You may reasonably suppose that an interview of Kris Murray by The Liberal OC’s Dan Chmielewski would be the worst thing that you read from him this week. It isn’t. It’s bad — it’s really bad, mostly in its marshmallow softness (hat tip to Gustavo on that one) — but like most Kris Murray bloviations (YES, I SAID IT!) it does have the merit of creating wonderful opportunities for fact checkers. I’ll give those so inclined a nice head-start below.
What could be even worse than this? You’ll have to stay tuned for a day or two, Dear Readers. First — to the tongue bath!
Lib OC’s Dan Chmielewski’s hard-hitting interview of Anaheim Councilwoman Kris Murray seems like it must have been a completely grueling experience — for anyone else stuck in the room.
Kris Murray Fouls Off Some Softballs
Below a mostly flattering picture of the Murrbot attempting to execute her “smile” subprocess routine, you’ll find a bunch of blather from Dan which you will most likely skip — and no one would blame you. Then we get to the Q&A. The “Q” portions are arguably copyrighted and so will be paraphrased. The “A” portions are fair game. My own commentary is in indented red italics.
Q1: The floor’s yours, Kris. What do people say about you that isn’t true?
A: I ran for City Council to accomplish positive things for the city. On a personal note, I’m a wife and mother – and a working professional, in addition to serving as a member of the City Council. My husband and I are active as volunteers in our community, very involved at our son’s school and a number of activities including sports and Cub Scouts.
My fellow council members and I are all people with families, loved ones, and history in this City. Our backgrounds, affiliations and perspectives are unique and, sometimes lead us to differing conclusions to the same problem. But I believe strongly each and every member of the Anaheim City Council cares deeply about our city.
I am proud of my record over the past three years to serve Anaheim residents, support policies to grow jobs and economic development and improve the quality of Anaheim neighborhoods.
No one has stated that Murray and her husband are active volunteers. I’d like to know more about this “working professional” thing, though. Where does she work, how did she get the job, what does she do for the money? People should know more about that. As for “caring about the city” and “serving Anaheim residents,” those are vague enough claims not even to be misperceptions. I grant that she cares about the residents of the city — they’re the ones from whom she’s grifting, after all.
Q2: Do you really think that Fitzgerald is an ally of Tait? People don’t seem to like your saying that.
A: Do I think that Mr. Fitzgerald is an “ally of the Mayor”? No, nor did I ever characterize him as such. But rather said that many of the most venomous attacks toward the Council are coming from “supporters of the Mayor” (that is a direct quote from my interview). Over the past year, the use of offensive language, personal attacks and outright hate speech has escalated in Council Chambers and in Anaheim generally. It has caused many in our community to think twice about attending a council meeting – or to stop attending council meetings altogether.
An Actual Interviewer might wonder as to exactly what specific “offensive language, personal attacks, and outright hate speech” Murray has in mind, if she wasn’t talking about Fitzgerald. Did she mean James Robert Reade? Apparently not — Reade’s venemous attacks were notably absent from any complaints made by Murray or her allies over the past month. So she should explain what “offensive language” has come from speakers other than Fitzgerald and Reade — especially as she and others in the Council Majority want to shut it down. (When Gail Eastman spoke about in Council Comments what she considered offensive, it included “clapping” and “cheering.”) “Hate speech” is an even more serious charge — Actual Interviewer might wish to get specifics. But as for “personal attacks”? She and her colleagues are siphoning public funds from Anaheim taxpayers into private pockets like hopped-up vampires — and she doesn’t think that people should be able to mention them personally? Well, that’s convenient if you can get anyone to fall for it.
While Mr. Fitzgerald is no stranger to Council Chambers or shock inducing comments, his last rant went beyond the pale by any standard. However, that outburst did not seem to give any of the speakers present that day much more than a moment’s pause. As the meeting wore on and Councilmembers had the opportunity to speak we had to shout down members of the audience to be heard. All of this is clearly seen in the video archive of the meeting and is truly disconcerting.
I was there and I don’t recall any Council Member having “to shout down members of the audience to be heard.” But I guess that it could be true — and she says it’s on video, so it can be tested. OK, let’s see the time-stamps of where this happened. If it did, I’ll concede it (and, if it’s as bad as she says, criticize it.) If it didn’t — well, in that case, maybe she can explain how I can call her a liar without being accused of a “personal attack.”
As Mayor, there are certain powers enumerated by the charter and there is responsibility, first among them to preside over city council meetings. As presiding officer, it is the Mayor’s responsibility to maintain order and civility – when hate speech is used, it should be strongly denounced – when council members are being shouted at – the gavel is there to maintain order – even when as Mayor and presiding officer, you are opposed to the action being considered.
Clearly we do really do need specific examples of alleged “hate speech” (from other than occasionally Fitzgerald and continually Reade) so we can understand this criticism of hers.
All that being said, I think the outcomes of this painful incident were positive ones as it forced each of us to take a step back and assess. The Mayor extended an invitation to Councilman Brandman to work on an education initiative with him and I supported the Mayor’s call for a Council resolution denouncing hate speech. And I think we all came to a realization that we agree on much more than we disagree on and when we have disagreements that we can respectfully disagree.
I’m pretty sure that most of those with whom I’ve been in agreement in public comments welcome denunciation of hate speech — so long as we’re actually talking about “hate speech.” It will be really interesting to get as specific examples out of Murray as she has — because I think she just means Fitzgerald (and, come to think of it, maybe Jesse ______, the revolutionary, who doesn’t focus much on these local fiscal issues.
