In response to an Aug. 10 Facebook post by our Vern Nelson evaluating the membership of Mayor Ashleigh Aitken’s “advisory committee” on what to do after the JL Report, Anaheim Investigator owner, publisher-editor-writer-promoter-readership Duane Roberts promised Vern that he will be bringing something hugely major to today’s City Council meeting — and that he will have the last laugh! And that laugh will last for weeks!
(Note: strictly speaking, if Roberts’s laugh lasts for weeks, only the last moment will be the last laugh.)
Yes, the fake Ashleigh in the main panel does appear to have three arms. Are you prejudiced against that? Just learn to trust AI — OK, human?
The exchange on Monday occurred after Roberts castigated Cynthia Ward for serving on the committee, giving it a veneer of credibility, in response to which he “lost all respect for her.” (Cynthia gave a long, strong, and heartfelt reply to Roberts’s charge, which I will not republish here without her consent (and then only in a separate post that does not reek with whatever one calls all this.) Where either Duane or Vern addresses the other, I’m eliminating all but the first name of the person not writing, the better to distinguish them.)
Vern Patrick Nelson: Duane 1) defines the outer boundary of cynicism, and 2) constitutionally believes that all Democrats are the Antichrist.
Roberts left another comment in the same exchange which might shed light upon what he plans to unleash tomorrow.
The Anaheim Investigator has reviewed more than 200 photographs that were taken of a June 6th luncheon at Angel Stadium which not only show Mayor Ashleigh Aitken sharing a table with Laura Cunningham, president and CEO of the Anaheim Chamber of Commerce, but Molly Jolly, a senior VP for Angels Baseball.
Furthermore, Mayor Aitken wasn’t alone. Photos also show that five other members of the Anaheim City Council were in attendance, raising questions about what actions they took to avoid violating the Ralph M. Brown Act, the state law which regulates the conduct of elected officials at meetings, both public and private.
I don’t want to make light of this because, I don’t know, maybe there was some wrongdoing going on. And maybe what he has to do will bring the walls of divine justice crashing down on the heads of the Council members and others. (Just in case, I’m not going to attend tonight’s Anaheim council meeting, as I had originally intended to do, so that at least one of us will still be available to interview any survivors. And when I talk about walls crashing down onto heads, I should emphasize that I am fancifully making that up, because I don’t know what else to do when someone says earnestly: “I will have the last laugh.”)
A review of the story linked above leads me to suspect that the only funny thing is not actually funny at all, but sad: Roberts does not seem to understand the relevant portions of the Brown Act. From his article, presented at greater that usual length here for purposes of criticism — but please do click on Roberts’s link itself, because he probably needs the cheering-up.
Yes, apparently most of the city council did attend a 6/6 luncheon reception at Angels Stadium by an organization I don’t like (Anaheim Chamber of Commerce) and attended by a lot of people I’m not fond of, among others about whom I am neutral to lukewarm — though for a cause that strikes me as laudable (an event letting Little Leaguers meet professional ballplayers), thought unfortunately sponsored by the ethically compromised Visit Anaheim. Doing such things when in leadership is sometimes what one is expected to do; it may lead to corruption but is not itself corrupt.
Yes, Aitken was at a large table with Councilmembers Natalie Rubalcava and Jose Diaz and City Manager James Vanderpool, as well as others tragically including Matt and Laura Cunningham.
Yes, Aitken and others did refuse to answer Roberts’s questions about who paid for their tickets, and how they intended to avoid Brown Act violations, deferring them to City spokesmodel Mike Lyster — which is what under city policy she is supposed to do. (I too wish it weren’t so, but it is.)
Yes, Lyster did email Roberts to say that the Brown Act “allows a majority of or all Council members to attend public events without discussing city business among themselves. Our Council members are made aware of and follow this practice.”
Yes, Roberts is correct that “Lyster is technically correct,” and also that it seems weird to call a luncheon with a $200 per person tickets in “limited” supply “a public event.” And yet, from what I know of the Brown Act, being “technically correct” here is enough. (Roberts offers no evidence to the contrary.)
Yes, Roberts is correct that the Anaheim Chamber of Commerce gave tickets to Aitken, Steve Faessel, and Norma Campos Kurtz for free, given their ceremonial responsibilities at the event, and that Meeks, Diaz, and Rubalcava will have to report the value of a ticket on next year’s Form 700. And he is right that this is an acceptable and proper procedure.
Yes, Roberts is absolutely right that he does not “possess the legal expertise to determine if the mayor and city council violated the Brown Act.”
Yes, even if all this was legal, “none of this changes the fact they were having private conversations with representatives from the Anaheim Chamber, Angels Baseball, and other business interests out of public view.” (That is something one can criticize — in fact, one can criticize it even if it happens within public view — but in that case the criticism is over politicians’ clubbiness with moneyed interest groups and not over their failure to adhere to Brown Act requirements.)
