59th Assembly District News

MONEY RACE

Now that the primary elections are over, the November general election for the 59th Assembly District, which includes Claremont, is shaping up. Republican Tim Donnelly will square off against Democrat Darcel Woods.

The money race usually tells a lot, though this year the dynamics may be different. Donnelly won a very close primary race over Chris Lancaster in June. Donnelly's margin of victory was 631 votes and can be viewed as a sign of grassroots voter discontent this year with Donnelly, a self-described "tea party Republican," beating his party's insider candidate. Lancaster spent far more money than Donnelly ($167,000 to $23,500, respectively), but Donnelly still won.

According to the California Secretary of State's records, as of June 30 Donnelly's campaign had $626.78 in cash. The largest donor was Anna McBride in Palm Desert, who donated a total of $3,400.

Darcel Woods' campaign reported raising a total of $22,575 for the period from 1/1/10 to 6/30/10. Woods had $3,789.35 in cash remaining at of June 30. Woods' big contributors were unions:

• Service Employees International Union United Long-Term Care Workers Local 6434 State PAC - $7,800
  
  
• United Domestic Workers of America Action Fund - $3,900
  
  
• SEIU Local 721, CTW CLW State and Local - $3,900
  
  
• Service Employees International Union 121RN PAC - $1,500
  
  
• UAW Region 5 Western States PAC - $1,000
  
  
• California Teachers Association for Better Citizenship - $500
  
  
• United Transportation Union PAC - $500

The money Woods has raised is almost certainly an indication that Democratic Party supporters feel that Woods has a chance against Donnelly. This is certainly a change for an assembly district that has traditionally been a safe Republican seat. With redistricting on the horizon, it's likely that whatever replaces the 59th will be much more evenly divide between the two parties, so if Woods were to get in, she would presumably have an incumbent's advantage in subsequent elections.

A win by Woods might put a crimp in Claremont Mayor Pro Tem Sam Pedroza's long term plans. We suspect Pedroza may have been planning his own campaign in the 59th or its successor district. If Pedroza were ever to get elected from this area, he'd break a long losing streak by Claremont city council members in state legislative races. Sandy Baldonado, Al Leiga, and Corey Calaycay all failed in their bids to get represent our area in Sacramento.

The Daily Bulletin has an article today on the 59th Assembly race that mentions the idea that Woods may be able to appeal to moderate Republicans in the district. However, CMC's Jack Pitney thinks the election dynamics this year favor Republicans, and that may blunt any advantage Woods would traditionally have with moderates over Donnelly:

This is the kind of race where Democrats might have a very strong shot in another year," said Jack Pitney, a Claremont McKenna College political science professor who has said Democrats are battling Republican momentum this year. "But even so, it's not completely out of reach for them."

If Woods wins, she might represent the final vote Democrats in the Assembly need to solidify a two-thirds majority, an important benchmark in California politics. That thinking played a part in the union's decision, [SEIU-United Long Term Care Workers Local 6434 spokesman Wyatt] Closs said.

ADAMS ON SOCIAL NETWORKING

Speaking of the 59th district, current Assembly 59 representative Anthony Adams was quoted in the Daily Bulletin today. You'll recall that Adams chose not to seek reelection after angering Republicans for supporting last year's state budget agreement. Because he was one of a handful of Republicans in the state legislature who crossed the aisle to get the budget passed, Adams drew the ire of a good many Republican voters and would probably have faced a tough primary campaign.

The Bulletin article quoted Adams' comments on the possible regulation of campaign-related content on social media sites like Twitter or Facebook. The Bulletin piece said that California's Fair Political Practices Commission asked one of its subcommittees to look into the issue. The commission will consider the suggestions from the subcommittee next week.

Here's what the Bulletin said about the recommendations (we've included the Adams' quote):

Campaigns would face the same disclosure rules they do now, such as identifying who is financially behind an ad, but, for the first time, they would apply to Internet communication.

The report draws a line between paid political activity and unpaid grass-roots efforts. Political commentary by people unconnected to a campaign would not be affected, nor would sending or forwarding e-mails, linking to websites or creating independent websites.

....

"In order to keep our system honest, we need watchdogs," Adams said. "What these disclosures end up achieving is putting watchdogs, self-appointed or otherwise, in a position to maintain some integrity in the political campaigning area."

Jack Pitney, by the way, was quoted in this article as well.

Campaign 2009 Mail

As you might expect, we've received some email regarding the problems the Bridget Healy for City Council campaign has had with inconsistencies that have popped up in the candidate's campaign literature.

Some of Healy's claims have been directly contradicted by her sworn testimony in a lawsuit the city had to defend three years ago. A reader wrote in after having noticed yet another Healy campaign exaggeration:

DATE: Sunday, March 1, 2009 2:34:10 PM
SUBJECT: Healy's Gifts
TO: Claremont Buzz

Dear Buzz,

With keen interest, I have been following the newspaper and Insider Blog reports on city council candidate Healy's inconsistencies regarding her purported contributions and gifts to Claremont. While her inconsistencies have focused on the acquisition of the Wilderness Park, I should point out that her claims to have "established the Police Commission.." are also questionable. I recall that the establishment of the Police Commission was a recommendation, to the City Council, of an Ad Hoc Committee which was formed to look into necessary changes in the behavior of the Police Department following the Landrum shooting incident. She makes it sound as if she alone - as in her other claims on the "accomplishments" list - established the Police Commission.

