Orange County incomporuption: toward a "big picture"

A young Tom Fuentes and his hero, Richard Nixon, San Clemente

     A couple of days ago, somebody over at the Orange Juice Blog beefed about corruption and incompetence in OC government. (See Orange County Government Melting Down, by OBNO.)
     That’s like Arizonans complaining about the heat.
     But in Orange County, incompetence/corruption ("incomporuption") varies from bad to extreme from era to era. We’re in the midst of a so-so era, incomporuption-wise. We've seen worse.
     Carps OBNO, “it looks like no one on the Board of Supervisors is interested in or capable of doing the things it takes to effectively run a large organization. Things like team building, leadership, ethical behavior and vision come to mind as essential characteristics that seem to be lacking. It also looks like the job of attracting and retaining top talent to run the various county programs is not a priority for the Supervisors either.”
     OBNO notes the obvious recent examples, including “the multi-year saga of disarray in the office of the County Public Guardian/Public Administrator position resulting from a Board-driven appointment of [long-time SOCCCD trustee] John Williams to the Public Guardian position against the advice of key county staff….”
     Here on DtB, we’ve pursued various stories increasingly in relation to the larger fabric of corruption and cronyism that is OC politics. The truth is, you can’t make sense of guys like John Williams, Tom Fuentes, Don Wagner, or Dave Lang unless you understand county politics, the OC GOP Central Committee, and trends and factoids of the last, ten or twenty years.
     Besides, anyone who’s been reading DtB for a while knows that we have an interest in the past, and especially OC’s past—e.g., the appearance of the KKK in the 20s, the doings of ranchers and farmers and businessmen in the 19th Century, the adventures of Madame Helena Modjeska in Anaheim and in the Santa Anas, etc.

     TOM FUENTES. One figure who has been present for a huge chunk of OC political history—from the late sixties to the present, more than 40 years—is our own trustee Tom Fuentes, who, as near as I can tell, is in the last stages of terminal cancer but who nevertheless has maintained oars in the political waters throughout his remarkably long good-bye. (I recently noticed that he is listed as the campaign co-chair for OC Board of Education trustee Ken Williams’ June reelection bid!)
     So here’s some OC incomporuption history—from the perspective of someone attempting to understand the highly odd Mr. Tom Fuentes.

* * * * *

Ron Caspers (1931-1974)

     RON CASPERS & THE BOARD OF SUPES. It turns out that, at least according to some of my sources, the Orange County Board of Supes were neither important players nor even particularly noticed until the late sixties, when people with big money started buying supervisorial candidates. That started, it seems, with Ron Caspers’ ruthless campaign for Alton Allen’s board seat in 1969 (he won it in 1970). According to former OC GOP Central Committee Chair Tom Rogers (see), “it was after his election that Caspers made the contacts and set the ground rules for developer participation in the grand scheme of patronage carried to an exponential degree.” Elsewhere, Rogers notes that many Orange Countians “blame [Caspers] for the descent of Orange County into the world of political intrigue, campaign finance abuses and influence peddling.”
     And, right at the start, Fuentes was there.
     Caspers was a Republican but the rest of corrupt 70s kingpin Louis Cella’s stable of Supes were Democrats, and so the patronage wasn’t really about politics; mostly, it was about money—i.e., how to get lots of it.
     Tom Fuentes would have been twenty years old at the time of this patronage genesis or pre-genesis. From what I’ve read, Fuentes was up to his eyeballs in that nasty campaign of 1969-1970, and, upon its success, he was showered with Caspersian goodies: he received retroactive support for his education; he became Caspers’ executive aide; and he even got a job with Caspers’ S&L in Anaheim.
     It seems clear that Caspers was not merely ruthless; he was dirty. It is likely that he was spared from lasting ignominy by his own death, via the peculiar “Shooting Star” disaster in 1974. The criminal prosecutions that brought down the Cella-O’Neill political machine of which Caspers was a part started a year or two later. The county settled a lawsuit that charged Caspers and (“Shooting Star” owner and Cella’s chief strategist) Fred Harber with a shakedown—quietly, in the late 70s.

     FRANK MICHELENA. But let’s go back to those early years, starting in 1969. According to Tom Rogers, “As Casper’s assistant, Tom Fuentes … worked diligently to convince Republicans that Caspers was not what many party regulars feared, an unscrupulous opportunist who had no permanent loyalty to any political party. Fuentes was aided in his duties by the ubiquitous Frank Michelena. Michelena, a lobbyist with a checkered career, was notorious in the field of political influence.”

