OC Political

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

  • Allen for Assembly

  • Choi for Assembly

  • Posey for Huntington Beach

  • Sachs for Mission Viejo

  • Huang for Yorba Linda

  • Lee for CSD

  • Glasky for IUSD

  • Contact Us to Purchase an Ad

  • I Voted

    I Voted

Posts Tagged ‘Kris Murray’

Anaheim City Council Passes Both Schools Line Item in Budget and Resolution on Charter Schools and Parent Trigger Law

Posted by Chris Nguyen on September 16, 2015

City_of_Anaheim_Seal_svgIn a lengthy meeting that began at 5:00 PM yesterday and dragged on to nearly 1:20 AM this morning, the Anaheim City Council voted 3-2 to approve the creation of a line-item in the City budget for facility joint-use purposes with schools in Anaheim and to pass a resolution in support of charter schools and the Parent Trigger Law.  Councilman James Vanderbilt was the only person who was in the majority for both votes.

Budget Line Item

After hours of public comment and lengthy debate by the City Council members, the Council approved the creation of a line item in the City budget for facility joint-use projects that provide community benefit (i.e. benefiting both school districts and the general public). No specific dollar amount will be determined until the FY 2016-17 budget process begins.

The vote was 3-2, with Mayor Tom Tait and Councilmen Jordan Brandman and James Vanderbilt in favor.  Mayor Pro Tem Lucille Kring and Councilwoman Kris Murray opposed.

In August, the Anaheim Union High School District had passed a resolution asking the City for direct financial support.  The item was agendized to create a budget line item for direct financial support, but was amended from the Council dais during the meeting to narrow it the item to only direct financial support for facility joint-use projects that provide community benefit.

Prior to the final vote, Murray had made a motion, which Kring seconded, that would have delayed the item by 45 days to poll the six other school districts in Anaheim (Anaheim City School District, Centralia School District, Magnolia School District, Orange Unified School District, Placentia-Yorba Linda School District, and Savanna School District) as to their desires on this item since only the Anaheim Union High School District had asked for this.

Resolution on Charter Schools and Parent Trigger Law

After nearly 45 minutes of debate, the resolution in support of charter schools and the Parent Trigger Law was approved by the Anaheim City Council on a 3-2 vote, with Mayor Pro Tem Lucille Kring, Councilwoman Kris Murray, and Councilman James Vanderbilt in favor.  Mayor Tom Tait and Councilman Jordan Brand were opposed.

At the start of the debate shortly before 12:30 AM, Tait expressed his opposition to the resolution’s declarations/implications about Anaheim having “low performing” and “worst performing” schools.

At one point in the debate, Tait pointed to U.S. News & World Report ranking all 9 Anaheim Union High School District high schools among the top schools in the country.

As Tait, Murray, and Kring battled on procedural motions, Vanderbilt sought in vain for amendments that would get the resolution to a 5-0 unanimous vote.

Shortly before 1:00 AM, Tait stated he would not vote for the resolution. Two minutes later, Brandman told Vanderbilt, “you will never get my vote” for the resolution in response to Vanderbilt’s efforts for unanimity.

In order to gain Vanderbilt’s support and get the resolution to 3-2, Murray agreed to support Vanderbilt’s amendment to remove four paragraphs.

For more from OC Political on the original resolution, click here.  The resolution, as passed with the Vanderbilt amendments, reads:

A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM SUPPORTING ANAHEIM’S PUBLIC SCHOOLS, AND OFFERING TO WORK IN CONTINUED PARTNERSHIP WITH ALL CITY SCHOOL DISTRICTS TO ENSURE STUDENTS IN THE CITY HAVE EQUAL ACCESS TO A QUALITY EDUCATION, INCLUDING SUPPORT FOR PROGRAMS, POLICIES, AND EDUCATIONAL CHOICES PROVIDED IN STATE LAW TO EMPOWER PARENTS AND STUDENTS TO CLOSE THE ACHIEVEMENT GAP (AKA THE “ANAHEIM PARENT AND STUDENT EMPOWERMENT ACT”)

WHEREAS, the City of Anaheim has a long-standing, supportive partnership with its school districts providing millions annually in supplemental educational resources; and

WHEREAS, the city’s financial support includes funding public safety officers and crossing guards at public school campuses, after school enrichment programs, joint-use agreements for city parks and libraries, and community services that provide a direct enhancement to the education of the City’s children; and

WHEREAS, the City of Anaheim’s greater business community contributes millions annually to support the City’s public schools, including a recently completed Youth Assessment Survey funded by the Disneyland Resort, and the new grant initiative Accelerate Change Together (ACT), managed by the Orange County Community Foundation with financial support provided by the Disneyland Resort, Angels Baseball, and Anaheim Ducks, to address gaps in service for underserved Anaheim youth; and

WHEREAS, the City of Anaheim agrees all residents, parents and children, deserve equal access to a quality education; and

WHEREAS, many school districts across the City are achieving and exceeding state standards, with many of their schools recognized as California Distinguished Schools, and

WHEREAS, several school districts in the City of Anaheim are unfortunately listed as having among the worst performing schools in the County of Orange, including the Anaheim Union High School District, which reports that half of their schools are failing to meet state standards despite having among the highest levels of per pupil funding per the state Department of Finance; and

WHEREAS, parents at chronically low performing schools in Anaheim have sought to exercise their legal rights under California’s Parent Empowerment Law to improve access for their children to a better education and have faced staunch political and legal opposition by elected and administration officials governing these schools at taxpayer expense; and

WHEREAS, charter schools provide a personalized approach to education including smaller classrooms, innovative teaching methods, and parent involvement, such as the acclaimed El Rancho Middle School with Orange Unified School District and the independent GOALS Academy, which opened its doors on August 17, 2015 with the full support of the Anaheim City School District administration and trustees; and

