Monday, February 7, 2011

A strange world

John A. Vogt
     Many months ago, I was deposed for hours by defendants’ attorney, John A Vogt, for Westphal v. Wagner (the prayer suit, of which I am a plaintiff). He’s a Jones Day lawyer.
     Jones Day is a fancy schmancy “blue-chip” law firm. Very pricey. Very creepy.
     At one point during the deposition, I somehow opined that former OC Sheriff Mike Carona was a corrupt bastard who was headed to prison. Vogt took immediate offense. He commenced interrogating me, questioning my assumptions, forcing me to support my claim. He was pissed. (At the time, Carona had already been convicted, but I do believe that the decision was then on appeal. I guess the appeal didn’t work. As you know, recently, Carona entered federal prison in Colorado.)
Brian A. Sun
     I was perplexed by Vogt’s odd passion for Carona, that manifest rat bastard. (I think I may have referred to Carona as a "rat bastard." You know me. That didn’t help.)
* * *
     I shoulda known. Tonight, reading some old newspaper articles, I happened upon the fact that Mike Carona was represented by Jones Day at his corruption trial.
     —For free. Yep. You’ll recall that Carona quickly ran out of money, what with his endless legal problems. He was damned lucky that Jones Day stepped up, I guess.
     I did a little looking. Near as I can tell, Carona’s attorneys were Brian A. Sun and Jeff Rawitz, both senior attorneys at Jones Day.
Jeff Rawitz
     Rawitz, it seems, was a particularly well-known and respected attorney. Like Vogt, he was a classic, hard-charging bastard of an advocate.
     As it happens, during the Carona trial, Rawitz started displaying odd medical symptoms. Soon after the trial, he was diagnosed with Lou Gehrig’s disease. He died last September. (See 10 times bigger than lifeLA Times.)
     Now, why would Jones Day attorneys volunteer to defend a bastard like Mike Carona? What’s that all about?
     What a strange world. There are smart people, I guess, who, as late as 2010, still believed in Mike freakin' Carona. Maybe they still do.
     Damn!

Special board meeting Tuesday

    The district would have us believe that the prayer case, Westphal v. Wagner, is over and done with. How come then the special meeting re W v. W scheduled for tomorrow?
    Here's the notice:

Click on graphic to enlarge

• College receives accredation [sic] warning (Lariat)

Nancy's spin: Americans United responds

     Over the weekend, Queen Nancy (aka SOCCCD board president Nancy Padberg) put out a highly-questionable press release concerning recent developments in Westphal v. Wagner. I responded by noting that the press release exhibited very significant "spin" (see Premature pronouncement).
     It appears that Queen Nancy even contacted the Lariat, hoping that they would promote the fiction that the district has won the case. In any case, I’ve been contacted by Lariat reporters for a story about recent developments. I've urged them to wait until after the Feb. 17 settlement conference.
     AMERICANS UNITED RESPONDS. Today, the Legal Director of Americans United for Separation of Church and State (plaintiffs' legal representation) has sent the following to the Lariat:
     The court's decision was far more balanced than the District's press release suggested. The court ruled that The Trustees have twice violated the Constitution by making religiously hostile presentations, and the court ordered them not to engage in any such behavior in the future. So the District actually LOST a significant portion of the case.
     And the plaintiffs are going to appeal the balance of the case to the United States Court of Appeals, where they have a very strong chance of success. So while the District has already spent over a million dollars on a high-priced law firm, its financial hemorrhage will only continue on appeal. And if the plaintiffs ultimately prevail, the District will have to pay the PLAINTIFFS' attorneys' fees as well. So the District could well be out several million dollars when the case is over.
     Public colleges are places of learning, not worship – which is why none of the other 100+ community colleges in California includes prayer at their events. Students and faculty represent the full diversity of this great Nation – Christians, Muslims, and Jews, as well as Buddhists, Agnostics, and Atheists among them. Replacing the prayers with a moment-of-silence would avoid imposing the wishes of the majority on the minority, while still allowing those who wish to pray to do so in whatever way they hold sacred. And it would have the added benefit of allowing the District to focus its resources on teaching, not preaching.
     Readers would do well to remember that the plaintiffs in this case for years asked trustees to moderate their prayer behavior, but, as usual, the board behaved arrogantly and irresponsibly, actually upping the ante by showing “Jesus” videos and imposing pro-religious rants upon the public in scholarship ceremonies. It was only after that behavior that plaintiffs finally pursued litigation.
     And contrary to statements by at least some defendants (e.g., Don Wagner), plaintiffs are not “atheists” whose actions reflect hostility toward religion. Rather, plaintiffs comprise a group of faculty, students, and members of the community who embrace the notion, expressed in the 1st Amendment of the Constitution, that government should not act to establish religion. (In truth, plaintiffs include theists as well as agnostics and atheists.)


COMPARE AND CONTRAST:
     You might want to compare my January 31 post ("The latest on the prayer case") about recent court developments with the district's curious recent press release (see below). Just who's doing the spinning here?