Q3: What have you done to counter hate speech — other than trying to grab the Mayor’s gavel? (Note: there’s no indication that Dan actually even knows that that happened.)
A: For months, I have consistently spoken against this growing problem, and I will continue to be a voice for those who want to engage in a reasonable debate on issues, without resorting to hate speech or character attacks. We have to find better ways to handle our disagreements otherwise all sides stop listening and that benefits no one. Again, I think our last Council meeting was a big step forward and I am grateful to the Mayor for seeking clarification from our City attorney and honored to support his resolution.
Reminder: what the City Attorney said is that the Mayor (who had previous sought his counsel on the topic) had been handling things perfectly fine — counter to Murray’s accusations on Rick Rieff’s show. But note the cleverness here. She’s lumping together “hate speech” and “character attacks.” It’s very convenient for a City Official — especially one who exhibits bad character by trying to loot the City — to suggest that they should be lumped together as offensive. But they shouldn’t. Hate speech is bad. “Character attacks” are usually unfortunate — but sometimes are also, unfortunately, appropriate. Ask William Fitzgerald — who has himself faced quite a number of attacks on his character lately — about that.
Q4. Will the Mayor and the city attorney will better counter hate speech?
A: The entire Anaheim City Council, including Mayor Tait, spoke in unison at our last meeting that we will work together to denounce hate speech and ensure civility in council chambers.
I firmly believe Mayor Tait wants what is best for our city, and we will work together to ensure the chambers are a place where all residents are welcome, can be heard and feel safe.
“Ensure civility in Council Chambers.” That’s should sound alarms, given that what she really seems to be talking about is stifling of legitimate protest. Protest isn’t always polite and kind — although it’s more polite and much kinder than disenfranchising voters, lying (or just engaging in grave intentional half-truths and misrepresentation) to the public, militarizing the police and treating poorer neighborhoods like occupied territories, and the aforementioned locking in giveaways of the use of public assets for literally generations. That’s the sort of thing that people are complaining about. And if they’re sometimes uncivil about it, whether it’s good strategy or not — they are within their rights, and woe unto the City if it tries to squelch such protest.
“… and feel safe.” What does this even mean in practice? Get rid of the African-American speaker who keeps going Huey Newton in chambers? Get rid of Rev. Cecil, consigning many of us of hellfire? There’s a reason that we don’t give elected officials the latitude to ensure that everyone feels safe: they’ll use if to squelch their opponents while favoring their friends. Has anyone on the Council Majority expressed any public concern over the continuing abuse of Theresa Smith and Donna Acevedo? Or are they just presumed to have a higher tolerance for pain by now?
Q5: Would you like to deny that poorer Anaheim residents have suffered under your leadership?
A:
Q6. Critics contend that services to Anaheim’s poorest residents have suffered under the watch of this council majority. Can you clarify this perception?
KM: With united leadership and professional experts at the helm, while many California cities are seeking bankruptcy protection, Anaheim is enhancing quality-of-life services – particularly in our lowest income areas.
You see, that’s the funny thing about giveaways of future income — whether 20 years for a hotel or 66 years for prime City real estate: they don’t bankrupt you right away! You have to look ahead for decades — like stewards of the public interest are supposed to do — and ask what some future Council is going to do when it still has to reimburse the TOT taxes and taxes taken from the Stadium Lot despite what are likely to be the City’s growing need? The seeds of Anaheim’s eventual bankruptcy — preceded by union-busting, curtailing of services, and the rest of the CostaMesafication death spiral — are being planted today for some future hapless leaders to harvest!
The past three city budgets have been adopted unanimously by the Mayor and City Council. We have worked together over the past three years to improve services– and ensure they are allocated equally across all neighborhoods. In fact, we have invested significantly more over the past several years in the central and western areas of the city where the needs have been greatest.
Actual Interviewer might ask: “when you say “western and central areas of the city,” you don’t by any chance mean places like, oh, DISNEYLAND, do you? Is your idea of improving these neediest parts of the city making the businesses in those areas richer? I’m not asking you to argue the merits of doing so, Councilwoman, I just want to know what it is you mean to say. Oh, also — does “invested significantly more” mean “compared to other areas” or “compared to when Pringle was Mayor”?
The city recently completed an exhaustive study that clearly outlines the allocation of services by the four neighborhood district areas. The City’s finance director Debbie Moreno went to great lengths, working with all city departments, to break down general fund expenditures by census tract. What the report proved is the allocation of core services is even across the city and that the City has invested significantly in capital programs over the past several years in the Central and Western areas of the city where the needs have been greatest, compared to the eastern (hills) areas of the city as has been alleged by some political organizations. [Dan notes that this calculation only addressed general fund expenditures – “so she did not assign the expenditures for the major transportation projects and resort area that are paid with direct assessments or state/federal revenue sources to the south neighborhood area so as not to distort the per capita expenditures in this area.”]
Actual Interviewer might say — I note some weasel words there. By “allocation of core services,” do you just mean the planned budget, or money that has already been spent? In other words, are these things that can be snatched back after an election? (Note: personally, I don’t know the answer to that — but I’ve learned that where the Anaheim Council majority is concerned, it pays the check the fine print.)
And “allocation of core services” — that includes police, right? Is the proportion of these “core services” involving police spending higher or lower in these poorer areas than elsewhere? If so, how well do these residents feel served by the police — given that there’s some obvious evidence that in many cases, they don’t.
