The Seven Walls of Local Government; Wall #1: Public Indifference

We’re busy. Come back tomorrow…

A little while ago a friend of mine passed along a copy of an unpublished essay penned by now deceased J. H. Habermeyer, a professor of Political Science and Economics at RPI for many years. The Seven Walls of Local Government is a short, engaging and literary essay on the ways that local government erects defenses around its doings and, ultimately, how bureaucracies and bureaucrats use different techniques to obscure, obfuscate, defend, and protect themselves in what they do. The literary trope is The Wall.

I will present Professor Habermeyer’s essay in seven appropriate installments. The first portion includes his pithy introduction. Here it is.

 

The Seven Walls of Local Government

There is an old adage in political science circles that the business of government is to keep its business secret. This is so universally true that the idea has indeed become axiomatic – even among those for whom such a notion is not one to cause disapprobation. And yet, in a democracy, the instruments of government are theoretically answerable to a sovereignty that inheres in the people. Therefore, in a democratic government the niceties of popular participation must be paid obeisance while the individual government activities themselves will remain obscured by the clouds of procedural complexity, alleged expertise and technical obfuscation; thus: to represent government affairs through a glass, darkly.

This peculiar dance is found only in democracies. Totalitarian regimes don’t concern themselves with such refinements and the inhabitants and rulers in those regimes hardly even bother to pay lip-service to any institutions that purport to promote “citizen” involvement in government. In the Communist world these facades seem to be erected principally to annoy Western observers.

Nowhere is the interesting paradox better illustrated than the way that local governments in the United States deal with the thorny problem of excluding substantive citizen scrutiny and involvement, while ostensibly promoting it.

The precincts of local government may be conceived as a citadel comprised of seven concentric walls protecting the inner sanctum sanctorum.  As the inner rings tighten, so the width of the gate in each shrinks. Each wall defends the denizens of the citadel from outside scrutiny, criticism and retribution. Each wall serves to protect the citadel by winnowing out potential invaders who will find it increasingly onerous to pass through the portal in each of the seven perimeter fences.

It is, of course, a given, that at just about any particular time a majority of elected representatives in each government have abdicated their own representation of popular sovereignty to the greater good of defending the citadel from their own constituents. This situation is in no way peculiar; in fact, it is the rare case indeed where a significant minority, let alone a real majority of public representatives are willing to put their obligation to the public ahead of their fealty to the established bureaucratic order. This situation reflects fascinating psychological and practical political topics in its own right, but will these will not be addressed in this essay.        

The First Wall

It’s an ironic and sad fact that the first and most effective barrier to public participation and oversight of government activity is largely erected by the public. This wall is the institutionalization of ignorance and apathy on the part of the public itself – a public that chooses to be unaware of what is going on and/or is either too lazy to participate, or is resigned to the fact that participation doesn’t matter. To the extent that the other six walls are effective such apathy is certainly understandable. To the extent that this is used as a pretext for laziness, it is reprehensible. Governments can be relied upon to use, and abuse this apathy.

It is now typical for local government jurisdictions to publicize and notify the public of their doings. We may rest assured that such ostensible transparency was never initiated by governments themselves, but rather was imposed by well-meaning reformers. Yet it is part of the cost of entertaining the democratic ideal. In any case, the annoyance is comparatively small and the payoff in validation is enormous.

In many cases legal requirements now require publication of municipal government actions in newspapers of local circulation. Certain actions must be advertised by posting signs within the vicinity of effected property. Local councils will post copies of their agendas on the premises and mimeographed copies of agenda materials may be acquired, usually at a cost, by interested citizens. These rules and practices, while followed by jurisdictions according to law or custom, can be generally counted on to follow bare minimum standards. Whether posted notices remain posted, whether anybody reads the tiny print in the newspaper, and whether anybody can make it over to the town council to read the agenda is a matter of indifference to local decision makers.

Once such materials are perused another problem immediately becomes apparent. This is the use of incomprehensible governmental jargon that can be counted upon by its practitioners to help intimidate or bamboozle the public. This rather picaresque fraud is one of the most effective arrows in the bureaucracy’s quiver. The deployment of  pseudo-technical jargon, confusing acronyms, and a torrent of useless verbiage in government reports, publications, and notices can surely be relied upon to dissuade all but the most intrepid to attempt to fathom the sacred mysteries therein described.

While it is clearly not practical to individually notify every citizen of every impending action or policy decision, it is cynical indeed to pretend that the bare minimum notifications and descriptions as they are typically pursued constitutes informing the public. And this is where the consequences of an apathetic citizenry come into effect: the vast majority of a political division may have deliberately and effectively disenfranchised itself of what should be a sovereign authority. Is it adequate to merely acknowledge representative republican government and walk away from the responsibility of further participation? The answer is clearly: no.

