.
Fired City Attorney Talley, framed uncomfortably by two wretched servants to power, Cunningham and Brandman.
My old nemesis Matt Cunningham has penned what he seems to consider a righteous demolition of my first piece on the firing of Cristina Talley, in which the thesaurus-toting hack refers to MY story as a “90-proof left-wing exhortation at the perfervid Orange Juice Blog.”
But if you go back and read my piece, a couple problems become immediately apparent: First of all, it was 120-proof; Secondly, there was absolutely nothing left-wing about it. (Matt claims that it is left-wing simply because I mention Talley’s race in the piece a few times.)
But there is no longer a left or right in Anaheim. I hung out again with the Mayor today and we talked about exactly this. I see the two sides in contemporary Anaheim as democracy vs plutocracy. Another wise observer of the scene has suggested “people who are just out for themselves” vs “people who care about the community.”
Up until now I’ve refused to link to Matt’s blog, for reasons I’ve discussed elsewhere, but now I’m starting to see AnaheimBlog.net as valuable in a way, in an instructive way, as a sort of object lesson, an ugly one, a foil. As I told Matt, it’s fitting that the main blogospheric voice of the Anaheim plutocracy is someone who requires payment and will not reveal the source of that payment.
I straightened out a few of Matt’s mistruths in the comments over there, but I think a couple of the more egregious ones deserve their own responses here. So, first…
Is Talley Responsible for the Council’s GardenWalk Brown Act Violation?
The most convenient and acceptable pretext the corporatist council majority can come up with for firing Ms Talley is that she allowed them to violate the Brown Act when approving that $158 million GardenWalk giveaway, January 24 of last year. That she supposedly didn’t warn them, didn’t do her job, let them fall RIGHT into that embarrassing trap! And to lazy readers or journalists that makes sense, with the firing following so soon after the judge’s stern ruling. But did it really happen that way?
1. Obviously if Talley specifically warned the council, it was in closed session, and I can’t know about it. And yet I am sure she DID warn them, whether you believe me or not. The sources I talk to are VERY careful not to reveal the contents of closed meetings. But a perceptive guy can tell, from silences, gaps in conversations, meticulous wordings. And then later when your story’s done, and people who would know say that your story is “completely accurate” … well, doubts tend to vanish. So, believe THAT or not, I think the facts will come out in litigation soon enough and will no longer be a secret.
2. Then there’s this: the council majority has never claimed that Talley didn’t warn them. (They let their flying monkeys say that, mostly anonymously.) The only one of the three corporatists who has spoken to the press, and GIVEN THAT IMPRESSION, is Gail Eastman, and this is the relevant Register passage:
Councilwoman Gail Eastman said the court decision was a reason that she wanted a “new direction” with the city attorney.
“It’s been a pretty uncomfortable year for all of us,” said Eastman, one of three council members who voted in favor of the tax deal.
That’s Gail Eastman, who, even though I believe her political priorities are twisted all to hell, is a devout religious woman and wouldn’t purposely tell an all-out lie. And she’s not saying the council wasn’t warned, she’s just babbling vaguely.
3. And here’s the coup de grâce – this one’s public knowledge, even if everyone has conveniently forgot: Directly after the council majority’s Jan 24 Brown Act violation, Talley OFFERED THEM A WAY OUT OF IT by scheduling a special meeting the following Tuesday, the 31st, and noticing 
it on the preceding Friday. That way the public could have their say and the Council could re-visit the vote properly and legally. And if you can remember back that far, the Jan 31 special meeting was attended by Tait, Galloway, the city attorney and manager, many members of the public … and BOYCOTTED by Murray, Eastman, and Sidhu. (With the supreme assclown Sidhu actually bitching about what a waste of money turning on the lights in the building was, after just having given away $158 million.)
No, Cristina Talley is EXONERATED from any dereliction regarding that episode. Quite the opposite – the fact that she DID warn the corporatists against this giveaway was a strike AGAINST her in their eyes, as was her position on districting and the Voting Rights Act, as was her insistence on making public documents available to Anaheim’s citizen muckrakers. The corporatists have loathed her for at least a year, and you can see that she had to go … but only for doing the right thing.
