OC Blog

Lefty Blogger Continues Re-Writing Measure D History

The post-Santiago fire "blame Measure D opponents" myth-making continues apace. The leading blogosphere propagandist for this effort is Robert Cruikshank -- "Robert from Monterey -- and he resumes his attempt (commenced in October) to pin blame for the Santiago fire on pernicious "anti-government, anti-union" elements in Orange County with this November 1 offering on Daily Kos under his dKos nom-du-blog "eugene" (and re-posted on Calitics and California Progress Report).

In Robert's world, Measure D --  -- was defeated by "anti-government ideology."

Those of us who lived in Orange County during the battle over Measure D -- the measure offered by the OCPFA to increase the OC Fire Authority's share of Prop. 172 sales tax revenues -- know is was more than anything a fight between OCPFA and the rest of the local government unions, led by the Association of Orange County Deputy Sheriffs and the Orange County Employees Association.

Other than an a brief reference to an over-the-top analogy by Steve Greenhut, Cruikshank gingerly tip-toes around that reality. The way he misrepresents the Measure D campaign is akin to saying the Crimean War was between the Russian Empire and the Kingdom of Sardinia.

More OC Political Post-Mortems

FR Blog contributors Adam Probolsky and Matthew Cunningham put forward some of their thoughts on Tuesday's special election and the fallout here in Orange County.

Mr. Probolsky also puts in his two cents on the Cassie DeYoung/TriTunnel contretemps, harking to the pitfalls of consultants driving your philosphy, rather than the other way around.

FlashReport Interview With Sen. John Lewis on Measure D

FlashReport.org publisher Jon Fleischman has an exclusive interview with former Sen. John Lewis, the No on Measure lead consultant, in today's edition:

Fleischman:  Senator Lewis, you served as senior consultant for the No on D campaign.    Congratulations on the win, were you surprised?

John Lewis: Thanks, Jon.  Those of us in the No campaign could feel the tide turning about a month ago.  We were worried that we may have peaked a little early, maybe a week or so early, but as soon as the absentees came in we knew our worries were for not.

Both conventional wisdom and political insiders predicted your campaign would have a near impossible task of overcoming the incredible popularity of firefighters in general.  How did you overcome that obstacle?

First, we had a terrific team assembled in this campaign.  Chris Jones, Matt Holder and I have collaborated together on many successful campaigns but it was my first time working with Pete Mitchell and he is a professional’s professional.  The four of us made an awesome team.

Second, the County’s political leadership came together as a united front to oppose this tax grab.  I am indebted to Sheriff Carona for convincing me to take on this effort and for his behind the scenes lobbying which resulted in putting our team in place.  Chairman of the Board of Supervisors, Bill Campbell was an integral part of this team.  He and the other four Supervisors stepped up to the plate big time in this campaign displaying a united front that impressed voters.  Supervisor Norby also deserves to be singled out for his enthusiasm and hard work.

Finally, I was bowled over by the tenacity, enthusiasm and determination by the two big dogs in this campaign, the Association of Deputy Sheriffs and the Orange County Employees Association.  In years past, AOCDS President Wayne Quint and I have crossed swords on a few campaigns.  It is a lot more fun working with him than going toe-to-toe.  The job that Wayne and Nick Berardino did for their respective memberships was nothing short of spectacular.

You can read the rest of the interview at FlashReport.org.

On Open Letter From "No On D" Consultant John Lewis

Former Senator John Lewis, the lead consultant for the No on Measure D campaign, asked if I would post this "open letter" here on the venerable OC Blog. I, of course, graciously agreed:

It took a great team effort to turn a “sure win” initiative into a landslide loss at the polls.  I want to publicly acknowledge and thank those members of the No on D team who went the extra mile in this campaign leading to our decisive win yesterday.

I first want to thank Sheriff Mike Carona.  It was the Sheriff who encouraged me to accept this campaign task and who lobbied Wayne Quint and AOCDS to bring us aboard.  Among other things, Sheriff Carona was instrumental in providing the financing that allowed the Orange County Republican Party to send out their very effective Republican slate mailing which prominently featured No on D.

Wayne Quint and Nick Berardino did their respective memberships at AOCDS and OCEA proud.  Nobody worked harder than these two and their association memberships are lucky to have these two bulldogs at the helm.

A special note of thanks goes out to all five Orange County Supervisors – Chairman Bill Campbell, Vice Chairman Tom Wilson, Jim Silva, Chris Norby and Lou Correa, whose steadfastness and unanimity on this issue was rewarded by the voters.  Particular thanks goes out to the Board Chair Bill Campbell for his leadership from day one on this issue.  Mark Denny deserves special recognition for the weekends and after hours he surrendered to this campaign.  Supervisor Chris Norby deserves to be singled out as well.  His passion and enthusiasm for sound public policy were on display throughout this campaign.  Eric Norby and Bruce Whitaker of Chris’ staff also contributed in many ways.

