Wednesday, December 7, 2022

lest we forget


 Lest we forget. Up until 1978, property taxes in California were completely out of control, rising to levels that forced some residents on low or fixed incomes out of their homes. Politicians seem to know no bounds when it comes to spending your tax money. That has not changed to date, and Oxnard’s politicians are no different. When they run out of your taxes to squander, they simply raise the tax level.

In 1978 California voters, not the politicians, passed Proposition 13. Its passage did three things. First, it rolled back property assessment values to 1976 levels. Second, it limited assessment to increase only 2% per year. And third, it fixed real property tax increases to 1% per year.

Well, taking your tax money away from a politician is like trying to snatch a pork chop from a hungry lion. 
 



        
           So in 1982, the State Legislature passed the Community Facilities Act, known as “Mello-Roos”. It was specifically designed to circumvent the tax restrictions of Prop 13, make no mistake about that. Politicians couldn’t upend Prop 13 without going to the voters. However, Prop 13 only applies to one’s real property: the home sitting on the land, not the land itself. An out the politicians quickly exploited via the CFA/Mello-Roos, and a pretty sneaky end run.

Voting for the CFA gives politicians unlimited access to your tax dollars, make no mistake about that either. If their intention really was to increase funds for the Landscape Maintenance Districts (LMDs), there is a simple and legal procedure for the city to follow. Due to mismanagement, the city of Oxnard is in desperate need of money and this CFA measure will soon be on your ballet.


What Oxnard’s citizens need to realize is that not all “grifters” are in Washington DC.


separating the wheat from the chaff





Saturday, April 23, 2022

you're that dangerous?


 Why would we want to militarize our police, arm them to the teeth like some kind of  two-bit Rambo.
What are they afraid of? That there is going to be an violent uprising against the corruption at city hall?
In that case a 50 caliber machine gun could certainly cools down the most  fevered protester.





In today's city council agenda is an item that will allow the City to purchase military equipment even including:

*Ammunition of .50 caliber or greater
*“Flashbang” grenades and explosive breaching tools, “tear gas,” and “pepper balls,”
*High mobility multipurpose wheeled vehicles (HMMWV),  two and one-half ton trucks, five-ton trucks, or wheeled vehicles that have a breaching or entry apparatus attached
*Weaponized aircraft, vessels, or vehicles of any kind
*Tracked armored vehicles that provide ballistic protection to their occupants and utilize a tracked system instead of wheels for forward motion
*The following projectile launch platforms and their associated munitions: 40mm projectile launchers
*Taser Shockwave, microwave weapons, water cannons, and the Long Range Acoustic Device

 


 


*Any firearm or firearm accessory that is designed to launch explosive projectiles
* etc.
We must start paying close attention as to what our so called Oxnard city leaders are up to.



Monday, May 3, 2021

Constitution -- What Constitution?

 

The Sixth Amendment provides that "in all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right…to be confronted with the witnesses against him." 


Unless of course you live in Oxnard, CA. which conjures up its own "due process."


The city’s plan seems to be to consolidate all financial natters into a few staff members hands with little oversight (checks and balances) from the elected City Treasurer.


It doesn’t take a Rhodes Scholar to ascertain their motive and possible subsequent abuses.


This matter goes to court on Tues. May 4, 2021.

Stay tuned.

Phillip Molina is the duly elected City Treasurer.

 


A report the City doesn't want you to see.
_________________________________

Inbo Phillip Molina
Thu, Apr 29, 5:06 PM (3 days ago)

Good People,

For over a year now I have been fighting the city manager in my capacity as your elected City Treasurer, for the right to perform the statutory duties you elected me to do.  By the City Manager's actions, which the last Mayor and Council approved, he has stripped me of the staff I need to get the job done and he completely eliminated the  Oxnard Treasurer's Department.

I provide the attached document, which tells how the city has denied no expense to try to stop me from getting this injustice into court, for your review.

Respectfully,

Phillip Molina


                               Superior Court - Ventura, CA












Link to PDF Here

 

Thursday, October 15, 2020

"dark money"

 
 Our Supreme Court, as outlined in our Constitution, is designed to be the final and un-biased “check and balances of our governmental system.” Unfoundedly that is no longer true, taken over by a flood of “dark money.”
The convoluted flow of that money and the ultimate control of SCTUS is exposed by Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse. A must read for all who are concerned about our democracy.