And this “invested significant in capital programs” in the West and Central areas — were these regions that had suffered lesser investments prior to the past few years? If the other areas had been given a 50-yard head start in this 100-yard dash, are you saying that now things are just even, so that no remedial program to make up for previous years of neglect has been presented?
Hey, I have a great idea — would the City agree to a “double-blind” assessment of its spending, as a way of testing these assertions, by some institution entirely unaffiliated with the City?
Like all cities, we’ve been affected by the economic downturn. But because of the diversity of Anaheim’s economy, the strength our resort area and private investments across our city – our general fund is growing. For the past two years, we passed a balanced budget which restored the city’s cash reserves and provided millions in funding for police, fire, parks, libraries and other core city services.
Is that why you felt that it was OK to give away decades of reimbursements of tax money through the General Fund?
Q7. You’re the main opponent of council districting efforts. What do you want to see instead?
A: There are a number of reasons I believe that at-large voting systems are better for all residents over district-based systems. First and foremost, that at-large voting maintains the largest number of representatives for each resident. Today every resident has five members of the city council sworn to serve the city but under single member districts, residents would only have one council member and the office of Mayor to respond to their interests or concerns.
Oh, OK. So how about a system where OCCORD and Los Amigos get to choose 15 people to represent the entire city. 15 is THREE TIMES bigger than 5! (Note: Murray knows why that wouldn’t be fair — but it’s the equivalent of what she thinks is fine right now.)
At large systems also require the legislative body to govern in the best interest of the entire city rather than carving the city into wards where representatives are no longer responsible for the overall fiscal health of the city or the delivery of services citywide. Most by-district cities in California today are facing severe budget shortfalls resulting in significant reductions in city services. I do not want to see this happen in Anaheim.
At-large systems — being declared illegal in city’s in Anaheim’s situation all over the place, by the way — allow the Council to govern in the best interest of whomever they please, so long as the people whom they please can vote them back in. That’s why they tend to take power away from less-powerful minorities — as Anaheim is going to get ready to see again when it loses in court.
The Anaheim City Council voted to place two city charter amendments on the next ballot to create residency-based council districts, ensuring broad neighborhood representation on every council, and increase the city council from four to six members.
And residency-based districts (of population 60,000 to 90,000, let’s remember) don’t do much because the majority of the entire city still get to choose the every last member of the Council. They ensure no ability for a neighborhood, region, or area to choose their own representative.
This districting system now in place by ordinance, and with ratification by Anaheim voters, brings our city in line with other Orange County cities and agencies such as Santa Ana, Newport Beach and the Orange Unified School District (OUSD), representing many of Anaheim’s public schools.
This is true — but neither of the other cities have the level of “tyranny of the majority” problem taking away power from minorities to the extent that Anaheim has. Look to other cities that keep losing in court for better comparison examples. And it still leaves Anaheim as the ONLY big city that won’t give residents in a given area the right to determine their own vote on Council.
Q8. Defend yourself from charges of giveaways and crony subsidies. (Note: this is a good question, so far as it goes.)
A: During President Obama’s address following the agreement to end the government shutdown, he stated that “We will not agree on everything … but if we disagree, let’s focus on the areas where we can agree and move forward to get stuff done.” He then said we can’t let disagreement mean dysfunction – we can’t let disagreement degenerate into hatred.
I agree with him – it is vital that at all levels of government, we find a way to respectfully disagree when we cannot reach mutual accord and then move to where we can find common ground to govern on behalf of our communities. The character attacks are baseless and counterproductive to governing effectively in Anaheim.
Oh. My. God. “We’re ripping people off, but it’s your fault for not being nicer about it.”
Beyond that, I’ll happily debate Murray anytime about whether “the character attacks are baseless.” That willingness to make a broad and unsupported statement is itself reason to question her character.
The Council’s efforts to expand economic activity in our city have very real and positive benefits for our city residents. To address the programs you reference:
Umm, anyone get the feeling that Murray was invited to submit some answers in writing?
Hotel Economic Incentive Program– Two independent economic studies – both available on the city’s website –show the overwhelming financial benefits to the city of the hotel incentive program for GardenWalk. Prior to my tenure, similar programs were voted on and have been in place in Anaheim for some time – including with the previous support of the Mayor when he last served on the city council. The program Council most recently approved increased the incentive to develop two four star hotels at the Anaheim GardenWalk from a 50 percent share of Transit Occupancy Tax (TOT) to 70 percent for 20 years. These hotels will still pay 100 percent of sales tax and 100 percent of property tax. The economic analysis clearly shows that these hotels and this incentive program will provide millions in new revenue once they are built and operating for general fund programs. Under no circumstances does this program reduce funding for city programs or negatively impact the city’s general fund –the debate is over the amount of new revenue the city will receive during the life of the agreement, once and if they are built and operating.
Actually, I’m glad that she’s reopening this issue. Same proposal as before: let’s have some “independent” analyst who’s less carefully selected study this.
Money is being paid to the developer personally, even if he sells the property for someone else to develop, for reimbursement of these 20 years of hotel taxes. (It’s “Transient Occupancy Tax,” Dan.) Would someone buy the development rights even without such a sweetener? We might well suspect so, given that about a dozen other hotels are being built at roughly the same time and area WITHOUT IT. (The problem is cronyism.) Then, of course, is the question of whether the sales taxes are just taking money that would otherwise be paid elsewhere. Property taxes are a whole other issue.