Once the Republican Party endorsed the No on D effort, Scott Baugh became an effective communicator on behalf of the effort.  Hours before the Republican Party endorsed, the California Republican Assembly endorsed as well.  Special thanks to Scott Voigts for his efforts in securing such an important endorsement.

A number of high profile Orange County political leaders like Santa Ana Mayor Miguel Pulido stuck their necks out when this issue was in doubt.  District Attorney Tony Rackauckas was with this campaign from the beginning and he was later joined by Senator Dick Ackerman, Assembly members Todd Spitzer and Chuck DeVore and a number of local elected officials including four of my favorites, Mission Viejo Councilman Frank Ury, Westminster Councilman Kermit Marsh, Anaheim Councilman Harry Sidhu and President of the Orange County Board of Education Alexandria Coronado.  State Senator Tom McClintock’s willingness to endorse in an Orange County campaign was a huge plus for the campaign.

Needless to say Matt Holder, Chris Jones and I have collaborated on a number of campaigns in the past, but this was the first time that as a group we worked with campaign wiz Pete Mitchell.  Together we crafted and executed a solid blueprint for victory.

A big thanks to Jubal, Green Machine, and the Sarge for keeping our morale up.  Lastly, props go to all the hundreds of volunteers who walked precincts, phone banked and hung signs.

Thanks to everyone for one helluva ride.

Cordially,

John Lewis

De nada, Senator.

Final Unofficial Measure D Result

The Election Day balloting didn't budge the overwhelming anti-D absentee numbers:

Yes     140,227     26.8%

No      383,632     73.2%

Measure D -- R.I.P.

Measure D -- absentee results:

Yes      55,361    26.2%
No      156,233   73.8%

Ouch.

Stick a fork in Measure D. It's done.

Man, it looks like election night -- at least for OC -- is over as soon as it started.

Let the recriminations begin.

UPDATE: I'll can't make a final judgment until all the results are in, but it looks like Sergeant from Tin Star is going to win the OC Blog beer stein! His prediction: No 66%, Yes 34%.

Measure D Mailbox: November 7, 2005

A reader sent me this new Yes On Measure D mailer:

Yes, the mailer implies Gov. Schwarzenegger endorses Measure D, but the way that commission's conclusion is presented is fair game within the usual bounds of campaign communications.

However, this mailer -- which obviously targets Republican voters -- uses the Republican Party logo. My understanding is a campaign cannot do that without the GOP's permission -- which the Yes on D campaign could never get because the Republican Party of Orange County officially opposes Measure D.

What makes this even more interesting is the involvement of OC Blog friend Jim Lacy -- Dana Point Councilman, OCFA Director, and a leader of the Yes On D campaign. A Lacy quote, in his capacity as co-founding director of the Howard Jarvis Taxpayer's Association (HJTA), adorns the above mailer.

Readers will remember that about 7-10 days before the Oct. 4th 48th CD primary, the Marilyn Brewer campaign sent out a mailer using a copyrighted picture of Howard Jarvis. The copyright is held by the HJTA and the Save Proposition 13 Committee -- neither of which gave the Brewer campaign permission to use it.

Here's an excerpt of The Successor Project Blog's commentary on that episode:

There is still time for Campbell and HJTA to mail a response to this mailer. Candidates who use these techniques usually suffer severe repercussions – unless they are used so late in the campaign that the other side has little time to respond [emphasis mine - ed]. This could’ve been an effective piece, but Brewer’s campaign shot itself in the foot by sending it so early.

TSP is a Jim Lacy project, although my understanding is he is not the only TSP director with posting privileges on their blog, so I don't know if Jim authored that particular post.

Still, it's interesting that the Yes On D campaign followed that advice and sent out the above mailer "so late in the campaign that the other side" -- in this instance the GOP whose logo is most likely being used without permission -- "has little time to respond."

...And Over At Tin Star Blog

The Sergeant has some new posts over at his Tin Star blog. He blogs about Prop. 75 and lambastes Cosat Mesa Mayor Allan Mansoor for his support for Prop. 75. Love ya, Sarge, but in a free country no person should be compelled to fund political activities. What's the harm in asking permission before using dues for politics?

Sergeant also takes a look at the respective financial situations of the Yes and No on D campaigns and apparent yard sign shenanigans by the firefighters (I'm shocked!).

Measure D Mailbox: Yes On D Trifecta!

Boy, it was a Yes On Measure D trifecta today. First, I received a robo-call from Dan Point Councilman Jim lacy urging me, in the spirit of Governor Schwarzenegger's "Year Of Reform" to vote for Measure D. Then the mailman brought me an oversized Yes On D postcard promising that Measure D will mean "More firefighters" -- which is an excellent reason to vote against it.

I also received the California Club for Growth newsletter, which urges me to vote Yes on Measure D This slate is produced by one of our advertisers, Landslide Communications. Jim Lacy is a partner in ladnslide, so no one should be shocked it's carrying a Yes on D message.  However, I do have to complain that Yes on D blurb strongly and misleadingly implies that Schwarzenegger supports Measure D.