Full text
Senator Whitehouse Calls Out Dark-Money Networks Behind Amy Coney Barrett’s SCOTUS Nomination

 

https://www.exposedbycmd.org/2020/10/13/senator-whitehouse-calls-out-dark-money-networks-behind-amy-coney-barretts-scotus-nomination/  

Friday, October 9, 2020

the FLY

                                                 Did Beelzebub weigh in on the debate?

 
 
 
 
 Is this personification of evil a sign?
 
 

 
 


Wednesday, October 7, 2020

post election chaos

 

There is a likelihood that there will be 2020 post election chaos.
The trouble will emanate from both domestic and foreign sources eager to see Trump’s reelection. Trump would love to see this election settled in his “loaded” Supreme Court.



Be prepared for it, be a “critical thinker,” “separate the wheat from the chaff.”

Post election FBI warning

https://www.wnct.com/features/online-originals/online-originals-fbi-warns-voters-of-misinformation-spreading-this-election-season/

Friday, October 2, 2020

stop election fraud

                                !Two right wingers headed for the slammer!!

 


 Let this be an heads up for all of you out there. Try to screw up this election and you too could be the next headlines.
There are a myriad of dirty tricksters weighing in on this election, you need to be on your toes.
Be on the alert for so called “pole watchers,” these radical right wingers purpose IS to intimidate.
Take your cell phone to the polls, document (video) and call police if you feel threatened.
Guns have no place at the polling sites and are an intimidation., treat it as such.

 

https://www.cnn.com/2020/10/01/politics/jacob-wohl-jack-burkman-voter-suppression-operation/index.html 

Wednesday, September 30, 2020

pay attention voters


“STAND BACK and STAND BY”
CHILLING!!!

Isn’t this a terrifying call for “civil war” should Trump lose the election?
Is this not directed at “the proud boys“ but, de facto, to all white supremacist groups?
This is not “fade news.” It was viewed live on national networks by at least some 80 million  people.

https://www.nbcnews.com/tech/tech-news/proud-boys-celebrate-after-trump-s-debate-call-out-n1241512

Monday, September 28, 2020

a message from the FBI


Forward to post.
One of our most sacred rights is a fair and honest election.
The FBI has put out a reminder of election laws.
Pay close attention, there are those out there who would destroy our democracy to further their own agenda. In particular, pay attention to your state legislators and the Electoral College.


 

Washington, D.C.
FBI National Press Office
(202) 324-3691


September 24, 2020
FBI Warns Voters About Election Crimes Ahead of the November 2020 Election

Fair elections are the foundation of our democracy in the United States, and the FBI is committed to protecting the rights of all Americans to vote. The FBI is issuing this warning to educate voters about federal election crimes and how to avoid them, and to encourage voters to report suspected violations.

“Every year, Americans pick their leaders and make their voices heard through elections,” said Calvin Shivers, assistant director for the Criminal Investigative Division. “Those elections must remain free and fair to ensure voters' voices are truly heard. As Americans get ready to vote, the FBI is asking each citizen to remain vigilant and report any suspected criminal scheme targeting voters to the FBI immediately.”
Election Crimes

Election crimes threaten the legitimacy of elections and undermine public confidence in our democracy. Election crimes fall into four broad categories:

 -   Ballot fraud
 -  Campaign finance violations
 -   Patronage offenses
 -   Civil rights violations, such as voter suppression or voter intimidation

While individual states and localities have the constitutional authority and responsibility to manage elections and have their own election laws, an election crime becomes a federal crime when one or more of the following occurs:

 -   A ballot includes one or more federal candidates
 -  Election or polling place officials abuse their office
 -   The conduct involves false voter registration
 -   The crime is motivated by hostility toward minority protected classes
    The activity violates federal campaign finance law

Examples of federal election crimes include, but are not limited to:

-    Giving false information when registering to vote
-   Voting more than once
-   Changing ballot markings or otherwise tampering with ballots
-    Compensating voters
-    Threatening voters with physical or financial harm
-   Intentionally lying about the time, manner, or place of an election to prevent qualified voters from voting
-   Political fundraising by federal employees
-    Campaign contributions above legal limits
-    Conduit contributions
-    Contributions from foreign or other prohibited sources
-    Use of campaign funds for personal or unauthorized purposes

Distinguishing between legal and criminal conduct is critical for ensuring the integrity of U.S. elections. The following activities are not federal election crimes; however, states have their own election laws. If you are concerned about a possible violation of a state or local election law, contact your local law enforcement.