Finally – is Talley’s race relevant to the story, and how?
Cunningham’s main point is in his title, “Talley Firing Reveals Left’s Obsession With Race.“ In his view (and that of a couple of my own white, male, reactionary commenters) the fact Talley is Latina has no place in the story, unless I’m claiming she was fired for being Latina, or that she was specially qualified for the job by being Latina. Which of course would be absurd things to say. I’m sure if the council majority could find a Latina attorney who would let them do whatever the hell they wanted they’d be overjoyed – what a treasure that person would be! (Lorri puzzles wryly: “Yeah, how come there is no Latina like that?”)
Well actually, I’m almost on the same page as Matt there – I generally avoid mentioning race when I can. For one thing I’m conscious of my readership here and think most of my points can be made without that. And also, I’d like to think we are all getting closer and closer to a place where race doesn’t matter. For example when I advocate for districting, I emphasize how it helps level the playing field for ALL of us – even though I know the districting lawsuit had to be framed in terms of race for technical reasons.
But there was no way to avoid race in the Talley saga.
Consider. One of only three Latina City Attorneys in all of California (and it’s easy for us white folks to forget how important to historically disfranchised minorities are their highest-achieving compatriots) gets fired MAINLY for advocating for a policy that will help Latinos achieve better representation and participation in the city – and this just after Brandman baffles the town with a gratuitous new policy for translating meetings into Spanish – an obvious, clumsy attempt to pre-empt any Latino resentment. Insult on injury, that’s called.
I’m told I’m playing the dread “race card” by mentioning all this. And that that is a bad thing. And I am a self-reflective guy. So I do ask myself, “Am I playing the race card here? And is that a bad thing?”
And after some reflection, I say, “Yes, I guess so! If there’s a time and place for the Race Card, this is it!” Too many Anaheim Latinos have been stupid, either not voting or voting thoughtlessly for whatever Democrat people like Loretta Sanchez tell them to.
The nonpartisan organizations that have been registering them en masse have educated them about the districting issue, and the new Latino voters who have heard about it are very excited and supportive of that reform. But those nonpartisan organizations can’t tell them who to vote for, so they end up going and voting for exactly the candidate who will put off districting as long as possible – just because he’s a Democrat.
I want Anaheim Latinos who voted for Jordan Brandman, or didn’t vote, to know what a STUPID mistake they made. They should have paid more attention and voted for Republican John Leos – John and ANYBODY but Brandman or Lodge. And this is a perfect moment to show them what a mistake they made, to rub it in their face, so they think a little harder next time.
That’s right, Latinos of Anaheim – Brandman, Murray and Eastman, the folks with the nice Disney mailers, FIRED your exemplary Latina City Attorney because she was advocating for YOUR interests – but don’t worry, you can get meetings translated into Spanish now, to know a little better exactly how you’re being screwed over.
Oh, the Talley Rally was good.
High points, thanks to Jason Young’s “Save Anaheim” blog:
I liked your live footage of Lori Galloway at the city council.
Open Society and honest reporting.
Now when are you going to show your viewing audience the live helicopter footage of all the actors and volunteers staging at the Sandy Hook, Newtown Conn. Fire House.
Part of my job with the Democratic Party is to oppose the conception that Vern presents in his last four paragraphs before he gets to the LoGal video. And I do believe that, by far most of the time, voting for the Democratic candidate — including Loretta, Sharon Q-S, and others of us who either supported Brandman or (like me) just passed on that race and focused on others — IS supporting the interests of Latinos. So I don’t actually want people to learn the lesson that Vern suggests that they learn, because it’s likelier to lead them astray than not.
However: how do I counter my friend Vern’s message under the circumstances? (Seriously, fellow Dems, help me out here.) And aren’t we within bounds to demand loudly of Jordan that he team up, while on the City Council, with a better class of Republican so that he does not make the job of promoting the Democratic Party unequivocally quite this hard?
I really want to think that he’s better than this. I really do.
If you read those last four paragraphs, and if you would paraphrase them, “Don’t vote Democrat” … then I can only suggest you read them again when it’s not 1:26 in the morning after a hard day of legal work.