* * * * *

Healy's apparently been taking some hits because of her misstatements. Naturally, the Claremont 400 has circled the wagons. Saturday's Claremont Courier had three letters from different 400 representatives in support of Healy.

The first Courier letter was from Tom and Donna Ambrogi. Tom Ambrogi lives at Pilgrim Place and his wife is a Pilgrim boardmember. Following the Irvin Landrum shooting, he was one of the people who led a largely ineffective, toothless campaign to try to address the City's handling of the matter. We call Ambrogi's efforts ineffective because he ignored the central problem: the City's management culture under then-City Manager Glenn Southard, and his right-hand woman, Assistant City Manager Bridget Healy. Ambrogi focused on the symptom rather than the structural disease.

So, it's no surprise that Ambrogi would demonstrate a similar blindness in his current support of Healy. Ambrogi apparently has no inkling that supporting Healy is a direct abnegation of everything he claimed to stand for when the Landrum shooting occurred. But with Ambrogi, like so many of the 400, friendships trump reality, and the high status he and his wife possess in Pilgrim Place gives them a potential platform to influence other residents of that retirement community.

The second letter was from former Claremont City Planner and former Claremont League of Women Voters president Sharon Hightower. Hightower says she has two things she considers when she evaluates candidates. First, does the person understand "Claremont's past achievements (and blunders)?" In this, as in most things Healy, Hightower gives no concrete examples. And, as we know from Healy's advertisements, the candidate's understanding of past achievements is highly suspect.

Hightower's second criteria is the vision thing. Does the candidate share Hightower's, the League's, and the 400's vision of what Claremont should be? (More on the word "vision" in a moment.)

The last letter is signed by eight former Claremont mayors, including Queen Ellen Taylor (right), who was so bad on the council that she was reportedly told by the powers-that-be not to run again. And some of the others on the list - Diann Ring, Karen Rosenthal, Paul Held, and Al Leiga - were no better than Taylor and in several instances were even worse.

Parsing the three letters is easy. There are two code words the 400 always uses: consensus and vision. "Consensus" is their belief that no dissent whatsoever should be tolerated. Not on the part of the council and certainly not on the public's part. In short, it is groupthink at its worst. The Ambrogis' letter mentions consensus, and Diann Ring is always prattling on incessantly about the need for 5-0 votes on the council.

"Vision" is the opinion formed by 400 at their various social events. They come up with some cockamamie notion about this or that, then hold sham public meetings to give the imprimatur of the public process to these opinions. Unknown to the public, the process is a done deal long before it ever reaches an official public meeting. All three Courier letters Saturday mentioned vision.

To those in the know, when you hear "vision" and "consensus" together in candidate endorsements, you're supposed to know that this is the 400's chosen person. When you parse all three of the Saturday Courier letters, you not only see the code words, but you see the eight mayors giving away their secret. They don't call it Bridget Healy's vision. They say, "our vision for Claremont...."

Ladies and gentlemen of the jury, we give you EXHIBIT 1 in this case:

1A

She has a fine record of 18 years service in city government, where she showed strong leadership in bringing consensus on many important issues....

We need [Healy's] passion and her vision and her proven leadership to implement our common vision for the future of Claremont.

Tom and Donna Ambrogi
Claremont

1B

....Does he/she have a vision for the future of Claremont? If so, is it one I share? Can he/she always keep that vision in mind while solving today’s problems?

Sharon W. Hightower
Claremont

1C

....She is committed to working with you, the citizens, to make our vision for Claremont this community's future.

Please join us in voting for Bridget for City Council.

Ellen Taylor
Suzan Smith
Sandy Baldonado
Algird Leiga
Paul Held
Diann Ring
Karen M. Rosenthal
Richard Newton
Past and Present Mayors of the City of Claremont

Where Are They Now?

Those of you who were wondering what became of retired Claremont Police Chief Roy Brown will be glad to hear that he's doing just fine, having traded one college town for another on the opposite coast.

The Daily Bulletin's Wes Woods II reports in today's paper that Brown has been hired as an assistant police chief for New Haven, Connecticut. Brown, the article says, wasn't picked out of the blue. Former Pomona Police Chief James Lewis (not the Jim Lewis who used to be Claremont's Assistant to the City Manager), hired Brown.

The article also says that Lewis is trying to recruit Pomona Police Captain Ken Gillespie and gave some background on the eastern migration:

Lewis said he thought of Brown and Gillespie when he learned the open chief position needed a team to deal with community and policy issues, auditing and internal affairs.

The Inland Valley police migration to the East Coast comes after an August 2007 Police Executive Research Forum report described how to improve the New Haven Police Department.

A federal indictment in March 2007 of two New Haven narcotics police officers suspected of taking bribes from local bail bondsmen and stealing money at crime scenes led to that report.

The report reviewed organizational structure, narcotics enforcement and internal affairs investigations.

Pomona has about 172,000 people while New Haven has about 132,000, Lewis said. But Pomona has about 190 cops and New Haven roughly 500.

Pomona has more foot patrols while New Haven has officers assigned to a post.

Brown wasn't necessarily popular within the Claremont Police Department during his years here. You might recall that Brown came to Claremont from Eugene, Oregon, in the aftermath of the Irvin Landrum shooting in January, 1999.

In the midst of the subsequent blow-up caused by the former Claremont City Manager Glenn Southard's handling of the situation, then-Claremont Police Chief Robert Moody retired (and later took a job with the law firm that defended the city in the civil suit brought by the Landrum family).

