Author: The Fullerton Harpoon

Last night the City Council voted 3-2 to move ahead with a study of a Charter City status for Fullerton. Jung, Dunlap and Valencia voted to look into it. Zahra and Charles voted no.

It was painful to sit through comments, most of which were obviously scripted to attack the motives of Mayor Fred Jung, and were all full of nonsensical misinformation about staggering financial costs, legal entanglements, and of course the old standby cliché: if it ain’t broke, don’t fix it.

These Fullerton Boohoo worthies were obviously coached- and coached sloppily – by Zahra and Charles, and maybe even by reading the opinions of Sanskia Kennedy in the reliable Fullerton Observer – reliable to make stuff up if it helps the narrative. All of the excuses had been debunked, but that doesn’t matter. Commonsense is a not a common commodity among these folks.

Old grievances were aired of course, mostly the money pit Waste on Wilshire, and the Trail to Nowhere© redux in which “the people” have spoken – a few dozen out of a City of 160,000.

My favorite line of attack that was parroted by several speakers was that Fullerton has bigger problems – a fiscal precipice, and horrible roads. The fact that these disasters developed under General Law City status made their “argument” comically ironic. Is it or ain’t it broke?

Joshua Ferguson was on hand to deliver a hard, cold slap to the commentary by pointing out that the citizenry can become more involved in Fullerton affairs in the Charter process, not less. He was interrupted by boos from the faithful.

A Mr. Matt Leslie called in to support a study, and to admonish the speakers who had said (insultingly) that it would be too complicated to figure out and people would just vote yes (because they are so dumb), the typical top-down patronization of ordinary people by liberals. “The people want (fill in the blank)” doesn’t apply to a possible majority regular voters – only the claque of 12 or so who show up to harangue the council majority on a regular basis.

Another zoom caller expressed astonishment that so many adults, especially old ones, were so scared of the monster under the bed.

Which brings me (at last) to the real issue of charter status, expressed without bias. The proverbial devil is in the details. A charter can be as simple or as complex as people want. True the final charter version will be put on the ballot by the City Council, but lots of smart people will be able to scrutinize the text long before an election to approve or reject it. Don’t like it? Mount an anti-charter campaign. Zahra and Charles must have lots of campaign money lying around. Put it to work and get voters to just vote no.

I would be remiss if I failed to point out the noxious presence at the meeting of our old friend, Vivian Jaramillo, still very bitter about losing in last fall’s election, and then being rejected as a planning commissioner. Her “argument” was that a charter would make “Little Dictator” Fred Jung able to give all the City’s construction jobs to the Bushala Brothers, a claim based on her own long standing vendetta with the Bushalas, not any facts in evidence.

An interesting post popped up on the Fullerton Observer blog yesterday. It isn’t interesting because of content. It’s interesting because it was actually advertised as an opinion piece for a change; and it has an named author: Skasia, one half of the intellectually challenged Kennedy Sisters who publish the Observer. Because of this latter fact, the post is chock full of misinformation, weak generalizations, and double talk. Of course it is completely unpersuasive.

The topic? The awfulness of charter cities in California, and a list of supposed reasons to fear and loathe them.

Somebody called “Fran J” responded with a comment methodically dismembering all of Snakia’s talking points. Here’s what Fran J had to say, and please note the final two paragraphs of Fran J’s comment:

Fran J

May 11, 2025 at 12:36 pm

The opposition to Fullerton becoming a charter city isn’t rooted in facts or public interest—it’s rooted in political bias and a reflexive rejection of anything introduced by Mayor Fred Jung. The arguments raised against charter status collapse under scrutiny, and publications like the Fullerton Observer, which should be advocating for local empowerment, have instead chosen to stoke fear and misinformation.

Sacramento is not slowing down. From housing mandates to labor laws, the state continues to erode the power of cities to govern themselves. Charter status is the most effective legal tool we have to protect our autonomy. It doesn’t mean we ignore state law—it means we have the power to decide when and how to apply it in local matters.

