Blog Archives

Mudslinging at Tammany Hall Tustin

I was originally going to title this piece, “Thug Politics is Alive and Well in Tustin” but Brenda McCune over at OC Political beat me to it. So. I had to come up with some catchy title of my own. In any case, if you  live in Tustin, you know what I am talking about.

Is it coincidental that almost all of the political hit pieces go out from the post office on the same day? The hit piece McCune complained about in her article, was sent the same time as hit pieces in Tustin and many other cities. Quite frankly, I thought Nielsen and “Team Tustin” as they call themselves, might forgo this bit of juvenile politics and actually run a clean campaign that would extol the virtues of the candidates. After all, Nielsen claims he signed the Code of Fair Campaign Practices.We are not sure when he did that but, according to the City Clerk’s office, only two people signed the pledge and Nielsen was not among them. Even if he signed the CFCP in a previous race, he is being as disingenuous with the voters as when he leads them to believe he is a happily married man. But, you’ll have to ask Erin Nielsen about that.

Instead, we got a mailer that, at first glance, makes you think it is from opposition candidates, Tracy Worley-Hagen and David Waldram. It has their names boldly in yellow against a black background and a picture of them to the side. All of the allegations made in the mailer are either stretches or outright lies. It is not very damning, to say the least.

In a response to the hit piece, Tracy Worley-Hagen issued a response denying all of the allegations. From her website:

All of these allegations are untrue.  These are simply desperate measures by desperate people who are desperately trying to hold onto their last shreds of power.  I continue my pledge to the people of Tustin to run a clean campaign and, should I be re-elected, to represent them with honesty, transparency and civility.

The most serious allegation against Worley-Hagen is one of political corruption. We asked her about it and she said, “I amended my forms in 2005 to correct a simple accounting error regarding 2 dinners and payed a nominal fine, similar to when someone makes a mistake on their income tax returns. Once the FPPC received my corrected forms and payment they immediately issued a statement of resolution.”

Wow. That’s some corruption. Of course, the mailer makes it seem like much more than that.

David Waldram has not responded to the piece. However, there was little they could say about him, beyond being accused of being a puppet for Worly-Hagen. The most the two of them have done together is to hold joint fundraisers throughout the city. He has continuously maintained an independent view and, in fact, does run a business out of his home. The two of them are running together on a platform of bringing back civility to Tustin politicss. His “full-time government employee” status is that of a public school teacher at Tustin High School. In fact, he teaches government classes. Most public teachers I know are full-time government employees. So, there is no shocking revelation there.

I have to tell you that, if this is the best “Team Tustin” could do, they are hurting for any dirt on the opposition campaign. And, they are not coming up with much. And, although Nielsen, Puckett and Bernstein will readily disavow themselves of any knowledge of the flyer, it does not take much to put two and two together.

First, unlike Worley-Waldram, there have been no other independent expenditures for campaign literature for this race. The anti Worley-Waldram piece was accompanied by another piece extolling the virtues of the “Team Tustin” candidates.

John Nielsen is touted as a strong fiscal conservative. But, the facts speak for themselves. He fully supports the lawsuits between the city and school district, placing the blame and resolution squarely with the district. He also forgets to mention that the council he sits on voted to bring multiple, frivolous lawsuits against the school district in response to their sole lawsuit. Let’s not forget he, along with Jerry Amante, also voted themselves high end Apple iPads that were paid from reserve funds. Oh, yeah, and didn’t John help balance the last two or three budgets by dipping into those same reserves?

Voters who received the mailers may notice something else. Both the Worley-Waldram hit piece and the “Team Tustin” mailer were sent from the same organization, Tustin Residents United, which lists a private post office box in Tustin as their headquarters address. No physical address and no actual location or staff. That’s because there really is no Tustin Residents United. It is a sham organization set up, apparently, by a political accountant with ties to “Team Tustin” to make independent expenditures for candidates at their behest. These types of expenditures are not supposed to be controlled or discussed with the candidates. Is that what really happened here?

Tustin Residents United, like any campaign organization, is required to fill out a Form 460 advising contributions taken in and expended either as contributions to or on behalf of political candidates. TRU’s only income for the past reporting cycle is from the Orange County Business Council’s BIZPAC who donated $10,000. In the same reporting period, they paid $250.00 for accounting services to Barrett Garcia and $1500 to Powers Communications to Support John Nielsen.  OCBC is a lobbying organization for the business community. And, you might note on Nielsen’s website that most of his endorsements come from the business community, both those in Tustin and those that (hope to) do business in Tustin. This is on top of those businesses that would not lend their name but would happily hand out cash to fund his campaign.

