March  2010  

DeVore on ANDRES BOCELI

Posted By CotoBlogzz 02-20-2010 | 06:00 AM

Rancho Santa Margarita, CA- Candidate Obama rightfully demanded that  words must mean something.  President Obama regularly parses words not unlike the infamous "it all depends on what is is".  Politicians regularly use the terms accountability and transparency, but when pressed as to what they are ready to do, they deflect, deny or ignore, perhaps even lie - that is, the political game of DIDL.

Take for instance, "staunch conservative" - what does that mean in California?  Not more than two years ago, we debated a now self-described staunch conservative on the merits of earmarks.  At that time, his response was that "the total percentage if earmarks compared to the total is negligible."   Based on current rhetoric, seems like he has change his tune.

To see which lawmakers are willing to go on record, we have now started to contact California stated and federal lawmakers, incumbents and candidates on what we call    ANDRES BOCELI Initiative: Assembly and Reactive Senate Bureaucracy Obliteration Cronyism Elimination and Lobbyist Incineration

The  two questions we are asking of the Willing: : 1)  what is the best way to deal with organized labor in the public sector  and 2) what do they think about  Andres BOCELI

With the whirlwind activity surrounding Chuck Devore, he was gracious enough to respond:  He thinks  the most effective way to deal with organized labor in the public sector is the Ronald Reagan model:  Shape up or ship out. As for the best way to deal with organized labor in the private sector is more along the lines of what we refer to as the Scott Brown model,  where the union bosses are taken out of the picture and instead deal directly with rank and file to take care of the taxpayers' agenda.

Chuck Devore thinks that " as for BOCELI, we have to understand that many regulatory bureaucracies are a threat to liberty as they can issue rules, but we the people cannot defeat them at the ballot box" he told us.  Now, we think that he meant to say:  "..but we the people CAN defeat them at the ballot box" - we have tried to reach Mr. DeVore to confirm, but he has not been available

On a related activity,  we have asked 300 Orange County council members where they stand on the Baugh Initiative and only two have had the intestinal fortitude to stand up and be counted,

RSS Feeds		Buzzzzz
Get RSS Buttons

	Comments.

Bureaucrats not elected ...


I believe that Chuck DeVore is referring to the fact the bureaucrats are not subject to the ballot box. It could take 20 years to rid a bureaucracy of biased and or incompetent officials by electeds.
Submitted by junior on Sun, 02/21/10 - 10:53 AM » | Print

Junior:

Guess where the much- touted jobs created by the Stimulus Bill are found? In government: In newly created bureaucracies and or expanding existing ones.

Lawmakers have the power to expand government. Lawmakers have the power to shrink government. Guess which option gets more votes?

Lawmakers have the power to increase the number of lobbyists. Lawmakers have the power to rid Sacramento of lobbyist, and or at least put them on a leash, including the "tax-payer funded unregistered lobbyists" - guess how many votes the latter gets them?


Submitted by cotobuzz on Mon, 02/22/10 - 10:58 AM » | Print

I was correctly quoted

I was correctly quoted when Mr. Aguirre wrote of my thoughts about bureaucracies, "as for BOCELI, we have to understand that many regulatory bureaucracies are a threat to liberty as they can issue rules, but we the people cannot defeat them at the ballot box." This is why the progressives create entities such as the Air Resources Board -- it allows them to have unelected agencies write unpopular rules. This is the modern Administrative State that the left has been erecting for the last 130 years. 

And, as for getting ahold of me, my phone number is listed and you know my email!
Submitted by Chuck DeVore on Sun, 02/21/10 - 08:11 PM » | Print

Thanks Chuck

Now I understand your comment: Can I conclude then that Joe the Taxpayer has no recourse? Or is my premise that if Joe the Taxpayer elects the right lawmaker, then he does not have to wait 130 years? 
Submitted by cotobuzz on Sun, 02/21/10 - 09:25 PM » | Print

I Can't Do Anything About That => Chuck



With all due respect to Mr. DeVore, look at your own voting record and then read what you wrote to Mr. Cotobuzz once again. Here, in California, I can tell you from personal experience, your staff will NOT put phone calls through to your office. They have a ladder of obstacles and no one's available. We're schluffed off from one "aid" to another. Faxes and letters go unanswered, I am speaking from personal experience with your staff and your office over the years. 