-   Giving voters rides to the polls or time off to vote
-   Offering voters a stamp to mail a ballot
-   Making false claims about oneself or another candidate
-   Forging or faking nominating petitions
-    Campaigning too close to polling places

The FBI plays an important role in preventing violations of your constitutional rights, including your right to vote. Report any instances of potential election crimes to your local FBI field office as soon as possible.
Voter Suppression

Intentionally deceiving qualified voters to prevent them from voting is voter suppression—and it is a federal crime.

Do you know when, where, and how you will vote? If not, there are many reputable places you can find this information, including eac.gov and usa.gov/how-to-vote. However, not all publicly available voting information is accurate, and some is deliberately designed to deceive you to suppress turnout.

Bad actors use various methods to spread disinformation about voting, such as social media platforms, texting, or peer-to-peer messaging applications on smartphones. These bad actors may provide misleading information about the time, manner, or place of voting. This can include inaccurate election dates or false claims about voting qualifications or methods, such as false information suggesting that one may vote by text, which is not allowed in any jurisdiction.

Always consider the source of voting information. Ask yourself, “Can I trust this information?” Look for official notices from election offices and verify the information you found is accurate.

Help defend the right to vote by reporting any suspected instances of voter suppression—especially those received through a private communication channel like texting—to your local FBI field office.
Scam PACs

Making political contributions can be a powerful way to exercise your First Amendment rights. But some individuals and groups soliciting contributions are bad actors trying to enrich themselves at your expense.

The billions of dollars in political spending each election cycle attracts criminals who use deception to cheat Americans out of their hard-earned money. The FBI assesses that seniors are at a high risk of being targeted.

Scam PACs are fraudulent political action committees designed to reroute political contributions for personal financial gain. This is a federal crime. Signs that a PAC is a scam include the PAC and its website disappearing, and the phone number going out of service.

If you or someone you know has been targeted by a scam PAC, contact your local FBI field office and ask to speak to an election crimes coordinator.
Recommendations for Protecting Your Vote

-   Know when, where, and how you will vote.
-    Seek out election information from trustworthy sources, verify who produced the content, and consider their intent.
-    Report potential election crimes—such as disinformation about the manner, time, or place of voting—to the FBI.
-   If appropriate, make use of in-platform tools offered by social media companies for reporting suspicious posts that appear to be spreading false or inconsistent information about voting and elections.
-   Research individuals and entities to whom you are making political donations. If something seems suspicious, reconsider the donation.

Victim Reporting and Additional Information

The FBI encourages the public to report information concerning suspicious or criminal activity to their local FBI field office. For additional election-related assistance and resources, please visit the following FBI webpages:

   

Wednesday, October 9, 2019

Trumpized


Oxnard's Elected City Treasurer Phillip Molina
photo courtesy of Citizens Journal


 VS




Blogger's opinion: 

Sometimes it's hard to differentiate between Oxnard City Hall and the tactics being employed by Washington DC politicians today. Examples are muzzling, smearing, degrading, discrediting, distracting, and other wise harassing anyone who dares to disseminate information to the public - information the City wants to keep secret from the taxpayers.

So what’s next for our City Treasurer Phil Molina - the "#MeToo" gambit? The present harassment  of Molina by the City Manager could not take place without tacit, if not overt, Mayoral and City Council approval.

                                                  Phillip Molina’s complaint                                                                      







Why is your elected City Treasurer prevented from using his official city email?
Inbox
   
phillip molina

Mayor, Council members, Friend, and local newspaper:

Elected officials are sent emails using Bcc as directed by the City Attorney to avoid violating the Brown Act.

Many of you have asked me to continue to provide financial transparency to what Oxnard is doing. Others have simply said keep it up.  Quite of few of you are city managers, and city employees as well as members of the public.

Thank you for your support.

