference to discuss the criminal charges against Santa Ana City Councilman and former administration manager for Orange County Public Works Carlos Bustamante.

Bustamante was arrested today, Monday, July 2, 2012, at 4:30 p.m. by OCDA Investigators on six felony counts of false imprisonment, three felony counts of assault with the intent to commit a sexual offense, one felony count each of stalking, attempted sexual battery by restraint, and grand theft by false pretense, and one misdemeanor count each of battery, assault, sexual battery, and attempted sexual battery with a sentencing enhancement allegation for committing the offenses as a result of sexual compulsion and for the purpose of sexual gratification.

WHEN: Tomorrow, Tuesday, July 3, 2012, at 9:30 a.m.

            Media will be permitted to set up beginning at 8:00 a.m.

WHERE: Law Library of the OCDA’s Office, 401 Civic Center Drive W., Santa Ana

Here’s the coverage from the local news media:

Here’s The Liberal OC‘s post on the Bustamante arrest.

The Associated Press has the story too, as shown here in the San Jose Mercury-News.

Elected in 2004, Bustamante is the Santa Ana Council’s sole Republican.  He is eligible to run for a third term, but this arrest makes that  campaign extremely unlikely.

Posted in Orange County, Orange County District Attorney's Office, Santa Ana | Tagged: , | 7 Comments »

Santa Ana Santora Building sale cancelled

Posted by Thomas Gordon on June 12, 2012

20120612-120046.jpg

Irvine based Newsong Church has pulled out of a deal to buy the historic 84 year old Santora Building from developer Michael Harrah for $6.2 Million.

According to sources, Harrah has allowed the building to deteriorate and Newsong requested repairs be made to bring it up to standard. It appears that Harrah declined the request.

What impact this will have on Michael Harrah’s One Broadway Plaza development is yet to be seen.

Posted in Santa Ana | Tagged: , , | Leave a Comment »

Taxin Troy Edgar

Posted by OC Insider on June 2, 2012

Today, I received another great mail piece from Travis Allen for Assembly.   This is the first hit piece that I received from Travis and I have to say it is probably the best hit piece have seen this cycle.

The image of Taxin Troy Edgar is definitely going to stick in my mind.  I am attaching a scan of the piece to this post for people to check out.

Image

Image

Will this mail piece be enough to make the race competitive?  I am not sure, but I a bet a lot of voters will have a picture of Taxin Troy Edgar in their heads when they vote on Tuesday.

Also, it looks like Travis has found one of Troy’s real weaknesses.  Edgar’s horrible voting record on taxes and his refusal to sign the No New Tax Pledge might hunt him on Tuesday.

Here is a LINK to a Press Release that OC-Breeze posted about Edgar’s refusal to sign the No New Tax Pledge.

Posted in 72nd Assembly District, Fountain Valley, Fountain Valley School District, Garden Grove, Garden Grove Unified School District, Huntington Beach, Huntington Beach City School District, Huntington Beach Union High School District, Los Alamitos, Los Alamitos Unified School District, Ocean View School District, Orange County, Rossmoor, Rossmoor Community Services District, Santa Ana, Santa Ana Unified School District, Seal Beach, Sunset Beach Sanitary District, Surfside Colony Community Services District, Westminster, Westminster School District | Tagged: , , , , | 1 Comment »

Press Release: Travis Allen and Long Pham Agree to Debate: Troy Edgar Refuses to Debate

Posted by OC Insider on May 29, 2012

I received this press release on Friday, but didn’t have a chance to post it until today.  I found it interesting that the press release quoted two candidates.  I think this is the first time I have seen this. Also, the press release include a email chain showing the multiple attempts that were made to try to get Troy Edgar to debate.

Travis Allen and Long Pham Agree to Debate: Troy Edgar Refuses to Debate

 May 25, 2012

Huntington Beach, CA – Candidates for the 72nd Assembly District Travis Allen and Long Pham have both agreed to have a debate.  Read the rest of this entry »

Posted in 72nd Assembly District, Fountain Valley, Garden Grove, Huntington Beach, Los Alamitos, Rossmoor, Rossmoor Community Services District, Santa Ana, State Assembly, Sunset Beach Sanitary District, Westminster | Tagged: , , , | 11 Comments »

Santa Ana City Council Campaign Contribution Law

Posted by Charles Hart on May 6, 2012

Tonight the Santa Ana City Council is going to, more than likely, vote to remove a restriction on campaign contributions and loans and the effect they play on how our Councilmembers vote.

 California Government Code and the Political Reform Act, along with Santa Ana Charter, require that elected officials abstain from voting on any matter where the official received a campaign contribution of more than $250 in the 12 months immediately preceding a vote. In November 1996, Ordinance NS 2034 was adopted by the City Council which imposed an additional restriction prohibiting a Councilmember from soliciting or accepting campaign contributions or loans of more than $250 for a period of three months following a vote.

 The current sitting Santa Ana City Council has been plagued with controversy over Councilmembers voting on matters for which they have  received campaign contributions. Back in 2010, Councilmembers Sal Tinajero and Michele Martinez received several thousand dollars in campaign contributions from companies with a financial stake in a land project called the Station District. Without their votes the council did not have the votes to approve the project.  The contributions came both before and after the vote.

 This was in direct violation of the state and city laws discussed above, and when exposed, the Councilmembers returned the contributions, but the vote had already been cast. The legally correct thing to do would have been to undue the vote and sanction or fine the Councilmembers that illegally voted, but our City Council claimed it was too late to undue the contractual commitments made. A contract illegally entered into is void, and that is what should have occurred, but our Council once again failed to do the right thing. 

 Tonight our City Council is going to try and make things right by simply making the law that makes what they do illegal, go away. So if we stop saying that robbery is illegal then it’s okay for us to rob and be robbed – right? 

 Wrong!  A rose by any other name is still a rose; and the practice of putting your vote out for sale is wrong.  Santa Ana City Councilmembers are very arrogant in the positions of authority that they have been elected to and have repeatedly said “Hey, if you don’t like it – vote me out.” Well, I agree with that statement and I urge the Santa Ana Voters to do just that this November.

Posted in Santa Ana | Tagged: , , | 26 Comments »

Why were three 17 year olds robbing a medical marijuana clinic in Santa Ana at 2:15 AM?

Posted by Thomas Gordon on March 21, 2012

20120321-192753.jpg

Just what were three 17 year old kids from Santa Ana doing out last night at 2:15 in the morning in the city that bills itself the 4th safest in America no less….

They were robbing a medical marijuana clinic along with an 18 year old named Gustavo Alexander Penaloza, when they were captured by SAPD.

With the assistance of a police helicopter they were arrested and booked into juvenile hall.

Santa Ana not only has an epidemic of teenagers roaming the streets at all hours of the night in violation of our curfew laws, but a multi-million dollar graffiti problem and an excessive drop out rate from Santa Ana Unified School District.

Where were their parents? Were these children no longer attending school?

Just what do you think should be done about this and who is ultimately to blame?

Posted in Santa Ana, Santa Ana Unified School District | Tagged: , , | 17 Comments »

« Previous Entries
Next Entries »