Monday, September 3, 2012
Politics and Blunt Force Trauma (Written February 2011)
In 2002 I was injured in a car accident and had what I latter learned can only be described as "closed head trauma". The accident, I could not really recall. Many things related to my life, like my phone number and the directions to my office from my home, I could not remember. Words escaped me, peoples names escaped me, and often I found my self en route somewhere, only to realize that I was unsure where I was going and why. The strange and unexpected lesson I learned is that there is a facet of emotional memory, emotional experience, that does not get erased, even with this loss of short term memory. Emotionally, you remember. The day after my accident, I woke up, in my own room, in my own bed, unsure of where I was, but I knew for sure, that I belonged there. The ‘feeling’, emotional experiences, were not forgotten, and not affected by my short term memory problems.
My recent submersion into politics was a little bit the same. I was a stranger in a strange land, but compelled to be there by a force that I still struggle to explain, and the emotion attached to it, is inescapable.
I have spent the past 15 years sharpening my skills as a litigator and navigating the treacherous waters of family law in Southern California Courts. For the 8 years prior to finishing Law School I sold cars, paid my own way and purchased a home. It is amusing to be characterized as someone with financial influence in local politics at this time, because I was not in any way a trust fund baby. My puzzled family marvelled at why I would work a decent paying full time job that was often seven days a week, and still pursue the law degree at all other times including evenings and weekends. My parents are the hardest working people I know. My mom didn’t finish high school and my dad drove trucks and wanted to own his own trucks more than anything. I think at some point they really thought I had lost my mind though. Encouragement for my far fetched plan was non-existant, and my committment to the plan, rarely gained me any reinforcement or approval. One of my bosses in the car business said to me one day, "If that law thing doesn’t work out, you will always have the car business." Thankfully the law-thing kinda worked out for me, but I’m always up for a new challenge, and politics has been calling me since I was a young Republican.
After my years in the car business and in the practice of family law, I have to admit, I was somewhat dismissive of the warnings of the hard knocks I would take in politics. In the car business in the 80's I was generally the only woman on the sales force, a very young one at that, and in law practice, I have devoted my career to family law litigation, divorces and trial work. I lived in the trenches of these tough careers, worked with rough aggressive car salesmen, and represented vindictive abrasive litigants and confronted antagonistic divorce lawyers. I truly did not think that politics could serve up any abuse, humiliation or adversity I hadn’t already endured in life. I was mistaken.
The ugliness in politics is merciless, it is arbitrary, objectifies and disregards the humanity of the participants. Unlike litigation, there is little if any, professional courtesy, and most frustrating is the utter lack of a right to confront and cross examine.
We sat through about 5 Candidate "Forums" in my recent City Council race. Not debates, but question and answer programs, sponsored by various organizations in the city. During at least the last two of these debates, both John Anderson and Tom Lindsey, unequivocally denied any involvement in the extensive negative campaign levied against incumbent Jan Horton.
No one asked further, and I did not get the opportunity to ask my cross exaiming questions of Mr. Lindsey and Mr. Anderson. If they had "nothing" to do with the negative campaign, (Anderson’s meticulously chosen words were "I did not write that piece.") then why did the negative mail pieces about Jan Horton each come on the very day, and with the same bulk mail permit, as the mail pieces on Anderson and Lindsey. They (Anderson/Lindsey) were endorsed by the YLRRR, the group that claimed responsibility for the mail pieces against Horton. Lindsey/Anderson were also endorsed by the CRA and the NOCCC. Both or either group was responsible (apparently, because no one has stepped up and claimed responsibility for it) the obnoxious robo-call, with the angry male voice targeting Jan Horton. I would have loved an opportunity to call as witnesses for purposes of cross-examination, Anderson, Lindsey, various founding members of the YLRRR and organizers of the NOCCC, on the veracity of their financial declarations, their denial of involvement in the hit pieces and who really was that angry male voice?
Even these many months after the campaign is over, I am contacted on a regular basis by citizens who own horses and are denied access to and use of our city facilities because they backed the wrong candidate, by property owners who are in fear that their open support of my campaign would have earned them the retribution of the current city council, by concerned citizens who clearly realize that by being "outside" of the small controlling political circle in our city, they will not in any way have the same voice or advantages as those on the "inside". Due process is not supposed to work this way. I continue to contend, there is now, and has not been any danger of "Bell in YL" the political climate in this city is more akin to historic Chicago, where the prevailing attitude was " If you are not one of us, you are not."
I will not again, belaver here, the points already exhausted during the course of the campaign about the substantive deficiencies with the policies and platforms of the current majority council. Suffice it to say, we the citizens, through apathy or misinformation, have allowed an administration that patronizes a minority of citizens and a special interest group, and who’s agenda and record of spending would embarrass many a democrat.
Jim Drummond, on the one occasion he ventured to speak to me, made it clear that he did not like that I had retained a political consultant, did not like my consultant personally, and suggested that I change courses. His continual favorable treatment to John Anderson and John Anderson’s friends make no secret of where Jim Drummond’s loyalties lie, but his veiled threat to me that I would not find favor with him if I was not alligned with his friends was something I found unusually offensive from someone who hides behind the veil of the press and feigned objectivity.
I have not reviewed the financial reports of any other candidates. I really don’t care to. I was assured at the outset of the campaign that I would spend more than the others, because I was a newcomer, because I refused to allign with any other candidate and because I intended to run a credible campaign. I do doubt the summary of Mr. Drummond that I outspent the others. I have serious doubts about the veracity of the reports of the YLRRR, Lindsey or Anderson, given the unprecedented battle they waged. However, that is the benefit of anonymity isn’t it. There is no membership roll of the YLRRR published anywhere, at any time. Still no one knows who really is a member of this organization. The organization that undoubtedly decided this election. The organization that is strangely outside the parameters of John Anderson’s carefully drafted "ethics" ordinance.
I am the only candidate who hired professionals to work on my campaign. I am the only candidate who is also a sole practice, lawyer, and single parent. I take seriously the legal requirements of set forth by the federal government, I did not have the time to learn these ropes, and no fully unemployed spouse to navigate them for me. I have a lot to lose potentially, and I intended to come through the campaign without inadvertently missing any legal requirements.
