The Fix Is In

Fast Track for Tony Ramos.
Eyewash and Window Dressing for the Public.
Another BK in Tony Ramos' Past...

By now it's common knowledge that the plan hatched last Monday (Nov 21) by at least 3 members of the city council is to "fast track" the appointment of Assistant City Manager Tony Ramos to the soon-vacant position of City Manager. A "Done Deal" the Courier calls it.

Why is this man smiling? Courier Photo.

Here's what passes for public participation and transparency in Claremont:

November 21: Closed session council meeting to discuss "vacancy"in CM position. Parker and Ramos orchestrate Amen-Chorus of reliable business-types touting Tony Ramos for CM in brief public comment prior to meeting. Those not in the know wondered, "Gee, here we just had a vacancy announced and already we are discussing a specific candidate. That's weird." "Surely this is just a process meeting of some sort."

November 22: Jeff Parker announces The Plan (during city manager's report at regularly scheduled Tuesday meeting):

Over Thanksgiving Holiday: Sam Pedroza and Larry Schroeder are to negotiate a contract with the sole and only candidate for the position: Tony Ramos.

November 28: Closed session council meeting scheduled to review and approve contract negotiated with Tony Ramos

November 29: Draft contract--already approved in closed session by city council--made available for public review with agenda for--

November 30: Special open meeting to publicly approve contract with Tony Ramos. Coronation to follow immediately.

Mayor Pro Tem Larry Schroeder has been known to remark, in the frustratingly interminable Claremont processes that unerringly ensue when dealing with problems of regular citizens that, "Heh, heh, Claremont is not 'slow', it's 'deliberate' Heh, heh." Oh, he just loves that line. Well, deliberation has nothing to do with this procedure.

From what we hear, probably all five council members pre-judged Ramos based on their personal assessment that he is a good guy and a go-fer for Jeff Parker of the first magnitude, and decided that all such extraneous process matters such as a search, candidates, vetting, background check, public participation, etc., could be dispensed with. Sam Pedroza seems to be the head cheerleader for this idea if you read the black letter of the Courier and Bulletin. And then they decided to negotiate with him from the enviable position of strength [sarcasm alert for you Democratic-club types] that he's their sole candidate.

Parker--the man behind the curtain--foresaw the problems that Ramos' BK would pose and helpfully hypnotized the council members that they were prohibited from considering it. Make no mistake; Parker has been working this one hard.

We have always thought that this is less about the fact of personal bankruptcy on Ramos' part, and more about the light that the bankruptcy shines on his judgment. What do we have on that score?

According to today's Daily Bulletin, Ramos' bankruptcy petition in March 2011 was dismissed (that is, he was given no relief from his creditors) because he failed to make certain post petition payments. See the article, here (but it may go behind a paywall soon). We are unclear whether this conclusion is the result of reporting by Wes Woods II, or simply an interpretation of the BK documents posted here or available after registration on www.pacer.gov. But the fact remains that it was dismissed and it appears that Ramos took the mere filing of the BK as a get-out-of-jail-free card with respect to those mortgage payments. His probable thought process: "If I'm going to go bankrupt anyways, it might as well be for a large amount as a small amount."

The Courier--in an excellent pair of articles last Wednesday--actually interviewed someone in the office of the BK Trustee in Orange County. It is clear from the Courier article that we mis-interpreted the wet-stamp on the court order posted last week.


From the above document (click to enlarge, and see in the box, middle of page, right), it appears that Ramos' BK was approved on July 21, 2011, and he actually was scheduled to pay $2125 on Aug 9, Sep 9, and Oct 9. Thus, by the time he had missed THREE monthly payments, on October 12, the Trustee threw in the towel and filed for a dismissal of the current BK. Said motion was later withdrawn, where it stands as this is written.

The Courier notes in it's article that last week, four months after the final court action on Tony Ramos' BK, he was behind more than half the amount due. He had paid $3592 of the $8500 now due the BK trustee, with the balance due by November 30.

We will post the Courier page here until the Courier objects. You should go out and buy the paper, or better yet subscribe to it. If the page is pulled, you should look in the Courier archives on its website. Look for the November 23, 2011 issue. Click image, right, to enlarge.

Pattern and Practice:
Not His First Rodeo

One of the advantages of crowd-sourcing is that there are a lot of minds working on the problem. We got a tip that the current matter is not Tony Ramos' first recourse to bankruptcy. Sure enough, in May of 1986, there was a Tony Ramos in West Covina with the same last four digits of our Tony's SSAN who was discharged under Chapter 7. We are reticent to get cross-wise with the bankruptcy court, so we will redact the SSANs and addresses. However, follow our instructions at the bottom of the prior post, search the LA BK court records for "Ramos", scan the list for "Anthony" and pull up the one-page record. Note the last four of the SSAN there match the last four of the SSAN when you search for the current case in the Central District BK court. That's our Tony.


One curious feature of this 1986 case is that Tony's attorney was Victor Tessier. Who is Victor Tessier? He was at the time a Pomona attorney doing quite well, thank you, and buying up troubled properties. His sons Jerry and Ed are the owners/operators of the Claremont Packing House and Lessees of the Padua Hills Theatre. Both venues are heavily entwined with City of Claremont finances and business perks. Jerry and Ed are involved, through family partnerships, corporations, or interlocking directorships, with the Hip Kitty, for example, which received--surprise--a Community Development Block Grant from the City of Claremont last year. And Tony--this will shock you--is the go-to guy for City economic development.

It's just like one big happy family. None dare call it cronyism. But the whole process involving Tony Ramos carries the odor of cronyism over due process and best practice.

It's our considered opinion that Ramos' is eminently unqualified to manage any city. This has nothing to do with the bankruptcies per se. But the insight the record gives to his breathtaking lack of judgment, as evidenced by his continually getting into the financial quicksand and more notably by his very recent, contemporaneous, and relevant actions in not strictly following the orders of the court--these traits make us think that Tony Ramos is a time-bomb waiting to explode.

We are watching very carefully how our councilmembers carry themselves on this one.

Saturday Meeting Cancelled

Saturday's City Council workshop has been cancelled, according to the City's website. The cancellation was due to the death of Claremont Mayor Sam Pedroza's father:

Saturday Council Workshop Cancelled (Nov 17, 2011)

The City Council Workshop scheduled for Saturday, November 19 has been cancelled due to the death of Mayor Sam Pedroza's father. The City Council and City Manager have rescheduled the workshop for Saturday, December 3 at 9am to allow Mayor Pedroza to be with his family during this time. Our condolances to the Pedroza family.

We're sorry to hear the news as well, particularly for Mayor Pedroza, who's had a tough year, with the death of his father coming on the heels of a very serious biking accident.