I couldn't find a pic of
Frank M. This'll have to do

     I haven’t been able to find out much about Michelena, Fuentes’ coworker on Team Caspers. I know this: he was born in 1930 and lived in Costa Mesa (it appears that he died in 2005). He seems to have started his political career in his thirties, as an assistant to OC Supervisor Bill Phillips (1957-1973). Later, he was a campaign advisor to the Cella-sponsored OC Supervisor, Ralph Clark, and has been associated with campaigns that, early on, used outrageous tabloid-style hit pieces against opponents.
     By the 80s, he was known in Orange County as a high-powered lobbyist. According to a 1990 Times article, “Frank G. Michelena is the guy you go to see when you want something from Orange County government.”
     Writes Rogers (in 2000), “Frank Michelena’s activities have been so pervasive over the years that no brief history [of OC] could possibly list their scope and impact on Orange County and the establishment political structure.”
     Elsewhere, Rogers adds: “After striking out on his own [in the 70s] [Michelena] seemed always in the shadows of county political controversies….”

Lyle Overby

     LYLE OVERBY. Another name that pops up in the Cella saga is that of OC lobbyist Lyle Overby, with whom I briefly corresponded. (He wrote to tell me that he was on the “Shooting Star” during its fateful trip, but he disembarked at Cabo before the more hazardous portion of the trip; see this and this.). By the early 70s, Overby was an aide to Supervisor Ralph Diedrich, a fellow who was later indicted (1977) on 16 felony and misdemeanor violations concerning campaign finance. (Soon after, the county grand jury charged him with two counts of bribery and one count on conspiracy. In the 80s, he served 20 months in Chino.)
     Back to Overby: during the era of the “Dick and Doc Show”—i.e., the shadow government organized by Dr. Louis Cella and land baron Dick O’Neill—the two actually gave over a million dollars to various political candidates in one year, 1974. Dr. Cella was diverting money from medical companies to candidates. Beyond that, Cella provided candidates with printing, postage, and other services.
     Cella’s Mission Hospital hired workers whose work was entirely political. (Arlene Hoffman, who was mysteriously murdered—with a crossbow!—in the 90s, was among these workers.) The place had a printing press that churned out campaign literature and mailers. Some curious persons received refunds from the hospital for postal costs, including Bill Butcher of the consulting firm Butcher-Forde. (Forde had been closely associated with Caspers and his campaigns.) Another was—you guessed it!—Lyle Overby, who received $4,600 in postage funds from the hospital. (Source: Rogers.)

Bill Butcher, c. 1982

     One older reporter I spoke with advised me not to trust Overby. Back in ’74, he said, Overby was an aide, like Fuentes, and seemed to be perfect for the “bagman” role. (You'll recall that Nathan Rosenberg once referred to Fuentes as "Caspers' bagman.") After the “Shooting Star” disaster in 1974, Overby was hired by O’Neill’s company and, still later, he became a major “lobbyist” in Orange County.
     Back in 2000, the OC Weekly declared Overby to be one of OC’s top 31 “Scariest” people:

#16. [Lyle Overby is] Orange County's überlobbyist and the former aide to two county supervisors—both later convicted of corruption. He's close to former county Supervisor Don Roth—also convicted—and close to onetime county Treasurer Bob Citron—jailed after the 1994 bankruptcy. His name appears repeatedly in just about every county supervisor's campaign-finance statement. He lobbied for Newport Beach City Council (until recently), the Irvine Co. and Lockheed Martin. He's now the boss of American Taxi, for whom he delivered in March an exclusive contract for taxi service at John Wayne Airport—despite the fact that (a) his company was barely six months old and the contract required at least five years' experience; and (b) his company was bleeding money through every fiscal orifice, clocking an operating loss of more than $130,000 when airport officials gave him the contract. [Note: as I understand it, Louis Cella also assisted Bob Citron in his bid for OC Treasurer.]

     In the early 90s, Supervisor Don Roth was investigated by the DA for various abuses, including the receiving of gifts. Among the people who gave Roth questionable gifts were Lyle Overby and Frank Michelena. (Source: Rogers.)
     Overby and Michelena were involved in setting up an expensive fundraiser for their pal Roth when he resigned and entered a guilty plea to seven charges in 1993. (Rogers.)

* * * * *

Tom Fuentes, c. 1973

     Big Picture-wise, here’s what’s becoming clearer to me.