It’s also interesting that Tustin Residents United, which obviously has nothing to do with residents, shows an address of record on the Form 460 in San Juan Capistrano, rather than the post office box in Tustin. Guess what the address of the accountant Barrett Garcia is? Yes, the exact same address. Barrett Garcia is a well-known accountant in political circles. The company also does political accounting for Chuck Puckett and Allan Bernstein, so you can see the direct connection between “Team Tustin” and Tustin Residents United. It isn’t much of a reach to see who really controls this so-called independent expenditure political action committee.

For Tracy Worley-Hagen and David Waldram’s part, they appear to be running a clean campaign. Their mailer was a simple two-sided affair that pledged fiscal responsibility and to restore civility to the circus that has become de rigueur at Tustin City Council meetings. They have both signed the fair campaign pledge and appear to be sticking to it. This hit piece, along with the recent theft of campaign lawn signs by an anti-Worley-Waldram zealot, shows the concern “Team Tustin” has over the campaign. Even the bastion of Orange County journalism, the Register, refused to endorse Bernstein, saying Worley-Waldram had more experience and would serve the public better. As we have said, Bernstein, who bills himself as a “physician” when he is a podiatrist, should heal himself from foot-in-mouth disease as he honestly believes that city councilmembers actually have some say in school district board elections.

I’ve been watching a new show on TV called, “Copper”. It’s about New York City during the Tammany Hall era. The most recent show had folks buying votes with drinks, having them vote multiple times for dead people and beat down voters at the poll who dare to vote for the opposition. The thug politics of the era are alive and well in the city of Tustin.

Ain’t No Sunshine in Tustin

We have been keeping a close eye on our neighbors to the West of us and how they will handle an ordinance proposed by the Santa Ana Collaborative for Responsible Development (SACReD). As reported in the Voice of OC, SACReD sponsored an ordinance that would create a new level of transparency in government. Santa Ana politicos have long lamented the secretive world in which the Santa Ana City Council often conducts business. In past years, they have been accused of scores of Brown Act violations as well as running roughshod over small businesses and the resident artist community alike.

While much of what SACReD asked for in their proposed ordinance is the subject of state law already, we can see their issue with a city council that has declined to work interactively with the community at large. Also at issue is how willing the Orange County District Attorney has been willing to investigate and prosecute violations of the Brown Act and other regulatory laws, particularly when those being investigated claim Republican Party affiliation. However, one part of the proposal has to do with lobbyist registration which, along with the publishing of each councilmember’s calendar, would have opened up the secretive bed in which lobbyists and the politicians they attempt to influence to public scrutiny lie. Not a bad thing in anyone’s book, unless you are a lobbyist or an influenced politician.

If you have to ask why an ordinance like this is needed, it was summed up when Councilmember Carlos Bustamante asked SACReD organizer Ana Urzua what she would gain by knowing who the councilman is meeting with, she replied, “So we know we cant trust you.”

City staffers have been sent back to work on the ordinance including the changes the city council and SACReD agreed upon. That should happen in a couple of weeks. It is likely to be a watered down version of the original proposal, but it is a start.

By coincidence, or perhaps by karma, a proposal to shed more sunshine on the business of the Tustin City Council was also introduced on the same evening as Santa Ana’s proposal. In this case, the issue was raised by Councilmember Deborah Gavello, who asked her colleagues to consider agendizing discussion of a proposed policy or ordinance on lobbying. Gavello read a short piece on ethics in government to support her position for an anti-lobbying ordinance. She mentioned that the City of Irvine has a strong policy on ethics and lobbying.

In speaking with Gavello on this, she said that she is concerned about the lack of policy on ethical behavior and the possibility that some former councilmembers have -or could- come to a sitting councilmember and, because of their former position, immediately lobby for their interests. We agree this is an issue worthy of consideration by the city council and that it should also include lobbyist registration and the publishing of councilmembers’ official calendars.

John Nielsen, in an apparent move to obscure the issue, mentioned that the strategic planning coming up in October had an ethics component. He was concerned that, by agendizing an item as Gavello wanted, they would be requiring the staff to cover ground twice and addressing the issue in bit and piece fashion would not be to the benefit of the city (we’ll spare you the cost-saving remarks our fiscally responsible mayor made).

Councilmember Beckie Gomez did a great job of bringing the two issues together:

I think the gist of what Deborah is trying to do, and I could be wrong but, is maybe to encompass that with the strategic plan, that we are considering that policy, that ordinance, I’m not sure what she brought forward. I agree with you that we should not be duplicating effort but, that it would be incorporated into what we’re doing.