Or are you a “yellow dog” (not to be confused with blue dog) who “would vote for a yellow dog as long as it was a Democrat?” That can sometimes make sense if we’re needing a majority in Congress or the state legislature, but not in City Council where issues are more important than party.
Jordan’s being exactly what most of us close observers knew he would be. And we warned everyone loud and long. Way too many people didn’t listen, and between Democrats who will vote for any Democrat and corporatists who love his corporatism, he kicked ass.
I don’t think that that’s your intent, but I do think that that’s the easiest way for people to put your concern into practice: ramp up the cynicism, consider oneself to be above participation in the degrading process of electoral politics, and leave the field to the plutocrats. In making the criticism, I think that you have a responsibility to figure out how to avoid conveying that message. I know that you’re trying; I don’t know that you’re succeeding.
Jordan’s quite good on some issues, including education — his kind of OC Dem (Correa, Solorio, Daly) are always good in some areas. So I don’t see it as being as straightforward as you do, even though he’s an awful disappointment here.
I’m yellowish in my dog-hood, but not so yellow that I told people “oh ya gotta vote for Jordan.” I’m yellow enough of a dog to accept that by dint of my position in the party, where I think I’m contributing to some pretty great developments these days, I didn’t oppose him. (Only the greats like Frank Barbaro can get away with that sort of thing unscathed.) That’s my required trade-off; I’m comfortable with it.
Wait a minute ….
if Talley was hired because she was latina – isn’t it also fair that she be fired because she is latina? ….. just sayin’
Um… I’ve never heard, or said, that she was hired because she was latina. You know something I don’t know, old guy? About Anaheim?
I don’t know squat about Anaheim – just postulatin’.
I think you’re postulating that she was an affirmative action hire? That’s offensive. Go back and read her bio, gringo. (It’s at the bottom of my earlier Talley story, as an update.)
Such postulating goes hand-in-hand with AA.
I didn’t know that you belonged to AA. What step are you on?
Vern – you are the one who injected race into this issue. If you can postulate that she was fired because she is latina – I can postulate that she was hired because she is latina.
I never fuckin said that. Do you read anything? Well, try reading THIS article at least.
Spot on Vern. Excellent post .
Tait has become Sandy Genis in a suit. Choosing to support gangsters and criminals over law enforcement and business. What a shame!
Right, douche. That’s exactly what he did. Douche.
Why you bein’ so mean? I thought that “Sandy Genis in a suit” was bound to be a compliment!
It’s so interesting who comments anonymously, isn’t it?
I’ve seen Sandy Genis in a suit. In fact I think she usually wears a suit.
I would suggest that it’s always about the person NOT the party.
I think you have become far too biased in your political dogma, if you can’t see that.
Vern, I think you hit a nerve there that needed to be whacked! Good for you! I think it has the potential to elevate all of our choices in the elective process. (if anyone with the power is really listening out there) I’m sure you know my feelings about your poker playing…
As far as Anaheim goes…I don’t know enough details to comment, but it’s all very interesting.
Is it about the person Carl or the uneducated voters?
maybe its about parties that take advantage of uneducated voters?
DE, who gets your vote should always be about the person. In my humble opinion.
“maybe its about parties that take advantage of uneducated voters?”
You must be talking about the voters of Santa Ana.
Vern Nelson:
“I never fuckin said that.”
Why else would you mention her race at all? For what other purpose than to postulate that she was fired because of her race?
Because she advocates for the disenfranchised, who happen to be latino. She’s a symbol of success for an under represented portion of the community. Her unjust removal is kicking them while they’re down.
It’s pretty obvious why race was included in the story. No one said she was fired because of her race; however, because of her race, a specific segment of the community will feel the impact of her removal more than others.
Anyone else not get that?
So, are you saying that she was fired because she was advocating for a particular segment of the Anaheim community rather than the entire community that she is paid to serve and advocate for?
The article is pretty clear. I’ll reference you back to the article.
I don’t know a whole lot about the situation; however, you’re not talking about a politician. You’re talking about a lawyer whose job it is to provide an opinion on the legality of the topic.
I don’t see how it could be possible to draw a legal conclusion that represents only a portion of the community.