Measure D Mailbox -- October 29, 2005

This mailer from the No On Measure D campaign hit my mailbox yesterday:

Yes On Measure D Airs Misleading TV Ad

The Yes On Measure D campaign began airing TV ads on Tuesday.  Click here to watch it (it's an MP4 file, so you'll need to use QuickTime or RealPlayer -- it won't work on Windows Media Player).

Following is the ad script:

Annc:  When there’s danger, they race towards it.

When tragedy strikes, they’re first on the scene.

Now they need our help.

Measure D restores funding for fire protection and paramedics.

We voted for Prop 172 which, quote, “guaranteed funds for fire protection.”

But politicians refused to give any of these funds to fire protection.

Measure D forces them to spend this money on fire and paramedic services as promised, without raising new taxes.

Vote Yes on Measure D.

"Restores funding?" To "restore" means to bring something back that previously existed. But OC firemen never received Prop. 172 funds -- as the ad itself states. So how can Measure D "restore" funding that never existed in the first place?

Measure D "restores" nothing -- to say otherwise is to mislead voters who see this commercial. The Yes On Measure campaign ceaselessly criticizes what it contends are misleading claims by the No on Measure D side. Perhaps they ought to uphold their own standards.

Fire vs. Sheriff vs. The Rest of Us

Our public safety friends will be all over this latest Measure D post on the Register's Blog:

Although I am adamantly opposed to the fire union's money grab, known as Measure D, I do thank the union for starting this political battle. The result is to the benefit of the taxpayer. By trying to take funds from the sheriff and DA, the D campaign has set off a much-needed analysis of how both sides (fire and law enforcement) misspend taxpayer dollars for their own benefit, then whine to the public that there is not enough money. The Register did a great article today on huge surpluses for the sheriff's department. Firefighters are gloating about this revelation, but they are even bigger money wasters than the sheriff. The truth is clear: Firefighters and law enforcement are both abusing the taxpayer, in an exercise of greed. They have gotten so greedy that they are fighting against each other. At least the public gets to see what's going on, as a result of this public spat between two groups of self-centered, unaccountable, overpaid government workers.

Thank you, firefighters, for starting this and enlightening the public, albeit by accident.
Posted by Steven Greenhut -- sgreenhut@ocregister.com at 1:44 PM

Firefighter Salaries

Greenhut's embroiled in a argument with the firefighters on the Register's Blog, and writes of an absolutely hilarious email from their union:

The firefighters union rep just e-mailed me and said that, in his experience, the public does not believe the salary and benefit numbers I have used. I am still laughing out loud over this one. I take numbers right from the budget, and from the county staff, and the union admits they are correct numbers.

He then goes on to document the numbers, SANS benefits and pensions:

Out of 738 positions, 1 earned between $220K and $230K, 1 earned between $180K and $189,999, 2 earned between $160K and $169,999, 4 earned between $150K and $159,999, 24 earned between $140K and $149,999, 61 earned between $130K and $139,999, 82 earned between $120K and $129,999, 137 earned between $110K and $119,999, 134 earned between $100K and $109,999, 106 earned between $90K and $99,999, 91 earned between $80K and $89,999, 50 earned between $70K and $79,999 and 45 earned below that. These include all categories: captain, fire apparatus engineer and firefighter. Add the pensions and other benefits to these numbers for total costs.

Consider it an OC Blog service to draw the picture for those members of the public who don't understand a salary schedule:

Measure D Mailbox -- October 21, 2005

I recieved this oversize No on Measure D postcard today -- a message from Tom McClintock. This should be an effective piece: McClintock commands a good deal of respect from conservative and independent voters, and the effect is magnified in a lower-turnout special election.

Measure D Mailbox - October 20, 2005

I received this California Republican Party special election mailer today. The first two pages are devoted to urging voters to reject Measure D.

The OC Fire Authority's Wish List

Yes on Measure D consultant Jeff Flint asked me to post this wish list from the OCFA, which I am glad to do in the interest of healthy Measure D debate.

Commence arguing.

Sheriff's Candidate Ralph Martin Announces Against Measure D

Tin Star posts:

Also, Commander Ralph Martin of the Los Angeles Sheriff's Department and an announced candidate in the Race for Sheriff 2006 published a paper detailing his opposition to Measure D.

As the Sergeant notes, that leaves Bill Hunt as the lone OC Sheriff candidate who has not taken a stand on Measure, with only 20 days to go before the election.

The Sergeant also posts the results of the AOCDS Board elections.

Out of Town Opinion

And from just up the road, the Long Beach Press-Telegram weighs in on Measure D: A raid on tax funds - Orange County firefighters are trying to tap into other safety revenue.  In part,

Orange County's straight-shooting treasurer, John Moorlach, says bluntly that this blatant money-grab is for one main purpose: to provide a funding source for the firefighters' grossly fat, underfunded pension system.  With just everybody against them, what is the firefighters' greatest asset in this campaign? The ignorance and indolence of voters. Because if voters had any idea of what is going on they would vote down this measure in an eye blink...