Fullerton deserves better than to be handcuffed by outdated state mandates. We are a city of educators, entrepreneurs, artists, and families who care deeply about where we live. We have the intelligence, the creativity, and the civic pride to shape our own future—and the charter is the legal framework that lets us do just that.

Claim: Charter cities reduce accountability and invite corruption.
Reality: Charter cities still operate under California’s transparency laws, including the Brown Act, the Public Records Act, and the Political Reform Act. Nothing about becoming a charter city removes oversight or ethics requirements. In fact, a city charter gives residents the power to implement even stricter ethics rules, term limits, or transparency standards than state law requires. Suggesting otherwise ignores both the law and reality.

Claim: Charter cities concentrate power in the hands of a few elected officials.
Reality: This is a talking point, not a truth. Charter cities are governed by documents written with public input and approved by the voters themselves. That’s democracy—not consolidation. It’s ironic that the people making this argument seem far more concerned with who proposed the idea (Mayor Jung) than with the content of the proposal itself. The fear of power concentration is a distraction from the real issue: whether Fullerton should control its own local affairs or remain bound to Sacramento’s one-size-fits-all mandates.

Claim: Charter cities face more lawsuits and cost taxpayers more money.
Reality: Any city—charter or general law—can face legal challenges. The legal risks are not higher simply because a city adopts a charter; they only rise if a city writes a sloppy or reckless charter, which Fullerton has every opportunity to avoid through proper public process and expert input. More importantly, charter cities have more flexibility to reduce costs in public contracting, land use, and local services, often saving taxpayers money long term.

Claim: It will silence public voices.
Reality: This argument couldn’t be more backwards. Charter adoption requires public engagement, input, hearings, and a vote. If residents don’t support a specific provision, they can vote it down or demand it be changed. The process invites deeper civic participation—far more than passively following distant state mandates.

Claim: Charter cities can raise taxes more easily.
Reality: False. Charter cities are still bound by Prop 13, Prop 218, and Prop 26—meaning no new local taxes can be imposed without voter approval. The only thing charter status allows is greater efficiency in how cities spend public money—not how they raise it.

Claim: It isolates Fullerton from state or county support.
Reality: There is no evidence whatsoever to support this. Charter cities still receive state funding, participate in county programs, and are eligible for grants. Nearly 125 cities in California are charter cities—including Anaheim, Santa Ana, Irvine, and Huntington Beach. None of them have been “cut off” from support. This is fear-based rhetoric, not grounded in fact.

Let’s be honest—the real reason groups like the Fullerton Observer are opposing charter status has nothing to do with policy and everything to do with politics. If this proposal had come from anyone other than Mayor Fred Jung, many of these same critics would likely be praising it as a progressive step toward local empowerment. Instead, they’ve allowed pettiness to dictate their stance, opposing a good idea simply because of who introduced it.

Fullerton deserves better than performative outrage and knee-jerk contrarianism. This isn’t a small town that needs to be told what to do by Sacramento. This is a proud, capable community that can write its own rules, shape its own future, and trust its own residents. Becoming a charter city is a powerful step in that direction—and it’s time to stop letting political grudges get in the way of progress.

ED Response: Wow Fran J – you seem to know a lot about this subject though not everyone agrees. We do have a lot of problems to pay attention to and spend our limited funding on. This seems – to many – to be something that will not be helpful. I agree with you that a study session presenting all sides would be useful. In the past Fred Jung and the council majority have terminated the contract of an excellent City Manager for no reason at great expense and hired an unemployed friend who was not up to the job, tried to privatize the public library, end the UP Trail, and did end Walk on Wilshire – and more – so are not trusted by many who live here and want those things.