At this juncture I note the rare occurrence of wide public participation in isolated and pointedly controversial issues. When some potentially obnoxious land use is proposed by the local authority, or some new and annoying public levy is in the offing,  it is not uncommon for the folk of a community to rouse themselves into a state of political agitation. In these rare instances the bureaucracy that proposes such activity must brace itself for initial public discomfiture and will rely upon the remaining six walls to defend its proposed activity. In many such cases, the public outcry subsides quickly; rarely does it not. If the public outrage reaches a sufficient crescendo some electoral change – aside from the normally scheduled ballot – may be occasioned.  In this instance the popular sovereignty is very much exercised, and to the self-satisfaction of the participants. Their subsequent and speedy return to political somnambulism goes to reinforce the idea that spasmodic public participation, while perfectly justified, represents a very ineffective weapon against the inertia of government process.

The Seven Walls of Local Government

Wall #2: Bread or Circus? >>

 

Do Not Trust the Trustees

On Thursday, November 17, the North Orange County Community College District held an the Environmental Impact Report scoping session for the Measure J funded improvements to Fullerton College.

As  you know from our previous report on this matter, the proposed improvements include a football field (estimated during the presentation to cost $4 million to build, so consider that a low floor to the likely final cost) but does not include improvements to the Veteran’s Center. When this discrepancy was addressed, Fullerton College President Greg Schultz gave the following explanation:

  1. We have to understand that the NOCCCD cannot do everything it would like to do with Measure J funds, so they have not been able to make the improvements to the Veteran’s Center at this time;
  2. The stadium will be funded through other funds, not Measure J money and he promises to not use Measure J money to build the stadium.

Let’s take these two responses one at a time, shall we?

First, the characterizing of the veteran’s center as just one of many improvements that the NOCCCD would like to perform is extremely dishonest. Let’s re-wind the clock again to back when NOCCCD sought voter approval for their $574 million construction bond:

(more…)

A Sober Take on the FPD & Joe Felz

I’ve gotten some praise and taken some heat personally for being a part of bringing this blog back online after it’s hiatus because anybody who knows Fullerton politics knows that F.F.F.F. has it’s fans and its detractors. When I found out that there was a new owner I was excited and more so when asked if I wanted to participate as F.F.F.F. gives me an outlet to continue the writing I was doing on my own site without feeling like I’m still running for office.  We were still in the planning stages when that memo from Chief Hughes popped up and now we’re off to the races.

We need to understand the context of this memo and why it matters lest the city sweep it under the rug and further erode trust in government.

To start we must admit that City Manager Joe Felz is culpable for his actions on the night of his accident but he is also culpable for the stain he has just put upon our city after 30+ years of work and it’s somewhat sad when a career might end in a downward trajectory. I barely know Joe Felz and up until now my interactions with him included me giving him grief to prove a lie the Mayor keeps telling about our roads. That said I have no personal animus towards him but the actions the night of the election by him and members of F.P.D. require due diligence and honest brokering of information which are two things constantly lacking from all levels government. For the sake of argument let us pretend that the most absurd rumor coming out of City Hall is true and he simply blew a tire coming around a turn and he was perfectly sober.

Felz himself, and the F.P.D. specifically, should have done everything in their power to remove any doubt or suspicion or wrongdoing to mitigate the allusion of impropriety, special treatment or worse. If he blew a tire and ran down Sappy McTree he could have left his car where it was and called AAA. He could have moved his car off of poor Sappy and parked and called AAA. Instead he decided to try and drive away and likely home. When Police arrived they could have done their jobs without getting the Chief involved until AFTER their initial assessments and inspections.

This isn’t armchair Monday morning quarterbacking or simple 20/20 hindsight because this is their job. Felz is the top man in our city and the F.P.D. has policy for this type of accident which we’ll get to in a minute. Everybody involved in this incident is paid handsomely to do their jobs and will help bankrupt our town with their pensions from these jobs so at a minimum we should expect that they do their jobs when called to a scene.

(more…)

An Ominous Cloud Forms Over The New Community Center

Oops! The new Fullerton Community Center opens up tomorrow, but this news alert might put a damper on the festivities. It turns out the state has rejected redevelopment funding for the project even though it’s already been completed, meaning the city’s troubled general fund may be on the hook for an extra $19 million that it does not have.

It looks like a generation of reckless redevelopment spending has led us to a very dark place.

RDA Woes Trigger Fullerton, Calif., Downgrade

Friday, October 5, 2012 | as of 12:53 PM ET

Standard & Poor’s downgraded Fullerton largely based on California’s rejection of its recognized obligation payment schedule for the city’s role as successor agency to its former redevelopment agency.