Anaheim Rapid Connection (ARC) –ARC is an essential part of the city’s planned transportation program, designed to reduce congestion on local streets and roads and facilitate the expansion of the Convention Center and resort area that receives more than 20 million annual visitors today and thousands of employees daily.
The Anaheim resort area generates approximately 50 percent of the city’s general fund revenue and that funding is growing because of investments in the resort area and recent improvements to the Disneyland Parks. The city needs to manage that growth effectively and limit impacts on local neighborhoods. ARC and ARTIC are essential to local and regional commuter transit services.
ARTIC is the center of the LOSSAN (Los Angeles – Orange – San Diego) Corridor – the second busiest commuter rail corridor in the nation today. As the population of Southern California grows, transit plays an important role to the greater regional transportation network. ARTIC and ARC are valuable components of that network and will be paid with local, state and federal transportation funds – funds that could not be used to support other city programs. The City Council has committed unanimously that there will be no impact on the city’s general fund to construct or operate.
I’m tired. Cynthia, you take this one.
Q9. What’s the biggest misconception about the Angels MOU?
KM: Our MOUs are non-binding and simply established a list of terms identified by the city and the Angels to produce a starting point for negotiations. Nothing has been ruled out and everything is on the table. The Mayor has brought up some salient points that will now be added to the discussion items and thoughtfully considered. In that respect, the MOUs are doing exactly what they were intended. There is simply no truth to the idea that this is a done deal. We have a long way to go and I’ve asked the City Manager to bring back a plan for Council consideration to conduct a robust community outreach program to be conducted throughout the negotiations process.
Well, the biggest misconception may be the use of the singular here. There are two MOUs. One is with the Angels, one is personal to Moreno.
This is SO COMPLETELY DISINGENUOUS that it could justify an entire website’s worth of “character attacks.” Here’s what a MOU that “simply established a list of terms identified by the City and the Angels to produce a starting point for negotiations” would look like:
CITY’S INTERESTS:
- xxxxx
- yyyyy
- zzzzzz
ANGELS’ INTERESTS:
- xxxxx
- yyyyy
- zzzzzz
And then the sides negotiate. Instead we have a detailed and expansive framework that is causing jaws to drop right and left due to how one-sided it is. Here, the interests uniformly favor the Angels — which is unsurprising, given that the City’s negotiator seems to believe that the best negotiating plan is to publicly undermine the City’s negotiating position as much as humanly possible. The City presented no interests of its own aside from “keeping the Angels” — apparently a pearl of such great value that no price is too much. (This is quite convenient for the Angels’ agents — right, Curt Pringle?) The City Council has refused to give the negotiations any objectives at all other than keeping the Angels before sending the fox Charlie Black into the henhouse to negotiate with the other foxes representing Artie Moreno. So as things stand, we are set to go directly from the “nothing is set in stone” defense to the “now it’s too late to change anything” excuse.
And do you know what can be said of a Council Majority that invites that result? That they exhibit bad character. Pardon me for being so impolite as to tell that truth out loud.
An Actual Interviewer, rather than a marshmallow vendor, might have followed up with some of these questions.
tl;dr
Greg,
Please note, that Gustavo’s swipe about softness was a swipe against something I wrote rather than Dan. But he seems to not be able to tell the difference.
No, I thought that that was a swipe against the very interview in which the comment occurred. The story to which he compared it may have been yours, but he does pull out old references a lot. Usually it’s something like Gigante or Klansmen.
Bloviator: Unlike you or Vern, we at the Weekly have something called “institutional knowledge” because we’ve been covering this county long enough to remember things. That’s why, when Lucille Kring sweet-talked Vern and everyone else, we knew better than to fall for her shit. That’s why, when the two of you idiots swoon over Jose Moreno and Los Amigos, we ridicule—because we know the truth. Just like Chris will always have to answer to his Galiski interview, Vern will have to answer for supporting Lucille. You? As always, you have to answer for your bloviating, which you do with more bloviations.
“That’s why, when Lucille Kring sweet-talked Vern and everyone else, we knew better than to fall for her shit.”
Whoa there. I went with her too, and my institutional memory is okay. Really, what choice did I have to try to crack the Pringle Ring?
Hay-seus, I even had her sign in my yard!
You know, we all laugh when Gustavo goes on and on about Cunningham outing sex abuse victims nearly a decade ago, but it looks like something he likes to do to all of us. I don’t even know what this thing was with Prevatt and some corrupt cop, but I know most of what Chris writes is good. And Gustavo is just waiting for each of us to make some error so he can discredit us with it for years? (Or just discredit any of us who dare to argue with him or Moxley.) Lame-o….
I feel left out. He doesn’t identify a specific error when it comes to me; he just complains that he doesn’t like reading discursive essays using a college vocabulary and syntax.
But at least he hasn’t outed sex abuse victims!
Actually, Chris, it’s a swipe against the two of you. Dan’s effort was laughable, but at least he didn’t slobber all over a corrupt cop like you did.
Gustavo,
I was able to get an interview with the Acting Sheriff. Was it a softball interview, yes. But it was never intended to. Be an investigative piece. It was a profile, and most such interviews are more of a get to know you affair. I was new to the art of investigating and reporting. This in fact was the first high-profile interview I had ever done. So I am sorry that you feel you have always been perfect and never made a reporting error, or delivered a puff piece you later regretted. While I wouldn’t be surprised if you had made such mistakes ever in your career, I have neither the time, nor inclination to try to dig it up. I am waiting for your hard hitting stories on what’s happening in Anaheim. But I figure your desire to tarnish the motives of those that are speaking out because they feel something wrong is going on, is far more important than your journalistic integrity.