Now, you've also asked what started this food fight and what it the possible outcome.  Well it is a bit involved but to my knowledge these are the facts:
1. In 2018 the city claimed two women filed an harassment (not sexual) claim against me.  The two women I rarely spoke to and usually only to say Good Morning and Good Evening. So it was not surprise after months waiting, many staff including me being interrogated by a professional investigator, the city has produced nothing.  My Attorney submitted a formal request after waiting over 18 months for a conclusion, and the city Attorney, Stephen Fischer, has not even had the professional courtesy to respond, let alone provide any future date for a conclusion. This though the law requires to quick resolution to such complaints.
2. In July of this year (2019) I, like all city employees,  was required to attend a class on harassment. In that class it was brought to my attention that when a manager or supervisor is excluded from staff meetings, meetings that provide direction, education, support and information necessary to conduct business, that is automatically classified as harassment, and retaliation by Federal law. (see attached item) Because I had been ordered by the City Manager, Alexander Nguyen to stop coming to the SLT (Senior Leadership Training meetings) , and because I was the only manager directed to stop coming, I filed an harassment and retaliation complaint against the City Manager (see attached). Alexander and I  met during the time my complaint was active.
3. Shortly after filing my complaint in August 16th, the City HR Director sent me a response on September 10, 2019 stating my complaint was without merit.
4. On September 10th, yes the same day I received response to my complaint, the City informed me two other city women filed an harassment complaint (not sexual) against me. These two women I have met and spoke to less than 3 times in the years I have been with the city.
5. I wrote an email to the City Attorney asking for his legal opinion on why I am not allowed to agendize the list of checks the city issues every week as required by State law. (see attached.)
6. Because I sent emails, which you have been offered, that included the women who filed the last complaint, my official City email address was terminated. But those same 2 women continue to send me emails, memos and notes.
7. I am ordered to not communicate with either woman who filed the complaint against me, yet I continue to receive communication from the women.

Now anyone reading this email knows that the City has control on who can send and receive specific emails.  The city has stopped my private emails from going to certain city staff. So the clear and simple question is, if the City did not want me to keep the 2 women informed about business they needed to know, the city could have put a rejected tag on each of these two women's email address to reject my city email. Instead the City Manager chose to terminate my 'official city email.

This is retaliation, suppression of free speech, and an attempt to put absolute control over what your elected City Treasurer can provide to you.

Respectfully,
Phillip Molina
Your Elected City Treasurer,
Working for the public to keep your city liquid assets safe, secure and earning interest for the City.





lady justice for Molina




---------- Forwarded message ---------
From: Andrew Covner <acovner@normandowler.com>
Date: Thu, Sep 12, 2019 at 12:14 PM
Subject: Complaint Investigation
To: Steve Naveau <steve.naveau@oxnard.org>
Cc: Phil Molina <molinpc@gmail.com>, <aescareno@aalrr.com>

Mr. Naveau,

On January 11, 2019, Mr. Molina was interviewed by attorney Abraham Escareno of Atkinson, Andelson, Loya, Ruud & Romo, hired by the City of Oxnard to investigate harassment complaints allegedly made by City employees.  See attached.  To date, neither Mr. Molina or this office has been informed of the outcome or status of the investigation.  Please confirm in writing that the investigation has been completed and the matter has been closed based on insufficient evidence to support a finding of harassment by Mr. Molina.  If the matter is still pending, please provide an update.

Thank you.

Andrew H. Covner, Esq.



Bloggers note - to date this request had not been responded  to, the question is WHY? perhaps related to Phil"s coming reelection?

"separating the wheat from the chaff"

Thursday, September 19, 2019

gun control



     My position on gun control.


 But first lets cut through the political hype and hysteria.

Fact: there were 39,773 reported gun deaths in 2018.
Fact: 14,611 of those were deaths by gun violence.
Fact: 992 were death by police shootings.
Fact: 23,854 of those were suicides by gun. Nearly two-thirds of all gun deaths in the U.S. are suicides
Fact: number of mass shootings (as defined by FBI) - shootings 323, dead 387  and 1274 injured.
Fact: rifles account for about 4% of all gun deaths in 2018.
Fact: there are already two  existing federal background check laws on the books, the Brady act (Pub.L. 103–159, 107 Stat. 1536, 
enacted  OCT. 22,  1968  and PUBLIC  LAW 90-618 - November 30, 1993)
November 30, 1993)
As a rational for licensing guns, references are made and compared to motor vehicle licensing, hardly a “poster boy” for gun control Safety.  so lets take a look.
Fact: estimates of traffic deaths in the U.S. topped 40,000 last year. 4.5 million people were seriously injured. Licensing vehicles hasn’t  stopped the carnage on our highways and licensing guns will not stop gun violence, but it will provide a convenient tax base for the politicians to exploit when they need more funds to squander.
Licensing guns could also be perceived as a precursor to gun confiscation, (which has already surfaced) playing right into the NRA’s narrative.