Their Fair Share - UPDATED*

 

Last Tuesday, the Claremont City Council voted 3-2 to impose a new, one-year contract on the Claremont Police Officers Association and the Claremont Police Management Association.  The vote came after the City was unable to reach any agreements with the two police organizations in recent contract negotiations.
 
The CPOA, which represents Claremont's rank-and-file public safety workers, was extremely vocal in the days leading up to last week's vote.  As we previously noted, the CPOA's attorney, Dieter Dammeier, deployed his political action committeee, COPFIRE, to issue a threat to Claremont City Councilman Corey Calaycay, warning him that they would target him in future elections if he didn't vote the CPOA's way.

You can review the video of the council meeting here.  The Daily Bulletin's Wes Woods II also had a write up of the meeting.

The City had been asking for the police to start paying their own retirement contributions with a three-year, phased-in system.  The City also offered a 1.5% cost of living adjustment.  The police associations didn't want to accept the City's terms unless they got a 3% COLA, twice what the City was offering.  The council then proposed imposing the new contract with its requirement that the police start paying two-thirds of their 9% salary contribution to their CalPERS retirement accounts.  (Currently, the City is picking up the entire 9%.)

Of the many arguments made by the CPOA at last Tuesday's council meeting, the one that really caught our interest went like this:  If you don't pay us what we want, your community's safety will suffer.  Underlying this sentiment is the idea that Claremont would lose good police officers to surrounding communities that are willing to pay their police higher salaries and better benefits.  The CPOA's justification for police deserving better compensation than other municipal employees is that police have a more dangerous job.  They put their lives on the line every night.

To this line of thinking, we say our police are already paid higher salaries commensurate with their greater responsibilities.   While we appreciate their good work, we also think they are already adequately compensated.  Further, the danger they place themselves in is relative.  The CPD and their negotiator Dieter Dammeier make it sound as if they're patrolling the streets of Kabul every night.   Let's face it, in terms of threat levels, Claremont is pretty light duty.   The Claremont Courier's Saturday Police Blotter is invariably filled with stories about domestic disputes and drunk-and-disorderly arrests, not gang shootouts.

Let's be honest, folks, Watts we ain't.

The CPOA claims its members would leave for other Dammeier cities, like La Verne or Azusa, because the compensation is better there.  We thought about this and then realized that in his remarks to the City Council, Dieter Dammeier let slip a factor we hadn't thought about before.  Dammeier told the council that he represents all of the police associations within 20 miles of Claremont.  He then said that the contract the council was considering would make it difficult for Claremont to compete for qualified police officer applicants.   This struck us as an admission by Dammeier that he controls what amounts to a labor cartel.  He gets to set prices in the form of salaries and benefits, and there really is no competition as long as Dammeier and his clients get their way.

What Dammeier really fears is a city such as a Claremont going against the grain and breaking Dammeier's hold on the local public safety labor market. That monopoly, though, really could use some busting.   In his remarks to the Claremont City Council last week, Dammeier mentioned Pomona's police, another department Dammeier represents.  The Bulletin covered Pomona's budget problems in an article yesterday, noting that the single biggest annual expense was personnel costs, of which the Pomona PD accounted for the lion's share:

When it comes to expenditures by category the largest was personnel which took up 48 percent of the general fund, followed by the city's fire contract which took up another 28 percent.

If the expenses are broken up by department the highest cost is the Police Department which had about $38 million in expenses and fire costs totaled about $24 million.

It's the sort of financial problems Pomona is contending with that Claremont seeks to avoid.  You'd like to think that CPD officers would want to help with that effort, but getting people to give up something to which they think they're entitled, like having the City pay the employees' share of their retirement contributions, is never easy.  

The Bulletin, by the way, also had an editorial last week that said that the sort of strong-arm tactics Dammeier has used in Claremont are wrong and that Claremont is correct in seeking to get the police employees to fund their own retirements.  The Bulletin pointed out that by all rights, these payments are something our public safety workers should have been making in the first place:

It's called the "employee contribution" for a reason - it's the part each employee is supposed to contribute toward his or her own pension. But back in headier economic days, most government bodies in California started paying not only the employer's contribution but the employee's as well. In some cases it was a matter of courting union political support, in some it came in lieu of a raise or a bigger raise.

Trouble is, the economy has tanked and tax revenues along with it. Cities are finding their pension contributions unsustainable, diverting money that might have gone to employee salaries and services for residents. Hence, prudent city councils are looking for employees to kick in the employee's contribution once again. It doesn't reduce pensions in any way, it just means employees contribute to their own eventual retirement while they're working in good jobs and can afford it.

* * * * *

That 3-2 council vote on the police contract was a peculiar one.  The two fiscal conservatives, Corey Calaycay and Opanyi Nasiali, voted against imposing the contract on the public safety employees, which on the face of it would seem to be a vote in support of Dammeier and the CPOA. 

The other three council members, Mayor Sam Pedroza, Mayor Pro Tem Larry Schroeder, and Joe Lyons, are all left-leaning and are generally supporters of public employee unions but all voted in favor of the imposition of the contract. 

We suppose this could be seen as a validation of Dammeier's intimidation tactic, but Calaycay and Nasiali both said they couldn't support the contract because it included that 1.5% COLA, something they were against. 

*UPDATED, 11/1/11, 7:20PM:  As the Claremont Courier's Beth Hartnett reports in today's paper, Calaycay's and Nasiali's main objection to the one-year police contract was that they felt the 9% CalPERS contribution should have been instituted all at once, rather than phased in.   

Additionally, Hartnett notes that the one of the things the CPD officers object to is having the 6% contribution instituted immediately as opposed to having the 9% phased in over three years, as was done with the City's other employee associations. (At 8%, the City's non-public safety employees' CalPERS contribution is slightly less than the police.)

The City's response is that because of timing of the imposed contract, splitting the 6% into two 3% increments would have meant that the next 3% increase would have been in nine months when the next fiscal year begins in July, 2012.  Hartnett reports that the City's negotiator, Richard Kreisler, argued that they accelerated the public safety employees' CalPERS phase-in because of the uncertainty the City faces with the CPD employee associations.  

* * * * *

Incidentally, we received an email from another reader who got one of those robocalls from the Claremont Police Officers Association made prior to last Tuesday night's council vote.  Our reader questioned whether or not the CPOA used CPD call data to get phone numbers for their robocalls:

DATE: Wednesday, October 26, 2011 4:47 PM

TO: Claremont Buzz

SUBJECT: Claremont Police Officers Association robocalls

Hello all,

Like another of your readers, I also got a robocall from the Claremont Police Officers Association. It was a voicemail message left on my cell phone on Monday, two days ago, urging me to show up at Tuesday's city council meeting to support the police department against further budget cuts.