I would not have done anything differently. I would do the November 2010 campaign all over again. I will not do another one, but have no regrets about the recent past. I saw truth and common sense die a slow and painful death right before me, each and every time I confronted these candidates. Sound bytes and platitudes rule the day, and our city is worse off because of it. The damage resultant from complacency has not yet even begun to rear it’s ugly head. This, I can not face again.
So, yes, strangely and illogically, compelled to engage in this battle? I was. I may forget the veiled threats of Jim Drummond, and the furtive glances of Anderson and Lindsey as they denied the obvious, but the feeling, much like blunt force trauma, of standing up, at great personal expense to myself and my family, to do the right thing, and being accused of something else, well that is a ‘feeling’ that is not to be forgotten. It was important to do, and not likely I will stand before that train again.
Sunday, August 26, 2012
Powerlessness
If you have ever heard the voice of God, once you acknowledge it, it is unmistakable. I am confident that I have missed it many times. I am confident that guardian angels have guided and protected me many times, times that I know of and acknowledge, and times that I have ignored out of fear of looking directly in the face of divine providence. On one occasion, I acknowledged the conscious contact with God, accepted that the profound voice was not one that came from me, and realized it was a message he had attempted to communicate to me many times. In the depths of pain and confusion, remorse and anger, baffled by grief and experiencing first hand the “wrestling” with God described in the garden of Gethsemane, in that moment, when I heard the voice of God speaking directly to me, everything changed.
I changed, the circumstances changed, my ability to receive grace and miracles, and responsibility for myself and only the things within my control, everything, changed. I have learned that our pain is a gift. That gratitude and acceptance are the greatest powers we posses, and that nothing, absolutely nothing, is within my control or direction. It that acknowledgment of my own powerlessness, I tapped into the peace and grace that had always been available yet overlooked in my life.
We each have our own journey.
My plan, my intended destiny, as well as any self righteous good wishes I may have for another, are irrelevant. God has a plan for each of us. We all have our own reckoning to do. At the end of our days on earth, we each stand alone. Accountable for our actions and reactions to the world we have experienced, with no advocate, no scapegoat, alone, accountable. I can not control or determine anyone else’s journey, make it easier from my point of view, no matter how altruistic, selfless or practical my intentions.
In the realization that pain is a gift, that mercy visits us in tragedy, that our human experience is limited by dimension, I learned my self righteous good intentions are not helpful. They are interference, intrusion and interruption in the journey of another, and that such efforts are not necessarily well spent. Because ultimately, I am powerless over others.
Such a simple concept. Taught and propounded by Viktor Frankl. I have loved the concept of: the only thing one can control is one’s response to his environment. A laudable concept, but as I have discovered, a difficult one to live.
There are different kinds of “knowing”. To know something intellectually, as in facts and figures, from books, history and math. To know, as in to meet someone, to be familiar, to understand, to feel and comprehend.
Now I know, more than intellectually. I am powerless over others, as well as much of what occurs in the world. As I let those things and my efforts to control, go, I tap into the power of the Universe through a gracious and loving God. Our ultimate power lies in our surrender.
I changed, the circumstances changed, my ability to receive grace and miracles, and responsibility for myself and only the things within my control, everything, changed. I have learned that our pain is a gift. That gratitude and acceptance are the greatest powers we posses, and that nothing, absolutely nothing, is within my control or direction. It that acknowledgment of my own powerlessness, I tapped into the peace and grace that had always been available yet overlooked in my life.
We each have our own journey.
My plan, my intended destiny, as well as any self righteous good wishes I may have for another, are irrelevant. God has a plan for each of us. We all have our own reckoning to do. At the end of our days on earth, we each stand alone. Accountable for our actions and reactions to the world we have experienced, with no advocate, no scapegoat, alone, accountable. I can not control or determine anyone else’s journey, make it easier from my point of view, no matter how altruistic, selfless or practical my intentions.
In the realization that pain is a gift, that mercy visits us in tragedy, that our human experience is limited by dimension, I learned my self righteous good intentions are not helpful. They are interference, intrusion and interruption in the journey of another, and that such efforts are not necessarily well spent. Because ultimately, I am powerless over others.
Such a simple concept. Taught and propounded by Viktor Frankl. I have loved the concept of: the only thing one can control is one’s response to his environment. A laudable concept, but as I have discovered, a difficult one to live.
There are different kinds of “knowing”. To know something intellectually, as in facts and figures, from books, history and math. To know, as in to meet someone, to be familiar, to understand, to feel and comprehend.
Now I know, more than intellectually. I am powerless over others, as well as much of what occurs in the world. As I let those things and my efforts to control, go, I tap into the power of the Universe through a gracious and loving God. Our ultimate power lies in our surrender.
Monday, March 5, 2012
He sent you a picture of WHAT?
I read an article yesterday about how the new technologies of communication are affecting sociological development and culture. Mores continue to develop as boundaries and propriety are blurred. As a grown up single girl who is in a profession in which I daily encounter TMI, I feel uniquely qualified to make this very important PSA to all men, everywhere: Women do not want to see IT.
I have had the unfortunate experience of having received such photos (Yes, photos is plural) via my cell phone. On at least one occasion, I specifically recall, making it imminently clear to the sender that I did not want to see IT, that I did not want a picture of IT, and explained that women are not visual like men in that way and I am certain that I am not the only girl who desires never to receive any image, form or likeness of IT. He sent it anyway. No, english was not his second language.
Men, trust me on this, if she says she does not want to see it, she does not want to see it. If you don’t ask her and send it anyway, she does not want to see it. Even if she likes you a lot, and has seen it in person, she still does not want to see a picture of it, and most definitely not in the middle of the day, as an MMS on her cell phone or an attachment in her email inbox. Don’t ask your guy friends for guidance on this one, they are all as misguided as you, whatever they say is just wrong.
Although you may love it and think it is very special, rest assured, it is not. Even if you are incredibly impressed with your sexual prowess, and want to document your high degree of motivation, I assure you she doesn’t want to see it. Once you photograph it for her, she is not gonna want to see you... at all. .....and yes, she will show all her friends and they will all laugh and critique. It won’t be pretty, they won't say kind things about you. They will all be similarly apalled.