It’s absolutely possible for a politician to represent a portion of the community’s interest. It would seem that the politicians on the council aren’t happy with the legal conclusion that interferes with their agenda . . . so they’re firing the attorney in an effort to get a new legal opinion.
That’s certainly an acceptable action if the legal opinion is wrong or is likely to be wrong. That’s just bad government if the legal opinion is correct.
So, you’re saying that she was likely fired for cause (even if that cause was perceived wrongly) and therefore there is no reason to bring race into the equation at all? No reason then for her race to even be mentioned – unless of course one desires to play the race card – is that about it then?
My impression from reading the posts is that she was not fired at all, but was rather forced to resign. It was a closed session, so I don’t think there’s anything to make a definitive statement on.
Based on what was written and the environment in Anaheim over the past two years, it’s absolutely appropriate to comment on the attorney’s race. Not including it would be negligent reporting as it would ignore the sensitive political climate.
It’d be like talking about a bombing in Iraq without mentioning if the bomber was Sunni and the victims Shiite.
So no, it’s hardly playing the race card. If you want to view it differently, that’s your prerogative; however, that prerogative is ignorant of the circumstances in Anaheim.
No more skallywag comments on this article until he makes it clear that he actually read it. I don’t want this to become a blog, or thread, where people have to repeat themselves over and over. How wearisome is THAT, for everybody else?
FULLERT!
DAMNIT! Censored by the man, AGAIN!
Her resignation was a chicken way out – she didn’t have to resign – she could have forced the council to fire her. And by doing so the council would be pressured into stating reasonable cause for her firing. There must have been some advantage to Talley for taking the resignation way out.
I wrote the answer to that in my first damn story. Read that one now. (Hint – husband, cancer, medical coverage…)
COBRA
A “coupe de gras” is something GD might be able to pull off, but in this case it’s coup de grâce.
ha… my bad nip … thanks
Clever.
I don’t know the exact reason why Cristina Talley resigned her post, but there is no factual basis to some of the claims you’ve made in this article. Besides presenting wild speculation as fact, there is hard evidence which completely contradicts your assertions.
For example, at the March 6, 2012 meeting of the Anaheim City Council, Talley told then-Councilman Harry Sidhu that it was her opinion the city DID NOT violate the Brown act on January 24th when the vote was made to kick back $158 million in TOT revenues to subsidize Bill O’Connell’s Gardenwalk development.
From the minutes:
“Council Member Sidhu inquired whether the City Council had followed all procedures on the hotel subsidy agreement and had it been announced properly. Ms. Talley remarked there were no violations, to her knowledge, as well as no Brown Act violations regarding the January 24th decision.”
See the following link:
http://www.anaheim.net/docs_agend/questys_pub/MG37900/AS37939/AS37942/AI38969/DO38982/DO_38982.PDF
Lest ye think that the City Clerk made a typographical error, this exchange was recorded on video and is available online.
In regards to the argument Talley was pushed out because the “Brandman majority” was unhappy she offered an opinion that the City of Anaheim was in violation of the Voting Rights Act, I suppose its possible. But expressing that opinion doesn’t make her a zealous advocate for the interests of the “latino community” any more than if an attorney for Al Capone was a zealous advocate of alcohol prohibition when when advising his client that it was illegal to sell hooch.
I’ve dealt with Talley in the past when she was a Deputy City Attorney and saw nothing to indicate she was anything more than just a highly-paid lackey of the tiny handful of rich white people who run this town. She certainly fought me tooth and nail when I tried to force information out of the Anaheim Police Department about a highly unusual police operation that took place in the working-class Mexican neighborhood of Jeffrey-Lynne, that’s for sure.
Well, it’s good to hear your experiences. I’m reporting what I hear from five or six other people who have known her and worked with her, and whom I trust.
Interesting about what she said in March about the Brown Act. Do you dispute that she called the Jan 31 meeting in order to fix that problem, and that the meeting fell through due to the Murray-Eastman-Sidhu boycott?
What’s my “wild speculation?” That the real reason for her firing was her CVRA opinion? That’s the impression of people who would certainly know, or have a very good guess – not exactly wild.
By the way – all your warnings to me about Lucille Kring seem to be quickly coming true.