Orange County Propositions B, C, D and E all should be trashed.

How Much Did This Informational Picket Cost?

I'm sure the firemen's "informational picket" today at Todd Spitzer's fundraiser was loads of fun. Judging from Assemblyman Spitzer's description, there were the predictable displays of union goonism.

For myself, I'm curious how many firemen were there? And of the firemen there, how many were there on a scheduled day off? Did any of the picketers have to ask a fellow fireman to cover their shifts so they could harass Spitzer donors? And if that did occur, were the fireman/men covering for the picketers otherwise scheduled to have the day off?

Perhaps none of the above happened.   But if it did, that made it a mighty expensive informational picket for the taxpayers.

Firefighters Turning Their Hoses On Todd Spitzer

The donnybrook between the firemen and Assemblyman Todd Spitzer continues. Late this morning, I received the following press release from Yes on Measure D campaign:

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

October 17, 2005

Contact: Jeff Flint
jeff@schubertflintpa.com

Todd Spitzer, Typical Politician

Coming Soon from a Hypocrite Near You: “I Voted for the Fire Headquarters Before I Voted Against It”

(Santa Ana) – The voters of Orange County and the members of the Orange County Professional Firefighters Association have grown accustomed to hypocrisy, broken promises and misleading statements from Orange County politicians.  After all, these same politicians promised voters and firefighters that by passing the Proposition 172 public safety sales tax, they were “guaranteeing funds to fire protection.”

So it would take a new low for voters and their firefighters to be surprised by any more hypocrisy.  Unfortunately, career politician Todd Spitzer is happy to comply, making an argument against Measure D in official voter materials.

Voters receiving their sample ballots for the upcoming special election may notice Spitzer featured as a signatory to the arguments against the firefighters’ Measure D.  In the argument, Spitzer states that the Fire Authority does not need any more funding, pointing to a new Headquarters building the Fire Authority built in 2004, and implying the Fire Authority is wasting tax dollars.

What Spitzer fails to mention is that he served as Chairman of the OCFA Board of Directors in 2000, when the approval was granted to build the headquarters.  Spitzer supported the headquarters, as did the whole OCFA Board unanimously!  And they did so because the need to replace the old headquarters, built in 1936, was clear.

“I would like to say I am shocked, but I’m not,” said Joe Kerr, President of the OCPFA.  “For too long, career politicians have engaged in rank hypocrisy about funding for our firefighter protection.  Todd Spitzer is just another in a long line of politicians who say one thing and do another.  The voters have it in their hands to put a stop to politicians shortchanging fire protection in Orange County by voting yes on Measure D.”

Beng the fair-minded guy that I am, I asked Assemblyman Spitzer for his response:

Sad.  Today the firefighters showed up at my golf tournament on the wrong course.  They protested at GreenRiver on the Riverside Course, Hole #15. All my supporters and Orange County residents were playing on the Orange Course, for obvious reasons.  While my Riverside constituents cannot vote on Measure D, they appreciated  the education nevertheless.  Two firefighters made it onto the golf course's private property with "Yes on D" T-Shirts.  One drove through the parking lot with Yes on D on his vehicle and when asked by the Head Professional to leave, kindly gave him the bird.  The other ate breakfast inside the clubhouse and when asked by the Pro what his business was, was kindly told to bug off and leave him alone.  You would think that these firefighters would be using their time to campaign in a positive way: by walking precincts and educating voters.

There is an old prosecutor's saying when the criminal defense attorney has no case: "When the defendant has no facts on his side, he argues the law; when he does not have the law on his side he attacks the facts; and when he has neither the law nor the facts on his side he attacks the prosecutor."

So the "focus" by the firefighters tells me one thing: they know they are losing Measure D; they know they are losing Proposition 75; they know they are spending hundreds of thousands of dollars of union members dues on both these measures; and they know if they do not produce any results, they will be thrown out of office.  And so the focus on me.

I will reiterate what I said, in part,  yesterday at OCBlog regarding the my involvement in building the OCFA headquarters because the firefighters are ignoring the point that everyone else seems to get:

....At the same time, as Chairman, we made decisions about that building based on utilization of the present funding formula through property tax, land gifts from the Irvine Company and bonds that could be paid with existing resources.  WE DID NOT MAKE ANY DECISIONS BASED ON NEW TAXES OR A TAX GRAB FROM OTHER LAW ENFORCEMENT AGENCIES IN THE FUTURE.

Here is the phrase in the NO on D ballot argument signed by me, Tony Rackauckas, Bill Campbell,  Mark Nichols and Erin Runnion that the firefighters apparently object to given their media alert about my role in the building construction as OCFA Chairman:

FACT: The Fire Authority has a substantial budget surplus. If their fire stations are truly understaffed, then why did the Fire Authority recently spend $50 million to build a new luxury Administration Building that even their own ballot signer, Joe Kerr, called a "multi-million-dollar Taj Mahal"?  The Fire Authority needs more financial accountability, NOT more of our tax dollars!