Unfortunately “ED” felt constrained to exercise a nasty, unprofessional habit that still plagues Siskyu. “Wow” she says, sarcastically trying to denigrate the commenter. Of course she may just be that surprised that someone actually bothered to read her tripe. She slips up and says she’s for a “study session” but that’s a lie, of course. Then Sakia trails off into a litany of Fullerton Boohoo grievances against Fred Jung and the council majority for:

1. firing an “excellent” City Manager (ED Note: Ken Domer was an incompetent boob)
2. trying to privatize the library (ED Note: and when did this happen?)
3. end the UP Trail (ED Note: the UP trail has always been an absurd boondoggle, but the majority did approve it.
4. end the Walk on Wilshire (ED Note: yes – an idea so damn stupid, and so bad for Wilshire Avenue businesses only a dunce couldn’t see it)
5. “and more” (ED Note: what’s the matter Sanka, too busy soliciting mortuary ads to spin more mythology?)
6. not trusted by many who want those things (ED Note: many people want many things, and many people can be manipulated into believing falsehoods about things they say they want. That’s just demagoguery, and that’s we have representative democracy.

My own favorite part of the editorial was this hilarious hypocritical line from Saksia:

– Charter cities can impose local taxes with significantly fewer restrictions, placing the financial burden squarely on the community.

Since when have the Kennedy Sisters or any of their tribe given a rat’s ass about the ease of raising taxes, except to make it easier. I wonder if Sanka even pays any taxes at all.

A close second for unintentional hilarity was Skiana’s assertion that a charter city would be more expensive in legal costs, another topic that Fullerton Observers have never shown interest in the past as Dick Jones racked up billing based on his own legal misjudgment. More self-unawareness: Sharon Kennedy actually tried to help the City in its absurd and losing legal harassment of Joshua Ferguson, David Curlee, and FFFF. That lawsuit cost the taxpayers plenty.

And even more, later yesterday. Enjoy.

Fran J

May 11, 2025 at 3:38 pm

Yes, I am very familiar with this subject. As a former municipal attorney, I have experience with local governance and legal frameworks. You’re welcome to disagree, but there is a difference between opinion and fact—I’ve provided the latter for readers to consider.

That said, you’re actually reinforcing my point. Your response appears heavily influenced by personal grievances with the Mayor—many of which are either inaccurate or irrelevant to the issue at hand. It’s important for your readers to understand that, as the editor of this publication, you’re approaching this topic with a strong and evident bias.

Readers deserve transparency, not personal vendettas disguised as civic concern.

ED Response: I have no personal grievance with anyone on our council. I was merely listing some of the reasons many in our town do not trust the current majority to make good decisions on our city’s behalf. For instance at the most recent council meeting the majority allowed a memorial plaque for a historic building in honor of a KKK member and at the same meeting banned our university newspaper Daily Titan and the 46-year-old all local volunteer community newspaper Fullerton Observer from continuing to have a rack in the lobby of city hall. You may have read about that in the OC Register, LA Times, Voice of OC, the LAist, or heard about it on NPR or other news agencies or from various Free Speech agencies. These, and other decisions have made residents suspicious of our council majority.

Saska has no personal grievance with anyone on our council. Now that’s hilarious.

Last night the Fullerton City Council voted down a desperate attempt by “Drs.” Charles and Zahra to rescind a recently approved policy that excludes non-government publications on City premises – except for a spot in the Library.

As FFFF noted the other day the whole thing was a ginned-up reason to force another vote and to mobilize Fullerton Boohoo. The transparent pretext of “new information” fooled nobody, since it was obviously just cover for Shameless Charles to get right with her constituency and at the same time to subject the council majority to another round of uninformed harangues by Zahra’s mindless minions.

Somehow a content neutral policy of excluding news outlets from the City Hall lobby was construed as an all-out assault on the free press and freedom of speech, yadda yadda. The Fullerton Observers were outraged, of course.

At the end, the inevitable wind-up speeches were completely predictable. Charles went into a long and winding circumlocution meant to separate her from her previous voice in support of the policy.

Zahra, as usual, outdid himself in his insufferable, twattish way, nattering about freedom and admonishing staff and the City Attorney that they are paid by all Fullerton, not just the council majority, and that being legal doesn’t make something right. The irony of this bullshit was lost on Fullerton Boohoo, but not on me. This is the same little miscreant who voted time and time again to pursue a lawsuit by the City against FFFF, Joshua Ferguson, and David Curlee. Zahra’s lawsuit against FFFF was an attempt to punish people expressing a First Amendment protected right. The City lost that lawsuit, costing the people of Fullerton, the folks Zahra pretends to care so much about, upwards of a million dollars. That’s a lot of asphalt repair for your district, “Dr.” Zahra.