If you are famous, marginally popular, or even well connected or related to someone famous, don’t do it. Definitely don’t do it. No one wants to see it, and once IT is out there, everyone will know that you are just a self absorbed creep. If you don’t believe me, I bet you can get Anthony Weiner or Bret Favre on the phone to explain it to you.
Good luck, and remember, a cell phone camera is not a toy. Snap responsibly.
I have had the unfortunate experience of having received such photos (Yes, photos is plural) via my cell phone. On at least one occasion, I specifically recall, making it imminently clear to the sender that I did not want to see IT, that I did not want a picture of IT, and explained that women are not visual like men in that way and I am certain that I am not the only girl who desires never to receive any image, form or likeness of IT. He sent it anyway. No, english was not his second language.
Men, trust me on this, if she says she does not want to see it, she does not want to see it. If you don’t ask her and send it anyway, she does not want to see it. Even if she likes you a lot, and has seen it in person, she still does not want to see a picture of it, and most definitely not in the middle of the day, as an MMS on her cell phone or an attachment in her email inbox. Don’t ask your guy friends for guidance on this one, they are all as misguided as you, whatever they say is just wrong.
Although you may love it and think it is very special, rest assured, it is not. Even if you are incredibly impressed with your sexual prowess, and want to document your high degree of motivation, I assure you she doesn’t want to see it. Once you photograph it for her, she is not gonna want to see you... at all. .....and yes, she will show all her friends and they will all laugh and critique. It won’t be pretty, they won't say kind things about you. They will all be similarly apalled.
If you are famous, marginally popular, or even well connected or related to someone famous, don’t do it. Definitely don’t do it. No one wants to see it, and once IT is out there, everyone will know that you are just a self absorbed creep. If you don’t believe me, I bet you can get Anthony Weiner or Bret Favre on the phone to explain it to you.
Good luck, and remember, a cell phone camera is not a toy. Snap responsibly.
Tuesday, February 14, 2012
Happy Valentines Day
On this day of love, not everyone has a "Valentine", and even if you do, you have to acknowledge that there are many "relationships" in your life. What better day that this day of love to challenge and srutinize relationships and whether we are really doing our best at all of them.
....A man must show himself friendly.
Friends can be short, tall, fat, thin, rich, poor, intellectually challenged, or brain surgeon material. Are any of these the factors that determine who we will be friendly and loving toward? Should they be factors? Does the data, appearance, or IQ of a person determine their loveability or value? Do we work to include, be kind to, have compassion for, and show friendliness to many people, any people, all people, regardless of their statistics?
....Let him who is without sin throw the first stone.
Are we inclined not to be not just unfriendly, but judgmental, to those whom are different than us? Is this what God wants from us, or does he want us to reserve our judgments and leave the condemnation to him. Seems obvious that he did want us to overcome our judgmental nature, yet we behave as if he has given us a duty, through our aspirations to keep ourselves “clean” and to not cavort with sinners. If we stand back and see the forest for the trees, we may see that our congregations and communities appear to outsiders as elitist clubs. Reminds me of that saying about glass houses. “Without sin”, well that is not me, and it is not you either, so do the wise and prudent thing, put down your stones. Jesus did not stone this woman, who had been caught in the act of adultery, so shy would we? He told her to go and sin no more. He did not tell her to go and extricate, surgically remove all of the sin and other sinners from your life. His instruction to this forgiven woman was to clean her own house, and his message to her accusers was to clean theirs.
...Even to the least of these my brothers.
Jesus told us that we may someday entertain angels without knowing it. He implied that these angels would be disguised as unlovely and lowly people. We will have no way of detecting them. Have we done all we can for the “least of these”, or is it possible that we have missed some and disappointed our maker? We encounter so many people in the course of our day. Store clerks, parking attendants, receptionists, the guys standing next to you at the DMV. Have you missed an opportunity to show kindness to any of the least of these?
....They will know you by your love.
Jesus also told us that of all the spiritual gifts we have received, of all the spiritual insight and knowledge we have received through him, the greatest, the highest, the best thing we can do for each other, and to show the world his love, is to love one another. Who can you show love to today? How can you show the extraordinary breadth and depth of the love of God that has been shown to you? Today seems like a good day to start.
On this celebrated day of love, who can you love better?
....A man must show himself friendly.
Friends can be short, tall, fat, thin, rich, poor, intellectually challenged, or brain surgeon material. Are any of these the factors that determine who we will be friendly and loving toward? Should they be factors? Does the data, appearance, or IQ of a person determine their loveability or value? Do we work to include, be kind to, have compassion for, and show friendliness to many people, any people, all people, regardless of their statistics?
....Let him who is without sin throw the first stone.
Are we inclined not to be not just unfriendly, but judgmental, to those whom are different than us? Is this what God wants from us, or does he want us to reserve our judgments and leave the condemnation to him. Seems obvious that he did want us to overcome our judgmental nature, yet we behave as if he has given us a duty, through our aspirations to keep ourselves “clean” and to not cavort with sinners. If we stand back and see the forest for the trees, we may see that our congregations and communities appear to outsiders as elitist clubs. Reminds me of that saying about glass houses. “Without sin”, well that is not me, and it is not you either, so do the wise and prudent thing, put down your stones. Jesus did not stone this woman, who had been caught in the act of adultery, so shy would we? He told her to go and sin no more. He did not tell her to go and extricate, surgically remove all of the sin and other sinners from your life. His instruction to this forgiven woman was to clean her own house, and his message to her accusers was to clean theirs.
...Even to the least of these my brothers.
Jesus told us that we may someday entertain angels without knowing it. He implied that these angels would be disguised as unlovely and lowly people. We will have no way of detecting them. Have we done all we can for the “least of these”, or is it possible that we have missed some and disappointed our maker? We encounter so many people in the course of our day. Store clerks, parking attendants, receptionists, the guys standing next to you at the DMV. Have you missed an opportunity to show kindness to any of the least of these?
....They will know you by your love.
Jesus also told us that of all the spiritual gifts we have received, of all the spiritual insight and knowledge we have received through him, the greatest, the highest, the best thing we can do for each other, and to show the world his love, is to love one another. Who can you show love to today? How can you show the extraordinary breadth and depth of the love of God that has been shown to you? Today seems like a good day to start.
On this celebrated day of love, who can you love better?