The point of that paragraph is NOT to say that the new facility should not have been built; it is to underscore that at the time the project was approved, capitalized and financed, no OCFA Board member or member of the union ever argued that we would need a new revenue source to satisfy our financial obligation on the construction bonds OR that we would need a new revenue source to fund existing personnel and equipment needs at the OCFA then or in the future....

We did not; we do not.

But let's not argue the facts; let's vandalize Wayne Quint's car.

Give 'em hell, Todd.

Firefighters Have Some Fun At Wayne Quint's Expense

A source sent in this photo. AOCDS chief Wayne Quint stopped by the firemen's picket at the Todd Spitzer fundraiser today.

The firefighters, always on the lookout for Hypocrisy! to extinguish, mischeviously decided to create some -- clandestinely affixing a Yes On Measure D bumper sticker to Wayne Quint's No On Measure D bedecked van.

Who said politics can't be fun?

Last Week's No on Measure D Mailer

For all us political junkies who actually like reading political mail, here (courtesy of my Blogpen colleague Lurk) is the No on Measure D mailer that dropped last week.

Some may dismiss this sort of coverage as too "inside baseball," but the fact remains that mailers like this and the Yes mailer I posted a few days ago are the primary means by which voter opinion on Measure D will be decided.

Firefighters To Picket Spitzer Fundraiser

Firefighters are leaping from their barca-loungers with outrage at the hypocrisy of it all!

                                    ***Media Alert***

Local Firefighters Protest Hypocritical Opposition to Measure D

WHO/WHAT:  Orange County Firefighters as well as other firefighters from the 71st Assembly District set up an informational picket line outside of Assemblyman Todd Spitzer’s political fundraiser.

WHY: Orange County Firefighters are tired of the hypocrisy! The informational picket will serve as a reminder that Assemblyman Spitzer, who signed ballot arguments against Measure D citing “wasteful spending” by the Fire Authority was in fact Chairman of the Authority when he supported the construction of the new Headquarters, which replaced a building built in the 1930s.

WHEN: Firefighters will picket arriving guests beginning at 9:00 a.m. and make remarks at a media availability at 10:00 a.m. on Monday, October 17, 2005 outside of Assemblyman Todd Spitzer’s day-long political fundraiser at a local golf club.

WHERE: Green River Golf Club
            5215 Green River Rd.
            Corona, CA 92880

                                     

I contacted Assemblyman Todd Spitzer for his response:

For months leading up to the turning in of signatures for Measure D, I had been discussing with my friends on both sides ways to strike an agreement that would not pit public safety in this county against each other.  Everyone knew that firefighters fighting police and vice-versa was, and is, not a good thing for Orange County.  But when fire wants to take future sales tax from the 80/20 split currently in place for the DA and Sheriff and the other side has built its budget and its planning with that anticipated revenue in mind, there was "as is obviously self-evident” no room for compromise.

Some, like me, have chosen sides.  Others know that they could get shot or burned and have stayed away on the sidelines.  I chose to support the DA and Sheriff for the following reason: as a member of the Board of Supervisors from 1997 to 2002, our Board implemented the strategic planning process.  Every county department had to adopt and live by a five year planning document.  As a Board, we used those documents to make responsible budget and planning decisions.  In other words, we told departments like the DA and Sheriff: detail your needs, goals and vision and we will fund it and hold you accountable to your plans.

Also as a member of the Orange County Fire Authority between 1997 and 2002, I am very proud of the work of the Authority.  The Board Members are now and have been in the past some of the most dedicated elected officials I have every worked side by side.  The rank and file firefighters and civilian employees are committed to excellence.  I remember in 1999 as the Chairman of the OCFA taping an update video in the then bare dirt lot of the Jamboree property and telling the rank and file employees how proud I was to be leading the construction of the new Administration and Training facility.  I am still proud of that project.

At the same time, as Chairman, we made decisions about that building based on utilization of the present funding formula through property tax, land gifts from the Irvine Company and bonds that could be paid with existing resources.  WE DID NOT MAKE ANY DECISIONS BASED ON NEW TAXES OR A TAX GRAB FROM OTHER LAW ENFORCEMENT AGENCIES IN THE FUTURE.

Here is the phrase in the NO on D ballot argument signed by me, Tony Rackauckas, Bill Campbell,  Mark Nichols and Erin Runnion that the firefighters apparently object to given their media alert about my role in the building construction as OCFA Chairman:

FACT: The Fire Authority has a substantial budget surplus. If their fire stations are truly understaffed, then why did the Fire Authority recently spend $50 million to build a new luxury Administration Building that even their own ballot signer, Joe Kerr, called a "multi-million-dollar Taj Mahal"?  The Fire Authority needs more financial accountability, NOT more of our tax dollars!