Here's the odd thing: few people have my cell phone number. And it has a 541 area code. So I'm wondering how did the Claremont Police Officers Association get my number?

Could it be because on 14 October 2011, I used my cell phone to call the police department (to report a coyote citing)? And if so, who at the police department is passing on incoming telephone numbers to the Claremont Police Officers Association. And -- if that is what happened -- was it legal?

Best,

x

Claremont CA

Claremont No-Fly Zone Sunday

In a secret U.N. Security Council session on Saturday, a unanimous vote authorized the establishment of a "NO FLY" zone over Claremont to protect the rag-tag forces of Opanyi Nasiali against the superior firepower of the Lyons-Pedroza axis. Although it was expected that Russia and China would abstain as they did in the Libya matter a few weeks ago, they voted enthusiastically in the affirmative. In fact, they wanted to vote "Aye" twice.

Yesterday, Sunday, the first air recon was provided by two military jets, shown over Claremont above. They made four circuits of the community at low altitude (you may have heard them; they sounded like a nearby atomic bomb explosion). According to reports, large tethered gas-bags over the headquarters of Ground Commandant Gerecke were deflated and rendered harmless.

Our spotter can't tell a Jenny from an SR-71, but she thought they might be U.S. Navy F-18 Hornets. She reports the overflying aircraft did appear to have tailhooks which got her all in a lather.

The Mayor's Speech

We were inclined to dismiss the parallels as a little "out there" but then we realized what is in store for us with the heretofore tongue-tied Sam Pedroza very likely tonight ascending to the throne of the Claremont Mayoralty: Samuel the First, by the Grace of God, of the United Cities of South Claremont and Claremont and His other Realms and Territories Mayor, Head of the Redevelopment Agency, Defender of the Four Hundred.

We found ourselves wondering if Mayor Sam has been taking diction lessons, similar to George VI in the current movie, The King's Speech. We've seen his Majesty speak "off the cuff" from prepared text, and even that isn't pretty. If he ascends to the throne, he will have the able help of Opanyi Nasiali and Joseph Lyons. As we say, this all seemed far-fetched until we caught a glimpse, and a picture, of Sam, Opanyi, and Joe preparing for the installation ceremony tonight:

Nasiali, Pedroza, and Lyons before tonight's council meeting.
Click to Enlarge

Certainly council members have the privilege (pardon us, priviledge) of making their marks on City Hall, but it seems a little early for His Grace, Archbishop Joseph, to already install golden chalices, ornaments, and frou-frous in the City Council office.

One of our readers has recently made the connection between the unctuous and oleaginous Joe Lyons, in not only manner but also in physical appearance, and the Archbishop of Canterbury in the movie:

Councilperson-Elect Joe Lyons
From: xxxxx
To: claremongbuzz@yahoo.com
Dear Claremont Buzz:

Just saw The King's Speech at the Claremont Laemmle theatres.

Has anyone else noted the uncanny resemblance --both physical and temperment-- between our councilperson-elect Joe Lyons and the alternately fawning and condescending Archbishop of Canterbury played by Derek Jacobi? The likeness was too perfect to be coincidence. Did Jacobi study Lyons or did Lyons study Jacobi?

Perhaps we should begin referring to the councilperson-elect as "His Grace, the Archbishop of Claremont." Do you think his satire-impaired lackeys will appreciate the irony?

Regards,
Anonymous

Special Council Meeting Thursday Night

The three newly elected Claremont City Council members, incumbent Sam Pedroza and newcomers Joe Lyons and Opanyi Nasiali, will be sworn in Thursday at a special council meeting in the council chambers at 225 W. Second St. in the Claremont Village.

After all the ceremonies are complete, the council will reorganize and chose a new mayor and mayor pro tem. We expect those two positions to go to Sam Pedroza and Larry Schroeder, respectively. The council's regular meeting is scheduled for next Tuesday, March 22.

If you can't make tonight's meeting in person, you can watch it streamed live here. The video is also archived for later viewing.

Just Between You and Me...

As we Insiders know all too well, at every level government the people we elect and the bureaucrats they appoint or hire love to keep things secret and often will do anything to limit public access to documents. Federal, state or local, they will seek to keep information hidden - much of it rightfully public information.

Ironically, United States vs. Reynolds, the 1953 US Supreme Court case that recognized the State Secrets Privilege, was based on a false secrecy claim used by lawyers for the federal government who were defending a lawsuit brought by the widows of three RCA engineers killed on a Air Force B-29 that crashed in Waycross, Georgia. The federal attorneys sought to block the release of the accident report for the B-29 claiming that its release would endanger national security.

By 2000, the accident report had made its way to the Internet, where it was found by Judy Loether, the daughter of one of the RCA engineers. The report turned out to contain no state secrets, but it did contain information about the particular B-29 that crashed, as well as the plane's maintenance record. That information supported the widows' complaints and would have been a key to any resulting civil trial.

(You can learn a little more about this by listening to Act II of an episode of This American Life from June, 2009, concerning the origins of institutions - check around the 27:30 mark).

If the federal government is willing to falsely invoke the States Secrets Privilege, imagine what happens at the local level, which is often subject to much less public scrutiny. As scandals in Bell, Upland, San Bernardino County, or even at the CalPERS governing board (see the front page of today's LA Times) have shown, if the public isn't privy to information, elected and appointed officials can find opportunities for malfeasance of all sorts.

A reader turned us on to an opinion piece in last Sunday's Daily Bulletin by open government activist Richard McKee (photo, left). McKee wrote that voters have a duty to keep watch on their local officials, and reporters have an obligation to find the information the public needs to make informed decisions. He also noted that the problem of staying apprised of what's going on in government has become exponentially more difficult thanks to the proliferation of government agencies:

The sad news is that this all happens because "we the people" don't pay any attention; a willful ignorance amply facilitated by news media that fail to keep us informed. The usual practice is for the electorate to vote for those telling us what we want to hear, whether it's for or against an incoming Walmart, funding for parks, promoting public transportation, refurbishing schools or some other hot topic; then we return to ignoring local government as soon as we leave the polling place.

And this problem has been made more difficult by local government's eagerness to create more and more public agencies. What do you know of your local sanitation district, or the community service, recreation, vector control, flood, water, airport, harbor, irrigation, public transportation, hospital, waste management, utilities or cemetery districts? How about your council of governments, air quality management or local agency formation commission?

Every one of these public boards and commissions employs staff and sets their compensation. But it's not only the salaries and obvious benefits, it's the pensions - and boy, are they something!