WHEREAS, Charter Schools have been used effectively in the Los Angeles Unified School District to provide an alternative for economically disadvantaged students who have been attending chronically underperforming public schools; and

WHEREAS, the AUHSD has unanimously adopted a resolution asking the City of Anaheim to establish an undefined, unrestricted line item in the City budget to supplement funding for all public schools within the City, above and beyond the millions in public and private financial support provided by the City today and without any advance communication or collaboration by the AUHSD trustees or administration with the City; and

WHEREAS, AUHSD covers five cities in its jurisdiction, Anaheim, Buena Park, Cypress, La Palma, Stanton and its resolution was directed only in Anaheim and provides no taxpayer safeguards that if adopted by the City, the additional funding would be used to support schools and students in Anaheim, rather than the other four cities of the AUHSD service area; and

WHEREAS, the line item in the City budget requested by AUHSD would have no restrictions, taxpayer oversight or accountability and has the potential to divert vital city funding for Anaheim police, fire, parks, libraries, roads and closing the gap on the City’s escalating pension liabilities; and

WHEREAS, the City’s schools have received record levels of increased state funding over the past two fiscal years and the state Legislative Analyst Office has stated that the next fiscal year will be at or above existing levels, in addition to a $249 million bond approved by voters for AUHSD in 2014 and a $169.3 million bond approved by voters for ACSD in 2010; and

WHEREAS, ACSD had just approved an expenditure of $670,000 in funding that will go to legal fees rather than its public schools to appeal the Superior Court ruling in favor of Palm Lane parents exercising their legal rights under the California Parent Empowerment Law; and

WHEREAS, a high percentage of Anaheim’s economically disadvantaged students continue to attend chronically low performing schools and there is insufficient evidence that unrestricted funding by the City would be used to improve upon the status quo and bring about substantive reforms, as evidenced by the increased levels of local and state funding in recent years that has yet to substantively close the achievement gap at schools reported as underperforming in the City; and

WHEREAS, the City of Anaheim and its public school districts should work together to adopt programs, policies, and reforms that are directed at closing the achievement gap at existing schools currently underperforming by state standards to ensure all students in the City have equal access to a quality education; and

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Anaheim:

  1. The City of Anaheim will continue to provide significant financial resources based on existing budgetary practices to continue the City’s historic support of its public schools and will continue to partner with its school districts on joint-use facilities and programs to enhance educational opportunities for families, parents and children in the City; and
  2. The City of Anaheim urges the seven school districts that serve Anaheim students to adopt policies and programs to provide greater levels of high quality educational choice, including charter schools, and to adopt strategic plans and reforms to close the achievement gap for chronically low performing schools in Anaheim before seeking additional city funding; and
  3. The City of Anaheim urges all seven school districts to actively inform parents of their legal rights under the California Parent Empowerment law and its Parent Trigger provisions, and to support and not in any way legally hinder or cease existing legal efforts to challenge parents exercising their legal rights as authorized by state law.

 

Posted in Anaheim, Anaheim City School District, Anaheim Union High School District, Centralia School District, Magnolia School District, Orange Unified School District, Placentia-Yorba Linda Unified School District, Savanna School District | Tagged: , , , , | Leave a Comment »

Anaheim City Council to Weigh in on Charter Schools and Parent Trigger Law

Posted by Chris Nguyen on September 14, 2015

City_of_Anaheim_Seal_svgOn Tuesday, the Anaheim City Council will vote on a resolution supporting students’ “equal access to a quality education,” specifically pointing to charter schools and the rights of families to use the Parent Trigger Law (also known as the “Parent Empowerment Law”).

The resolution reaffirms the City’s “existing budgetary practices…in support of its public schools,” including “joint-use facilities and programs…” (The City currently provides indirect financial support to the tune of $5.7 million each year through facilities/joint use, programming, and public safety.  Additionally, the City has provided indirect financial support for capital improvements/infrastructure worth $19.9 million over the last five years.)

The resolution also urges the seven school districts serving Anaheim to provide more charter schools and “adopt strategic plans and reforms to close the achievement gap for chronically low performing schools in Anaheim before seeking additional city funding.”

These two portions are clearly in response to the request by the Anaheim Union High School District for direct City funding of that district, which was agendized for the Council meeting by Mayor Tom Tait.

Finally, the resolution “urges all seven school districts to actively inform parents of their legal rights under the California Parent Empowerment law and its Parent Trigger provisions, and to support and not in any way legally hinder or cease existing legal efforts to challenge parents exercising their legal rights as authorized by state law.”  This portion is obviously in response to the Anaheim City School District’s actions after parents at Palm Lane Elementary School utilized the Parent Trigger Law and prevailed in court.  (Among other things, the school district is appealing the court ruling.)

For those wondering, there are seven school districts that serve the City of Anaheim:

  • Anaheim Union High School District, 22,531 students, 14 schools
  • Anaheim City School District, 19,164 students, 25 schools
  • Orange Unified School District, 7,383 students, 10 schools
  • Magnolia School District, 5,679 students, 8 schools
  • Placentia-Yorba Linda Unified School District, 3,719 students, 1 school
  • Savanna School District, 1,941 students, 2 schools
  • Centralia School District, 1,245 students, 2 schools

The resolution was agendized at the request of Councilwoman Kris Murray in response to the Tait item to provide direct City funding to the Anaheim Union High School District.