Let Measure D Mail War Begin

I received my first Measure D mail piece, today -- from the Yes side. It makes their standard case:

"In 1993, while wildfires raged in Orange County and across Southern California, voters approved Prop. 172, to dedicate a half-cent of existing sales tax for fire protection, law enforcement and other public safety services."

"Instead of dedicating a portion of Prop. 172 funds to fire protection, as promised, the Orange County Board of Supervisors after the county bankruptcy to provide no funding to our Fire Department."

"No funding"? Really? None at all? Nada? Zero? Zilch?

I'll put up the whole mailer later on.

UPDATE: I scanned it in:                                                               

How Many Firemen Does It Take?

Another good post by the Sergeant over at Tin Star blog, using a recent fire incident (where 24 firemman responded to a fire that took 7 minutes to extinguish) to examine the necessity -- or lack thereof -- of having 4 firemen per rig (as the OCFA would like) as opposed to the current 3 firemen per rig.

Firefighters Claim AOCDS Concedes Error

Yesterday, I received this Firefighters for Public Safety/Yes On D press release bearing the Susan Powter-esque subject line, "Stop The Scare Tactics!" I've made clear my opposition to this measure, but I would also like OC Blog to serve as a forum for debate and discussion on this issue.

Anyway, here's what the firiefighters have to say:

Manager of Deputy Sheriffs Association Admits: "Measure D Will Not Result in Any Sheriff's Deputies Being Laid Off"

Firefighters for Public Safety Campaign calls on Opponents of Measure D to Disavow Any Further Scare Tactics

(Santa Ana) - The Firefighters for Public Safety, Yes on Measure D campaign today called on the opponents of Measure D to disavow all past and future scare tactics after the General Manager of the Association of Orange County Deputy Sheriffs admitted at a debate last night that, "Measure D will not result in any sheriff's deputies being laid off."

That admission by Bob MacLeod, General Manager of the AOCDS, at a debate before the Orange County Democratic Party Monday evening, completely undercuts arguments made by opponents of Measure D in official voter materials to be sent to all voters.  In their now admittedly false arguments, opponents of D stated, "Measure D...would lead to increased crime in our communities...by eliminating as many as 210 sheriff's positions, including frontline patrol officers..."

"Their arguments against Measure D have always been false and designed to scare voters, and now they've admitted it," said Joe Kerr, President of the Orange County Professional Firefighters Association.  "Measure D was carefully crafted to increase funding for our county fire department without any new taxes or cuts to law enforcement.  They should stop trying to scare voters away from supporting our firefighters with the personnel and equipment we need to keep Orange County safe."

Proposition 172, passed by voters statewide and in Orange County in 1993, allocated ½ cent of existing sales tax revenue to public safety, with campaign advertising and ballot pamphlet arguments stating that it, "guaranteed funding for fire protection."  Since its passage, it has raised over $2 billion for public safety in Orange County, and to date, not one penny has gone to the county's Fire Department.

Measure D fulfills a promise to the taxpayers and voters by designating a portion of the growth of future Prop 172 public safety sales tax funds to the Orange County Fire Authority, capped at 10%.  In an analysis prepared by opponents of D, even if D passes, the Sheriff's Department allocation of Prop 172 funds would grow from $195 million per year in FY 2005/2006 to $323 million per year for FY 2015/2016, a $128 million per year increase.

Here's Just_D_Facts Again...

I try to run an open blog, so now that I've opined on the topic of Measure D and the OC GOP, here's another e-mail I recieved today from the mysterious Just_D_Facts regarding Measure D "Facts" versus "Myths":

Measure D – Myths vs. Facts:

1. Myth – “If D passes, hundreds of deputy sheriffs and prosecutors will lose their jobs.”

Fact – According to the analysis of the opponents of Measure D, even if D passes, the Sheriff’s Department share of Prop 172 funds will grow over the next ten years from $195 million to $323 million – a $128 million increase.  Only by an analysis run by Democrats in Congress or Sacramento is a $128 million increase counted as a cut.  And of course, that “cut” will all go against the most popular program – cops on the street.  No cut in overhead, not effort to save funds.  It is shocking that the opponents of D, many of whom claim to be conservative Republicans, use the same budget-scoring method that big spenders in Congress and the State Legislature use!  Which side is arguing Republican principles?

2. Myth – “The Fire Authority only covers 43% of the county, and the sheriff’s department covers the whole county”

Fact – Both agencies provide countywide services.  On a given day, firefighters from the Fire Authority respond to 14 calls outside their official service area…nearly 5,000 per year!  Orange County Fire Authority also provides many specialized services, such as helicopter services, HazMat, and fire bulldozing.  Meanwhile, the Sheriff’s department does provide jail services to most of the county, along with coroner services.  But they provide frontline law enforcement to two areas, unincorporated county territory, which continues to shrink due to new cities and annexations, and cities which contract with the sheriffs, which pay for these services out of the cities’ Prop 172 funds, not the counties’.

3. Myth – “Prop 172 didn’t promise any funds to fire safety, and the Board of Supervisors should decide how to allocate the funds, not voters.”