Zahra blamed FFFF for being behind an intricate plot to get the Observer out of City Hall, a compliment really, although whether deserved remains to be seen. The new paper FFFF publication, the Fullerton Tribune (I’ve seen the gallery proof), can’t be dispensed there, either.

The vote to rescind the policy failed 2-3 with Valencia, Jung, and Dunlap voting no.

At the end of the interminable yakking, Jung moved to “table” the issue, a parliamentary tactic of using a positive majority vote that makes it impossible for Charles and Zahra to resurrect the thing through some fabricated “new information” in two weeks or beyond. Hopefully, on future votes Jung will remember to do this the first time around, or better yet, make it clear that 2 council people can only agendize new items, not something they lost.

The motion to table passed 3-2, Charles and Zahra dissenting, evidence that still want to bring it up again.

In the Kennedy Sisters’ early May print edition the failing Fullerton Observer, there appeared another story about a City ban on non-government publications in City facilities. The article was supposedly written by somebody calling him/herself Matthew Ali.

The tale included a new explanation for Shana Charles flip-flop on the issue, to wit, the City Attorney previously asserted that the City of Irvine had banned this sort of stuff from their City Hall, when in fact they hadn’t. Ms. Charles and her apologists seem to feel okay hanging their hat on this flimsiest of hat racks.

In reality, Charles was pressured by Ahmad Zahra, Fullerton Boohoo, the Kennedy Sisters, and her pals at the Daily Titan to change her mind. And because Fullerton’s nonsensical “2 councilmembers can re-agendize anything they already lost” policy, it will get another hearing. And presumably another, and another, and another as “Drs.” Zahra and Charles discover ever “new” information that was denied them at the most recent hearing.

Anyhow, back to Matthew Ali, the typically incompetent Observer scribe. In the article he/she includes this completely and demonstrably false statement:

“The issue was instigated by a blog that sent a letter to the City of Fullerton threatening legal action if rack for a (currently non-existent) newspaper it said it was planning to publish was not made available for public display.”

FFFF’s attorney Kelly Aviles did send a letter to the City Manger requesting an opportunity to display a publication on City premises, and asking for guidelines, placement procedures, etc. But the correspondence requested a response only. There was no threat of legal action at all. That is a deliberate lie cooked up in the feeble and febrile noggins of “Matthew Ali” and the Kennedy Sisters.

I also add that Matthew Ali has absolutely no idea whether a publication exists or not.

Anyway, here is the actual language of the letter sent by Kelly Aviles to the City of Fullerton:

Dear Mr. Levitt:

I hope this finds you well. I am writing to you on behalf of my client, Fullerton’s Future, who’s in the process of launching a new newspaper publication to serve the residents of Fullerton. As part of the marketing and distribution efforts, my client seeks to place a newspaper rack in the lobby of City Hall, similar to the arrangements that have been made with other local newspapers.

We respectfully request the City Council grant approval for my Client to install a newspaper rack in the lobby of City Hall. My Client has secured a financial commitment from a local businessman for a significant amount of private financing to launch this new business endeavor committed to contributing to the local community by providing important local news, restaurant reviews, business advertisements, and information that reflects the diverse interests of our city’s residents and their needs for alternative news sources. In addition, an application to form a new 501-c4 will soon be filed with the IRS for this venture. 

Please let me know if there are any specific procedures or requirements that need to be followed to facilitate this request or if the Council has any preferences regarding the placement of such a news rack at City Hall. We are eager to comply with any guidelines you may have.

Thank you for your time and consideration and we look forward to your response.

Sincerely,

Kelly Aviles

Well, it looks like another letter from our other attorney may be in order to make the Kennedy Sisters correct more of their deliberate misinformation.