Click here for the staff report on this item.  Below is the full text of the resolution:

A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM SUPPORTING ANAHEIM’S PUBLIC SCHOOLS, AND OFFERING TO WORK IN CONTINUED PARTNERSHIP WITH ALL CITY SCHOOL DISTRICTS TO ENSURE STUDENTS IN THE CITY HAVE EQUAL ACCESS TO A QUALITY EDUCATION, INCLUDING SUPPORT FOR PROGRAMS, POLICIES, AND EDUCATIONAL CHOICES PROVIDED IN STATE LAW TO EMPOWER PARENTS AND STUDENTS TO CLOSE THE ACHIEVEMENT GAP (AKA THE “ANAHEIM PARENT AND STUDENT EMPOWERMENT ACT”)

WHEREAS, the City of Anaheim has a long-standing, supportive partnership with its school districts providing millions annually in supplemental educational resources; and

WHEREAS, the city’s financial support includes funding public safety officers and crossing guards at public school campuses, after school enrichment programs, joint-use agreements for city parks and libraries, and community services that provide a direct enhancement to the education of the City’s children; and

WHEREAS, the City of Anaheim’s greater business community contributes millions annually to support the City’s public schools, including a recently completed Youth Assessment Survey funded by the Disneyland Resort, and the new grant initiative Accelerate Change Together (ACT), managed by the Orange County Community Foundation with financial support provided by the Disneyland Resort, Angels Baseball, and Anaheim Ducks, to address gaps in service for underserved Anaheim youth; and

WHEREAS, the City of Anaheim agrees all residents, parents and children, deserve equal access to a quality education; and

WHEREAS, many school districts across the City are achieving and exceeding state standards, with many of their schools recognized as California Distinguished Schools, and

WHEREAS, several school districts in the City of Anaheim are unfortunately listed as having among the worst performing schools in the County of Orange, including the Anaheim Union High School District, which reports that half of their schools are failing to meet state standards despite having among the highest levels of per pupil funding per the state Department of Finance; and

WHEREAS, parents at chronically low performing schools in Anaheim have sought to exercise their legal rights under California’s Parent Empowerment Law to improve access for their children to a better education and have faced staunch political and legal opposition by elected and administration officials governing these schools at taxpayer expense; and

WHEREAS, charter schools provide a personalized approach to education including smaller classrooms, innovative teaching methods, and parent involvement, such as the acclaimed El Rancho Middle School with Orange Unified School District and the independent GOALS Academy, which opened its doors on August 17, 2015 with the full support of the Anaheim City School District administration and trustees; and

WHEREAS, Charter Schools have been used effectively in the Los Angeles Unified School District to provide an alternative for economically disadvantaged students who have been attending chronically underperforming public schools; and

WHEREAS, the AUHSD has unanimously adopted a resolution asking the City of Anaheim to establish an undefined, unrestricted line item in the City budget to supplement funding for all public schools within the City, above and beyond the millions in public and private financial support provided by the City today and without any advance communication or collaboration by the AUHSD trustees or administration with the City; and

WHEREAS, AUHSD covers five cities in its jurisdiction, Anaheim, Buena Park, Cypress, La Palma, Stanton and its resolution was directed only in Anaheim and provides no taxpayer safeguards that if adopted by the City, the additional funding would be used to support schools and students in Anaheim, rather than the other four cities of the AUHSD service area; and

WHEREAS, the line item in the City budget requested by AUHSD would have no restrictions, taxpayer oversight or accountability and has the potential to divert vital city funding for Anaheim police, fire, parks, libraries, roads and closing the gap on the City’s escalating pension liabilities; and

WHEREAS, the City’s schools have received record levels of increased state funding over the past two fiscal years and the state Legislative Analyst Office has stated that the next fiscal year will be at or above existing levels, in addition to a $249 million bond approved by voters for AUHSD in 2014 and a $169.3 million bond approved by voters for ACSD in 2010; and

WHEREAS, ACSD had just approved an expenditure of $670,000 in funding that will go to legal fees rather than its public schools to appeal the Superior Court ruling in favor of Palm Lane parents exercising their legal rights under the California Parent Empowerment Law; and

WHEREAS, a high percentage of Anaheim’s economically disadvantaged students continue to attend chronically low performing schools and there is insufficient evidence that unrestricted funding by the City would be used to improve upon the status quo and bring about substantive reforms, as evidenced by the increased levels of local and state funding in recent years that has yet to substantively close the achievement gap at schools reported as underperforming in the City; and

WHEREAS, the City of Anaheim and its public school districts should work together to adopt programs, policies, and reforms that are directed at closing the achievement gap at existing schools currently underperforming by state standards to ensure all students in the City have equal access to a quality education; and

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Anaheim:

  1. The City of Anaheim will continue to provide significant financial resources based on existing budgetary practices to continue the City’s historic support of its public schools and will continue to partner with its school districts on joint-use facilities and programs to enhance educational opportunities for families, parents and children in the City; and
  2. The City of Anaheim urges the seven school districts that serve Anaheim students to adopt policies and programs to provide greater levels of high quality educational choice, including charter schools, and to adopt strategic plans and reforms to close the achievement gap for chronically low performing schools in Anaheim before seeking additional city funding; and
  3. The City of Anaheim urges all seven school districts to actively inform parents of their legal rights under the California Parent Empowerment law and its Parent Trigger provisions, and to support and not in any way legally hinder or cease existing legal efforts to challenge parents exercising their legal rights as authorized by state law.

Posted in Anaheim, Anaheim City School District, Anaheim Union High School District, Centralia School District, Magnolia School District, Orange Unified School District, Placentia-Yorba Linda Unified School District, Savanna School District | Tagged: , , , | 2 Comments »

Anaheim: Vanderbilt Won the Hills, Murray & Eastman Won the Flatlands

Posted by Chris Nguyen on December 2, 2014

Virtually every political analysis of the City of Anaheim references the split between Anaheim Hills and the Flatlands.