Fact – Every piece of campaign materials and advertising for Prop 172 prominently featured fire services as a major selling point for its passage.  On the rare occasions when Orange County voters do vote to tax themselves, the politicians should heed the promises made.  But the same Board of Supervisors that ignored John Moorlach and bankrupted the county broke the promise to the voters and gave firefighting services nothing.

Opponents of D say that voters don’t get to allocate funds, the Board of Supervisors do.  But if the Board gets it wrong, the voters do get to correct it.  As an extreme, Proposition 172 also allowed funds to be allocated to lifeguard services…if the Board of Supervisors voted to give all of the 172 funds to lifeguards, would they still argue that voters get no right to take corrective action?

When you look past the myths and check the facts, you’ll see that the Orange County GOP has no dog in the Measure D fight.  We should focus our energy on the battles that matter to Republicans, and stay out of Measure D.

OK, commenters -- have at it.

The OC Republican Party Should Oppose Measure D

It is my belief that government employee unions pose the single greatest domestic threat to local liberty today. They are, as a wise man said, "government organized as a special interest." Government at all levels -- at least in California -- is increasingly under their thumb. When fear and money cause our state and local elected officials -- and the power of taxation -- to be more responsive to the demands of government workers than to taxpaying voters at large, a role reversal occurs and so-called public servants become the masters.

Just_D_Facts says that the Measure D campaign is fight between two public employee unions that the Orange County Republican Party should not involve itself. I agree with his/her characterization, but beg to differ wtih his/her prescription.

Battle over Measure D reminds me of Benjamin Franklin's timelessly true speech at the Constitutional Convention about the "dangers of a salaried bureaucracy:"

Sir, there are two passions which have a powerful influence in the affairs of men. These are ambition and avarice; the love of power and the love of money. Separately, each of these has great force in prompting men to action; but, when united in view of the same object, they have, in many minds, the most violent effects.

Franklin might as well have been speaking of contemporary public employee unions when he spoke of of who would "move heaven and earth" to use government to acquire power and money:

It will be the bold and the violent, the men of strong passions and indefatigable activity in their selfish pursuits. These will thrust themselves into your government, and be your rulers.

With all of the above in mind, I think the Orange County Republican Party Central Committee should vote to oppose Measure D.

The Democratic Party long ago abased itself to the government employee unions. Republican Party in Orange County remains an institution dedicated to liberty and limited government. Lately, it has become active in fighting for those beliefs at the local level by supporting and opposing candidates for local, "non-partisan" office. it ought to extend that activism by opposing Measure D.

It is true that the Measure D campaign is a battle between among public employee unions -- the firemen on one hand, and an AOCDS-led coalition on the other. But Republicans who care about local liberty should care about who wins this fight.

The OCPFA's case can be boiled down to this: we want a portion of Prop. 172 funds because we want more money. Their main reason: the contention that Prop. 172 passed because of commercials featuring firemen fighting the big brush fires that year. Therefore, they want some of the loot.

I, for one, have no desire to give the OCPFA any more money. Why feed the beast? It is already the most politically imperious of our local government employees unions, and displays an arrogant penchant for treating the taxpayers' money as its own.

Orange County's public employee unions already possess too much power, and I see no reason to change the status quo and direct even more public money to the most politically aggressive one.

The Republican Party of Orange County can do more to defend and eventually expand the realm of liberty here in OC by opposing Measure D, than by remaining on the sidelines. I hope the members of the OC GOP central committee believe likewise.

In a few hours, we'll know one way or the other.

Tin Star Blog Weighs In On Tonights OC GOP Vote On Measure D

Sergeant over at Tin Star blog speaks his mind regarding the Republican Party of Orange County Central Committee vote tonight on whether to take a position on Measure D, and if so what that position should be. In particular, he takes issue with GOP activist/Bill Hunt advocate Tim Whitacre, who he believes to be the mysterious Just_D_Facts.

Whither The OC Republican Party & Measure D?

This e-mail from just_d_facts@yahoo.com came over the transom. I disagree with the author's conclusion, but I thought it worth sharing in the interests of debate:

This Monday, the Orange County Republican Central Committee members will be asked to take positions on the ballot issues coming up on the special election. This ballot includes a number of measures, and is shaping up as a struggle between Governor Schwarzenegger and the public employee unions for control over the future of California.

For some of us, Proposition 76 is the most important measure - a relatively mild budget reform which will just smooth out the growth of the state budget, yet the Democrats act as if it would gut the state.

For others, Prop 77 is crucial, which would give us a fighting chance for winning legislative races by taking redistricting out of the hands of politicians.

If you care about fixing our schools, Proposition 74 is again a mild reform which just changes from two years to five year the period before a public school teacher can gain tenure.

And in the culture wars, Proposition 73 places the smallest of restrictions on abortion, not even requiring parental consent, but only parental notification, before a minor girl has an abortion.

These measures, while not sweeping reforms, each move California in the right direction, and deal with fundamental questions of ideology.  The Orange County Republican Party should place itself on the side of reform and endorse these measures.