An alert Friend directed my attention to the online version of the Fullerton Observer in which Sanskia, the younger Kennedy sister, is informing people that they will have a second chance to weight in on the City Council’s April 1st decision to severely restrict where non-governmental publications can be disseminated on City property.

A second chance? How come? Let’s let Skasia tell us in her own words:

“During a council meeting on April 15, Mayor Protem (sic) Dr. Shana Charles and Councilmember Dr. Ahmad Zahra expressed their discontent with the decision, asserting that the council had not been presented with all necessary information before making such a significant ruling. Both officials indicated their intention to rescind the policy at the upcoming meeting scheduled for May 6.“

Hmm. The implication here is that these two have decided to re-agendize the matter on May 6th. A person with a little bit of common sense might well wonder how a council minority could resurrect an issue previously decided by a majority of the council. Well, of course they shouldn’t be able to; the policy of permitting two members to agendize an issue presupposes that it is a new item, not one previously decided by the City Council. Otherwise a minority could keep dredging up decided issues, ad infintum. A baboon could grasp this.

But no. You see “necessary information” of some sort has popped up, according to Zahra and Charles, not previously presented by the staff or the City Attorney. This alleged insufficiency is their pretext for stirring the whole thing up again.

Why does this seem familiar?

Because Zahra and Charles pulled the same horseshit on the Trail to Nowhere at the end of 2023 when they claimed that new revelations by the State required more public hearings. The City Manager, Eric Levitt, with the blessing of City Attorney Dick Jones permitted the issue to be put on the agenda. At the end of 2024 Charles trotted out the “new information” schtick to keep the Wank on Wilshire on life support until Vivian Jaramillo (hopefully) could get on the council and keep it going.

The main point seems to be about about giving Charles an excuse to change her vote. She will have to try to explain what “new information” has caused her to change her vote, and that might be unintentionally funny. But that wouldn’t be the only outcome.

If the issue is agendized for the meeting on May 6th by Levitt, the Council majority will be subjected to the usual hours long harangues from Fullerton Boohoo and the Kennedy Sisters. They, finally, may even be caused to wonder about the future of CM Eric Levitt and Dick Jones of the “I Can’t Believe It’s a Law Firm.”

But probably not, Fullerton being Fullerton.

Anyhow, we’ll know for sure May 1st when the May 6th meeting agenda is published,

Oscar Valadez ran against “Dr.” Ahmad Zahra for Fullerton’s 5th District council job in 2022. He came within a few hundred votes of winning, thanks to the suspicious candidacy of “Tony Castro” whose job was to siphon Latino votes from Valadez. Zahra also spent over $100,000 to keep his little $1000 a month job. What a rotten investment.

Well, Valadez is running again for the same seat in 2026 and his chances look pretty good to me. He’s not letting the proverbial grass grow under his feet, and is holding a kickoff party Thursday evening at The Charleston place on Commonwealth Avenue. Here’s the notice:

It seems pretty early to be doing this sort of thing, but we may be sure that his likely opponent Zahra is already busy shaking down contributions like he did last time, especially from his friends in the legalized dope lobby.

2026 won’t be a repeat of 2022, no matter how many fake candidates Zahra and the Dem Party Central vomit up. In 2022 voters hadn’t yet found out that Zahra, the immigrant gay man had orchestrated a fraudulent and illegal marriage of convenience in the 90s to an American to stay in the USA and pursue some sort of movie-making career. We can be sure they will be informed all about it, along with Zahra’s other myriad misdeeds.

Valadez will also be running with the title “Fullerton Planning Commission,” an impressive sounding job.

Friends will recall that back on March 1st Fullerton Engineer noted how the “90%” drawings of the Trail to Nowhere had been rubberstamped by the Parks Commission in early January. Right now Fullerton is at least 10 months past the State’s grant deadline for completed design, but who cares, right?

It’s not like Wade Crowfoot – the head of the State Natural Resources Agency that awarded the grant – is paying any attention at all. If he is he obviously has no intention of holding the City to its contractual milestones, spelled out below.