Brown wasn't Southard's first choice for the police chief position. We tend to forget that Southard first hired Thomas Scheidecker, a former LAPD officer, who at the time was working for the police in the city of Ripon, CA.

Southard quickly dumped Scheidecker after news of an LAPD scandal involving Schiedecker became public. A 2/6/00 LA Times article summed up the matter:

A key figure in the Los Angeles Police Department spying scandal of the 1980s has been named chief of the Claremont Police Department–a force that is beleaguered over a controversial shooting of a black motorist last year.

Thomas Scheidecker, 55, who was temporarily suspended for lying about and mishandling confidential intelligence documents while he worked for the LAPD, is scheduled to take the reins of the Claremont department on Valentine’s Day, after Chief Robert Moody’s retirement for personal reasons. For the last eight years, Scheidecker has been police chief of the small San Joaquin Valley town of Ripon, near Modesto.

As an LAPD lieutenant almost two decades ago, he served as custodian of records for the agency’s Public Disorder Intelligence Division, which was disbanded in 1983 after revelations that it was spying on law-abiding citizens, including civic leaders, judges, police commissioners, clergy and actors.

A police probe concluded that Scheidecker had kept classified information at his Westminster home and had made false and misleading statements to investigators as to what that data included.

Because some of the information in Scheidecker’s home came from military sources, he was also investigated by federal and state agencies. He was never charged with a crime but was suspended for 15 days.

Scheidecker is on vacation out of state and could not be reached for comment. Claremont officials said they were aware that he was somehow involved in the LAPD unit but had not known about his suspension or his specific role in the controversy.

“The focus of the interviews were his performance as police chief,” said city spokesman Mike Maxfield. “That’s what he’s being hired for. That’s not to say we skimmed over the rest of his career. We were aware of his work in the [LAPD] unit.”

Needless to say, Claremont and Southard dropped Scheidecker, who had given notice in Ripon, like a hot potato, leading to another lawsuit, this time by Scheidecker, against the City of Claremont. Brown was then picked as Claremont's police chief.

At the time all this was occurring, the City Council and Southard took on the look of the Richard Nixon White House circa 1973. You could almost see the stone walls rising around City Hall, complete with arrow-slitted guard towers. It was the peak of the Claremont 400, which had complete control of the City Council.

And at the same time it was the council's lowest point, with them daily defending positions that were so obviously undefendable. The city council meetings were packed with citizens and students protesting the council's handling of the Landrum shooting, and a good segment of the population calling for Southard to be fired.

The fact that the council ignored those calls and allowed Southard to stay on five more years, seemed proof to a good portion of the public that the council and their supporters were terribly out of touch with the rest of the public. Two councilmembers who were most supportive of Southard, Karen Rosenthal and Al Leiga, lost their re-election bids in 2003, and were replaced by Peter Yao and Jackie McHenry, both of whom ran as reformers.

It's always been our contention that the problems of Claremont and its city government were embodied by Glenn Southard but that the real heart of the dysfunction lay with those Claremonsters who still control influential groups like the board of Pilgrim Place, the Claremont Community Foundation, Claremont Heritage, and the League of Women Voters of the Claremont Area.

It's odd that all of those groups do good works, and we have no problems with the things they do as charities; however, it's their actions as the props to a form of municipal government that is close-minded, wasteful, and prone to crisis after crisis that we take exception with. It really has been a case-study in the corrupting power of small-town politics.

From those groups, the Claremonsters' new council and commission candidates will emerge - more Ellen Taylors, more Al Leigas, more Karen Rosenthals - and they will continue to try to take Claremont back to the days of 2000 when they controlled all five city council seats and when all hell was breaking loose.

The conscious effort by folks like Claremont Heritage president and former Claremont Mayor Judy Wright to erase the past and replace it with a sanitized, Disneyesque version of history ensures that we will be inevitably back again to deal with some other miscue, scandal, or crisis.

While it's job security for Insiders everywhere, it's also sad to see the same foolishness played out again and again.

Election Day Today: A Race to the Bottom

This has been in many ways a dismal election season here in California. We already had our primary way back in February so there's not much interest or coverage in the down-ballot races, the two measures, or the myriad judges before us now in June.

We've been so engrossed by the Norma Torres-Xavier Alvarez juggernaut down Pomona way that we've totally ignored our own race.

Claremont is in the 29th State Senate District where our state senator, Bob Margett, is termed out this year. This has resulted in a race for the Republican nomination between our former assemblyman, Dennis Mountjoy, and current 60th district assemblyman Bob Huff, from Diamond Bar, whose assembly district stretches from Anaheim to Whittier and San Dimas but does not include Claremont.

(Democrat Joseph M. Lyons--who appears not to have a website nor could he be bothered to fill out the Smartvoter free page--and Libertarian Jill Stone are each running unopposed for the nomination to the 29th)

A friend of ours who gets the Republican campaign literature reports having been inundated by Huff for Senate flyers: no fewer than ten four-color pieces proclaiming his conservative values, his list of endorsements (including our former mayors Al Leiga and Peter Yao--those endorsements are gonna get our blood pumping), and finally morphing into hit pieces on the somnambulent Dennis Mountjoy.