The district's cherry-picked Feb. 4 announcement:

     The plaintiffs previously moved the District Court for a preliminary injunction over such speech. The Court denied that motion. The District then filed a motion for summary judgment, based upon uncontroverted evidence, to dismiss the case as a matter of law. On January 28, 2011, the District Court granted the District’s motion on plaintiffs’ challenge to the constitutionality of the invocations, and found that such speech, in this context, does not violate the First Amendment to the United States Constitution.

DtB's Jan. 31 post:

     Today, Judge Klausner issued a substantive ruling according to which (1) the Board’s generic invocations have a permissible purpose and effect; (2) we plaintiffs are entitled to a declaratory judgment that Mathur’s Fall 2009 “Jesus” video and Wagner’s 2008 scholarship ceremony rant were unconstitutional; (3) the Defendants will be ordered to comply with their policy regarding invocations (i.e., they can’t be sectarian, hostile, etc.).
     Next come proposed judgments (by plaintiffs and defendants) and a settlement conference (with another judge).

Berardino to County: John Williams is the problem

Union head slams county’s public guardian rescue plan (OC Reg; Watchdog)

     A plan by the county’s CEO to hire a new executive manager to step in and overhaul the culture and the personnel at the beleaguered Public Administrator/Public Guardian was blasted by the county’s employee union boss as insufficient and wasteful of taxpayer dollars.
     Oversight and new management are needed to immediately make personnel and policy changes as a result of issues raised repeatedly by the Orange County grand jury and the county’s own investigation into how the agency does business, county Chief Executive Officer Tom Mauk says.
     But Public Administrator/Public Guardian John S. Williams is already being paid $153,206.40 a year to head the office – and Williams, who is elected public administrator and appointed public guardian, has been repeatedly warned he needs to make significant changes to his agency.
The problem
     “The last thing the county needs is another executive with an extravagant salary and obscene perks,” said Nick Berardino, general manager of the Orange County Employees Association. “Adding another executive is not going to solve the problem.”
     The problem, Berardino said, is Williams himself. Adding another layer of bureaucracy isn’t going to fix that, he said.
     Williams’ private attorney Phil Greer, declined to comment….

Saturday, February 5, 2011

The OC GOP central committee: "An incestuous mob of fellow sycophants"


     I’VE BEEN THINKING about the curious and mysterious way that Tom Fuentes has made and still makes a living—and then I remembered a great piece about Tom from about ten years ago: “Dear Mr. Fuentes: letters to the most powerful Republican in Orange County, California."
     Writer Nathan Calahan (that’s a pseudonym) is a close friend of a close friend. I’ve met him a few times; he and I always seem to argue. He used to work for the OC Weekly.
     Well, back in 2000, he wrote a marvelous piece about his year-long correspondence (of sorts) with then-GOP chief Fuentes. In truth, the piece is an overview of Fuentes the man and his odd ways—you know, threatening to destroy people, that sort of thing. Mind you, Nathan wrote this four or five years before Fuentes’ fall—i.e., his ouster from the chairmanship of the County Party in 2004. But, as you’ll see (if you read Nathan’s piece), the knives were already out back in 2000.
     Nathan’s piece has it’s highlights—especially his suggestion, to pen pal Tom, that he exploit the, um, absurd rumor that Tom is gay—for political gain.
     But I thought of Nathan’s article because of something else. Here’s one of Nathan’s letters to Tom:
Dear Mr. Fuentes,

     Boy, you must be busy. I completely understand why you haven't sent me your autographed photo yet. You've been out registering new Republicans ever since that Sept. 24 Orange County Register story appeared! What a headline!

REPUBLICANS DIP BELOW 50 PERCENT IN REGISTERED VOTERS FOR THE FIRST TIME SINCE 1984.