A closer look at the 2014 election results confirms that split – but in counterintuitive fashion.  Mayor Tom Tait won 61.7% of the Anaheim Hills vote in his re-election bid but less than half the vote in the Flatlands, though even then, this is a 42.5% victory margin for Tait in Anaheim Hills versus 24.1% in the Flatlands. Lucille Kring beat Lorri Galloway by 6.4% in Anaheim Hills, but Galloway beat Kring by 5.1% in the Flatlands.

In fairness to Kring, she scored fairly consistently across the city with only a 0.3% differential in Hills versus Flatlands. The big difference was for Galloway whose Flatland votes were nearly double the percentage of her votes in the Hills, with 24.6% in the Flatlands versus 12.8% in the Hills.

More intuitively, three of the candidates did better where they live than the other part of town: Kring and Fitzgerald did better on their home turf in the Flatlands while Tait did better in the Hills, where he lives. It looks like Galloway’s neighbors don’t like her, as she is an Anaheim Hills resident but did far better in the Flatlands than the Hills.

Anaheim Hills
Tom Tait 9945 61.7%
Lucille Kring 3093 19.2%
Lorri Galloway 2071 12.8%
Denis Fitzgerald 1018 6.3%

 

Flatlands
Tom Tait 14171 48.7%
Lorri Galloway 7164 24.6%
Lucille Kring 5664 19.5%
Denis Fitzgerald 2072 7.1%

 

Anaheim Hills vs. Flatlands
Tom Tait +13.0%
Lorri Galloway -11.8%
Lucille Kring -0.3%
Denis Fitzgerald -0.8%

Flatlander James Vanderbilt was the top vote-getter for City Council in Anaheim Hills; he came in third in the Flatlands behind Hills resident Kris Murray and Flatlander Gail Eastman. The first through third place spread of Murray, Eastman, and Vanderbilt was 2% in the Hills and 1.1% in the Flatlands.  Nevertheless, Vanderbilt beat Eastman in Anaheim Hills by 333 votes while Eastman beat Vanderbilt in the Flatlands by 130 votes, thereby giving Vanderbilt his 203-vote citywide victory.

Anaheim Hills
James D. Vanderbilt 3719 22.8%
Kris Murray 3674 22.6%
Gail Eastman 3386 20.8%
Doug Pettibone 1810 11.1%
Jose F. Moreno (1) 1492 9.2%
Jerry O’Keefe 1399 8.6%
Donna Michelle Acevedo 502 3.1%
Jose Moreno (2) 303 1.9%

 

Flatlands
Kris Murray 12533 20.2%
Gail Eastman 11952 19.3%
James D. Vanderbilt 11822 19.1%
Jose F. Moreno (1) 10029 16.2%
Doug Pettibone 5499 8.9%
Jerry O’Keefe 4845 7.8%
Donna Michelle Acevedo 2686 4.3%
Jose Moreno (2) 2673 4.3%

 

Anaheim Hills vs. Flatlands
James D. Vanderbilt +3.7%
Kris Murray +2.4%
Gail Eastman +1.5%
Jose F. Moreno (1) -7.0%
Doug Pettibone +2.2%
Jerry O’Keefe +0.8%
Donna Michelle Acevedo -1.2%
Jose Moreno (2) -2.4%

The number that jumps out is Jose F. Moreno’s 7% gap in the Hills.  (Either way, though, Moreno fell 3% short of the top two slots in both the Hills and the Flatlands.)  While at first, some might instinctively claim race as the reason for his 7% drop in the Hills, but before the polls closed, Matt Cunningham at Anaheim Blog found a more innocuous reason: the old-fashioned hard work of campaigning.  The title of Cunningham’s blog and the photo he showed from Moreno’s campaign office explain it all, so here they are: “Jose Moreno Campaign Ignoring Anaheim Hills

In this photo, the Moreno campaign’s office door literally shut out Anaheim Hills.

 

Anaheim Hills defeated Measure N, the obscure local services measure. The Flatlands voted in favor of Measure N 53%-47%. The Hills voted against Measure N 56%-44%.

Measure N
Anaheim Hills Flatlands
Yes 6635 44% 14778 53%
No 8452 56% 13083 47%

Measure L, the vote-by-district measure, won by an unexpectedly large margin. It was widely expected that the measure would have a tough time in Anaheim Hills. It did not, but Anaheim Hills did support it by a weaker margin than the Flatlands did, so in the Anaheim split did go with expectations, rather than against them, but simply in a negligible percentage. Measure L won 64% of Anaheim Hills votes while it won 72% in the Flatlands.

Measure L
Anaheim Hills Flatlands
Yes 10213 64% 20660 72%
No 5750 36% 8231 28%

Measure M, the measure to grow the City Council by two seats, won in unexpectedly close fashion. In the Flatlands, it won 56% of the vote while in Anaheim Hills, it won with a much closer 51% of the vote.

Measure M
Anaheim Hills Flatlands
Yes 7836 51% 15916 56%
No 7652 49% 12451 44%

Posted in Anaheim | Tagged: , , , , , , , | 1 Comment »

Eric Woolery to Dominate Mail in Auditor-Controller Election with 1.5 Million Pieces

Posted by Newsletter Reprint on March 5, 2014

This came over the wire this morning from Orange Treasurer Eric Woolery‘s campaign for Auditor-Controller.  Woolery managed to snag rare unity from Anaheim Mayor Tom Tait and Anaheim Mayor Pro Tem Kris Murray:

Eric Woolery for Orange County Auditor-Controller

Eric Woolery to Dominate Mail in Auditor-Controller Election
with 1.5 Million Pieces

Maintains Frontrunner Momentum with Additional Endorsements

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
March 5, 2014
Contact: Chris Emami
chrisemami@custom-campaigns.com

ORANGE COUNTY, CA – Orange Treasurer Eric Woolery announced today that he has locked up the major county election mail slates in his campaign for Auditor-Controller, which will carry his message to voters on 1.5 million pieces of mail.  Based on prior election results for Auditor-Controller and current voter turnout models, nearly 350,000 voters are expected to cast their ballots in this election for Auditor-Controller.  Securing the slates will ensure that Woolery’s message will be heard by every high propensity voter several times before the June 3 election.