No, he is probably wrong that “Interestingly enough, there also seems have been a conscious decision by elected officials to keep this luncheon a secret. With the exception of a notation Aitken posted on her June calendar, nobody has talked about it.” First of all, it’s not that interesting; second of all, rubbing shoulders at a charity event like this is simply neither unusual nor remarkable. Most likely, nobody mentioned it not out of a conspiracy, but because it was no big whoop.
I won’t comment on the last line of his story: “If it wasn’t for The Investigator’s dogged determination to expose what politicians do behind closed doors, the public would have never known it occurred.” Roberts and I have had our differences, but none were horrible enough for me to give my honest opinion of that.
We’ll see if whatever gives him the last laugh is about this — or something even bigger! BWAAAHAHA!!
About Greg Diamond
Somewhat verbose attorney, semi-disabled and semi-retired, residing in northwest Brea. Occasionally ran for office against jerks who otherwise would have gonr unopposed. Got 45% of the vote against Bob Huff for State Senate in 2012; Josh Newman then won the seat in 2016. In 2014 became the first attorney to challenge OCDA Tony Rackauckas since 2002; Todd Spitzer then won that seat in 2018. Every time he's run against some rotten incumbent, the *next* person to challenge them wins! He's OK with that.
Corrupt party hacks hate him. He's OK with that too.
He does advise some local campaigns informally and (so far) without compensation. (If that last bit changes, he will declare the interest.)
His daughter is a professional campaign treasurer. He doesn't usually know whom she and her firm represent. Whether they do so never influences his endorsements or coverage. (He does have his own strong opinions.) But when he does check campaign finance forms, he is often happily surprised to learn that good candidates he respects often DO hire her firm. (Maybe bad ones are scared off by his relationship with her, but they needn't be.)
A month and a half before the proverbial shit hit the fan. I wonder who paid for the Wordsmith’s place at the table – right next to the corrupt City Manager.
For them, the big issues were that (1) they COULD have discussed city business, regardless of whether they did, so it’s a bad look, and (2) why did they keep it secret?
I’m going to go out on a limb and suggest that attending a luncheon with 200 (or however many) other people is not “keeping it secret,” (2) that the reason they may not have mentioned it from the dais is either because they didn’t interact much with the public or that it was a little embarrassing given already public news about the Chamber, and (3) that they don’t need to discuss city business in public because most of them don’t put much thinking into their positions on issues affecting ACoC and such, because instead they simply play “follow the leader” and mimic the votes of the one person who is channeling the ACoC (or Disney, or Angels) position on a given issue.
This, as VoC would know if they ever read this blog as closely as they apparently did Anaheim Investigator, has been the modus operandi since at least the Kris Murray days. One councilmember, who we might call the “Borg Queen,” gets the instructions and the others just follow along, generally saying in speeches that they agree with the BQ.
The fix isn’t because four or six council members take some time off in the middle of the luncheon to discuss a unified position; it’s because council members are recruited to run, and funded, on the basis that they will agree to follow the Borg Queen on relevant issues.
I considered that a hub-and-spoke arrangement when I argued this on behalf of CATER; the judge disagreed — as I recall because I couldn’t show a specific “meeting of minds” on the issue at hand. The notion that there needn’t BE a specific “meeting of minds” on a given issue, any more than exists on a party line vote in Congress, because people are just supposed to “follow the leader” was not persuasive.
If the VOC wants to actually do something useful, they could get their experts to come up with a definitive legal brief as to why having a Borg Queen whom the drones will follow is still a violation of the Brown Act. If it isn’t then the combination of a Borg Queen and special interests being able to find candidates who will follow the Borg Queen and retaliate against any candidate who betrays them render the Brown Act inert. Do they care about THAT?
At least this solves the mystery of Duane’s Last Laugh: the VOC took him seriously! I can see how that might be intoxicating for him — regardless of the merits of his picayune claim.
It is. He’s boasting to me that the Voice found his piece to be “a major news story” precisely BECAUSE of your ridicule!
And no doubt we’ll be hearing that shrieking laugh.
I would have gone so far as to say it was an interesting and embarrassing catch. It’s sure true that Council didn’t boast about this hoedown at the following Council meeting’s “Communications,” like they do with every other little adventure they have.
I reply at greater length below. I left out that one should catching a single mackerel may be interesting, but a mackerel should not be confused with a tuna.
Also: I’m turning off trackbacks (which unfortunately means also turning off pings) for all of my stories. We keep getting trackbacks from sites that I don’t think are safe for our readers — and a few of them do click. I don’t want to be responsible for harm coming to their computers and phones.