California cities could elect to become the successor agency to their RDAs after legislation dissolving the agencies went into effect early this year.

S&P lowered the city’s long-term rating to AA-minus from AA and assigned a negative outlook to lease revenue bonds issued by the Fullerton Public Financing Authority.

Standard & Poor’s also lowered its long-term and underlying ratings to AA-minus from AA on Fullerton Redevelopment Agency certificates of participation and the city’s previously issued revenue bonds.

“The negative outlook reflects what we view as the city’s exposure to previously state-rejected redevelopment projects which, if not approved, could affect Fullerton’s credit fundamentals in the future,” analysts said in the report. “In addition, city officials estimate some continued structural imbalance in the general fund, despite some previous budget reductions to offset historical revenue declines.”

A portion of the disputed bond proceeds has not been spent, but $22 million was used to build the city’s community center.

The state rejected that as a valid redevelopment project because the city, as opposed to its redevelopment agency, had signed the contracts with the developer as was the city’s practice pre-dissolution, according to the report.

The city has resubmitted its request to the state Department of Finance, but if it rejected again, the city could be on the hook for $19 million.

However, city officials told analysts that it would use reserve money from the city’s general fund to cover the bond payments.

Analysts credited Fullerton for continuing to budget appropriate amounts in the general fund to fund both its Series 2010A bonds, which were backed by federal subsidies that now may not be available, and on the COPs issued for the RDA.

The 2010A debt was issued as federally taxable recovery zone economic development bonds. The city has budgeted for the full cost of payments on the bonds regardless of whether it receives the federal subsidy.

Shawn Nelson Stops By

OC 4th District Supervisor Shawn Nelson visited our humble blog yesterday to refresh our memories about his calling in the Feds in the Kelly Thomas killing. Here’s what he had to say:

 

  • #22 by Shawn Nelson on May 24, 2012

    So the historical record is clear, I contacted the Department of Justice on Thursday July 21 or 28 (not sure which Thursday off the top of my head). My purpose was to open a case file in the Civil Rights division because I felt an obligation to ensure the citizens of Fullerton everything I could do had been done. While on the telephone with a lawyer at the DOJ, she contacted the FBI and before our call concluded she was able to confirm that the FBI would be taking the lead on the case and that the FBI had, in fact, opened a file as of that monement.

    Confirmation of the FBI’s involvement made the airwaves later that same day and by 8:00 the next day I heard word the officers involved had been taken off the streets.

 

A good reminder that the cops weren’t pulled until after the FBI was notified on July 28th, 2011. A coincidence? I think not.

FFFF originally posted about Nelson’s intervention, here. I also believe it was this action that spurred the DA to do a real investigation, and not one of the usual whitewashes.

 

Moxley Drop Kicks Whiting

My wife says I'm not a limp-wristed fascist...

Remember the useless OC Register tool David Whiting, who just couldn’t bend his moth ball size brain around the concept of a killer cop? And remember this pathetic load of road apples in which Whiting firmly attached his eagerly quivering lips to Doc HeeHaw’s withered undercarriage?

Now enjoy The OC Weekly’s Scott Moxley (a real reporter, by the way) as he tunes up the OC Register’s hackling, here. There seems to be a long tradition of pro-cop stoogery at the the rag, er, I mean the Reg, and Whiting is the latest wearer of the crown.

The central theme of Moxley’s piece is the notion that members of the Fourth Estate have a moral obligation to challenge those in authority, not lick their, um, boots. Poor Lou Ponsi is forced by his boss to write fluff pieces. Whiting has no such excuse; he seems perfectly content to pet and pamper those in authority, no matter how little he actually knows about what’s really going on.

If the Register can’t do its job a journalistic endeavor, I say it’s time to pull the plug. Who will join me in a boycott?

 

 

Should Fullerton Have A Police Commission?

The most frustrating thing about the awful story of the death of Kelly Thomas and its aftermath is not knowing what goes on behind the closed doors of the Fullerton Police Department. Certainly a position of leadership comes with the obligation to take responsibility for what goes on within a department, but even if a Police Chief falls on his sword and resigns or is forced out of his job we really don’t know what is happening with the individual officers who comprise the police force. One of the most repeated statements heard from the many irate speakers at Tuesday night’s council meeting was that the police work for us, not the other way around.

Fullerton has commissions for parks and planning, and committees for transportation, infrastructure, the library, energy, community grants, investments, technology and even bicycles and the arboretum. One way or another, they oversee or at least review the activities of various city departments, namely Parks and Recreation, Engineering, the Library and Community Development. Why is there no commission to oversee the Police Department?