More deaths from licensed vehicles then unlicensed guns

Yes - ban all assault weapons and assault weapon magazines - ban all other magazines over 8-10 round capacity - instigate a voluntary buyback program for assault weapons with a FAIR market values for gun purchases. Estimated number assault weapons in private hands - 10 million or more, average value of an assault weapon in good condition - $500 to $600. The government would need to appropriate over 5 billion dollars for the buyback program.

Yes to background checks with emphasis on persons association with hate and anti-government groups as defined by the Southern Poverty Law Center.
We already have background check laws, they only need to be expanded to include gun shows and etc.

Yes to “red flag” legislation  provided (I want to be quite clear on this) the legislation contains strong language to protect against individual and governmental abuse of the law. Very easy to use the law as a tool of revenge or intimidation.

In reality, the most
affective action to take would be to form a task force similar to the one currently used to protect our country against  foreign terrorist, to closely monitor activities of all hate and anti-government groups as well as “lone wolfs” threats.

I hope I’ve not lest the impression that I’m anti-gun control, nothing could be further from the truth. I believe that something must be done to address and curb the slaughter, but it must be done in a sane and sensible manner  and peoples rights must be respected in the process.

If not handled in an sensible and judicious manner, by congress, this issue has the potential to turn millions of law abiding gun owners into instant criminals. 






"separating the wheat from the chaff"



Tuesday, February 12, 2019

a teeny weeny change

Can a minuscule event in our world’s environment have massive future consequences?

According to the UK Independent, some 9,000 years ago the earth shifted its tilt ever so slightly, from 24.14 degrees off vertical to its present 23.45 degrees, just a 0.69 degree difference.

The results of that tiny little shift in the earth’s tilt resulted in the birth of the Sahara desert, covering some  3.5 million square miles. Prior to the shift the region was a vibrant and lush grasslands.





So yes, small incremental changes can and do have large impacts on our environment.

When you hear that the oceans warmed a fraction, the average global temperate rose a tiny bit, or the oceans’ CO2 levels climbed a bit, be aware that there will be impacts looming in our future.

Do not let yourself be fooled or conned by the nay sayers.
It’s said with some truth that “you are either part of the solution or you are part of the problem.” Please be part of the solution.

What the region must have look like 9,000 years ago.





"separating the wheat from the chaff"



Saturday, September 29, 2018

Night-time party-time on Violet Way. aka Red Light Lane

In the summer of 2015, I sent an e-mail to the Oxnard City Council and the City Manager requesting city help in curbing the night time problems we were experiencing on Violet Way, a neighborhood street.  On an almost nightly basis, trash that included fast food containers, beer wine and whiskey bottles, broken as well as whole, urine in the gutters as well as used condoms in the street. We needed increased patrols to mitigate the issue.

To this date the city has never responded to that e-mail.
As the partying continued into 2016, I sent the following e-mail, which contained graphic photos.


May 16, 2016
700 W. Violet Wy.
Attachments 5/16/16
to TImothy, Carmen, bryan.macdonald, dorina.padilla, bert.perello, Greg, chief, bcc: Phillip, bcc: Bert

The attached photo 003 shows some of the trash left by late night party-ers on 700 W. Violet Wy.



003


Attached photo 002 shows dark spots on the pavement caused by the above urinating on the street (several locations).

002


The yellow liquid puddles in 008 is not beer but urine collected in the gutter.


008


To cap it all off, me004 - me006 is the used condom left behind in the street.


004


This is not an isolated incident  but  is a frequent ongoing problem.
Bio-hazardous material is turning the street into an open sewer, a serious  health risk for the children and adults alike that frequent the area.

Broken glass in the grass on the north side is also a hazard to children, adults and pets.

Eugene D Hubbard

The only response I got was from one council member,- who wrote,,,
it “unfortunately happens in many areas of the City,” Read into that response what you want.  He then turned the entire matter over to the OPD.


So much for honesty and integrity in our city government.