I’m happy to have done Duane a service, if so. (At times, he deserves it.) But the timing doesn’t work: he was chortling about this big surprise before I wrote about it here, so the Voice got the story earlier and some other way — possibly by reading his blog story. They mention having gotten the photos through their own public records request, so either someone (perhaps Duane himself?) tipped them off or possibly they have some automated way to be informed about Public Records requests in Anaheim.
If Duane tipped them off, good for him: he believed in the story and went to the most likely bigger venue to publicize it. But it’s not a big catch at all: nothing requires councilmembers to report on all of their outside activities — and they generally use this for self-promotion. (You don’t actually know that they also announce “every other little adventure they have”; it just seems like it.)
Do we really expect them to report on activities that make them look like their in someone’s pocket? Of course not. It’s not a Brown Act issue at all. Maybe Duane shouldn’t be expected to know that, but the VOC sure as hell should.
Here’s what they quote from David Loy, legal director of the First Amendment Coalition:
“I think it raises serious concerns if the majority of the council is at this event. … I do agree that it raises serious concerns of impropriety or the risk of impropriety, to do this in secret and be so secretive about it.” And he later adds: ““It may not be illegal, but if you want the public’s trust you should go above and beyond. … Maybe it’s part of their job to go meet and greet about this, but why be so secretive about it if there’s nothing going on?”
Sooooo … no colorable Brown Act violation, just supposedly “bad form.” Is there a “risk of impropriety”? Sure: there’s such a “risk” every time they use a communication device, given private email and text channels. Is there much of a risk in this case? Definitely not: why would they discuss council business in a venue where they could be seen and possibly overheard by any of the 200 guests around. It’s grossly speculative.
Why “keep it secret”? I don’t think that “not mentioning it” entails some sort of cover up, but it’s easily explained anyway. It’s embarrassing for the Council to be around some of these people in this environment — and that’s not how they want to use their face time with the public.
And, again, “having secret meetings” is not the problem! The problem is that they are abjectly controlled by donors to whom they must show loyalty if they want to gain and maintain a political career — and probably if they want to have certain benefits once they’re off the dais. THAT is the corruption in Anaheim — the meetings don’t even have to be fixed, the councilmembers just have to follow the Queen Bee — and I guess I’ll have to contact Mr. Foy to see what he things about that. (Hopefully Norberto and crew won’t contact Mr. Foy to tell him not to take my call — but, like this, doing so would not be a colorable Brown Act violation.
ANY TIME SPENT IN PUBLIC COMMENTS about this kerfuffle (other than by Duane, who needs to promote his work) is WASTED when there are so many other important things to discuss. And yet, I’ll bet that some people will be trying to make this dead cat bounce, because it’s so much easier than discussing Anaheim’s real issues.
A Day in the Life of Tenants United Anaheim Last week a tenant messaged us on Facebook asking for help,…
WE DIDN'T START THE EATON FIRE! This piece is from the Fucking News. No, seriously, "The Fucking News" on Substack.…
Is Zelensky an American asset??
From the "Fear and Loathing / Closer to the Edge" substack blog https://closertotheedge.substack.com/p/what-else-could-a-russian-asset-possibly : Senator Jeff Merkley walked into the…
So, good thing he was killed, you're saying?
Daniel DID do drugs. Report below shows he had METH in his system and an extensive criminal history that included…
Greg, You can think what you want. Criminals, illegal immigration and neighboring countries can all erode countries sovereignty. But war…
My definition is ... irrelevant to this discussion, counselor. (I'd look up case law if I needed one.) You're the…
Wait what is your definition of sovereign nation? And I don’t think you understand what independence is. Entering into treaties…
But maybe you did mean (1) "Completely independent" and (2) "authority over its borders" as two separate things. In that…
A month and a half before the proverbial shit hit the fan. I wonder who paid for the Wordsmith’s place at the table – right next to the corrupt City Manager.
It was a Chamber event – I’m sure the Cunninghams were paid to be there.
Welp, the Voice of OC has decided to follow the same trail, based on Roberts’s story.
https://voiceofoc.org/2023/08/did-the-anaheim-city-council-violate-californias-open-meeting-laws/
For them, the big issues were that (1) they COULD have discussed city business, regardless of whether they did, so it’s a bad look, and (2) why did they keep it secret?
I’m going to go out on a limb and suggest that attending a luncheon with 200 (or however many) other people is not “keeping it secret,” (2) that the reason they may not have mentioned it from the dais is either because they didn’t interact much with the public or that it was a little embarrassing given already public news about the Chamber, and (3) that they don’t need to discuss city business in public because most of them don’t put much thinking into their positions on issues affecting ACoC and such, because instead they simply play “follow the leader” and mimic the votes of the one person who is channeling the ACoC (or Disney, or Angels) position on a given issue.