Other cities have them. A Fullerton Police Commission won’t prevent every mistake or outright crime committed by individual officers, but it could create appropriate policies and procedures, review individual cases, have access to all documents and recordings (like the notoriously unreleased tape of the beating of Mr. Thomas),  advise the city council on matters of employment before the city council, and generally audit the effectiveness of the department.

If we are truly in charge of the Fullerton Police Department we should assert our authority and acknowledge our collective responsibility to oversee its policies and actions. It’s our department, let’s treat it that way.

Some Numbers

It’s almost April. Our wise and courageous city council is already wading through wage negotiations with the city employee unions for the upcoming budget year. How did we get this far without adding up Fullerton’s total unfunded pension obligation? Oh well, here it goes…

Pension Plan
Total Liability
Market Value of Assets
Unfunded Liability
Fullerton Public Safety
$324,288,070
$197,444,920
$126,843,150
Fullerton Miscellaneous
$202,257,209
$136,167,010
$66,090,199

That’s a grand total of $192 million in what is essentially “pension debt” for which we have no foreseeable plan to pay, even when we include all of our future contributions and expected market gains.

The pension plans are already paying out $9 million more per year to retirees than they are taking in via contributions, so there’s no help there. But our required contributions are increasing significantly, starting this year.

With no perceivable way out of this hole, maybe it’s time to hit the road and put it all on black.

I think I'm getting the fear.

All of these numbers came from the 2010 CalPERS reports for Fullerton’s Public Safety and Miscellaneous pension plans.

Pensions, Utility Taxes and The People of Fullerton

The following commentary was sent in by Fullerton’s own Barry Levinson.

——-

Since the November 2010 elections, I have read two articles on the Friends for Fullerton’s Future site that require further discussion. The first one stated that the rescinding of the utility tax increases of 1994 has saved the taxpayers approximately 150 million dollars since 1994 to the present time. Hats off to Council member Bruce Whitaker and all the people who helped make that rescission a reality. The fact that we were able to elect him to the council indicates that we are making some progress. But this is not a time to sit back and savor our victory locally as well as nationally.

We cannot afford any complacency since another even larger albatross is now facing the fine citizens of Fullerton, namely the unfunded liabilities for public pensions and retiree medical costs.

The second article deals with the reporting by CALPERS that the Fullerton police and fire pension obligations are now facing a 127 million dollar unfunded liability as of June 30, 2009. In other words, we the taxpayers of Fullerton are currently on the hook for this astronomical amount.

If you add the unfunded liability of the miscelleous employees as well as the City’s unfunded retiree health care benefits, it skyrockets up to and probably well over the 200 million dollar mark! Twice the amount saved from the utility tax rescission.

I suggest that the citizens of Fullerton have to be just as irate now as when we were facing the massive utility tax increase in 1994. The one common thread between these two instances is our city council. We must make it clear that we the people are watching very closely the actions taken by our council as they prepare to negotiate with all of the city’s unions! We must speak out loud and clear and demand that the council vote for significant cuts in these benefits coupled with significant employee contribution increases.

I suggest that all fellow readers of this blog attend the February 1st Council Meeting to speak to the council during its Open Agenda Segment to insist that major employee cost savings must be implemented across the board this year. We must demand no less and be ready to take further action if a majority of the council defies the people one more time.

Bruce Whitaker is Running for Fullerton City Council

Here’s some big news. Fullerton resident Bruce Whitaker just pulled papers to run for city council.

Given the current crop of candidates, it’s safe to say that Bruce is an early favorite. He’s likely to get the endorsements of both Supervisor Shawn Nelson and Assemblyman Chris Norby, along with the GOP endorsement.

Why? Because Whitaker has a long history as a successful tax fighter and a proponent of property rights and personal freedom.

And now on to the chronicles of Bruce Whitaker:

Bruce entered political activism in 1992 when he became incensed at the largest federal tax increase in U.S. history and the largest state tax increase in California’s history under Governor Pete Wilson. He became active in the city of Fullerton the following year when he led a successful effort to recall a majority of the City Council and repeal unnecessary utility taxes. That repeal has saved more than $150 million for Fullerton taxpayers to date.

After the Orange County bankruptcy, Bruce Whitaker debated against tax proponents and authored numerous guest editorials which helped defeat a bankruptcy sales tax in 1995, resulting in more than $2.2 billion in taxpayer savings.

Bruce founded the Fullerton Association of Concerned Taxpayers (FACT) in 1996, a group that successfully stopped the Gray Davis Administration from pushing an unconstitutional $12.7 billion bond offering. Later, FACT sued again to stop a $2 billion pension obligation bond which was also pushed without voter approval.

Bruce is currently the O.C. District Director for Assemblyman Chris Norby and serves as a member of the Fullerton Planning Commission.