It seems--and we could be wrong but this is the way it looks to us--that Dennis Mountjoy's chief claim to office is that his last name is "Mountjoy". Or, as Bob Huff now reminds the Republicans every day: "Dennis is not Dick". Dick Mountjoy, our former and long-ago termed out state senator was last seen running for the U. S. Senate against Dianne Feinstein. We don't have to tell you how that came out: Feinstein is still in Washington after running up narrow margins in San Francisco County--haha. We hear that Dick Mountjoy concentrated his California U. S. Senate campaign in the 29th district, even walking precincts there to keep the Mountjoy name in front of the local voters--just in case.

By all accounts Dick Mountjoy was a legislator of journeyman if far-right skills but in recent years his chief activity and goal has been to keep his son Dennis in work. He was successful in this; Dennis Mountjoy was actually elected to three terms in the Assembly where he impressed Tom McClintock and, except for his dad, no one else. See, Dennis is kinda dim (photo, right).

Now we hear from the aforementioned friend that he received a Robo-Call yesterday, the day before the election, from "Senator Mountjoy"--no first name given, so it was presumably Dick. The gist of the call was to be sure that you, the call recipient, understood that "conservative" was synonymous with "Mountjoy" and that "Mountjoy" was synonymous with "Senator". It mentioned you should be certain to return some kind of mail-petition (our friend is certain he never saw one) and ended with the key tag line, just in case you'd missed it: "This is Senator Mountjoy". Again, no first name.

This appears to be nothing more than a ham-handed attempt to help the witless voters conflate Dennis Mountjoy with Dick Mountjoy, and to make them think they are getting the Dick when when they are actually getting the Dennis. It is breathtaking in its manipulative cynicism. And we'd like to know if there is even the petition mentioned in the call, but good luck trying to get the California Fair Political Practices Commission to look into anything.

A pox on both their houses, Mountjoy's and Huff's. Mountjoy because ALL he has is his last name; Huff because all he has are endorsements and attacks on the hapless Dennis. Republicans in the 29th District are faced with the choice between a well-financed politico only a small step above Leiga and Yao and a Neanderthal.

This choice that is no choice, as we have said many times, is the logical outcome of Machine Politics as practiced in the Inland Empire. Norma Torres in the 61st Assembly District; safe for the Democrat so the winner of the Democratic primary will win the election. Mountjoy and Huff in the 29th Senate District, safe for the Republicans, so the winner of that primary will win in November.

Vote for somebody else in November.

Southardism, Rosemead Style

Oliver Chi, Claremont's former Assistant to the City Manager, has been picked to be Rosemead's new city manager, as an article in the San Gabriel Valley Tribune reported this past week.

Chi, who is 27, was approved to fill Rosemead's vacant top city staff spot on a 3-2 vote by the Rosemead City Council.

While in Claremont, Chi, whose obsequious personality resembled the Eddie Haskell character on the old "Leave It to Beaver" show, attached himself to former Claremont City Manager Glenn Southard and cozied up to the Claremont 400, leaving a number of lingering problems in his wake when he left.

The largest of these problems with the appraisal for Johnson's Pasture which set the price of that open space land at $12 million, overvaluing the land by about $500,000, according to the state of California. This imperiled the city's chances of qualifying for a $1 million grant from the state because the granting agency wouldn't allow the grant for the city's appraised value.

Chi was the staff member we see as most responsible for the faulty appraisal, and he was the staff member who steered the city, at the behest of the Claremont 400, towards the failed first attempt at buying the land through the 2006 Parks and Pastures Assessment District, which failed 44% to 56% when voted on by Claremont property owners.

Chi worked on the Parks and Pastures campaign, which was filled with such Claremont 400 luminaries as Diann Ring, Judy Wright, Al Leiga, and a host others. In the debate over whether Claremont should go with an assessment district or a bond to fun the purchase of Johnson's Pasture, many people warned that an assessment would never get the 51% it needed to pass and that a bond, even though it needed 67 percent win, had a better chance because of the lower total cost. One suspects that to Chi it mechanism didn't matter and that the only important thing was that the 400 was pushing the assessment.

Events proved the 400 and Chi wrong and the people who favored the bond right - a few months after the assessment lost, Claremont voters passed the Measure S bond with over 71% of the vote.

Chi's biggest fault as a city staffer was his constant need to size up the political landscape and then joining in with the people he felt most powerful, in this case, the 400. In doing so, he failed to recognize the sentiments of the greater community, so it's no wonder he was so remarkably out of step with and disconnected from the needs and wishes of the majority of town.

Some might attribute Chi's miscalculations to his age and immaturity, but we think his behavior in Claremont betrayed a fundamental character flaw: a willingness to place his ambitions over the good of the community. Chi struck us as the prototypical Southard senior staffer, intelligent on the one hand, but weak and manipulative on the other.

If there is any doubt that Chi isn't plugged into the Southardian network, check out the California City Management Foundation website. That's the organization that Southard helped get started. Chi is now listed as a member of the foundation's Board of Trustees along with Southard and a number of municipal counsultants, including Bill Mathis, the city manager headhunter who helped Southard land that $300,000 a year job in Indio.

We suspect Chi's flaws have caused him problems in the past, and we guess that at some point in the future, they will catch up with him again. Claremont's gain is Rosemead's loss.

The Marijuana Wars

These are strange times in Claremont, or maybe it's just the herb that's strange.

Former Claremont Mayor Al Leiga had an opinion piece in last Wednesday's Daily Bulletin and in yesterday's Claremont Courier. Leiga took to task the City Council majority that voted 3-2 to go forward with a city ordinance allowing medical marijuana dispensaries.