Quick response from the OPD, an officer called to meet on the problem. We discussed several viable options, he said that he would get right on it and knew how to get things done, that in itself should have been a red flag.

On June 9th he sent the following email

“Mr. Hubbard,

“Thank you for contacting me. I have personally been visiting the area in an attempt to identify the subjects who are hanging out on the street. I have also requested that the beat officers frequent the area. So far, I have not come into any contact with occupied parked vehicle. Have you noticed any vehicles lately?
I will continue the extra patrols and attempt to identify individuals involved in this conduct.”
Respectfully -------

Well, that turned out to be an  untruth, as during the time period that the alleged “patrols” were taking place, there had been a very large motor home, with people living in it, parked on Violet Way. 24/7 for almost 30 days, impossible to miss, as Violet Way is only about 700-800 feet long.




City ordinances forbid motor homes to be parked on city streets except to load and unload. If there had been patrols, the motor home would have been warned or cited, which never happened. Finally, a neighbor collared the motor home owners and they moved. But no thanks to the OPD.

Weary of the now apparent  charade, I sent the following email,  knowing  full well that the officer was going to have to now “fish or cut bait.”

7/19/16
---- You say that you are working on a plan so, let’s get specific:

1- specifically - what is the plan that you are working on?- details please.
2- how far along are you on that plan using a scale of 1 to 10?
3- who else is working on the plan or  helping to facilitate an end result?
4- what is your estimated timeline to completion?

Waiting your early reply,

I expected no answer, got no answer and of course, never heard from him again, or for that matter, any other city official.

It’s now September, 2018, and it’s still the same, trash, glass bottles, some broken, urinating  in the street, etc.  Looks like the City of Oxnard is not going to do anything to alleviate the problem.

Violet Way, thanks to the City, is turning into a blighted area, but that is another blog post.



  The city’s typical response is what some call, “Oxnardian,” their tactic (MO) is, in some manner to kick the proverbial can down the road and keep it out of public eye, long enough that it will eventually fade away into the sunset of distant memory. Another tactic the city is famous for is to form a “committee” to “study” the issue and report back, the “committee”, of course, never meets and never reports back, an effective sham.

"separating the wheat from the chaff"


Wednesday, July 4, 2018

judgement day

The judge rules against the City of Oxnard.




On May 23, 2018 Superior Court Judge Rocky Baio ruled that  Oxnard‘s “Measure M to be a valid exercise of the will of the citizens of Oxnard as expressed through the initiative process.” ----
Measure M if you remember, rolled back the draconian 87% sewer rate increase, it passed by a 72% vote margin. (see anatomy of a recall)
The judge in his written decision---
“the people reserve to themselves the powers of initiative and referendum.' (Cal. Const., art. IV, § 1.) Accordingly, the initiative power must be  liberally construed to promote the democratic process. (Raven v. Deukmejian, supra, 52 Ca1.3d at p. 341.) Indeed, it is our solemn duty to jealously guard the precious initiative power”---


                                                           the Ventura County court house


The judge in his ruling upheld the rights of a majority vote, Measure M stands. The judge also validated the Oxnard citizens right to use the California initiative process.
Those two decisions clearly illustrates that the Oxnard City Council and staff deliberately set out to deny our civil rights, a blatant violation of their own oath of office.




                                                                   Oxnard city hall


So what’s next? On June 5th  the council went into closed session to weigh their options which bodes no good for the Oxnard taxpayers AKA “the cash cows.”
Although it’s not been ruled as of yet, the city might have to pay back the overage garnered from the rate increase, that has been estimated to be at around 5.5 million dollars. Knowing full well that the city could lose and have to reimburse the rate payers, the city spent the money as fast as it came in instead of putting into a reserve fund until the matter was settled, that of course would have been prudent action to take.
So where is the money to come from should that decision go against the city?
Adding to the city’s woes, during the discovery phase of the lawsuit it was revealed  that the city has been siphoning money from the utility user fees and putting it into the general fund. Those fees, by law (prop 218), are meant to be used for operating, maintained and upgrade expenses. That violation has been going on for over 10 years and amounts to about 7 million a year. Because of the statute of libations only 3 years can be included in the pending lawsuit now in the hands of the courts. The city may have to return 22 million to the utility enterprise funds, that and the rate increase amounts to 27.5 million that could required to be reimbursed, where is that money going to come from?