“Becoming Auditor-Controller is my goal, and I aim to win. I have been planning my campaign for many months when I strategically began securing slates and endorsements while implementing other key tactics,” Woolery said. “Using my technical skills honed over 20 years as a CPA in both the public and private sectors leaves me ready to competently lead our county. Currently, the Auditor-Controller’s office is missing opportunities to ensure proactive and efficient uses of taxpayer dollars.”

Several key endorsers have also jumped on board the campaign, giving him additional momentum as the filing deadline nears.  Over the past several days, five major Orange County leaders have endorsed Woolery for the Auditor-Controller position:

  • Senate Republican Leader Bob Huff
  • Assemblywoman Diane Harkey
  • Anaheim Mayor Tom Tait
  • Anaheim Mayor Pro Tem Kris Murray
  • La Habra Councilman Tim Shaw

These distinguished local officials join a lengthy bipartisan list of elected officials providing their full support to Woolery, as he continues to hone his strategic plan for victory in this countywide race:

  • Supervisor Patricia C. Bates, Vice Chair of the Board of Supervisors
  • Supervisor William G. Steiner (Ret.)
  • Assemblyman Donald P. Wagner
  • Laguna Niguel Mayor Linda Lindholm
  • Tustin Mayor Al Murray
  • Tustin Mayor Jerry Amante (Ret.)
  • Orange Mayor Pro Tem Mark Murphy
  • Tustin Mayor Pro Tem Chuck Puckett
  • Aliso Viejo Councilman Mike Munzing
  • Fullerton Councilwoman Jennifer Fitzgerald
  • Lake Forest Councilman Scott Voigts
  • Mission Viejo Councilman Frank Ury
  • Orange Councilman Fred Whitaker
  • San Clemente City Councilwoman Lori Donchak
  • Tustin Councilman Allan Bernstein
  • Tustin Councilman John Nielsen
  • Orange County Board of Education Trustee Ken Williams
  • Rancho Santiago Community College District Trustee Arianna Barrios
  • Rancho Santiago Community College District Trustee John Hanna
  • Rancho Santiago Community College District Trustee Phil Yarbrough
  • Irvine Unified School District Trustee Paul Bokota
  • Irvine Unified School District Trustee Lauren Brooks
  • Orange Unified School District Vice President Alexia Deligianni
  • Orange Unified School District Trustee Tim Surridge
  • Orange Unified School District Trustee Mark Wayland
  • East Orange County Water District Director Doug Davert
  • Orange County Transportation Authority Director Michael Hennessey

###

Paid for by Woolery for Auditor-Controller 2014. ID# 1362822.

Posted in Orange County Auditor-Controller | Tagged: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | 1 Comment »

Anaheim Council Members Make (Or attempt to) Their Case to the Central Committee

Posted by Brenda McCune on January 21, 2014

The OCGOP held it’s monthly meeting last night at the (newly renamed) Hotel Irvine (Fka the Irvine Hyatt). The speakers for the evening were Lucille Kring and Kris Murray. These council members have been under attack for their vote on permitting hotel developers to have a rebate on the Transient Occupancy Tax, (TOT) once and if the hotels are built by the developers. This issue came before the council in 2012 and the council was split 2-3. More important is the May 2013 vote, when the issue was again considered and the vote was 4-1, Mayor Tom Tait being the only vote against the rebate.

The other hot topic of discussion was the ongoing negotiations with the Angels to extend their contract with Anaheim.

We heard over and over again from Kring and Murray that these were “complicated” issues. It seemed to me they had forgotten that their audience for the evening were 1) Grown-up people whom have all presumably stayed at a Hotel at some point in their lives, 2) Live in Orange County and know a few things about the Angels and Arte Moreno and 3) Are all politicians of one ilk or another.

It’s not complicated. It is not new math. It is not brain surgery or rocket science, but here’s the message they delivered.

Kris Murray beat the drum of unity of the City Council, indicating they were all in agreement on this and that and a whole bunch of other things. It is noteworthy, that the Central Committee meeting is open to anyone who wishes to attend, and in general, whomever is speaking is also not a secret. It would seem to behoove good local Republican politicians to know what the goings on are in their county’s Central Committee, particularly when a monthly meeting might be featuring one of their cohorts on their own council. Mayor Tom Tait was a guest speaking at the meeting just a few months ago. He delivered a very different message. His message was that he stood alone fighting the battle of fiscal conservativism on the Anaheim City Council. The 4-1 vote in favor of extending tax rebates (TOT’s) to hotel developers (Tait was the only dissenter) seems to bolster this claim by Mayor Tait.

Ms. Murray went on to discuss the “complicated” issues arising in the negotiations with the Angels over extending their contract with Anaheim. She emphasized the long history of the partnership of the city and the team, (no mention of the protracted litigation over the name just a few years ago) and the huge risk to the city should the Angels decide to up and move to a nearby city that will build them a new stadium, such as happened in Atlanta. She prepared a Power Point but time constraints did not permit her to go through it. She was kind enough to email it to the Central Committee members today for our review. It was interesting in that the Power Point contained one map of the United States that showed the teams that are receiving substantial subsidies from their city. These included four teams, Seattle Mariners, Arizona Diamondbacks, Washington Nationals, and Tampa Bay Rays. Each are purported to be receiving in excess of $300 million dollars in facilities funding. She emphasized that the city “makes” money on the Angels franchise in that it brings people to the area who support local retail and hotels. There are 30 MLB teams, there was no information or statistics on the averages, or any other variations, only the four teams getting subsidy’s of $300 million or more.