It didn't matter how judicially sound my arguments were to your so-called "aids" and "assistants" and others with fancier titles than that, your mind was already made up because in my opinion your vote was already bought. As a long time Republican, I have recently come to learn, that those with the Republican label are not always what they claim. The oldtime REAL Republicans and to his credit one Democrat (Mr. Waxman, whom I have never been fond of) took and take phone calls from people who VOTE FOR THEM.

Furthermore, I have spoken with constituents in your area (I am one as I own property there and in other places) who are so disgusted with you and to be fair some of your cohorts, that one cannot mention your name in conversation. You have been the subject of some fairly strong expletives. Not unwarranted I might add. So! Mr. DeVore, WHO do you suggest we as constituents "call" or contact with OUR CONCERNS that are not being met. Strike that, let me rephrase. WHO do you suggest we-constituents BELIEVE when they are campaigning that "transparency" and "accountability" will occur under their reign? What you fail to tell the public is that those words have no teeth. They have no statutes or case law to support their activation. Any constituent is sent away to institute the California Public Records Act and/or the Freedom of Information Act -- a wholly ridiculous exercise in futility and hiding the ball politics.

Which brings me to the worst Commission that sucks California dry, the California Law Revision Commission. This is a bloated, irresponsible, and privileged group of appointees on salaries that rival any job in California government. They use their personal positions to target anyone who opposes them and or their dealings. They also interfere with individual rights to the extent they hide behind the color of working for the Government. This Commission is at odds with the California Constitution and the California Legislature. Yet for some reason they remain on the State's payroll and they have and continue to influence laws that all Californians are forced to live by and under. Lobbyists have free access to this Commission, they access at will. There is an unabashed, unmitigated air of superiority that eminates from that Commission and they unapologetic for it.

And what do people like me - in your district - get from someone like you who wants back on the States payroll? "I can't do anything about that."
Submitted by SHERMAN TANK on Sun, 02/21/10 - 10:32 PM » | Print

Argument for BOCELI

TANK

To be fair, what you describe is symptomatic of a representative government: If you want to donate money, it is so easy to do, a caveman can do it. However, if you want to contact your representative, it takes a lobbyist – refer to the top five spenders (lobbyists) in Sacramento.

Or, party crashers notwithstanding, just ask Andy Sterns: His agenda is the President’s agenda. Not only that, but he also has a place in the White House, so he can crash anytime he is in DC.

We have been trying to reach Senator Boxer for months, as your average tax payer and as a representative of the media. Zero success.

In this forum, we have chronicled travails of what politicians refer to as “disgruntled” voters, such as you. The pejorative is used analogous to how some in the media refer to tea baggers –to dismiss as irrelevant.

Closer to home, we have tried to reach Orange County City Hall – of the 300 council members we have tried to reach via email, Facebook, Twitter, Foursquare, fax and phone, only two have responded to date.

All this seems to support the argument that BOCELI Is long overdue.

Now, before we get messages about how easy it is to reach a politician, try this simple experiment: Try reaching your representative. You will first be asked for your affiliation and or issue. If you identify yourself as a taxpayer and can get through, let us know: http://capwiz.com/fof/dbq/officials/

Submitted by cotobuzz on Mon, 02/22/10 - 11:02 AM » | Print

Reference: Mr. C. DeVore



Mr. Buzz, I was not referring to your generic statement regarding "symptomatic of a representative government" I was referring to MR. DEVORE.

I resent you attempting rewrite what I wrote and/or dilute my words and intent. I thought I was specific and succinct enough for Mr. DeVore to understand what I wrote. Furthermore, I want to see answers from some of these legislators as to HOW the California Law Revision Commission can be allowed bastardize our laws (evidence abounds on that topic, including commentary from Judges) and they (CLRC) still continue to act with impunity. The "People" are mad because we can't get ANSWERS. And Mr. Buzz, you did not provide me with an ANSWER, you provided me with a rehash, much like a politician..
Submitted by SHERMAN TANK on Mon, 02/22/10 - 11:43 AM » | Print

No Excuses



Tank:



It was not my intent to dilute and or re-interpret your assertions - quite the contrary - I am just as mad, because I cannot get answers as a taxpayer, or on behalff the taxpayer - as representative of the <b>independent media.</b>


Submitted by cotobuzz on Mon, 02/22/10 - 12:51 PM » | Print

Thank you for the explanation!