                                                            Oxnard wastewater plant

Your wallet of course because the city does not have the funds, they spent it as fast as it came in.

The Mayor is now putting out feelers to gauge the reaction to a proposal that would sell the utility enterprises to private interests. An obvious ploy to absolve himself of any reonability for the mess.

"Separating the wheat from the chaff"


Thursday, April 12, 2018

Anatomy of a recall



Anatomy of a recall

It had been brewing for years--the mismanagement of  city finances and policies by elected and appointed Oxnard city officials.

It came to head when the city council voted to increase sewer rates by a staggering 87 percent.

Furious citizens, led by Aaron Starr of Moving Oxnard Forward (MOF),  launched an initiative process to roll back the rate hikes. The necessary paper work was filed on March 8, 2016, with the Oxnard City Clerk’s office, who then had 15 days to produce a “title and summery.” This is mandatory before starting to gather signatures. It should be noted here that the signatures needed to be gathered by a May 20, 2016, deadline to make the November 8th  ballot.

But in a secret closed door session, the City Council voted to block the initiative process from getting on the November ballot. No “title and summary” was forthcoming, despite California laws to the contrary.

This violated our rights for “redress of our grievances,” which is guaranteed under the first amendment of the US Constitution, and, of course, the California Constitution, granting us the right to the imitative process.

The City Council also violated their own sworn oath of office which reads in part --- “I, ____________name_______________, solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States and the Constitution of the State of California.” So much for their sworn pledge, and it speaks volumes about their ethics.

On March 23, 2016, the city filed a lawsuit against Starr with the dual purpose of not only stopping the initiative, but also of draining Starr and MOF of their funds to fight a legal battle in the courts.


Starr filed their intent on March 8th and the “title and summary” was due on or before March 23, but by April 5, 2016, the necessary paper work was not forthcoming. A counter lawsuit was filed in Superior Court to force the city to produce the “title and summary,” and Judge Rocky Baio, on April 15, ordered the city to release the paper work.
When April 18  rolled around and no paper work was available, Starr prepared a contempt action against the city.

Calculating that there was inadequate time left to collect all the necessary signatures needed, and that they had stalled long enough, the city finally released the paper work on April 20th.

Remember that there was a May 20 deadline to get the initiative on the ballot. But the city miscalculated. After 10 days of printing and organizing , Starr’s group hit the streets. In just 16 days, needing 1430 signatures, they collected 3,947--two days before the May 20 deadline.


Measure M  passed by 72%, Almost 3 in 4 voted to roll back the rate increases.

Now, in a blatant attack on the underlying principal of our democratic process, the city wants the judge to invalidate Measure M, the will of the people. At this time that decision is still in the hands of the courts.





Sunday, March 11, 2018

skulduggery at city hall

March 11, 2018  Oxnard California

the Oxnard City Attorney placed this item in closed session because “the public is better served by doing so”;

 the decision to place those items in 'closed session' agenda comes from the city attorney, who's belief is that certain types of information is best kept secret and away from the public.

One such example is the "audit" conducted by NBS on the landscape lighting assessment districts, which was reported to the city council in closed session. The reason that the City Attorney appropriated that financial report and cloaked it in secrecy under "attorney client privilege", was to 'protect' the municipal organization from the citizens' litigation that would have resulted if the public found out that the money collected from the annual assessments on the property tax bills had been used for purposes other than the reasons given for charging those fees and that the method of setting the fees was flawed.

The Mayor and Council have all run on platforms of wanting “open and transparent” government, but when that means telling Oxnard citizens the truth about how our tax dollars were spent that platform is forgotten.

Having attended many closed session’s of city council meetings
I know the closed session portion of the meeting often starts with the City Attorney warning the Mayor, Council members and those in attendance that when he alone decides to put something in closed session
every one in attendance is under his decision and must keep silent about everything they see and hear in those closed sessions.

Sometimes it is necessary to recall the past so that we do not make the same mistake again. So attached is a U.S. Appellate Court decision that addresses the following issues about talks of a financial nature cloaked in closed sessions of the city council:

In the short 4 page decision of the United States 9th Circuit Court of Appeals the Court identified that the city (city attorney) erred in making the following decisions:
1. assuming discussions in closed sessions cannot be protected by the First Amendment.
2. did not recognize that some council members engineered a “sweetheart deal” with developers.
3. forgot that comments made by an employee that are of a financial nature are of public concern and entitled to “special protection” under the law.
4. by wrongfully hoping that the comments made in closed session would change the courts opinion and,
5. even if they took the side of the city attorney, the court still agreed with the employee that the city manager’s belief were not enough to prove disruption.