McKee is absolutely right in pointing out the multiple layers of local government that are technically subject to open government laws, but which in practice conduct their daily operations without much public input at all. The Claremont Unified School District, for example, is free to routinely ignore requests for public documents about such things as the district's finances, and no one notices or cares until the district comes, hat in hand, asking the voters to approve another overpriced bond.

Or who, really, keeps an eye on the San Gabriel and Los Angeles Rivers and Mountains Conservancy, which has dole out tens of millions of dollars with very little real oversight? To take the RMC example, a 2009 state audit found a number of problems with the RMC's handling of the public funds:

The Conservancy Has Not Exercised Adequate Fiduciary Oversight of Bond Funds

The audit identified a significant number of recurring audit findings from 2006 related to the Conservancy and its joint powers entity, the Watershed Conservation Authority (Authority). We also found instances of questionable practices and expenditures at the Authority. Collectively,these issues demonstrate the Conservancy’s inadequate fiduciary oversight of bond funds....

The current audit determined the Authority commingled bond funds with general operating funds, and inappropriately used these funds for ineligible costs; and the Authority has not completed annual financial audits.

Yet, all the public sees are headlines about the RMC awarding cities like Claremont millions of dollars to build projects like Padua Park or to buy open space or to fund studies of the pet water projects of the City's dilettantes. Because we don't look beyond the headlines, agencies like the RMC operate with impunity and can easily become nothing more slush funds to help promote the political prospects of its friends.

Incredibly, the RMC received a similar audit in 2006 and apparently ignored a number of findings. The RMC was able to do so because very few people really care. If we repeat the RMC's conduct across the myriad of state and local agencies Richard McKee alluded to, it's easy to see how we Californians ended up in our present fiscal mess.

Ultimately, it's up to you, Mr. and Ms. Voter, to own the problems your inattentiveness beget.

Quick Hits

Click to Enlarge
There's more information on that counter demonstration set for next Saturday in response to the planned National Socialist Movement's rally and march on Foothill Blvd. and an as-yet unnamed cross street. The anti-Nazis are being organized by a group calling itself Claremont Peace.

The Claremont Peace rally will take place in Memorial Park. Click here to read more.

Claremont Peace has a Facebook page set up if you're interested in getting more information. If everyone who has signed up to attend actually shows up, the NSMers are going to be greatly outnumbered.

The NSM rally is supposed to run from noon to 1pm. The anti-rally starts at 10am and goes until 6pm.

* * * * *

Tony Krickl has the official vote count from last week's municipal election. Nothing really changed. And one of our readers wrote in to comment on the low voter turnout (about 25%):

Date: Sat, March 12, 2011 9:45:52 AM
Subject: election results
From:
To: claremontbuzz@yahoo.com

The voters who bothered to vote on the 8th (only 5,483 out of 21,731 eligible voters) have made the decision for the rest of Claremont. One wonders what the other 16,248 thought about the election and what kept them from voting. Perhaps it was because they had to choose from a less than stellar field of candidates. Perhaps the negative campaigning by the supporters of Pedroza, Haulman and Lyons kept them away. Or perhaps, like more than a few people I have talked to over the years, they believe that it does not matter who is on the City Council as they all drink the Kool-Aid eventually and only care about themselves and getting re-elected.

Whatever the reason, 25% of the voters in Claremont chose who will govern us for the next 4 years. We can thank the other 75% for giving us Dumb (Pedroza) and Dumber (Lyons). Yet another time that so many have done so little for their city.

Town Calendar

Now that the city election is over, the Claremont 400 have slunk back to their burrows to lick their wounds and heal up until their next opportunity to make fools of themselves. In the meantime, the rest of us can settle back into our regular lives and enjoy some of the finer things in town:


BILL GATES IS IN THE HOUSE

If your PC crashed recently, taking with it that bloviating blog post you slaved away at all night, you can voice your frustrations directly to the man whose company gave us MS-DOS and Windows. Bill Gates comes to the campuses of Harvey Mudd College and Pomona College today.

Gates will meet with groups of students during the day and will speak at Bridges Auditorium at 5pm. The Pomona College website has all the details:

In "A Conversation with Bill Gates," he will discuss a wide range of subjects with Maria Klawe, president of Harvey Mudd College, and then take questions from students. This event is co-sponsored by the Harvey Mudd College Annenberg Speakers Series and the Pomona College Distinguished Speakers Series.

Tickets for Pomona College students, faculty and staff (one ticket per ID) are now sold out from Bridges Box Office, which is open 10 a.m. to 4 p.m. Limited general admission tickets may be available to the general public, from the Bridges Auditorium Box Office, as of March 1. There is no cost to attend the event, which will also be streamed live on Pomona’s web.

You can watch the webcast here.


FRIDAY FILMS

Vince Turner over at Claremont Community College has invited the community over to his newest event, Friday Night Flicks in the Claremont Village Expansion:

Date: Wed, March 9, 2011 11:32:49 AM
Subject: Friday Night Flicks
From: Vincent Turner

Friday Night! 7 pm!

Flicks!

We're starting Friday night flicks at The Center!

We are beginning with four interesting video lectures showing advancements in technology and how they will affect film making.

If you like watching cool stuff, this is for you. We'll have the chance to discuss these.

Come enjoy yourselves!

101 North Indian Hill Blvd
Building C2 Suite 203

We don't hand out degrees! Because the learning never stops!

--
Vince Turner
(909) 477-1747

FAREWELLS AND NEW BEGINNINGS

Claremont Mayor Linda Elderkin (photo, right) chose to not run for reelection this year, and the City will bid her a fond farewell Thursday, March 17.

That evening, at 6:30pm in the City Council chambers at 225 W. Second St., Elderkin will step down and the three winning candidates from Tuesday's election - Sam Pedroza, Opanyi Nasiali, and Joseph Lyons - will be sworn in. Expect Pedroza to be named mayor and council member Larry Schroeder to be named mayor pro tem.

Come on out on the 17th and see how you like your new council.


AN EARLY 4TH OF JULY

Plenty of fireworks will be on display Saturday, March 19, when the National Socialist Movement (yes, those guys) arrive in Claremont's Memorial Park for a rally and march of some sort. A counter demonstration is also planned.

Here's what the City's website says:

City Response to March 19 Demonstrations

The City of Claremont is aware of the rally and march being planned by the National Socialist Movement and counter rally at Memorial Park scheduled for March 19, 2011. The Claremont Police Department has prepared a tactical plan and is in contact with the organizers. The Claremont Police Department has scheduled additional officers for the day and will be assisted by neighboring police agencies if necessary.

The City of Claremont is respectful of every organization's right to demonstrate and encourages the peaceful expression of differing viewpoints.