Monday, November 1, 2010
My Balinda
When my daughter was little enough to be strapped into a car seat, we were driving around town one day, talking about life through the eyes of a little girl. She asked me, “Mommy, where do I live, what is the name of it?”. I responded, “Yorba Linda.” She replied, “My Balinda?”. I said, “No, it’s Yorba......Linda.”. “Ok,” she said, “It’s My Balinda,”
Of course as a teenager, she really does not find this story cute at all, but I will never forget it. She is a very inquisitive, assertive and intelligent girl, and her ownership of the place she lives on that date, impressed me, and made me realized she shared my view of what a special place it is.
Throughout this election season, I have similarly been impressed with my neighbors, colleagues, friends, residents, parents, pet owners, home owners, business people, all who have the same sense of ownership of our wonderful community. I am impressed by the dedication and affection, by the information and attention, with which people regard this community.
The disappointing part has been to see this type of regional patriotism degenerate into a divisive, ownership mentality. “We were here first...” has pervaded the political dialogue and idealogic exchange throughout this campaign. This attitude though, “We were here first...” has in many instances throughout history, been the rhetorical start of major armed conflict. These embers of intolerance are easily fanned into a raging out of control fire.
I’m hoping for something better.
My great grandmother was a Sioux Medicine Woman, and my grandmother (her daughter) was the youngest of thirteen children. I learned many things from my grandmother who grew up on the reservation near Mobridge, South Dakota, during the depression. I learned many things from my grandmother and the stories of her youth. I learned of the importance of thrift, the value of generosity and the vileness of waste. I also learned the importance of forgiving and letting go of past transgressions and dealing with life as it exists each day at a time. If ever there were a reason and a people to stand upon “We were here first..” , it was my grandmother’s community. However, she did not teach me vindictiveness and retribution, she taught practicality and forgiveness and the futility of living in the past. She taught me that a sense of entitlement was not going to get me anywhere.
In Yorba Linda we have (unfortunately like many regions of our country and state!) experienced a difficult, bitter, resentful and angry tone to our campaign season. It saddens me. It saddens me not just for the hurt that it perpetrates to those it is directed toward, but the hurt and division that it has inflicted upon our community. I am also sad for those responsible for this race to the gutter, as I firmly believe that in your effort to deprive others of respect and power, you ultimately give up much of your own (respect and power). It is one of the laws of nature, and people who engage in these kinds of tactics, and employ these dynamics in their own relationships, rarely see it until it is too late. They don’t see how belittling others, makes them smaller, but it does.
Everyone in Yorba Linda feels a strong sense of ownership of their community. It is easy to see, and patently obvious when at each governmental meeting or hearing, each citizen who stands to be heard starts with “I have been a resident of Yorba Linda since....”, but at some point we have to all remember that on this day, at this moment in time, we ALL live here. Right Now. And, tomorrow, we all have one vote, each of us. None more important than the other. None more heavily weighted, and none worth more than one point per vote. Will we vote for our friends, the people who have promised us that they will give us whatever we want in our backyard regardless of the potential cost or impact to the community at large? Or will we vote for individuals of character who will promote the overall health of our government and practically seek out alternatives and compromises that serve the greater good?
It is by protecting the rights of everyone that we each continue to enjoy our own independence. It is by becoming involved and staying informed and voting our conscience that we prevent government from growing into a financial black hole that could swallow us all. On this day, let us all realize that Your Balinda is the same one as Mine, and work toward, and vote for, government that serves the best interests of the whole community and prevent the proliferation of government that serves only a small, select, and vocal few.
I will be voting for candidates with character across the board. They may not agree with me on every minute issue, but I’d rather trust the candidate with character to figure it out and stand for principles rather than promises. Who will you be voting for in Your Balinda?
Of course as a teenager, she really does not find this story cute at all, but I will never forget it. She is a very inquisitive, assertive and intelligent girl, and her ownership of the place she lives on that date, impressed me, and made me realized she shared my view of what a special place it is.
Throughout this election season, I have similarly been impressed with my neighbors, colleagues, friends, residents, parents, pet owners, home owners, business people, all who have the same sense of ownership of our wonderful community. I am impressed by the dedication and affection, by the information and attention, with which people regard this community.
The disappointing part has been to see this type of regional patriotism degenerate into a divisive, ownership mentality. “We were here first...” has pervaded the political dialogue and idealogic exchange throughout this campaign. This attitude though, “We were here first...” has in many instances throughout history, been the rhetorical start of major armed conflict. These embers of intolerance are easily fanned into a raging out of control fire.
I’m hoping for something better.
My great grandmother was a Sioux Medicine Woman, and my grandmother (her daughter) was the youngest of thirteen children. I learned many things from my grandmother who grew up on the reservation near Mobridge, South Dakota, during the depression. I learned many things from my grandmother and the stories of her youth. I learned of the importance of thrift, the value of generosity and the vileness of waste. I also learned the importance of forgiving and letting go of past transgressions and dealing with life as it exists each day at a time. If ever there were a reason and a people to stand upon “We were here first..” , it was my grandmother’s community. However, she did not teach me vindictiveness and retribution, she taught practicality and forgiveness and the futility of living in the past. She taught me that a sense of entitlement was not going to get me anywhere.
In Yorba Linda we have (unfortunately like many regions of our country and state!) experienced a difficult, bitter, resentful and angry tone to our campaign season. It saddens me. It saddens me not just for the hurt that it perpetrates to those it is directed toward, but the hurt and division that it has inflicted upon our community. I am also sad for those responsible for this race to the gutter, as I firmly believe that in your effort to deprive others of respect and power, you ultimately give up much of your own (respect and power). It is one of the laws of nature, and people who engage in these kinds of tactics, and employ these dynamics in their own relationships, rarely see it until it is too late. They don’t see how belittling others, makes them smaller, but it does.
Everyone in Yorba Linda feels a strong sense of ownership of their community. It is easy to see, and patently obvious when at each governmental meeting or hearing, each citizen who stands to be heard starts with “I have been a resident of Yorba Linda since....”, but at some point we have to all remember that on this day, at this moment in time, we ALL live here. Right Now. And, tomorrow, we all have one vote, each of us. None more important than the other. None more heavily weighted, and none worth more than one point per vote. Will we vote for our friends, the people who have promised us that they will give us whatever we want in our backyard regardless of the potential cost or impact to the community at large? Or will we vote for individuals of character who will promote the overall health of our government and practically seek out alternatives and compromises that serve the greater good?