• CASPERS AND THE PATRONAGE SYSTEM. Things changed in Orange County politics/governance, starting with the arrival on the scene of banker and businessman Ron Caspers in 1969-1970. Caspers, who was supported by the ambitious team of Louis Cella, Richard O’Neill, and Fred Harber (aka the “Coalition”), established a patronage system, focusing on developers. This scheme survived Caspers and Harber’s death and ultimately led to a disastrous and ongoing over-development of Orange County, especially in the south. The manner and degree to which OC politicians are routinely "influenced" is not yet widely appreciated by the public. 
• CASHING IN. Many of the figures, some minor, of the early days of this saga (Fuentes, Michelena, Overby, et al.) have become rich and powerful in subsequent decades.
• CASPERS & MODERN CAMPAIGNS. Caspers set a new standard by employing, not merely stunningly unscrupulous campaign tactics (some of these, of course, were already familiar), but also advanced, computerized, data-driven campaign approaches associated with the consulting firm Butcher-Forde. These approaches have come to be considered essential.
• THEY MUST HAVE KNOWN. Caspers and his pals were dirty, and, as reporters have suggested to me, though some people present for the hinky financial and political dealings of Caspers-Harber (et al.) may not have actually directly participated in criminal schemes and activities, they were certainly at least aware of them. This group would include such minor players as, say, supervisorial aides of the principles.

* * * * *

Some further thoughts:

• I find it odd that Tom Fuentes, a man known for his intolerance of Republicans who are not sufficiently “conservative” (RINOs, they're called), and who has long been a noisy champion of party discipline and unity ("thou shalt not speak ill of another Republican"), got his start, and learned his chops, from a man like Ron Caspers, a “Rockefeller Republican” (as one reporter I spoke with labeled him) who seemed to care much more about making money than about pursuing an ideological agenda or remaining true to his party (or to its incumbents).
• A find it less odd that Mr. Fuentes, with all his airs and gestures of piety and rectitude, got his start with a politician who is memorable (at least to me) for being unscrupulous, unprincipled, and just plain dirty.
• As near as I can tell, a year or so after the “Shooting Star” disaster (and after an aborted training for the priesthood), Fuentes commenced his career as a “consultant”—a job that seemed to involve, among other things, his “influencing” government officials on behalf of private firms. How curious that he pursued such work in an era known for the rise of patronage and influence peddling most foul—an era initiated by his first boss and the man he reportedly credits for his political rearing.

     It's a curious world, is it not?

The civility initiative, part 8: a new proposed statement!

     Today, members of the IVC “civility and mutual respect” workgroup received a draft of a college “statement” based on the work of that group, especially at its meeting last Friday (about which we reported).

     It is likely that the draft was written by John Spevak, the consultant who has assisted in the process since November.
     Here it is:

     The statement does seem to reflect what was emphasized at last week’s workshop. It is surely a huge improvement over the unfortunate draft that Spevak produced after the December (i.e., the first) workshop—something that occasioned dismay.

     First of all, it emphasizes the importance to our community of free speech, something that the last draft did not mention. Indeed, it speaks of encouraging the expression of opinions, whatever they might be. It seizes upon the notion of “professionalism,” which seemed to be the moniker de jour for standards of acceptable conduct at last Friday’s workshop.

     The statement also boldly embraces what others might regard as a fallacy: regarding the expression of a commitment to X as though it were what produces or constitutes that commitment.

     Know what I mean? Suppose someone thinks that I am uncivil. I listen to him/her and then announce and publish my “commitment to civility.” Have I thereby achieved my being civil? Of course not. Indeed, I might have succeeded in elevating my uncivil obnoxiousness to new heights!

     To be fair, the statement goes on to mention other mechanisms to achieve “civility and mutual respect,” etc., beyond publishing the college's “commitment.” It mentions:

• proactive education of employees [We'd better keep our eye on this one]
• sponsoring activities that bring members of the community together [yep]
• regular open forums for an open discussion of issues [yep]
• maintaining, open, inclusive, and transparent decision-making processes [yep]

     STEEPAGE. Things do get a bit murky toward the end of the statement, where there is talk of a “peer-driven process” for “dispute resolution” in which “all of the governance groups participate.” This process, we’re told, is “steeped in finding mutually agreeable solutions.”

     Can a dispute resolution process be “steeped [i.e., soaked] in finding…solutions”? Can it be “steeped” [i.e., soaked] in mutually agreeableness?

"Steeped" in felinity

     It is customary, I suppose, to talk the talk of “working toward a commitment to X” by declaring a commitment to X. That’s bullshit, of course, but I guess if we say it quickly and then move on to more sensible pronouncements, everything should be OK.

     I do object to that second line, where the “college encourages an atmosphere of professionalism….” Well, it either does that or it doesn’t, and proclaiming that it does is just, well, obnoxious, under the circumstances. Why not use the language of the last sentence of paragraph 1? –That stuff about the college “seeking to establish” transparency, etc.? Saying you seek to establish X is a humbler and far less pompous and bullshitty way to yammer, if you ask me.