The Leiga piece struck us as a bit odd because in the March 2007 city election Leiga had endorsed two of the councilmembers, Linda Elderkin and Sam Pedroza, who voted with Councilmember Ellen "The Slapper" Taylor to allow the dispensaries.

The piece was also odd because of the reasoning Leiga used:

Unfortunately, it seems that some council members thought the absence of a massive showing against the dealer was a sign of acceptance. That was a poor assumption, based on what many people have told me.

While Leiga's take on things may be true, it certainly is at odds with his own behavior on council - for instance, his support while on the council of the Landscaping and Lighting District assessment, for which there is wide community opposition.

Still, it was refreshing to see Leiga step up and question a council decision, and we do have to respect that dissent.

Facing Up To Reality

A reader pointed us to an interesting link concerning sports parks. As many of you know, Padua Sports Park has been on the city of Claremont's and the Claremont 400's to-do list for many years now.

The issue, like many pushed by the Claremont 400, has been extremely divisive and has pitted neighbor against neighbor. Rather than seek a solution, the Claremont 400 has used the park as a wedge issue for its candidates. Sam Pedroza, Linda Elderkin, Ellen Taylor, Al Leiga, Sandy Baldonado, and Peter Yao have all campaigned as champions of the park.

Claremont's City Attorney, Sonia Carvalho and the firm of Best, Best & Krieger, provided the legal defense for a lawsuit challenging the park's Environmental Impact Report. Ms. Carvalho is also city attorney for the city of Yorba Linda, where former Claremont Assistant City Manager Tamara Gates Letourneau now works.

Our reader pointed out some information regarding Ms. Carvalho. Our reader stated that during the long fight over the park, Ms. Carvalho told the reader after one public meeting that she and her husband had recently purchased a home near a large sports park in Fullerton. The reader voiced concerns to Ms. Carvalho about the lights and noise being imposed on an area that is unlit and extremely quiet at night. The City Attorney told the reader that from her own experience a sports park wasn't so bad and you get used to the noise and lights.

What prompted our reader to write us was a link the reader found to minutes from the May 6, 2006, City of Fullerton Parks and Recreation Commission meeting. Ms. Carvalho, her husband Wayne, and a group of her neighbors were there to address agenda item #3: Fullerton's Good Neighbor Policy at the Fullerton Sports Complex.

According to the minutes, neighbors were seeking one day without any sports activities and a limit on the use of public address systems. Fullerton's Good Neighbor Policy arose out of concerns with the noise generated by the park's PA system.

The minutes state that:

The commissioners asked questions of the speakers, staff and field users, and accepted a petition signed by neighbors of the Sports Complex. Resident Sonia Carvalho pointed out that the funding for the Sports Complex came from park impact fees, and said that there was no environmental review conducted as required prior to amending the development agreement for the building of the Sports Complex.

So, where City Attorney Carvalho argued to our reader for the benefits of a sports park in Claremont and defended Claremont's Environmental Impact Report, Citizen Carvalho was complaining about her own city's sports park and questioned Fullerton's environmental review.

Like many other things in Claremont, one finds the sports park reality is full of irony.

_______________________

As we've discussed in the past, the Claremont Unified School District (CUSD) and Claremont as a whole, including the youth sports groups, are facing a demographic crunch. Families are having fewer kids, household size is declining and parents are hanging on to homes after their kids grow up. Claremont's population is graying, and the rise in home prices have made single-family homes in Claremont unaffordable as starter homes to most young families with children.

Further, a recent Pew Research Center study showed that as a measure of marital happiness, having kids has declined to number eight on a list of key factors for a successful marriage. The survey results placed children below things like "faithfulness" and "sharing household chores" in order of importance.

The Daily Bulletin yesterday ran a front page, above-the-fold article about declining enrollment in the Ontario-Montclair School District (OMSD). The article quoted OMSD's Pete Peterson as saying that statewide half of all school districts are facing declining enrollment, no doubt from some of the same demographic pressures affecting Claremont.

Given the decline in kids, it seems self-serving and irrational for CUSD and youth sports groups to prop up the numbers of children in their programs by allowing in kids from neighboring areas. It's time to face reality squarely, rather than cling to false notions about what our future holds.

Again we ask, at a time when we're contemplating a $100-150 million city purchase of the local water company and building a new police station at $20 million or more, maybe it's time to reassess where we're allocating our resources instead of asking voters and tax payers to shell out more and more for services that are reaching fewer and fewer actual Claremont residents. Maybe its time to think about partnering with our neighboring cities - La Verne, Montclair, Pomona, Upland - on some of these services since they are experiencing the same demographic changes.

It's time for reality-based programs and services.

Reader Mail

We received this reader note yesterday from one of the former members of the city's Citizen's Finance Advisory Committee (CFAC) in response to our posts from the past week regarding the city's Landscaping and Lighting District (LLD) and the debate preceding its enaction in 1990.

The letter is a window into the decision-making process in Claremont, which too often resembles a rugby scrum - from the outside, not much going on; from the inside, a lot of kicking and grabbing. You can see from the letter how dissenters are treated, and that it takes a great deal of backbone to stand up and voice alternate opinions.

The reader's letter also refers to the 7,000 petition signatures Claremont resident Les Boring gathered against the LLD. Claremont had a population of around 33,000 in 1990, so the 7,000 signatures is an impressive number. As we noted yesterday, the city acted as if those people did not exist. The city paid the price in 2006 when they tried to enact a second assessment district to pay for the purchase of Johnson's Pasture.