So We the People have to decide whether it is more important to protect citizens rights to know the truth however uncomfortable that may be, or  allow an appointed employee to shield those truths from us in order to protect the municipal organization from the very citizens who define the City of Oxnard. Now the Mayor and Councilmembers in office are in a tough position, but that is why they ran for office; they too need to decide who do they represent, the City Attorney, who they can overrule, or the citizens who put them in office.

This and other issues has led to a recall election on May 1, 2018.
Those up for recall are -- Mayor Tim Flynn, Mayor Pro Tem Carmen Ramirez, council members Bert Perello and Oscar Madrigal, four out of the five members.

Separating the wheat from the chaff

Tuesday, February 13, 2018

ode to the city

Out of the muck, out of the slime,
come specters that are hardly benign,

Thumping their Bibles and wrapped in the flag,
they spew a rhetoric that makes you gag,

They back a cause that would make anyone pause.
And strip away our rights just because.

We need to send them back, back to the slime,
Where they can mire for all of time.

EDH

Thursday, November 16, 2017

politics

There is something deeply flawed in politics when those politics supercede human decency.

Friday, November 10, 2017

recall time



From time to time the Oxnard City Attorney places items in closed session because “the public is better served by doing so”;  the decision to place those items in 'closed session' agenda comes from the city attorney, who's belief is that certain types of information is best kept secret and away from the public.

One such example is the "audit" conducted by NBS on the landscape lighting assessment districts, which was reported to the city council in closed session. The reason that the City Attorney appropriated that financial report and cloaked it in secrecy under "attorney client privilege", was to 'protect' the municipal organization from the citizens' litigation that would have resulted if the public found out that the money collected from the annual assessments on the property tax bills had been used for purposes other than the reasons given for charging those fees and that the method of setting the fees was flawed.
.
The Mayor and Council have all run on platforms of wanting “open and transparent” government, but when that means telling Oxnard citizens the truth about how our tax dollars were spent that platform is forgotten.

Having attended many closed session’s of city council meetings
I know the closed session portion of the meeting often starts with the City Attorney warning the Mayor, Council members and those in attendance that when he alone decides to put something in closed session
every one in attendance is under his decision and must keep silent about everything they see and hear in those closed sessions.

Sometimes it is necessary to recall the past so that we do not make the same mistake again. So attached is a U.S. Appellate Court decision that addresses the following issues about talks of a financial nature cloaked in closed sessions of the city council:

In the short 4 page decision of the United States 9th Circuit Court of Appeals the Court identified that the city (city attorney) erred in making the following decisions:
1. assuming discussions in closed sessions cannot be protected by the First Amendment.
2. did not recognize that some council members engineered a “sweetheart deal” with developers.
3. forgot that comments made by an employee that are of a financial nature are of public concern and entitled to “special protection” under the law.
4. by wrongfully hoping that the comments made in closed session would change the courts opinion and,
5. even if they took the side of the city attorney, the court still agreed with the employee that the city manager’s belief were not enough to prove disruption.

So We the People have to decide whether it is more important to protect citizens rights to know the truth however uncomfortable that may be, or  allow an appointed employee to shield those truths from us in order to protect the municipal organization from the very citizens who define the City of Oxnard. Now the Mayor and Councilmembers in office are in a tough position, but that is why they ran for office; they too need to decide who do they represent, the City Attorney, who they can overrule, or the citizens who put them in office.





Blogger’s note:

Who does the City Attorney work for? In answer, Councilman Bert Perello stated in open session, “The City Attorney works for the City Council, not the citizens of Oxnard.”

There is a recall petition in play at this moment. The Mayor, Mayor Pro Tem, and two Council Members are the targets.

It’s this blogger’s opinion that we need to start over with a “clean slate.” To mend the massive problems of this city, all City Council Members and  “self serving” senior staff, who helped bring this city to its financial knees, must go. We can’t allow these officials to continue running this city into the ground.

There is a saying, “You’re either part of the solution or you’re part of the problem.” The above are part of the problem and we, the voters, must be part of the solution.