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 3^rd 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.

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.

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.

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

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!

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

Over my career I have worked with several non-union construction groups. With each organization the message to elected officials has been essentially the same, “If you restrict 80% of the construction workforce from working on your projects, your costs will go up.” It is obvious to anyone who has taken Economics 101. Unfortunately, this message was ignored by Republican Midway City Sanitary District Director Chi Charlie Nguyen. The Project Labor Agreement that Nguyen and his colleagues passed in 2021 has now come back to cost Midway City Sanitation District taxpayers over $2.5 million dollars – and that is just for ONE project!

Midway City Sanitary District does not post its agenda packets (including staff reports for agenda items) on its website. So information is limited, but it appears that last April, all 5 Midway City Sanitation District Directors voted to approve a Project Workforce Agreement (PWA) with Los Angeles/Orange Counties Building and Construction Trades Council for their District Addition, Solar and Remodel Project. (https://www.midwaycitysanitarydistrict.com/files/a5114e8c1/04-20-2021_agenda.pdf)

In September 2021, the Midway City Sanitary District (MCSD) began accepting bids to build additions to the Midway City Sanitary District offices and a remodel of the Midway City Sanitary District offices. The original bid deadline was September 14, 2021, with an estimate of $2,800,000.

On October 5, 2021 the board rejected all bids. The board voted to advertise for bids again on December 7, 2021. Director Tyler Diep expressed concern that the the qualifications were too restrictive and they wouldn’t get enough bids. (https://www.midwaycitysanitarydistrict.com/files/b434a88f8/12-07-2021_minutes.pdf).

Diep was correct. After several more rounds of bidding, the estimate is now $4,650,000 and the bids that actually came in were even higher than that! The following six (6) Bids were received:

1. $5,401,240.00
2. $5,499,483.00
3. $5,607,231.00
4. $5,656,235.41
5. $6,745,218.74
6. $7,210,000.00

So if the initial bid estimate was $2.8 million and the MCSD accepted the lowest bid now available, the PLA will have cost the district $2,601,240 (about $2.6 million.)

If the MCSD accepts the highest bid of $7.21 million, then the PLA will have cost taxpayers over $4.4 million.

Sadly, this isn’t the first time Chi Charlie Nguyen has refused to defend taxpayers. Last year Councilman Chi Charlie Nguyen made a motion to approve a ballot measure keeping a 1% sale tax rate hike artificially high for another TEN YEARS! Thankfully, he failed to get enough votes. (https://voiceofoc.org/2020/08/westminster-council-again-fails-to-act-on-sales-tax-measure-as-financial-crisis-looms/.)

“But why should we hold Chi Charlie Nguyen responsible if all 5 Directors voted for the wasteful, discriminatory Project Labor Agreement?” you might ask.

To me, the answer is simple. You expect liberal politicians like Sergio Contreras or Andrew Nguyen to overspend and waste taxpayer money. It is part of their political philosophy. Tyler Diep has already come out as a PLA supporter in cities like Anaheim and Garden Grove. Mark Nguyen did not vote for the PLA because he was appointed to the Board of Directors on September 7, 2021 to fill the vacancy left by Director Margie Rice who passed away on July 25, 2021. 

You do not expect taxpayer rip-offs and overspending from Republicans like Chi Charlie Nguyen.

Unfortunately, Midway City Sanitary District voters can’t hold Nguyen accountable until November 2024. However voters in the City of Westminster will only have to wait a little over 100 days to hold Chi Charlie Nguyen accountable for his special interest deal that wasted over $2.5 million taxpayer dollars.

With rising inflation and gas prices, Chi Charlie Nguyen’s waste of our tax money could not come at a worse time for taxpayers. And who knows how much waste he will be responsible for when the final inflated contract is awarded.

Starting Monday, May 9, 2022, voters will start seeing their ballots in the mail. While “election day” is June 7, 2022, the vast majority of voters will likely vote early via the U.S. Mail, a secure dropbox, an early voting center or by taking their ballots to the Registrar of Voters office in Santa Ana, CA.

For those interested in my voter recommendations you can access them here:

I hope you find them helpful. I also recommend you check out Robyn Nordell’s voter web site at https://robynnordell.com/county/orange/ At this site you can find Robyn’s recommendations, mine and some other friends. We don’t always agree but we love that!