Tom Tait, when he recently appeared before the Committee, had argued that the city was not making money on the current deal with the Angels, and that the Angels were in essence being provided “free rent”. The Orange County register in September reported that over the past 16years that the current agreement has been in place, the city made money in nine of those years, and lost money in the past seven, for a net loss of $52,000.00. A sports/business expert interviewed by the Register called it an “irrelevant” loss. Tom Tait’s demeanor on that evening, was emotional, self serving, and desperate to convey to us that he was fighting the good fight and holding the line as a fiscal conservative. From that initial perspective to the message of last night, it is clear to see the emotionality in this divided Council. If Council Members Kring and Murray accomplished anything last night, it was to explain the emotionality and bolster the credibility of Mayor Tom Tait.

Lucille Kring discussed the TOT. This has been widely debated and criticized as the “$158 million dollar give away”.  She went on into a lengthy discussion and explanation of the TOT, of the fact that in the ‘90’s some hotels chose to build in Garden Grove instead of Anaheim, because of such tax advantages, and that Garden Grove at that time gave away free land. She failed to note that those Garden Grove hotels have undergone several ownership changes since they were built.  No discussion of whether the lack of success of those hotels has to do with the lack of proximity to Disneyland. She also noted that travelers frequently choose to stay in “four star” hotels in beach cities.  There was no discussion of what these proposed hotels getting the TOT rebates would be, but one report was that the plan was for a three story structure.  If that is what is proposed, that’s not a luxury hotel. She was terribly condescending in her repeated statements that the “city is not writing a check”. Well, maybe not now, but if this is indeed a “rebate”, that is exactly what the city will do. Again, she seemed to forget her audience, and stayed firm on her position that it was just too much for us to understand, and that if only we understood we would see what a great idea it was. She further, had great difficulty in admitting that she campaigned on representations that she would not support such tax breaks fro developers. Only after several questions from the typically forceful Debra Pauley, and then after the same question was restated by Chairman Baugh did Ms. Kring ultimately, finally admit that she “only discussed that with a few people, yes.”. She continued to assert that it was never stated in her “campaign materials”.

As public servants, both of these women serve our community at a substantial sacrifice to themselves, and nowhere could this be more appreciated than by this audience of public servants. However, in taking up the cloak of leadership, credibility, responsibility and message are relevant. Local politics is a blood sport and it appears they have engaged in this battle essentially unarmed. Overall, both Council Members were unconvincing in their message that everything is coming up roses in Anaheim and there is peace and harmony and that campaign promises are alive and well all around the Council Chambers in Anaheim. When Ms. Kring made the statement regarding her “campaign materials”, she turned away from the audience to face Chairman Baugh and spoke very softly. Nevertheless, it garnered an audible sigh from the audience.

There are a number of business people in Anaheim who support the Hotel deal, even though the most vociferous discussion on this TOT vote has been negative. Maybe there is a really good economic policy behind this and maybe it will ultimately be a wonderful outcome and bring business and revenue to the city, but we did not hear anything that sounded like that. There was a recurring excuse from both the speakers that these actions are similar to actions that have been taken before. That “well they did it back then” attitude and theme was as unpersuasive as every other part of the presentation.

Neither one of them appeared to believe in what they were selling. They were well prepared, rehearsed, polished and articulate and said what they came to say, but it was weak and unconvincing to say the least. If they believed in what they were doing, had absolute confidence in the positions they have taken on these issues, then there should have been no reason to sidestep actions contrary to campaign promises or to deny the obvious and well documented division among the council. This is certainly the wrong room to come to and be timid, apologetic,defensive, or untruthful.

In litigation we have a saying for silly or non-meritorious arguments, “That dog don’t hunt”. In the public forum as well as the political gathering last night, not only do these positions and policies “not hunt”, these politicians now and in their re-election bids will continue to be the hunted if they persist on a platform of excuses and half truths.

Posted in Anaheim, Uncategorized | Tagged: , , , , , , , , | 6 Comments »

Councilmembers Murray and Eastman Cost Anaheim Taxpayers $2 Million

Posted by Allen Wilson on January 8, 2014

KrisMurrayGail Eastman

The protracted issue regarding how Anaheim councilmembers are elected has come to an end but with a steep price.

Councilmembers Kris Murray and Gail Eastman has cost the taxpayers of Anaheim at a tune of $2 Million.

The City of Anaheim has already racked up $1.2 Million to defend itself and now must bear the cost of paying the litigants legal bills of over $1 Million, the ACLU and Anaheim Community Activists, who brought the issue to it’s head two years ago.

The Orange County Register reports that Anaheim Mayor Tom Tait says, “the cost of fighting the lengthy lawsuit could have been avoided if the City Council in August 2012 had approved his call for similar ballot measure.”

The two councilmembers joined with then-Councilman Harry Sidhu in 2012 as council majority stubbornly rejected Mayor Tait’s proposal.

The issue centers around Latino activists who echoed the need to change how councilmembers are elected from at-large to districts, because no Latino currently sits on the dais and 52% of the community are Latinos.

The settlement was agreed upon from a case Moreno, et al. vs. City of Anaheim that was slated to go to trail on March 17, 2014 regarding the California Voting Rights Act (CVRA).