Chris, don’t give a bully the pleasure of admitting you did ANYTHING wrong. Just kick him in the nuts. And he’ll go away. For a day or two.
Which one of the Fib-Oc’ers took the link to the OC weekly off the blog roll at Fib-OC? Was it Dan or Chris? At any rate, its pretty petty.
Ya sure? They haven’t done that to us yet, and we’re a lot rougher on them than Gustavo is.
Was this interview on video? I’m thinking of a great meme (but will never find the time for it) with the interviewer asking, “Council member Murray, What…time…is…it?” and then suffering through an eternity of hypersylllabic wonkspeak , while the hands on a wall clock in the background, spin madly, the question never directly answered. Think happy thoughts.
This one is priceless:
“However, that outburst did not seem to give any of the speakers present that day much more than a moment’s pause.”
Sorry, toots, but you gave me 3 minutes to speak. Why on Earth would I waste a second denouncing some nutbag I’ve never even met?
The rest of that “interview” is all pure, homogenized bullshit.
I think that at least five speakers, as I recall, condemned it. We do have the transcript, so it’s easy to check!
And the fuckin audience groaned and booed. And the audience CONSISTED mostly of the pro-Tait speakers. Jesus, she notices the hell out of that when it happens to her and Gail, but not when it happens to Fitzy?
I’m tired. Cynthia, you take this one.
ARTIC is the center of the LOSSAN (Los Angeles – Orange – San Diego) Corridor – the second busiest commuter rail corridor in the nation today. As the population of Southern California grows, transit plays an important role to the greater regional transportation network. ARTIC and ARC are valuable components of that network and will be paid with local, state and federal transportation funds – funds that could not be used to support other city programs. The City Council has committed unanimously that there will be no impact on the city’s general fund to construct or operate.
Well, let me tackle this bit. ARTIC was a giant swindle perpetrated by Curt Pringle in his multifarious roles as Mayor, HSR Chairman, OCTA member and of course, Master of the Universe of Lobbyists. The Measure M renewal that went to the voters required several things for Project T money: principally that it go to expand an existing station, that it accommodate HSR.
What got coughed up was a giant glass covered bus barn that serves no purpose and a rail platform on the wrong side of the freeway. Bus riders don’t need it; visitors won’t use it. Commuters? There are only a couple thousand Metrorail riders a day. And of course HSR is NEVER coming.There goes your $200,000,000.
“will be paid with local, state and federal transportation funds” Thus speaketh the Looter (or should I say Lootress?). It’s not real money therefore it can’t be wasted.
The funniest thing is that the real transportation hub (if one was even needed) should have been in Fullerton or Irvine that actually connect to points east.
OK, that was good, but I still want to hear from Lady Ward.
Myself Also. BW for recovery. Check inbox.
Ok I’m in. Been wrestling the flu, and had to attend Planning Commish and remind some copy and paste types (you will appreciate the irony later) that yes, CEQA is still the law and yes we DO need to comply with it, as inconvenient as that may be….so I haven’t been around my keyboard, I know. Genuinely wondering WHEN i get to have my life back and stop babysitting for crony capitalists? Damn I am tired. BTW-at PC tonight, a piece that is screaming to be written…when i get time…I realized the person sitting in front of me was none other than Gail Eastman. I give her credit for sitting in on a PC meeting to monitor a highly explosive situation in the Colony. But at that proximity I was able to note that she did not so much as flinch when the Chambers-now packed with HER supporters-booed and groaned at City staff for what i have to admit were bullshit answers, while clapping in approval for friends making statements they agreed with. Funny how one’s perspective on what constitutes disrespect and lack of decorum can shift depending not on how loud a group gets, but in whether or not you agree with them.
OK I am tired too and it is after midnight, but I will take over for Mr. Diamond’s overworked keyboard in the morning, Murray has just left WAY too many nuggets here to not scoop them up…one…by…one…..g’night for now.
“Where does she work, how did she get the job….”
I wish somebody would ask Santa Ana city councilwoman Michele Martinez this question. You want to talk about peeling back a rotten onion.
Only people whose identities are known to the editors get to throw that sort of stone here, nameless, regardless of what you learned in political ninja school.
Why?
Because it’s not nice to criticize democrats?
That’s a question worth asking. You asked the samething.
What was the wife and mother thing??? Murray is agrown woman and an elective representitive! Dan should be aryer than this.
Because I don’t like people throwing stones from the shadows. If you want to throw a stone at Michele, step into the light so she has the chance to throw one back at you. Alternatively, if you want to produce public record facts to prove some criticism, you can let them do the talking for you. But this sort of anonymous insinuation is simply unfair — as well as non-credible without knowing the source.
I disagree.
I asked the same question you did.
There is nothing unfair or sinister about my question any more than yours.
I’ll leave it at that and let you get back to your important work.
I’m responsible for my asking my question or Murray. She, her attorney, and any winged monkeys in her PR firm are able to take me on if they wish to do so.
You aren’t responsible for asking your question of Martinez. That’s the unfair difference. (As if this is news to you.)
Nameless, if you have any interesting info about Michele, send it to me. I’m not nameless, and I’m not afraid to go after Dems if there’s something there either.
That’s fine — so long as “interesting info” actually means facts and not opinions or wild inferences.