The City has a Committee on Human Relations to address and respond to citizen's concerns on issues of diversity. Citizens wishing to contact the Committee on Human Relations to may call (909) 399-5356.

The Results Are In

The unofficial results from Claremont's municipal election are in, and the winners are:

SAM PEDROZA - 24.3%, 3,336 votes
OPANYI NASIALI - 19.7%, 2,697
JOSEPH LYONS - 18%, 2,470

Robin Haulman ended up with 2,275 (16.6%) , or 195 votes behind Lyons. Jay Pocock had 1,430 votes (10.4%). You can see the vote totals here.

Haulman's loss was a bit surprising. She was the Claremont 400 candidate of choice, and the turnout was a pretty low 23.9%, which usually favors the 400. Haulman actually outpolled Lyons in most of the precincts' absentee ballot totals. But among yesterday's voters, she lost to Lyons, the 400's backup candidate. So perhaps the combination of missteps by Haulman and her campaign together with Bob Gerecke's dirty tricks changed voters' minds about Haulman by the end of the election.

Incidentally, a glance at today's Claremont Courier informs us that Lynn Savitzky and Cynthia Humes, two of the seven signers of that Bob Gerecke attack ad against Opanyi Nasiali, have disavowed any knowledge of the ad (image, left - click to enlarge).

Apparently, Gerecke and the Claremont Democratic Club, which was circulating the ad at the Claremont Farmers Market last Sunday, used Humes' and Savitsky's names without their permission. As always, Bob is a real class act.

No one's said anything about this, but Sam Pedroza, just as he did in 2007 with Preserve Claremont, enjoyed the benefit of the attack ad without having to take any responsibility for it. He had the full support of the people behind the ad. Gerecke and the Democratic Club endorsed Pedroza, walked precincts for him, and conducted phone banking in support of Sam.

And, just as he did in 2007, back when he had a little more solid backing from the 400, Pedroza ignored the clean campaigning pledge he and the other candidates signed. Another minor commentary on Sam and the worth of his word.

City Election News

COURIER ENDORSES PEDROZA, NASIALI, AND ?

Besides the story of Flyergate, last Saturday's Claremont Courier also carried to Courier's endorsements for the March 8 municipal election.

Like the Daily Bulletin, the Courier endorsed incumbent Sam Pedroza, who looked a little gaunt in his Courier photo, his weight loss apparently the by-product of a bicycling regime of one sort or another. As much as we hate to admit it, we really can't fault either paper for choosing Pedroza as one of its endorsees. We don't usually agree with him, but he gets the nod incumbents usually get absent any scandals or missteps in office.

The Courier also echoed the Bulletin in its endorsement of Opanyi Nasiali, who is running for the third time. The Courier cited Nasiali's volunteer work and his participation as a City commissioner and economic sustainability committee member. The Courier also pointed out that Nasiali worked both on the successful Johnson's Pasture Measure S bond campaign in 2006 and on the campaign against the $95 million Measure CL school bond.

While the first two picks were easy calls, the choice for the third and final seat was a tough one. Claremont 400 candidate Robin Haulman might have been the Courier's pick, but her campaign continually shot itself in the foot, with the final disgrace coming at the February 17 League of Women Voters candidate forum when Haulman's husband Alexander Sweida swiped a bunch of candidate Jay Pocock's fliers and threw them in the trash. So between her actions and her hubby's, Haulman's chances of that coveted Courier endorsement were nil.

Presuming the Courier didn't take Citizen Michael John Keenan, Joseph Armendarez, or Rex Jaime seriously, that left the Bulletin's third choice, Jay Pocock, and former Democratic State Senate candidate Joseph Lyons. The Courier went for Lyons, who because of his lack of past civic involvement has been something of a cipher. Lyons really is the a great Claremont 400 candidate, relying on them for their votes, especially from local retirement communities like Pilgrim Place, and apparently without any of his own opinions or experience in city issues to muck things up for the 400.

We'll see how the Courier and Bulletin endorsements hold up. The last three or four council elections the Courier has been the more accurate of the two newspapers, but a lot can happen between now and March 8. We await the Claremonsters' usual election eve surprise, either through a letter or ad in the Courier the Saturday before the election, or through a last minute mailer landing in the last few days of the campaign. The 400 usually tries to stir up some imagined scandal very late in the game - too late to be rebutted by their target.

As Flyergate, Pasturegate, Signgate, and Shillgate (say, they really are giving new meaning to the term "gated community") have shown in this election, the one thing we can count on is that the Claremonsters will do just about anything to win, and, much like Wile E. Coyote's schemes, their tricks often blow up in their faces.

* * * * *

Speaking of Flyergate, Courier reporter Tony Krickl has the Paul Harvey "Rest of the Story" on his Courier City Beat blog. LWV president Ellen Taylor doesn't come off much better than Haulman's husband does in Krickl's post:

Further defending his actions, Sweida said he was just following the League of Women Voter's policy on negative campaign material. He asked Ellen Taylor, president of Claremont's chapter of the League, if he could remove the fliers. Taylor told him to go ahead, even though she didn't inspect the material beforehand to see if it actually contained "negative" information.

This incident is troubling from many perspectives. With his actions, Sweida has certainly embarrassed his wife and may have cost her the election. Dirty tactics like this just don't sit well with voters.

Taylor defended her decision by saying the League is anti-biased in local elections. However by approving this behavior, she showed a clear bias against Pocock. And that reflects poorly on the entire organization.

And what do other League officials think about what happened?

"It would be better to actually look at the material before making a decision on what to do with it," said Jack Mills, Vice President of the League.

Krickl also quotes Mills as saying that he is unaware of any LWV policy against negative campaigning.

Pinocchio Haulman

Robin Haulman Claims "Vigorous" Support
for 2006 Measure S.
However, Did Not Vote
in Measure S Election;
Did Not Join Supporter List.
Statement Questioned

We received a mailer earlier this week from the Friends of the Bernard Biological Field Station. "Friends of what?", we hear you ask. It is true that the Friends have been a bit moribund in recent years. The last updates on their website seem to be from a couple of years ago--well, 2007 to be exact. We guess being a biological friend is a busy demanding time-consuming task.

It seems that what awakened the friendly Friends from stasis is the upcoming city election. Every Tom, Dick, and Harry organization in town sends a questionnaire to candidates, publicizes the candidate responses, and in some cases endorses a candidate or two. Except the Sierra Club. It reflexively endorses Sam Pedroza with no interviews, statements, muss or fuss.