Vern Nelson wrote:
> Well, it’s good to hear your experiences. I’m reporting what I hear
> from five or six other people who have known her and worked with
> her, and whom I trust.
It’s an undeniable fact then-City Attorney Cristina Talley told then-Councilman Harry Sidhu on March 6, 2012 that his January 24th vote to give Bill O;Connell a $158 million TOT kickback for his Gardenwalk hotel project was not in violation of the Brown Act.
That your “sources” did not disclose this very critical piece of information to you calls into question their credibility. It also demonstrates that you do not do your homework to check their veracity.
> Interesting about what she said in March about the Brown Act. Do
> you dispute that she called the Jan 31 meeting in order to fix that
> problem,
Got proof Talley called this meeting to order ostensibly for that purpose? If so, where is it? Understand that rumor, conjecture, and wild speculation about what goes on behind closed doors does not constitute evidence.
By the way, it was widely reported Mayor Tom Tait–not Talley–called the Jan. 31st meeting to order. He may have been concerned about a possible Brown Act violation. But if Talley felt the same way, there is no record of it anywhere.
> and that the meeting fell through due to the Murray-Eastman-Sidhu boycott?
Do you think it’s quite possible they didn’t make an attempt to show up to that meeting partly because Talley never said anything to them about the Jan. 24th vote being in violation of the Brown Act?
> What’s my “wild speculation?” That the real reason for her firing was
> her CVRA opinion? That’s the impression of people who would
> certainly know, or have a very good guess – not exactly wild.
The wild speculation I’m referring to is the grandiose narrative you conjured up suggesting Talley was this staunch advocate for the disenfranchised here in Anaheim because she allegedly believed the city was in violation of the Voting Rights Act.
> By the way – all your warnings to me about Lucille Kring seem to
> be quickly coming true.
Maybe because what I said was true?
Following up on what Duane said, remember that it was Wigenroth who was in the hot seat by the giveaway three following the subsidy vote. How come Talley wasn’t as well if she was a crusader now turned martyr?
All the evidence, save for the former city attorney’s public statements in March saying the subsidy vote did not violate the Brown Act, is circumstantial at this point.
In any case what she was really fired for was her advice that the city needs to go to districting. That’s what the corporatists are fighting against hardest right now, wasting nearly 300k so far fighting it in court, as well as WE HAVEN’T EVEN STARTED TO FIGURE OUT HOW MUCH putting on all their committee meetings with experts from across the country.
I still say since she was fired for giving the correct advice, advice that would lead to the enfranchisement of countless more Anaheimers, she’s a hero, if an unlikely one.
OK, I don’t know who’s dumbest here, me, Duane or Gabriel. Probably me since I didn’t know how to respond.
Of COURSE when Harry asked his stupid question in March, IN PUBLIC, two months after the vote had already been cast, and one month since the city was already being sued, Talley answered the way she did. She’s the freakin City Attorney. The City is her client. For her to say “Yeah, we’re in violation” while the City’s being sued would have been GROSS incompetence and actual grounds for firing.
It was as lame for Harry to ask that question in public as most things he does. But this certainly has no bearing on how she advised the council in closed session, BEFORE the fateful vote.
And the fact remains – the special meeting on the 31st WAS her solution to the Brown Act violation, whether it was called by her or the Mayor. Boycotting that meeting, the Pringle majority doubled down on their violation.
Wow, the stuff I’m hearing now … let’s keep on the same page, boys, these corporatists have some BIG tricks up their sleeves that we have to blow out of the water. Keep in touch…
You proceed forward from a place where only speculative evidence exists at best in order to be consistent with the argument. Roberts has asked for more than your words.
I would be intrigued to know why, in your estimation, the CVRA would be the reason at this present moment since the suit was filed back in June.
Well, for one thing, before the election, the Pringle clique wanted to pretend to be open to districting. Now that the election’s over and they’ve got a safe four-one majority, they don’t need to keep up that pretense. They’re spending more money than ever fighting that reform now.
Just a first thought…
There’s a similar timeline to the court ruling on the Brown Act which was terribly, terribly embarrassing for the giveaway three. Not only that, they have to figure out a way to do something terribly unpopular all over again…
Irrespective of the election, the previous council majority was able to establish a sham committee to study among other things, district elections. We all know what the outcome of that will be.