This, as VoC would know if they ever read this blog as closely as they apparently did Anaheim Investigator, has been the modus operandi since at least the Kris Murray days. One councilmember, who we might call the “Borg Queen,” gets the instructions and the others just follow along, generally saying in speeches that they agree with the BQ.
The fix isn’t because four or six council members take some time off in the middle of the luncheon to discuss a unified position; it’s because council members are recruited to run, and funded, on the basis that they will agree to follow the Borg Queen on relevant issues.
I considered that a hub-and-spoke arrangement when I argued this on behalf of CATER; the judge disagreed — as I recall because I couldn’t show a specific “meeting of minds” on the issue at hand. The notion that there needn’t BE a specific “meeting of minds” on a given issue, any more than exists on a party line vote in Congress, because people are just supposed to “follow the leader” was not persuasive.
If the VOC wants to actually do something useful, they could get their experts to come up with a definitive legal brief as to why having a Borg Queen whom the drones will follow is still a violation of the Brown Act. If it isn’t then the combination of a Borg Queen and special interests being able to find candidates who will follow the Borg Queen and retaliate against any candidate who betrays them render the Brown Act inert. Do they care about THAT?
At least this solves the mystery of Duane’s Last Laugh: the VOC took him seriously! I can see how that might be intoxicating for him — regardless of the merits of his picayune claim.
It is. He’s boasting to me that the Voice found his piece to be “a major news story” precisely BECAUSE of your ridicule!
And no doubt we’ll be hearing that shrieking laugh.
I would have gone so far as to say it was an interesting and embarrassing catch. It’s sure true that Council didn’t boast about this hoedown at the following Council meeting’s “Communications,” like they do with every other little adventure they have.
I reply at greater length below. I left out that one should catching a single mackerel may be interesting, but a mackerel should not be confused with a tuna.
Also: I’m turning off trackbacks (which unfortunately means also turning off pings) for all of my stories. We keep getting trackbacks from sites that I don’t think are safe for our readers — and a few of them do click. I don’t want to be responsible for harm coming to their computers and phones.
That Brown Act thing was such a stretch you could read a newspaper through it. The fun part is certainly the photos.
I’m happy to have done Duane a service, if so. (At times, he deserves it.) But the timing doesn’t work: he was chortling about this big surprise before I wrote about it here, so the Voice got the story earlier and some other way — possibly by reading his blog story. They mention having gotten the photos through their own public records request, so either someone (perhaps Duane himself?) tipped them off or possibly they have some automated way to be informed about Public Records requests in Anaheim.
If Duane tipped them off, good for him: he believed in the story and went to the most likely bigger venue to publicize it. But it’s not a big catch at all: nothing requires councilmembers to report on all of their outside activities — and they generally use this for self-promotion. (You don’t actually know that they also announce “every other little adventure they have”; it just seems like it.)
Do we really expect them to report on activities that make them look like their in someone’s pocket? Of course not. It’s not a Brown Act issue at all. Maybe Duane shouldn’t be expected to know that, but the VOC sure as hell should.
Here’s what they quote from David Loy, legal director of the First Amendment Coalition:
“I think it raises serious concerns if the majority of the council is at this event. … I do agree that it raises serious concerns of impropriety or the risk of impropriety, to do this in secret and be so secretive about it.” And he later adds: ““It may not be illegal, but if you want the public’s trust you should go above and beyond. … Maybe it’s part of their job to go meet and greet about this, but why be so secretive about it if there’s nothing going on?”
Sooooo … no colorable Brown Act violation, just supposedly “bad form.” Is there a “risk of impropriety”? Sure: there’s such a “risk” every time they use a communication device, given private email and text channels. Is there much of a risk in this case? Definitely not: why would they discuss council business in a venue where they could be seen and possibly overheard by any of the 200 guests around. It’s grossly speculative.
Why “keep it secret”? I don’t think that “not mentioning it” entails some sort of cover up, but it’s easily explained anyway. It’s embarrassing for the Council to be around some of these people in this environment — and that’s not how they want to use their face time with the public.
And, again, “having secret meetings” is not the problem! The problem is that they are abjectly controlled by donors to whom they must show loyalty if they want to gain and maintain a political career — and probably if they want to have certain benefits once they’re off the dais. THAT is the corruption in Anaheim — the meetings don’t even have to be fixed, the councilmembers just have to follow the Queen Bee — and I guess I’ll have to contact Mr. Foy to see what he things about that. (Hopefully Norberto and crew won’t contact Mr. Foy to tell him not to take my call — but, like this, doing so would not be a colorable Brown Act violation.
ANY TIME SPENT IN PUBLIC COMMENTS about this kerfuffle (other than by Duane, who needs to promote his work) is WASTED when there are so many other important things to discuss. And yet, I’ll bet that some people will be trying to make this dead cat bounce, because it’s so much easier than discussing Anaheim’s real issues.