The Voice of OC reported that Councilmember Murray called the deal “a win for our citizens, for our residents, for the taxpayers of Anaheim.”

Ironically, the Orange County Register reports that Councilmember Murray says, “I am still opposed to a form of single-member district election.  I think this lawsuit and the fees attached to it are unfortunate for this city.”

In the January 8th, 2014 edition of The Anaheim Blog contributor Matthew Cunningham asserts that the ACLU and Jose Moreno are at fault for costing the taxpayers huge legal bills:  “The fault lies with the plaintiffs’ stubborn insistence on bypassing the voters in favor of the imposition of single-member districts by judicial fiat.”

Frankly, Mr. Cunningham forgets that Councilmembers Murray and Eastman have an fiduciary duty to protect the city’s assets such as taxpayer funds and settle the issue back in 2012 as suggested by Mayor Tait to let the voters decide how their councilmembers are elected.

Councilmembers Murray and Eastman should realize that the buck stops with them and they have the power by finding a consensus with Mayor Tait instead of fighting against him and the community.

The bottom line is this:  consensus is cheap, litigation is expensive.

Posted in Anaheim, California, Uncategorized | Tagged: , , , , | 35 Comments »

Steel Endorses Harkey as BOE Successor

Posted by Newsletter Reprint on September 6, 2013

This came over the wire yesterday from the Diane Harkey for Board of Equalization campaign…

For Immediate Release

Thursday, September 5, 2013

In Case You Missed It:

Harkey Gains Major Endorsement with Support of BOE Incumbent Michelle Steel

(Sacramento, CA) – Board of Equalization Member Michelle Steel announced Monday her support for Diane Harkey to replace her on the Board.  Steel is retiring due to term limits and is running for Orange County Supervisor.  Michelle Steel joins a long list of Harkey supporters, including:

  • Congressman John Campbell
  • State Senator Mimi Walters
  • Former Senator Marian Bergeson
  • Assembly Member Curt Hagman
  • Assembly Member Alan Mansoor
  • Assembly Member Don Wagner
  • Orange Co. District Attorney Tony Rackaukus
  • Orange County Sheriff Sandra Hutchens
  • Orange County Clerk-Recorder Hugh Nguyen
  • Orange County Supervisor Janet Nguyen
  • Orange County Supervisor Todd Spitzer
  • Orange County Supervisor Pat Bates
  • Orange County Supervisor Shawn Nelson
  • Orange County Supervisor Bill Campbell (ret)
  • Anaheim Mayor Tom Tait
  • Anaheim City Councilwoman Lucille Kring
  • Anaheim City Councilwoman Kris Murray
  • Irvine Mayor Steven Choi
  • Irvine Mayor Pro Tem Jeff Lalloway
  • Irvine City Councilwoman Christina Shea
  • Huntington Beach Mayor Pro Tem Matt Harper
  • Huntington Beach City Councilman Joe Carchio
  • Mission Viejo Mayor Rhonda Reardon
  • Mission Viejo Mayor Pro Tem Patricia Kelley
  • Mission Viejo City Councilman Dave Leckness
  • Mission Viejo City Councilman Frank Ury
  • Laguna Niguel Mayor Robert Ming
  • Laguna Niguel Mayor Pro Tem Linda Lindholm
  • Laguna Niguel City Councilwoman Laurie Davies
  • Former Laguna Niguel Mayor Gary Capata
  • Aliso Viejo Mayor Carmen Cave
  • Aliso Viejo Mayor Pro Tem Phil Tsunoda
  • Aliso Viejo City Council Mike Munzing
  • San Juan Capistrano Mayor John Taylor
  • San Juan Cap. Mayor Pro Tem Sam Allevato
  • San Juan Capistrano Councilman Larry Kramer
  • Dana Point City Councilman Bill Brough
  • Dana Point City Councilman Carlos Olvera
  • Stanton Mayor David Shawver
  • Tustin Mayor Al Murray
  • Tustin City Councilman John Nielsen
  • Tustin City Councilman Allan Bernstein
  • Rancho Santa Margarita Mayor Anthony Beall
  • Rancho Santa Margarita Councilman Steve Baric
  • Fountain Valley Mayor Mark McCurdy
  • Laguna Hills Mayor Pro Tem Andrew Blount
  • Laguna Hills City Councilman Randall Bressette
  • Laguna Hills City Councilwoman Melody Carruth
  • Laguna Hills City Councilman Dore Gilbert
  • San Clemente Mayor Pro Tem Tim Brown
  • San Clemente City Councilwoman Lori Donchak
  • San Clemente City Councilman Jim Evert
  • Orange City Councilman Fred Whitaker

(Partial List)

Posted in Board of Equalization | Tagged: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | 1 Comment »

Republican, Democrat, Independent??? The Partisan Affiliations of Everyone Holding Office In Orange County

Posted by Former Blogger Chris Emami on March 22, 2013

I was working on a database of the part affiliation of all Orange County local elected officials. Finally, I have completed the project with all of the special districts and county seats being added. I also fixed some errors in the previous versions (here, here, and here) and have combined the database into one post.

duck-elephant-donkey-logos

We have added a button on the menu bar for our readers to always be able to access this database and use it for whatever research/political needs that they may have. Due to the length of th epost you are going to have to click the below link to read the rest of the post.