That 2006 assessment lost 56% to 44% and the stubborn foolishness of leaders like Diann Ring, Judy Wright, Ellen Taylor, Sandy Baldonado, Al Leiga (all current or former Councilmembers) and a host of others almost cost the city the open space the greater community wanted to save. The measure lost because it was another LLD to many people, because they rolled things unrelated to open space (city park maintenance costs) into the assessment and because their prior actions and misrepresentations about sunsetting the LLD completely discredited them when they promised sunsetting the 2006 assessment.

Our reader also notes how the Claremont 400 has traditionally loaded up important city committees and commissions with people who will tow the party line. As a result, these groups have rarely reflected the community at-large and have fell farther and farther out-of-step with many citizens.

When groups like the Claremont League of Women Voters (LWV) harp on the need for "consensus" and "civility," they're really saying you shouldn't disagree with the party line. They turn a blind eye to the incivility exercised by the Claremont 400 (as seen in their recent award to former Councilmember Sandy Baldonado--more on that later) and their credibility suffers as a result. So we should not be surprised that their numbers are falling and that they find it hard to attract younger new members.

Without further ado, we give you our reader:

Buzz,

A couple of observations on the early days of the LLD.

I was a member of the Citizen's committee, which had 16 members of the community, all selected by the Council Members*. ( I will get back to that)

The voting for the LLD was 14 in favor, 2 opposed. The sunset clause was requested by Dennis Smith, and a 5 year period was mentioned, as I recall. I was one of the 2 in opposition. At the last meeting held in Taylor Hall, I was asked to submit the "Minority Report". Dr Gerry Juergens was the other member of the minority, and assisted writing the report, which I was supposed to read.

In the opening sentence of my report, I mentioned the 7000 signatures of Mr Les Boring and his helpers. Upon saying his name, The gavel came down and I was told to stop. As I recall, the comment from Mr Smith
was to the effect, " we don't want to hear that stuff, it's not to be reported here." The rest of the minority report was cancelled immediately. Although I submitted a written report, I doubt if it was ever filed or
kept.

The final meeting of the Committee was held in conjunction with the Council at the Claremont School of Theology auditorium. It was well attended, for by this time, there was substantial opposition from the greater community. However, the people who wanted to pass the LLD were vocal, and since most were in the position of authority, they would put down any and all dissenters. They would demonize all who spoke in opposition.

I recall that at that last big meeting, I spoke to the audience, and having been put down at the previous meeting of the committee, I had my thoughts organized. I reviewed the process whereby we members of the "Citizens Committee" were "selected" by the members of the Council. Each and every one of us was discussed prior to selection, as to our probable position on the Assessment. I was known to Nick Presecan to be opposed, and so was Gerry Juergens, though I do not know which councilmember selected him. Another member, unnamed, was on the fence, and kept looking for which side was going to win. Another member did business in Claremont, and at first was strongly opposed, but near the end, suddenly decided to support. A couple of members were in real estate, or had business in Claremont, and could look forward to improvements relative to their interests. They had been "selected" for their support.

Only an idiot would say that these people were randomly found... There was a plan to succeed. The Council had selected people who would support the issue. One member of the Citizens Committee immediately stood up and shouted, "Nobody selected me!" in a loud voice and then went into a rage about my comments about selection. In his thick accent, it was apparent that he didn't catch why he was asked to participate. He went on for a couple of minutes shouting, (and no gavel?)

Later that evening, a member Nick Q. (not Presecan) called me at home and swore at me. calling me names, so I hung up. Hope he felt better.

Mr Smith, who ran the meetings of the committee, never varied from his position in favor. Probably that's why he was asked to be chairman. Hope he feels better too.

David Wishart

Ringing Endorsements

The response to yesterday's Daily Bulletin article has been great. Foothill Cities, which has been the focus of much attention since the Pomona City Attorney threatened them with a defamation suit, had some good coverage.

And a Sierra Madre blogger at Sierra Madre: A View from the Canyon also chipped in with some words of support in an email.

San Gabriel Valley Tribune City Editor Edward Barrera at Inside SoCal: Editor's Corner also noted the Bulletin piece and had some brief commentary on this issue (see his post "You have got to be kidding?").

As we pointed out yesterday, former Claremont Mayor Diann Ring in the Bulletin article accused us of having "malicious intent" and said "some of it is downright lies." However, we've had no response from Ms. Ring to our request that she provide us with a list of the lies she alluded to.

Like responsible bloggers everywhere, we take pains to correct any wrong information we publish (see the "Corrections" link under our index), and we also try to document with links to newspaper articles, official City of Claremont documents, videos, radio news, and other sources wherever possible.

For too long, Ms. Ring and the Claremont 400 have enjoyed the luxury of not having to document their statements and have been free for years to spread untruths through gossip and whispering campaigns. We're simply changing that equation, and that seems to be what irks them the most. They have effectively controlled information and have meted it out in dribs and drabs without examining what are often the most important points--those things that contradict their worldview.

As we've commented in the past, we believe the problems and crises our fair city has faced in the past have emerged from the social structure the Ms. Ring, et. al., have erected--one that ignores and punishes dissent, one in which errors are compounded by the constant, stubborn refusal to look hard and honestly at their own shortcomings.

We've simply decided, "Enough, already!" We just found an alternate way to collect and disseminate that other equally important information. We're just sending out little e-messages in bottles to the wider world in the hopes that people with unbiased views can weigh all of the information and decide for themselves.