We’re not here to be a personal free character assassination service for anonymous patrons. We analyzed that business model, and it sucks.
Thanks Greg.
I was mistakenly under the impression that “WE” were here to root out fraud and questionable practices by elected officials regardless of party affiliation.
My wasn’t a character assassination, it was an observation, JUST LIKE YOURS!
If so inclined I will feed Vern, the obvious information about Michele’s employment, but frankly your shakedown tactics make me want to just be quiet and let the people keep getting hosed, which is apparently your goal as long as they are Dem’s.
Years ago, there was a guy just like you in Santa Ana, his name was Howard Kieffer, he was a blowhard and a bully, I think he lives in White Deer, PA now at the Federal men’s colony (FCI). Howard beat down EVERYONE, but when the man came a callin’ Loretta and company fled like rats on a sinking ship.
My information is no secret, just drive by her office or visit her website, I am not “throwing stones” just asking what my councilmember does for a living and how she got the job. Is there something wrong with that?
And I know a bit about Kris Murray’s mysterious employment as well. Good story there…
Wait a sec nameless… did you move back to SanTana?
I don’t know who you are, so I’m not sure where you fit into “we.” I’m not saying that to be pugnacious; it’s the honest truth. Certainly some people here — Matt, for example — don’t count as part of “we.”
I’m not protecting Michele. I think I know what you’re talking about, unless you have something new. What you’re doing is trying to move such facts into a conversation at a time that they would be damaging or distracting. If you’re doing that for the yuks of it, so be it — but I don’t have to respect it. I don’t know, though, if you’re doing it for some kind of compensation — because I don’t know who you are.
I’m amused that you think that I’m “soft on Dems” when it comes to “people getting hosed” (unless by that you mean sex scandals, in which I’m generally uninterested.) I think that Pulido, Correa, Daly, Solorio, Brandman, and a Calderon or two — among others (occasionally even including Loretta and Sharon, whom I like) would disagree with you.
Out of curiosity, I looked for stories (there were none) and comments (there were ten) on “Howard Kieffer” on this blog. Here they are:
What I get from that is that he was bearded, fat, liberal, and a lot of people too cowardly to sign their posts (plus Stanley) either hated him or found it useful to pretend that they did. OK, I see your point there — though that doesn’t say anything about “blowhard” or “bully.”
I also see that he apparently did something bad enough to be sentenced to eight years in jail. I presume that that wasn’t the basis for your comparison to me — and if it was, come to think of it, I couldn’t even come after you for it. Funny how that works, isn’t it?
Yeah, maybe you ought to feed your stuff to Vern.
Yeah.
Long story. Back in the hood.
IRS requires 24 months servitude!!!!
If she works at Wildean, there are two interesting things:
1) she gets FREE parking for Angels Games.
2) That building is WAY WAY newer that fifty years old as Dan C. claims. As is the Hooters, train station and Grove.
“We do have anonymous commenters here, but generally we know who they are, so that we can track them down if need be.”
Are you sure about that?
I said “generally.” But if it turns out not to be true when we needed it to be true, we have remedies available.
I would pose the question if continual 4-1 block votes have discouraged more from Council attendance than rancorous speech and conduct, but I feel the only result would be 3-2 block votes!
Oh please! Even Hitler had a mother and a wife. Letting biology and social courtesy run its course is not a personal note. But, on a personal note, I am going to steal that from now on.
And several German Shepherds.
(stumped)
Why would I steal one German Shepherd let alone several?
Even Hitler had a mother and a wife.
I THINK he’s sayin… Hitler had a mother a wife and several German shepherds? But Zenger is a master decoder, perhaps he can decode himself.
Yes, yes Vern. You got it. Wasn’t that tough, was it?
Of course all sorts of nasty people were undoubtedly loved by their pups.
And as the old saying goes: Every man is a Napoleon to his dog.
Ich bin ein wifenmother!
OK began debunking this and it just goes so far beyond a comment that you get a blog post, possibly a series. Really, Murray wants to characterize those of us who disagree with her as “misinformed” but we will take a look at her statements, one by one, with links and source materials, and at the end we will see who is misinformed, or possibly just plain lying. Let me finish up….
Hey you did a collaboration with Greg once, where he made it extra entertaining…. could I try and do my sorta thing to whatever it is you’re working on?
Oh, the format is coming together in my head already….
I want in on that.
I’m seeing “Kris Murray Talks With Siri About Anaheim”
Since you asked for my opinion, I think it’ll sell more copies if it instead were “Kris Murray Wrestles Young Kim About Agrarian Deontology”
Murbot vs Suri?
Marconi, you crack me up.
In any wrestling match, the Murrbot would kick Young Kim’s butt!
Uh oh, iacta alea est
Oh God, I just actually went to Dan’s piece and tried to start it. “It’s no secret I have a contrarian point of view…” CONTRARIAN?
Like WE are the damn establishment, and he’s the bold dissenter?
He has the kiss-ass convenient view that just happens to coincide with the big-money interests, and could make him powerful friends. And he DARES to call himself “contrarian?”
I gotta take a walk now….
Just like FOX News is not the mainstream media.
‘Tis a tragedy that the world is deaf and blind to the self-evident brilliance and righteousness of Greg, Vern, Cynthia and David.
Ankle-biting the ankle-biters? Wow, that’s a new … low?
‘Tis, ’tis’t? Aye, verily, forsooth! (Now vend thy weak codswallop otherwhere, thou rented cur….)
