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"

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.

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

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

politics

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

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.
  
  


                                                             

Beware of Hantavirus

                                                     Deer Mouse, or Peromyscus maniculatus

In a recent e-mail it was reported that there is an infestation of rats and mice in  Oxnard city hall.

Not reported, of course, is the fact that not all are of the four legged variety.





                                                           black rat Rattus rattus

h