Probably the most sweeping reform that could change California is Proposition 75, "Paycheck Protection", which simply requires union bosses to get their members' annual permission before spending their dues on political campaigns.  Polling shows that 40% or more of union members support Republican causes, yet 99% of union political funds in partisan races goes to Democrats.  Just the evidence of how the unions have raised money to fight Proposition 75 and the other reforms on the ballot, with mandatory dues assessments, shows by 75 is needed.

Tin Star: Measure D Is For Disaster

Sergeant at Tin Star is on a roll with a new post entitled "Measure D Is For Disaster."

As we've seen just from Sergeant's post and Jim Lacy's, there are articulate and forceful arguments being made on both sides of this issue. Which gave me a brainflash: the OC Registrar of Voters already posts the ballot arguments online. Why not take the next logical step forward and "blogify" them? The ballot argument signers could engage each other in real time on the issue in real time, defending their arguments and trying to refute their opponents. I think it would generate a great deal of interest among Orange County's increasingly blog-savvy electorate and put a greater premium on the ability of campaigns to engage each other on the issues.

Then again, I'd be happy if the Orange County Registrar could manage to post a meaningful percentage of election returns before everyone goes to bed.

Jim Lacy On Measure D

Dana Point Councilman Jim Lacy posted his support of Measure D the other day on his blog. No real surprise, since Lacy is treasurer listed as a proponent of Firefighters For Public Safety. Still, it's good to hear what everyone has to say.

Carona On Terrorism

A hat tip and muchas gracias to Tin Star blog for pointing us toward this column by Sheriff Carona on terrorism, published in something called the  Law Enforcement Agency Resource Network of the Anti-Defamation League.

Tin Star's Take On The Board's 172 Alternatives Vote

Sergeant over at Tin Star blog posts his thoughts on the Board of Supervisors vote to provide OC voters with several choices on how to distribute Prop. 172 funds -- paying particular attention to OCFPA chieftain Joe Kerr's conspicuous silence during public comments, while waxing outraged when news media were his audience.

Some Prop. 172 Historical Data

I thought it might be useful to all interested in the fight over distribution of Prop. 172 monies to post the county and statewide vote totals from the 1993 special election.

Orange County
Yes    215,028    52.25%
No    196,492    47.5%

Statewide   
Yes    2,893,680    57.80%
No    2,113,094    42.80%

[source: California Secretary of State]

Bill Campbell Proposes Alternatives To Firefighters' Tax Grab Inititative

Supervisor Bill Campbell has put forward some thoughtful alternatives to the OCPFA initiative that would divert money from the Orange County Sheriff's Department and the District Attorney's Office and into t he abundant coffers of the Orange County Fire Authority.

Following is the press release sent from Campbell's office today detailing these proposals.

CAMPBELL OFFERS VOTERS PROP. 172 ALTERNATIVES - THREE MEASURES TO BE CONSIDERED BY BOARD

JULY 26 - SANTA ANA, CA – Orange County Board of Supervisors Chairman Bill Campbell today submitted to the Clerk of the Board three alternatives for allocating the County’s share of Proposition 172 Public Safety Sales tax funds. The Board of Supervisors will consider placing the three measures on the November 8, 2005 Special Election ballot at their regular meeting on Tuesday, July 26.

“Voters in Orange County deserve choices in how the County allocates its share of Proposition 172 funds, not just one bad choice,” Campbell said, referring the initiative put forward by a firefighters union to take away funds from the Orange County Sheriff and District Attorney.

Campbell has put forward the following three measures:

• THE ORANGE COUNTY PUBLIC SAFETY SALES TAX ELIGIBILITY ORDINANCE. This measure would allow the voters to direct the Orange County Board of Supervisors to allocate the County’s share of Prop. 172 Public Safety Sales Tax funds to public safety agencies that serve the entire County of Orange.

“The firefighters’ union is seeking to divide the ranks of public safety professionals by pitting firefighters against sheriff’s deputies and prosecutors. They are also seeking to divide the County by taking away funds that should be for regional, countywide public safety services like our jails and prosecutors, and diverting them to an agency that only serves 43% of the County’s population,” Campbell continued. “This measure will allow the voters to make the choice to affirm that the County’s allocation should be for countywide public safety services.”

• THE ORANGE COUNTY HOMELAND SECURITY INFRASTRUCTURE FUND ORDINANCE. This measure would set aside $10 million per year from the County’s Prop. 172 allocation to be made available to public safety agencies for the purchase of new high technology equipment and financing of capital projects. Expenditures from the $10 million can not be used for staff salaries and benefits.

“This was an alternative that the County proposed to the Orange County Fire Authority last year as a compromise to their initiative. They rejected it.” Campbell said. “This proposal puts public safety agencies on an equal footing to compete for funding for the tools needed to equip the men and women who work to keep us safe everyday. Under this proposal, the Orange County Fire Authority can apply for funding for the new helicopter they clearly need. It also allows