It is by protecting the rights of everyone that we each continue to enjoy our own independence. It is by becoming involved and staying informed and voting our conscience that we prevent government from growing into a financial black hole that could swallow us all. On this day, let us all realize that Your Balinda is the same one as Mine, and work toward, and vote for, government that serves the best interests of the whole community and prevent the proliferation of government that serves only a small, select, and vocal few.
I will be voting for candidates with character across the board. They may not agree with me on every minute issue, but I’d rather trust the candidate with character to figure it out and stand for principles rather than promises. Who will you be voting for in Your Balinda?
Friday, October 15, 2010
MEASURE Y: Why indeed?
Jim Drummond, Yorba Linda’s only political columnist, urges a Yes vote on Measure Y even though he acknowledges that the law is flawed. This is consistent with what is a fundamental problem of our government at all levels right now, just because you CAN make new laws doesn’t mean you have to. Drummond’s attitude is the same as John Anderson's, which is, we can just fix it later. Yep, really. We will just get started with something that isn’t right and make it right later. What business runs this way? I certainly could not afford to survive in business if I worked that way. Not to mention, as lawyer, if I proceeded initially in cases in manner that I KNEW would not work, in hopes of “fixing” it later, I wouldn’t win many cases, and I wouldn’t have many happy clients.
Further puzzling is that there is an ethics “ordinance” exactly, word for word, like Measure Y, that was enacted by John Anderson’s majority council in June, yes June of 2010. This “ethics ordinance” says John Anderson, is too easily modified by future councils, so he moved it to a ballot measure. In order to change it, if enacted in this way, would require another vote of the people. Great idea right, create and enact a flawed law, sell it to people on the theory that we will just fix it later, but don’t explain to them how costly and complicated it is to repair it once we have it enacted in it’s flawed state. Super idea, government logic at it’s best.
This need for ethics legislation was born, according to John Anderson, from concerns that he had when he was a traffic commissioner. A City Councilwoman at that time, according to him, inappropriately requested his endorsement during an election, and he felt threatened. This seems to be an issue that should have been dealt with at that time when it occurred, and certainly is part and parcel of having a “whistleblower” policy and procedure. Anderson, as a commissioner would have bee protected and made to feel safe if he blew the whistle on this intimidating Councilwoman. The problem with the proposed Measure Y, is that it does not set forth the “policy and procedure” that would be that whistleblower policy. It leaves it for future council’s to determine and develop. One is left wondering then, if John Anderson’s stated concern related to the necessity of having this duplicative law-creating Measure is to “prevent future council’s from changing it” then why is such an important issue left in this unfinished state? The council members who opposed this measure when presented at the City Council meeting have indicated that more time was needed to perfect the terms of the whole thing. Sure seems that way. The measure specifically states “The City Council shall adopt by a separate ordinance a “whistleblower” procedure”. Then future councils, who are by John Anderson’s definition not to be trusted with this ethics stuff, will have to be relied upon to get this done. Again, super idea, government logic at its best.
The “code of conduct” portion of the measure is also executory and by its own terms incomplete. It states that the city council “shall adopt” a resolution with policies as to how council members should behave toward one another, city staff, and others they may come in contact with in the community. This probably is a good idea, to have a plan, and have it developed by a future council. Can you imagine what a list of do’s and don’t about council behavior would look like if it came from (this) Anderson’s council? It would be something like, "feel free to resort to bickering and name calling whenever you and your buddies on the council feel fully justified in doing so, and when one of your buddies interrupts and is rude to other council who are not your buddies, or starts name-calling and making politically charged comments, feel free to join in, remembering always that you are fully justified in doing so, because you are in the majority." It would probably also have a section related to election time, "When you are running for re-election though, pretend you don't know what your buddies are doing when they send out hate mail against your opponents. Try to convince the voters that you don't support negative campaigns. Just beleive that the voters will probably forget the stuff you said and the way you acted during council meetings". Code of conduct indeed.
The provision on accepting contributions from an interested party after “approving” a permit, was raised as a concern by Councilwoman Horton, who voted against the ordinance when it came before the city council. In that provision, there is nothing related to a party who benefits from the council’s NO vote on a project. This precise situation actually occurred and John Anderson and another council person accepted donations of $1,000.00 from a citizen who benefitted from a NO vote of the council. It took John Anderson about three weeks to think it over before giving the money back. I guess it is hard to think through your moral philosophy when you’re hanging on to a grand in a bad economy and an election year.
There is a portion that provides for audio tape recording of "closed" session city council meetings. In May, the City Attorney, Sonia Carvahlo quit. At that time, John Anderson's majority council voted to begin interviews to hire a new law firm. We could have stayed with the same law firm and replaced just the attorney, say with Assistant City Attorney, Jamie Raymond, who is serving now as the interim, but the majority wanted to interview new firms so that process began. The interviews have been ongoing, and conducted in these types of closed sessions and have been recorded. For some unknown and mysterious reason, no new firm has been hired and the process has now been susended,"tabled" as is the popular action by this majority council. The public can't and won't know what has transpired unless the tapes are released. At the last council meeting a motion was made to release the tapes, Anderson opposed it, his majority followed him in their typical lock-step and the tapes are not to be released. In Anderson's campaign for re-election, he continues to preach the gospel of "transparency". Huh? "Transparency"? Doesn't that mean let the public know and SEE what is going on? Ok, well apparently he only means, transparency, when it suits Anderson and his majority, but not ALL the time. This "transparency" provision of Anderson's "ethics" ordinance, requires a vote of ....guess what, 3 of the council. As long as Anderson controls the council, the public will never see THOSE tapes. Maybe there are some other ones they will want us to see. Transparency, indeed. Another great idea.