I'm with you on that. Thank you for the explanation!
Submitted by SHERMAN TANK on Mon, 02/22/10 - 02:19 PM » | Print

1.  Dealing with the union – we have identified four models to deal with public sector organized labor as shown below:

A.  The Chief Bratton Model: Go to bat for everything the union bosses want, then leave when the money dries up. Most effective when the leader has a PR machine that can rival his or her bosses. This model was extremely successful in NYC and Los Angeles all due to Chief Bratton. We previously suggested Chief Bratton left a bankrupt Los Angeles , certain skeletons would show up. Indeed, the ink was not dried in Chief Bratton’s exit documents when an audit revealed that the LAPD Botched Millions in Purchases.

B. Then there is what we call the Obamelette Omelette Progressive Model. In this case, the public sector’s organized labor is THE agenda enforced via Andy Stern’s motto of “power of persuasion or persuasion of power”

C.. The more fiscal conservative mode is the The Ronald Reagan Model – Shape up or ship out: “…we cannot compare labor-management relations in the private sector with government” in other words, organized labor in the public sector should be obsolete in the 21^st century.

D.  And recently we saw a unique working relationship between Scott Brown, an elected official and organized labor, where rank and file is more in line with the elected official than the union bosses:The Brown Model: A hybrid where the union bosses are taken out of the picture and instead deal directly with rank and file to take care of he taxpayers agenda.

We view the  Baugh Initiative, as a hybrid.  Which model do you think works best for California?

2.  California's ANDRES BOCELI Initiative: Assembly and Reactive Senate Bureaucracy Obliteration Cronyism Elimination and Lobbyist Incineration

Argument for Bureaucracy Obliteration:

Did you know that California has a bureaucracy dedicated simply to review new legislation to make sure it is not in conflict with the existing one?  View this as an excellent illustration of a  redundant department of redundancy.

Like the TV commercial, don’t; you wonder what else you don’t know?  The California Law Revision Commission (CLRC) is just another redundant bureaucracy.  We often refer to the CLRC as a government funded unregistered lobbyist more focused on looking after special interests than the interests of the taxpayers.  But wait, there is much more!

The California Law Revision Commission’s (CLRC) Executive Director Brian Hebert allegedly contacted a book publisher, to drop a book authored by a dogged critic.  The book just happens to be a  must have for residents fighting abusive common interest development (CID)  boards and for taxpayers fed up with the bloated California bureaucracy.  We understand that as a result of the CLRC's actions, a lawsuit may be filed.  Mr. Hebert refused to comment, stating that the CLRC does not comment on pending litigation matters.

We tried to determine the level of the CLRC’s involvement in the book matter studying phone record and expense reimbursement for CLRC staff for the period in question.  We found there was a six-month black hole – a period where telephone records were missing. Mr. Hebert attributed the missing documents to a “service provider failure."   In this case a telephone system failure.   When questioned further as to what the CLRC  was prepared to do to make sure the agency would be responsive to future freedom of information act requests, Mr. Hebert reasoned that his agency was not big enough and had to outsource its telephone needs.  The implications are not inconsequential when it comes to transparency and accountability:  Any government entity can avoid being subjected to freedom of information act requests, by merely outsourcing its communication  needs for example.  

Said Mr. Hebert

CTA

In a recent case the California Highway Patrol (CHP) opened a previously closed case  that on the surface, seemed slam dunk, had the CTA administration cooperated.  The case was opened, only after the CotoBuzz Journal got involved.  Although CHP investigators found and charged the alleged instigator of the accident, we never received a response from the  Toll Roads, managed by the Transportation Corridor Agencies (CTA) to  our Public Records Act request.