     But I want to be positive. This draft is definitely moving in the right direction. 

     What do you think?

"Action plan." I.e., What we're gonna do about it. Each "action step" is the inclusion
of the statement in some manual or catalog. Really. I think they should add "dance steps," too.
The hokey pokey maybe.

The draft was sent to all members of the workgroup. It was explained thus: 

     Attached is the draft, developed by all of the table leaders and John Spevak, of an IVC statement on freedom of expression, civility, and mutual respect, as well as an IVC action plan that accompanies it.     Please review and send comments to any or all facilitators by 5 p.m., this Thursday, April 5.. . .     After April 5, the table leaders and John Spevak will review all comments and based on that review create a second draft that will be send to you and the entire IVC community by April 13.     Thank you, again.

Aim for the body rare, you'll see it on TV
The worst thing in 1954 was the Bikini
See the girl on the TV dressed in a Bikini
She doesn't think so but she's dressed for the H-Bomb
(For the H-Bomb)
I found that essence rare, it's what I looked for
I knew I'd get what I asked for

Science Schmience

Conservative Distrust of Science (Inside Higher Ed)

     Just over 34 percent of conservatives had confidence in science as an institution in 2010, representing a long-term decline from 48 percent in 1974, according to a paper being published today in American Sociological Review.
     That represents a dramatic shift for conservatives, who in 1974 were more likely than liberals or moderates (all categories based on self-identification) to express confidence in science. While the confidence levels of other groups in science have been relatively stable, the conservative drop now means that group is the least likely to have confidence in science….

Tiny cougars

Lion cubs debut at Orange County Zoo (OC Reg)

Dicey San Onofre unplugged for now—forever?

NRC tells steps needed to restart San Onofre (OC Reg)

Irvine recommends shutting down San Onofre power plant (OC Reg)

No board meeting report tonight

Brandye D'Lena made
a presentation

     I was all set to go to tonight's meeting of the SOCCCD board of trustees, but then a small medical emergency involving my father arose and, naturally, I had to go.
     Pop seems to be fine--he has a history of heart problems--but, there'll be no report tonight.
     It looked like it was gonna be a real snoozer anyway.
     Tere's Board Meeting Highlights

$30,000 spent on "College Brain Trust" (but not for the civility initiative)

John Spevak of CBT

     (See UPDATES below. The gist: the $30K doesn't seem to be for Spevak's efforts re the civility initiative.)
     Some readers seem to have a great interest in how much the college is spending on the assistance it is receiving from "College Brain Trust," the Sacramento consulting firm that sent John Spevak down to help with our "civility initiative." Spevak organized and directed Friday's workshop and also the workshop held in December.

     I quickly scanned recent board agendas—including the one for tomorrow’s meeting—and here’s what I found:

     I found no items for “College Brain Trust” in the March or February agendas. There’s a $900 item (expenditure) for "College Brain Trust" in the January agenda. That same item appears (I think as an expected expenditure) in the December agenda. There’s an expenditure of $28,676.23 to “College Brain Trust” in the November agenda. Nothing in October or September agendas.

     So we’re looking at about $30K here. Don’t know if that’s all of it. It's more than I thought they were spending, but, on the other hand, I'm not surprised by the amount.

     I suppose that IVC President Roquemore is thinking that, since this initiative was occasioned by serious accreditation concerns, it is best to bring in a neutral party to run things. Is it worth $30K to help make this process look like it's on the up-and-up? Could we have gone with something cheaper? 

     I dunno. No doubt some of you have opinions.

UPDATE: Dennis Gordon (one of the workshop facilitators) has sent the following:

Roy,
   The College Brain Trust has been used as a consultant for a number of tasks including work on the the District Wide Accreditation report. The $30k you mentioned was for other work that has been done, not for the Civility working group.
   In the spirit of transparency, I think the question of how much was spent for John Spevak to coordinate and facilitate the Civility project is a valid one and I will inquire as to the cost and report back.

UPDATE 2 (3/28):
Dennis Gordon has left a new comment on your post "$30,000 spent on "College Brain Trust" (but not fo...":

   I wanted to report back on the cost for John Spevak (The College Brain Trust) to conduct the Civility Working Group meetings for IVC. The amount paid was $6,750.79 which included multiple meetings and workshops and also included John's travel and hotel expenses.
   I feel this is a fair amount given the time spent by John with our campus community and the work that has been accomplished in support of the civility initative.  
   Every governance group had represenation at our meeting last week and I encourage anyone who has questions or comments regarding the initiative to have an open dialog among your constituants.