Parenthetically, we also learned from Edgar Rosales that soils testing had been done last August and required minimal remediation. Yay! The only trouble is that the City in its application for the grant lied, claiming the project was “shovel ready” and that testing had been performed. But let’s not let any of this disturb the confident nap of Mr. Crowfoot.

The completed plans were supposed to go to plan check and then final plans to the City Council for approval. That hasn’t happened yet. And the agenda forecast shows nothing about it for May 6th. May 13th is a budget session. The job still has to be bid and awarded. The completion deadline is October, and that includes plant establishment (see schedule, above).

So what gives?

The Dismal Trail does show up on a map in the capital projects “design” phase on the City’s website:

Here’s the description that goes with the map:

Of course the “planned start date” (not the contractual one) shows a start of seven weeks ago. Oops.

But, hey, wait a minute. The City has just promulgated a draft of its proposed Capital Improvement Projects (CIP) for the next 5 years, and guess what? No trail to be seen.

Next year the City is planning on spending $250,000 of Park Dwelling fees on three projects: $50K on Misc. Maintenance on Park Facilities – a misuse of Park Dwelling Fees, by the way; $100,000 on the Bastanchury Greenbelt; and another $100K on the Valley View Hillcrest Park kiddie playground. There is nothing shown in the out years at all.

There is no mention of the Trail to Nowhere at all. Zip. Nada. How come? I don’t know.

I also notice that the UP Park Reconstruction is shown on the website CIP map.

Starting at the end of August? Oh, c’mon, who’s kidding whom? There’s no mention of this project in the CIP forecast, either.

It looks to me like the Park Dwelling Fees will be tapped out next year. This could be because the gargantuan “Hub” project was granted a delay paying their upfront fees because, well, because who the Hell knows? Ask a City Councilperson when you get a chance.

With Fullerton it’s hard to know what going on because of constant conflicting information between and even from individual departments, out-of-date web pages, and the like.

There’s something cooking here and it doesn’t smell very appetizing.

On Tuesday April 15th, George A. Bushala took to the council chamber podium to again confront Councilman “Dr.” Ahmad Zahra about previous claims made by the Dubious Damascene Doctor.

In this case, Bushala reminded everyone that Zahra had previously claimed he had been “exonerated” in the assault and battery case against “Monica F.” he was charged with by the District Attorney in 2020. He made this claim from the council dais itself.

Naturally, Zahra has never provided the public with a shred of evidence of this so called exoneration, something that should be simple to do, since if it were true he would certainly have some notification of such by the DA.

Now we know two things about these sorts of legal proceedings. First, law enforcement may drop a case, but it never exculpates anybody, primarily because it can’t do such a thing. Second we also know that first time offenders can plead guilty and have their records whitewashed.

Mr. Bushala is perfectly right in challenging Zahra to prove his exoneration if such a thing ever really happened (or at the very least show proof that the case was dropped). Failing that Fullerton residents are justified in concluding that Zahra was not exonerated, or even cleared of charges, but instead pleaded guilty to get his record sealed.

I get the feeling that for Mr. Bushala the enmity that Zahra has shown his family is not going to fly anymore without considerable pushback. There is still a lot Zahra needs to answer for, and since the Fullerton Observer Kennedy Sisters are perfectly willing to take him at his duplicitous word, questions will continue to be raised about his fitness for office.

On March 21, 2025, John Kiger, a 75-year-old retired pool man, husband, grandfather, surfer, former local resident, and father of former Fullerton City Councilman Travis Kiger, was surfing at the famous Southern California surf spot, Trestles. After getting out of the water, he spotted a wanted criminal. The suspect, 35-year-old Moses Paulisin, was armed and on the run for the attempted murder of a Orange County Deputy Sheriff.

A manhunt for Paulisin was well-underway by all Southern California law enforcement agencies. Kiger bravely approached the suspect to confirm his identity and he subsequently notified authorities and awaited their arrival.

Kiger was later awarded a certificate of courage by the City of San Clemente for his exceptional assistance to the sheriff’s department in apprehending the attempted murder suspect and securing his arrest.

https://youtube.com/shorts/Z5kA2uciiqA?si=yxY9J1oNeXW5I2eW