     Who do you think is responsible for this decline: Clinton Republicans? They'd be first on my list of suspects.
     I'm sure you remember Roger Johnson—that turncoat Republican CEO of Western Digital who endorsed Clinton in 1992 and then went on to be named director of Slick Willy's general services administration. Johnson was the first domino to fall. In 1996, more Republicans—including Mayor Tracy Wills Worley of Tustin, ex-Orange County Supervisor Harriet Weider and Central Committee Member Bill Dougherty—endorsed Clinton for re-election. To top it off, Dougherty called the Orange County Republican Central Committee "an incestuous mob of fellow sycophants who are either on the public payroll as assistants to some Republican office holder or fat-cat corporate lobbyists." Dougherty even got personal when he said that "your leadership and your bigoted Right wing of the party has led us down the path of defeat."
"B-1 Bob" Dornan; tightly wound
     So this Dougherty fella called the OC Republican Central Committee "an incestuous mob of fellow sycophants who are either on the public payroll as assistants to some Republican office holder or fat-cat corporate lobbyists," did he?
     What a guy!
     That reminds me of the time that, on TV, up-and-coming Republican and Congressional candidate, Nathan Rosenberg, called Fuentes "a bagman" for former county Supervisor Ronald W. Caspers! (See KOCE's May 29 Election Special Is Highly Charged, LA Times, 5/20/86.) When Rosenberg was asked to clarify the “bagman” remark, he said we oughta look the word up in Webster’s Dictionary. Yessirreebob!
     But, right now, it’s Dougherty’s remark that interests me, ‘cause, all those years ago, he pretty much hit the nail on the head, near as I can tell. And it's almost as if he were talking especially about Tom Fuentes and his pals today!
     I did some quick research. Turns out Dougherty, who was in his early seventies at the time of the 1996 Fuentes fracas, was the long-time leader of the moderates among OC Republicans.
     From his obit in 2002:
     William A. Dougherty, a Villa Park attorney who gained public attention for his defense of Christopher Boyce, the "Falcon" of the spy duo immortalized in the book and film "The Falcon and the Snowman," has died. He was 77.
     Dougherty, who was known as a lively curmudgeon in Orange County Republican political circles, died Wednesday at his home in the upscale community east of Anaheim. He had prostate cancer and fell into a coma on Christmas Day [2001].
. . .
John Schmitz
     Dougherty also became known around California in the 1970s for trying to move the Republican Party in Orange County away from the dominant conservatism represented by such politicians as former congressmen Robert K. Dornan and John Schmitz. Though he never was successful in winning political office himself, Dougherty was considered a leader among the moderate or liberal wing of the local GOP.
     "I always called myself a Dougherty Republican," said local defense attorney H. Dean Steward, a longtime ally of Dougherty's within the party. "There weren't that many of us, but we were dedicated to moving the party back where it should be."
     Dougherty angered many fellow Republicans in 1996 when he supported Democrat Loretta Sanchez after she successfully defeated Dornan. In her literature, Dougherty called Dornan a "war wimp." It cost Dougherty his seat on the county's Republican Central Committee, but after he filed a lawsuit against the party, he eventually was reinstated.
     A highly decorated Marine fighter pilot during World War II, the Korean War and the Vietnam War, Dougherty retired as a reserve colonel in 1976. He founded the November 10th Assn., a local group of ex-Marines that holds an annual dinner to honor the corps' inception, and was active in the Marine Foundation, a fund-raising group.
     I think I'm in love.

See also

• Dornan and Critic Exchange Angry Barbs at GOP Meeting (1996)
• Push Underway to Get Moderates Seats on Central GOP Committee (2000)
• Other Times articles about Dougherty
• Shut Up, Fag!: Quotations from the Files of Congressman Bob Dornan, the Man Who Would Be President

Loretta v. Bob, c. 1996

Kill me now


Tutoring has evolved. It is no longer as anthropocentric as it once was
     Norberto Santana, Jr.'s article about John Williams (in Voice of OC) appears to be updated--and particularly interesting. It really looks like Williams is toast.

Update: that daffy new tutoring referral “protocol”

Who can 'splain it?
     A PROTOCOL FROM HELL—and SADDLEBACK. You’ll recall that, during flex week, the district set up a system for referring students to tutoring. The new system works like this: faculty who open their Spring semester rosters automatically refer all of their students to tutoring—unless they uncheck a pre-checked box appearing at the bottom of the roster page.
     Wacky!
     I first heard about it on Friday of flex week. The next day—two days before the start of the semester—I posted about the new protocol (Referring students, sight unseen, to tutoring? Huh?), explaining that, on my reading of Title 5, it is unlawful, among other things.
     Title 5, I reported, clearly suggests that
… to do this tutoring thing right, all students who are tutored … must be enrolled [in tutoring] on the basis of a referral. The referral must be by a “counselor or an instructor.” The latter must be referring the student to tutoring because of “an identified learning need.”
Justice: some say IVC's VPI practices a dastardly form of "thought control"
     So, obviously, the new protocol ain’t kosher. Or so I wrote.
     A week or two later, the new protocol came up at the meeting of the IVC Academic Senate, and, at that time, VPI Craig Justice expressed unhappiness with the dang thing. The new protocol, he said, did appear to violate Title 5. (But gosh, hadn’t anybody at Saddleback College, the initiator of this daffy protocol, clued him in about it?)

     THE NIGHTMARE IS OVER. Well, at the last IVC senate meeting (two days ago), Justice explained that he had met with his counterpart at Saddleback College (Don B), and it was agreed that the new protocol would have to be undone and replaced with something that would square with Title 5.
     OK, so that’s one problem solved, I guess. (See also The automatic referral "protocol," part 3: violating Title 5.) Send cash prizes to DtB.

"Hey, Buster. I have an identified need."

Roy's obituary in LA Times and Register: "we were lucky to have you while we did"

  This ran in the Sunday December 24, 2023 edition of the Los Angeles Times and the Orange County Register : July 14, 1955 - November 20, 2...