Surprisingly, John agreed.

Gavello, saying that she doesn’t trust “us”, said she does not see the strategic plan coming back with an ordinance. Saying that the strategic plan does consider ethics, lobbying is not mentioned at all and that is why she felt it needed to be brought forward for consideration by the council. Of course, Jerry can’t pass up any opportunity to hear himself bash Deborah so Hizzoner goes on about how the two ways to get an item agendized is either to discuss it with the mayor and city manager or to make a motion and obtain a second for a vote.

Uh, didn’t she just do that?

Fortunately, Coucilmember Gomez came to Deborah’s rescue and seconded her motion, “for purposes of discussion.”

Jerry apparently did not have enough air time. So, he decided to go on the offensive and accuse Gavello of using the lobbying issue as a personal attack on him for taking a position with an influential lobbying firm that deals with public entities. Saying that she has never been concerned about the issue before, she is only concerned now because of his employment and the fear he will come back and lobby the city. Telling her to “calm down little lady”  [you know you heard it] because there are “state laws that govern who I can lobby.”

We’ll get back to that statement later.

Thanks to Gomez, the vote was not a complete wash. Unfortunately, the Three Amigos voted together and the city attorney, when questioned by Gavello as to the rules regarding having something agendized, backpedaled into the three on the right sputtering, “It is not against the Brown Act to vote to agendize an item.” That’s not what she asked, of course, but it was enough of a sidestep by David Kendig to keep him firmly entrenched with the boys.

So, there will be no sunshine in Tustin, at least as long as the Three Amigos are holding the ball. Does that mean that Tustin does not deserve a sunshine ordinance? Aside from what Hizzoner Amante ranted about, the state law is vague on local government lobbying. In fact, there is very little written about it and there is, unless local ordinance or policy specifically prohibits it, little to prevent a former councilmember or city staffer from immediately lobbying members of the council as well as the members of boards such as the Orange County Transportation Authority, Orange County Fire Authority or the Transportation Corridor Agencies on which they may have served. It doesn’t hurt that the Orange County District Attorney shies away from investigating political violations and the vagueness of current law is often used as an excuse not to investigate.

Sunshine laws, such as the one Santa Ana is considering and Councilmember Gavello asked to be agendized for consideration by the Tustin City Council, are effective in insuring that the citizens whom the city serves are kept informed and aware of issues affecting them. This goes much further than simply posting an agenda or the financial report on the city website. It goes further than having the public information officer post pictures of city events and contests for the kids on the city’s Facebook page. It has to do with, as Gavello says, ethical behavior by those who are supposed to serve the city. It goes to trust of a city council and staff who often have a difficult time treating citizens without disdain, let alone their colleagues on the board. And yes, Jerry, it has to do with you.

Ever hear the old kids taunt, “Liar Liar, pants on fire?” Well we are surprised Jerry Amante didn’t burst into flames for his apparent untruths on the dais. Jerry says:

Let me begin by addressing the misstatement by Councilwoman Gavello, so we clear the air. All the time you have been serving on the council, councilwoman, I have been practicing law, not lobbying. I joined FSB Core  Strategies July second. I don’t lobby in the county. I don’t lobby any of the agencies I belong to. I, uh, follow the rules just as they have been written in state law. So, you have no basis to make scurrilous remarks.

Uh-huh. Well, that’s not what we hear, even from the man himself. It seems that, even though good ol’ Jer has found legitimate employment (we hear working for a woman by the way), he wasn’t always dependent upon someone else for a paycheck. Amante, indeed, has or had a law firm that practiced law. Among other things, his website lists advocacy for a number of entities including business. In fact, one web page says plainly:

GOVERNMENT RELATIONS – The firm provides strategic consultaion [sic] to clients with matters pending before government bodies or regulatory agencies. It represents clients before local, regional, state and federal governments and agencies. It specializes in the negotiation and presentation of complex matters for its clients and it frequently consults with other firms to assist them in their strategic planning for their clients. It is dedicated to the success of client projects and in zealous advocacy for them. It has particular expertise in land development, financing, construction and the like.

I don’t think you could get a more precise definition of lobbying if you looked it up in Webster’s Dictionary. And, while I won’t go as far as to say he has lobbied other Tustin councilmembers on behalf of his clients, others seem to think he has.

Somehow, we think this issue is not dead. There is that so-called “strategic plan” coming up for discussion. And, there will be a changing of the guard in November. Worse comes to worse, when Tustinites actually do get fed up with the dismal track record of their elected officials, this is a prime candidate for a ballot measure.

In the meantime, thanks largely to the Three Amigos on the city council, Tustin will remain dark.