OK, back to speaking the President’s English: Clearly, C’ham, the whole world isn’t deaf and blind to what we say, given the continuing convulsions of your paymasters from week to week as they try new PR strategies.
By the way, you’ll probably know — what the heck happened to the supposedly planned anti-Fitzgerald & anti-Tait protest that had been called for outside of the Council on the 8th? The only anti-bigotry protest that occurred was held by me, Donna Acevedo, and some pro-homeless-rights advocates.
As a taxpayer of Anaheim, I want to know when your client – the Chamber of Commerce – is going to complete that audit of the Enterprise Zone administration. What’s it going on? Two years without an audit?
Is that being too righteous?
David:
As a taxpayer of Orange County, I’d like to know why you think you’re entitled to $1,014,000 of our money?
I’d like to know more, but it seems like he is very motivated and qualified to save us many times more than that with his investigations into the sort of corruption you espouse.
I don’t have to explain myself to Curt Pringle’s pet rat.
You, however are an agent of the Chamber of Commerce, so why don’t you answer the simple question about why your employer can’t complete an audit of the Enterprise Zone as required by the contract with the City?
Why can’t they do that? Are they that corrupt? Are they incompetent? Please explain the actions of your Klepto overlords, or else we might gt the impression that the only reason they are paying you is to obfuscate the truth.
Please tell us.
“I don’t have to explain myself to Curt Pringle’s pet rat.”
Ouchy! You’re such a clever man!
Since mine is one of the pockets you are trying to dip into with your ridiculous lawsuit, you do owe the public an explanation. Do you really believe, as your attorney’s letter implies, that you deserve ONE MILLION DOLLARS because your continued employ at the County would have saved the taxpayers millions more? So are you asking for a success fee?
Imma let you in on a little secret, Matthew: usually, one does not put the amount for which one would settle in an initial demand. I know that this may rock your insular world of padded funds, but go ask someone who actually does business on the free market about this.
Your pretended irritation is sort of like asking why Zenger’s complaint is typed when a handwritten complaint would be more formal. If anyone thought that your question was posed in good faith, they’d have to conclude that you were an idiot rather than a knave.
By the way, it’s entertaining to watch how you and your comrades plunge into a commenting frenzy any time I post a comment here. It’s like chumming.
We’re having fun, is most of it. It builds team spirit. Rah!
sorry, was elsewhere… do i smell blood?
>°(^)####{| (hungry shark)
Mr. Anaheim Blog, why don’t you answer the simple question: why can’t your employer (Anaheim Chamber of Commerce) perform the audits required by the contract they have with the people of Anaheim to manage the Enterprise Zone program?
And more importantly, why don’t Pringle’s creatures on the City Council make them do it? The Chamber has been in material breach of their contract for over a year. Do you even know what that means?
Please post this on your website. Maybe James Robert Reade or Anaheim Insider knows the answer and will tell the public.
Isn’t chumming usually done with rotten fish?
The perverse fascination is probably that we do all this pro bono.
David, you will love this. The Chamber did complete some measure of audits, the audit company turned in their final Invoices May 2013, for both a 6 month audit and 1 year audit. Where are they? Hell if I know. In July the City then asked the audit company to stick around and do more, but the contract extension fails to mention how much they will be paid or exactly what work they are doing, only that their contract is extended to the end of 2013. Is the City of Anaheim sitting on the audit for their own reasons? When Tait asked where it was, he was told by Planning that it needs to be changed because the scope of work has changed. This makes NO sense, that would work only for the audit to close out the current work being done by the Chamber (I will be generous and assume they are doing something for the money other than Happy Hour) but why would audits at the 6 month and one year level be held for a change made AFTER their completion?
How do I know this? Public Records Requests, the things of Matt Cunningham’s raging temper tantrums. He thinks it is sinful to waste staff time discovering just how badly the toxic goo has been buried. Or that perhaps only those with justifiable purpose should be able to access records. I guess the name is missed on some. They are not “Media Records Requests” or “Special Insider Records Requests” the P in PRA stands for PUBLIC, us, the poor dumb saps forced to pay for the graft and corruption that keeps him in mortgage payments. Funny how someone who pays NO Anaheim taxes gets wadded up about someone who does pay them checking up on how that investment is spent.
Not unexpected. The contract called for 6 and 12 month audits so why are they being hidden from the public? They are public documents. Hell, Tait ought to be able to get them. But which is the audit that is most recently being dragged out? The first 12 month audit, or the subsequent annual audit?
Somebody mentioned something about a “performance audit” which is not even mentioned in the contract. That was peculiar.
Why can’t anybody get a straight answer to these basic questions?
They ain’t public documents until they’re complete. Ergo, they’re not complete.
Not that that looks nasty and suspicious, of course.
Whoa, there. The problem is they may well be complete. I would assume this by assuming who ever did them was paid under terms of the original agreement.
I am also unaware of exactly which audit is the one recently under discussion at council meetings; Cynthia thinks its both the six month and the twelve month audits being stonewalled. I’m wondering if it wasn’t the first of the subsequent annual audits required, even though it has been called (perhaps erroneously) a “perfomance audit. The latter is a term of art and not to be confused with a financial audit.
Making this more confusing is the fact that if the contract started in January 2012 then the first regular annual audit isn’t due until January ’14.
Soooooo….
1. What is the status of the first two audits
2. Was a consultant paid in full for their production; if not what is the outstanding scope of work?
3. Has there been any subsequent audit work performed under a contract amendment, either financial or performance?
4. Was the consultant paid for any additional work under a contract amendment?
And why the Hell can’t Tait get all this information and explain it clearly? This seems like a pretty simple thing to clear up.