Interesting to note that a public safety official recently opined that 

– Our own experience trying to obtain information from the OCSD supports such assertion.

LAFCO (Orange County Local Agency Formation)

Part of LAFCO’s Orange County LAFCO mission statement is to promoting orderly growth and development; discouraging urban sprawl while preserving open space and agricultural lands; and  encouraging efficient service areas for local governments. On the other hand, the state and federal government’s own common interest development federal projections, show this type of development to play  a prominent future, particularly in California. Consequently the  California state legislature continues to play an active role in defining the relationship between the common interest development homeowners association, its members, and third parties, while LAFCO continues to do the opposite:   That is, where the California legislature (CLRC) gives, LAFCO takes away.  But wait, there is more:

The Coto de Caza’s local government is facing a fiscal tsunami of its own making:  With reserves at less than 30% instead of the more fiscally responsible 70%, with subsidies at $3 million/year and an all time crime rate, local governance has decided to build a Dog Park - have you seen the pot holes in the major arteries of Coto de Caza? It is no secret that Coto de Caza’s local government is not welcomed in San Juan Capistrano or that the local government has strong support from  DUI defense attorneys.   Even the OCSD representatives were called extortionists in open board meetings.  Consequences:  According to  OCSD figures, Coto de Caza has the highest crime rate of all times.  Consistent with Winstren’s Law:  Crime goes where it is welcomed  and stays where it is well treated.  If this is not a classic case of depraved indifference, we do not know what may qualify!

But wait, there is more.  Aided and abetted by LAFCO, it is spending residents’ own money on PR material to convince the same residents  that annexation is good for them.  However, like the federal government botching the interrogation of the Christmas Day Bomber interrogation, LAFCO  botches the unveiling of the annexation initiative and blames it on miscommunication  between the various members of LAFCO.  Quickly, Sergio Prince, Supervisor Pat Bates’ Executive Director of Public Affairs suggested to “hire a facilitator, avoid communications breakdown” – Why not?  After all, is this not standard operating procedure for a typical bureaucracy? 

ACORN

Enough said

 We continue to argue that the only effective way to deal with California's impending bankruptcy is to eliminate 80% of the useless bureaucracy and meaningful lobbyist reform.

Argument for Lobbyist Incineration

Did you know that shortly after the federal government bailed out General Motors,  GM spent $2.8 Million,  to lobby the government for more money!

Makes you wonder what else you do not know?

Did you know that the corps of lobbyists is the de facto California's third house?  Registered lobbyists outnumber lawmakers in Sacramento 8-to-1. Operative word is registered.  This does not count the unregistered lobbyist such as the CLRC, CTA or LAFCO.  Even the OCSD last year unveiled an office – to lobby lawmakers in Sacramento.

Then there are the Top Five Lobby Spenders in Sacramento

• 1.  The Service Employees International Union spent $10.9 million over a two-year period.
• 2.  The Western States Petroleum Association, which represents oil and gas companies, spent $10.5 million
• 3.  The  California Teachers Association ($7.9 million)
• 4.  The Bromine Science and Environmental Forum ($6.5 million)
• 5.  The California Hospital Association ($5.9 million)

Most of Orange County City Hall does the mumbaugh  - Dubbed the mumbaugh (rhymes with Mambo), like the Irish Riverdance, it consists of rapid leg movement, but in this case,  at times covering ears, mouth and or eyes, most popular with the politicians throughout Orange County, triggered by what we have called the Baugh Initiative.

We asked (phone, fax, e-mai) all council members of the 12 cities in Orange County outsourcing its  public safety to the Orange County Sheriff's Department (OCSD), what their priorities were,  what they thought of the Baugh Initiative and what they were doing to make sure that the money paid by their respective cities to the county for OCSD services were in fact being delivered and consistent with what the taxpayers wanted.

RELATED STORIES

Select Blogzz & click icon

RedCounty NewzzVinezz FeedBurner CotoBlogzz CotoBlogzz Y!360Blogzz

Archived Issues

Advertising rates/info

CotoBuzz Classified

General Information

CotoBuzz Merchandise

ADVERTISEMENT