Our only hope (in the near future) is with the court.
Vern Nelson wrote:
> Of COURSE when Harry asked his stupid question in March,
> IN PUBLIC, two months after the vote had already been cast,
> and one month since the city was already being sued,
> Talley answered the way she did. She’s the freakin City
> Attorney. The City is her client. For her to say “Yeah,
> we’re in violation” while the City’s being sued would have
> been GROSS incompetence and actual grounds for firing.
All speculative.
> And the fact remains – the special meeting on the 31st WAS
> her solution to the Brown Act violation, whether it was called
> by her or the Mayor. Boycotting that meeting, the Pringle
> majority doubled down on their violation.
The fact remains is that you have little if any evidence to back up many of the claims you’ve made in this article.
> Of COURSE when Harry asked his stupid question in March,
> IN PUBLIC, two months after the vote had already been cast,
> and one month since the city was already being sued,
> Talley answered the way she did. She’s the freakin City
> Attorney. The City is her client. For her to say “Yeah,
> we’re in violation” while the City’s being sued would have
> been GROSS incompetence and actual grounds for firing.
All speculative.
WHAT?????????
What is your definition of the word “speculative?”
The fact remains is that you have little if any evidence to back up many of the claims you’ve made in this article.
As so many journalists would reply, “Sources that I trust.” If I turn out to be wrong a lot, people can no longer take me seriously. While meanwhile I would stop trusting those sources.
Vern Nelson wrote:
> WHAT?????????
>
> What is your definition of the word “speculative?”
Not only was your response speculative, but it wholly contradicted the fanciful narrative you conjured out of thin air that former City Attorney Cristina Talley was an honest and ethical public servant.
If Talley privately advised the council prior to the Jan. 24th vote.on the hotel subsidy that it was in violation of the Brown Act, but told Sidhu at a later meeting it was not, that means she openly lied to the public.
On the one hand you assert Talley was a “stellar” attorney who worked on behalf of Anaheim’s downtrodden. But you’re now hinting she will lie on her employer’s behalf to keep her $250K a year job.
Duane, I haven’t been following this discussion, but this is how I suspect that such advice would have been conveyed: she would have privately told that Council that she had grave concerns (or words to that effect) that the meeting violated the Brown Act. She then might have been asked “are you convinced of this to the point of certainty?” She might have then honestly said “no.” (Certainty is a high standard.) When asked about it later publicly at a meeting, she would not have been able to say that it was a violation of the Brown Act — for one thing, it had not then been adjudicated — and would have had to answer that it wasn’t. If she had been asked further questions — and you’d have a better idea than I do as to whether this happened — such as “might this violate the Brown Act?” or “would it be safer for us to have another meeting to ensure that there is no Brown Act violation?”, she then would (or at least should) have answered “yes” and “yes.”
Legal ethics don’t require or even allow her to be a whistleblower in such a situation, where a violation might be seen as likely but not inarguably so. It’s not a matter of lying to the public; it’s a matter of her answering the questions she’s asked — which can sometimes be pretty technical. I make no argument that lawyers don’t sometimes (or that she didn’t in this case) lie to the public; but that’s a strong charge to bring against someone and I don’t think that the evidence shows that you have sufficient basis for it.
Vern Nelson wrote:
> As so many journalists would reply, “Sources that I trust.” If I turn
> out to be wrong a lot, people can no longer take me seriously.
> While meanwhile I would stop trusting those sources.
Has it ever occured to you that some of your “sources” may be deliberately feeding you inaccurate information because they have hidden agendas and ulterior motives?
One of the reasons why they gravitate to you is because you uncritically regurgitate their crap, embellish it in a fanciful narrative, and present it as the god awful truth on this blog.
And by the way: no real journalist would use the excuse of “sources” to hide behind to justify disseminating the kind of rumor, hearsay, and wild speculation the above article is comprised of.
I’m sorry you had a bad experience with Cristina Talley.
Vern Nelson wrote:
> I’m sorry you had a bad experience with Cristina Talley.
What experience I had with Talley a little over a decade ago has no bearing upon the comments I posted here.