The part that I have found most offensive relates to limiting the employees, contractors and labor associations associated with the city from endorsing or contributing to candidates, initiatives or referendums. This is really a political issue and many political groups in the current election, have required an “anti-union” pledge before they will consider endorsing a candidate. The candidate is free to be part of that organization or not, political organizations are not the government and membership is voluntary. John Anderson has attempted to take that political agenda and codify it in our city municipal code with this measure. What they have done though, with the broad sweeping language here, is to limit the ability of people running for office, in office, working for the city or contracting with the city (teachers, firefighter and police) from actively participating, endorsing or contributing to candidates. Why is this necessary? Who exactly is served and protected by this? Certainly incumbent politicians, in the pocket of local special interest groups, but it is hard to see anyone else that is benefitted by this.
City employees, Firefighters, police and teachers, are citizens of our city and entitled to be heard, and to be involved to whatever extent they want to be. The U.S. and California Constitutions protect the rights of these people and all of us, to free speech, to associate with whomever we want, and to participate freely without coercion or intimidation in the election process. This section of the measure is vague and easily could be used to intimidate these individuals into silence and non-participation. It is happening. We are seeing this in the current election already. The measure as drafted, benefits John Anderson, his council and the special interests that support them.
The political undercurrent that has lead to the anti-government employee sentiments has to do with the unfunded pension liability of the state and the state budget crisis. Our job as candidates and councilpersons in Yorba Linda is to represent the citizens, regardless of their job, and these employees did not create the budget crisis in Sacramento. Politicians in Sacramento who can not make good choices and stand on their own two ethical feet, they created this crisis. Penalizing public employees by limiting their free speech rights is not in any way the solution. John Anderson said, at the candidate forum on Tuesday, that one of the most important issues was to stop the “pension bleed”. I found that an interesting comment from a public employee who has the advantage of a pension “double-dip”. I wonder what portion of his two government pensions and benefits he is willing to donate back to help us out with the current budget shortfalls?
Anderson’s most recently recruited lackey, his running mate Tom Lindsey, at the candidate debate on Tuesday, October 12, brought a copy of the U.S. Constitution and waved it around. I found it incredibly offensive, particularly from someone who either does not understand or does not appreciate the investment and sacrifice that has gone into that document becoming what it is today. The First and the Fourteenth Amendments, which rights are negatively affected by this measure, are codifications of rights that we gained after bloody conflicts with many lost lives. The first ten amendments came after the Revolutionary War, and the Civil War in which half-million young Americans gave their lives, yielded us the Thirteenth, Fourteenth and Fifteenth Amendments. Half a million lives, all of them American were sacrificed in the Civil War, yes the Fourteenth Amendment is something I revere. I did not find Mr. Linsdsey’s actions amusing at all, I value these rights and the sacrifices that were made to obtain them. Fortunately, Mr. Lindsey has the right, pursuant to these documents and the jurisprudence that follows them, to act as foolish and offensive as he likes, and I have the right to not like it and say so.
“How do I vote on Measure Y?”, the simple answer is, it's just not that simple. Who would oppose an “ethics” measure? Well, of course, no one. All reasonable people agree, ethics is something we want and need from our elected officials. Problem is, THIS measure, is not about ethics. Not at all. It is about the same thing that everything else that comes from John Anderson’s council is, monitoring the behavior of other (and future) council members, curtailing the involvement of anyone who is not one of his friends or supporters, and patronizing his own special interest supporters.
I am lifelong Republican. I voted for Ronald Reagan's re-election in my first opportunity to vote in 1984. I voted at the polling place at the Methodist Church on South Ohio and Yorba Linda Blvd. I continue to want to be part of the party of Ronald Reagan and Abraham Lincoln. A party that stands for individual rights and smaller government. This measure violates both of those principles. It grows government regulation and tramples over the constitutional rights of many, and as such I can not support it.
I urge a No vote on Measure Y. Why? Because it is not about ethics.
Don’t be afraid to see what you see. ~Ronald Reagan
Further puzzling is that there is an ethics “ordinance” exactly, word for word, like Measure Y, that was enacted by John Anderson’s majority council in June, yes June of 2010. This “ethics ordinance” says John Anderson, is too easily modified by future councils, so he moved it to a ballot measure. In order to change it, if enacted in this way, would require another vote of the people. Great idea right, create and enact a flawed law, sell it to people on the theory that we will just fix it later, but don’t explain to them how costly and complicated it is to repair it once we have it enacted in it’s flawed state. Super idea, government logic at it’s best.
This need for ethics legislation was born, according to John Anderson, from concerns that he had when he was a traffic commissioner. A City Councilwoman at that time, according to him, inappropriately requested his endorsement during an election, and he felt threatened. This seems to be an issue that should have been dealt with at that time when it occurred, and certainly is part and parcel of having a “whistleblower” policy and procedure. Anderson, as a commissioner would have bee protected and made to feel safe if he blew the whistle on this intimidating Councilwoman. The problem with the proposed Measure Y, is that it does not set forth the “policy and procedure” that would be that whistleblower policy. It leaves it for future council’s to determine and develop. One is left wondering then, if John Anderson’s stated concern related to the necessity of having this duplicative law-creating Measure is to “prevent future council’s from changing it” then why is such an important issue left in this unfinished state? The council members who opposed this measure when presented at the City Council meeting have indicated that more time was needed to perfect the terms of the whole thing. Sure seems that way. The measure specifically states “The City Council shall adopt by a separate ordinance a “whistleblower” procedure”. Then future councils, who are by John Anderson’s definition not to be trusted with this ethics stuff, will have to be relied upon to get this done. Again, super idea, government logic at its best.
The “code of conduct” portion of the measure is also executory and by its own terms incomplete. It states that the city council “shall adopt” a resolution with policies as to how council members should behave toward one another, city staff, and others they may come in contact with in the community. This probably is a good idea, to have a plan, and have it developed by a future council. Can you imagine what a list of do’s and don’t about council behavior would look like if it came from (this) Anderson’s council? It would be something like, "feel free to resort to bickering and name calling whenever you and your buddies on the council feel fully justified in doing so, and when one of your buddies interrupts and is rude to other council who are not your buddies, or starts name-calling and making politically charged comments, feel free to join in, remembering always that you are fully justified in doing so, because you are in the majority." It would probably also have a section related to election time, "When you are running for re-election though, pretend you don't know what your buddies are doing when they send out hate mail against your opponents. Try to convince the voters that you don't support negative campaigns. Just beleive that the voters will probably forget the stuff you said and the way you acted during council meetings". Code of conduct indeed.