You may see grave and serious candidate statements in the Claremont Heritage Newsletter. Four years ago the crisis du jour was Mining; how often have you heard about that recently? It was just enough of a hook to get Pedrozancrantz and Lindanstern elected--indifferent children of the earth, they. The leader of the mining group, we hear, after inflicting Sam and Linda on the town, sold his $3 million mansion and decamped to Laguna. We should all be so lucky.

But back to the Friends of the Bern. Bio. Fld. Sta. What caught our eye was the candidate statement by Robin Haulman. Now, we could spend a whole post just deconstructing this statement. But read it yourself. Click on the image to enlarge it.

click to enlarge

Really. When we read this to Mrs. Insider, she wondered aloud if it had been ghostwritten by Robert Burns, with the Golden Currant in full yellow bloom, the Sage luminescent, and the snowy white flowers aplenty.

Still, our pleasant pastoral reverie was snapped by a gloomy thought called up by the statement highlighted in the graphic above. We wondered, was there a White Lie in there? Did Robin Haulman really campaign vigorously for the bond measure to purchase Johnson's Pasture? We didn't think so. Couldn't remember her one way or the other. Given her, shall we say, "exotic" looks, how could we have possibly forgotten her?

So, we asked around. Nobody on the steering committee could remember her, and her name does not appear in any of the ads for Measure S. We even dug back into the Insider Archive to check. We reproduce below the ad that appeared in the Courier the week before the Measure S election in 2006. Click on it to enlarge.

click to enlarge

Three council candidates appear on the ad: Opanyi Nasiali, who got slammed by an uninformed dowager in a recent Courier who said he was against Johnson's Pasture; 180 degrees incorrect--Sam Pedroza, who made sure he was on the steering committee but didn't actually do much as we hear it, and Michael Keenan. Notable by their absence are current candidates Robin Haulman and Joe (my middle name is "Sustainability") Lyons. What's that all about? How can you say you campaigned "vigorously" for the measure and your name's not even on the list?

Now Claremont has a history of council candidates making statements that are fibs, tall tales, whoppers, misstatements, prevarications, lies, damned lies, etc., etc., usw., --and excuse us for being all judgmental, but those shadings of the truth seem to come from the Claremont 400 side. The most recent notable example being God's Gift to Claremont Bridget Healy who was caught two years ago lying about her involvement or non-involvement in the acquisition of the Wilderness Park. In that case, the unplanned and unforeseen existence of a deposition was her undoing.

Why do these people, such as Robin Haulman and Bridget Healy, have the urge to take credit for something they have nothing whatsoever to do with? Maybe Haulman, as Healy before her, thought no one would notice. But as we've said before, character is something you have when no one is looking. And statements like this show an astounding lack of character.

If you want to know the truth, Robin Haulman didn't even vote in the November 7, 2006 election where Johnson's Pasture Measure S was decided. We had to go to our political sources in County government to figure that out, and it's a little hard to show in a compact graphic, but it is a fact. You could look it up. Moreover, her voting record in City elections is only recent and is very spotty in school board elections over the past decade. She appears to have first registered to vote in Claremont in February 2003.

Her participation in statewide elections is equally checkered. She voted in the 2004 gubernatorial recall, and the primary and general in 2004, but took a pass on the two primaries in 2008 and the special ballot measure election in May 2009--as well as having passed on the November 2006 general election. She voted absentee in the June 2006 primary election, just before the property owner ballot for the ill-starred "Parks and Pasture" assessment district. Which made us wonder, did she cast a property owner ballot in that election? Claremont election wonks will remember that four years ago vanity candidate Mike Maglio claimed to have voted for the assessment district until confronted with a copy of his ballot indicating a NO vote. [note: Nothing illegal here. Assessment District property owner ballots are not elections under State law; they are not secret; the filled-out and signed ballots are subject to public disclosure.]

Asking around elsewhere, we found out that she did not participate in the property owners ballot for the "Parks and Pasture" Assessment District. There was no ballot cast, YES or NO, for her home at the time in Claraboya. Now, you'd think that someone who purports to "firmly believe that we have narrow windows of opportunity to own our hillsides and open spaces" might also have AT LEAST VOTED in this campaign, and maybe even attached her name to the Parks and Pasture supporter list. Nope. Since she voted absentee just before the 45-day balloting period that ended July 25, 2006, maybe she was out of town, in Europe or some exotic locale, missing in action, for the assessment district.

click to enlarge

We are thinking Robin Haulman's Jiminy Cricket must be having a coronary--or whatever it is that crickets have. Here you have an ostensibly credible city council candidate conveniently misstating her involvement in an issue and measure that took most of 2006 in Claremont, where the method of financing divided the town and took months and two tries to get right. Maybe she ought to get out her granny glasses--or as her campaign literature would state it, her "glamma" glasses) and read a little more carefully from her briefing book or iPad. Or maybe she, like Mr. Dooley's Supreme Court, "follows th' election returns", and wants to be on the right side of the 70 percent plurality of Claremont voters who approved Measure S.

Sorry Robin, they did it without your help.

Haulman's New, More-Truthy Brochure

Yet Another Reader Writes

We're heard talk on the street that two of the three Claremont 400 slate candidates, Joseph Lyons and Robin Haulman (Sam Pedroza is the third), have been struggling of late.

Lyons, who at the Active Claremont candidate forum admitted that he hadn't attended any city council meetings until he decided to run for council, seems lost at times when it comes to understanding the details of the issues (pensions, cuts in services, and economic development, to name a few) that the City is wrestling with. Other than environmental sustainability, which he seems genuinely interested in, Lyons has been limited to mouthing positions laid out for him by his 400 handlers (i.e., Lyons' campaign treasurer J. Michael Fay).

Haulman, as we've noted, can't even be counted on to memorize talking points and has to recite them from a script.

Given these relatively weak candidates, the 400 have resorted to their traditional dirty campaign tactics. Word comes to us from one of the eight campaigns that the 400 have spread a lie about one of the candidates being a child molester. And the 400's false information has found its way into the Claremont Courier's letters to editor:

From the Claremont Courier, 2/16/11 -

No on Opanyi, Pocock

Dear Editor:

The purchase of Johnson’s Pasture was one of the best and smartest things ever accomplished by the city of Claremont. I am very glad to learn Opanyi [Nasiali] did not get his way on that issue. A good reason to vote against Opanyi for council. As I read the literature put out by Opanyi and [Jay] Pocock, it is clear they are against everything I value about our city. I will be voting against both of them.

Dawn Sharp
Claremont

We certainly hope the Dawn Sharp who penned this letter is not the same Dawn Sharp who taught history at Chaffey College, though her rewriting of Claremont history would be in keeping with the revisionist practices of Claremont 400. Note to the ironically named Sharp: Nasiali did get his way.

