Why would Lisa and Chuckie demand that Poe, Stephens and Edgar resign if the City Attorney have not found that they violated the Brown Act?

The main item will be a staff presentation by Community Development Director Steven Mendoza on the General Plan – Overview of Existing Land Use Element Goals and Existing Strategic Plan Document, Part III.

I’ve sat in on some of Mr. Mendoza’s presentations on the Master Plan previously, and found them quite informative.

http://losalamitos.patch.com/articles/city-leaders-lob-allegations-of-dishonesty-over-trash-contract

What I read about the judge’s order was for the City to rewrite the code.

Please take reading lessons. Judge Banks did NOT order the city to rewrite the code. Judge Banks ordered the contract voided and ordered the City to re-issue the contract by following the City Code. [Please see the writ which you can most likely get a copy of at City Hall]

I never saw where the judge stated that this RFP had to be sent out again to all the bidders.

Again, I point to the writ. That is ALL the court ordered.

He stated it was a bad code that did not fit the requirements for a trash contract.

That is NOT in the writ. In the discussion in court Judge Banks stated that the only issue he had with the code as written was the use of the word “professional” for trash collection.

No one intentionally broke a law.

While it was Citizens contention in the third cause of action that the decision of the City Council majority was to knowingly violate the City Code, that cause of action was struck down by the anti-SLAPP the City filed and won. That is under appeal, and if the Citizens win the appeal then it may actually be heard by the court and ruled on.

The question of whether the City violated the City Code is NOT a question, it was ruled as a fact. The City Code states that a violation of the City Code is a misdemeanor. That is a fact.

That is what you want to see, but its not the truth.

The two facts above clearly show that you are, as usual, wrong. While the question of intent is still in the air, the fact that the majority voted to issue a contract that didn’t follow City Code is an established fact, and the City Code that says that doing so is a crime is a fact.

I have dealt with contracts such as this one and the way the Council dealt with it was accepted by the US goverment as legal and binding more orders than would fill your house.

The above makes NO SENSE. There was a City Code that had to be followed. It’s the law. You don’t get to pick and choose when you will follow the law or not. The City Council majority did not follow the law. Kind of a binary process to quote Mr. Edgar.

A trash contract is not buying a car, its a complex proposal of different prices with a variable of how many business there are and how many residents.

The law was clear. First determine the “responsible bidders”. And then pick the lowest cost. Sloan Vasques stated that all the bidders were responsible. That left the City Council the task of picking the lowest cost. They didn’t. Thus the OC Superior Court ruled that they did NOT follow the City Code and ordered the city to void the contract and then follow the City Code.

The court left the City a great deal of leeway in HOW they could meet the order. Including making any modifications to the City Code that the majority wants to make prior to following the City Code to award the contract.

If the City had broken the law in the manner you have written about the judge would have had to send the matter to criminal court as the judge takes an oath to uphold the law.

I am so glad that the City and the community can count on your expert legal advice. As far as I am aware at no point did the Plaintiff or Defendant’s legal council provide Judge Banks with the complete City Code, or ask Judge Banks to enforce anything other than the express remedy of the litigation. I highly doubt that Judge Banks, or any judge, is familiar with every City Code within their jurisdiction. It would shock me if any were. There was no reason for the court to know that the violation that the court found the Defendants guilty of was in fact a misdemeanor within the City of Los Alamitos.

As the judge stated he felt that your side would not be happy with the outcome.

Yes, he said that he can count to three and pointed out that we could as well. When he stated that he was not going to tread on the separation of powers between the judicial and legislative branches by ordering any specific way to “fix” the violation, he also said that he expected the City Council to follow legislative process.

In that legislative process the City Council had many options. From eliminating that section of the code completely to rewriting it, to leaving it as it was. The order in the writ bis very simple, void the contract and then follow City Code to get a new one.

If the City Council majority decided that they just wanted to eliminate the whole piece of code that tripped them up, and then not even put the exclusive solid waste franchise out for bid, but just give it to whomever they so choose, they could do that and meet the requirements of the writ. The writ was VERY specific, and the judge allowed the City Council to do what City Councils do, set the law, he only insisted that they follow the laws as set.

His comment to us was we might not like the way the City Council majority went about meeting the writ as they could do exactly as I described above, wipe out the City Code requiring a competitive bid (change the City Code), and just hand the exclusive solid waste franchise agreement to CDS and be done with it (exactly what Mrs. Poe said they could have done before this whole thing started, and what they had done for years before that with Briggeman).

Bottom line: It seems to me, Lisa, that you and I and the rest of our citizen/taxpayers shouldn’t have to go to this much effort to try to figure out what our elected representatives are discussing in closed session.

In fact, the Brown Act makes it clear that the people have the right to address their elected officials regarding matters discussed in Closed Session, and it’s impossible to do that if we don’t know what they are discussing.

So, Lisa, you are agreeing with Dave’s point that the reading of the agenda failed to clearly state what was going on in closed session (since you and he arrived at very different conclusions based on the information provided) and that by NOT being clear there has been another violation of the Brown Act?

When you have reality, and then people start posting stuff showing that they are detached from reality, it is tempting to be snarky (I have to really control myself).

There are facts, and then there is opinion. When people expressing their opinion either ignore the facts, or create facts out of whole cloth to support their opinion, then you can either question their sanity or their motives.

Be snarky. It’s okay.

Prior to Edgar’s announcement the 72nd candidates were:

Huntington Beach Councilman Matthew Harper
Westminster Councilman Tyler Diep
Little Saigon businessman Long Pham
Joe Dovinh
and
Albert Ayala (the one I missed)

As far as I can tell Joe Dovinh and Albert Ayala have not filed campaign finance reports (generally indicative of low levels or non-existent fundraising). Both are (D)’s and really don’t count in this race.

While the press is reporting Edgar’s deep finances as a validation of his entry, they all seem to be missing two critical factors. The first is that MOST of that (in excess of 80%) is self-funded by a loan. The balance was funding from his Congressional campaign. All of that money has an effective lien on it, in that the people who gave it gave it for a Congressional campaign and they all have the right to request a full refund (not that they will, but they all can).

As I stated before, leaving a race and jumping to another is generally NOT a good sign (it’s a sign of a political opportunist). Doing so when there is already a strong candidate in the race (Harper and Diep are both strong candidates) makes the move even more questionable.

With Diep’s possible dropping out, if he supports Harper, the candidate becomes even more formidable. Now consider that the race is now a bunch or (R)’s and the district is ~35% (D), if one of the two (D)’s drops out and the other draws off that 35% because he is the only (D) and a strong (R) pulls 35% that leaves only 30% to be split among the balance and only the strongest two go on to the General.

For election buffs it’s an interesting dynamic. If Diep drops, it would benefit Harper if either Joe Dovinh or Albert Ayala drops as well as it would leave Pham, Harper and Edgar in a race to determine the (R). The nature of the district is whomever the (R) is in a (D) .v. (R), the (R) wins (unless there is a fatal flaw that comes out after the Primary, and even there, considering the +R percentage, that may even not be enough to lose).