Read the rest of this entry »

Posted in 1st Supervisorial District, 2nd Supervisorial District, 3rd Supervisorial District, 4th Supervisorial District, 5th Supervisorial District, Aliso Viejo, Anaheim, Anaheim City School District, Anaheim Union High School District, Brea, Brea Olinda Unified School District, Buena Park, Buena Park Library District, Buena Park School District, Capistrano Bay Community Services District, Capistrano Unified School District, Centralia School District, Coast Community College District, Costa Mesa, Costa Mesa Sanitary District, Cypress, Cypress School District, Dana Point, East Orange County Water District, El Toro Water District, Emerald Bay Service District, Fountain Valley, Fountain Valley School District, Fullerton, Fullerton Joint Union High School District, Fullerton School District, Garden Grove, Garden Grove Unified School District, Huntington Beach, Huntington Beach City School District, Huntington Beach Union High School District, Irvine, Irvine Ranch Water District, Irvine Unified School District, La Habra, La Habra City School District, La Palma, Laguna Beach, Laguna Beach Unified School District, Laguna Hills, Laguna Niguel, Laguna Woods, Lake Forest, Los Alamitos, Los Alamitos Unified School District, Lowell Joint School District, Magnolia School District, Mesa Consolidated Water District, Midway City Sanitary District, Mission Viejo, Moulton-Niguel Water District, Municipal Water District of Orange County, Newport Beach, Newport-Mesa Unified School District, North Orange County Community College District, Ocean View School District, Orange, Orange County, Orange County Auditor-Controller, Orange County Board of Education, Orange County Board of Supervisors, Orange County Clerk-Recorder, Orange County District Attorney's Office, Orange County Water District, Orange Unified School District, Placentia, Placentia Library District, Placentia-Yorba Linda Unified School District, Rancho Santa Margarita, Rancho Santiago Community College District, Saddleback Valley Unified School District, San Clemente, San Juan Capistrano, Santa Ana, Santa Ana Unified School District, Santa Margarita Water District, Savanna School District, Seal Beach, Serrano Water District, Silverado-Modjeska Recreation and Park District, South Coast Water District, South Orange County Community College District, Stanton, Sunset Beach Sanitary District, Surfside Colony Community Services District, Surfside Colony Storm Water Protection District, Three Arch Bay Community Services District, Trabuco Canyon Water District, Tustin, Tustin Unified School District, Villa Park, Westminster, Westminster School District, Yorba Linda, Yorba Linda Water District | Tagged: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | 5 Comments »

Anaheim Campaign Finance Database

Posted by Former Blogger Chris Emami on March 21, 2013

We are adding a new feature to our humble blog. Readers will soon be able to go to one location to find campaign finance data on all 2012 candidates for local elected office. As far as I can tell no other website currently has this information. While this project will take a while and we will be releasing one city at a time (if we get some donor support) it should be well worth it. Here is a little sample for you to glance at:City_of_Anaheim_Seal_svg

We are looking for donors to help us fund this project for every City, School District, and Special District in Orange County. Please send an e-mail to info@custom-campaigns.com if you want to help sponsor this project.

These candidates took in less than $1,000 in contributions thus making them eligible to file a much more simplified disclosure form that does not have donors listed on it:

Duane Roberts
Jennifer Rivera
Rodolfo “Rudy” Gaono
Linda Linder

Here are the rest of the candidates along with a pie chart showing what percentage of their money came from each category of entities:

Jordan Brandman Total $$$
Individuals  $ 32,739.00
Unions  $ 18,950.00
Businesses  $ 25,929.51
Trade Associations  $   9,100.00
Political  $   6,042.27
Total  $ 92,760.78

brandmanchart

Steve Lodge Total $$$
Individuals  $ 14,985.00
Union  $   1,800.00
Businesses  $ 17,399.00
Trade Association  $   7,050.00
Political  $   1,800.00
Total  $ 43,034.00

stevechavezlodgechart

Brian Chuchua Total $$$
Individuals  $   269.00
Union  $          –
Businesses  $   500.00
Trade Association  $   250.00
Political  $          –
Total  $ 1,019.00

brianchuchuachart

Lucille Kring Total $$$
Individuals  $ 14,975.00
Unions  $            –
Businesses  $ 30,514.00
Trade Associations  $   5,300.00
Political  $   1,000.00
Total  $ 51,789.00

lucillekringchart

John Leos Total $$$
Individuals  $  9,046.00
Unions  $ 10,000.00
Businesses  $  3,600.00
Trade Associations  $  1,800.00
Political  $     500.00
Total  $ 24,946.00

johnleoschart

If you click the link to read more, you can find out who each individual donor was to each campaign broken down by category.

Read the rest of this entry »

Posted in Anaheim | Tagged: , , , , , , , , , , , , , | 2 Comments »

2012 City Council Party Affiliation Post

Posted by Former Blogger Chris Emami on November 14, 2012

Chris Nguyen did a great job putting together a local database of all party affiliations for candidates running for local office. I thought that I would take the time to expand on his post and show a database of all Orange County Councilmembers (Also OC Board of Supervisors) that will be serving on City Councils starting next month and what party they are affiliated with.

Please note that a couple of races could potentially change based on a close finish and not all votes being counted. This post will be added to our website in a permanent tab that we will be creating at the top of the site.

Here is the database: Read the rest of this entry »

Posted in 1st Supervisorial District, 2nd Supervisorial District, 3rd Supervisorial District, 4th Supervisorial District, 5th Supervisorial District, Aliso Viejo, Anaheim, Brea, Buena Park, Costa Mesa, Cypress, Dana Point, Fountain Valley, Fullerton, Garden Grove, Huntington Beach, Irvine, La Habra, La Palma, Laguna Beach, Laguna Hills, Laguna Niguel, Laguna Woods, Lake Forest, Los Alamitos, Mission Viejo, Newport Beach, Orange, Orange County Board of Supervisors, Placentia, Rancho Santa Margarita, San Clemente, San Juan Capistrano, Santa Ana, Seal Beach, Stanton, Tustin, Villa Park, Westminster, Yorba Linda | Tagged: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | 14 Comments »