The provision on accepting contributions from an interested party after “approving” a permit, was raised as a concern by Councilwoman Horton, who voted against the ordinance when it came before the city council. In that provision, there is nothing related to a party who benefits from the council’s NO vote on a project. This precise situation actually occurred and John Anderson and another council person accepted donations of $1,000.00 from a citizen who benefitted from a NO vote of the council. It took John Anderson about three weeks to think it over before giving the money back. I guess it is hard to think through your moral philosophy when you’re hanging on to a grand in a bad economy and an election year.
There is a portion that provides for audio tape recording of "closed" session city council meetings. In May, the City Attorney, Sonia Carvahlo quit. At that time, John Anderson's majority council voted to begin interviews to hire a new law firm. We could have stayed with the same law firm and replaced just the attorney, say with Assistant City Attorney, Jamie Raymond, who is serving now as the interim, but the majority wanted to interview new firms so that process began. The interviews have been ongoing, and conducted in these types of closed sessions and have been recorded. For some unknown and mysterious reason, no new firm has been hired and the process has now been susended,"tabled" as is the popular action by this majority council. The public can't and won't know what has transpired unless the tapes are released. At the last council meeting a motion was made to release the tapes, Anderson opposed it, his majority followed him in their typical lock-step and the tapes are not to be released. In Anderson's campaign for re-election, he continues to preach the gospel of "transparency". Huh? "Transparency"? Doesn't that mean let the public know and SEE what is going on? Ok, well apparently he only means, transparency, when it suits Anderson and his majority, but not ALL the time. This "transparency" provision of Anderson's "ethics" ordinance, requires a vote of ....guess what, 3 of the council. As long as Anderson controls the council, the public will never see THOSE tapes. Maybe there are some other ones they will want us to see. Transparency, indeed. Another great idea.
The part that I have found most offensive relates to limiting the employees, contractors and labor associations associated with the city from endorsing or contributing to candidates, initiatives or referendums. This is really a political issue and many political groups in the current election, have required an “anti-union” pledge before they will consider endorsing a candidate. The candidate is free to be part of that organization or not, political organizations are not the government and membership is voluntary. John Anderson has attempted to take that political agenda and codify it in our city municipal code with this measure. What they have done though, with the broad sweeping language here, is to limit the ability of people running for office, in office, working for the city or contracting with the city (teachers, firefighter and police) from actively participating, endorsing or contributing to candidates. Why is this necessary? Who exactly is served and protected by this? Certainly incumbent politicians, in the pocket of local special interest groups, but it is hard to see anyone else that is benefitted by this.
City employees, Firefighters, police and teachers, are citizens of our city and entitled to be heard, and to be involved to whatever extent they want to be. The U.S. and California Constitutions protect the rights of these people and all of us, to free speech, to associate with whomever we want, and to participate freely without coercion or intimidation in the election process. This section of the measure is vague and easily could be used to intimidate these individuals into silence and non-participation. It is happening. We are seeing this in the current election already. The measure as drafted, benefits John Anderson, his council and the special interests that support them.
The political undercurrent that has lead to the anti-government employee sentiments has to do with the unfunded pension liability of the state and the state budget crisis. Our job as candidates and councilpersons in Yorba Linda is to represent the citizens, regardless of their job, and these employees did not create the budget crisis in Sacramento. Politicians in Sacramento who can not make good choices and stand on their own two ethical feet, they created this crisis. Penalizing public employees by limiting their free speech rights is not in any way the solution. John Anderson said, at the candidate forum on Tuesday, that one of the most important issues was to stop the “pension bleed”. I found that an interesting comment from a public employee who has the advantage of a pension “double-dip”. I wonder what portion of his two government pensions and benefits he is willing to donate back to help us out with the current budget shortfalls?
Anderson’s most recently recruited lackey, his running mate Tom Lindsey, at the candidate debate on Tuesday, October 12, brought a copy of the U.S. Constitution and waved it around. I found it incredibly offensive, particularly from someone who either does not understand or does not appreciate the investment and sacrifice that has gone into that document becoming what it is today. The First and the Fourteenth Amendments, which rights are negatively affected by this measure, are codifications of rights that we gained after bloody conflicts with many lost lives. The first ten amendments came after the Revolutionary War, and the Civil War in which half-million young Americans gave their lives, yielded us the Thirteenth, Fourteenth and Fifteenth Amendments. Half a million lives, all of them American were sacrificed in the Civil War, yes the Fourteenth Amendment is something I revere. I did not find Mr. Linsdsey’s actions amusing at all, I value these rights and the sacrifices that were made to obtain them. Fortunately, Mr. Lindsey has the right, pursuant to these documents and the jurisprudence that follows them, to act as foolish and offensive as he likes, and I have the right to not like it and say so.
“How do I vote on Measure Y?”, the simple answer is, it's just not that simple. Who would oppose an “ethics” measure? Well, of course, no one. All reasonable people agree, ethics is something we want and need from our elected officials. Problem is, THIS measure, is not about ethics. Not at all. It is about the same thing that everything else that comes from John Anderson’s council is, monitoring the behavior of other (and future) council members, curtailing the involvement of anyone who is not one of his friends or supporters, and patronizing his own special interest supporters.
I am lifelong Republican. I voted for Ronald Reagan's re-election in my first opportunity to vote in 1984. I voted at the polling place at the Methodist Church on South Ohio and Yorba Linda Blvd. I continue to want to be part of the party of Ronald Reagan and Abraham Lincoln. A party that stands for individual rights and smaller government. This measure violates both of those principles. It grows government regulation and tramples over the constitutional rights of many, and as such I can not support it.
I urge a No vote on Measure Y. Why? Because it is not about ethics.
Don’t be afraid to see what you see. ~Ronald Reagan
Monday, October 11, 2010
Immigration: Reducing an important social issue to a soapbox
A few months back, in my city, three members of the Yorba Linda city council, in the absence of the other two members, saw fit to entertain and grant a motion to issue a “Proclamation” in support of the recent and controversial Arizona immigration law, SB 1070.
The Yorba Linda ‘Proclamation’ states: “Whereas, the state of Arizona, who like the state of California, is in the dire straights of enduring the brunt of most of the illegal crossings of the national border”. Nowhere in the Yorba Linda Proclamation does it cite the nexus or relationship to the Arizona law and events in Arizona to any issue existing in Yorba Linda.