The information Sharp related about the Johnson's Pasture purchase is completely false. As we've remarked, Nasiali not was not only crucial to Claremont's securing Johnson's Pasture at a quarter of the cost of the assessment district the Claremont 400 had tried to force on us, but he helped build a community-wide consensus that resulted in the open space bond passing with 72% of the vote. Only in Claremont could an individual's positive contribution to the community be turned on its head.

Dawn Sharp's letter to the Courier prompted this response from one of our readers:

DATE: Wed, February 16, 2011 10:28:07 AM
SUBJECT: letter to the editor
TO: Claremont Buzz

Check out the letter to the editor in the Courier today (Wed. the 16th)from Dawn Sharp about Opanyi. I do not know if the lady was referring to the previous letter to the editor about how Opanyi was right about so many things and when referring to his being right about Johnson’s Pasture she interpreted it as his being AGAINST Johnson’s Pasture purchase. How stupid. Opanyi was instrumental in getting the bond passed and helped get the College President’s on board. Can we now expect a letter to the editor from the members of that committee like Lissa Petersen, Jill Benton or Suzanne Thompson correcting this misperception by Mrs. Sharp? It would be nice if they did, but I am not holding my breath. Let the games begin.

We're not waiting around for a correction forthcoming from Petersen, Benton or Thompson, either. They're all either captive or party to the "mean girls" psychology that's held us hostage for the last 30-plus years. Thus does peer pressure make cowards of us all.

Mailbag

We received this note in response to our post from a couple days ago regarding the Claremont Police Officers Association and their preparations for contract negotiations with the City (to be filed under "Prepping the Battlefield"):

DATE: Wed, February 16, 2011 1:26:41 PM
SUBJECT: "crime scenes"
TO: Claremont Buzz

Really smart post -- nice work connecting the dots, and a pleasure to see. I like Dieter Dammeier, and think highly of Claremont cops, and still thought you righteously nailed them to the wall on this one.

Yes, it's unfortunate that the CPD officers give residents the false choice of having to either support their contract demands or else fear for their collective safety. We don't doubt that our police work hard for their money, but let's face it, a Claremont officer doesn't face nearly the same daily challenges as, say, an officer working the LAPD's South Bureau. The CPOA needs to set aside its own selfish interests and start thinking about what sacrifices they can make rather than insisting that everyone else - their fellow non-safety employees, people who count on services provided by the City, and cash-strapped taxpayers - pay for the CPOA's every demand.

Driven by an Inland Empire unemployment rate of 13.9%, public sentiment is lurching away from support for the CPD officers refusal to pay their share of their CalPERS pension plans. Witness the Daily Bulletin's editorial on just this subject. The Bulletin noted that Claremont's Ad Hoc Committee on Economic Sustainability came to the conclusion that the status quo for the City's budget is no longer viable.

That committee report, which was released last week, recommended a 1.5% hike in the City's Utility Users Tax, from the present 5.5% to 7%. The report also called for all city employees, including police officers, to start picking up their share of the costs of their pensions. The Bulletin agreed that the employees need to pay their fair pension shares, but they disagreed with the committee's proposal to increase the utility tax:

We admire the committee's thoroughness, looking at all sorts of possible tax and fee hikes before settling on the utility users tax as the most feasible and effective. But we do not favor raising the tax in this economic climate, nor did the three council candidates we have endorsed - Sam Pedroza, Opanyi Nasiali and Jay Pocock. We doubt that voters would approve the hike.

Nasiali, one of nine members of the economic sustainability committee, was the only one to oppose any utility tax hike. He was one of two who wanted employees to pay their own share of pension costs as quickly as possible, rather than phasing the change in over four years as the majority favored. (The employee share for public safety employees is 9percent of salary, for other employees 8percent.)

Requiring employees to pay their share ASAP - or perhaps, to reduce the discomfort somewhat by requiring them to pay 4percent in 2012-13 and the full amount from the next year on - is a reasonable course of action. (Glendora has imposed such a change on its employees; Claremont sanitation workers have already agreed to pay their own full amount.)

Government agencies started picking up employees' share of pension obligations as well as paying their own employer share when times were good - but times are no longer good and, besides, such largesse never was sustainable in the long term. Better for employees to pay that share than for mounting pension costs to require more and more layoffs and reductions in service over the years.

There are two items worth noting here. First, according to the Bulletin, incumbent Sam Pedroza is opposed to a utility tax hike. So it seems unfair and hypocritical to us that Pedroza supporters, some of whom are working behind the scenes to elect a slate consisting of Pedroza, Robin Haulman, and Joseph Lyons, are lambasting Nasiali and Pocock for being similarly opposed to raising the utility tax. Second, the same Pedroza-Haulman-Lyons supporters are spreading false rumors that Nasiali wants take away employee pensions. As the Bulletin piece stated, Nasiali is simply advocating that employees pick up the eight- or nine-percent that they are supposed to be paying in the first place. And, by the way, the city would continue to pick up its share of the employee pension payments.

So any talk of a wholesale elimination of the pensions is a lie, and we urge readers to get the name of any campaign volunteer who makes such statements, along with the name of the candidate they're working for. Better yet, ask for them to commit such statements to paper or to a recording, and forward those to us for a future post.

With election day only a few weeks away, the gloves are coming off those Claremont 400 fists, and it's up to the rest of us to hold them accountable for their silly games.

Crime Scenes

BURGLARY SPREE

From reading the local papers one would think we in Claremont are in the midst of a crime wave. The February 12 edition of the Claremont Courier carried an article about a Claremont Police Department neighborhood meeting organized by resident Jim Keith. The Courier didn't identify Keith fully - he and his wife Sue are firmly ensconced in the ranks of the Claremont 400, a/k/a the Pod People, and Sue holds the 400's seat on the Citrus College Board of Trustees.

The article, by Courier reporter Tony Krickl, said that Keith organized the meeting in response to a burglary at the Keiths' home in March 2010. It turned out that three other homes on the same street had been burglarized that same day. The article went on to say that, "According to police, nearly 30 burglaries have been reported in southwest Claremont since August."

And the upsurge in crime hasn't been confined to South Claremont. The same Courier edition had a police blotter item reporting that 17 vehicles were burglarized in North Claremont in the evening and morning hours of February 6-7.

So what gives? How is it that at a time when crime is supposed to be down nationwide, Claremont has become perp central?


A HISTORY LESSON

We're beginning to think that at least a portion of this crime wave may be due to the confluence of the March city council election and the City's upcoming negotiations with the Claremont Police Officers Association (CPOA). It certainly wouldn't be the first time Claremont employees inserted themselves into an election.