Perhaps Ms. Ring's reaction is the best indicator of the truth of our arguments. Rather than address the substance of critical commentary, Ms. Ring seeks to quash speech she disagrees with and to say that only a few viewpoints ought to be tolerated. She and her friends can't be content to just ignore dissenters, they must silence them.

They and the persons they have supported for City Council, city commissions, city staff, and numerous social and service organizations in town speak constantly of "inclusiveness," but when push comes to shove, their words betray them. They seek exclusivity. Our way or the highway, they say.

To which we respond, it's our town too. It's a town we think can be better than it has been and one that can live up to words that up to now have been too often empty. Democracy can't be dominated by one voice. To live it must include all voices, even if it becomes at times discordant.

We seek a community for everyone, not just a few. If that means facing down SLAPP suits from the Diann Rings in town, then so be it. We're up to the challenge and embrace it.

No single quote from the Claremont 400 captures Diann Ring's attitude as well as the one from another former mayor, Al Leiga, who in 2000 in response to widespread protests over the shooting of 18-year-old African-American motorist Irvin Landrum by Claremont police, said, "although it is (their right) to protest, I wonder sometimes how valuable that right is."

Time will tell, Mr. Leiga.

FC Fights Back

The Foothill Cities blog has moved to www.thefcblog.com. As you can see, they've contacted their own attorney and have posted their response to the Pomona City Attorney Arnold Alvarez-Glasman's recent "cease and desist" letter to FC.

Frank Giradot in the San Gabriel Valley Tribune also reported on the matter today. Giradot interviewed a number of people, including Pomona officials, and a couple anonymous bloggers.

One of the ironies is that on the one hand, according to the article, "Pomona officials questioned the lofty aspirations of Foothill Cities and challenged the need for anonymity." On the other, City Attorney Alvarez-Glasman refused to say which Pomona official asked him to send the threatening letter in the first place citing "attorney-client privilege." Alvarez-Glasman wants it both ways - attack anonymity when your city is criticized and use it as a shield when it's convenient.

We've seen the same sorts of nonsense in Claremont. Nothing raises the ire of the Claremont 400 more than anonymity. Their Parks and Pasture Assessment District, a tax on Claremont property owners, failed 56% to 44% last year in part because of a largely anonymous campaign to defeat it. Rather than focus on discussing the reasons their measure was rejected, the Claremonters flailed about demanding the identities of the opponents.

When that didn't work, they just tried to erase it. Assessment District? Never happened.

The odd thing is, whether it's Pomona or Claremont, the people complaining about anonymity invariably do so to change the subject from one they are uncomfortable discussing. Moreover, they are often willing to use the power of a governmental agency to quash that discussion, even if their own arguments verge on the unconstitutional.

Typical of the Claremonsters' thinking, we recently received an email from one such person who asked why, if we didn't like some of things in town, don't we just move? To which we ask, why should we? Isn't it our town too?

_______________________

"Although it is (their right) to protest, I wonder

sometimes how valuable that right is."

- former Claremont City Councilmember Al Leiga

2000, in the aftermath the Irvin Landrum shooting

Fundraising Flops

The Foothill Cities blog pointed out an LA Daily News article that noted Republican Congressman David Dreier's fundraising has dried up since Congress changed hands last fall.

Dreier, a graduate of Claremont McKenna College and Claremont Graduate University, is about the only local political figure in recent to make it out of Claremont and onto a larger stage. Others like former Councilmembers Sandy Baldonado and Al Leiga have bellyflopped when trying to run for higher office. Guess that Claremonster influence doesn't extend very far outside the city borders.

As the Daily News article points out, Dreier still has a $2 million war chest, so he may not necessarily go quietly into that good night, as so many Democrats (and some Republicans) would like.

_______________________

Also in the news, Arcadia political consultant Brandon Powers won a Pollie award for his work on a campaign to defeat Diamond Bar's Measure L library bond last November. The Pollies are given by the American Association of Political Consultants.

We're not sure which is scarier, someone fighting a library bond (sorry fiscal conservatives) or an association of political consultants.

Incidentally, Powers is also credited with having worked on Assemblyman Anthony Adams (R-Hesperia) in his successful 2006 election campaign. Maybe Claremont City Councilman Sam Pedroza could step in and help some more with Adams' future campaigns.

Watery Vision

You may have caught our notices of charitable events going on around town and seen that a good many Claremont 400 people are members and leaders of these organizations--the League of Women Voters, the Claremont Community Foundation, Friends of the Library, the Rotary Club, the Kiwanis, the Claremont Educational Foundation, etc....

As we've pointed out in the past, these people and these organizations do many good works. The problem is when the prejudices of the 400's social networks collide with the challenges of managing a city and a school district where the constituents may have different ideas about how they'd like things run. The problems arise when the Claremonsters assume that they have every solution and are incapable of making a mistake.

Looking back at Claremont's proposed purchase of the water company ($100 million and counting), one of the complaints the city and Claremonters have is the fact that our current water provider, Golden State Water (GSW), has lumped Claremont's rates together with high desert towns like Apple Valley and Barstow, where GSW has to pay to install the water infrastructure for a rapidly growing area--a cost we in Claremont help underwrite. This combining of different towns into one rate schedule is called regionalization.

But if we examine the roots of regionalization, we see that Claremont, under then-City Manager Glenn Southard and a City Council wholly owned and controlled by Claremont 400ers like Diann Ring, Al Leiga, Paul Held, Suzan Smith, and Karen Rosenthal, contributed to the problem.

