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."

Neanderthalic science



     It's hard to believe that Bill went to college. How could he not know what causes the tides?
     The poor fellow now asks: where did the moon come from? And so he seems equally ignorant about stellar evolution and the creation of our solar system.
     How can that be? He must have taken some science courses in college, right? He must've passed some of 'em, right? I'm mystified.




www.colbertnation.com

Friday, February 4, 2011

Irvine 11

Irvine 11 Charged With Misdemeanors, Face Jail, Probation, Community Service if Convicted (Navel Gazing; OC Weekly)

11 Muslim students face charges in UCI protest (OC Reg)
…"We are unaware of any case where a district attorney pressed criminal charges over this type of non violent student protest," said Hector Villagra, incoming director of the ACLU of Southern California, in a statement. "The District Attorney's action will undoubtedly intimidate students in Orange County and across the state and discourage them from engaging in any controversial speech or protest for fear of criminal charges."….

Queen Nancy's premature pronouncement

     Queen Nancy [Padberg], President of the SOCCCD board of trustees (and opponent of "heathens"), has put out a press release re the “Westphal v. Wagner” Prayer lawsuit. Here it is in its entirety:
Court Upholds Constitutionality of Invocations at South Orange County Community College Events

    Gary L. Poertner, Chancellor, and Nancy Padberg, Board President of the South Orange County Community College District, wish to apprise the college community of recent developments in the Westphal v. Wagner lawsuit as communicated by the District’s counsel, John A. Vogt, from the firm Jones Day in the following summary:
    Westphal v. Wagner is a federal lawsuit that was filed in United States District Court for the Central District of California in November 2009. The plaintiffs in the case are professors from Saddleback and Irvine Valley College [among others]. In the lawsuit, the plaintiffs contend that the Trustees, Chancellor, and President of Saddleback College have violated the Establishment Clause of the United States Constitution by including a non-sectarian invocation at Saddleback College graduation and scholarship ceremonies, as well as at bi-annual Chancellor’s Opening Sessions.
The board should not "placate those heathens," wrote* Nancy
    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.
    The District Court’s decision is now the third federal court case upholding the constitutionality of invocations before public college and university events, falling in line with the opinion of the Sixth Circuit in Chaudhuri v. State of Tennessee, 130 F.3d 232 (6th Cir. 1997) (which upheld the constitutionality of invocations at Tennessee State) and the opinion of the Seventh Circuit in Tanford v. Brand, 104 F.3d 982 (7th Cir. 1997) (which upheld the constitutionality of invocations at Indiana University).
* * *
    The Trustees, Chancellor, and Saddleback College President are pleased with this outcome. They consistently have maintained that the practice of including a brief, non-sectarian ceremonial invocation at significant District and college events—a tradition that traces its roots to the first graduation ceremony at Saddleback College over 40 years ago—is well-grounded in Establishment Clause jurisprudence, as well as our nation’s rich history and culture. Like the invocation given at the annual Army-Navy football game or our presidential inaugurations, the invocations that have been given at district and college events are not used to proselytize or advance one (or any) religion, but instead, to bring about a dignity, solemnity, and gravitas to these important ceremonial events.
Nancy has some interesting views. (Click on graphic to enlarge.)
     There's nothing new here. We reported these developments several days ago: recent developments in the prayer lawsuit. (Please note what Nancy's press release neglects to mention.)
     I stand by what I reported then:
     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).
     Really, lots of things could happen. Don't read too much into this.
     In fact, a settlement hearing is scheduled for the 17th. It has not been cancelled. Now, why do you suppose Nancy and crew will be attending this hearing? 'Cause they've won and it's over?
     It's not over.

*I don't think I've ever been referred to as a "heathen" before. (Click on graphic to enlarge.)

The flight of the Williams

     JOHN WILLIAMS' PORCH FLIGHT. After Kimberly Edd’s disturbing Jan. 20 article about Public Administrator/Guardian John Williams, one of John’s former colleagues wrote a peevish letter to the Reg, complaining that Edd’s story was sensationalistic: "Exposes should focus on facts not on sensationalism."
     At one point, Mr. Peevish writes:
…Edds … tells us Williams took a medical retirement from the Marshal’s Office. Does this further our idea that Williams … has county connections? Of course, if Edds knew of the medical retirement, then she also knew that he suffered the qualifying injuries by being completely blown off the porch of a South County home by a house-leveling explosion from a suicidal individual. …[N]one of this filler material is germane to the important and factual aspects of the Register article.
     Yeah, whatever.
     Does anyone know about this porch incident? Was Williams really “blown off” a porch by an explosion?
     I did some looking, and I can find nothing about this. I even searched through the OC Reg archives, and I actually bought an old (1992) article that looked like it might have the desired info. But nothin’ doin’.
     Does anybody know just what happened to Williams that led to his retirement?

This is gonna hurt, but that's OK, 'cause of that big fat pension.
     WILLIAMSCARONA. Here’s a factoid for you: from 1988 until 1998, the O.C. Marshal was—you guessed it!—Michael Carona. (The Marshal was appointed by judges.) In 1998, Carona was elected OC Sheriff. Soon thereafter, the Marshal's Dept. was collapsed with the Sheriff's Dept.
     And so Bailiff Boy and Carona are pals. They go way back.

     THE P.A.'S COLORFUL HISTORY. Another curious factoid: I ran across an old article about William A. Baker, Williams' much respected predecessor. At one point, the article notes this bit of fascinating history:
Few voters know of the public administrator's office. That has not always been the case: About 30 years ago [i.e., the mid-60s] Orange County's public administrator was convicted of embezzlement and sent to prison. It's a position requiring someone who can be trusted to work in the people's interest out of the limelight.
     Later on, I’ll try to dig up that 60s story.

     ENDORSEMENTS MATTER, I GUESS. When Williams ran for Public Administrator in 2002, he was opposed by Vicki Landrus, then the assistant public administrator. She received the endorsement of the respected William Baker, her boss.
     But that didn’t matter. Williams had the endorsement of his old pal Mike Carona, "America's Sheriff."

In my mind, Williams was Rocket Man, if only for a second.
     NANCY AND THE PA/PG. Back in 2004, the LA Times noted the apparent conflict of interest entailed by Nancy Padberg's role as Williams' chief of staff (2 Trustees' Job Status Is an Issue). Naturally, the experts said, well yeah, it doesn't look good. Meanwhile, two of Williams' Republican pals on the board—Wagner and Fuentes—insisted that everything was cool.
     "Honest to God," said Wagner, "I've seen nothing to see there is a problem."
     A few years later, Williams suddenly fired Padberg. She was hopping mad. And she stayed that way. Ever since, during board meetings, Padberg has made a point of opposing whatever Williams is in favor of. Evidently, Fuentes was somehow implicated in her firing, and so Fuentes, too, has received Padberg's "insta-contra" treatment.
     Lovely, isn't it?

     P.S.: I came across an old post in which I reported that, back in 2002 when Williams first ran for Public Administrator, he was endorsed by the Faculty Association! That's right. That would have been the post-corruption FA. Sheesh. No doubt I complained about it at the time, but to no avail. I may even have quit the union for a while--until Brenda hounded me until I gave in and rejoined. How come our union is so often so freakin' clueless?

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...