I’m sorry, that should have been “ergo, they’re ‘not complete’.” That is intended as a designation rather than an ontological status.
Fair question for Tait; you should ask him. You could ask four other people, too, of course.
I can take this one. How basic would you like me to get, Matt? Do you understand the idea of a “tort”? Should I start with explaining “civil claim”? “Demand”? Maybe I should start with “lawsuit”? Or “legal system”? Or do I need to get really basic and explain what a “law” is?
I’ll just take a guess as to what you might understand: Zenger says that the County did something “wrong” to him, which caused him “damages,” for which he seeks “compensation.” The million and change is his estimate of damages. He explained what he thinks he’s entitled to damages in a document called a “complaint” — which has been published.
Now, were you negligent enough not to have read the complaint — or dense enough not to have understood it?
I can’t decide whether that is some avant garde ankle-biting or just another clubbing of a baby seal.
Please consider the use of subtitles in the future, Greg.
OK. What language?
OK, Greg. We get it. You’re the smartest guy in the room…just ask you! Stay strong, be persistent, and someday the rest of the world may join you in recognizing and appreciating your brilliance.
Are you concerned that one day your paymasters will figure out that your commentary here — and paid commentary elsewhere — is just egging us on to greater heights?
Maybe you should be paying them instead of vice-versa.
And now that I come to think of it, I’ll bet Mr C., formerly of Suite C, was the go-between who set up this soda pop interview in the first place.
Watch and see it appear on the Kleptocracy Blog.
David I think Murray probably called Dan C directly, using something to the effect of an ego massaging, “thank you so much for being the voice of reason on the blogs”…”you’re the only one who has the insight to truly understand the substantive benefits to our residents”…”your visionary writing is proof that even those with diverse opinions can find common ground”….and once he was good and juiced up by the Murbot she agrees to the interview that she intended him to request all along.
$5 says I got pretty close….
ROTFLMAO
You may be right, but how would she even know who that midget is?
Of course she would – how many bloggers are out there singing her praises? Two. How many are doing it (probably) for free? Only one. That is touching.
Yeah, you got me there. She must be really grateful for that lilliputian support – better than nothing. She has to pay Cunningham for the love and he’s on the clock.
Also — that is a formidable mass of flesh to be calling a “midget”, dave.
Never seen the man. I was speaking figuratively.
Funny.
Yes, to the uninitiated Ms Murray does have a real gift for sounding substantive and even communicative. However, those of us who have endured enough gov-speak staff reports and other assaults on plain English are left with that exasperation of being fed a big meal that has no caloric value. Like eating straw, I imagine. Lots of straw.
These are people who always seem to be walking backward. There is a reason for that.
I don’t know for sure, but your senses have usually been accurate from what I recall. I won’t take that bet, I don’t like throwing money out the window.
I was talking about Cynthia’s bet. This comment fell a bit down the latter. (Now I know how Greg feels when commenting on LOC.)
Of course you think that. Spending too much time on this blog is conducive to paranoia.
But sorry to disappoint the inhabitants of this fever swamp and their cherished fantasy of a Vast Pringle Conspiracy: I had nothing to do with that interview.
Here’s my fantasy of a vast Pringle conspiracy! mmmmm. Nacho!
Fuckin’ intense, brother.
It is good to know what we are up against.
So that’s how he does it. Interesting.So really the only difference is in the outside label: Brandman, Kring, Murray, Eastman.
…and the rest is water and some potato paste.
I visited the LOC and saw the thread. It’s alive over there again. But since once Dan see’s my email address he won’t let me post, I thought I’d offer this tidbit here:
I think Dan and Cynthia got rooked. My take on the “Mellissa Warren” post was that this was obviously fake, making several references to Dan’s hypocrisy and beginning with “Hard Hitting” as a description of the interview.
We’ll know this for sure if the posting disappears tomorrow.
But, take a breath people. The OC Blogesphere seems stuck in Seventh Grade. We just need Pedroza to weigh in and it would be FLASHBACK time.
Matt “Jubal” Cunningham’s statement above: “I had nothing to do with that interview” is about as realistic as Dan’s pretend business losing $11,000. per week due to Art’s prank.
Dovetailing perfectly: OCBLOGESPHERE + ANAHEIM POLITICS = FANTASYLAND!
Nameless, Dan’s business is not “pretend” and he has received numerous awards for his work in the PR community from his colleagues. I’m with Greg, if you want to cast stones, do so in the light, not hidden in the shadows.
Just like “Joe Hill”??
I thought so.
SNAP
Really, I don’t want to pile on. I kinda like you Chris. We have actually met. But, I digress. I noticed Dan points out to Gustavo that you received last years OC PRESS CLUB award for your work on Santa Ana’s transparency in government (or lack thereof), but, what I found amusing is Dan failed to mention that he applied for this award, much like you would a car loan or a scholarship. It is not known how many others filled out the application, but no matter how well deserved, he is being disingenuous at best, suggesting the blog received it as an award.
Seriously, why don’t you branch out, especially now that you have great competition in your hometown with the LBR.
What makes you think that Chris doesn’t know who Joe Hill (his version, anyway) is? We do have anonymous commenters here, but generally we know who they are, so that we can track them down if need be. The exceptions (like, say, Boutwell) tend to be ones who don’t attack others.
umm….