Matt and Jordan make a really cute couple….
Vern —
“I want Anaheim Latinos who voted for Jordan Brandman, or didn’t vote, to know what a STUPID mistake they made. They should have paid more attention and voted for Republican John Leos – John and ANYBODY but Brandman or Lodge. And this is a perfect moment to show them what a mistake they made, to rub it in their face, so they think a little harder next time.”
This is patronizing at best. Think about it.
Well… intemperate anyway. I just want people to pay attention to where the folks they vote for stand on the issues rather than vote for Party. I’d think you’d agree.
The folks from OCCORD who registered so many Latino voters and told them about districting report that Latinos who hear about it are very excited and supportive. I imagine so are a lot of non-Latino Democrats, when they hear about it. Mostly they don’t realize though that the candidates who supported districting were not Dems but Republicans and Greens – Leos, Chuchua, and Duane.
Condescending.
Cliff notes version: Latinoheimers made a STUPID mistake. Let’s rub it in their face so they can think harder!
Side note: There was about a row’s worth of OCCORDistas @ that last meeting. A few spoke on behalf of translation. It was brought up during the Anna Drive forum as well. That’s a positive development, but only half way finished. The time of the meetings needs to be moved to around 7 p.m.
The firing of Ms Talley, who happens to be a Latina, is significant not so much because of her ethnicity. It is quite probably that she was fired because she advised the council about the violation of the Brown Act and the Voting Rights Act, according to newspapers reports. It is not surprising that the council majority is taking actions to rule out any further dissent. They need a freer hand on implementing their plan benefiting developers, consultants and avoid being displaced from power if the electoral system is reformed.
What was also significant last week was the fundraiser for Lucille Kring, to retire her debt. $250, $1000, $1800 were the levels of financial support suggested. It takes a lot of money to run for city council. No wonder Disney and OCEA spent substantial funds in the recent election. How could an average resident successfully run? As mayor Tait eloquently described in his State of the City, this is an example of the two Anaheims.
Vern
I understand that the vote to dismiss Ms Talley was 4 to 1, and that the dissent vote was the Mayor’s, correct? Do you know the reasons of Ms Kring’s vote?
Ah, yeah. I’ll be writing about that soon. It looks like we “lost Kring.” Lucille has become, on all the major issues I’m aware of, a 4th corporatist vote. Mayor Tait is utterly isolated. Duane and others were exactly right in their warnings about her. Fun times…
Clever — that frees Brandman to be a good guy without facing consequence from the money side. (Do we need a word for that? Correafication? Soloriozation?) Oh well — I hope that he’ll take that opportunity, if only to make things easier on those of us who are being pressed to defend him.
urggghh… this is your idea of a silver lining?
Not silver. Possibly something like tin.
What about Demoplutocrats? How does the new chairman view the role of the OCDP at the city level, other than sending mail during election time and getting candidates for State Assembly? If you do not know, could you ask him at the next meeting?
We’ll be active at the city level. The problem is that our party is a coalition and doesn’t march in lock-step, as does the GOP. It’s the same problem that exists at the national and state levels, so it shouldn’t be a surprise. We have no means to “purge” people and if purging them left us with a minority of the votes it would be counterproductive anyway. So we negotiate within the caucus and try to work together.
Funny, as far as you mentioning the GOP supposedly marching in lock-step: You may not have noticed but the OCGOP has been very split on Anaheim issues, many of them thinking the world of Tom Tait and his anti-corporatist populism, and others loyal to the big money of the Pringle crowd. You’ve been missing lots of fireworks this year if you’ve been missing that.
Also, I’ve been meaning to mention: me and Dr. Moreno have been discussing this: We think it’s HIGH TIME the DPOC took a stand on districting in Anaheim. Even if – ESPECIALLY if – that puts Jason in a tough pickle. Warning shot…
At the legislative level, to which many OC aspires, GOP is lockstep and DEM is not. Ask Anthony Adams what happens to Republicans that don’t act in lockstep.
I haven’t been missing Anaheim politics. I’ve been writing a bit about them in a local blog. You should check it out sometime.
I’ve also been in touch with Dr. Jose. The question is more “when” then “what.” Now, if Brandman doesn’t go along, can we expel him from the party? I doubt it. But I think he will.
