We’ve been tracking the doings of Fullerton City Council member Pam Keller lately, with particular interest in her job as Executive Director of something called the Fullerton Collaborative, an outfit with fairly fuzzy goals whose biggest expense in 2007 was Pam Keller herself.
We’ve gotten a little bit of blow back from some Keller supporters who just don’t seem to understand the problem we’re having with a City Council member who might just be voting on projects whose applicants are also contributors to her Collaborative, and hence, pay for her services.
To help illustrate our point we helpfully provide an example.
What a bunch of bollocks. A made up controversy that is being milked dry by ongoing circular arguments. Charities, such as the one Pam is an employee of, by definition exist on contributions from others. In this case your example of St. Jude’s is even a bigger wank because Pam works for a charity called Fullerton COLLABORATIVE. Get it? It’s a COLLABORATIVE IN FULLERTON THAT COLLABORATES WITH OTHER LOCAL CHARITIES and St. Jude’s is a CHARITY Hospital. Using what passes for logic in your argument, anyone that has ever been treated, or had a friend or family member treated by St. Jude’s should also recuse him or herself if one of the largest hospitals in the county has city business. In fact what you are really saying, and you are only saying this at all because it fits FFFF latest political target, is that anyone that works for a charity, anyone that was ever helped or treated by a charity, anyone that has every given to a charity, can not also hold public office because in order for the charity to exists some constituents will have made donation to that charity. Get real. Using these illogical standards I’d like to see Sean Nelsons client list for the last 10 years. Oh that’s right, private firms are not transparent like charities. It’s time to find a new angle, This angle is deader than disco.
It takes real talent to try to turn people that work for charities into villains. Fortunately for Ms. Kelly, there is not much real talent among her detractors.
Incorrect baxter. If a “member” of the Collaborative is paying dues or fees then those go to pay Keller’s salary as Executive Director of the Collaborative. A pecuniatry interest exists. It has nothing to do with going to a hospital or being treated at one, etc. If St. Jude’s does not pay into the Collaborative then no pecuniary interest exists. Except that St. Jude’s is listed as a member and one of their board, FSD Trustee Minard Duncan has explained on our site that members pay dues.
I hope Pam can dredge up a better defender than you, baxter – or a better line of defense. And please keep your wanking to yourself. And who is Ms. Kelly?
We are looking forward to Sean’s client list.
Too bad you can’t address the real issue, baxter. Hopefully Keller can do better.
BTW, I am not accusing Sean Nelson of anything here. I have no reason to doubt that he votes his conscious and recuses himself when appropriate. We know about some loan to a bar in SOCO is sometimes cause for him to step aside, but that is a stretch from knowing who all his firm’s clients were, or who these clients work for. The point is that you guys are trying to make something out of nothing. But since you have an agenda having nothing to go on won’t stop you. Over the years I’m sure that Nelson’s law firm has complied a long list of local clients that “helped pay his salary” and that many of these clients are in some way affected by even the most mundane of his votes. I will not assume that this influences his votes. Dr. Jones has probably sucked the fat out more than one member of the Chamber of Commerce’s behind over the years. As a former cop should Bankhead recuse himself from every vote that affects local law enforcement? To try to link some kind of quid pro quo relationship out any of these examples, the least of which is Pam’s employment with a charity, is pathetic. If this is your standard I suggest your all throw your support behind Ralph G. Baker next time. I suspect he has finite amount of local relationships.
baxter, I really don’t know if you are as obtuse as you seem to be, but I’m only going to say this one more time – so hopefully you’ll get it and quit trying to change the subject.
If Collaborative member’s dues or a donation to it PAY HER SALARY, then she has an immediate pecuniary relationship with that organization. It doesn’t matter if it’s a charity or a land developer, or a provate citizen. She has no business voting on their projects. Get it?
Whether or not there were any quid pro quos is for Keller to answer; the fact that many of her votes on massive projects belie her campaign promises in 2006 is not encouraging. The fact that she took the Newport Harbor developer’s cruise is not encouraging either. Why don’t you just toddle off now and ask her why she did those things? If you ever get a coherent answer, let me know and I’ll post it.