In 1998, Claremont was also in negotiations with the other agency members of the Six Basins Watermaster, which resulted in Claremont receiving 535 acre-feet in water rights annually. Claremont's water company at the time was Southern California Water Co. (SCWC), which later changed its name to Golden State Water after being bought out by American States Water.

On 5/26/98, the Claremont City Council received a staff report by Scott Miller (now working for the City of Beverly Hills), who at the time was the Assistant to the City Manager. Miller's report outlines a proposed water deal the city wanted to make with SCWC. The deal would lease Claremont's 535 acre-feet of water rights to SCWC (now Golden State Water) for 30 years. In exchange, the city would receive annual payments amounting to $123,000 based on 1998 rates. In addition, SCWC would give the the City of Claremont a 50% rate reduction, amounting to $177,000 in annual savings at that time.

Miller's report recommended making the deal because Claremont stood to benefit by $300,000 a year. What the report didn't mention was that Claremont also agreed not to oppose regionalization when SCWC applied for its next rate increases in 1999. The City of Claremont, in effect, signed off on regionalization and in return got a nice yearly water rights payment and now only pays half of what the citizenry has to pay for water.

Oh, and the city also benefited when the water company was allowed to raise its rates and instituted regionalization. You see, higher rates means higher utility tax revenue for Claremont. It was a win-win for the city, and a lose-lose for the citizens.

How did the debate go before the city council? See Item 17 of the Council Minutes. Here are some excerpts:

Councilmember Ring thought the proposal was historic and that many such agreements take twenty years to final[ize]. Mayor Smith agreed and thought it set a good tone for the future.

Moved by Ring, seconded by Leiga, and carried 4-0 to approve the agreement for execution by the mayor.
(Absent: Rosenthal).

Incidentally, the only person on record questioning the agreement was Jackie McHenry, who "asked how citizens would save money. It costs the city less, may cost citizens more." (Who's the one with vision?)

Like so many problems in Claremont, the city council and staff long ago sowed the seeds for water rate woes by going along with SCWC and by not mounting a coordinated effort to lobby the state Public Utility Commission to oppose regionalizing our water rates.

Ironically, at the same 5/26/98 meeting, the matter of the Claremont Wilderness Park came up (Item 14). Mayor Smith inquired about the fire and vegetation management plan. The city's failure to implement that plan fully became a central argument for the plaintiffs in the Palmer Canyon fire lawsuit (settled in March, 2007, for $17.5 million). Smith was assured by staff that fire safety in the park was under control. We know what happened in October, 2003, when the Grand Prix fire swept through the area.

All of this really argues against any notion of competence under Southard, Ring, Held, et. al. It really argues for the need to avoid at all costs going back to that sort of mismanagement and to hold those people accountable for the bad their incompetence has inflicted on our community. It's simply folly to fail to see how all the good the Claremont 400 has accomplished is counterbalanced by a large body of incredibly boneheaded decisions for which they refuse to accept responsibility.

When you turn on your tap, when you pay your water bill, or if your house burned down in 2003, think of Diann Ring; in fact, call her up and thank her personally for her "vision."

Chickens Coming Home to Roost

I see your hair is burnin'
Hills are filled with fire.

--Jim Morrison, from L.A. Woman

Everyone in Claremont should be clear on the fact that the $17.5 million settlement for the foreseeable destruction by fire of the Palmer Canyon community puts the blame squarely on the doorstep of the City of Claremont. This is yet another example of the wisdom and skill of the Claremont 400 in running this community over the years. If one wishes to name names, one might name Glenn Southard (now with Indio), Sharon Z. Wood (now with Newport Beach), Betty Sheldon (now retired), and Mark Hodnick (now with Indio).

It would be too tedious to name all of the council members who failed in their planning and oversight duties over the past decade, but former City Councilmembers Diann Ring, Judy Wright, Paul Held, Al Leiga, Sue Smith, and Karen Rosenthal - all of them mayors - come immediately to mind. It's really all part of the game plan: make any promise and proceed to ignore it.

The fundamental fact in this matter is that the City failed in its ministerial duty to adhere to the vegetation management plan adopted when it took over the Wilderness Park property. The City promised in its process to do certain things to mitigate the fire hazard. It failed to do these things, always citing cost, manpower, or some other externality.

What a record! The City has owned the Wilderness Park for ten years and already it has cost an unbudgeted extra $1.7 million per year.

Of course, those in power are already clucking at their cleverness in offloading the lion's share of this expense onto the JPIA. Maybe the JPIA will figure out that the City of Claremont is not such a good risk. (An added advantage is that the JPIA involvement allows council members to say the City didn't really do anything wrong, this was merely a tactical decision recommend to us by our experts.)

The Insider isn't yet privy to any additional terms of the settlement. Our guess is that the City will try to seal most everything associated with this. It's surprising that the amount is public. The Insider would've expected something like this headline: "City settles for undisclosed amount; admits no wrongdoing; JPIA mum; Plaintiffs sworn to secrecy as condition of settlement."

We would love to see the transcripts of some of the depositions. We hear that Southard's and Hodnick's are especially juicy.

We doubt, though, that there is any truth to the rumor that Mark Hodnick channeled Jim Morrison in his deposition, paraphrasing the sequel to the verse above when answering a question about cutting back the chaparral before it burned,

If they say I never trimmed you,
You know they are all liars.