I’m guessing that you didn’t mean “Jason.” Ricochet.
“I haven’t been missing Anaheim politics. I’ve been writing a bit about them in a local blog. You should check it out sometime.”
Seriously? Is this something I don’t know about? Or are you talking about this blog? (Just noticed this comment.)
Yes, this blog.
Well, then I just have to repeat myself: I don’t think you’ve really taken notice of the schisms within our local GOP, on several issues but most notably including whether to back Tom “Conscience of the OCGOP” Tait’s populist calls for reform in his town, or the corporatist, plutocratic status-quo. It’s really remarkable. And tracking down Scott Baugh’s position is especially fun, he dances around it like a ballerina. I hate for you to miss it all.
I’d love for Tait’s opposition to Eastman and Murray (and apparently Kring) to represent a schism in the OCGOP. For that to happen, there need to be a lot of Republicans standing with Tait. Until and unless that happens, it’s not a schism; it’s “the Republican party leaving him,” as it did to the likes of Lincoln Chaffee and (to a lesser extent) Charlie Crist. Let me know if it becomes a schism.
Wow. Again. I still think you missed the whole fight over endorsements where the majority of the OC GOP, due to their respect of Tait and his stances, refused to endorse the corporatist Steve Lodge, and instead endorsed Kring (who had given promises to Tait and got his endorsement) and the utterly great Brian Chuchua. (Of course they wouldn’t touch Leos because of his union ties.)
And the Register’s endorsement of the two who got Tait’s nod – Leos and Kring. That was major, that paper backing a union candidate just because of their respect for Tait and opposition to Pringle. What schism are you waiting for? There’ll be more…
If (and before) you respond, please read this comment.
That was then, this is now. In the intervening time, Kring has switched sides and the position of the non-Tait Republicans has hardened. I learned that, among other places, by reading your own stories.
Wow — I have read your previous comments as well as this one, Vern. You recognize that Tait has become isolated on the Council, but apparently you haven’t yet quite connected what may be the final dots.
Maybe, as of February 2013, there isn’t a real schism within the GOP. Maybe Tait’s side has already lost the internal battle within the GOP. Does that contradict your recent reporting (which, again, I did read)? I’m not saying that conclusion is definitively true — but it’s definitely a possibility at this point. If you think it isn’t, you ought to explain why.
Have to go to my daughter’s H.S. orientation, so I’ll be out for a while. In the meantime, here’s something from Nick Anas that just hit my inbox:
I think that maybe that e-mail is a bit optimistic about Jordan; or maybe they’re just trying to make it hard for him to disagree. Still, based on this press release, there’s less evidence that there is a remaining schism within the Democratic Party than there is that there is that there is a current schism within the GOP, beyond Mayor Tait himself.
Great. I will do a wrtie-up on this.
Vern, your recounting of why the OC GOP endorsed the way it did in last year’s Anaheim council elections is soooo off the mark.
Kring’s endorsement had nothing to do with Tom Tait. In fact, it preceded her campaign alliance with Tom. It stems from the fact that Central Committee members like her and she had been the party’s nominee in SD34 in 2010.
The endorsement of Chuchua happened basically by accident. Tim Whitacre was trying to lead the committee members into believing Tom was just about to endorse Chuchua. Fleischman moved to postpone the endorsement until they could sort out whether or not that was true and why Tom hadn’t yet endorsed Chuchua. The committee was poised to do that when Lucille Kring then got up to inform the committee that she was the only candidate endorsed by Tait and the Central Committee, and then said she thought Chuchua was a great guy. Someone then made a motion to endorse Chuchua, and before you knew it the committee voted to endorse him.
Well, Matt, you are harshing the story I’m working on right now. I still believe there are idealists in your party who don’t worship the almighty dollar, and who respond to Tait’s credo of “freedom, fiscal responsibility, and kindness.” I overheard a LOT of arguing on your side last fall, and I’d love to see the OC GOP go in (what I consider) a more positive direction. I want the best from BOTH parties.
And here we go, two years later… http://blogs.ocweekly.com/navelgazing/2014/12/anaheim_latino_lawsuit.php