The state of Arizona has in recent years, been plagued with violent crime related to the trafficking of human beings and drugs across its borders. In Phoenix there were 267 kidnappings in 2009 and 299 in 2008. The assaults on U.S. law enforcement on the border increased by 46% in 2008, totalling 1097 incidents.
In March, an Arizona rancher, whose family had owned and operated the ranch since 1907, was murdered on his own property in an area of his ranch that had been known to be used for trafficking of humans and illegal drugs across the U.S./Mexico border. The rancher, Robert Krentz, was found dead in his ATV with the lights on and the motor running. His last words on the radio to his brother were “illegal alien”. The week prior to the death of Robert Krentz, 290 pounds of marijuana were found on his ranch along with eight illegal immigrants who were arrested. It was assumed that Robert’s murder was in retaliation for the arrest the week before. There are no suspects in the murder and it is assumed the suspect escaped back into northern Mexico, not likely to be located or apprehended.
There are no recent events in Yorba Linda that resemble in any way the horrific conditions and situations facing the citizens of Arizona living in close proximity to the Mexico border. The Yorba Linda ‘Proclamation’ does not state any policy or directive, it does not suggest that any action whatsoever be taken by the city of Yorba Linda. It does not set forth any agenda that the city of Yorba Linda will implement to deal with or address illegal immigration. It does not outline any problems, crimes, murders, kidnappings or violence related to illegal immigration occurring in Yorba Linda.
The city of Costa Mesa recently declared itself a “Rule of Law City”. The Costa Mesa council, noting the importance of this issue, set policy directives as well as sending a strong message to illegal immigrants, that they are not welcome in that city and that the laws of the state and federal governments will in fact be enforced in Costa Mesa. In the face of some city governments whom have indicated they will be “sanctuary” cities for illegals, and cities like Los Angeles whom have initiated boycotts of Arizona businesses because of this important issue, it is important to take a stand. The “stand” that the city of Yorba Linda has officially taken however, rings hollow in its lack of real effect or impact.
In a recent candidate’s forum for the ongoing City Council race, one incumbent candidate defended the actions of the three council members who issued the proclamation, claiming that “it got a lot of attention”. Getting attention is the job of a politician. Setting policy and providing leadership, guidance and direction, these are the jobs of elected officials. This blatantly political move was a mere political gesture and an inappropriate usage of city resources for the apparent political gain and agenda of the three council members bringing it forth.
This five paragraph “Proclamation” fell sadly short of actually accomplishing anything at all, except for taking up an entire evening of a televised city council meeting. We should have a city government that is focused on the needs of our city, focused on the issues as they present and exist in our city, and receptive to the views and needs of all of our citizens. That is the kind of city government that I will work toward if elected to the Yorba Linda City Council.
What the citizens of Yorba Linda should be asking is this: What is each of the elected Yorba Linda Council members doing to advance the best interests of Yorba Linda, other than political grandstanding that helps them get their names in the paper in an election year?
The Yorba Linda ‘Proclamation’ states: “Whereas, the state of Arizona, who like the state of California, is in the dire straights of enduring the brunt of most of the illegal crossings of the national border”. Nowhere in the Yorba Linda Proclamation does it cite the nexus or relationship to the Arizona law and events in Arizona to any issue existing in Yorba Linda.
The state of Arizona has in recent years, been plagued with violent crime related to the trafficking of human beings and drugs across its borders. In Phoenix there were 267 kidnappings in 2009 and 299 in 2008. The assaults on U.S. law enforcement on the border increased by 46% in 2008, totalling 1097 incidents.
In March, an Arizona rancher, whose family had owned and operated the ranch since 1907, was murdered on his own property in an area of his ranch that had been known to be used for trafficking of humans and illegal drugs across the U.S./Mexico border. The rancher, Robert Krentz, was found dead in his ATV with the lights on and the motor running. His last words on the radio to his brother were “illegal alien”. The week prior to the death of Robert Krentz, 290 pounds of marijuana were found on his ranch along with eight illegal immigrants who were arrested. It was assumed that Robert’s murder was in retaliation for the arrest the week before. There are no suspects in the murder and it is assumed the suspect escaped back into northern Mexico, not likely to be located or apprehended.
There are no recent events in Yorba Linda that resemble in any way the horrific conditions and situations facing the citizens of Arizona living in close proximity to the Mexico border. The Yorba Linda ‘Proclamation’ does not state any policy or directive, it does not suggest that any action whatsoever be taken by the city of Yorba Linda. It does not set forth any agenda that the city of Yorba Linda will implement to deal with or address illegal immigration. It does not outline any problems, crimes, murders, kidnappings or violence related to illegal immigration occurring in Yorba Linda.
The city of Costa Mesa recently declared itself a “Rule of Law City”. The Costa Mesa council, noting the importance of this issue, set policy directives as well as sending a strong message to illegal immigrants, that they are not welcome in that city and that the laws of the state and federal governments will in fact be enforced in Costa Mesa. In the face of some city governments whom have indicated they will be “sanctuary” cities for illegals, and cities like Los Angeles whom have initiated boycotts of Arizona businesses because of this important issue, it is important to take a stand. The “stand” that the city of Yorba Linda has officially taken however, rings hollow in its lack of real effect or impact.
In a recent candidate’s forum for the ongoing City Council race, one incumbent candidate defended the actions of the three council members who issued the proclamation, claiming that “it got a lot of attention”. Getting attention is the job of a politician. Setting policy and providing leadership, guidance and direction, these are the jobs of elected officials. This blatantly political move was a mere political gesture and an inappropriate usage of city resources for the apparent political gain and agenda of the three council members bringing it forth.
This five paragraph “Proclamation” fell sadly short of actually accomplishing anything at all, except for taking up an entire evening of a televised city council meeting. We should have a city government that is focused on the needs of our city, focused on the issues as they present and exist in our city, and receptive to the views and needs of all of our citizens. That is the kind of city government that I will work toward if elected to the Yorba Linda City Council.
What the citizens of Yorba Linda should be asking is this: What is each of the elected Yorba Linda Council members doing to advance the best interests of Yorba Linda, other than political grandstanding that helps them get their names in the paper in an election year?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)