Back in 2005, Preserve Claremont supporters carried on a two-pronged attack to try to prevent current council person Corey Calaycay from being election. The first goal was to go after council person Jackie McHenry, who had been elected two years earlier as a reform candidate. The second was to tie Calaycay to McHenry with the use of full-page ads in the Courier, public comment at council meetings, and letters to the editors of the local newspapers.

Then-City Manager Glenn Southard (photo, right) and some of his senior staff, including Southard's Assistant City Manager Bridget Healy, worked behind the scenes to feed information to the PCers, which they then used to publicly pressure McHenry, as well as Calaycay's campaign. In January, 2005, in the middle of the municipal election season, four of the City's employee unions submitted a joint, written complaint against McHenry, whom Southard had accused of harassing employees, thereby creating a hostile work environment. The employee complaint was, of course, run as an ad in the Courier.

It's important to note that all the details in the complaint were based on hearsay, and none were ever substantiated. Southard tried to have McHenry censured, but he backed off when it became clear that there was a chance of a real, independent investigation into the charges. Not coincidentally, two of the four employee unions that signed onto the joint complaint against McHenry happened to be in contract negotiations with Southard and the City.


TIMELY CRIME

So, given the community's fairly recent experience with city employees and election games, when we see some of the same PCers, including the now-retired Bridget Healy, stoking fears of a crime wave driven by staff reductions caused by budget constraints, we have to at least take a second look.

Healy's friend and supporter Barbara Musselman has been among those who've complained about current City Manager Jeff Parker's cuts, which she and former council member Sandy Baldonado claim were one of the driving reasons behind CPD Chief Paul Cooper's applying to Glendora for their top cop job.

A number of the same people and their present candidate of choice, Robin Haulman, have claimed that we've rolled back police staffing to 1984 levels. They neglect to tell us that crime has also rolled back, at least according to last year's CPD stats, and Part I crimes (violent crimes and property crimes) dropped 23% between 2008 and 2009. We'll have to wait until March to see what the 2010 crime numbers look like.

Healy, et. al., also don't like to tell us that, while police staffing has dropped to 1984 levels, the costs of safety employees' have soared, in part due to overly generous pension benefits (3% at 50) for which Healy and Baldonado are responsible.

All of this leaves City Manager Parker in an awkward negotiating position with regards to the CPOA's contract. Because of the state of the economy, as well as Sacramento threat to go after redevelopment agencies, the City has to watch every penny, and Parker will need to take a hard line with the police union. But, at the same time, he has people like Healy and Musselman undercutting him by trying to frighten residents with talk about the allegedly weakened state of Claremont's PD.

If the public pressure gets great enough and if Healy and Musselman get a majority on the council that they can control, then Parker will have to roll over for the police union.


ON ADVICE OF COUNSEL?

Claremont Police Officers Association counsel and former CPD officer Dieter Dammeier

And where, exactly, does the CPOA fit into all of these machinations?

More than one reader has pointed us to the website of the CPOA's counsel, Upland attorney and former CPD officer Dieter Dammeier, whose office is in Upland. Dammeier (photo, above) has apparently carved out a niche as a public safety employee contract negotiator.

Dammeier's website makes it clear that to have the strongest negotiating positions, police unions need to pursue a political strategy, as well as a kind of public relations program to shape (skew?) public perception about their safety. It's the sort of fear-based strategy that the Claremont 400 and their political arm, Preserve Claremont, love to use.

The attorney's website has posted a blueprint for dealing with stalled contract negotiations that states:

The association should be like a quiet giant in the position of, "do as I ask and don't piss me off." Depending on the circumstances surrounding the negotiations impasse, there are various tools available to an association to put political pressure on the decision makers.

Public Message

Always keep this in mind. The public could care less about your pay, medical coverage and pension plan. All they want to know is "what is in it for them." Any public positions or statements by the association should always keep that focus. The message should always be public safety first. You do not want wage increases for yourselves, but simply to attract better qualified candidates and to keep more experienced officers from leaving.

And:

Storm City Council - While an association is at impasse, no city council or governing board meeting should take place where members of your association and the public aren't present publicly chastising them for their lack of concern for public safety.

Here the CPOA have the advantage of being able to have civilians like Sandy Baldonado or Barbara Musselman do the chastising. Dammeier's negotiation training materials go on to say:

Press Conferences - Every high profile crime that takes place should result in the association's uproar at the governing body for not having enough officers on the street, which could have avoided the incident.

The website counsels police unions to take more time to complete their activities (this would generate concerns or complaints about lowered response times and reinforce concerns about public safety):

Work Slowdown - This involves informing your members to comply closely with Department policy and obey all speed limits. It also involves having members do thorough investigations, such as canvassing the entire neighborhood when taking a 459 report and asking for a back-up unit on most calls. Of course, exercising officer discretion in not issuing citations and making arrests is also encouraged.

And Dammeier tells his clients to get involved in local elections:

Campaigning - If any members of the governing body are up for election, the association should begin actively campaigning against them, again for their lack of concern over public safety. If you are in a non-election year, make political flyers which you can explain will be mailed out the following year during the election season.

In the present election, the CPOA is using its influence to try to undermine any candidate who might support an attempt by City Manager Parker to negotiate a CPOA contract that would rein in police salaries and pensions.

The website also says police employees should remember to get their message out, even if they have to pay for newspaper space:

Newspaper Ads - Again, keep the message focused on "public safety."

All of which places the CPOA's activities in proper perspective. The February 12 Courier also carried a small CPOA ad endorsing three city council candidates: Robin Haulman, Joseph Lyons, and Sam Pedroza:

Click on Image to Enlarge

We can't help but think how nice it would be if we got to hire our own bosses. Who wouldn't go for a deal like that? We rail against businesses that try to influence elections by supporting candidates, so how is this any different? In dealing with contract issues, we want council people who are impartial, not ones beholden to or afraid of their employees.

The ad raises some big conflict of interest concerns for the three chosen ones. When it comes down to the CPOA's contract negotiations later this year, if elected, would Haulman, Lyons and Pedroza place the CPOA's wants above the City's fiscal well-being?

But, as we say, none of this is new to Claremont. The lines between employer and employee get blurred constantly, and the Claremont 400 ideal is a kind of vertical integration of council and staff, hence their desire to have Bridget Healy on the council or to have a native Claremonter like Paul Cooper running the police department. They fail to see the need to have checks and balances built into the system and want staff, council and commissions to be one, with the result that dissenting voices and ideas are disregarded, poor decisions get made and staff are vulnerable to pressure from the 400.

The 400 wants us to forget the past, but one must look in the rear view mirror once in while to avoid the kind of costly and divisive crises we've had before.